Jump to content

Upcoming PVP changes: bad ideas.


Darth_Vampirius

Recommended Posts

Bad idea #1: Capping Ilum.

What is it? Representatives from Bioware have stated that in the near future Ilum will have a population cap in order to resolve population imbalance.

What is their stated intent with this?

To balance Ilum PVP in spite of population imbalances.

Why is it a bad idea?

a. Because it will solve the imbalance of 100 vs 15 battles and such, but will not solve population imbalances which create more issues than just Ilum zerging.

b. Because it will prevent some players from playing Ilum altogether.

 

Bad idea #2: PVP ranks.

What is it? An additional PVP rank system on top of what we already have.

What is their stated intent with this? ??? To improve PVP I guess?

Why is it a bad idea?

a. Because we already have a PVP rank system.

b. Because current PVP awards are not awarding good play.

c. Because there are many issues in PVP that need fixed first.

d. Because, in spite of its issues, the current PVP ranking system works better than most others (Ilum exploit notwithstanding).

 

Bad idea #3: Cross-server play.

What is it? A system that puts you in Warzones with people across all servers.

What is their stated intent with this? To reduce queue times.

Why is it a bad idea?

a. Because given the persistent population imbalance problem, it will still result in mostly Empire vs. Empire Warzones.

b. Because queue times are presently OK for most servers.

c. Because it removes a sense of identity from Warzones.

d. Because it destroys rivalries.

e. Because it hampers PVP guild recruitment.

f. Because players overwhelmingly are against it.

g. Because it slows player learning down.

h. Because if this change goes live a lot of PVPers will mass exodus from this game. Forever.

(I am sure I am leaving out a few dozen flaws here, but you get the idea.)

Edited by Darth_Vampirius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

bad idea #1: Capping ilum.

what is it? Representatives from bioware have stated that in the near future ilum will have a population cap in order to resolve population imbalance.

What is their stated intent with this?

To balance ilum pvp in spite of population imbalances.

Why is it a bad idea?

A. Because it will solve the imbalance of 100 vs 15 battles and such, but will not solve population imbalances which create more issues than just ilum zerging.

B. Because it will prevent some players from playing ilum altogether.

 

bad idea #2: Pvp ranks.

what is it? An additional pvp rank system on top of what we already have.

What is their stated intent with this? ??? To improve pvp i guess?

Why is it a bad idea?

A. Because we already have a pvp rank system.

B. Because current pvp awards are not awarding good play.

C. Because there are many issues in pvp that need fixed first.

D. Because, in spite of its issues, the current pvp ranking system works better than most others (ilum exploit notwithstanding).

 

bad idea #3: Cross-server play.

what is it? A system that puts you in warzones with people across all servers.

What is their stated intent with this? To reduce queue times.

Why is it a bad idea?

A. Because given the persistent population imbalance problem, it will still result in mostly empire vs. Empire warzones.

B. Because queue times are presently ok for most servers.

C. Because it removes a sense of identity from warzones.

D. Because it destroys rivalries.

E. Because it hampers pvp guild recruitment.

F. Because players overwhelmingly are against it.

G. Because it slows player learning down.

H. Because if this change goes live a lot of pvpers will mass exodus from this game. Forever.

(i am sure i am leaving out a few dozen flaws here, but you get the idea.)

 

 

when did anything in this game come out that was brilliant ? Umm nevaaa?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Is the best possible solution that could be come up with, to keep ilum from being a dead zone because of population differences

2. Is important because the current PvP ranking system is in not skill based, whereas this future system will be. Having a skill based PvP rank system is very cool and pretty important.

3. I agree with, I like WZ'ing with people on my server. It won't change population differences in general, because it will just end up reaching the average numbers between servers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the PVP Rank matches is a good idea to just balance the level 50 WZ bracket. Those people who start touching battlemaster (who are also actually good PVPers) can go and challenge each other properly. This will mean those people who are still working towards the better equipment are not going to be out equipped - but those who are good at PVP will still be able to challenge for "honours".
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cross server battlegrounds in wow killed local rivalries which were the biggest part of what was fun in pvp. I agree totally on that one. I don't care if I explode /random someone from /random server. That is when it really feels like a grind, may as well pve as far as I'm concerned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a pvp system that didn't reward jobless losers would be amazing. only thing i really liked about arenas were that i could have a job and a life and still be at the top tier of pvp...

of course "jobless losers" will always be at the top, they have much more time to put into the game, it wouldn't make sense if they didn't have an advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad idea #1: Capping Ilum.

