Sign in to follow this  
Retrograde

PvP changes refined

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Mclovin said:

Now Ik most of MR actually logged in and didn't karma - which poses a different problem - But it was an example of how a CD is ineffective over a pattern of raiding...
But VD/Rome have used the karma spell to quickly defend a deed.

People who support the mechanic want a easy defence. Travel to it like the attacker does.

 

Not most, ALL MR were logged off there after traveling there, and the only one that wasn't and was hidden was me stealthed ready to help Tiba and Outuki kill the catapulters

 

If you set it to a week before you can teleport in with enemy there, well I don't know what deed can last a week being raided and not defended.  No one here (mr at least) wants to leave their village and deal with crappy alliance permission settings for a week

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, MrGARY said:

 

Not most, ALL MR were logged off there after traveling there, and the only one that wasn't and was hidden was me stealthed ready to help Tiba and Outuki kill the catapulters

 

If you set it to a week before you can teleport in with enemy there, well I don't know what deed can last a week being raided and not defended.  No one here (mr at least) wants to leave their village and deal with crappy alliance permission settings for a week


We've had people part of kings landing since it dropped 2 months ago? if we were sad enough we could easily karma our force in to defend, it's the selected deed because it's the deed most likely to have action currently. Unless you got deeds being hit from different kingdoms then the CD simply has no effect. Really.

If people live at these deeds then there shouldn't be a problem defending them, as they'll likely be at deed or know about enemy at deed thanks to the in game alarm and be able to react without magically teleporting in. How? Have a mine that leaves from deed out of local. We've done it and it works well. needs players imaginations not shoddy mechanics.

 

Edited by Mclovin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mirax said:

Not bothering with quotes, but to the folks who continue to fall back on the same tired arguments about taking away missions and rewards from home servers (or, for that matter, removing home servers entirely, which is the usual refrain)...

 

Don't try to turn this into 'home server people' versus 'pvp people'. It is just about getting the game mechanics to incentivise gameplay that leads to pvp.

 

As others have said, it is about risk vs. reward. You have agreed yourself that it makes sense for elevation/enemy missions to give greater rewards than home servers. The current proposal of 0.5/1/1.5 goes in the right direction, but these numbers need to be tweaked upwards as they still don't reflect the difference in risk. 0.1/1/2 better reflects the differences in risk.

 

Also, about removing crafting missions - that isn't to somehow victimise 'home server people'. Those missions literally reward players for staying on deed and crafting - which makes pvp less likely to happen. Don't get me wrong - people should craft if they want to, but this shouldn't give them valrei items exclusively useful for pvp.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, CaptainFightyPants said:

 

Don't try to turn this into 'home server people' versus 'pvp people'. It is just about getting the game mechanics to incentivise gameplay that leads to pvp.

 

As others have said, it is about risk vs. reward. You have agreed yourself that it makes sense for elevation/enemy missions to give greater rewards than home servers. The current proposal of 0.5/1/1.5 goes in the right direction, but these numbers need to be tweaked upwards as they still don't reflect the difference in risk. 0.1/1/2 better reflects the differences in risk.

 

Also, about removing crafting missions - that isn't to somehow victimise 'home server people'. Those missions literally reward players for staying on deed and crafting - which makes pvp less likely to happen. Don't get me wrong - people should craft if they want to, but this shouldn't give them valrei items exclusively useful for pvp.

3 hours ago, Firestarter said:

When was it ever explicitly stated that the missions were only to promote PvP?

 

I agree that "dangerous" missions should give higher scenario point rewards, but I feel keeping the current "friendly" homeservers at 1, then 1.5 for your kingdom territory on Elevation, and 2 for enemy territory (Elevation and enemy homeserver) would be best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Firestarter said:

 

 

I agree that "dangerous" missions should give higher scenario point rewards, but I feel keeping the current "friendly" homeservers at 1, then 1.5 for your kingdom territory on Elevation, and 2 for enemy territory (Elevation and enemy homeserver) would be best.

Unless something massively change in rewards/timeaffection for certain mission types, then people choosing the risky pvp missions will never be able to even keep up with carebear missions on homeservers.

Sail to a deed (and find it), prep ammo, catapult the defenses and drain vs spewing out 100 spindles, what do you think take the longest time? lol

People on elevation and enemy home servers also need to take into account regarding safety, they also most likely dont know that for example "mountain lion spawns are east of [DEED X]" which are needed for the "slay 70 mountain lions" mission.

Nor do they got rare/supreme geared hellhorses to ride and search on. nor can they pass various gatehoused/walled chokepoints. Not to mention its foreign land that they arent used to navigate in.

And ontop of all this, there is the pvp aspect.

