I played a 'neutral' party as an assassin. My backstory was I got hired to kill the entire party off, make it look accidential for a previous run they had done before I joined the party. It was intense and put everyone on edge. Especially as none of us were allowed to know what our HP total was. It was PVP.
Co-operation is the coordination of 2 or more people in one goal. That one goal being the competition between said people and their end task. PVE is the competition between player and non-player. PVP is the co-operation of a group of 5 players against a group of 5 players.
2 sides, same coin.
I've mentioned once already, I play this game for PVP. I don't play other games for PVP due to the fact they aren't this game. They don't have this combat, this gear, this background, etc, etc, etc. I don't want PVP to become the main focus of the dev team. On the contrary, this is a PVE game, D&D has soooo much depth to it that it would be a disrespect to the source concept if they did change that focus.
What I'd like is 2 things really:
1) PVP to have ranks, so that there is a growth outside of GS for who is good. This rank should be based on the team and your avg score gain/loss is based on how the team plays. Keep ranked and non-ranked seperate, allow both to qualify for the daily.
2) Allow foundry PVP content. Not only does this take the pain of making new content off of dev team, it allows players to be part of the system even more. a Foundry PVP match should qualify for daily foundry/daily pvp. I'd say it should have a seperate tab in the foundry menu system and be semi-random for what map is actually played.. I don't have a full 100% grasp of how foundry items get validated. That development time would make for a long term investment + meld pvp and pve players into the same field.
Edit!
D&D is PVP! It's the team of players vs the GM + his story.
Boom. Minds blown!
I've played D&D for years, and have done so much stupid stuff: the kind of stuff you CAN do when you have a bunch of friends, some beer, some dice, and a ton of imagination. I wouldn't dream of using that as an argument for including something in an online game.
If you argument was "4th ed rules have a whole section dedicated to 5v5 point-capping arena combats (which faerun inexplicably has, now), and the entire ruleset has been carefully balanced to make these 5v5s work", then maybe you'd have something approaching an argument. "I was an assassin who backstabbed my own party" doesn't really cut it.
The entire point of my argument is that there *can* be pvp in D&D. The whole point of the game was to make it open ended for players to do whatever they want. That wasn't the first group that I've had PVP happen in. Just the one I remembered first.
Outside of that, 4e doesn't have necromancy. There are things that do it in NW. NW is 'based' on the game. Which is something I mentioned too.
But the problem stems from the fact that PvP as implemented here makes the devs focus effort on making classes balanced and (at least slightly) equivalent. Which is stupid, because they're not.
The classes are very different, and bring very different levels of utility, most of which create great synergy when it's a team fighting a whole bunch of monsters, few of which work well in PvP: GFs can taunt & mark monsters....how useful is that in PvP, exactly?
In traditional D&D if you threw a fighter and a wizard into an arena and said "fight lol", the wizard would get murdered stupidly fast, because wizards are not arena combat characters. Conversely, give the wizard some space and some time, and he/she could easily wipe out a platoon of fighters. A thief vs a fighter in a straight-up bar fight is going to result in a smashed thief, but a thief vs a fighter in a dark alley is going to result in a perforated fighter. The classes are not designed nor intended to be thrown into a pit and told to murder each other, and if this DOES happen, it's not expected to be a balanced combat.
The whole 'balanced 5v5 arena combat' dynamic seems wildly out of place, and the idea that everyone has to be rejigged to be at least passably effective detracts from the game's class-synergy aspects pretty heavily. Skills that are spectacular in PvE might be utterly useless in PvP (like...basically any threat generating/mitigating skills), and skills that are useful in PvE but allegedly super awesome in PvP usually get nerfed quickly, leaving them utterly useless in both (hello hammer of fate)
A lot of games have had this problem (guild wars, for example), and many of them ultimately resorted to just separating the skills into PvE and PvP versions, because then everyone's happy. You can go on balancing the PvP versions till the cows come home, but the people who just wanna team up and smash monsters don't even need to know about it.
I would be happy for them to seperate PVP and PVE! That'd be fine by me, so if they go that route, great.
As for your offerings, both of them depend on build of the character. I can name a type of rogue (admittedly 3.5e) that could smash a fighter 1 on 1 in a bar fight. Depending on the fighter of course. Which is a lot of what they have here.
The game is designed for solo play + a companion (minor support). So the game IS designed for ALL classes to be able to do stuff. Thus, the idea of 1 on 1 balance is actually something that could be seen as valid; they do it for PVE already.
As for the 5 v 5 arena, there are utilities people bring. My DPS DC heals + dps. a CW controls + dps. GF/GWF tanks + dps. The taunting thing is a mark that reduces DR. If you ignore the marker and don't hit them? You're going to hurt more from the TR/CW/DC/etc etc. That's actually a very solid 'taunt' even for players.
