Objective Party System for Node Wars

Make it an instanced thing to keep the fight between the players of the same lvl range and I'd be for this. Though I'd still prefer if pvp kills gave points.

If points given for these <50 objectives are in any way tangible for the overall goal - this will definitely be alt-ridden and cheesed to all hell, but imo that is its own fun, so I'd still be completely fine with it.

Laetitian

Yeah 1) you're sneaking in the point about PvP kills into your grander point of level scaling, like a clandestine amendmend to a parliamental bill. Make that a separate discussion.

And 2) God no, no forced L4G mechanic to make sure everyone gets to be equally involved. If you're low level, make the most of it. You don't need to be the highest level player on the battleground in order to participate as part of the pack. If you're like a level 20 among level 50s, that's a great motivation to keep levelling after the war is done.

Instance-free gameplay is more natural and engaging, when will the themepark community accept that lesson? If you're in the mood for a lobby game, there are plenty of MOBAs out there for you to jump on.

Laetitian wrote: »

If you're like a level 20 among level 50s, that's a great motivation to keep levelling after the war is done.

As much as I support cross-lvl gameplay, did you see how little Steven was getting dmged by people half his lvl in the war showcase? Lvl50 will be even stronger against lower-lvled people.

I wish there was a good way to combine the two, but getting one-shot as a lvl20 dude among lvl50 enemies usually leads to people never participating in that kind of content again.

Laetitian

NiKr wrote: »

Laetitian wrote: »

If you're like a level 20 among level 50s, that's a great motivation to keep levelling after the war is done.

I wish there was a good way to combine the two, but getting one-shot as a lvl20 dude among lvl50 enemies usually leads to people never participating in that kind of content again.

That's the point of vertical progression. Other people are stronger than you.

I don't really understand how someone would rationalise joining that battle before they've caught up with the average server level, if they can't handle being killed by stronger players.

And like...wouldn't those players be focused on PvE before joining PvP combat anyway? Because they care that strongly about wanting to be able to stand their ground against anyone they face?

It just all seems evidence of a lack of a principled ideology to me. If you want to play an MMO, you've opted in to a vertical progression experience.
Why do that, if you can't handle other people out-progressing you, if there are tons of games with matchmaking and balanced, consistently equal fighting conditions out there?

Laetitian wrote: »

Yeah 1) you're sneaking in the point about PvP kills into your grander point of level scaling, like a clandestine amendmend to a parliamental bill. Make that a separate discussion.

Actually there is a connection. If the Objective Parties are the only teams that can generate war score, the devs are creating an incentive to use the Objective system, which is a more tailored PVP experience and something under the dev control. If PVP kills generate war score, the devs are creating an incentive to mass zerg as we typically would see in other games, just killing whatever players they can to generate war score. The war score should be directed at creating opportunities for balanced PVP which wouldn't otherwise occur naturally.

Laetitian wrote: »

And 2) God no, no forced L4G mechanic to make sure everyone gets to be equally involved. If you're low level, make the most of it. You don't need to be the highest level player on the battleground in order to participate as part of the pack. If you're like a level 20 among level 50s, that's a great motivation to keep levelling after the war is done.

Actually the system as I outlined wouldn't let everyone get involved equally. Only those who queued into the Objective Party would be able to participate in the Node War Objectives and generate war score. If there are no defenders then you can have something like max 16 players per level bracket (assuming two 8 party objectives spawn for each level bracket). With 5 level brackets that would be 80 vs 0 players distributed from 10-50 on the aggressor's side.

Everyone else would be able to still PVP enemy Node Citizens to help with the PVP part but not progress the war score through Node War Objectives.

That is until defenders start showing up. Once defenders show up and match the existing Objective Parties, new Objectives open up and more players from either side can join in.

Laetitian wrote: »

Instance-free gameplay is more natural and engaging, when will the themepark community accept that lesson? If you're in the mood for a lobby game, there are plenty of MOBAs out there for you to jump on.

