Which is a very simply addressed problem, used commonly by all sorts of games in the market.
Just link the rank of enchantments to item level(=player level) and problem solved. For example, rare ranks(R5 and R6) can only be fit from item level 31 and above, epic ranks (R7 and above) can be only fit from item rank 60. Same limitations applying to weapon/armour enchantments as well, so lesser grade can be fitted to any level, normal grade needing item rank 30 or above, greater and perfect grade needing item rank 60 and above.
Frankly, I use mulhorand weapons as well as higher enchantments because, yes, it does provide me with an edge in combat, and preparing yourself in terms of spec/performance/gear is like half of what makes up PvP. However, if the item rank limits enchantment ranks, no biggy for me. In my case, my justification is that there are others do the same thing, and to whoop their arses I need the same amount of gear. Since a overall limitation would block off others from doing this, then no complaints from me whatsoever.
The only people who'd ever complain against a change like this would be PvP/PvErs who specifically want to dominate other players/level-range PvE content with overpowering performance gap.
How about this instead: You can only enchant your gear with whatever enchants drop from the PVE zones at that level.
So since at level 19, nothing drops in PVE that is higher than rank 2, you can't put more than rank 2 enchants into your gear.
That way the credit-card PVPers won't be able to ruin the experience of the first-time F2P PVErs who wander into PVP just to check it out.
But you may be able to answer a quick question for me, seeing you're already experienced in it. How much longer does it take to lvl through PvP instead of PvE? Can you get enough matches to keep pace with the PvE way?
Things are a bit slow when you first begin at lv10, up to around 30. After lv30 where your build starts to take tangible form, is when the pace picks up, since PvP wins provide huge chunks of XP. much larger than usual quest material.
Stop making excuses. Be a man. If you know something to be broken, stop using it. Otherwise, you've got no right to be speaking of 'balance.'
I hate premade teams vs normal guys too, had a match tonight against premade team with two Sentinels, both over 40K+ HP, one stealth perma TR, a CW and a HR with a new artifact, as i think it was. It was terrible, the HR used this- sorry i don't know what it was by exact name- a "book like" cross hair on us, we were in no time down. This paired with pathfinder being so OP and the wrong q system, terrible, no fun.
Please dear Devs make a separate PVP section for premades, thx!
The real honest man is honest from conviction of what is right, not from policy.
Robert E. Lee
I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself.
Winston Churchill
The human race is a herd. Here we are, unique, eternal aspects of consciousness with an infinity of potential, and we have allowed ourselves to become an unthinking, unquestioning blob of conformity and uniformity. A herd. Once we concede to the herd mentality, we can be controlled and directed by a tiny few. And we are.
David Icke
We can't have people having more EXPERIENCE than new players, it just makes it darn unfair! Seriously though, weeks of playing is imo not really extensive experience. Maybe that would be better measured in hours? If so I would say about a thousand hours of pvp makes an experienced player- if you even play 80 hours a week for a month it doesnt get you close.
Putting rank 10's and perfects on a brand new alt is a rich persons amusement I would think. Mostly I think people dont go much higher than rank 8's with mul weapons and blue gear and greater armor and weapon enchants. I guess that is bad enough but really so many experienced players say they dont bother to gear up their new alts till they hit 60 anyways, "when the game really starts".
The "experience" part isn't necessarily one of the unfair components, it is just an advantage that further widens the gap allowing a single player to beat an entire team 5v1.
On rank 10s and such, you have little to no idea how rich some people are in this game. Rank 10 prices are a joke to a lot of people (small percentage compared to the entire population, but there are enough of them and those are the same people that would twink).
You think buying rank 10s for an alt is a big task? Ha! I should share some of my AH buy/sell methods but I don't want any competition there either
a) cap the enchaments effects to max rank 7 in PvP.
b) GG matchs are not PvP matchs... are horse races... (the team with the best mounts has the "I WIN BUTTON" )... cap the speed of mounts to the standard 50% increase.
c) is impossible balance the PvP with the actual mechanism (also in some case the nerfs/buffs for PvP also destroy a class for PvE)... introduce a table of malus/bonus for each class against other classes... example: Im a HR... (this is RPG: the GFW are a big target... I cant miss)... gimme me a 200% increase damage against them... (this is RPG: a CW is elusive and ethereal)... give me a malus of 50% damage... and so for all other classes.
d) classes are OK as single, but overpowered in pack... add a malus of 20% dmg (or other effects) for each more toons of the same class in the team...2 HRs (20% damage reduction), the usual premade nob pack of 4 GFWs (60% damage reduction).
