Instanced PvP ?

Battlegrounds and arena?
I do hope you put in instanced PvP
The game has great interest to me and that is a rarity after 25 years of MMOs. I do not know much about it yet but it does interest me.

As a MMO player since the days of UO, I do have some suggestions.If you put in Battlegrounds and Arena. Do it the same way Guild Wars 2 did it. Log in Day 1, go into a lobby, spec your char, pick your gear and enchantments and then queue.

It accomplishes a couple big things
1. People with very little game time, such as an hour or 2 a night, will be able to log in and get their pvp fix. Think games like CS. Most people do not have 6-8 hours a day to devote like WoW ended up requiring. Im married and have kids. I already have a job. I do not need a 2nd job just to farm the stuff i need to do PvP.

2. It ends all debate over skill vs gear. Put in every item in game on a menu and let players choose when they go into instanced pvp. Then nobody can say I got beat because you outgear me.

Ill be frank, if this is another WoW/UO., Id love to play but sadly I will have to pass. I have discovred as Blizzard is also discovering, most people these days just do not want to grind any longer. Life is to short and demanding to be spent logged into a game all day every day trying to farm yet another item just to be able to compete.

If you do BGs. Please follow WoW/Rift standards for size /format/goals. Guild Wars bgs sucked tbh.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Sigtyr

Noaani wrote: »

Sigtyr wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

No, it's handholding in the same way that a mock exam using the real exams questions is handholding.

Couldn't be more wrong. Instanced PvP arena: Flat terrain , no/few obstructions, no mobs, nothing at stake, less nerves, no mounts (ideally), no escape. Open world PvP: Uneven terrain, lots of obstruction (trees, rocks, defilade, etc.), mobs interfering in the fight, loot at stake, nerves, mounts, potential for escape. There are instances in the multitude of MMOs where some of these examples are false, but they are all true in ArcheAge's instanced PvP arena which Ashes is heavily influenced by.

Archeage also had naval arenas - so your examples aren't even all true in the one game you are claiming they are all true in.

Noaani wrote: »

I don't think you know enough about what I would argue in this situation to be able to make this claim.

You're an open book.

Probably not something you want to say to people you don't know well. I have a particular reputation around here for having somewhat unique angles on many specific topics.

You said you "gave me an opportunity" to present a valid argument - this is an odd thing to say when all you said was that you think you already know what my argument will be.

That is either not "giving me an opportunity" to present an argument, or is being incredibly rude and inconsiderate.

However, since you said you already know what you think my opinion on the point is, rather than telling you what I think, it seems only fair that you tell me what it is you think my point is going to be - since you insist on being so rude about it,

Not being rude at all. When I say you are an open book I mean it quite literally. You have over 6,500 posts on this forum. If I wanted to know your opinion of pineapple on pizza I could probably find it in your post history.

Nobody is preventing someone as prolific as you from writing your opinion down except for you, but I’ll indulge you anyways. I think you believe that instanced PvP will detract from the core game in some meaningful way. Whether that is you believe people will avoid open world PvP in favor of instanced PvP, or you believe that the mere existence of it will have some measurable impact on the amount of open world PvP available to you. I believe this is your argument because there is literally no other sensible argument to made and I think you are a sensible person. See that? A compliment.

At the end of the day neither of us will have any empirical evidence to support our claims, we will agree to disagree, and this argument will happen again and again until the end of MMOs.

George_Black

Yes, but there are many mmos with instanced BG progression and traders (gear) out there.

So argueing for such a thing to be included in AoC, whose designers have stated that want a continues world instead of fragmented gameplay options, is wrongto begin with.

Okeydoke

Mangust747 wrote: »

Vyc wrote: »

Battlegrounds and arena?
I do hope you put in instanced PvP
The game has great interest to me and that is a rarity after 25 years of MMOs. I do not know much about it yet but it does interest me.

