Things that I find that personally make battlegrounds no fun.

[Tanna]

Just wanted to in a non flaming kind of way some things that I think could be changed to make battlegrounds a little more fun, just my opinions on these things.

1. The fact that healers pretty much make-or-brake your ability to win Gears of Klak'anon. Ofcourse this is situational, but is more often than not the case that the team with the most healers will win.
2. Casters ability to survive so long, but kill so fast. Don't mind them killing so fast, just don't think they should be able to survive so long. Although the select few classes and people critting me for 19-26k repeadidly is a little outrageous at times.
3. Taunts and the "Cannot change targets at this time" message. Taunts make it impossible for me as a non caster to actually be effective. Run up to someone and get taunted 4 times to people standing really far away from me constantly just makes me wanna sit down. Taunts should only work if you are in melee range of the character you are taunting. If you hit a group taunt, only the people in melee range should get taunted.
4. Healing is super impaired right now. If I am fighting someone and don't happen to have a taunt up, I might as well forget about even trying to heal myself, cause it's only going to work if they have me targeted. Heals should be automatically for yourself unless you specifically hard target someone on your team, or hit a group heal. Can't count how many times I have wasted LoH.
5. Matches starting with uneven teams.
6. Would like to see an x12 pure death match map.
7. Would like to see a smaller x24 map.
8. Would like to see a 2v2 map.
9. Would like to see caster vantage points cut off a little bit, especially in klak'anon. If you're on the bottom and a melee, you will likely be dead before you can get up the ramp if a caster sees you.
10. In Battlefield of Ganak, the person with the flag should have all run speed removed, but still be able to sprint.
11. When dead, you should automatically reload the zone, but be locked in a barrier until a set time is up. Often times I end up with 28 seconds until respawn, and then 20 more seconds of zone loading. When you die it should start a counter to 30 and load time should count towards that time.
12. Balance, balance, balance, balance, balance, balance, balance.

I think SoE is off to a decent start, and there are a million more things i could add to the list, but I think these things would be a good start to making these a bit more enjoyable.

[Armironhead]

You forgot:

1) the unbelieveable repetativeness and midnumbing boredom

2) the way it turned every toon into a cookiecutter repeat of ever other toon in their class

3) casters as pvp gods

4) the way every bg is basically rock paper scissor on a grp scale

5) that you have to do the bg grind if you want to be competative in pvp

6) that they killed open world pvp

[Darkonx]

1. No 1v1/2v2 maps.

2. No deathmatch.

3. People just running away after I've engaged in the 12v12 and the 24v24. You engage someone and they just continue to run away, ignoring you completely.

4. Having to stay in game, without tabbing out, to ensure that I get raid leader, so I can set up groups so that they aren't completely idiotic.

5. No 'best of the best' 1v1 capability.

6. Spell resists. They need fixed. Not in a week, not in a month, not in three months. They need to be fixed now, or we're going to start losing people from BG's, and once lost, they will be hard to win back.

[mysticalone]

On another note unless their is some mind control drug involved I see no reason why people who have huge issues with their existance in our pixel lives just dont stay on their home servers and do something else.

/shrug..

[Taldier]

mysticalone wrote:

On another note unless their is some mind control drug = free pvp gear involved I see no reason why people who have huge issues with their existance in our pixel lives just dont stay on their home servers and do something else.

/shrug..

[Thorikos]

Darkonx wrote:

6. Spell resists. They need fixed. Not in a week, not in a month, not in three months. They need to be fixed now, or we're going to start losing people from BG's, and once lost, they will be hard to win back.

[Tanna]

Darkonx wrote:

6. Spell resists. They need fixed. Not in a week, not in a month, not in three months. They need to be fixed now, or we're going to start losing people from BG's, and once lost, they will be hard to win back.

"And so it shall come to pass that he with the most warlocks on his team, shall arise and forever be triumphant!"

