Let me preface this by stating I am NOT a PVPer..dont enjoy the playstyle in mmos at all
but whats wrong with handling CC or Utility spell by just simply traveling in a group, A RL friend played on one of the EQ pvp servers and they pretty much traveled in packs. Dont really think anything should be balanced to the 1v1 fight.
Youmu said:There is a HUGE difference in balancing PvE and PvP, you can even decide to have different approuches to PvP balance. An ability that CC's something for 30sec or 1min in PvE is not neccesarily balanced for PvP at all. Utility skills take on very different values in PvP and therefore saying that "if it is balanced in PvE it will be balanced in PvP" can't really apply, so yes, PvP changes a lot and "turns it into Street Fighter", taking on a very different kind of complexity. If it was easy it would had been done good in other games already, but the fact is that many MMO's PvP is very unbalanced.
//Voices of Terminus' Youmu Svartie
This was already achieved in EQ. What Liav said is true, the changes are easy to make. More than that though, if you're design is solid in PvE, it translates to PvP well. Beyond that, it's not really that complicated deciding which abilities should be tweaked for PvP.
For instance, with your example of CC. In EQ, CC or movement impairment wasn't set durations for the most part. They worked on a resistance system and a dice roll. Every few seconds there was a tick where the spell rolled against player MR. Players generally had more Magic Resist than most mobs, therefore those effects were naturally resisted more often or lasted for shorter durations. It worked itself out.
The CCs like Rapture that were unresistable were left alone, because they were high mana cost on cool down. Then those other low mana/no cool down abilities with set durations (like Snare) were subject to the same random duration as other abilities in PvP. Thus, if snare landed, it would sometimes wear off almost immediately just like root.
Kind of no-brainer design decisions, tbh.
Sevens said:Let me preface this by stating I am NOT a PVPer..dont enjoy the playstyle in mmos at all
but whats wrong with handling CC or Utility spell by just simply traveling in a group, A RL friend played on one of the EQ pvp servers and they pretty much traveled in packs. Dont really think anything should be balanced to the 1v1 fight.
Right. CC was and should be powerful. It's the mainstay of certain classes. To limit it too much is to nerf a class. In the case of EQ, the enchanter excelled at stripping or locking players down, but was almost incapable of killing a competent player. It was almost mandatory that they worked as a group. Likewise, if you want to counter CC, play with people who can break those mezes or dispel that root. That is the how group play works and balances itself out. No individual classes should have all the tricks.
I remember where if you attacked someone that was PvP-flagged, you became PvP-flagged for about an hour. So, people would get flagged, then run into a PvE fight where people were doing AE damage, causing them to get flagged, so they can get slaughtered in non-voluntary PvP.
I am OK keeping PvP on the servers for those that want it. If I get bored and want to PvP, I can simply create a toon there.
Beefcake said:Oversimplistic, as usuaL. It not the coding that makes it difficult. The coding may be trivial, as you say.
However, it's the deci making and testing in what should effect players and how much it should affect players that matter. 1 minute, 30 seconds, 5 second, etc. Its those decisoon that cause so many angered players and frustrated Devs, mostly because no one agrees on what the result should be.
The users think they are not powerful enough. The targets think they are too powerful.
You call me oversimplistic without even addressing my post. Well done.
I'm specifically addressing concerns about PvP balance affecting PvE. That has nothing to do with players disagreeing over what constitutes balance in PvP. The same thing happens in PvE.
General Statement for everyone who missed my other posts:
There should not be any concern over PvP changes affecting PvE, I have made it very clear numerous times that no changes to PvP servers, including classes/characters, will affect PvE servers, classes or characters. Brad has even explained in a little more detail about having different dev code sets for the different flags of PvE and PvP.
So to be very clear:
Pantheon is PvE, we will have PvP servers with different rulesets depending on popular demand, no changes made on PvP servers will affect PvE at all unless we intend to make sweeping changes to all servers/classes, we are working on PvE first as it is the base of our game and once that is where we want it to be, we will start working on PvP.