I think this could be done instance free. But we can combine some Lobby Game concepts to direct the player base into a game play mode that is more fun than straight zerg, which would otherwise be the case.

Laetitian wrote: »

Why do that, if you can't handle other people out-progressing you, if there are tons of games with matchmaking and balanced, consistently equal fighting conditions out there?

I'm simply saying that lower lvled people should have a way to participate in different events as well. Just as sieges will have siege machinery that will allow those players to have an impact, I'd like if other events had stuff too.

Also, these lower-lvled players will already be OBLITERATED outside of the war objectives. They won't be able to do shit during the war in off-prime-time hours. So giving them at least some content during the war would be nice imo.

NiKr wrote: »

Make it an instanced thing to keep the fight between the players of the same lvl range and I'd be for this. Though I'd still prefer if pvp kills gave points.

I think it is doable without instancing. Sure there will be some bad gank Node Wars where the defenders have no chance, but if they have more than enough maxed people to distribute to 16 Objectives simultaneously the defenders were probably hooped anyways.

Maybe a big group of low levellers extends the war to 4 days instead of min 2, because they have been capping some of the odd brackets. And that 4 day war was long enough to let a Parent Node get a War Assistance Commission purchased and join the war with their Vassal Node. Suddenly the biggies from their side join the defenders Objective Parties and flood the Node level brackets and begin to turn the tides! =D

Laetitian

Xeeg wrote:

Actually there is a connection. If the Objective Parties are the only teams that can generate war score, the devs are creating an incentive to use the Objective system, which is a more tailored PVP experience and something under the dev control. If PVP kills generate war score, the devs are creating an incentive to mass zerg as we typically would see in other games, just killing whatever players they can to generate war score. The war score should be directed at creating opportunities for balanced PVP which wouldn't otherwise occur naturally.

I mean. No. Steven has addressed this to exhaustion.

If both sides have 50 players available, and one side has a 40 man zerg rolling around the map in a single ball, the additional kills won't make up for the lack of presence across the map. At least not if the side with smaller teams plays their cards right and doesn't just feed the zerg.

@NiKr The problem is not that I don't think it can't be done in a fun, fair, interesting way, but I think the motivation for doing it in the first place is bad, and will inspire decreased frustration tolerance, which will be needed for the game as a whole to stay alive. You're essentially coddling carebears to boost the playerbase short-term, at the cost of a functional community long-term.

Laetitian wrote: »

If both sides have 50 players available, and pne side has a 40 man zerg rolling around the map in a single ball, the additional kills won't make up for the lack of presence across the map. At least not if the side with smaller teams plays their cards right and doesn't just feed the zerg.

Sure but how often are we going to randomly get a perfectly balanced open world PVP scenario where either side just naturally happens to have 50 players? Probably never.

Not unless the devs put incentives for that to happen. That is the point of my post.

NiKr wrote: »

Also, these lower-lvled players will already be OBLITERATED outside of the war objectives. They won't be able to do shit during the war in off-prime-time hours. So giving them at least some content during the war would be nice imo.

Another thing this system would help with is increase the value of lower level players during a war. Let's say that only Objective Party members will get the rewards for Node War Participation after the war, as a way to offset the opportunity cost of gathering/exping/questing/raiding that they could have been doing.

However, other players won't. They only get citizen buffs for winning the war. So, for the most part, if you didn't get in the Objective Party queue, and it looks like your Node is going to win the Node War anyways, then you might as well continue your night and go to a grind spot or whatever. No need to harass low level Objectives if you are going to win the war anyways and you could have been doing something more valuable.

Then, if the low level defenders are actually making progress, a call might go out for some people to come help chase them off. Sure, you roflstomp them when you get there, but now the low leveller just made a high leveller have to come camp some lowbie spot and waste their friday night. They can't cap the objective anyways because it only triggers for low level Objective Parties. Plus the low levellers just participated in the Node War by engaging on the Objective, so they get a reward at the end just for trying.

