Feedback request from James Ohlen - Open World PvP

[jbrouwer]

Open world pvp for sure!!

starport camps, city sweeps with large groups.

 

and possibly a area to defend (homes, hometowns as in swg)

that used to be my endgame. and is not the sole reason im bored out of my mind

 

dailies are not content to enjoy for me

fps are fun to do if there was something to gain from it (money or loot)

and this is 1 month or 2 months into the game. if u want to keep me subbed for 10 years

your gonna have to make the community be the content.

give us stuff to decorate, openworld pvp and a sense of social value like villages did in swg

 

and make professions well professions instead of useless hobbies

i cant put 150 different crystals on the market and why would anyone want the crystals? if its all generic loot instead of handmade items with statbonusses according to the level of the crafter (aka specializations should give u room to net real results)

 

im not ************ about how bad tor is

its just i am 30 and cant find reasons do things atm, which makes me a sad panda!

[Mhorham]

PVP factions is an old style pvp no longer works.

Especially if there is only 2 factions, the unbalance is inevitable.

 

So the best style of PVP is guild oriented and open to everyone who is least of your guild or alliance.

 

actually when you do that players crate their own alliances which end up being exactly like factions. This is why I prefer the bolster using NPC forces and turrets. It worked well for the time I was in doac and that was coming from Asheron's call Darktide were we had fully open pvp.

 

One of the things I would like to see EA/BioWare get behind is using the existing worlds for endgame pvp. We need to get some capture nodes going for Tat and Alderan. Those places are fantastic and as the population matures we need to revitalize these areas. And we really really need to get some limited incentive going for open world pvp. I am pretty sure the original intention of merc coms was open world pvp reward but it got shelved in early beta I guess. It was not a factor by the time I got in for the first weekend and successive guild betas.

 

If we can get credits toward BM gear or a new tier of open world rewards on the existing pvp planets (even in a limited fashion) it will go a long way to revitalizing end game. Give us something to do with resources like siege devices (portable artillery pieces) and let us have some 20v30 and 40v40 ish wargames in the dune sea or sunset ridge areas as well as the vastly underutilized areas of alderan and hoth.

 

I can also respect that this a pvp server specific request but ther must be some way to keep the flags for hiding from pvp working on the pve servers.

 

The daoc system of bases with a npc (boss) who had to be knocked out to claim the base was great fun especially when you factored in the siege machines.

[HeavensAgent]

PvPvE balanced, definitely. A thriving PvP community needs both defined objectives and a sufficient challenge. PvE elements help to increase the ability of smaller populations to resist their opponents while also creating strategies that can be used to further enhance play.

 

Launch-state Alterac Valley is a good example of what I'd like to see done, but in an open-world setting if at all possible; an instanced setting may be the only method of actually managing this type of play.

[Zintair]

It isn't possible and too late to fix now.

 

I have a feeling this. You really only get 1 shot at this and its too late.

 

 

I voted PvPvE because I have hope but whats done is done

[Ishlana]

GvG or in otherwords...FFA-PVP is the best of all worlds. Let the community decide who the top contenders are and if guilds are bad the community invariably rallies to take them down.

 

The fact that there is a PVP "world" like Ilum for the PVE community baffles me.....they have Warzones for their structured and balanced PVP.....let the PVP servers loose and open up all the worlds. PVP in ToR right now is JUST LIKE YOUR SPACE COMBAT.......ON RAILS

 

One last thing.....why can't we target guildies on Tat??? When we do guild events we are constantly dropping tags to group up for fun in there........odd

[Ishlana]

This might be off topic...but if the devs simply add the option on death to respawn at various locations...or your ship then there is no problem with spawn campers.

[Ravenolf]

GvG or in otherwords...FFA-PVP is the best of all worlds. Let the community decide who the top contenders are and if guilds are bad the community invariably rallies to take them down.