The other reason you don't ignore the GF? beachball spec!
I'll say this I don't pvp anymore in these games because in the past it became boring when every person you fought would open up with a skill that locked you down then kept you there. So the matches became who can stun who the quickest. I don't even know if NW has that mechanic but it's the most annoying part of almost all pvp games. Not even sure why pvpers must have a mechanic where they can win without using 'skills' or whatever kids call it when they press buttons on a keyboard.
And yes I know pve gets boring too but at least mostly npc do not stun lock me till I'm dead.
Also this entire thread reminds me of old People who hated rpers vs Rpers. :P
I love roleplaying. I have a bi-weekly table top group that meets at my house doing 1st ed AD&D.
There are plenty of NPCs that also have stuns, knock you down, etc. There are even bosses where you can be taken from 100 > 0 due to aoe high damage knock back, knock down that you can't get up from.
The 'skill' is learning the tells of the moves and avoiding it. Dodge/block lets you interrupt the attempt, making it fail. The GWF wants you to hit them and then will get up pissed off.
But that's for a different thread.
0
pers3phoneBanned Users, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
A lot of games have had this problem (guild wars, for example), and many of them ultimately resorted to just separating the skills into PvE and PvP versions, because then everyone's happy. You can go on balancing the PvP versions till the cows come home, but the people who just wanna team up and smash monsters don't even need to know about it.
Yes, separation is the way to do things. My suggestion was to introduce Resilience PvP-only gear, that will finely tune the damage output and damage reduction for each class.
This way you can leave PvE untouched and separately tune PvP. I find this ideal and no nerfs are needed at all.
I love roleplaying. I have a bi-weekly table top group that meets at my house doing 1st ed AD&D.
There are plenty of NPCs that also have stuns, knock you down, etc. There are even bosses where you can be taken from 100 > 0 due to aoe high damage knock back, knock down that you can't get up from.
The 'skill' is learning the tells of the moves and avoiding it. Dodge/block lets you interrupt the attempt, making it fail. The GWF wants you to hit them and then will get up pissed off.
But that's for a different thread.
I play 2nd ad&d but I did not know this game had those, but avoiding red circle is kinda basic. using clay and creating statues, now that's skill :P
I concur, those are also types of skill. Avoiding the GF when he's going into his knock down chain is skill, avoiding the TR that just stealthed to try and rush/stab you is skill. Just because it's digital skill doesn't make it any less of a skill.
And it's cool to hear there are other AD&D players out there.
0
xhritMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited December 2013
I have come to the conclusion that PVP is awful in this game. The actual gameplay is OK. Everything else about pvp is just bad tho.
The matchmaker sucks; there is no skill matching, there is no gearscore matching, there is no premade que. This leads to imbalanced one sided curbstomps where one side gets an easy win, and the other side gets nothing.
The scoring sucks; there is no incentive to actually put in any effort, and no penalty for leaving early, so most matches someone ragequits and requeues as soon as it becomes apparent their side is not going to be the side to get an easy win.
The rewards suck - there is no long term goals, no competitive challenge. There should be weekly / monthly pvp leaderboards with unique cosmetic rewards, awarded based on win loss ratio - with a quit counting as a loss.
Oh, and the controls suck; finishing an enemy off should be a different button then inspecting an ally.
Comments
I played a 'neutral' party as an assassin. My backstory was I got hired to kill the entire party off, make it look accidential for a previous run they had done before I joined the party. It was intense and put everyone on edge. Especially as none of us were allowed to know what our HP total was. It was PVP.
Co-operation is the coordination of 2 or more people in one goal. That one goal being the competition between said people and their end task. PVE is the competition between player and non-player. PVP is the co-operation of a group of 5 players against a group of 5 players.
2 sides, same coin.
I've mentioned once already, I play this game for PVP. I don't play other games for PVP due to the fact they aren't this game. They don't have this combat, this gear, this background, etc, etc, etc. I don't want PVP to become the main focus of the dev team. On the contrary, this is a PVE game, D&D has soooo much depth to it that it would be a disrespect to the source concept if they did change that focus.
What I'd like is 2 things really:
1) PVP to have ranks, so that there is a growth outside of GS for who is good. This rank should be based on the team and your avg score gain/loss is based on how the team plays. Keep ranked and non-ranked seperate, allow both to qualify for the daily.
2) Allow foundry PVP content. Not only does this take the pain of making new content off of dev team, it allows players to be part of the system even more. a Foundry PVP match should qualify for daily foundry/daily pvp. I'd say it should have a seperate tab in the foundry menu system and be semi-random for what map is actually played.. I don't have a full 100% grasp of how foundry items get validated. That development time would make for a long term investment + meld pvp and pve players into the same field.