As a MMO player since the days of UO, I do have some suggestions.If you put in Battlegrounds and Arena. Do it the same way Guild Wars 2 did it. Log in Day 1, go into a lobby, spec your char, pick your gear and enchantments and then queue.

It accomplishes a couple big things
1. People with very little game time, such as an hour or 2 a night, will be able to log in and get their pvp fix. Think games like CS. Most people do not have 6-8 hours a day to devote like WoW ended up requiring. Im married and have kids. I already have a job. I do not need a 2nd job just to farm the stuff i need to do PvP.

2. It ends all debate over skill vs gear. Put in every item in game on a menu and let players choose when they go into instanced pvp. Then nobody can say I got beat because you outgear me.

Ill be frank, if this is another WoW/UO., Id love to play but sadly I will have to pass. I have discovred as Blizzard is also discovering, most people these days just do not want to grind any longer. Life is to short and demanding to be spent logged into a game all day every day trying to farm yet another item just to be able to compete.

If you do BGs. Please follow WoW/Rift standards for size /format/goals. Guild Wars bgs sucked tbh.

a very worthy and correct offer!

This is just not that game. One day it could be, months/years after launch. If the gameplay loop gets stale and the devs have trouble keeping it fresh while at the same time keeping to their original vision (open world, non instanced, effort is rewarded, no free ride etc). Then maybe they might start trying alternative forms of content, like instanced pvp. That's a big if though. And it's not happening at launch.

Intrepid isn't going through all this work of creating a massive open world, risk vs reward, node system with city sieges, contesting of resources, contesting of dungeons, just to water it down with instanced content. They have specifically said they are not doing that. It's literally one of their main selling points. Not only are they not doing it, they openly talk about how they think it's bad game design and is what's wrong with mmos today.

Instanced arenas (and I think castle sieges, for obvious reasons) are the one form of instanced pvp they've said they'll do. And they might be cross server. I would expect that the gear you have is the gear you will use in them. They have directly stated they want effort and work in the game to be rewarded.

Noaani

Sigtyr wrote: »

I think you believe that instanced PvP will detract from the core game in some meaningful way. Whether that is you believe people will avoid open world PvP in favor of instanced PvP, or you believe that the mere existence of it will have some measurable impact on the amount of open world PvP available to you

If I were indeed an open book, you wouldn't need to have given yourself two options (both of which have been discussed since your last post in this thread anyway).

My primary argument against arena PvP in Ashes depends on the way in which a person is asking for it to be implemented.

There is a suggestion of an arena in which you enter, select your class and build and then just get a gear pack and fight.

This kind of arena is better suited to being a stand alone game, rather than a part of an MMORPG. Such a system will need specific balancing that is unique to it in order for it to function as desired - meaning either the developers need to alter the game proper to accommodate this (unacceptable), or they need to run a specific ruleset for this arena type.

With this latter option, there then becomes absolutely no reason to have this exist as a part of an MMO. You are not using your character, your gear, or the games combat system - so it should only ever exist as a stand alone product.

Then you have the people wanting an in game arena in a game with open world PvP. My argument to these people is that any such arena is inevitably going to be sub-par (as was the case in Archeage).

In a game like Ashes, there will always be PvP around. You don't need to go anywhere to get your fix, as your fix will come and get you.

As such, people don't really use the arena to just PvP.

Since the core of the suggestion necessitates that the arena not directly offer any rewards, people won't use it for that end.

This leaves two types of people that use the arena - those that care about the ladder (there were about 12 such players in Archeage when I left - across all servers), and those that run the arena because it has daily quest rewards.

We have already essentially voted daily tasks out of Ashes, so that group of people shouldn't exist - and even if it did that is a fairly weak basis for including a specific feature (add this feature so that you can add daily quests so that people will use this feature - wtf?).

This leaves the arena only really for those people that want an arena with a ladder to climb. That is an incredibly minority audience, and if that arena is not to their liking they absolutely will go to another game - one that is made specifically for people to fight each other in order to climb a ladder system.