 

The fact that there is a PVP "world" like Ilum for the PVE community baffles me.....they have Warzones for their structured and balanced PVP.....let the PVP servers loose and open up all the worlds. PVP in ToR right now is JUST LIKE YOUR SPACE COMBAT.......ON RAILS

 

One last thing.....why can't we target guildies on Tat??? When we do guild events we are constantly dropping tags to group up for fun in there........odd

 

What does PVE servers having Ilum to pvp, have to do with PVP servers being able to go nuts on all the worlds? I don't see the linkage there.

[JeramieCrowe]

I have a feeling this. You really only get 1 shot at this and its too late.

 

 

I voted PvPvE because I have hope but whats done is done

 

And what, exactly, is well-designed PvP? Look at the poll results. Read the posts in this thread. As long as there is an entire playerbase that can't even agree on what "good PvP" even is for an MMO, it will always fail, no matter WHAT the developer does.

 

MMO after MMO since UO has proven this to be so. There are MMOs that have had "better" PvP, but you will find entire populations of PvPers that will say it sucked.

 

PvPers are way too fickle these days...

[Ishlana]

What does PVE servers having Ilum to pvp, have to do with PVP servers being able to go nuts on all the worlds? I don't see the linkage there.

 

They are trying to make changes that can be implemented on all their servers...PVE servers need PVE rulesets and PVP servers need PVP rulesets. Right now you have PVP Lite and PVP Lighter servers. Why are there "Flags" for PVP on PVP servers?????????

 

There are many creative ways to change the way things work now....add open world objectives that need to be held in order to "portal" to endgame flashpoints.....even better, have the access to endgame flashpoints on Ilum in the respective bases....take away the stupid kill on sight turrets but keep up good ones like before, allowing opposing factions to assault them....then have the instances "Open Instances" that enemies may enter behind you and knock you off your boss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JeramieCrowe]

They are trying to make changes that can be implemented on all their servers...PVE servers need PVE rulesets and PVP servers need PVP rulesets. Right now you have PVP Lite and PVP Lighter servers. Why are there "Flags" for PVP on PVP servers?????????

 

There are many creative ways to change the way things work now....add open world objectives that need to be held in order to "portal" to endgame flashpoints.....even better, have the access to endgame flashpoints on Ilum in the respective bases....take away the stupid kill on sight turrets but keep up good ones like before, allowing opposing factions to assault them....then have the instances "Open Instances" that enemies may enter behind you and knock you off your boss!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

All of which PvPers will still complain about, stop participating, and kill PvP. I don't see how any option will work until PvPers come back around to wanting to PvP for PvP, and PvP only.

 

Offering rewards for PvPing was the worst idea in MMO history...

[Ishlana]

All of which PvPers will still complain about, stop participating, and kill PvP. I don't see how any option will work until PvPers come back around to wanting to PvP for PvP, and PvP only.

 

Offering rewards for PvPing was the worst idea in MMO history...

 

I agree with you, there should be no cookie to bring ppl out to PVP. But in order for PVP to spawn you need to take off the shackles and let it develop on its own. GvG (FFA) allows for EVERY player to participate...if you don't want to get attacked when harvesting that node...then harvest in another area or get to the PVE server where you may safely harvest to your hearts content.

 

I like harvesting, my favorite pastime is running from node to node.....I do it now in all the Republic areas to get the occasional PVP....but that is scarce atm.

[Broom]

I played in two open world PVP systems that actually worked well, to an extent. Most others failed, mostly because victory gave too much of an advantage to the winner, creating an ever greater advantage for the winning side.

 

Star Wars Galaxies (before CU and NGE) had no real objectives or PVP rewards but it massive player generated PVP on my server (Bloodfin). This mostly came about by three mechanics:

- the player ability to place faction bases that went vulnerable during a player determined time window each day. Guilds that made a name for themselves in PVP could count on a LOT of players of the opposite faction trying to take away their toys

- the ability to have guild wars. Apart from the 'regular' guild versus guild events, we also organised huge faction versus faction wars (600 rebels versus 600 imperials) by having all participating rebel guilds declare on all participating imperial guilds and vice versa. And last but not least, the infamous red versus blue wars, which meant people were randomly assigned to the Red guild or the Blue guild, regardless of faction, and then declared war one one another. In one infamous example, husband and wife were pitted against each other, and husband bribed the children to spy on mommy for maximum gankage.