I hope that helps clear up some misconceptions :)
Edit: Spelling
Liav said:@Kilsin
It's great that you're talking about completely separate code bases for PvE and PvP. Unfortunately I don't see it resolving the neverending onslaught of posts about how PvP is a cancer that will inevitably destroy unrelated content in the game. Oh well.
So ignore those posts then, it is my job to worry about them and make sure the forums are a pleasant place to visit while informing the uninformed, correcting the misconceptions and moderating the people who don't listen, follow the rules or learn. Just participate in topics and discussions that you enjoy and skip the rest. ;)
PvE and PvP are separate in every way, they have no impact on each other and no matter how many times I say it, people will still make baseless claims, assumptions and create topics on this subject and many others without using the search function to find this information first, but life goes on :)
Definitely PvE for me.
I enjoy social, cooperative game play vs AI bad guys more than I enjoy trying to gain exp and explore content and improve while constantly having to watch my back and/or lose out on precious playing time due to lengthy or difficult corpse recoveries or harrassment from griefers. Nothing worse than trying to camp an area to get the SUPER rare spawn you've been after forever, and just as you are in mid-cast to kill it after it finally spawns, some griefer walks up, ganks your @#$ and finishes of the mob, gets the item and usually sends a /t saying "hey wanna by a "item you were just camping?" just for insult to injury
However, in EQ I did spend so much time on Rallos, Tallon, Vallon and even a bit of Sullon and had so much fun, I would not hesitate to play these server types as well, but again, far more enjoyment on a server where I am not constantly doing macro'd zone checks to see if PKr's have entered the zone etc
I would probably 80% blue server, and 20% red, because PvP with the right people is exciting, adventure, and often hilarious (unless the pvp server is severely low pop like red99... that poor server just cannot sustain population and I think once pvp servers hit too low pop, toxicity sets in once griefers take over)
One thing I am wondering about PvP is the plans for the server(s), for instance, will there be a rallos +/- 4 levels restriction, will there be a restriction on the number of time an account can PK another account per day, would there be an all out "It's your world, you guys govern it" no rules, let's see what happens server... will be interesting to see how pvp ends up for release. I'm hoping pvp will be more about working together and using the synergy of multiple classes to win a battle than it would be about making all classes equally balanced so that a warrior and mage can go toe to toe in combat and be equal.
Kilsin said:Liav said:@Kilsin
It's great that you're talking about completely separate code bases for PvE and PvP. Unfortunately I don't see it resolving the neverending onslaught of posts about how PvP is a cancer that will inevitably destroy unrelated content in the game. Oh well.
So ignore those posts then, it is my job to worry about them and make sure the forums are a pleasant place to visit while informing the uninformed, correcting the misconceptions and moderating the people who don't listen, follow the rules or learn. Just participate in topics and discussions that you enjoy and skip the rest. ;)
PvE and PvP are separate in every way, they have no impact on each other and no matter how many times I say it, people will still make baseless claims, assumptions and create topics on this subject and many others without using the search function to find this information first, but life goes on :)
Liav, Kilsin's statement is pretty clear and black/white. If him saying that the code bases are separate and wil not effect each other does not put people's mind to rest, nothing will.
An interesting article about "cooperation" in games.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c11e/2f41a08189662a5891534d809b882bac7f33.pdf
I liked pvp..but am more pve now. Just a question about Pvp..I remember DAOC implementing "diminishing returns" so that casting the same spell over and over on an enemy eventually had limited or no effect..til "time" ran out. Will that be a thing... and line of sight was important too. So you're standing in front of a blade of grass..will that blade of grass or small rock get in the way of your line of sight? I remember things like that..kind of annoying hehehe.
CanadinaXegony said:I liked pvp..but am more pve now. Just a question about Pvp..I remember DAOC implementing "diminishing returns" so that casting the same spell over and over on an enemy eventually had limited or no effect..til "time" ran out. Will that be a thing... and line of sight was important too. So you're standing in front of a blade of grass..will that blade of grass or small rock get in the way of your line of sight? I remember things like that..kind of annoying hehehe.