-S.O.E developers

[Thorikos]

Tannayr@Permafrost wrote:

Darkonx wrote:

6. Spell resists. They need fixed. Not in a week, not in a month, not in three months. They need to be fixed now, or we're going to start losing people from BG's, and once lost, they will be hard to win back.

"And so it shall come to pass that he with the most warlocks on his team, shall arise and forever be triumphant!"

-S.O.E developers

heh, its complete stupid atm, im a few rage quits away from rage Quitting the Game.

[Horizons]

Sony pretty much gave eq2pvp a bad name when they released the no-fame-loss update about a year ago for PvP servers (even a bit before that it was pretty bad) which created that mass zerg fest that, from that point on, lasted almost 9 months !

And now with  battlegrounds, eq2pvp is non-existent, not in the battlegrounds, nor out of them. 

Yea, you get to fight with toon against another toon, but the real players who've been playing on pvp servers since launch know that this is not "pvp".  It's an attempt for Sony to save face for what they've thrown down the gutter really. 

I was really exited when the battlegrounds came out, because I thought this would give pvp a new flavor, but, there is nothing "pvp" about these battlegrounds I don't see how holding a relic, capturing a flag, or holding towers on lockdown is pvp. 

The "pvp" path to go at this point Sony, is atleast make one map where it's straight up Team Deathmatch, or Free for all death match, or any kind of death match (let's not get too literal, because we know how you guys think your ideas through!)

[Tanna]

Horizons@Nagafen wrote:

The "pvp" path to go at this point Sony, is atleast make one map where it's straight up Team Deathmatch, or Free for all death match, or any kind of death match (let's not get too literal, because we know how you guys think your ideas through!)

If they popped some quake style maps in and put TDM, DM, FFA, I personally would be in heaven.

[Armironhead]

Horizons@Nagafen wrote:

Sony pretty much gave eq2pvp a bad name when they released the no-fame-loss update about a year ago for PvP servers (even a bit before that it was pretty bad) which created that mass zerg fest that, from that point on, lasted almost 9 months !

And now with  battlegrounds, eq2pvp is non-existent, not in the battlegrounds, nor out of them. 

Yea, you get to fight with toon against another toon, but the real players who've been playing on pvp servers since launch know that this is not "pvp".  It's an attempt for Sony to save face for what they've thrown down the gutter really. 

I was really exited when the battlegrounds came out, because I thought this would give pvp a new flavor, but, there is nothing "pvp" about these battlegrounds I don't see how holding a relic, capturing a flag, or holding towers on lockdown is pvp. 

The "pvp" path to go at this point Sony, is atleast make one map where it's straight up Team Deathmatch, or Free for all death match, or any kind of death match (let's not get too literal, because we know how you guys think your ideas through!)

Pvp in the bgs is really besides the point.  In fact, only gears really requires you to engage the other side.  So when soe gave us sf and the bgs, for those of us that played for the pvp, it really took away pvp from us and gave us nothing in return. 

[Uskeab]

I love how people say battlegrounds is not pvp. Nothing on EQ2 is "real" pvp with eazy travel and everything great being inside instances where you cannot get to people. 2/3 of the world is "safe".

I guess real pvp is ganking questers? or mass zergs...

[Armironhead]

Uskeab@Nagafen wrote:

I love how people say battlegrounds is not pvp. Nothing on EQ2 is "real" pvp with eazy travel and everything great being inside instances where you cannot get to people. 2/3 of the world is "safe".

I guess real pvp is ganking questers? or mass zergs...

since the start of eq2 pvp there has been two trains of thought - one was that true pvp was open world where anything goes, where you are the hunted or the hunter (you cant blame the open worlders for the zerg, which was created by soe's misbegotten tinkering).  The second was more duelish - that true pvp was a one on one "fair" fight where you matched yourself against a player directly for supermacy (you would see these folk hanging around the docks with 1v1 tags up).  I always came down on the open world side, but which ever side had your faith, they both supported combat between toons as the expression of what was pvp.  In the bgs direct combat is besides the point, so whatever your eq2pvp faith previously, you do not get a pvp fix in the bgs.