 

It sure as hell isn't a x2 diffrense in time and difficulty.

Edited by Zekezor
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Firestarter said:

I agree that "dangerous" missions should give higher scenario point rewards, but I feel keeping the current "friendly" homeservers at 1, then 1.5 for your kingdom territory on Elevation, and 2 for enemy territory (Elevation and enemy homeserver) would be best.

 

Let's look at an example.

 

A mission for one person to do a ritual at a foundation pillar. On a home server, this is a relatively short ride through same-kingdom territory. On elevation this means getting a boat of five people together, travelling across a larger distance, through enemy-kingdom territory. On an enemy home server, it means taking the same boat even further, through more enemy territory and setting off deity favor messages letting everyone know you are there.

 

Do you really think that the home server mission is only half as hard/dangerous/time-consuming as the elevation version?

 

You could make similar examples for traitor missions, tree-cutting missions, etc. In all cases the missions involve considerably more risk, and often more time as well. A rational person wanting to maximise scenario points would do missions on a home server still if the ratios were 0.5/1/1.5. The ratios need to be set so that the risk/reward of running missions is at least on equal footing, but it would be better if there was a slight skewing to incentivise pvp. Currently, home server missions have the best risk/reward by far, and 0.5/1/1.5 is a step in the right direction but isn't enough to balance out the risk/reward to even be on equal terms.

 

52 minutes ago, Firestarter said:
3 hours ago, Firestarter said:

When was it ever explicitly stated that the missions were only to promote PvP?

 

The valrei items given as rewards give bonuses for pvp and spells that can be useful in pvp. If a player wanting a bonus in pvp has to go to a home server and do crafting missions, something in the game design has gone wrong.

Edited by CaptainFightyPants
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to see some comprised results being taken. I hope this continues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

valrei is good as it is now, need something to do on the homeserver too. This is a pvp cluster but lot of ppl dont wanna pvp, we just wanna do missions, and are happy With that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lundu said:

valrei is good as it is now, need something to do on the homeserver too. This is a pvp cluster but lot of ppl dont wanna pvp, we just wanna do missions, and are happy With that

You'll still be able to do missions, you just won't be able to influence pvp related mechanics or recieve pvp related rewards.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, changer said:

You'll still be able to do missions, you just won't be able to influence pvp related mechanics or recieve pvp related rewards.

Then what's the point of doing them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JakeRivers said:

I do not understand the rush to nerf sotg before any of the other path's are balanced.

 

Players without sotg don't have a chance in hell taking 2 huge ax hits, that is your problem. 

 

Mostly likely they recognize and are trying to avoid mudflation which is what normally happens when you take the buff versus nerf approach.  Yes, they could make the same effect by boosting the effect of body, for example, so that non-SOTG could take 2 huge ax hits, but then NPCs would need to be buffed up and the cascading effects of "balancing" begins with all the complaints and unintended consequences.  

 

If they completely scrapped insanity, would there be complaints that the remaining are not balanced against each other?  Probably not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

question: since we are talking about SOTG getting nerfed by half, how are we going to deal against champions? how are we going to deal against slime of utacha 100% crit? or are you going to look into all these and nerf them as well?

 

I mean don't get me wrong, but a mag champ with 100% crit on 95 ql glimmer huge axe will be able if not one shot, than definitely kill such SOTG in 2 hits... and all you will do back to him will be like 10 damage wound...

Edited by bangzuvelis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about instead of nerfing SOTG, you add 25% damage reduction to all paths at level eleven as a bandaid and leave SOTG at 50%. 

 

When you look at the usefulness of the paths throughout playtime, the SOTG damage reduction is maybe utilized 1-2% of the time you play, only when you are fighting.  The rest of the time you are playing, insanity is virtually useless compared to the rest of the paths.  That is a choice we made when we went insane.  If you want to force people to use other paths, you might as well make it interesting and allow them to last longer in PvP too.  Nerfing something people have spent time and effort getting, something that has been part of the game for over 4 years, is just bad for business and a huge mistake.  Boost the other paths instead on your way to achieving this thing they call balance.

Edited by madnezz
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, madnezz said:

How about instead of nerfing SOTG, you add 25% damage reduction to all paths at level eleven as a bandaid and leave SOTG at 50%. 

 

When you look at the usefulness of the paths throughout playtime, the SOTG damage reduction is maybe utilized 1-2% of the time you play, only when you are fighting.  The rest of the time you are playing, insanity is virtually useless compared to the rest of the paths.  That is a choice we made when we went insane.  If you want to force people to use other paths, you might as well make it interesting and allow them to last longer in PvP too.  Nerfing something people have spent time and effort getting, something that has been part of the game for over 4 years, is just bad for business and a huge mistake.  Boost the other paths instead on your way to achieving this thing they call balance.

