Glorious Alpha Two Testers!

Alpha Two Realms are now unlocked for Phase II testing!

For our initial launch, testing will begin on Friday, December 20, 2024, at 10 AM Pacific and continue uninterrupted until Monday, January 6, 2025, at 10 AM Pacific. After January 6th, we’ll transition to a schedule of five-day-per-week access for the remainder of Phase II.

You can download the game launcher here and we encourage you to join us on our for the most up to date testing news.

PvP Battlegrounds in Ashes

I know this has been covered countless times before, but I simply can't help myself. I have to trumpet my support for "mini-game" battlegrounds similar to Arathi Basin, Warsong Gulch, etc in WoW. I'm overjoyed that Intrepid decided to include an arena mode (HOORAY!!!) and I certainly don't want Ashes to be some PoS wow clone. However, instanced BGs elevated WoW to stratospheric levels of fun and I think they can do the same for Ashes. Honestly, I'd probably still be playing WoW if Blizzard hadn't dumb-down, gutted or otherwise destroyed pretty much everything that made BGs competitive, personal, challenging, rewarding and fun. Needless to say, my last hope for great PvP in an MMO lies with Ashes of Creation. 

I think people went crazy for the Ashes project because it embodied the passionate, frustrated, quality-starved voice of the MMO community. Consequently, I wanted to add my voice and humbly urge you to include instanced BGs (or some incarnation of them). Please bring back the joy of complex and rewarding PvP to a criminally under-served player base that hasn't enjoyed quality PvP in a fantasy-based MMO since WotLK. Studios have been shatting out ham-fisted crap for over 10 years and it's time for someone to stand up and release a quality MMO with comprehensive PvP. I pray to the almighty Bacon you see what an incredibly rare opportunity this is...

Anyway, sincere thanks to everyone at Intrepid for making Ashes. It might awful, it might be epic, but regardless of the outcome I truly thank you for having the stones to try.
«13

Comments

  • With both arenas and non-instanced battlegrounds it seems as though your concerns have been addressed. The goal of PvP, including battlegrounds, in Ashes is to be meaningful. Making battlegrounds instanced, imo, removes the meaningful aspect.

    Arena's will be instanced and allow for battles of multiple sizes. Hopefully these function close to what you are looking for.

    Either way, I hope you do get the level of fun and challenge out of the arenas and battlegrounds to make your stay in Verra worth it! :smile:

  • There will be instanced battlegounds and arenas. The PvP will be balanced based on these scenarios. Been confirmed many times.
  • I do not believe they have said there will be instanced battlegrounds. In fact, Steven uses the word battleground to reference the areas in the open world where big pvp will happen, like Caravans. Arenas have been confirmed though. I was under the impression that there would not be any instanced "battlegrounds" like WOW has because Steven does not think they are meaningful in the ways he is intending PVP to be. I agree that instanced battlegrounds can add to a game, but they also take away. The addition of battlegrounds in WOW all but killed world PVP and in a game like Ashes, that is heavily reliant on PVP interactions in the real game world, having a large system like WOW's battlegrounds would be counterproductive.
  • @Marzzo1337, can you please provide a source for this? Other than arena, I can't seem to find anything in the wiki confirming instanced BGs like capture the flag, etc.
    There will be instanced battlegounds and arenas. The PvP will be balanced based on these scenarios. Been confirmed many times.


  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited February 2018


    Special locations in the open world that incentivize PvP. Caravans and sieges are considered battlegrounds but there will be others as well


    http://www.aocwiki.net/PvP#Battlegrounds
  • I really love battlegrounds in WoW but I would not want to see something similar in AoC. Battlegrounds in AoC will occur around specific points of interests which encourage meaningful conflict. Examples are caravans, guild wars, sieges.

    We will have arenas-



    which may have objectives (we've seen this from PAX West).