But sure, open book, not wanting it because it will detract people from the core game, whatever...

bigepeen

bigepeen wrote: »

If they want arena PvP, do not instance it. Instancing is just lazy game design in MMOs that the genre seems to be trapped in. Spend the effort to integrate an arena or colosseum in the open world.

If they want equalized gear arena PvP, then have changing rooms on either side underneath the stands where spectators can watch the battle in the open world. The changing rooms are where you can store your current armor and switch to equalized armor before the battle if both sides agree to it.

Either way, this lets the open world seem way more lively than teleporting people out into instances. Basically any number of observers can watch from the stands, instead of it being some mini-game where people only know the results, but can't watch in-game. It's way more immersive than instancing as well.

I forgot to mention that military nodes should have more arenas / colosseums than other types of nodes. They would probably be used a lot in military nodes, so it would be better to have multiple of them. Maybe even allow neighboring nodes under its zone of influence to build more of them which also encourages people to visit these nodes, and not only the metropolis.

Dolyem

Noaani wrote: »

Sigtyr wrote: »

I think you believe that instanced PvP will detract from the core game in some meaningful way. Whether that is you believe people will avoid open world PvP in favor of instanced PvP, or you believe that the mere existence of it will have some measurable impact on the amount of open world PvP available to you

If I were indeed an open book, you wouldn't need to have given yourself two options (both of which have been discussed since your last post in this thread anyway).

My primary argument against arena PvP in Ashes depends on the way in which a person is asking for it to be implemented.

There is a suggestion of an arena in which you enter, select your class and build and then just get a gear pack and fight.

This kind of arena is better suited to being a stand alone game, rather than a part of an MMORPG. Such a system will need specific balancing that is unique to it in order for it to function as desired - meaning either the developers need to alter the game proper to accommodate this (unacceptable), or they need to run a specific ruleset for this arena type.

With this latter option, there then becomes absolutely no reason to have this exist as a part of an MMO. You are not using your character, your gear, or the games combat system - so it should only ever exist as a stand alone product.

Then you have the people wanting an in game arena in a game with open world PvP. My argument to these people is that any such arena is inevitably going to be sub-par (as was the case in Archeage).

In a game like Ashes, there will always be PvP around. You don't need to go anywhere to get your fix, as your fix will come and get you.

As such, people don't really use the arena to just PvP.

Since the core of the suggestion necessitates that the arena not directly offer any rewards, people won't use it for that end.

This leaves two types of people that use the arena - those that care about the ladder (there were about 12 such players in Archeage when I left - across all servers), and those that run the arena because it has daily quest rewards.

We have already essentially voted daily tasks out of Ashes, so that group of people shouldn't exist - and even if it did that is a fairly weak basis for including a specific feature (add this feature so that you can add daily quests so that people will use this feature - wtf?).

This leaves the arena only really for those people that want an arena with a ladder to climb. That is an incredibly minority audience, and if that arena is not to their liking they absolutely will go to another game - one that is made specifically for people to fight each other in order to climb a ladder system.

But sure, open book, not wanting it because it will detract people from the core game, whatever...

This actually just made me think of something! What if instance PvP was unlockable through military nodes? That way the only reason it would be around is if there was a community active enough for it to be viable? Hence its relevancy would be justified. Otherwise if there isn't that many players focused on it, it won't even be implemented by that servers community. It would likely require some form of progression or reward to make it at least somewhat enticing, maybe titles and aesthetics?

Noaani

Dolyem wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Sigtyr wrote: »

I think you believe that instanced PvP will detract from the core game in some meaningful way. Whether that is you believe people will avoid open world PvP in favor of instanced PvP, or you believe that the mere existence of it will have some measurable impact on the amount of open world PvP available to you

If I were indeed an open book, you wouldn't need to have given yourself two options (both of which have been discussed since your last post in this thread anyway).

My primary argument against arena PvP in Ashes depends on the way in which a person is asking for it to be implemented.