[Disma]

I find it funny how much people cry in this game. Especially about pvp. In the pvp forums complaints about the pvp zerg were all over...now that it is fixed and you have to once again travel all over people complain there isn't enough pvp. The pvp in KP was all out war people fighting to control land and kill the other side and people knew where to go to find pvp and people complained about zerging and farming of tokens. How are the BGs different from this? You join one to find pvp and rev over and over to control land or hold the relic or capture a flag and they are fun. You want to know why nobody is doing open world pvp cause you complained so much about the zerg and pvp token farming that its now harder to get open world pvp gear. The BG gear is easier to get and the teams are at least somewhat even where in the open it was almost always one sided. I for one welcome the BGs I loved playing on a pvp server but hate the gank groups that travel everywhere 6v1 is just not fun and at least in BG the numbers are even.

Nothing will be perfect and nothing will please all the people just stop whining already and have fun.

And as for casters dominating this expansion I say they are due. Melee went unchecked the entire last expansion with autoattack damage being out of control and now that the tables are turned the pvp Everscouts and Evercrusaders are turning out in force crying about how they are actually dieing to a class now. Both teams can have mages and scouts can still interupt casters(no immunity) and knockback casters(no immunity) all the time. I play both a Guardian and a Wizard(way before mages were FOTM) and used to get owned by healers(warden with never ending power) crusaders and rogues.

Zerker and Crusader healing abilities are insanely out of whack atm but I dont see as many posts about them as I do the mages its funny. I don't think socerers should live as long as they do because they are supposed to sacrifice survivability for damage, but if chain wearers do the same amount of dmg as casters the advantage of being a caster is gone. With that being said they should be able to one shot people if they get their survivability nerfed, because before this expansion I would usually only get one to two spells off before I died and it would be extremely unfair to nerf their dps and survivability.

[Taldier]

Dismall@Nagafen wrote:

And as for casters dominating this expansion I say they are due. Melee went unchecked the entire last expansion with autoattack damage being out of control and now that the tables are turned the pvp Everscouts and Evercrusaders are turning out in force crying about how they are actually dieing to a class now. Both teams can have mages and scouts can still interupt casters(no immunity) and knockback casters(no immunity) all the time. I play both a Guardian and a Wizard(way before mages were FOTM) and used to get owned by healers(warden with never ending power) crusaders and rogues.

Zerker and Crusader healing abilities are insanely out of whack atm but I dont see as many posts about them as I do the mages its funny. I don't think socerers should live as long as they do because they are supposed to sacrifice survivability for damage, but if chain wearers do the same amount of dmg as casters the advantage of being a caster is gone. With that being said they should be able to one shot people if they get their survivability nerfed, because before this expansion I would usually only get one to two spells off before I died and it would be extremely unfair to nerf their dps and survivability.

This is actually hilarious tbh, seeing as wizards and warlocks were already owning a lot of people last xpac and oneshotting some players using the najena ring.

The accidental mistakes made in the code for this xpac have just made it so that even poorly played legendary geared casters can murder people in pvp/raid gear.  Green con wizards in crap gear twoshotting fabled guardians and calling it skill is lulz.

Casters havent been [Removed for Content] since rok and most scouts took it up the rear for most of tso.

[Grumble69]

I suspect a lot of this will get ironed out.  And some of these class issues are fine by me in the short-term as long as the match-ups are pretty even.

My complaints:

1.  Folks running all over the place like it's a McDonald Playland.

2.  Folks that don't listen.

3.  Folks that shout commands in raid who aren't raid leaders.

4.  Not getting AA when dead.

5.  MatchMaker needs some work.  If necessary, it needs to bust up groups in the interest of balance.

6.  Smugglers needs a mechanism for the other team to catch-up when behind (e.g. a snitch worth 200pts).

[Crismorn]

Uskeab@Nagafen wrote:

I love how people say battlegrounds is not pvp. Nothing on EQ2 is "real" pvp with eazy travel and everything great being inside instances where you cannot get to people. 2/3 of the world is "safe".