- the fact that certain star ports were more popular and more travelled-by then others (each planet except Lok had at least 2) meant it was always fun to camp one of the popular ones while PVP flagged, and wait to see who brought the fight.

 

Key thing about SWG PVP was the strong community, the willingness to support your faction, the intense rivalries, and the resulting desire to stick it to the other side.

 

The other game that did well for open world PVP to a point was Warhammer with its PVP lakes. Once they introduced some carrots, open world PVP did fine. Sure, some groups were playing musical keeps, but us more PVP minded types abused that little fact by ambushing the trader-wannabes left and right. Then things went wrong, and I'm not even talking class imbalance here.

- the valor rewards for taking objectives and keeps was made partly dependent on locking the zone these objectives and keeps were in. This drove out the casuals (no time to wait hours for a zone lock), brought in the valor farmors (they'd just move from zone to zone, standing AFK to catch the zone flip rewards, but never fought) and took a lot of the tactical flexibility out of the game (a lot of people refused to move to another zone to fight enemies if that meant missing the zone lock bonus).

- a zone was introduced that held uber loot, and was unlocked for your faction by locking PVP zones. The second this loot zone (Land of the Dead) was unlocked, 90% of PVP participants vanished to go do dungeons, while the remainder, now desperately outnumbered, was left trying to defend. LOTD was touted as a PVP zone, but this PVP never really materialised. Worse, the loot gained there (PVE trinkets especially) were completely over the top imbalanced in PVP.

- keeps were given a second access ramp, because people complained they were too hard to take (uhm... sure), fortresses were removed for similar reasons, and because the developers thought the endgame PVP (city sieges) were too rare. As a result, city sieges started to happen 4-6 times a day, each siege lasting 2 hours, disabling half the max level dungeons, disabling all regular max level warzones, and carrying with them the risk of a city downgrade, resulting in your faction having a harder time of it in PVP.

 

The core mechanics in Warhammer open world PVP worked OK, until they started emphasizing loot, and until they started caving in to the 'it's too hard' crowd and made it PVP for dummies, with big neon arrows on the map saying 'enemy is here'. City sieges especially should never have been implemented in a form that allowed only one playstyle (city sieging) at the cost of all others AND punished the underdog by downgrading their city. I think implementing the OTHER planned cities would have taken the sting out of this. People like different things in games, telling the ones who like dungeons or warzones 'sorry, wait till after the siege' did not go over well.

 

One reason Warhammer PVP worked, was because a small, dedicated group (1-2 warbands) could still do a LOT to obstruct the other side, even while badly outnumbered, because there were many objectives and they were spread out over 3 faction areas. It also helped that there were so MANY paths to objectives... there were always ways to do the unexpected. Guerilla worked. Having observers in zones worked. Strategy and tactics worked.

 

This, too, is why Ilum fails. Objectives are easy to take solo, no teamwork required (no NPC guards requiring at least 6 to take them), access routes are few and easily predictable, zone wide warnings (??!) about the locations of players make it VERY hard on the underdog to sneak around, and in the end, it's just the one zone, without any alternative.

 

I don't believe in limiting access to a PVP lake. I believe open world PVP CAN work, even for an underdog, because I've BEEN the underdog, and I've seen it work, in games that didn't try to funnel everyone into the same boring zone.

[Tic-]

All of which PvPers will still complain about, stop participating, and kill PvP. I don't see how any option will work until PvPers come back around to wanting to PvP for PvP, and PvP only.

 

Offering rewards for PvPing was the worst idea in MMO history...

 

I disagree...

 

If your going to have faction vs faction (RvR), i love rewarding my entire faction.

 

It helps build realm pride, and i find it will allow folks of the same realm to "help" each other more. It seems these days, the people in your own realm are more the enemy than the 'opposing' faction, unless you happen to be in an instanced warzone.