    :) 
  • I think instances should be limited to arena fights only or guild specific battles perhaps. Overall for the masses, I firmly believe battlegrounds are a detriment to open world pvp and hope we only see a limited amount, if any instances at all. Its totally immersion breaking for me and it literally removes players from the world. 
  • Ashes of Creation's Term of BattleGround is different from WoW's BattleGround
    WoW's BattleGrounds = Ashes of Creation's Arena-PvP

    Ashes of Creation's BattleGround ... well ... its part of the Open-World

    Some of WoW's Terminology would hurt this MMO - especially since there seems to be a Strong-sense of SandBox Elements. But there's also some ThemePark Elements too 
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2018
    Arena with ladder sounds nice. A 10v10 battleground would be amazing too. I just hope the gear is not equalized in instanced PvP other than 1v1 maybe. That would kill character progression for me and also made Guild Wars pretty boring too.
  • I completely agree with you. Rift's version of Battlegrounds (Warfronts) kept me logging in daily long after I've lost interest in Rift's PvE. Besides which, they are what got me into content creation (Youtube videos) in the first place.

    For those nay-saying the inclusion of instanced objective-based 'Battlegrounds', I'd retort that these are highly entertaining activities that could draw in and retain a lot of people who would otherwise not play AoC.

    Yes, open-world PvP is AoC is slated to be meaningful, and that is a good thing. But sometimes players just want to engage in a bit of meaningless competitive fun - with or without a ladder.

    Dragnon said:
    I think instances should be limited to arena fights only or guild specific battles perhaps. Overall for the masses, I firmly believe battlegrounds are a detriment to open world pvp and hope we only see a limited amount, if any instances at all. Its totally immersion breaking for me and it literally removes players from the world. 
    I'd argue that it also brings players into the world.

    As I previously mentioned, the only reason I kept logging into Rift for as long as I did was because of the Warfronts. While PvE players spiked and dipped based on the freshness of the content and new expansions, a large core of PvP players would log in every day to join Warfronts.

    Of course, we did other things as well to take a break from Warfronts: hunting artifacts, gathering, crafting, helping a guildie with a PvE quest from time to time.

    Sure, Warfronts took me out of the world quite often to pursue my passion, but without Warfronts I would have been taken out of the world permanently as I would not have logged in to begin with.

    If AoC's open world PvP is compelling and not burdensome to initiate, then I feel that Warfronts will not be a problem. After all, in a contest between OWPvP that gives substantial rewards and instanced PvP that does not, most players would engage in OWPvP ragerdless of the presence of Warfronts. Those that still ignore OWPvP in favour of Warfronts are those who would likely quit the game without Warfronts.

    tl;dr:  making OWPvP compelling and adding WoW-style Battlegrounds would result in a large and happy PvP population (which would, incidentally, have better things to do than troll PvE players out of boredom).
  • Seems to me that's what castle sieges and caravan raids are for... scratches the same itch.
  • Dygz said:
    Seems to me that's what castle sieges and caravan raids are for... scratches the same itch.
    Node sieges (as well as guild castle sieges) have long cool-down periods, and assaulting caravans would get monotonous without adequate variety.

    I've said my piece. We'll see how the mechanics play out in the Alpha/Beta stages.
  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2018

    @Nefelia
    I think you are 100% spot on. BGs/Warfronts are an enormous value add in game play and I think a lot of people vastly underestimate what they can do for an MMO (especially for replay value). BGs certainly aren't for everyone, but neither is PvE. Adding carefully implemented cross PvE/PvP dependencies gives players the option to play the game they want and ignore most of what they don't. Varity and choice are the hidden magic of a great MMO as it makes the game more personal while simultaneously appealing to a wide audience. Precious few MMOs have actually gotten this right...
     
    As others have stated, it seems like the battle is already lost and AoC won't have instanced BGs other than Arena. Maybe OWPvP, + PvE + Arena will strike the right balance in game play, maybe it won't. I certainly hope so, but I guess we'll see. Regardless, I don't blame people for hating the idea of instanced BGs. I suspect most in the older-school MMO community are still scarred from when Blizzard first rolled out BGs in TBC and effectively killed open world PvP in Vanilla. I really think the optimum balance is somewhere in between.


  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2018
    Nefelia said:
    Dygz said:
    Seems to me that's what castle sieges and caravan raids are for... scratches the same itch.
    Node sieges (as well as guild castle sieges) have long cool-down periods, and assaulting caravans would get monotonous without adequate variety.

    I've said my piece. We'll see how the mechanics play out in the Alpha/Beta stages.
    Again, I whole-heartedly agree with Nefelia. If they turn Node Sieges into instanced and/or frequently repeatable mini-games, perfect. Otherwise it will only scratch that itch every [insert number of days here]. 