It is a system that actually gives the lower levels alot more power strategically even if not in an actual fight.

My opinion is that this is the wrong way to approach this, but unfortunately since so many PvP combat games (MMORPGs and others) have always approached it this way and therefore created an expectation around this style of thing, that it won't be fixed.

I believe PvP/PvX MMORPGs need an entirely different approach to this, unlike anything they normally use because of where they draw their inspirations from, to eventually get us to a gameplay type that would actually last.

I don't know if people's current expectations would ever align though, so it probably doesn't matter.

tl;dr of the many 'incorrect' ways to do this, I think what Intrepid is doing now is the better option, no need for level or party scaling. As they said, some people enjoy 'zerg' gameplay.

Azherae wrote: »

My opinion is that this is the wrong way to approach this, but unfortunately since so many PvP combat games (MMORPGs and others) have always approached it this way and therefore created an expectation around this style of thing, that it won't be fixed.

I believe PvP/PvX MMORPGs need an entirely different approach to this, unlike anything they normally use because of where they draw their inspirations from, to eventually get us to a gameplay type that would actually last.

I don't know if people's current expectations would ever align though, so it probably doesn't matter.

tl;dr of the many 'incorrect' ways to do this, I think what Intrepid is doing now is the better option, no need for level or party scaling. As they said, some people enjoy 'zerg' gameplay.

Well people can still zerg it with what i am proposing, its just that only an Objective Party can complete the objective to add war score to the Node War. And only they get Participation Rewards, gold or something. You can still help them PVP the area so they complete the objective faster and without competition. Or if they got it handled you can go do something else with your time.

Its like the risk vs reward thing. Finite reward for each Node War Objective, so if you bring more people than the predetermined party size designed for the Objective then they don't get any benefit from it.

Diamaht

I could have missed it, but did they get into how exactly they are planning to handling level differences?

It seemed to me this presentation only focused on the system itself.

Xeeg wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

My opinion is that this is the wrong way to approach this, but unfortunately since so many PvP combat games (MMORPGs and others) have always approached it this way and therefore created an expectation around this style of thing, that it won't be fixed.

I believe PvP/PvX MMORPGs need an entirely different approach to this, unlike anything they normally use because of where they draw their inspirations from, to eventually get us to a gameplay type that would actually last.

I don't know if people's current expectations would ever align though, so it probably doesn't matter.

tl;dr of the many 'incorrect' ways to do this, I think what Intrepid is doing now is the better option, no need for level or party scaling. As they said, some people enjoy 'zerg' gameplay.

Well people can still zerg it with what i am proposing, its just that only an Objective Party can complete the objective to add war score to the Node War. And only they get Participation Rewards, gold or something. You can still help them PVP the area so they complete the objective faster and without competition. Or if they got it handled you can go do something else with your time.

I'm moreso referring to the idea that you'd just send your 'extra' level 50 PvP group alongside your level 20 Objective group.

Which would happen enough to probably drastically change or 'ruin' any chance that the lower level players have of enjoying the content anyway, but it would have created an 'expectation' that they could. An expectation that would also be at odds with the 'best thing to do' (having overgeared level 20 alts).

As long as Node Wars auto-flag all citizens of the two opposing nodes against each other, achieving a gameplay flow using this method would end up being a lot of development and balancing work for no positive outcome.

Note, I'm not saying this idea is useless or anything, there's lots of 'theoretically should work' aspects of it that would (or do) work well in other games. But I think they don't work in PvP MMORPGs for long, and in Ashes, as far as we know now, Node Wars and similar will probably happen way after most meaningful participants at least 'have enough max level players to disrupt the idea'.

That whole 'we expect players to reach max level before a quarter of Nodes reach Stage 3' thing.

Azherae wrote: »

I'm moreso referring to the idea that you'd just send your 'extra' level 50 PvP group alongside your level 20 Objective group.

Right, but they wouldn't be getting Participation Rewards (gold/exp). So they are kind of wasting their time if they aren't needed. They could be out farming or killing a boss that night or something else.

