PvP Community and GameBalance.

Dygz

You will have hit the head without RNG. But, the crit chance is still going to be RNG.
The chance to crit will be very high because it's a critical spot, but there will still be some RNG.
I also expect there may be some damage RNG affected by the Evasion stat of the target.

My Evasion stat build should not be completely negated just because you chose to attack me with an action ability. You should still be able to do a considerable amount of damage, though.

georgeblack

I dislike RNG since we got action combat systems. It was a chance to go beyond evasion and critical rate systems and explore something new.

Xspearo

In that case I feel like it will be pointless to take the risk and chose an action skilled shot because let's say you miss the shot completely, your not doing any damage and also target is now aware. With tab target you are automatically locked on to target and if you have high crit you will be doing damage whether you crit or not.

Dygz

Risk v reward.
You choose an action combat attack to risk missing - on the hope for a hit that will have the reward of a significantly higher crit chance.

Xspearo

Yea but for it still to be based around RNG of a crit chance, I dont think that would beat a steady DPS of tab target. That would make action combat even more RNG and unknown unless they state action skill headshot is guaranteed 75% crit chance and you can also have up to 10% character stat crit chance making it 85% crit chance.

Dygz

I think the crit chance from a headshot will be significantly high enough that it would beat a steady DPS from tab target... if your player twitch skills for aim are above average.
You've been saying that the devs are trying to eliminate as much RNG as possible and make it more about player skill. When actually the devs are striving for a hybrid of both action and tab target.
The devs aren't intending to reward action abilities more than they reward tab target abilities, but they also aren't trying to reward RNG over player skill.
Hits and Crits from action abilities will be competitive with RNG abilities and stats, just not intrinsically better.

seaber

dygz wrote: »

Risk v reward.
You choose an action combat attack to risk missing - on the hope for a hit that will have the reward of a significantly higher crit chance.

Having headshots grant increased crit chance will wreak havoc on the balancing between crit based and non crit based builds and between targeted and skillshot skills.

A far better way to include headshots is for them to just be a % multiplier to damage. But there are still many problems this would create.

Dygz

Well, seems like the game devs disagree with you.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

seaber

dygz wrote: »

Well, seems like the game devs disagree with you.

Game devs are not omniscience

Also:
"The idea behind headshot in the MMORPG is that, if we do implement headshots - part of this testing is to determine if we will - but if we were to implement headshots it will be along the lines of a higher critical chance."
IF TESTNG IF IF

Shoklen

As a casual PVP player.. throughout the years of playing these games.. PVP generally comes down to the following...

• Stealth, First Blood... The ability to attack another player without the knowledge you were in the area.
• Stuns, or the like... The ability to lock-down another player for seconds, and in a few games a minute, at a time.
• In-Combat Run Speed... The ability (normally a perk) that allows one player to move faster then another while engaged in combat.
• Healing/Wards... Is what it is, and some classes just have the ability to heal/ward. Out of this list, this one is just here as an issue only when coupled with any-other item on the list.. But is generally fine otherwise.
• I'm sure there are more...

One of the above for a single class generally isn't too much of an issue... it's when a single class has more then one of the above that things quickly get out of balance.

Which class/combo/perks/skills will PVPers lean towards? Almost always the path that allows for as many of the above as possible. It's just the competitive spirit some would say.. Others would say the above makes PVP easier and being the easy path to dominance.. It will be the one chosen.

Personally, if a PVPer has a skill that allows them to lock another player down for seconds or minutes at a time.. That's not skill at all.. But then they brag how awesome they are.. /rollseyes... haha

Anyway, just my 2 cents and opinions.. Nothing more..

Dygz

Game devs don't have to be omniscient to have more expertise in game design than you.
Yes, "if". I never said that headshots will be in the final implementation.

seaber

dygz wrote: »

Game devs don't have to be omniscient to have more expertise in game design than you.
Yes, "if". I never said that headshots will be in the final implementation.

Appealing to authority is not a good look.
"if" meaning they know headshots bring problems.

Dygz

It's not appealing to authority, it's relying on expertise.
That the devs are debating the inclusion of headshots is not news.

Karthos

I'm not totally sold on the head shot idea because one simple reason. Ping.

This problem is hard to mitigate on games were a headshot is a key component (shooters, ect) but think of the huge advantage an AoE heavy class has on getting head shots, ping be damned.

Xombie

PvP is life

consultant

Dear developers well when the game comes out you are going to have forums filled with people complaining about game balance.

Many of the posts will be from people that need to increase their skill and need to play their class correctly in pvp. Peoople call this L2P or learn to play. Plus if people are not multiclassers then people have a tendency to see the game through only one class making their posts naturally biased.