 

+1 to DR changes to other paths as well as scaled DR along the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, madnezz said:

How about instead of nerfing SOTG, you add 25% damage reduction to all paths at level eleven as a bandaid and leave SOTG at 50%. 

 

When you look at the usefulness of the paths throughout playtime, the SOTG damage reduction is maybe utilized 1-2% of the time you play, only when you are fighting.  The rest of the time you are playing, insanity is virtually useless compared to the rest of the paths.  That is a choice we made when we went insane.  If you want to force people to use other paths, you might as well make it interesting and allow them to last longer in PvP too.  Nerfing something people have spent time and effort getting, something that has been part of the game for over 4 years, is just bad for business and a huge mistake.  Boost the other paths instead on your way to achieving this thing they call balance.

it's not just to make other paths viable for pvp, it's to reduce the effectiveness of meditation, no matter how good you are or what stats you have, unless you have sotg, you're the first one to die, our group on epic came up against 6 (?) non sotg players today, took less than a minute to kill all of them, the lowest any of us went was like 94%, "b-but they can become sotg too over time" yes and they'll most likely quit before that because they're effectively useless in pvp until they get it, pvp was better on epic before everyone had sotg, the population was higher before everyone had it.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So pvp was better when everyone died faster?  That is silly.

 

Oh, you are talking about Epic, you guys can do whatever you want on Epic its separate code already.  I am and only will be referring to Chaos.

Edited by madnezz
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2016 at 9:44 AM, Retrograde said:

<Well intentioned points of debate>

 

While I think a lot of the suggestions both for SOTG and the other pvp changes are well intentioned, they just seem like a smorgasborg of a bit of this and a bit of that.  There doesn't seem to be a unified, driving vision from the dev team of what pvp is and what it should be.  Just a bunch of players with relatively random suggestions.  I'm asking myself now for each and every suggestion "does this make people want to pvp more?" and also "does this make pvp better?".  It is, of course, my own point of view and many are going to have a different point of view and that is a big part of the problem:  No vision from the "top".

 

For SOTG, I really just don't get it.  What does reducing it matter for pvp?  It won't make other paths better in pvp, they will still be relatively useless.  It won't make combat last longer or be more interesting.  It is going to make it shorter.  It won't make new players more viable in pvp.  It will make established players even more powerful.  It won't balance combat mechanics as 2 handers are already overpowered and this just makes it more so.  By itself, it literally makes the game worse.

 

So I keep going back to what is the point of these suggestions and these threads without some kind of unifying vision?  Everyone needs to really think about the suggestions made so far in this thread and the other.  How many of these suggestions are really core to making pvp a better experience?  How many are really going to make someone that doesn't play this game any more come back?  Are these changes really going to make someone try the game that hasn't before?  Things like a valrei mobs stunning and throwing.  Is that issue really deserving of being part of a major pvp rebalance?  It just seems very trivial compared to other changes like SOTG changes.  I count 15 proposed changes in the new list.  Some are no brainers like archery key binds.  Some are specific to Epic.  How many are really core to the pvp experience?  Shouldn't we be spending our time debating those?

 

I really think you need to split off the SOTG question (and related other path balancing) to its own thread and debate.

 

I feel like there is a rush to get something done just to be seen to be doing something or to satisfy a vocal minority (maybe a majority, i don't know really).  Changes to mount mechanics, tower capping and pvp mechanics like SOTG seem really easy to test on the test server if players are given enough incentive.

 

Chaos and Epic seem like very different environments.  What works for one won't necessarily work for the other or be as effective on the other.  Are we really sure the changes we are making HAVE to be global across both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reduction of SotG and removal of archery penalties would mean using a huge axe would be quite vulnerable considering.

 

true strike and equipment timers in combat has also been raised

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Retrograde said:

Reduction of SotG and removal of archery penalties would mean using a huge axe would be quite vulnerable considering.

 

true strike and equipment timers in combat has also been raised

an action timer for switching weapons? good luck getting that to work, good luck getting people to play in your fantasy world moba pvp game that you don't even pvp in.

 

No one wants these things.... like anyone.... 

 

the only thing that needs changes is the dmg values or peoples base hps... just listen to the people, the people are TELLING YOU WHATS BROKEN

 

Raise peoples base HP's don't keep putting in these silly suggestions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos and Epic are very different, Chaos is not separated from the rest of the cluster, so travel between Freedom and Chaos is possible, and indeed frequent, the absence of the 2x skill, and effective skill curve make quite a difference too, so some adjustments may well work in one environment, and not in another.