 

Allowing your faction to to fight for things like exp, damage, and/or crafting bonus buffs, maybe access to dungeons, as some common examples, might actually get realm mates to help each other out, and work together. Crazy i know.

 

It could hinder things like win trading, and the like. Rewards for PvP don't need to be getting your next epic set of shoes as quickly as possible, which seems to be the sole purpose for it these days.

[JeramieCrowe]

I disagree...

 

If your going to have faction vs faction (RvR), i love rewarding my entire faction.

 

It helps build realm pride, and i find it will allow folks of the same realm to "help" each other more. It seems these days, the people in your own realm are more the enemy than the 'opposing' faction, unless you happen to be in an instanced warzone.

 

Allowing your faction to to fight for things like exp, damage, and/or crafting bonus buffs, maybe access to dungeons, as some common examples, might actually get realm mates to help each other out, and work together. Crazy i know.

 

It could hinder things like win trading, and the like. Rewards for PvP don't need to be getting your next epic set of shoes as quickly as possible, which seems to be the sole purpose for it these days.

 

This all sounds good on paper, but you're completely disregarding the proof in the MMO pudding, you know, when this is put into practice.

 

Go ahead, name me ONE SINGLE MMO that has had successful PvP, and I'll show you 10 more PvPers who claim it sucks, and that it failed.

 

RvR? Like Warhammer? Nope, according to PvPers, Warhammer is a failed game. UO? The stats proved there that type of PvP is a good way to lose subs.

 

But, much like your last paragraph alludes to, if BioWare wants to do PvP right, they'll completely remove all rewards for any and all PvP systems. Rewarding PvP was the worst move in MMO history.

[Tic-]

This all sounds good on paper, but you're completely disregarding the proof in the MMO pudding, you know, when this is put into practice.

 

Go ahead, name me ONE SINGLE MMO that has had successful PvP, and I'll show you 10 more PvPers who claim it sucks, and that it failed.

 

RvR? Like Warhammer? Nope, according to PvPers, Warhammer is a failed game. UO? The stats proved there that type of PvP is a good way to lose subs.

 

But, much like your last paragraph alludes to, if BioWare wants to do PvP right, they'll completely remove all rewards for any and all PvP systems. Rewarding PvP was the worst move in MMO history.

 

This really isn't the place for this discussion, I'm sure James would like it kept to the topic at hand.

 

I will agree with you however, that different people like different kinds of PvP. Just like they like different kinds of ice cream.

 

Thats not a bad thing.

 

Just because you say its "right", doesn't make it so, and that everyone will love it.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Tic-

[JeramieCrowe]

Just because you say its "right", doesn't make it so, and that everyone will love it.

 

It's hard when people come into the middle of my conversation. You're missing my entire context over the last several pages.

 

My point is either remove all rewards, or provide all types of PvP. Only providing one or two, or even three, will result in dead PvP. No ifs, ands, or buts.

 

Again, every MMO ever released has already proven this. My point is very much on topic for this discussion. The poll is asking "which one?" and I'm saying, "ALL OF THEM"...

[Mhorham]

here's another suggestion to add to the pile for open world systems inspired by my time in old schoold DAOC and Shadowbane.

 

 

Open world pvp objective proposal

 

 

objective sites: Forward Observation Posts (FOB)

 

Description: A small base consisting of a command bunker, observation tower and turret defenses.

 

The bases should be place in remote underutilized areas on Tatooine, Alderan and Hoth. These bases should become vulnerable during prime server times indicated by a global notice on that particular planet instance. Once the base becomes vulnerable a four person strike team needs to capture the base and seal themselves inside. One on the command console, one on each of the two turrets, and one on the door. That group has effectively gained control of the FOB. They must begin to set up a raid group and hold the base for a period of time. (1-2hrs?)

