PvP still sucks

[Vandergroth]

Definitions:

Pros: cheaters, bot-users, exploiters, arena-flair-users, mouse-with-246-buttons-users, real-pros, and premade-groups

Casuals: players forced in PvP by season objectives, players forced in PvP by PvP-season items they want to have, people that just want to have some PvP-fun, and solo-players that are not Pros

 

Disclaimer: 

That cheating exists (!!!) is absolutely stated in the top thread in this forum. So please do not pretend that is doesn't. Thank you very much.

 

Helpful comments:

Everything on topic.

 

Useless comments:

'Learn to play!' or similar nonsense.

 

Topic:

Even after introducing PvP-seasons and deactivating Arena-mode, PvP still sucks. To be honest, it sucks even more.

 

Problems that seam unsolvable:

Matchmaking

Balancing

Preventing cheating

Preventing bot-using

Preventing exploiting

 

Problems that can be solved easily:

premades

suspected cheater, bot-user, and exploiter prevention

surrender option

 

Argument:

PvP totally sucks for Casuals. Pros reign supreme in battlegrounds. Casuals can only hope to get matched into a Pros group to win a match. For a Casual it takes about 3-4 hours of constant battleground PvP to get the weekly PvP-quest over with. For Pros it is like maybe an hour, maybe less. That sucks!
Pros ruin the PvP experience for any Casual, especially when they harass Casuals by hunting, camping and farming them.
There are a lot of options that could be implemented to increase the PvP experience for Casuals and for Pros alike.

Option 1: Surrender Option
Sometimes you immediately know that you won't stand a chance against the Pros. You spot a certain guild, an arena-flair, or the Pros scored 4 points in huttball in less than 2 minutes. Casuals know that they cannot win, but are forced to play along, just to get the score for the weekly quest or the laughably 6 points for the PvP-season. Why not give an option to surrender? The Pros get their win and all the benefits, and the Casuals can save a lot of valuable time. (Example: Voidstar / 7 minutes getting farmed as defendant and another 7 minutes as attacker)

Or implement a safe-zone. A lot of Casuals are showing their surrender by sitting down and no further participation. (Sadly that is not recognized by the Pros that still come after them like it would benefit them somehow...) Why not implement a safe-zone where Casuals can take a refuge from constant harassment by getting farmed like NPC mobs?

Option 2: Ignore-list
Arena is over! There is no need for a deactivated ignore-list for matchmaking. Most Casuals are no YouTubers, Instagrammers, TikTokers, or video-makers. But they are not stupid. They are able to spot those Pros, that are likely to be cheaters. With an activated ignore-list on matchmaking, they could minimize the chances of getting them as enemies. (Irony on.) Pros 'won't use' this option because they are 'too OP' for anyone. (Irony off.) Also, when someone puts another player on his ignore-list, it signals that they don't want to play with that person. Neither with nor against them. Activate the ignore-list for PvP already!

Option 3: Premades can only queue for arena matches
Just cancel the option for groups queuing for battlegrounds. Easy as that. Most Casuals just want to get some PvP-points to fulfill certain objectives. A few points in seasons, or some in PvP-seasons, or maybe for the 2000 (!!!) tech-fragments in the weekly quest. They don't join premades, they just want to play a few quick PvP games. Chances would be higher to accomplish these objectives, when Pros are forced to fend for themselves. Also they would be matched against each other, or even better stay with arena fights altogether. Cancel group queuing for battlegrounds!

Option 4: Solve the 'unsolvable' problems already
For Casuals the matchmaking looks like this: 'Hm? 4 man premade. Group 1. Oh? Another premade! Group 1. Ahh! Any other combination of players. Group 2! Matchmaking completed!'
Solving that issue should be really easy. Just match premade group one with premade group two and fill up with any other combination. Or even better: Break up the premades and match them into different groups. That would be fun.

Get your act together with the balancing already! The classes should work like rock-paper-scissors. They don't! Pros can kill any class with ease and without any fears. Most classes have skills that are laughably OP. Stop the 'How about this class gets an OP skill to kill everybody'-BS and balance the classes already. It cannot be that some debuffs last for a minute and kill your char one or the other way, while other debuffs, that are essential for your class only last for 4 seconds and make less damage than a normal hit.

Every game is modable. For every game do exist bots. Any game mechanic can be exploited. I know that, you know that. Do something about it! And don't ask me. I am no coder, no dev, no game-designer. Not my job, yours! I pay you for a solution with my sub.

