Did I hear this right? We won't need to be Valor Rank 70 to get War Hero Gear

[SteelCross]

Well actually, if I played more and better than u i deserve to have better gear,dont I?

 

Hi. I want to talk about this a little bit for two reasons. One, your statement is very succinct and so it is deceptively short for the two conditional claims you make and the inherent assumptions. Two, a number of people have agreed out of hand and I think a lot more probably do without posting such. I disagree with every point you make and want to fully address why.

 

 

Assertion - If I play more than another, I deserve better gear than that same person.

 

This is the more plausible claim (time can be measured) but also the less agreeable. I have to rhetorically ask, does a further time commitment entitle a person to reward? Certainly the person who spends more time learning to box or cook is statistically more likely to be paid more as they practice their craft but is the time investment the thing that makes them deserve that, if they 'deserve' it at all. No, a subjective measuring of their skill and arbitrary markets (or rules in the boxer's case) reward some people for a desired skill they are more likely to hone through the investment of time. The time investment is only auxiliary to what is being rewarded.

 

I have a hard time calling to hand an example of someone deserving something other than the product of their labor. And that cuts to the core of my claim, people don't deserve within the realm of entertainment and, if they did, it certainly wouldn't be based upon time investment. I wouldn't deserve to be more entertained if I spend 50 hours watching one of the Lord of the Rings movies than if I spent an hour watching an episode of House M.D. It's an example of something that may be the case or not but it wouldn't be a result of deserving.

 

 

Assertion - If I play better than another, I deserve better gear than that same person.

 

Subjective delineations of 'better' is what we actually do reward people for. So, let me ask, is a game capable of even determining who is better. The medals do track a variety of contributions, which is good, and a person could argue that winning a match is itself a measure of goodness that measures contributions to game objectives that the medals currently neglect. Argument against not deserving in entertainment aside, I don't think even this two pronged approach is capable of measuring goodness.

 

Even if the medals were expanded to include some of the more minor contributions that can be quite key, like opponents slowed in Huttball for example, two things occur and always will in a game. First, people learn how to cheat. It happens and always will happen in every game and under every set of rules in the history of ever. They will cheat in many ways and there will be no way to stop all, or even most, of them neither would you want your developers to spend all their time trying to stop it at neglect of things that matter more than limiting access to gear. Secondly, there is something about good play that is ineffable to a point. Someone will zig when a less capable person who zag and they will perform better in a way that is immeasurable. Unlike time, which can be measured with a clock, this is no objective instrument to measure goodness and there is no way to develop one. As the developers attempt to restrict access to gear based on goodness, they will (without a doubt) at some point enable people who cheat by providing them better gear than those who perform well in a way that is incapable of being measured.

 

A final thought, it has never made sense to me that people advocate for a system that allows those who perform better to perform even better with the assistance of the game's rules while making those who perform poorly to perform even worse by forcing a handicap upon them through game rules. I imagine a football game where a high ranked team is given an extra point every time they score while a low ranked team is given one point less every time they score. In that context, it just wouldn't make sense but in PvP it is all too common. In a conventional sport, the rules focus on making sure both teams are equipped with the same or similar items and moderated by impartial rules so that, on game day, all you're watching is what team is better at playing football. If we wanted video games to be treated like a serious medium and watched on television and enjoyed as the intense competition they can be, aren't we undercutting ourselves by not having standardized gear and rules that are impartial and identical for both teams?

 

Thanks to those of you that stuck this out and for your input in this conversation.

[Tuckered]

in case it hasn't been said, you get commendations to purchase War Hero gear from rated warzones. You can purchase different color gear with those commendations if you're sufficiently rated withing said rated warzone system.

[Katharsis]

They said you can still get commendation even if you loose the rated warzones . So this is not skill they care bout. They adding more farming in different form.

War Hero scoundrel here , i was at least expectin tier 70 or 80 gear first as a reward of my grind and effort , makin pvp ranks and thn makin them pointless is not a right thing to do from my perspective.

[Ozzone]

No one in PvP deserves, or needs, to have better gear than anyone else.

 

Well the flip side is true then that no one in PvE deserves, or needs, to have better gear than anyone else.

[AGoldCrayon]

A final thought, it has never made sense to me that people advocate for a system that allows those who perform better to perform even better with the assistance of the game's rules while making those who perform poorly to perform even worse by forcing a handicap upon them through game rules. I imagine a football game where a high ranked team is given an extra point every time they score while a low ranked team is given one point less every time they score. In that context, it just wouldn't make sense but in PvP it is all too common. In a conventional sport, the rules focus on making sure both teams are equipped with the same or similar items and moderated by impartial rules so that, on game day, all you're watching is what team is better at playing football.