HR Syncro - The Equalizer - PvP stats: 10000/4800 (kills/deaths)
I have read this thread quite thoroughly, and will try to provide some helpful suggestions that should benefit everyone.
Problem 1) The ELO system, is it working or not?Solution, have your ELO ranking displayed right under your gear score, so that a player may track it from match to match. This does not require the devs to explain what metrics they are using, but does allow players to get a feel for it through experimentation.
Problem 2) Personal points vs Team points.I thought the post earlier was quite well thought out, but would require a lot more tweaking so as not to favor a particular class.
The leader board should be tied in with this issue. Earning points on the leader board should not be something you accomplish by hurting your team in a match. Of course what is defined as "hurting your team" varies from player to player, but should be approached with caution and again a special attention to not favoring a particular class, and a possible solution is the leader board should be divided by player class.
Problem 3) Que time acceptability. Now this does not have an easily installed fix, but with some work this could be a viable solution. A ground rule would have to be that pre-made party of 2+ may NEVER be put into a ques with a solo player. No exceptions. Next to have a series of brackets based strictly on gear score. Such as the one below.
Gear Score
Bracket
0-5,000
Newbie
5,001-8,000
Novice
8,001-10,000Apprentice
10,001-12,000
Initiate
12,001-14,000
Master
14,001-16,000
Champion
16,001-18,000
Grand Champion
18,001 & higher
Demi-God
The above table is ONLY an example, please dont go nuts saying why my numbers are flawed.
Now each player should have an ELO score for each bracket as well, then when being qued it can result in a more even match, and not a roflstomp.
Now there are some problems with this system, but fear not I come with solutions for those as well.
The most glaringly obvious would be those trying to change gear after queing or entering match. Solution, if before match, a pop up with message: "Changing gear will remove you from your current pvp que. Do you wish to proceed?"
If during a match, you get a pop up saying: "Changing gear during a PVP Match will result in you being ejected from your current pvp match with a doubled lever penalty applied. Do you wish to proceed?" That should nip that in the bud.
Next is que times. First the system should attempt to match based on the above procedure, if after 5 minutes the system can not match you, it will ask if you wish to keep looking or expand the search? If no on expansion it should keep attempting to match, with a new pop up every five minutes. If expanded then it should warn that this could result in a much tougher fight and could severely affect your ELO ratings. If confirmed then the system should expand the search to one bracket up and one down, looking for low ELO in the higher bracket, and high numbers in the lower bracket. Now in this scenario, the player that chose to expand should not be paired with a player from another bracket UNLESS that player has also agreed to an expanded search. The expansion of search should not be expanded more than twice. Using this procedure a player can choose whether a fast matching is more important than a more even matching.
Now we come to the premades, this is a little tougher, but can be handled fairly. Step one, upon attempting to que the system determines highest gear score in group, and then confirms with all members of the party, that they wish to have that person as leader, if so leadership transferred to them and que as normal. In a 5 person group the system then does it best to match based on leaders bracket and ELO, and then working downwrad in the team. If it gets at least three acceptable matches the fight proceeds. Also a five person team should only be matched with another five person team.
Teams made up of less than five issues. First, a four person team shall not be allowed to que, as this would require a solo player being forced into the team. For the two and three player teams the leaders bracket should be used to match teams together, as closely as possible.
Initial search should be ten minutes, as the team has made it more difficult to find another team and should be willing to wait longer to play with their chosen party. Expansion rules for all teams would then follow the same choices as a solo player, but requiring all team members to agree to expansion searches.
That properly coded should reduce que times and make the PVPers happy.
Now for the final complaint: MORE ARENAS!!The solution to this one is so glaringly obvious I am surprised it has not been brought up before. Foundry authors.If I was a foundry author I would already have several maps made for domination putting some non moving critter in the spots for the 3 nodes, until, if/when the nodes are added to the tool set.
If i was the devs, I would immediately add it to the tool set. Then announce a contest for best designs of new maps. I would add pvp maps to the foundry, so players can test, with it being as soon as ten que for it, it launches, with no affects to elo, rankings or anything else. Just a friendly free for all. I would have the usual reviews and donations afterward. Once a pvp map gets X# of positive reviews, then the devs would ok it and incorporate the map into the system. Of course giving the author credit and possibly a new achievement, companions etc.
Click banner for the Dragon Dogs Family guild page.