Diminishing returns is stupid...Dont want that spell effecting you? build up your resist
Sevens said:Diminishing returns is stupid...Dont want that spell effecting you? build up your resist
No it was an actual necessity for pvp balance - mez and stun immunity timers, mez and stun would wear off progressively faster and eventually wouldn't do anything to you if you were hit within a certain period of time. If they didn't have them, Sorcerors, etc. would just continually chain AE mez and keep people mez locked after their first purge was used. Damage spells, etc. did not have that limitation.
Reht said:Sevens said:Diminishing returns is stupid...Dont want that spell effecting you? build up your resist
No it was an actual necessity for pvp balance - mez and stun immunity timers, mez and stun would wear off progressively faster and eventually wouldn't do anything to you if you were hit within a certain period of time. If they didn't have them, Sorcerors, etc. would just continually chain AE mez and keep people mez locked after their first purge was used. Damage spells, etc. did not have that limitation.
And once again this is on a 1v1 basis...Pantheon is a group centric game and as such the PvP should also be group centric. Dont want to be chain mezzed, run with a crowd...have people that can deal with the enchanter, build up your resist so you have a much better chance of resisting the spell. Diminishing returns is just another example of the devs coming in to "fix" a problem that really isnt a problem. I hate the idea of "balance". My wizard should be able to destroy your warrior, but thats why you have a druid friend who buffs your stats and he has a rogue friend to BS the druid but you have a cleric to heal the druid but the mage pet is now beating on the clerics head ....etc etc etc. Correct me if I am wrong but there was NO dimishing returns on the EQ pvp servers were there?
I agree with the spirit of your argument Sevens. However, in particular to spells like mez and root, being able to keep someone locked down forever opens up a loophole for griefing.
Mad at someone for stealing your camp? Instead of killing them and risking retaliation after they run back from their bind point, simply perma mez them forever...
I didn't play on the PvP servers in EQ1, so no idea how this was handled there.
Wellspring said:I agree with the spirit of your argument Sevens. However, in particular to spells like mez and root, being able to keep someone locked down forever opens up a loophole for griefing.
Mad at someone for stealing your camp? Instead of killing them and risking retaliation after they run back from their bind point, simply perma mez them forever...
I didn't play on the PvP servers in EQ1, so no idea how this was handled there.
But isnt the risk of griefing and perma camping one of the hazards of Open world pvp (as opposed to battlegrounds or arenas)? Isnt that when guilds and or community comes in to play? If someone is a known griefer they get the bad rep and are KOS to most of the player base? Youre being corpse camped and instead of some silly dev mechanic making you somehow now immune to the others spells you call out to your guild and or friends and they come to your rescue? Or maybe just the community at large would step in, because we all know (and you pvper keep telling us) that its not about the griefing but the challenged of facing a RL opponent
Sevens said:And once again this is on a 1v1 basis...Pantheon is a group centric game and as such the PvP should also be group centric. Dont want to be chain mezzed, run with a crowd...have people that can deal with the enchanter, build up your resist so you have a much better chance of resisting the spell. Diminishing returns is just another example of the devs coming in to "fix" a problem that really isnt a problem. I hate the idea of "balance". My wizard should be able to destroy your warrior, but thats why you have a druid friend who buffs your stats and he has a rogue friend to BS the druid but you have a cleric to heal the druid but the mage pet is now beating on the clerics head ....etc etc etc. Correct me if I am wrong but there was NO dimishing returns on the EQ pvp servers were there?
No, i am not talking about 1v1... like Pantheon, DAoC is a group centric game. Like any PvP game, it has it's share of 1v1 but I am talking group sized + pvp, including 8v8 (group size is 8 in DAoC) up to zerg vs. zerg vs. zerg (3 factions). It was a real problem, and one that had to be fixed. They are still facing the same concerns in the development of Camelot Unchained.
No, they never had diminishing returns in EQ pvp, but they made changes to spell damage - you can't do more than 75% of a PC's life with one hit (i guess you could say this is a diminishing return).
Sevens said:Wellspring said:I agree with the spirit of your argument Sevens. However, in particular to spells like mez and root, being able to keep someone locked down forever opens up a loophole for griefing.