 

The attackers must breach defenses, blow the doors, enter the facility and kill the strike team. Preventing the opposing faction from gaining the benefits of owning the FOB. The defenses could be a shield generator between the two turrets on top of the command bunker. Then the turrets, and finally the doors. This should rely on a combination of ranged player attacks and the use of artillery. Once the strike team is down that is it for that node till the next reset. If you get the node everyone in the raid group gets some points. If you hold the node your raid group gets the bonous. If you break down the generator, turret and doors the attacking raid group gets points respectively. If they bring down the strike team they get the bonus. .

 

Offensive Artillery:

 

Mortars created by weapon smiths using rare materials with an effective range of 40-60 meters. Setting one up would be a channeled abillity. The Mortar is then taken over by a cybertec who uses a purple grenade (consuming a biometric crystal) to fire the device.

 

 

 

Laser Cannon:Portable turret created by Armormech and Artifice together as channeled ability using appropriate materials. Fired by anyone as a channeled ability. Same range as Mortar. (consuming a rare crystal)

 

 

Defensive Artillery: Turret Defense operated by by one of the strike team with an effective range 20-70 meters. Placed on opposite sides of the command bunker with a 270 degree firing radius.

 

Shield Generator: must be taken down to get effective destructive firepwoer onto the turrets. (Acts like guard in pvp)

 

Observation Tower: this is where the fight on the ground by defensive forces should be controlled from. Good visibility of overall battle field and coordination with scouts about enemy troop movements.

 

Door: Much like the mechanic on Voidstar that can not be taken until at least the Shield Generator is down. I haven’t mentioned the role of ground troops much but this is what its all about right here. Using artillery to break down the defenses and then rushing the door to blow it open.

 

 

 

Reward: Rewards need to be group oriented with tangible benefits that player can see in everyday gaming performance. An Expertise buff. Point system that adds up within a guild to allow access to future guild ships, banks whatever else you got planned. Access to certain restricted flashpoints or operations through a redeemable points system. Set it up with point/medal rewards for each objective and a bonus going to the victor.

 

Role of Ground Forces: Intercepting the attackers on route from various spawn points. Seting up and defending offensive artillery. Destroying offensive artillery. Protecting/attacking the door. Protecting/neutralizing the stirke team.

 

Notes: Open world pvp in swtor suffers from zerg rezing. A system of stacking debuffs for each pvp death needs to be implemented to create attrition of ground troops. The Death shroud from Shadowbane is a good example. Effectively nullifying a players expertise for 180 seconds and if a death occurs again before that debuff is gone a second stacks for an additional 5 mins. The whole idea is inspired by mine fights from Shadowbane as well. If you guys still anyone on the team from Wolfpack they would probably have some good input on things I didn't go into as well potential for reward systems.

 

 

 

This is just some ideas I had and I wanted to put them out there because this is THE most important aspect of the game to me. It is the kind of thing I have gravitated toward as End Game in pvp centirc mmos since the beginning of this genre. I really want to see swtor be the best game it can be.

 

There is a lot more that could be considered for this such as limiting numbers so that the zone does not crash or preventing one side from overpopulating the planet so that the other side cant log into the planet instance. But that is stuff the devs need to do because they know the engine limitations. One through I had was if the Objective could be randomly placed while the game is live and a server message went out. People would know that on Thursday, Fri, Sat, Sun between 6 pm and 9 pm a couple of nodes would pop up, but not exact location or zone. That might give a Race to cap aspect to the scenario creating an overall sense of fairness to getting people into the appropriate planet instance.

Edited April 2, 2012 by Mhorham

[Tic-]

It's hard when people come into the middle of my conversation. You're missing my entire context over the last several pages.

 

My point is either remove all rewards, or provide all types of PvP. Only providing one or two, or even three, will result in dead PvP. No ifs, ands, or buts.

 

Again, every MMO ever released has already proven this. My point is very much on topic for this discussion. The poll is asking "which one?" and I'm saying, "ALL OF THEM"...

 

I disagree.

 

On many counts, actually.

[kjmarst]

Open World PVP

Something that I haven’t seen directly addressed in the other answers to this thread are large-scale open world pvp encounters, where you have upwards of a hundred, two hundred to a side. For some of us, that’s one of the main things we’re looking for in an MMO, and it’s definitely a staple of the RP-PVP server community.