 

Agreed with most of what you said, but this point here is flawed, at least under a system of 'rated' pvp. You wouldn't have 'nfl' ranked teams playing 'varsity highschool' ranked teams (if we continue with the football analogy), and if they were to meet, it would make sense that the system does not reward the higher ranked team much for winning, versus the penalties they would incur for losing (risk/reward ratio in relation to the difference of rating between two teams).

 

It has been a couple of years now since I played WoW, but if the rated WZs take a format similar to WoW's arena system, the points a 2200 ranked team would gain from beating a 1500 ranked team would be absolutely minimal, while if they were to be upset, they stood to lose alot.

 

If we wanted video games to be treated like a serious medium and watched on television and enjoyed as the intense competition they can be, aren't we undercutting ourselves by not having standardized gear and rules that are impartial and identical for both teams?

 

The very nature of a game that uses gear progression as a carrot (most current, mainstream mmo's) does not support this. If you're looking to see a pure e-sport game, FPS is where its at. To me, arguing this is like picking up an apple, and eating it, then complaining it doesn't taste like an orange.

 

edit: To edit this in, what I agreed with you about was that there should be no sense of entitlement (from either casual or hardcore players). I have no real complaints about the way the game is set up, I came into the game knowing that like most mmo's, playing longer or better will give me access to better things. Think valor system as gating mechanic, and reaching it faster (more time invested and/or higher win ratio, ie. better).

Edited March 6, 2012 by AGoldCrayon

[FINALBOSS]

Anyone have an answer to my thread?

 

 

People on my server are saying you need to be valor 70 to even step foot in ranked WZs. I'm assuming this is not true because it was never mentioned on the live-stream...just that War Hero gear would NOT require a valor rank.

[SteelCross]

Agreed with most of what you said, but this point here is flawed, at least under a system of 'rated' pvp. You wouldn't have 'nfl' ranked teams playing 'varsity highschool' ranked teams (if we continue with the football analogy), and if they were to meet, it would make sense that the system does not reward the higher ranked team much for winning, versus the penalties they would incur for losing (risk/reward ratio in relation to the difference of rating between two teams).

 

It has been a couple of years now since I played WoW, but if the rated WZs take a format similar to WoW's arena system, the points a 2200 ranked team would gain from beating a 1500 ranked team would be absolutely minimal, while if they were to be upset, they stood to lose alot.

 

 

 

The very nature of a game that uses gear progression as a carrot (most current, mainstream mmo's) does not support this. If you're looking to see a pure e-sport game, FPS is where its at. To me, arguing this is like picking up an apple, and eating it, then complaining it doesn't taste like an orange.

 

I appreciate you taking the time to read and reply to my post. I know it was pretty long for a forum.

 

For the football analogy, if you did have an NFL team play a High School team, you wouldn't make the High School team play with pillows taped to their body for pads and in their socks instead of cleats, to be a little overly dramatic. Sure, the NFL team is going to obliterate them but the game itself doesn't have rules enacted that assist that, which gear does in PvP to an extent.

 

For the apples to oranges comparison, the only MMO like game (I qualify because I know some people don't count it) which has ever had a following of viewers or been aired that I know of is Guild Wars. Guild Wars does not have a gear grind in any sense and in PvP every team is in their very best gear and has access to all the very best skills, assuming they bought the PvP edition and, if they're professional gamers, I don't know why they wouldn't. I didn't reference FPS games, didn't compare MMO PvP to them, and don't care to. I believe MMO PvP is the chess to an FPS' checkers or could be if it was given serious consideration. The RTS genre has had some success, as has the FPS genre, and there's no reason that the MMO genre couldn't either other than current development standards and a sense of entitlement from the player base. It's natural, considering how PvP grew out of PvE, but now it's just a weight handicapping what could be a very interesting competition.

[Ulltramagns]

Hi. I want to talk about this a little bit for two reasons. One, your statement is very succinct and so it is deceptively short for the two conditional claims you make and the inherent assumptions. Two, a number of people have agreed out of hand and I think a lot more probably do without posting such. I disagree with every point you make and want to fully address why.

 

 

Assertion - If I play more than another, I deserve better gear than that same person.

 

This is the more plausible claim (time can be measured) but also the less agreeable. I have to rhetorically ask, does a further time commitment entitle a person to reward? Certainly the person who spends more time learning to box or cook is statistically more likely to be paid more as they practice their craft but is the time investment the thing that makes them deserve that, if they 'deserve' it at all. No, a subjective measuring of their skill and arbitrary markets (or rules in the boxer's case) reward some people for a desired skill they are more likely to hone through the investment of time. The time investment is only auxiliary to what is being rewarded.