    As I mentioned in my OP, the problem is quality PvP, not quantity. If AoC doesn't implement PvP as a core gameplay mechanic ( which it seems they will), PvP will suck and nobody will play it. We'll see how things shake out in beta. Otherwise Camelot Unchained will probably be the only hope for legit PvP.
  • well ... a WoW Clone will always be a WoW Clone 
    Either way, theres' no point in mentioning it imo. But

    Node Sieges as Instances ?! That would go against alot of other systems they've talked about . So no, Sieges should not be instanced
  • @Eragale
    I know sieges won't be instanced. Thats kind of the point. It seemingly won't scratch that insta-PvP itch. It would be nice to have some group-oriented and/or objective-based PvP that is repeatable on very short timelines and isnt necessarily triggered by or tied to world events. All I'm saying is it would be nice to have the option. It will be interesting to see how the devs implement the open world PvP. 

    Also, nobody wants AoC to be a WoW clone. Adding instanced BGs wouldn't make AoC any more of a WoW clone than using the "Holy Trinity" class system does. It's ideological semantics. If that's the case, then technically "EverQuest clone" would be more appropriate (and probably countless games before that). 
  • I actually hope there are not a lot of arenas.  pvp seems to cebter a lot around fights outside.
  • Eragale said:
    well ... a WoW Clone will always be a WoW Clone 
    Either way, theres' no point in mentioning it imo.
    Are instanced 'Battlegrounds' a WoW-specific feature? I didn't get involved in fantasy MMOs early enough to know if that was a unique addition to the genre introduced by WoW.

    I certainly would not want AoC to head into the direction of being a WoW clone. But I feel the best way to distinguish itself from WoW would be to focus on the innovations (particularly the node and class/subclass systems) that set AoC apart from the competition.

    With somewhat more than a year left in AoC's development, IS should be focused on making the node system and other core systems robust, flexible, and as well thought out as possible.

    I would absolutely love to see well designed 'Battlegrounds/Warfronts' implemented at some point in time. I truly believe it would be a huge net positive for the game, bringing in new players and improving retention. However, that is something that can be added later in the development cycle, once the core game has been tested and fleshed out.

    JuHsTaN said:
    It would be nice to have some group-oriented and/or objective-based PvP that is repeatable on very short timelines and isnt necessarily triggered by or tied to world events.
    Indeed. Instanced Battlegrounds/Warfronts are a zero-time-wasted method of joining a PvP activity. They are very convenient for casual players who have limited play time with which to coordinate, plan, and execute open world PvP activities. They give PvP players incentive to log on for a Warfront or three when they only have a small window of play-time - particularly on weekday evenings.

    Those who argue that instanced Warfronts would pull players out of the open world neglect to consider that many of those involved in the Warfronts would be:
    - PvP players taking a break from OWPvP and OWPvP, who would otherwise be logging off
    - PvP players who are hopping on for a short duration, who would otherwise not log on at all
    - PvP players who were primarily drawn to the game for the variety and ease of PvP activities, and might not have joined the game otherwise.

    Will Warfronts pull some players out of the open world who would have otherwise found something else to do in the open world? Most likely. But I only see that being a big problem if OWPvP fails to be more attractive and engaging than the instanced Warfronts. If that were the case, I would argue for improving OWPvP, not scrapping instanced Warfronts.

  • Instanced pvp. Is not desired. Mainly, because it is utterly meaningless. Not in the way that it is unenjoyable, but in the way that it does not play any role in they story that is AoC. Any outcomes, victory or losses, matters not. This categorically goes against what the devs have stated they are trying to do. They want meaningful content. If you ever played WOW, and got bored and wanted to go do instanced PvP, it was most likely due to lack of meaningful things to otherwise do.

    I'm pretty sure WOW created the instance. Yes. Also, WOW never had real OWPvP, or meaningful PvP at any point.

    As someone else stated, castle sieges is where the main pvp players wanna be. If you think it's not enough I encourage you to go read more about that process and what it takes. Plus caravans, clan wars, node sieges, contested areas and more. Just remove the instance part and the nanny settings.
  • I don't like instanced BGs in a MMO and prefer they keep the pvp in the world as much as possible. As it's been said, instanced pvp will always have the advantage of convenience over world pvp. We already know we will have some arenas and if they are designed anything like the pax demo they will probably have objectives in them.