 

Before you start considering how to change world pvp play mechanically, you really need to fix the servers and rendering problems that make even the players with the best gaming rigs get a slideshow as soon as you get more than a couple dozen people in a small area. Even in relatively smaller fights, where you’ve only got maybe two full ops groups to a side (yes, to me that’s a “smaller” fight), half the players are getting constantly DCed or lagged out to the point where the fight is nearly impossible and the greater portion of participants don’t actually get much participation.

 

Please, please, please, go talk to the folks at Tor-Talk.com about their Hoth event on Jung Ma a few weeks ago. After the event there was a lot of discussion about ways to work around the technical limitations that the game poses for putting together massive wpvp. I’m looking forward to seeing their solutions at their next event but the fact is, they shouldn’t have had to come up with work arounds for sharding and slideshowing. I am positive that they can give you a solid list of the limitations we’d all like to see resolved.

 

That size of fight occurring randomly (not pre-planned as an event) is common (on Jung Ma anyway). Had one a couple nights ago, with maybe 60 or so to a side. Probably will be at least one more before the week’s out, maybe more. We’ve got multi-guild organizations whose sole purpose is to organize large-scale pvp and to serve as a well of reinforcements for the small amount of random wpvp that the closed maps allow. Our organization on the Republic side has over a thousand members. It would not be out of the question for a pre-planned event to draw in as many as 200-300 to a side, if we weren’t forced onto separate shards and it wasn’t guaranteed to just D/C most of us.

 

Regarding sharding. If you absolutely cannot remove it, please make it max out at equal numbers. When you have 150 Imps show up in one spot, they take all the slots on the server right now so when the Pubs show up in force, half of us end up in the other shard. Now, I don’t mind the imbalance in a fight -- it’s half of what makes pvp fun because you never know what you’re going to face, and fights always go back and forth as each side calls in reinforcements. But if you’re wildly outnumbered and the game mechanics forbid you from calling in your friends to help because they’ll get shunted to another shard, well, that’s no fun at all. If 200 people is your max for a zone, it should be 100 Imps and 100 Pubs, not “the first 200 people to show up”. But those numbers are laughably low. If you want real wpvp, the zone needs to be able to accommodate a good 500 to 600 total people at a minimum. Most fights won’t ever get above 300 or so total but there will still be times we’ll hit the higher mark with pre-planned events as the community grows.

 

You also need more areas where the two factions run into each other randomly while questing. Make most of the map accessible to both sides (not all areas but most), even if it’s through crazy amounts of lvl 50 champions. People who don’t want that rolled on pve servers where they can unflag. People who rolled pvp want the opposite side to have access to most of the map (and expected it in the first place). While levelling, I ran into almost no Imps, and that was during the rush at the beginning while everyone was levelling so they should have been out in force. At this point, there’s not much difference between a pvp and a pve server. We rolled pvp for the fight. Don’t hide the fight away by closing off our access to each other.

 

I love pvp. I hate warzones (as my under-geared-ness attests...). Give us equal rewards for killing players out in the world so that I don’t have to grind WZs with their random group composition (there’s always someone I end up putting on ignore or wanting to hit. I don’t mind bad pvpers. It’s the obnoxious rude louts that I can’t simply walk away from without ditching the WZ itself that make me hate WZs so much), inability to decide where I’m heading, boring guarantee of equal numbers, and just outright repetitiveness. We don’t need extra objectives in wpvp or complicated rewards. Just make them equal to the rewards for WZs, some valor, maybe some tokens of some kind to put toward gear.

 

Something that I think is already well done, and I’d like to see more of, is interesting terrain that allows more strategic battles than just “we all converge on an open plain”. We were fighting on Belsavis the other night and all the walls and the sniper perches and choke points and the possibilities for ambush I just really enjoyed. Not “objectives” set out by the game. Objectives and strategies that _we_ created on the spot.