I guess real pvp is ganking questers? or mass zergs...

Exactly.

On top of those points you also have a no loss pvp system which essentially makes eq2 pvp pointless.

No loss upon death = No meaningful pvp

Oh yeah you lose silver/gold coins... My bad...

[Kota]

in the beginning, you lost fame when anyone killed you. this led to evac-happy wimp-style pvp. in an attempt to get ppl out of immunity, soe incorporated the lvl range fame system. ppl still hugged titles, evac'd, etc. what do you propose you lose in pvp ? gear ? el oh el. no one would leave immunity w/o a stacked group, and even then they would prolly have 3 hotbars dedicated to evac. some have suggested monetary drops in pvp, but since day 1 soe has made efforts to take money out of circulation. ie menders, rent for houses, broker fees.

[Crismorn]

Tenka@Nagafen wrote:

in the beginning, you lost fame when anyone killed you. this led to evac-happy wimp-style pvp. in an attempt to get ppl out of immunity, soe incorporated the lvl range fame system. ppl still hugged titles, evac'd, etc. what do you propose you lose in pvp ? gear ? el oh el. no one would leave immunity w/o a stacked group, and even then they would prolly have 3 hotbars dedicated to evac. some have suggested monetary drops in pvp, but since day 1 soe has made efforts to take money out of circulation. ie menders, rent for houses, broker fees.

Make tokens easier to get, when you die you lose some tokens depending on various circumstances.

That was me thinking for 5 seconds, I'm sure there are many other ways one can "lose" something in eq2 pvp, but that was the first I thought of

[Armironhead]

Crismorn wrote:

Uskeab@Nagafen wrote:

I love how people say battlegrounds is not pvp. Nothing on EQ2 is "real" pvp with eazy travel and everything great being inside instances where you cannot get to people. 2/3 of the world is "safe".

I guess real pvp is ganking questers? or mass zergs...

Exactly.

On top of those points you also have a no loss pvp system which essentially makes eq2 pvp pointless.

No loss upon death = No meaningful pvp

Oh yeah you lose silver/gold coins... My bad...

everything is comparative.  Sure open world is broken, but it is less broken then the bgs. 

[ailen]

actually a gray con can one shot because for a while, maybe even still the avoidance check was using the high level character's ability and not the low level character.  It was fun for about half a second seeing a level 65 conj in Kylong Plains killing people in their high 70s.  you're just like HUH?

[Crismorn]

Armironhead@Vox wrote:

Crismorn wrote:

Uskeab@Nagafen wrote:

I love how people say battlegrounds is not pvp. Nothing on EQ2 is "real" pvp with eazy travel and everything great being inside instances where you cannot get to people. 2/3 of the world is "safe".

I guess real pvp is ganking questers? or mass zergs...

Exactly.

On top of those points you also have a no loss pvp system which essentially makes eq2 pvp pointless.

No loss upon death = No meaningful pvp

Oh yeah you lose silver/gold coins... My bad...

everything is comparative.  Sure open world is broken, but it is less broken then the bgs. 

I am not saying that eq2 "open world" pvp is broken, I am saying that currently its meaningless pvp.

[skylancer]

SOE obviously wanted open world zergfests- it could have been fixed with coding already available- i.e autolock all encounters on pvp servers. tada, no more zergfests.

[Horizons]

autolock would suck so bad

whay they SHOULD of done imo, is once a group, or how many ever people involve themselves in a pvp fight, no one outside of the battle would get credit whatsoever

[wickermanuk]

My top three:

1. SK's  - Overpowered to a extent where it's not even funny anymore, easy mode tank class that is incredibly difficult to kill and seems to be able to dish out the kills way above what a tank should be able to do.