If we have a Participation Reward system for the people in the Objective Parties, then they are getting compensation for their opportunity cost of fighting in the Node War.

Everyone else isn't. So, yeah they can help, but Risk vs Reward says they don't get a Reward. The Reward is static based on the developer designed party size/level for the Node War Objective.

We can also just make the lower level objectives less impactful, like maybe 10% of the max war score or something.

Diamaht wrote: »

I could have missed it, but did they get into how exactly they are planning to handling level differences?

It seemed to me this presentation only focused on the system itself.

Not sure if they said, but it was just something I was thinking about while at the same time trying to come up with a way to provide incentives to somewhat balanced open world PVP.

Realistically it might only make sense to have level 25+ brackets or something. Shrug.

Xeeg wrote: »

Azherae wrote: »

I'm moreso referring to the idea that you'd just send your 'extra' level 50 PvP group alongside your level 20 Objective group.

Right, but they wouldn't be getting Participation Rewards (gold/exp). So they are kind of wasting their time if they aren't needed. They could be out farming or killing a boss that night or something else.

If we have a Participation Reward system for the people in the Objective Parties, then they are getting compensation for their opportunity cost of fighting in the Node War.

Everyone else isn't. So, yeah they can help, but Risk vs Reward says they don't get a Reward. The Reward is static based on the developer designed party size/level for the Node War Objective.

We can also just make the lower level objectives less impactful, like maybe 10% of the max war score or something.

Devil's in the details, as they say.

I like to fight that devil, and sometimes I 'realize I can't win'.

Or at least, that's my opinion of it.

I can agree absolutely that building a good strategic PvP MMO 'war' system is 100% about 'making opportunity costs matter and making people split their forces, so if you're not 'overthinking' all the minute details like I am, I think we're just in agreement.

But since I've 'overthought' them, my conclusion is 'eh, never mind, just leave it, too much work to put on this many band-aids'.

Diamaht

Xeeg wrote: »

Diamaht wrote: »

I could have missed it, but did they get into how exactly they are planning to handling level differences?

It seemed to me this presentation only focused on the system itself.

Not sure if they said, but it was just something I was thinking about while at the same time trying to come up with a way to provide incentives to somewhat balanced open world PVP.

Realistically it might only make sense to have level 25+ brackets or something. Shrug.

Gotcha. It's not a silly question. I know level scaling was a hard no so it'll have to be dealt with somehow.

NiKr wrote: »

Laetitian wrote: »

Why do that, if you can't handle other people out-progressing you, if there are tons of games with matchmaking and balanced, consistently equal fighting conditions out there?

I'm simply saying that lower lvled people should have a way to participate in different events as well.

Being low level isn't permanant.

They can participate in such events by leveling up and joining in.

This is not an unreasoable thing to expect people to do in an MMORPG.

I'll definitely add though, now that I'm done with the behemoth of a post you've inspired me to finally do (thanks for that, no sarc)...

I feel this has a 'problem' relative to what I understand the goal to be (please correct my understanding).

If you have an open world area, a level 20-ish zone, an Objective spawns, for two level 20 groups to 'compete over'.

Doesn't adding just me, as a level 50 Cleric, for example, not in their party, almost automatically make my side win? I don't think Ashes has any limitations on who I can heal as a Cleric. Maybe cleanses. Now obv the enemy can send a level 50 to kill me and prevent that, but the main reason to send the Cleric would be... there's probably protections on the level 20s of some kind to prevent the level 50 single DPS just coming in to mop up (maybe not, but that's just doubling the problem).

Whereas precisely applying this to a Tank or Cleric is usually much more complicated and a matter of battling new and interesting exploits (e.g. Tank taunts or CCs mobs that the level 20 party needs to kill and stands there, but does insufficient DPS and therefore they get credited normally without needing their own Tank, that sort of thing).