    I'm content with the direction they seem to be going with it where it's focused on competition and doesn't seem to be something you will be grind for monetary rewards. 
  • ChuckSteak said:

    As someone else stated, castle sieges is where the main pvp players wanna be. If you think it's not enough I encourage you to go read more about that process and what it takes. Plus caravans, clan wars, node sieges, contested areas and more. Just remove the instance part and the nanny settings.
    As an avid PvP player, I care very much about the quality and quantity of PvP in Ashes of Creation. As I have mentioned previously, my previous game (Rift) had a dearth of open world PvP content not due to a lack of content, but due to a lack of compelling and well balanced content on the open world.

    Lets take a look at the PvP content AoC is slated to have.

    Caravans:  The PvP element seems to be dependent upon the caravan owners recruiting a bunch of guild-mates to escort the caravan as it slowly plods through the terrain. Do correct me if I am wrong (please, please, tell me I am wrong), as I do not think this mechanic will result in many players guarding caravans once the initial novelty wears off.

    Walking alongside a caravan seems rather boring, no? I do not expect many players to sign up for this chore more than once. Or is there some compelling incentive or mitigating mechanic of which I am not aware? This may very well lead to most caravan raids being a PvE event rather than PvP.

    Furthermore, what mechanics are in place to ensure balanced engagements between offense and defense? From what I am reading... none at all. This will likely translate in caravans being overwhelmed by larger groups or caravans being left alone as brigand groups seek easy prey.

    Not exactly compelling PvP.


    Sieges:  (Quotes are from the wiki)

    “The amount of effort and resources required to declare a siege is substantial.”

    “When a siege has been declared, there is a declaration period.”

    Siege declaration time:  “Stage 3: Village - 2 days “

    Siege declaration time:  “Stage 6: Metropolis - 5 days “

    Siege cool down time:  “Stage 3: Village - ~ 20 days “

    Siege cool down time:  “Stage 6: Metropolis - ~ 50 days”

    So sieges cost a great deal of resources, have 2-5 days of set up, and 20 - 50 days cool downs. They will be epic and momentous events, but they will not be frequent.

    The end result is bored PvP players with little to do other than PvE under-defended caravans and gank PvE players for fun.


    Castles:  (Quotes are from the wiki)

    Very limited numbers:  “There are five castles in the game”

    “An opposing guild will need to complete quests to obtain an item that will allow them to intiate a siege. “   —>  Yay, PvE!

    Again, some pretty epic content… which occurs infrequently, initiated by PvE. Not that I mind PvE, but being forced to PvE in order to PvP is one of the design flaws that destroyed the Rift PvP base when Rift 3.0 (Nightmare Tide) released. The PvP base never recovered from the exodus, despite efforts to bring them back with Rift 4.0 (Starfall Prophecy).

    I'd prefer that Intredip Studio not repeat Trion's mistakes. Let PvP players engage in PvE at their own volition. Do not force it upon them!

    ....

    Having covered my issues with caravans and sieges, I hope you understand that I have serious concerns about AoC's PvP. And since I already sunk $500 into AoC, I wish nothing but the best for the game and the highest hopes that it will succeed.


    Instanced pvp. Is not desired. Mainly, because it is utterly meaningless. Not in the way that it is unenjoyable, but in the way that it does not play any role in they story that is AoC. Any outcomes, victory or losses, matters not.

    And that brings us to the last category, Arenas:  (Quotes are from the wiki)

    “Arenas will have 1 man, 3 man, 5 man and possibly 20 man Free-For-All (Deathmatch) group sizes.”
    * There won't specifically be guild vs guild arenas but team-based matchmaking allows teams to face other teams.”

    This gives me hope, as it appears that there will be "meaningless" PvP content for PvP players to:
    - enjoy themselves
    - practice their craft (be it killing, healing, or support)
    - experiment new builds
    - build a PvP community
    - create content based on Arena battles

    ...none of which are meaningless.

    Add some objectives and rule-sets to some of the larger Arenas (8 vs. 8 and above), and we basically have "Warfronts" - turning Deathmatches into more dynamic and strategic battles with better replayability.

    Given that Arenas exist, are "meaningless", and "not play any role in they story that is AoC", what is your particular objection to Warfronts?