What is it? Representatives from Bioware have stated that in the near future Ilum will have a population cap in order to resolve population imbalance.

What is their stated intent with this?

To balance Ilum PVP in spite of population imbalances.

Why is it a bad idea?

a. Because it will solve the imbalance of 100 vs 15 battles and such, but will not solve population imbalances which create more issues than just Ilum zerging.

b. Because it will prevent some players from playing Ilum altogether.

 

 

A lot of players (myself included) don't play Ilum anymore because:

a) we cannot hope to complete it due to faction imbalance

b) we will not feed points to other side so they can complete it

 

So suck it up and queue for it.

 

Bad idea #2: PVP ranks.

What is it? An additional PVP rank system on top of what we already have.

What is their stated intent with this? ??? To improve PVP I guess?

Why is it a bad idea?

a. Because we already have a PVP rank system.

b. Because current PVP awards are not awarding good play.

c. Because there are many issues in PVP that need fixed first.

d. Because, in spite of its issues, the current PVP ranking system works better than most others (Ilum exploit notwithstanding).

 

I really have no input in this, ranking system is what it is now and any change might make it better.

 

Bad idea #3: Cross-server play.

What is it? A system that puts you in Warzones with people across all servers.

What is their stated intent with this? To reduce queue times.

Why is it a bad idea?

a. Because given the persistent population imbalance problem, it will still result in mostly Empire vs. Empire Warzones.

b. Because queue times are presently OK for most servers.

c. Because it removes a sense of identity from Warzones.

d. Because it destroys rivalries.

e. Because it hampers PVP guild recruitment.

f. Because players overwhelmingly are against it.

g. Because it slows player learning down.

h. Because if this change goes live a lot of PVPers will mass exodus from this game. Forever.

(I am sure I am leaving out a few dozen flaws here, but you get the idea.)

 

Playing one game a night is not acceptable. Trying to complete daily with one game a night and not winning as often due to players leaving the game rerolling Imps is really not acceptable either.

 

Cross server pvp will not destroy the game and it is needed. It may even mask population imbalance. And only huttball should remain same-faction vs same-faction warzone, allowing all of them to do so will damage game big time.

 

I am not sure how it will slow player learning cross server or not bad players will remain bad until they decide to improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bad idea #1: Capping Ilum.

What is it? Representatives from Bioware have stated that in the near future Ilum will have a population cap in order to resolve population imbalance.

What is their stated intent with this?

To balance Ilum PVP in spite of population imbalances.

Why is it a bad idea?

a. Because it will solve the imbalance of 100 vs 15 battles and such, but will not solve population imbalances which create more issues than just Ilum zerging.

b. Because it will prevent some players from playing Ilum altogether.

 

Bad idea #2: PVP ranks.

What is it? An additional PVP rank system on top of what we already have.

What is their stated intent with this? ??? To improve PVP I guess?

Why is it a bad idea?

a. Because we already have a PVP rank system.

b. Because current PVP awards are not awarding good play.

c. Because there are many issues in PVP that need fixed first.

d. Because, in spite of its issues, the current PVP ranking system works better than most others (Ilum exploit notwithstanding).

 

Bad idea #3: Cross-server play.

What is it? A system that puts you in Warzones with people across all servers.

What is their stated intent with this? To reduce queue times.

Why is it a bad idea?

a. Because given the persistent population imbalance problem, it will still result in mostly Empire vs. Empire Warzones.

b. Because queue times are presently OK for most servers.

c. Because it removes a sense of identity from Warzones.

d. Because it destroys rivalries.

e. Because it hampers PVP guild recruitment.

f. Because players overwhelmingly are against it.

g. Because it slows player learning down.

h. Because if this change goes live a lot of PVPers will mass exodus from this game. Forever.

(I am sure I am leaving out a few dozen flaws here, but you get the idea.)

 

Be constructive? Ok.

 

1. Yeah from the sound of it, they are capping ilum at a flat cap of players and it doesn't discriminate for faction. So to me, it sounds like there is still going to be a huge imbalance of population there.

 

They need to have a 1:1 ratio there so that if there are 15 republic players there, only 15 empire can join.