I guess this is still technically 'getting level 20 players involved in the war', but I'd have assumed that getting it to happen this way isn't the goal.

Aszkalon

Xeeg wrote: »

End game shouldn't be the real game, right?

It kinda should.
At least as in there is same as much to do more or less - than it all of the levelling Progress.

There should be plenty to do,
so that the "true Game" shouldn't just be to level up Character after Character after Character until one can not stand the Game anymore from having made countless Characters.

Xeeg wrote: »

Risk vs Reward, right?

" Should " - exist in both the Levelling Process - and in the Endgame. Gotta keep it spicey.

Azherae wrote: »

...

I guess this is still technically 'getting level 20 players involved in the war', but I'd have assumed that getting it to happen this way isn't the goal.

This is precisely why my first reaction was "put this in an instance". Lowbie content doesn't work when a single highbie player can easily ruin it. I know from direct experience because I've been on both sides of the interaction in L2.

Laetitian wrote: »

NiKr The problem is not that I don't think it can't be done in a fun, fair, interesting way, but I think the motivation for doing it in the first place is bad, and will inspire decreased frustration tolerance, which will be needed for the game as a whole to stay alive. You're essentially coddling carebears to boost the playerbase short-term, at the cost of a functional community long-term.

Low lvl players are not carebears. They are simply at the low lvl of progression.

Also, just to make it clear, I'm against any participation awards. The only reward for those lowbies should be the fact that their node won't die or get crippled due to their actions.

Noaani wrote: »

Being low level isn't permanant.

They can participate in such events by leveling up and joining in.

This is not an unreasoable thing to expect people to do in an MMORPG.

Then why have lowbie raids or lowbie mobs or lowbie artisanry or anything lowbie. Just let them grow somehow. Noaani, I expected a better argument from you than a damn "just lvl up, bro".

Leveling up takes hundreds of hours, and that's if you know what you're doing. This means that any of the more casual players will take MONTHS to level up. Those months will most definitely have node wars. Do you want people to be so damn useless during those wars that their only purpose is to be a killing point for the enemy?

NiKr wrote: »

Then why have lowbie raids or lowbie mobs or lowbie artisanry or anything lowbie.

For different reasons.

Low level raids should be mostly about quest/story, as opposed to raids at the level cap that are equally about drops.

The point here is two-fold. The first is that it adds weight to the games storytelling. A quest chain that you can complete solo has no real weight to it in a game world. A quest that sees you require the assembly of 20+ players in order to complete - that has some meaning.

The second is so that players aren't playing a totally different game leveling up vs at the level cap. In a game where the level cap content is largely based on raids, players should be exposed to raiding early on.

Mobs at low levels should exist so that players can kill them to level up.

Crafting should exist at low levels for the same reason as the second reason in relation to raids - players shouldn't acquire gear via one method leveling up, and then by a totally different method at the level cap.

Leveling up takes hundreds of hours, and that's if you know what you're doing.

Actually, this is largely player conjecture.

It takes the statement Steven made years ago of how long it will take players to finish progression, and assumes that this time is based on competent, organized players that are only progressing in one aspect of the game.

To me, that statement always seemed like Steven was talking about a player wanting to be mroe balanced - working on character level, artisan level, working on their node, religion, social organization and what ever else the game has.

Realistically, we have no idea how long it will take to just level up.

Since most character leveling the game will ever see will happen in the first few months, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that low level characters at that point in the games life will be useful - a level 20 should be perfectly viable against a rival level 20.

It is when most players are level 50 that a level 20 should feel near worthless.

Noaani, I expected a better argument from you than a damn "just lvl up, bro".

Why?

If nothing else, I have always been about players only ever getting what they earn. I've never been an advocate of hand outs to players, I have always said players should put in the work needed in order to be given opportunities in game - the above comment fits perfectly with that.

Steven has said specifically in regard to levels that "you should see a reward for your progress or effort spent". Putting level 20 players in a position where they can determin the outcome of a war largely between level 50 players is specifically not rewarding players for effort spent.