    We already know we will have some arenas and if they are designed anything like the pax demo they will probably have objectives in them.
    I can't speak for other PvP players, but the quality of the Arenas is more important than instantaneous access. If the (larger) Arenas have objectives with good rule-sets to make them engaging and replayable, I will be satisfied.
  • @Nefelia

    You completely omitted clan wars and contested area PvP scenarios. These being the type that can happen within minutes of logging on and are always availible to a PvP oriented player. I can assume they dont fit your narrative of needing instance pvp to be always readily available and sieges are not available 24/7.

    As far as caravans go, I question why you would write off the possibly most engaging PvP yet. No, there aren't nanny settings "now your on offense", its organic. You are offense or defense based on if your attacking or guarding a caravan. Not to even mention the hunting that will be involved and different ambush strategies. Is this not far more entertaining than going into the same arena to have the same fight with the same duration and same win and loss conditions everytime? How is that not going to get stale by the 10th time? Can you only practice PvP in an unrealistic situation? Can you not test new builds in the open world?

    I can assume you have never experienced a true seige in an mmo. This is where the HC PvP community will be. Hunting for war tags and fighting for castles and doing the prepwork required for it. 

    Create content for arena's? I dont know what this would possibly be. A second arena? How much time should  IS spend making these over the actual world? Do we even need content for meaningless pvp?

    I'd just prefer, at the very least untill the game is finished, that they not spend time and resource making a while different instanced game side with objectives like take a fort (seige?), or kill the most players in a set amount of time (clan war?), or capture the flag (caravans?). 

    I actually think everything you want is already in the game, it's just not hidden in a pocket dimension completely removed from the actual game. Your actual desire is to not have to spend any effort to do something. I'm sure you will get catered too, I just disagree with the make it easy for the American way. All of the Wow's did this and it's just lame. I spent $500 so that I could enjoy a better game, not to replay my favorite parts of an old $50 or less game.
  • Chuck covered a lot of what i was going to say but you seem to not know about the caravan intensives. Personal caravans, which are the ones that players start, these are needed to move around resources. If they are destroyed, then not only did you fail to move your resources but the attackers are able to take a portion of the resources you were carrying. There is an obvious incentive to attack and defend here.

    There are other kinds of caravans connected to nodes and quests which give you economic incentives to gaurd and attack. I'm not sure how much details we have on these or there frequency.

    I also want to mention for base open world pvp, they recently mentioned that the resources someone drops on death is supposed to be a economic incentive to pvp.

    One thing i do want to point out is yes, you will most likely need to do pve or work with players who do pve to get gear and consumables. This will hopefully be a symbiotic relationship as they will also want pvp support do defend caravans and other open world pve objectives. You will most likely also have to do pve to advance different progression paths that will help you in pvp combat. 
  • This is not a PvP or PvE game.
    Sure, there seems to be more PvE than PvP, but that is what keeps players engaged for hours and has for years. I am not saying "more" than PvP, just that is does.
    There will be PvP opportunities, will there always be super engaging over the top fun PvP? Probably not, but the same will eventually be said for PvE.

    PvX.
    If you want to PvP all day every day, you might want to play Ashes and another more PvP oriented game to get your fix.
    If you want to PvE all day every day, you might want to play Ashes and another more PvE oriented game to get your fix.

    I am not sure why people seem to want one game to do everything for them, or only accommodate what they want. Seems anti-intuitive to a game that is online and designed to be inviting to a massive amount of players playing together.

    As for some points made.
    Yes, traveling with a caravan every time you play and only doing that will get boring. Hell, doing that monthly for 5 +years it will for sure be boring. Not all games can be fresh, new, and exciting their entire career.

    Sieges are designed so when not in a siege you have something to work for. Or something to appreciate the PvE's in your node for working towards.

    Castles are the ultimate guild get-off. You own a castle, you have to defend it, you have to build up the surrounding areas, you have to destroy fortifications. This seems like nearly constant PvP.

    I hope everyone enjoys this game and can adjust their typical routine to fit a unique play style to help make Ashes the unique game it should be.
  • More WoW nerds trying to make another game like one that popped their cherry.  BGs suck, their meaningless and go's against everything this game is...go back to WoW or wait for the next theme park mmo to release.
    AoC isnt being designed to cater to the masses, its not a cash grab, it comes from a mind thats tired of what WoW did to the market and trying to revive a dying genre.  