 

I have a hard time calling to hand an example of someone deserving something other than the product of their labor. And that cuts to the core of my claim, people don't deserve within the realm of entertainment and, if they did, it certainly wouldn't be based upon time investment. I wouldn't deserve to be more entertained if I spend 50 hours watching one of the Lord of the Rings movies than if I spent an hour watching an episode of House M.D. It's an example of something that may be the case or not but it wouldn't be a result of deserving.

 

 

Assertion - If I play better than another, I deserve better gear than that same person.

 

Subjective delineations of 'better' is what we actually do reward people for. So, let me ask, is a game capable of even determining who is better. The medals do track a variety of contributions, which is good, and a person could argue that winning a match is itself a measure of goodness that measures contributions to game objectives that the medals currently neglect. Argument against not deserving in entertainment aside, I don't think even this two pronged approach is capable of measuring goodness.

 

Even if the medals were expanded to include some of the more minor contributions that can be quite key, like opponents slowed in Huttball for example, two things occur and always will in a game. First, people learn how to cheat. It happens and always will happen in every game and under every set of rules in the history of ever. They will cheat in many ways and there will be no way to stop all, or even most, of them neither would you want your developers to spend all their time trying to stop it at neglect of things that matter more than limiting access to gear. Secondly, there is something about good play that is ineffable to a point. Someone will zig when a less capable person who zag and they will perform better in a way that is immeasurable. Unlike time, which can be measured with a clock, this is no objective instrument to measure goodness and there is no way to develop one. As the developers attempt to restrict access to gear based on goodness, they will (without a doubt) at some point enable people who cheat by providing them better gear than those who perform well in a way that is incapable of being measured.

 

A final thought, it has never made sense to me that people advocate for a system that allows those who perform better to perform even better with the assistance of the game's rules while making those who perform poorly to perform even worse by forcing a handicap upon them through game rules. I imagine a football game where a high ranked team is given an extra point every time they score while a low ranked team is given one point less every time they score. In that context, it just wouldn't make sense but in PvP it is all too common. In a conventional sport, the rules focus on making sure both teams are equipped with the same or similar items and moderated by impartial rules so that, on game day, all you're watching is what team is better at playing football. If we wanted video games to be treated like a serious medium and watched on television and enjoyed as the intense competition they can be, aren't we undercutting ourselves by not having standardized gear and rules that are impartial and identical for both teams?

 

Thanks to those of you that stuck this out and for your input in this conversation.

 

If everyone who ever posted on the forums was even half as smart as you, I think the community as a whole would be so much better, and all stupid delusions will be gone.

[Iite]

Anyone have an answer to my thread?

 

 

People on my server are saying you need to be valor 70 to even step foot in ranked WZs. I'm assuming this is not true because it was never mentioned on the live-stream...just that War Hero gear would NOT require a valor rank.

 

The people on your server are ignorant.

 

It makes no sense that BW would restrict ranked warzones to valor 70+.

 

This non sense is all stemming from the fact the set is called war hero, and the title you unlock at valor 70 is war hero.

 

No valor requirement is needed to equip war hero gear.

[Jebi]

If you dont want character advancement, quit playing RPGs. Shooters are > that way.

 

Of course, those have character advancement and gear now, too.

 

Guess you're out of luck.

 

The best shooters out there still don't have gear discrepancies.

The best RTS games out there still don't have gear discrepancies.

The best PVP MMO's out there have very limited, or no gear discrepancies.

The MMO every real PVP'er is waiting for, doesn't have gear discrepancies in it's competitive PVP area's.

 

Who's out of luck again?

 

But you're welcome to keep chasing that carrot, the carrot that you 'earned' simply by spending time grinding, the carrot that you need to get - because it makes up for your lack of skill. The carrot that changes every patch, and that is used to cover up lack of actual PVP content. The carrot that is present in every PVE-lite MMO, such as in TOR.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Jebi

[rzrknight]

Well guess no more need to pvp all day long ... get full of the new tier and job done in the wz till the next set is out.

[AGoldCrayon]

I appreciate you taking the time to read and reply to my post. I know it was pretty long for a forum.

 

For the football analogy, if you did have an NFL team play a High School team, you wouldn't make the High School team play with pillows taped to their body for pads and in their socks instead of cleats, to be a little overly dramatic. Sure, the NFL team is going to obliterate them but the game itself doesn't have rules enacted that assist that, which gear does in PvP to an extent.