There is a suggestion of an arena in which you enter, select your class and build and then just get a gear pack and fight.

This kind of arena is better suited to being a stand alone game, rather than a part of an MMORPG. Such a system will need specific balancing that is unique to it in order for it to function as desired - meaning either the developers need to alter the game proper to accommodate this (unacceptable), or they need to run a specific ruleset for this arena type.

With this latter option, there then becomes absolutely no reason to have this exist as a part of an MMO. You are not using your character, your gear, or the games combat system - so it should only ever exist as a stand alone product.

Then you have the people wanting an in game arena in a game with open world PvP. My argument to these people is that any such arena is inevitably going to be sub-par (as was the case in Archeage).

In a game like Ashes, there will always be PvP around. You don't need to go anywhere to get your fix, as your fix will come and get you.

As such, people don't really use the arena to just PvP.

Since the core of the suggestion necessitates that the arena not directly offer any rewards, people won't use it for that end.

This leaves two types of people that use the arena - those that care about the ladder (there were about 12 such players in Archeage when I left - across all servers), and those that run the arena because it has daily quest rewards.

We have already essentially voted daily tasks out of Ashes, so that group of people shouldn't exist - and even if it did that is a fairly weak basis for including a specific feature (add this feature so that you can add daily quests so that people will use this feature - wtf?).

This leaves the arena only really for those people that want an arena with a ladder to climb. That is an incredibly minority audience, and if that arena is not to their liking they absolutely will go to another game - one that is made specifically for people to fight each other in order to climb a ladder system.

But sure, open book, not wanting it because it will detract people from the core game, whatever...

This actually just made me think of something! What if instance PvP was unlockable through military nodes? That way the only reason it would be around is if there was a community active enough for it to be viable? Hence its relevancy would be justified. Otherwise if there isn't that many players focused on it, it won't even be implemented by that servers community. It would likely require some form of progression or reward to make it at least somewhat enticing, maybe titles and aesthetics?

This is how I think an arena should be implemented in Ashes - I also think it should only be available to citizens of the node, it's vassals and parent, or by specific invitation to your character.

If we are talking about an arena that players build, that cost time and resources to build, that allows for a ladder system with rules that can be set for each arena, where you use your character and all of it's progression and that has no rewards outside of that ladder system, I'm down.

This would work over a standard arena because of two things.

One, players that built it will use it - this is basic human psychology. The more something costs you, the more you value it.

And two, these arenas will be temporary - there will be times when a given player has no access to an arena, and there will even be times when a given server may not have an arena at all.

The notion of this arena type not being instanced also adds to the novelty of getting your turn for a fight in it, increasing it's usage.

BigbadJD

You don't necessarily need power progression through pvp if you have a sufficient amount of cosmetics for players to go after. This is in response to the guy talking about 12 people playing lineage pvp by the time he quit and said people either arena for gear or if they have incentives like daily quests to arena. I think it's much more complex than that.

(new guy here) Have they said anything regarding power creep in pvp with max geared wrecking noobs or will it be templated off or will it be a mixture of both to where they use a scaling system to keep it reasonably fair?

Noaani

BigbadJD wrote: »

You don't necessarily need power progression through pvp if you have a sufficient amount of cosmetics for players to go after. This is in response to the guy talking about 12 people playing lineage pvp by the time he quit and said people either arena for gear or if they have incentives like daily quests to arena. I think it's much more complex than that.

Cosmetic gear will keep a few people interested for a short amount of time.

It is not a way to permanently increase arena usage by itself.

(new guy here) Have they said anything regarding power creep in pvp with max geared wrecking noobs or will it be templated off or will it be a mixture of both to where they use a scaling system to keep it reasonably fair?

The plan is for gear to be less of a factor than it is in other games.

Dygz

Ashes is PvX and meaningful PvP conflict...
It's highly unlikely that instanced arenas will be helping gear progression.
Also seems unlikely that it will be possible for max geared people to be wrecking noobs in instanced PvP.

Child Item