Conclusion:

PvP can be a lot of fun. It is fun for Pros and it should be fun for Casuals.
Do something meaningful, please!

[krackcommando]

seam 😄

[LD_Little_Dragon]

Option 5: don't queue for pvp if you don't find it fun.  No one is 'forced' to pvp.

[merovejec]

I have to say i didnt see any cheating ever since they introduced a lot of changes back when we had ranked.

However as for:

Matchmaking

Balancing

Yes thats horrible right now. Most matches are onesided due a premade or its a stale mate with too many healers and tanks in both teams.

 

On 8/27/2023 at 10:41 PM, LD_Little_Dragon said:

Option 5: don't queue for pvp if you don't find it fun.  No one is 'forced' to pvp.

Im after achievements for example and they made us do PVP, so its not about choice.

[krackcommando]

50 minutes ago, merovejec said:

Im after achievements for example and they made us do PVP, so its not about choice.

no. you chose to go after achievements.

[merovejec]

On 8/29/2023 at 9:16 PM, krackcommando said:

no. you chose to go after achievements.

Yes and sadly those involve pvp, so you are forced to do it. If u want A you have to do B. Thats silly and a cheap tactic. Same goes for example for operation achievements, you need sub to do ops so they force you to sub.

[DragoslavRadanov]

2 hours ago, merovejec said:

Yes and sadly those involve pvp, so you are forced to do it. If u want A you have to do B. Thats silly and a cheap tactic. Same goes for example for operation achievements, you need sub to do ops so they force you to sub.

It's 100% choice. No one's holding a gun to your head threating you to do the achievements or else. You simply decided the achievements were worth more to you than your dissatisfaction with the current state of pvp. Same for whoever is interested in the operation achievements; are the achievements worth more to that person than the $15 it takes to sub, and is it worth 15 x n number of months needed to grind them.

[merovejec]

46 minutes ago, DragoslavRadanov said:

It's 100% choice. No one's holding a gun to your head threating you to do the achievements or else. You simply decided the achievements were worth more to you than your dissatisfaction with the current state of pvp. Same for whoever is interested in the operation achievements; are the achievements worth more to that person than the $15 it takes to sub, and is it worth 15 x n number of months needed to grind them.

I see you dont understand the fact of choice. Yes, i chose to undergo this, but I go through effort to at least point out how terrible it is. I want to get 100% achievements and for that i will do PVP, but for that I also did other parts of the game, but none of them are as specific as PVP and none of them are as broken, silly, terrible as PVP ones. Thats what I mean. So please stop seing it so simply as wanting something and having to do something. Its all fine, except for PVP.

[krackcommando]

3 hours ago, merovejec said:

Yes and sadly those involve pvp, so you are forced to do it. If u want A you have to do B. Thats silly and a cheap tactic. Same goes for example for operation achievements, you need sub to do ops so they force you to sub.

they're called achievements for a reason. and now it appears you take issue with actually have to remunerate the developer for creating a game that you choose are forced to play. what a fascinating position to take. good luck with that.

[septru]

I really wish they had the clown emoji in the reactions. 

[merovejec]

On 9/3/2023 at 4:41 PM, krackcommando said:

they're called achievements for a reason. and now it appears you take issue with actually have to remunerate the developer for creating a game that you choose are forced to play. what a fascinating position to take. good luck with that.

I have no issue with being forced to play, but being forced to play a part of the game which in such a bad state.

[krackcommando]

On 9/3/2023 at 6:45 AM, merovejec said:

If u want A you have to do B. Thats silly and a cheap tactic.

🧐

23 minutes ago, merovejec said:

I have no issue with being forced to play, but being forced to play a part of the game which in such a bad state.

🤨

so you've changed your opinion in the past 24 hours? (just clarifying. everyone is free to change their minds, of course. this isn't a theocracy...is it? /gulp).

[merovejec]

2 hours ago, krackcommando said:

🧐

🤨

so you've changed your opinion in the past 24 hours? (just clarifying. everyone is free to change their minds, of course. this isn't a theocracy...is it? /gulp).

It is clear to me that you dont have the fundamentals to understand what is being told to you. I wonder how you got past school.

[krackcommando]

32 minutes ago, merovejec said:

It is clear to me that you dont have the fundamentals to understand what is being told to you. I wonder how you got past school.