  • I actually think everything you want is already in the game, it's just not hidden in a pocket dimension completely removed from the actual game. Your actual desire is to not have to spend any effort to do something. I'm sure you will get catered too, I just disagree with the make it easy for the American way. All of the Wow's did this and it's just lame. I spent $500 so that I could enjoy a better game, not to replay my favorite parts of an old $50 or less game.
    I've never played WoW, so arguments that centre around WoW tend to hold no resonance with me (and the many other people who did not play WoW). If you don't want to do Warfronts, don't. If the OWPvP system is as robust as you hope for it to be, you will have enough on your plate to keep you satisfied without ever having to step foot in a warfront.

    My goal is to have as much quality PvP in AoC as possible. I feel that the inclusion of PvP mini-games that proved popular in other MMOs is not too much to ask. After all, Warfronts are nothing more than Arenas with more complicated rule-sets than the Deathmatch default. Given that Arenas are already a confirmed feature, I don't see anything truly outlandish about my request for Warfronts.

    The only potential issue I see with Warfronts is that they tend to require a bit more space than Deathmatches. Other than the space issue, Warfronts could operate much in the way that Arenas are slated to operate.

    If that means shoving Warfronts in giant caverns under lvl 4+ nodes, so be it (i.e. I don't really care if Warfronts are in a bubble universe or not).

    You are offense or defense based on if your attacking or guarding a caravan. Not to even mention the hunting that will be involved and different ambush strategies. Is this not far more entertaining than going into the same arena to have the same fight with the same duration and same win and loss conditions everytime? How is that not going to get stale by the 10th time? Can you only practice PvP in an unrealistic situation? Can you not test new builds in the open world?

    You are talking to someone who has done literally thousands of Warfronts in Rift, and has over 70 Youtube videos based on those Warfronts.

    No, Warfronts don't get stale. As I mentioned, Warfronts are basically Arenas with more complicated rule sets based around certain objectives, with randomized or premade teams usually balanced around a rating/rank system (which adds greatly to the replayability). They are popular mini-game for a reason.

    You completely omitted clan wars and contested area PvP scenarios.
    I stuck with what was on the wiki.

    Regardless, all of the OWPvP options I've seen have serious issues. I've covered caravans and sieges in my previous post, and I'll briefly mention that contested areas (defined by PvP quests) did not work well in Rift... and apparently not that well in WoW either.

    I'll stop here, since I feel that these issues deserve their own topic. I want OWPvP to work in Ashed of Creation, and that means taking a realistic look at the ideas that look pretty good on paper and seeing how they translate in practice. I'll start a separate discussion on that issue (unless someone beats me to it).

  • ArchivedUserArchivedUser Guest
    edited August 2018
     Eroenne said:
    More WoW nerds trying to make another game like one that popped their cherry.  BGs suck, their meaningless and go's against everything this game is...go back to WoW or wait for the next theme park mmo to release.
    AoC isnt being designed to cater to the masses, its not a cash grab, it comes from a mind thats tired of what WoW did to the market and trying to revive a dying genre.  

    @Eroenne
    Thanks for sharing your opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it, but that doesn't give you license to act like a jerk and belittle people for sharing their opinion. There is absolutely no reason for it.

    Please constructively contribute to the discussion or kindly STFU. 

  • Eroenne said:
    More WoW nerds trying to make another game like one that popped their cherry.  BGs suck, their meaningless and go's against everything this game is...go back to WoW or wait for the next theme park mmo to release.
    AoC isnt being designed to cater to the masses, its not a cash grab, it comes from a mind thats tired of what WoW did to the market and trying to revive a dying genre.  

    Good to know I'm actively destroying AoC by wanting it to become a wow clone having never played wow. Having some kind of structured pvp is my, and others, preference, calm down.
  • @JuHsTaN
    with all due respect ... there's enough WoW Clones in the Market ...

    Nefelia said:
    " ... No, Warfronts don't get stale. As I mentioned, Warfronts are basically Arenas with more complicated rule sets based around certain objectives, with randomized or premade teams usually balanced around a rating/rank system (which adds greatly to the replayability). They are popular mini-game for a reason ... "
    lll ... if " this " is what Warfronts are ... then Intrepid already has something similar to it - they are called BattleGrounds. Even Arena-PvP might have different Win conditions & RuleSets. Even GvG declaration might have different types

  • @CyanideInsanity Structured PvP is boring and its not my preference . I've already seen how Structured PvP gets ... both Open-World & Instanced. Structured- PvP gets stale real quick. 
Sign In or Register to comment.