 

Something that would promote world pvp is a faction-wide (not just zone-wide) pvp channel, and notifications in the channel when an area is being attacked by the opposite faction. One place to see this in action is the World Defense channel in WoW. I don’t entirely like the way Blizzard implemented it, but a prime way to call-out the opposing faction is to go to a spot and “ping” the world defense channel by attacking the npcs. I’d prefer to see it not spam the channel by listing every npc kill (maybe, no more than once every ten seconds on a notification for a particular location), but those notifications are what let the avid pvpers know what zone there’s a fight available in, and the greater the spam for the location the more likely it was that it was a big group. Making it its own default channel lets those who want to know, know, and those who don’t can turn it off.

 

PvPvE

PvPvE is a fine idea for a warzone or a spot like Ilum that’s meant to be somewhat equal, and it would let people complete their dailies even if no one from the other side is in the zone. But in areas where we might want to have large-scale fights, it’s going to lead to whichever side loses claiming it’s because the other side had npcs helping them, just like the way people already complain that the winner was too close to their spawn point or too close to their base (even when you’re nowhere near a spawn point or your guard npcs).

 

This could work, however, if control of the area changes based on completing objectives. In that case it would be a necessity to fill out whichever side has less. I would base it partly on gear and maybe WZ rating though. If you’ve got two war heroes in full BM, they’re probably a match for, say 4 or 5 people with no pvp gear at all so adding NPCs to their side is just overkill. Balancing is not a bad idea in itself, but you need to base it on something other than sheer numbers because the best pvpers can take on five or six people and have it still be an even fight.

 

And make sure the rewards for killing non-players are far less than players. Otherwise you’ll just get people farming the relatively easy npcs instead for the points. Maybe a daily would be “kill 5 players or 50 guards”. Then if there’s no one there from the opposite side you can still complete the quest but if there ARE other players there, there’s reason to seek them out.

 

 

Faction pop cap

I think if you’re going to have population caps and sharding at ALL, they should max out at equal numbers for each side. I’d rather see you fix the servers and graphic rendering so they can handle hundreds of people fighting at the same time in a small area and do away with sharding and pop caps entirely. See what I wrote above about population caps in large scale wpvp. And don’t ever, ever call it “world pvp”. It’s not. “World” means anyone and everyone out in the world can join in.

 

Sharding is a quick and dirty answer to the problem of more people being in the zone than your game engine can handle. I get that. And maybe some people would say it’s a better answer than crashing the whole server (been in fights that were so big they did that in other games...). But it betrays the fact that your focus on this game is still “A bunch of soloers who are moving through the same zone.” That mindset is the antithesis of “MMO Server Community” and it is not the reality of the way people play in an mmo.

 

This is basically “more warzones”. I really hate warzones. If you go this route, at least give us the option to take an ops group in that’s up to the max number of the WZ. And while being able to randomly queue is a great idea, sometimes I’d rather pick the WZ I’m heading into. I had planned to have a Company Huttball team, for instance, but since we can’t fill out more than half the team with our own people and can’t decide that we’re going into Huttball specifically, that kind of died on day 1.

 

 

Guild v Guild

As the Guildleader of a very small guild I have to ask: Why do you hate me?

 

GvG would be great with, say, guild Capital ships. Yeah, I can see that being a lot of fun, where each member of the guild gets their own job on the ship but the rest of the ship is manned by npcs (so that small guilds aren’t just destroyed for having only half their guns active).

 

But just in general... this would totally screw over small guilds like mine, and probably even the mid-sized guilds. This could _only_ work if you allow some kind of allies mechanic where smaller guilds can band together and all gain the same benefits of control of whatever resource the fight is over.

 

The “Guild” is not some monolithic ideal. We’ve all got different ideas on what constitutes a guild, and for many, finding the largest zerg guild is not part of that ideal. But in strict gvg environments, this will make recruitment for a smaller guild even harder than it already is, and member retention almost impossible, as a good number of people, even those who would otherwise prefer a small guild, will feel the need to apply to whatever is the largest guild just so that they can stay “competitive.”