1) Make a HIDDEN GS mechanic in que. Players with 12,500+ in 1 bracket and player with <12,500 in another. (Parties would be based on the HIGHEST GS person in the group)
2) Make a VISUAL Que mechanic that will divide your bracket further by "pre-made" or "non-premade"
3) Have ELO play a role. (ELO matching should be based on the highest person in the group)
Step 1 kicks in, and puts you in bracket A or bracket B (under or over 12,500 GS)
Step 2 kicks in and puts you into the premade or nonpremade que. (for now, just make it 5 man que versus 4 man or less)
Step 3 kicks in NOW and matches the team up with players within ELO range inside that box.
Most people will fit into the 4man or less AND the 12,500+ Que so if your in there, you will have the shortest que times. What this does is eliminates the REALLY frustrating games.
A 3 man gets pit against a 5 man and they have 2 pugs with 5k GS....
Or a PUG gets put against a 5 man team....
NOW even a 4 man team has the advantage but chances are they will have 1 weak link where an organized PUG or even 3 man team CAN pull something off there.
Comments
How about this instead: You can only enchant your gear with whatever enchants drop from the PVE zones at that level.
So since at level 19, nothing drops in PVE that is higher than rank 2, you can't put more than rank 2 enchants into your gear.
That way the credit-card PVPers won't be able to ruin the experience of the first-time F2P PVErs who wander into PVP just to check it out.
Don't like it? Don't twink.
I really think both suggestions are pretty much the same.
Anyway even though I've had my mischievous fun twinking in PVP, I believe this is the right approach.
Things are a bit slow when you first begin at lv10, up to around 30. After lv30 where your build starts to take tangible form, is when the pace picks up, since PvP wins provide huge chunks of XP. much larger than usual quest material.
If you know something to be broken, stop using it.
Otherwise, you've got no right to be speaking of 'balance.'
I hate premade teams vs normal guys too, had a match tonight against premade team with two Sentinels, both over 40K+ HP, one stealth perma TR, a CW and a HR with a new artifact, as i think it was. It was terrible, the HR used this- sorry i don't know what it was by exact name- a "book like" cross hair on us, we were in no time down. This paired with pathfinder being so OP and the wrong q system, terrible, no fun.
Please dear Devs make a separate PVP section for premades, thx!
Robert E. Lee
I only believe in statistics that I doctored myself.
Winston Churchill
The human race is a herd. Here we are, unique, eternal aspects of consciousness with an infinity of potential, and we have allowed ourselves to become an unthinking, unquestioning blob of conformity and uniformity. A herd. Once we concede to the herd mentality, we can be controlled and directed by a tiny few. And we are.
David Icke
The "experience" part isn't necessarily one of the unfair components, it is just an advantage that further widens the gap allowing a single player to beat an entire team 5v1.
On rank 10s and such, you have little to no idea how rich some people are in this game. Rank 10 prices are a joke to a lot of people (small percentage compared to the entire population, but there are enough of them and those are the same people that would twink).
You think buying rank 10s for an alt is a big task? Ha! I should share some of my AH buy/sell methods but I don't want any competition there either
b) GG matchs are not PvP matchs... are horse races... (the team with the best mounts has the "I WIN BUTTON" )... cap the speed of mounts to the standard 50% increase.
c) is impossible balance the PvP with the actual mechanism (also in some case the nerfs/buffs for PvP also destroy a class for PvE)... introduce a table of malus/bonus for each class against other classes... example: Im a HR... (this is RPG: the GFW are a big target... I cant miss)... gimme me a 200% increase damage against them... (this is RPG: a CW is elusive and ethereal)... give me a malus of 50% damage... and so for all other classes.
d) classes are OK as single, but overpowered in pack... add a malus of 20% dmg (or other effects) for each more toons of the same class in the team...2 HRs (20% damage reduction), the usual premade nob pack of 4 GFWs (60% damage reduction).
Problem 1) The ELO system, is it working or not? Solution, have your ELO ranking displayed right under your gear score, so that a player may track it from match to match. This does not require the devs to explain what metrics they are using, but does allow players to get a feel for it through experimentation.
Problem 2) Personal points vs Team points. I thought the post earlier was quite well thought out, but would require a lot more tweaking so as not to favor a particular class.
The leader board should be tied in with this issue. Earning points on the leader board should not be something you accomplish by hurting your team in a match. Of course what is defined as "hurting your team" varies from player to player, but should be approached with caution and again a special attention to not favoring a particular class, and a possible solution is the leader board should be divided by player class.