Edit!
D&D is PVP! It's the team of players vs the GM + his story.
Boom. Minds blown!
... or not.
I've played D&D for years, and have done so much stupid stuff: the kind of stuff you CAN do when you have a bunch of friends, some beer, some dice, and a ton of imagination. I wouldn't dream of using that as an argument for including something in an online game.
If you argument was "4th ed rules have a whole section dedicated to 5v5 point-capping arena combats (which faerun inexplicably has, now), and the entire ruleset has been carefully balanced to make these 5v5s work", then maybe you'd have something approaching an argument. "I was an assassin who backstabbed my own party" doesn't really cut it.
Outside of that, 4e doesn't have necromancy. There are things that do it in NW. NW is 'based' on the game. Which is something I mentioned too.
The classes are very different, and bring very different levels of utility, most of which create great synergy when it's a team fighting a whole bunch of monsters, few of which work well in PvP: GFs can taunt & mark monsters....how useful is that in PvP, exactly?
In traditional D&D if you threw a fighter and a wizard into an arena and said "fight lol", the wizard would get murdered stupidly fast, because wizards are not arena combat characters. Conversely, give the wizard some space and some time, and he/she could easily wipe out a platoon of fighters. A thief vs a fighter in a straight-up bar fight is going to result in a smashed thief, but a thief vs a fighter in a dark alley is going to result in a perforated fighter. The classes are not designed nor intended to be thrown into a pit and told to murder each other, and if this DOES happen, it's not expected to be a balanced combat.
The whole 'balanced 5v5 arena combat' dynamic seems wildly out of place, and the idea that everyone has to be rejigged to be at least passably effective detracts from the game's class-synergy aspects pretty heavily. Skills that are spectacular in PvE might be utterly useless in PvP (like...basically any threat generating/mitigating skills), and skills that are useful in PvE but allegedly super awesome in PvP usually get nerfed quickly, leaving them utterly useless in both (hello hammer of fate)
A lot of games have had this problem (guild wars, for example), and many of them ultimately resorted to just separating the skills into PvE and PvP versions, because then everyone's happy. You can go on balancing the PvP versions till the cows come home, but the people who just wanna team up and smash monsters don't even need to know about it.
As for your offerings, both of them depend on build of the character. I can name a type of rogue (admittedly 3.5e) that could smash a fighter 1 on 1 in a bar fight. Depending on the fighter of course. Which is a lot of what they have here.
The game is designed for solo play + a companion (minor support). So the game IS designed for ALL classes to be able to do stuff. Thus, the idea of 1 on 1 balance is actually something that could be seen as valid; they do it for PVE already.
As for the 5 v 5 arena, there are utilities people bring. My DPS DC heals + dps. a CW controls + dps. GF/GWF tanks + dps. The taunting thing is a mark that reduces DR. If you ignore the marker and don't hit them? You're going to hurt more from the TR/CW/DC/etc etc. That's actually a very solid 'taunt' even for players.
The other reason you don't ignore the GF? beachball spec!
And yes I know pve gets boring too but at least mostly npc do not stun lock me till I'm dead.
Also this entire thread reminds me of old People who hated rpers vs Rpers. :P
There are plenty of NPCs that also have stuns, knock you down, etc. There are even bosses where you can be taken from 100 > 0 due to aoe high damage knock back, knock down that you can't get up from.
The 'skill' is learning the tells of the moves and avoiding it. Dodge/block lets you interrupt the attempt, making it fail. The GWF wants you to hit them and then will get up pissed off.
But that's for a different thread.
Yes, separation is the way to do things. My suggestion was to introduce Resilience PvP-only gear, that will finely tune the damage output and damage reduction for each class.
This way you can leave PvE untouched and separately tune PvP. I find this ideal and no nerfs are needed at all.
I play 2nd ad&d
And it's cool to hear there are other AD&D players out there.
The matchmaker sucks; there is no skill matching, there is no gearscore matching, there is no premade que. This leads to imbalanced one sided curbstomps where one side gets an easy win, and the other side gets nothing.
The scoring sucks; there is no incentive to actually put in any effort, and no penalty for leaving early, so most matches someone ragequits and requeues as soon as it becomes apparent their side is not going to be the side to get an easy win.
The rewards suck - there is no long term goals, no competitive challenge. There should be weekly / monthly pvp leaderboards with unique cosmetic rewards, awarded based on win loss ratio - with a quit counting as a loss.
Oh, and the controls suck; finishing an enemy off should be a different button then inspecting an ally.
Feast of the Moon | Rising of the Dark | Shadow of the World | Everdark