 

For the apples to oranges comparison, the only MMO like game (I qualify because I know some people don't count it) which has ever had a following of viewers or been aired that I know of is Guild Wars. Guild Wars does not have a gear grind in any sense and in PvP every team is in their very best gear and has access to all the very best skills, assuming they bought the PvP edition and, if they're professional gamers, I don't know why they wouldn't. I didn't reference FPS games, didn't compare MMO PvP to them, and don't care to. I believe MMO PvP is the chess to an FPS' checkers or could be if it was given serious consideration. The RTS genre has had some success, as has the FPS genre, and there's no reason that the MMO genre couldn't either other than current development standards and a sense of entitlement from the player base. It's natural, considering how PvP grew out of PvE, but now it's just a weight handicapping what could be a very interesting competition.

 

Going back to the football thing, its just an analogy, and not a perfect one. The 'gear' difference in the nfl/highschool comparrison would be the age difference (and with that age the more muscle mass that fully developed adult bodies would have, giving them better 'stats'), not the actual player protection. Compounding the already large difference would be venturing into some pretty serious hyperbole.

 

Guild Wars is the notable exception, which is why I didn't say all mmo's. But this game also doesn't follow GW's format, nor has it advertised that it did. So if people came into this expecting something GW style, the apples and oranges comparrison can still stand. GW isn't exactly easy to pigeonhole into a genre, but as far as the pvp goes, it definitely doesn't follow the standard mmorpg format. And that's fine, if that's what you want, but I personally enjoy the gear progression. That's why I'm playing this instead of that.

 

The rated WZ's will be the best compromise you'll find in a game like this. You can't simply take an entire game thats predicated on gear advancement then turn it on it's head for one specific thing (this being pvp), it just won't work. I agree that seperating the geared 50's from the 11-49's was needed, and rated warzones can be seen as the next logical step in making the game a more fun and balanced experience for everyone, but taking away the gear factor detracts from the game, at least for me.

 

I personally enjoy number crunching, mixing and min/maxing my stats to see what gets me the best returns.

[SmokingGoose]

The best shooters out there still don't have gear discrepancies.

The best RTS games out there still don't have gear discrepancies.

The best PVP MMO's out there have very limited, or no gear discrepancies.

The MMO every real PVP'er is waiting for, doesn't have gear discrepancies in it's competitive PVP area's.

 

Who's out of luck again?

 

But you're welcome to keep chasing that carrot, the carrot that you 'earned' simply by spending time grinding, the carrot that you need to get - because it makes up for your lack of skill. The carrot that changes every patch, and that is used to cover up lack of actual PVP content. The carrot that is present in every PVE-lite MMO, such as in TOR.

 

You are free to leave and stop posting.

Why waste your time?

[EpikWang]

the whiners win This is a Quote from Dev's

A: Right now if you are valor 60, the only way to get BM bags is via quests – winning warzones. This leads to bad behaviors of leaving warzones you are losing. It took away the incentives to get commendations and the incentives to get performance in warzones. In 1.2 the ranked warzone commendations will be used to purchase War hero gear directly (no valor rank or warzone rating required to equip the new War Hero gear) . Warzone rating will allow you to get a different color version of the War Hero gear (its more of a prestige thing, especially in the pre-season). Valor rank requirement for battlemaster gear was a temporary measure – valor rank is suppose a PvP prestige thing and not a gear progression. More valor ranks give you prestige things like being able to be the leader of a warzone, cool mounts etc.

Edited March 6, 2012 by EpikWang

[AGoldCrayon]

To add, the 'gear should be standardized' argument has one serious hole here, and that is, gear is very easy to get in this game. No one is kept from getting the very best gear, all it takes is time, there really is no skill involved with aquiring gear for pvp. And in that regard, this game is closer to a standardized gear system than WoW, where skill ratings are required for better gear, or aion, where a large part of gear progression is dependant on your entire faction.

[rzrknight]

A: Right now if you are valor 60, the only way to get BM bags is via quests – winning warzones. This leads to bad behaviors of leaving warzones you are losing. It took away the incentives to get commendations and the incentives to get performance in warzones. In 1.2 the ranked warzone commendations will be used to purchase War hero gear directly (no valor rank or warzone rating required to equip the new War Hero gear) . Warzone rating will allow you to get a different color version of the War Hero gear (its more of a prestige thing, especially in the pre-season). Valor rank requirement for battlemaster gear was a temporary measure – valor rank is suppose a PvP prestige thing and not a gear progression. More valor ranks give you prestige things like being able to be the leader of a warzone, cool mounts etc.