NiKr wrote: »

Also, just to make it clear, I'm against any participation awards. The only reward for those lowbies should be the fact that their node won't die or get crippled due to their actions.

I'm on the opposite side of this. I think the punishments for the losing node should be small. Something like Citizen stats -1% for 14 days and Node Contribution leech of 5% from the losing Node to the Winning Node for 14 days.

Punishing the losing side for being on the raw end of a one sided Node War as a way to encourage participation is a recipe for drop in the player base after a loss.

I'd rather have Node Wars be much more common place and typically not that significant, and every once in a while the conditions arise for some crazy epic Node War, than Node Wars being rare and forcing the player base to have to join out of fear of punishment. That already occurs in the Node Siege.

Then give participation rewards to the players that joined the Objective Parties that each objective is designed for. Any more players show up then they can help with PVP, but can't do the objective and they don't get participation rewards.

For Node Citizen rewards, after the war you could have each citizen on the winning side choose a buff:

Citizens choose between 1 of 5 buffs for 14 days; +5% gather/process/craft speed/amount/material requirement reduction, +5% glint drops/purchasing power, +5% health/armour/spell resist, +5% mana regen/cast times/CD reduction, or +5% ability power.

Noaani wrote: »

Steven has said specifically in regard to levels that "you should see a reward for your progress or effort spent". Putting level 20 players in a position where they can determin the outcome of a war largely between level 50 players is specifically not rewarding players for effort spent.

A single lowbie objective that gives, say, 50 points would be nothing compared to what lvl50s will be gaining on regular basis. But those lowbies will get closer to their node and will have a better investment in it, cause they've now directly influenced its survival (well, if they win the war that is).

Either way, there's gonna be a ton of people that are not max lvl, while others are. And there's gonna be wars while that statement is true. So, just as you say with raids/artisanry - those lowbies should experience some war content as well.

We've only seen only one objective so far, so there's still a chance that wars might have instanced objectives, just as sieges will. So lvl50s might have an instance as well, so the lowbies' experience wouldn't be different in that way.

Also, just to make my point clearer. By "instance" I mean that both sides enter the same separate location and have some content there (i.e. the Flag + mobs from the OP). So the content itself wouldn't be a handout and it would still be pvx. It would simply be separated from all the highbies that would 100% mess up the lowbie gameplay.

NiKr wrote: »

Also, just to make it clear, I'm against any participation awards. The only reward for those lowbies should be the fact that their node won't die or get crippled due to their actions.

Also, I am using Participation Rewards as a system designed to incentivize somewhat fair and balanced PVP in the open world, and offset the opportunity cost of joining the Node War.

If a Node Objective is designed for a level 50, 40 person raid, and players who joined the Objective Party through the game UI get Participation Reward, you are much more likely to get something closer to a 40 v 40 when capturing that objective.

Sure we can still zerg it with a 200 vs 40, but the extra 160 players on the one side don't get participation rewards and have an opportunity cost for whatever else they could be doing that night. They could be out raiding or gathering mats. Only the 40 vs 40 in the group are actually getting an additional benefit (gold or something).

NiKr wrote: »

just as you say with raids/artisanry - those lowbies should experience some war content as well.

If you are leveling up at a point in time where the bulk of people are well ahead of you, you miss out on those raids.

If you are leveling at a similar pace to the bulk of players, you get to participate in those raids.

Replace "raids" with "wars", and you have my opinion on them.

Either way, there's gonna be a ton of people that are not max lvl, while others are. And there's gonna be wars while that statement is true.

In my experience, while there may well be many characters around at lower levels, there is usually significantly fewer players around that don't have a max level character.

When it comes to something important - such as defending your node - people are going to be on the character they feel will be most useful - which according to Stevens statements of seeing reward for effort, should always be their highest level character.

Also, just to make my point clearer. By "instance" I mean that both sides enter the same separate location and have some content there (i.e. the Flag + mobs from the OP). So the content itself wouldn't be a handout and it would still be pvx. It would simply be separated from all the highbies that would 100% mess up the lowbie gameplay.

