View Full Version : Bullet point thoughts on PvP

06-19-2010, 09:29 PM
<p>Some quick thoughts, some have already been stated most likely so I don't claim any strong degree of profundity here.</p><p>Here are what I see as core things we learned from the Warfield experiment.....</p><ul><li>Qeynos significantly outnumbers Freeps, at least at the 80-90s.  This was seen when the incentive of 15 tokens was so high that it drew the majority of the playerbase to participate.  The population imbalance is important because any attempt to create a "world pvp" environment will be hindered short of enforcing raw population caps.  Best solution I know is to let people betray without losing their Masters.  The best pvp designs are the ones that give the player base flexibility to govern themselves.  I guarantee many Qs would exile should the penalty not be so high.</li><li>Grouping all tiers to a single zone in an attempt to create "wide scale war" doesn't really gain anything in terms of pvp.  As has been seen in Warhammer and other games, all it does is create unbearable lag.  It's rather embarrasing that the smart people at SoE didn't exercise the foresight all of us in the MMO community have from Warhammer and WoW's Wintergrasp</li><li>Warfields in their current form serve no purpose other than to rally all tiers to a single zone to pvp.  Prior to WF's there were designated spots driven by the community that each tier could pvp in.  Now those are gone and you are left combing through various Commonlands instances and doing /who checks.  The only incentive Q's have to kill the tower guardians is to expedite collecting the free 5 tokens and to reduce lag for a possible final round of "cleanup" pvp before everybody departs</li><li>T2-T3 pvp is very difficult to find.  The days of DWL and SS are gone however we can only hope that the community ends up gravitating back to these spots.  The problem is that short of AA accrual, there is little incentive to stay in this tier since most pvp now begins at 30.  One would think this might curb the flurry of alts, but alas, I suspect we will continue to see "igotaoeforu" and his plethora of characters.  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></li><li>In my opinion, the community is focusing on the WRONG problems when it asks SoE to address the following:</li></ul><blockquote><ol><li>Fame Decay - If you think this issue is higher than the other core pvp issues, your judgement is severly lacking.</li><li>Grey Leeching - Yes it happens to all of us.  The reality is that until there is a sufficient amount of numbers in each tier, for both sides, people pretty much HAVE to leech to get writs completed.</li><li>Writs - I don't see how writs are a bad thing or have killed pvp.  I keep reading these nostalgia posts where people declare writs anathema and I just don't get it.  The tweaks they have made to writs in terms of the cooldown was exactly the right direction to take them.</li></ol></blockquote><ul><li>There are essentially two forms of pvp that MMOs seek to create:  open world pvp and manufactured pvp.  There are advantages to both.  Manufactured pvp refers to pvp that a player can get at almost any point in time.  Games offer this in the form of battlegrounds, warfields, arenas, etc.  As a player, if I want to PvP i can with very little wait time in manufactured pvp.  Open world pvp is what EQ2 traditionally has had.  It is usually a self-governing system whereby the players and the incentive mechanics (i.e. tokens from writs) determine where people go to look for pvp in each tier.  The are two major disadvantages of truly open world pvp:  1) a player cannot always get it when he/she wants it.  You can't "queue up".  You have to go seek it out and hope there are people in your tier doing the same.  2)  Population and class imbalances can make it very one sided.  T7 prior to warfields was nothing but 6-8 SKs that would run around in a group and wreck people.</li><li>SKs and Wardens make small scale (e.g. 1v1, 2v2, etc) pvp futile.  The classes are absolutely OP'ed and it is silly that SoE doesn't make a change.</li></ul><p>Unfortunately it appears that Warfields are here to stay.  I don't see how SoE could be "proud" of the system as it currently stands.  Lag is never going to disappear until they either enforce true zone hardcaps or implement a design that gives incentives for players in collections of tiers to pvp in designated areas (i.e. move away from having everybody converge in one zone).</p><p>In summary, the following changes would be very good moves by SoE:</p><ul><li>Eliminate Master loss when exiling.  This is key in that it will let the community govern itself.  SoE cannot enforce population equity except in manufactured pvp.  To truly achieve "world pvp" you have to let the community govern itself.  This is the best approach with the least amount of unintended consequences.</li><li>Avoid the whole design that has all tiers converging on one zone or, if we have already sunk too much into the current WF's, then change the mechanics to have each tier logically go to different areas in the zone.  Sure, you could still go leech, but the risk of death would be much greater.  Consider grouping tiers in various sections of the zone in order to get a large level overlap/variance which would help govern leeching.</li></ul><p>Philosophically, SoE should move towards a system that lets players govern pvp.  Laisse Faire.</p><p>Thanks,</p><p>Morticai Morticus</p>