 

Which means it is total waste of time... yeap it is funny cause now we can literally AFk the whole rated wz and get full war hero gear ... hell cant wait till all my alts begin this

 

Good thing i never wasted my time getting them high valor.

[AGoldCrayon]

I'm pretty happy about the changes, and I'm valor 64 at the moment. I see no problem with valor being removed as a gating mechanic, so long as it still gives me something (custom colors and cool mounts are fine by me) for my time put in.

[Niaoru]

Grats to us valor 65ers, we get a cool mount. There's no open world PvP, and you can't mount in a WZ... What the **** is the point of having a valor rank mount? Edited March 6, 2012 by Niaoru

[AGoldCrayon]

Grats to us valor 65ers, we get a cool mount. There's no open world PvP, and you can't mount in a WZ... What the **** is the point of having a valor rank mount?

 

They may be scaling back the importance of ilum, but I'm pretty sure there aren't closing off access to the entire planet. World pvp will still exist, there just won't be a focus on it, at least for now. Things can always change though, this is an mmo.

[Niaoru]

They may be scaling back the importance of ilum, but I'm pretty sure there aren't closing off access to the entire planet. World pvp will still exist, there just won't be a focus on it, at least for now. Things can always change though, this is an mmo.

 

What point is there to go to Ilum if you don't get anything from it? As a Republic on an Imperial dominated server, I absolutely hated going to Ilum to do my daily. I am never ever going to go back, now that I don't have to. How many other fed up Republic players like myself are going to have the same view of Ilum?

[rzrknight]

What point is there to go to Ilum if you don't get anything from it? As a Republic on an Imperial dominated server, I absolutely hated going to Ilum to do my daily. I am never ever going to go back, now that I don't have to. How many other fed up Republic players like myself are going to have the same view of Ilum?

 

Well lets be fair ilum never had any meaning into it , the best days i remm in ilum where those where both imps and reps worked together to get their dailies done in a sec.

 

Hell , im an imp and i found today Ilum as boring as hell , i dont know if anyone found fun camping the rep base for kills , but i for sure found it freaking boring ... watching a movie while i pressed the class buff for my operation.

 

Now they kill any purpose for Wz , winnings mean nothing other than pretty colors and cars ... i mean really? I prefer to watch another movie and run forward thank you.

 

Run around and get the gear ... hell hoped they implemented this sooner.

[BacklashEH]

The problem is they should have done this from the beginning if they are willing to do this this early in the game.

 

There is no reason to overhaul how gear is gotten every few weeks, make up your minds and stop wasting peoples time.

[SteelCross]

If everyone who ever posted on the forums was even half as smart as you, I think the community as a whole would be so much better, and all stupid delusions will be gone.

 

Thank you for your compliment.

[Abanoth]

As it should be. Having to get facerolled until your Faceroll Level is at a certain point is dumb.

[SteelCross]

Going back to the football thing, its just an analogy, and not a perfect one. The 'gear' difference in the nfl/highschool comparrison would be the age difference (and with that age the more muscle mass that fully developed adult bodies would have, giving them better 'stats'), not the actual player protection. Compounding the already large difference would be venturing into some pretty serious hyperbole.

 

Guild Wars is the notable exception, which is why I didn't say all mmo's. But this game also doesn't follow GW's format, nor has it advertised that it did. So if people came into this expecting something GW style, the apples and oranges comparrison can still stand. GW isn't exactly easy to pigeonhole into a genre, but as far as the pvp goes, it definitely doesn't follow the standard mmorpg format. And that's fine, if that's what you want, but I personally enjoy the gear progression. That's why I'm playing this instead of that.

 

The rated WZ's will be the best compromise you'll find in a game like this. You can't simply take an entire game thats predicated on gear advancement then turn it on it's head for one specific thing (this being pvp), it just won't work. I agree that seperating the geared 50's from the 11-49's was needed, and rated warzones can be seen as the next logical step in making the game a more fun and balanced experience for everyone, but taking away the gear factor detracts from the game, at least for me.

 

I personally enjoy number crunching, mixing and min/maxing my stats to see what gets me the best returns.

 

I'm not sure the rated WZs here are going to try to match people by rating, as arenas do in WoW. I believe you're expecting that? If it were the case then most games would result in both teams having similar gear; I just don't think they're doing that. I believe the rating will be only for bragging rights and, in that case, I believe they have made the right choice in making the gear match. You can still progress through various prestige sets (gear progression a holdover from times before PvP gear, when PvP was just an afterthought), there just isn't a statistical benefit. That seems to be the symmetrical and correct choice. If the ratings system does match people with others of roughly equal gear, it will be a non-issue. You'll get progression, I'll get matches predicated on skill more than equipment differences.