And if both sides don't have similar numbers of players within the same level range that want to participate in the war?

The longer the game goes on, the more common this will be. Since the whole thing with lower level players in wars is only an issue as the game gets older (and then at a point about 18 months in, will probably cease to be an issue at all), this seems to me like an attempt at a solution to the "issue" that is self-defeating.

Noaani wrote: »

If you are leveling up at a point in time where the bulk of people are well ahead of you, you miss out on those raids.

And if there's enough people at that lvl range to raid/war with? Shouldn't you be able to participate in that content?

Noaani wrote: »

In my experience, while there may well be many characters around at lower levels, there is usually significantly fewer players around that don't have a max level character.

And what about people that lvl slower or simply any new expansion release that attracts newbies? Do you expect those newbies to level up within days, all while there's not a single war going on?

Noaani wrote: »

And if both sides don't have similar numbers of players within the same level range that want to participate in the war?

That's the tradeoff. If you have more highbies - you'll get more points by using them. But if you have lowbies, they'll still get points and won't just be useless and free points for the enemy.

This will inevitably lead to lowbie alts, which in turn will remove some of the highbies as well. And like I said, I personally like this kind of setup. If the economy is well-designed and has progression stages that require lowbie chars to be optimal - people will already have lowbie alts, so wars having some content for those would simply be a continuation of that design.

And yes, lowbie alts imply better gear on them, which then requires the side with low lvl newbies to give them better gear, which then helps build relationships between old and new players, which I see as a plus.

You can then tie this shit into the mentor program and you have yourself a nice interconnected design

Depraved

this is impossible because people will eventually be level 50. players would have to make alts for this =x

Xeeg wrote: »

Laetitian wrote: »

Yeah 1) you're sneaking in the point about PvP kills into your grander point of level scaling, like a clandestine amendmend to a parliamental bill. Make that a separate discussion.

Actually there is a connection. If the Objective Parties are the only teams that can generate war score, the devs are creating an incentive to use the Objective system, which is a more tailored PVP experience and something under the dev control. If PVP kills generate war score, the devs are creating an incentive to mass zerg as we typically would see in other games, just killing whatever players they can to generate war score. The war score should be directed at creating opportunities for balanced PVP which wouldn't otherwise occur naturally.

Laetitian wrote: »

And 2) God no, no forced L4G mechanic to make sure everyone gets to be equally involved. If you're low level, make the most of it. You don't need to be the highest level player on the battleground in order to participate as part of the pack. If you're like a level 20 among level 50s, that's a great motivation to keep levelling after the war is done.

Actually the system as I outlined wouldn't let everyone get involved equally. Only those who queued into the Objective Party would be able to participate in the Node War Objectives and generate war score. If there are no defenders then you can have something like max 16 players per level bracket (assuming two 8 party objectives spawn for each level bracket). With 5 level brackets that would be 80 vs 0 players distributed from 10-50 on the aggressor's side.

Everyone else would be able to still PVP enemy Node Citizens to help with the PVP part but not progress the war score through Node War Objectives.

That is until defenders start showing up. Once defenders show up and match the existing Objective Parties, new Objectives open up and more players from either side can join in.

Laetitian wrote: »

Instance-free gameplay is more natural and engaging, when will the themepark community accept that lesson? If you're in the mood for a lobby game, there are plenty of MOBAs out there for you to jump on.

I think this could be done instance free. But we can combine some Lobby Game concepts to direct the player base into a game play mode that is more fun than straight zerg, which would otherwise be the case.

cant always zerg. all nodes wont have high pop. also, if you are zerguig one spot, the enemies can split and go for the mobs and the gatherables and win the event.

i disagree with forced low level events. at some point (pretty quickly in ashes) people will be max level. now we won't have low levels for the events. people gonna have to make low level alts for that.i wanna play my main, I'm probs other people as well.