Mad at someone for stealing your camp? Instead of killing them and risking retaliation after they run back from their bind point, simply perma mez them forever...
I didn't play on the PvP servers in EQ1, so no idea how this was handled there.
But isnt the risk of griefing and perma camping one of the hazards of Open world pvp (as opposed to battlegrounds or arenas)? Isnt that when guilds and or community comes in to play? If someone is a known griefer they get the bad rep and are KOS to most of the player base? Youre being corpse camped and instead of some silly dev mechanic making you somehow now immune to the others spells you call out to your guild and or friends and they come to your rescue? Or maybe just the community at large would step in, because we all know (and you pvper keep telling us) that its not about the griefing but the challenged of facing a RL opponent
Personally as a player, I am fine with griefing and perma camping being hazards of the PvP server.
However, I fear many others would not be fine with it and the overall population and longevity of the PvP servers would suffer.
i hate PvP but there is a couple ways i would like to see it in a PvE game
1 duels where both players agree to it and where neither player can die (auto stop at 1 hp and all dots removed)
2 guilds can declare war on each other (again both guilds masters agree to enter war)
3 a arenas set up in some of the biggest cities where you have to talk to a npc and agree to be ported into it, so newbies can't just wonder in and then cry about pk
4 like old school eq talk to a npc that would change your name color to red and then you could pvp anyone with a red name. could only be changed 1 time every 24 hours
5 and last gm punishment for rule breakers a GM can set a bounty on players head (100% drop item) for a set time (week, month, year) where anyone is free to kill the punish player and turn in the item like any quest item tell the bounty is removed. (talking about people that only goal is to piss others off, not the stuff that should get a player should be banned for like hacking)
I think there should be diminishing returns in PvE and PvP on some abilities. I don't think it's necessary to allow someone to lock a player or a mob down for long durations. If a mez can last a minute, I think it's fair if recast within a window that it only last 30 or 45 seconds. That's just one more variable you have to account for that make combat more interesting. Maybe it requires you rotate through different types of impairment abilities to get the most out of them (root to long stun to mez, etc).
Beefcake said:SWTOR has a Resolve mechanic, I think it was stolen from somewhere else.
Your have a bar. Each CC ability used on you drains a portion of the bar; bigger mezzes use more, roots use less.
If your bar is drained, you cannot be CCd until it is back up.
It does and if I recall correctly (unless it's changed) you're close but it works in reverse as the resolve bar begins to fill each time you're hit with a cc ability like a root or stun (but not snare). Once full you become immune to those sort of effects until the bar runs out (only a few seconds).
I'm not a big PvP guy, I tend to be more in it for the minigames when I do, but for PvP servers and such it would be good to go ahead and think about this as several games have hit this problem right out the gate. And by problem I mean infinite chain stunning until dead. SWTOR had it for a while in the open PvP zone of Illum and the PvP minigames. Other games have as well. And with the return of CC classes for Pantheon (Yay!) I'm sure they will be again here as well. So maybe a diminishing return system of sorts on the PvP side.
I'll now head back to plotting my PvE world domination. :)
Youmu said:Balancing for PvP would still be a problem if they implement PvP servers (which they've said they would at launch) as they would need to keep that balanced and saying they concentrate on PvE and still make a PvP server to me sounds like a cheap way to get more players as people that enjoy PvP atleast a bit is more than just "a few", a notion that gives a very bad taste in my mouth and something I think VR is not about.
//Voices of Terminus' Youmu Svartie
There will be ruleset servers that cater specifically for pvp...roleplay or other things. I don't want to heal someone not knowing they are pvp..and end up flagged myself on a PVE server. I have done both kinds of play. If I choose a pve server...unless the Devs are putting on a "Best of the Best" competition in that case they determine if that's to be every server or just the pvp servers. If I choose a pvp server for nostalgia reasons, then I want to be clear that ..that's what I chose. Not half and half unless under SPECIAL circumstances determined by what the Devs have planned out. There are a ton of pvp games out there if that's what you are missing.