 

Having areas like the Outlaws Den that are “ops vs ops” is a much better idea than gvg for random open world combat. That lets smaller groups join forces and larger ones are forced down to a manageable number. It makes it difficult to do larger fights though and risks just becoming another warzone, albeit with more than two ops groups fighting each other.

 

Have to say I love this post. QFE

 

I've also been loving this idea for a bit: World bosses that drop pvp gear with enormous respawn timers (like a week maybe), destined loot for every 50 who was part of the faction that managed to kill the boss and who was present during the fight, NO RESET, lots and lots of health.

Basically I'm thinking of an open world PvP fight with rewards and a huge boss stomping around in the middle of it all and messing up both sides.

[JeramieCrowe]

I disagree.

 

On many counts, actually.

 

Ok, prove it. Which MMO has had successful PvP?

[Tic-]

Ok, prove it. Which MMO has had successful PvP?

 

That would depend on your definition of succesful.

 

Is it return on investment?

 

Longevity?

 

Number of subscribers?

 

Or not being able to find a group of people that didn't care its form of PvP?

[JeramieCrowe]

That would depend on your definition of succesful.

 

Is it return on investment?

 

Longevity?

 

Number of subscribers?

 

Or not being able to find a group of people that didn't care its form of PvP?

 

*MY* definition. Exactly. Which is different than yours, and yours and mine are different again from another PvPer's.

 

Are you beginning to see my point yet?

 

Look at the poll again. Read at least half the posts in this thread. PvPers cannot seem to agree on what is successful PvP! All of the methods in the poll have already been tried, several times, in other MMOs, with no success.

 

Why? Lack of participation. It's always come down to lack of participation, no matter what form or function of PvP has been tried.

Edited April 2, 2012 by JeramieCrowe

[Tic-]

*MY* definition. Exactly. Which is different than yours, and yours and mine are different again from another PvPer's.

 

Are you beginning to see my point yet?

 

Look at the poll again. Read at least half the posts in this thread. PvPers cannot seem to agree on what is successful PvP! All of the methods in the poll have already been tried, several times, in other MMOs, with no success.

 

Why? Lack of participation. It's always come down to lack of participation, no matter what form or function of PvP has been tried.

 

No, i don't see your point at all...

 

As I still don't know what "succesful" is...

 

Though... i never found lack of participants in one year of Neverwinter Nights, 5 years of UO, 3 years of DAoC, more than a few years of EvE, WoW, and to some extent SWG.

 

And as i said earlier, yes, not all PvPers agree on what "succesful" PvP is, and thats ok..

 

Since this conversation is now going in circles, and i feel its gone off topic, i wish you good luck.

[Thundartwothree]

First take the time to refine and clean up(really clean it up, enough with the hacks) your current system. You cannot have large scale battles without a better Resolve system in place. I understand how the system functions. It just seems to function rather poorly.

 

Class balance is paramount to holding subscriptions. A FOTM cycle just annoys and frustrates a player base, while it may be good in retaining some subscription in the short run(with rerolls and such) In the long run its a failure of a system.

 

The Reps and the Emps share all these planets while leveling, and while there are some PvP areas on some of these planets, I dont see why there couldnt be PvP areas on ALL of the shared planets.

 

When entering these zones all players are bolstered to level 50 stats, just like WZs, they will be non-instanced areas and any number of people may join for each faction. Controling the planet(through holding and taking objectives) would increase XP and Credit gain while on the planet. If one faction controls all of the planets, a very large XP and Credit bonus is up on ALL of the planets. And maybe some other reward for holding all the planets.

 

An outnumbered faction could have a number of helping hands added to them, buffs, npcs. You could expand on this system with the later addition of guild capital ships. Calling in orbital strikes on enemy held areas or carpet bombing from players own starships.

 

TLDR: Lets get a real war started.

[dankat]

Why not do them all? Not at once of course, but just one type will not please everyone. Generate that content over time to make a more lively, varied PvP experience IN ADDITION to warzones for closed, e-sports style PvP. Not coming from a PvP player, so take that with a grain of salt.