 

Epic differs in other major ways too, with the addition of the Home servers, which further complicate Epic, in fact some factions on Epic would like nothing better than to see those closed, since it is often implied that they are not 'legitimate' PvP servers, a view which if heeded, will most likely lead to them being left deserted, there's little that can be done about some of the attitudes of the hard-line PvP players who have spent a lot of time denigrating and marginalising their own kingdom's Home server populations over the years, indeed, there are many who left Epic altogether because of these attitudes, and the friction and drama it caused internally to the kingdom. I for one was one of those who decided that no matter how much time and effort I'd put into supporting my kingdom, since it was on a Home server, it was entirely worthless, I'm not the only one who felt like this, I'm not the only one who left because of it.

 

Removing Valrei missions on Home servers will serve to further marginalise the Home server players will not improve PvP, it will not balance battles or skirmishes, all it will do is make low population servers even less populated, while certain people may well cheer that news, it impacts on the population of Epic as a whole, it won't make Home server players move to Elevation, those who are on Home servers are there because they enjoy it there, removing something that contributes to that enjoyment is not in the best interests of Epic, regardless of how useless and worthless you personally feel Home servers are, or the players who play there.

 

I'd rather see a system that allows Home server players to do missions, and have rewards that benefit that Kingdom, on Elevation, I spent a lot of time doing missions on Serenity for exactly that, when called upon by players on Elevation, as part of the 'greater good', not for personal rewards, and don't see why something such as that isn't being considered. Perhaps killing 160 huge sharks isn't considered dangerous on Elevation, but regardless of the fact that the Home servers are not seen as included in PvP, nevertheless, there is the possibility of raids, for which Home servers have absolutely no warning at all, until the death tabs appear, (Information Minister does not get any information on enemy players on Home servers). So it's not entirely without it's dangers, ritual missions also carry similar dangers, while they may be just a simple horse ride away, there's little to no protection available if raiders show up, so let's not continue to misinform people thsat Home servers are guaranteed safety, and that we're all after the Valrei awards which we don't earn in any way, it's a very simplistic, and inaccurate way of looking at the facts.

 

Epic Home servers are PvP servers, they are not entirely safe, and removing a mechanism that makes players move around the server, often at an admittedly smaller, but still present, risk, well, that'll probably just finish of the population decline into terminal regions, which , in the end, impacts all of Epic.

 

TL;DR Keep Valrei missions for Home servers, make some sort of adjustments that reward players in some smaller way, while benefiting the Kingdom on Elevation, no reason why there cannot be a compromise position that improves Valrei missions for Elevation, and Home servers, keeping both populations involved in Epic.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isnt a elve vs home servers argument. While there is obvious desire to make those who enter dangerous lands to complete missions to be rewarded more, We do not wish to punish those who choose to live on home servers.

 

We want to allow all kinds of playstyles, not force one or another

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Retrograde said:

This isnt a elve vs home servers argument. While there is obvious desire to make those who enter dangerous lands to complete missions to be rewarded more, We do not wish to punish those who choose to live on home servers.

 

We want to allow all kinds of playstyles, not force one or another

Freedom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Retrograde said:

This isnt a elve vs home servers argument. While there is obvious desire to make those who enter dangerous lands to complete missions to be rewarded more, We do not wish to punish those who choose to live on home servers.

 

We want to allow all kinds of playstyles, not force one or another

 

 

Remove the CR nerf to players from other kingdoms who come to the home servers for pvp then wouldn't want to punish them for wanting to come over and fight "cough" do missions

Edited by hemrzz
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Retrograde said:

This isnt a elve vs home servers argument. While there is obvious desire to make those who enter dangerous lands to complete missions to be rewarded more, We do not wish to punish those who choose to live on home servers.

 

We want to allow all kinds of playstyles, not force one or another

This is good can you please then tell us why it seems like every time SotG comes up it is nerf because its OP, I know we have been discussing this A LOT in MR recently and what would be the harm in keeping SotG unchanged except perhaps scaling it up to its current max as you progess through the path and give the other paths up to a 25% damage reduction ability through their progression capping at SotG's max.  Every path doesn't need to be unique and meditating is part of the pvpers life, balance out the paths sure but this fix in the short time would work for all except those who don't want to bother with meditating at ALL.  There are enough dead levels in the meditation progressions that things could be shifted to allow scaling damage reduction like this so can you tell us if this would not solve all of the problems a SotG nerf would do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Egard said:

Freedom

Home Server isn't Freedom. On a Home Server you can still face enemy raiders, your deed can be destroyed etc. Home servers add another element to the game somewhere between Freedom and Elevation. I think the game wouldn't be as cool without them (although I haven't yet lived on a home server myself).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this