2. Line of sight issues - Just a huge annoyance and a pain.

3. Smugglers den - Way too long 

[Cerec]

I'd give just about anything right now if I would have just taken a screenshot from late 2004 when the head EQ2 producer (what the heck was his name!!) stated point-blank on the forums that there would never be pvp in EQ2.  

Of course, a year later we had the pvp servers ...and now we have BGs.   All in a game that was conceived and designed to never include pvp.   They've added expansions and nifty code over the years, but the basic foundation of EQ2 is the same as it was after beta.  

EQ2's strength is pve -- I think that if as much energy as is being placed in other areas were focused on pve, it would be as obvious to everyone else as it is to me that there is very few MMOs out there that can touch what EQ2 is capable of doing from a PVE standpoint.

For those that like PVP and BGs ...well, we just have to deal with the coding equivalent of duct tape and plywood as the devs try to give you what you want.  I wish it were better too, and I think that I could enjoy BGs if they were done right -- but, I'm not entirely sure it's possible with the game we're playing to get it EXACTLY right.

[Taldier]

Cerec wrote:

I'd give just about anything right now if I would have just taken a screenshot from late 2004 when the head EQ2 producer (what the heck was his name!!) stated point-blank on the forums that there would never be pvp in EQ2.  

Of course, a year later we had the pvp servers ...and now we have BGs.   All in a game that was conceived and designed to never include pvp.   They've added expansions and nifty code over the years, but the basic foundation of EQ2 is the same as it was after beta.  

EQ2's strength is pve -- I think that if as much energy as is being placed in other areas were focused on pve, it would be as obvious to everyone else as it is to me that there is very few MMOs out there that can touch what EQ2 is capable of doing from a PVE standpoint.

For those that like PVP and BGs ...well, we just have to deal with the coding equivalent of duct tape and plywood as the devs try to give you what you want.  I wish it were better too, and I think that I could enjoy BGs if they were done right -- but, I'm not entirely sure it's possible with the game we're playing to get it EXACTLY right.

I also wish you had, seeing as I've never seen those words from any remotely credible source.

They were very clear that they would not be implementing pvp at release.  The game had a shaky enough release as it was, no way they were ready to take on pvp related issues at the time.  After being constantly being bombarded with requests for pvp at release they very clearly stated that they had no plans to implement pvp at the time.

I compel you to find me an original quote from a soe representative stating that pvp would never be implemented in eq2 or that eq2's interface did not have the capability to implement alternate rulesets as the game expanded.

OH WAIT

AWESOME QUOTE!

Please note that I did not make an announcement stating we would not have PvP. I said that we couldn't guarantee having special rules servers at launch, to which a bunch of people replied "I can't believe you're not having PvP at launch." My post was intended as an update in order to keep expectations in line with what we can and will deliver. When I know something more definite on the subject I will make an official statement on the status of special rules servers, but this will probably not occur for some time.

- Moorgard

How Many More Do I Need?!? THERES MORE!

Based on the complaints I've seen about the implementation of PvP in some other games (including EQ), I really think most people who enjoy PvP want to see it done well. Those who are saying "Just give us something!" in this thread would complain as loud as anyone about a bad PvP implementation. We want to offer gameplay to the PvP market that is done well. We'd like to offer it the day we ship, but I can't guarantee it, so I won't. If it takes us extra time to get it right, then in the long run it's better for everyone if we do that.

- Moorgard

There has already been a sizable thread about PvP, and we realize many players would like a server for it. However, we are not planning to have one at launch. If you want to discuss ideas for PvP, you can post them in the thread that already exists on the subject.

- Moorgard

I said that we can't guarantee having special rules servers at launch, which many posters then turned into a "there will be no PvP at launch" thread. We may or may not; it is really a matter of resources and time. I simply wanted people to be prepared in case the goal can't be met. The threads at eqii.com are merely there to consolidate ideas, not as a place to design a PvP system or anything. Threads on that or any other message board will not affect whether we have special rule sets at launch.

- Moorgard

Can we finally once and for all kill the ridiculous blubie mythos that EQ2 was designed with the intention to never implement pvp gameplay?