I'll skip the personal attack because my skin is figuratively (if not literally) thicker than tissue paper, and get to the meat of the point with a little math:

1 - you state that the game "forces" players to do things, such as A) pvp to get achievement and B) sub to run operations (and to get achievements - oooo! a layered complaint! like an onion...or a parfait):

On 9/3/2023 at 6:45 AM, merovejec said:

Yes and sadly those involve pvp, so you are forced to do it. If u want A you have to do B. Thats silly and a cheap tactic. Same goes for example for operation achievements, you need sub to do ops so they force you to sub.

But wait, that's not all, you also state, in that same quote, that requiring players to (e.g.) participate in pvp for achievements or subscribe to run ops or run ops for achievements(?) is (and I'm quoting here again) a "silly and cheap tactic." that's in the context of all achievements, and activities, not just pvp as you've clearly gone out of your way to explain.

how am I doing so far? right then. onto number 2....

2 - twice you revise your criticism (in two other posts less than a day after the above quote) and state that, in fact, it's only pvp that you have a problem with:

3 hours ago, merovejec said:

I have no issue with being forced to play, but being forced to play a part of the game which in such a bad state.

this, of course, conflicts with your rather clear and obvious proclamation that you dislike being "forced" to do anything because (and I'm gonna quote here so as not to put words in your mouf) "If u want A you have to do B." and, in your view, "Thats silly and a cheap tactic." which is kinda quaint. somehow you've found a way to even make participation trophies sound too demanding.

in the ~19ish hours following your post on the "silly and cheap tactic" that...every achievement ever employs, you claim that no. it's NOT that you're opposed to being "forced" to go along with the "cheap tactic" of "If u want A you have to do B," but that it's only pvp that you dislike b/c you (gonna quote you again; wouldn't wanna misrepresent you!) have no issue with being forced to play, but being forced to play a part of the game which in such a bad state."

as I said in the prior post, I don't judge you for changing your mind, but you've clearly narrowed your criticism from a (ridiculously) wide (one might say all-encompassing) net to one very specific issue in the net. and therefore not the systemic "issue" (achievements require achieving things) that you criticized earlier.

how's my math? did I miss any steps? cool. have a nice day.

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by krackcommando

[merovejec]

On 9/4/2023 at 8:22 PM, krackcommando said:

I'll skip the personal attack because my skin is figuratively (if not literally) thicker than tissue paper, and get to the meat of the point with a little math:

1 - you state that the game "forces" players to do things, such as A) pvp to get achievement and B) sub to run operations (and to get achievements - oooo! a layered complaint! like an onion...or a parfait):

But wait, that's not all, you also state, in that same quote, that requiring players to (e.g.) participate in pvp for achievements or subscribe to run ops or run ops for achievements(?) is (and I'm quoting here again) a "silly and cheap tactic." that's in the context of all achievements, and activities, not just pvp as you've clearly gone out of your way to explain.

how am I doing so far? right then. onto number 2....

2 - twice you revise your criticism (in two other posts less than a day after the above quote) and state that, in fact, it's only pvp that you have a problem with:

this, of course, conflicts with your rather clear and obvious proclamation that you dislike being "forced" to do anything because (and I'm gonna quote here so as not to put words in your mouf) "If u want A you have to do B." and, in your view, "Thats silly and a cheap tactic." which is kinda quaint. somehow you've found a way to even make participation trophies sound too demanding.

in the ~19ish hours following your post on the "silly and cheap tactic" that...every achievement ever employs, you claim that no. it's NOT that you're opposed to being "forced" to go along with the "cheap tactic" of "If u want A you have to do B," but that it's only pvp that you dislike b/c you (gonna quote you again; wouldn't wanna misrepresent you!) have no issue with being forced to play, but being forced to play a part of the game which in such a bad state."

as I said in the prior post, I don't judge you for changing your mind, but you've clearly narrowed your criticism from a (ridiculously) wide (one might say all-encompassing) net to one very specific issue in the net. and therefore not the systemic "issue" (achievements require achieving things) that you criticized earlier.

how's my math? did I miss any steps? cool. have a nice day.

 

You litteraly dont get and please dont even try to comprehend it, its evidently not in your computing power. But thats OK, we like you anyway.

[DragoslavRadanov]

6 hours ago, merovejec said:

You litteraly dont get and please dont even try to comprehend it, its evidently not in your computing power. But thats OK, we like you anyway.

Are you able to discuss a topic without resorting to ad hominem?

[merovejec]

7 hours ago, DragoslavRadanov said:

Are you able to discuss a topic without resorting to ad hominem?

I am, but that guy is not.