Problem 3) Que time acceptability. Now this does not have an easily installed fix, but with some work this could be a viable solution. A ground rule would have to be that pre-made party of 2+ may NEVER be put into a ques with a solo player. No exceptions. Next to have a series of brackets based strictly on gear score. Such as the one below.
Gear Score
Bracket
0-5,000
Newbie
5,001-8,000
Novice
8,001-10,000Apprentice
10,001-12,000
Initiate
12,001-14,000
Master
14,001-16,000
Champion
16,001-18,000
Grand Champion
18,001 & higher
Demi-God
The above table is ONLY an example, please dont go nuts saying why my numbers are flawed.
Now each player should have an ELO score for each bracket as well, then when being qued it can result in a more even match, and not a roflstomp.
Now there are some problems with this system, but fear not I come with solutions for those as well.
The most glaringly obvious would be those trying to change gear after queing or entering match. Solution, if before match, a pop up with message: "Changing gear will remove you from your current pvp que. Do you wish to proceed?"
If during a match, you get a pop up saying: "Changing gear during a PVP Match will result in you being ejected from your current pvp match with a doubled lever penalty applied. Do you wish to proceed?" That should nip that in the bud.
Next is que times. First the system should attempt to match based on the above procedure, if after 5 minutes the system can not match you, it will ask if you wish to keep looking or expand the search? If no on expansion it should keep attempting to match, with a new pop up every five minutes. If expanded then it should warn that this could result in a much tougher fight and could severely affect your ELO ratings. If confirmed then the system should expand the search to one bracket up and one down, looking for low ELO in the higher bracket, and high numbers in the lower bracket. Now in this scenario, the player that chose to expand should not be paired with a player from another bracket UNLESS that player has also agreed to an expanded search. The expansion of search should not be expanded more than twice. Using this procedure a player can choose whether a fast matching is more important than a more even matching.
Now we come to the premades, this is a little tougher, but can be handled fairly. Step one, upon attempting to que the system determines highest gear score in group, and then confirms with all members of the party, that they wish to have that person as leader, if so leadership transferred to them and que as normal. In a 5 person group the system then does it best to match based on leaders bracket and ELO, and then working downwrad in the team. If it gets at least three acceptable matches the fight proceeds. Also a five person team should only be matched with another five person team.
Teams made up of less than five issues. First, a four person team shall not be allowed to que, as this would require a solo player being forced into the team. For the two and three player teams the leaders bracket should be used to match teams together, as closely as possible.
Initial search should be ten minutes, as the team has made it more difficult to find another team and should be willing to wait longer to play with their chosen party. Expansion rules for all teams would then follow the same choices as a solo player, but requiring all team members to agree to expansion searches.
That properly coded should reduce que times and make the PVPers happy.
Now for the final complaint: MORE ARENAS!! The solution to this one is so glaringly obvious I am surprised it has not been brought up before. Foundry authors. If I was a foundry author I would already have several maps made for domination putting some non moving critter in the spots for the 3 nodes, until, if/when the nodes are added to the tool set.
If i was the devs, I would immediately add it to the tool set. Then announce a contest for best designs of new maps. I would add pvp maps to the foundry, so players can test, with it being as soon as ten que for it, it launches, with no affects to elo, rankings or anything else. Just a friendly free for all. I would have the usual reviews and donations afterward. Once a pvp map gets X# of positive reviews, then the devs would ok it and incorporate the map into the system. Of course giving the author credit and possibly a new achievement, companions etc.
Click banner for the Dragon Dogs Family guild page.
Only thing I disagree with is Queing.
1) Make a HIDDEN GS mechanic in que. Players with 12,500+ in 1 bracket and player with <12,500 in another. (Parties would be based on the HIGHEST GS person in the group)
2) Make a VISUAL Que mechanic that will divide your bracket further by "pre-made" or "non-premade"
3) Have ELO play a role. (ELO matching should be based on the highest person in the group)
Step 1 kicks in, and puts you in bracket A or bracket B (under or over 12,500 GS)
Step 2 kicks in and puts you into the premade or nonpremade que. (for now, just make it 5 man que versus 4 man or less)
Step 3 kicks in NOW and matches the team up with players within ELO range inside that box.
Most people will fit into the 4man or less AND the 12,500+ Que so if your in there, you will have the shortest que times. What this does is eliminates the REALLY frustrating games.
A 3 man gets pit against a 5 man and they have 2 pugs with 5k GS....
Or a PUG gets put against a 5 man team....
NOW even a 4 man team has the advantage but chances are they will have 1 weak link where an organized PUG or even 3 man team CAN pull something off there.
But this simple system would help out ALOT.