EQ2's mechanics are actually quite effective for pvp balancing.  The game allows for completely different formulas and stats to be used in different rulesets, fluidly switching from one to the other.  Neatly allowing the dev team to ignore the traditional problems of balancing pvp and pve.

Somehow the blubies still manage to whine about every single thing they dislike being caused by pvp despite the fact that the rulesets are completely seperate...but thats a different issue.

I officially declare the absurd comment that eq2 was intended to never have pvp to be dead.

Any successive repeats of the statement will result in the posting of every single official soe employee quote from prerelease to dof.

[Kenrod]

The main thing that really bugs me is the sheer amount of idiocy in the bg's i seem to get in. Did about 3 hours worth tonight, and only won one due to stupid people.

Did a battlement, and our group decided the best way to win was to stand at our flag and never go on offense. Surprise! We lost. Naturally there was tons of pats on the back and "good job!" all over raid chat, and I jsut don't get it. I play bg's to win, and honestly if there weren't rewards for losing, people would get their act together and actually play the thing.

When the raid leader says "everyone go to the middle!".....i watch everyone scatter in different directions and we lose. It's turned me off to the point that I don't even care about the gear that comes from it if i'm going to have to be lumped in with random morons that just run around squeeling about how "leet" furies are in bg's. I should have more than 16 tokens for 3 hrs of bg's.

[YummiOger]

Good Suggestions imo.1. FIX RESISTS AND MITIGATION VALUES. Disconjoin Crit Bonus + Base Crit value Vs Crit mit. it should be Base Value vs Crit mit only.2. Make the Flag Carrier go into Combat Mode in Ganak. would actually need protection to make it back to their base instad of 90% run speed Bards.3. Fix the Spawn Point in Ganak, so a Flag carrier can not get to a 90% safe spot and perma lock out  the other team. Maby just lower it or put up a 1 way spawn circle.4. Better Class distibutions in all BGs. Make it where there is a maximum number of archtypes in BGs. like 2 of any in Gears maximum. 4 of any in the 2x. Or maby a Request Cue for Leader, Request the next Preist, 1 req only.5. Guardians suck SOOO bad in BGs. we need something .. seriously ... why do Sorcerers take damage better then Guards? have u looked at the Socerer AAs for defensivness? they got like 10 straight defensive additions.6. auto boot any1 thats Power Or Health does not move in 3 mins, no tokens. i hate afkers.7. Capturing a Tower in Smugglers = +50 points.8. make BG global for everyone. even EU and Asian.9. 2 more Scenarios.10. add MORE token items....

[Yimway]

Taldier@Venekor wrote:

EQ2's mechanics are actually quite effective for pvp balancing.  The game allows for completely different formulas and stats to be used in different rulesets, fluidly switching from one to the other.  Neatly allowing the dev team to ignore the traditional problems of balancing pvp and pve.

I officially declare the absurd comment that eq2 was intended to never have pvp to be dead.

Actually the very mechanic you speak of is more of the duct tape and plywood Cerec just talked about.  This split code formula system was something kludged in long after launch by a team that was only partialy representitive of the developers who wrote the orriginal code base.

I assure you, if you look at the source code as it existed in beta and at launch, there was _nothing_ in it to support pvp.  Many things they designed were decisions that would have gone completely differently if the intent was to build a pvp world.

A simple example is LOS checks.  You would never code LoS checks to the target's feet if your goal was to write a good pvp game.

Furthermore, the neat code fork your talking about still seems to require further itemization and character balancing of pve to suit pvp needs.  There are simply hundreds of examples of ability changes and re-itemization that affected pve that were done to solve a pvp issue.  To suggest this 'fork' in the code has solved all potential issues and gives them all the tools they need is a bit naive.

I can think of no game that provides exceptional PVP that wasn't coded and designed form the ground up to deliver a solid, ballanced, pvp environment.  EQ2 is really no different in this regard.