 

2. I think PvP ranks are a bad idea as well. This game is in no state right now to actually try to make PvP seem like a serious endeavor. The gear gap, ability lag, and huge faction imbalance are just a few good reasons for that.

 

3. I really don't want cross-server either. My queue times aren't bad at all and it is nice playing with people from my server. I haven't heard that they were trying to put in a cross-server system, but if they do, I will be severely disappointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone cares about rivalries, or can play at peak hours. Even the World of Warcraft opted for cross server pvp and this game isn't wow popular. On top of shorter wait times cross server War zones could even get enough games popping that ops ques will be viable without killing the War zone fun for those that go it alone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

a pvp system that didn't reward jobless losers would be amazing. only thing i really liked about arenas were that i could have a job and a life and still be at the top tier of pvp...

 

Jobless losers will always pwn you, because they have more time and know the game better. QQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without cross server, the system is very exploitable. If you know who you're fighting all day every day, many will eventually start gaming the system (let the opposing team win fast in exchange for a fast win for you the next game). And the queues are populateble with alts in opposing factions (using separate PCs) that sabotage the enemy's team for your main character/guild. If you don't know who's on the opposing team or can't control who's on the opposing team, then the easiest path to the fastest valor/medals/etc comes from actually playing (or botting but that's another topic). Edited by WaywardOne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah because beein 5 hours w8 for warzone que to pop up because ur server is empty is better than have cross realm warzones right ? not to mention republic fleet has 20 players and imperial fleet has 200 + .... u dudes only think about yourselves and that server comunity thinggy well if u want that sense of comunity go open pvp and let us crossrealm warzones Edited by Lokits
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you didn't like to wait in line, then perhaps you should've rolled Republic instead of stacking Empire?

 

You've been having your fun on other players' expense. Time for you to either pay up or man up and go Republic.

 

The PVP changes are fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am thinking that if you want to equalize playtime then it needs some EVE concepts where the game is playing and building the character while you are not playing.

 

What if... Your toon could be used as an NPC in missions?

So while you were no logged in your toon was fighting as an npc in missions and that earned commendations of some sort?

 

Would that not be cool to have a mission based around your toon because you have achieved some rank in the game or finished some daily/weekly mission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Ilum needs another overhaul. Capping populations on the pvp portion to a 1:1 ratio is one method of trying to balance it but is not the only option and may or may not be the best one (there are a number of threads with varying suggestions on what could be done with Ilum). My personal view is that the armaments simply need to spawn randomly around the zone to encourage small roaming groups. This would both enable competitive small pvp battles in the freaking massive zone and cut down on the massive lag from the one huge mass of players.

 

2. The current ranking system is not a ranking system, its a "how much grind did you do?" system. Some form of actual ranking and matchmaking system would be good although I agree with other posts that there are still numerous bugs and balance issues that need to be addressed before this should be implemented.

 

3. Some servers are fine, some are not. I don't agree with simply lumping all the servers together as I do personally like seeing familiar players and knowing who they are / generating rivalries, grudges, ect. That said I would be for small clusters of 2-5 servers ala the original battlegroup setup in that other game. During non peak hours I do see a lot of warzone matches with less than a full 8 player team. Having even 2 servers clustered would help to alleviate this problem while still allowing some identification with the opposition.

 

Further to point two, if a ranked matchmaking system were to be put in place this would absolutely need to draw from a larger population than a single server. I also wouldn't see why people would not want to be able to play against similar ranked groups from all servers in such a system, particularly at the top tiers.

 

tldr: The suggested changes here are not necessarily bad, but are maybe not fully fleshed out as far as the information available to us. We really need some details from BW and then maybe can provide some feedback. As it stands they have the potential to be very good or very bad depending on how they are implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valor Ranks don't prove anything. Just who can spend more time grinding Valor. Thats like saying a CoD rank is meaningful. The new PvP ranks will be from Ranked PvP, like ladders, or Arena/Ranked PvP in WoW. I don't know how you could think that's a bad idea.

 

This.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you didn't like to wait in line, then perhaps you should've rolled Republic instead of stacking Empire?

 

You've been having your fun on other players' expense. Time for you to either pay up or man up and go Republic.

 

The PVP changes are fine.

 

There's a problem with that theory... Huttball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.