My advice is to focus on the people that are avid pvpers. On people that pvp a lot or enough to know what they are talking about. Although a person may be very smart and make statements made by looking at game mechanics they miss a lot of things without having the actual experience.

For example some people responded tome saying to run a more defensive set up since no self heals are there for rangers. Well just better to play a mage that has a denfensive cooldown and foregoe running a defensive setup . Or look at this way no point in runningg defensive set up an ranger when you can just run defensive set up on mage. Or really not to helpful since every class can run a defensive set up. Plus running a defensive set up will cost you dps on a supposidley already nerfed dps ranger so better to just play class were you do not have to do that.

The problems caused by not having self heal or defensive cd outweight rangers mobility.

In my personal experience. I noticed that people that are good at pvp usually do not even post . And most of the poeple that post all the time and sound like they know everything about pvp do not even do that much pvp. Kind of like trying to learn how to play basketball from someone that has never played the game.

Karthos

consultant wrote: »

Dear developers well when the game comes out you are going to have forums filled with people complaining about game balance.

Ok Nostradamus

Nagash

consultant wrote: »

Dear developers well when the game comes out you are going to have forums filled with people complaining about game balance.

Many of the posts will be from people that need to increase their skill and need to play their class correctly in pvp. Peoople call this L2P or learn to play. Plus if people are not multiclassers then people have a tendency to see the game through only one class making their posts naturally biased.

My advice is to focus on the people that are avid pvpers. On people that pvp a lot or enough to know what they are talking about. Although a person may be very smart and make statements made by looking at game mechanics they miss a lot of things without having the actual experience.

For example some people responded tome saying to run a more defensive set up since no self heals are there for rangers. Well just better to play a mage that has a denfensive cooldown and foregoe running a defensive setup . Or look at this way no point in runningg defensive set up an ranger when you can just run defensive set up on mage. Or really not to helpful since every class can run a defensive set up. Plus running a defensive set up will cost you dps on a supposidley already nerfed dps ranger so better to just play class were you do not have to do that.

The problems caused by not having self heal or defensive cd outweight rangers mobility.

In my personal experience. I noticed that people that are good at pvp usually do not even post . And most of the poeple that post all the time and sound like they know everything about pvp do not even do that much pvp. Kind of like trying to learn how to play basketball from someone that has never played the game.

you must be new

Bot

Damokles wrote: »

I would like to see 40vs40 instanced guild battles/wars.
For training purposes only ofc
(It would incentivise guilds to come up with interesting combat group compositions)

Idk how I feel about this. A game I played called Fiesta Online there was like a 30v30 or something guild war system. Have like a 30v30 guild war tournament bracket as a community event every month with in-game mechanics to support it. Give a reward to the top 3 teams in the form of cash shop currency and a special guild accessory of some kind to symbolize the victory.
I think guild wars in general should just be open world. In every MMORPG I've played a lot guild wars has always been a big and enjoyable aspect to the game since I typically join strong PvP guilds. The best part of it is hunting for people, having the war go across multiple parts of the maps, and the skirmish aspect of it. That becomes lost in instanced PvP. Plus there's the issue of segregating PvP too much. I'd say limiting it to open world pvp with specific areas that attract PvP, 15v15 normalized or equalized unranked battlegrounds, 3v3 equalized arena ranked, 1v1 equalized arena ranked, and 1v1 open world duels with no consequences are the best options.

Marzzo

As long as they try to balance PVP and PVE the same way this game will be unbalanced. You can't combine them.

Azathoth

Well, as long as it favors PvE I'm good then.

consultant

Well there are testing out game balance in APOC so it should be decent because of the extensive testing vs putting the game out and letting the players be the test subjects. So even though I have posted a lot on this subject because Intrepid Studios took the initiative to make APOC then they will see how the classes do live and will have a ton of data to draw upon before the game actually goes live.

Copperfield

i forsee alot of problems ahead with balance in pvp..

AOC presenting alot of combinations builds.. this is usually combined with meta builds and insane inbalance issues..

I would be happy and take less builds anyday.. if the balance is easier to handle this way..

What i like to see in AOC: very depth cooperation gameplay... i would love to see an mmorpg which actually utilize group play on a very indepth level..

not many mmorpg have this option..

Undead Canuck

Also remember that the balancing is going to be for groups, not 1v1. There will be times when 1 class is more powerful than another (but then a different class will be able to take them out).
They are looking for the rock-paper-scissors idea (sorry, no lizard, but maybe Spock since @Steven is a Trekkie).