And the Biggest Problem with PvP Is...

[Angelus_dead]

Are you suggesting that the caster would simply spam AoE effects, or that the melee character wouldn't be able to do anything beyond the initial trip, or something else? I'd like a clarification here before responding.

Stealth skills aren't a melee vs caster thing, they're a sneaky vs nonsneaky thing. A caster can potentially have high stealth; that's fairly popular in fact. If stealth and antistealth skills were buffed to the point of having PVP value, a PVP build would probably need to include them henceforth.

As for as sneaking up to someone and tripping him: You won't even get an attack roll, because you won't be within reach. Why would the enemy let you into reach? You can test it yourself: go into sneak mode, and then ask a helper to pretend he doesn't see you, and yet prevent you from reaching him. It's not hard.

I was suggesting that the melee character would have a much larger amount of opportunities to duel, due to the recognized imbalance.

Shall I suggest that females have a much larger amount of opportunities for football, due to the recognized imbalance?

You're suggesting that a weak opponent would be given more opportunities to fight, because the challengers think they can win. That may be true, but unless he enjoys losing, he'd tend to agree to many fewer fights. Assuming similar player psychological motivations, it evens out.

While I'd suggest that casters aren't as overpowered, I do certainly agree that they are.

If you don't believe me, you could test this stuff. There are PVP rooms already in DDO; with a few other players to help, you should be able to see what actually happens.

I don't see why it's not acceptable for the community to sort out issues such as this, however - that's a trend seen in many other games with active, flourishing communities.

Incorrect. Those other communities are based on game designs that are fundamentally functional.

I specified "equal balance." You ignored not only the quotations signifying a specific term, but also the example provided for clarification. Nice.

No, I did not ignore them. The example made no sense, and was unrelated to "equal balance".

This looks like a basic logical error: Having observed that differences do not prohibit balance, you decide that differences are irrelevant to balance. That's unjustified. Here's the reality: Game balance is hard, and is unlikely to happen by accident. Simply having a bunch of characters with different strengths and weakness doesn't magically mean they'll be useful for different PVP needs in an entertaining way.

Would you argue that the game's PvM content is (or ever has been) in any sort of state of equal balance? What's the average caster count for most raids?

Do you know the difference between "is a goal" and "has been perfectly achieved"?

I did. A brief examination of a related forum to the aforementioned game makes it pretty clear that one or two builds, with appropriate gear switches and inventories, are disgustingly overpowered.

What, you're saying Diablo2 is as unbalanced as DDO? No. The fundamental core is more balanced, and even if there exist certain items that can be overpowered in combination, they're fairly restricted in natural and could be specifically disallowed by match agreements. Not so with things such as "divine spellcasting"

There's no incentive to at present ingame. Some already have established some rules - Otto's is banned pretty commonly, for example. What makes further restrictions any different, especially if they encourage fresh character building exercises?

They're not different, which is shows the problem. The current restrictions created by some players are quite inadequate at producing entertaining PVP on a meaningful scale, and similar ones would be no better. And of course if there was an actual reward for victory that persisted outside the memories of people who viewed the fight, you could forget even about those kinds of limits being used.

I didn't mean to wholly disregard performance against various builds, but rather that it wasn't necessary to create a build with the idea in mind that it should be able to win against every other build.

If you want to PVP, then the primary consideration will be maximizing the percentage of other characters that you can defeat (possibly with an emphasis on other PVP-focused builds). As PVP consists of defeating other player characters in combat, the ability to defeat player characters will naturally be what is encouraged.

Again, while I agree with you that the imbalance exists, it's not "ludicrously insurmountable," given that the fix to stealth is implemented, and perhaps fair play is kept in mind.

You've still got this idea that stealth is significant. It might help you to consider what would happen to a rogue who (somehow) sneaks up to a paladin or barbarian and thus gets two free unopposed attacks. What's he supposed to do next? (That's an experiment you can conduct with a helper)

When characters start hitting 12+, let the casters duke it out amongst themselves. Simple enough.

I suspect if you elaborate on that suggestion, the shortcomings will become clear.

[Dretharis]

Stealth skills aren't a melee vs caster thing, they're a sneaky vs nonsneaky thing. A caster can potentially have high stealth; that's fairly popular in fact. If stealth and antistealth skills were buffed to the point of having PVP value, a PVP build would probably need to include them henceforth.

All caster classes are inherently poor at stealth and antistealth though. While they can get respectable stealth/antistealth skills, there's no way for them to approach classes such as rogues and rangers without sacrificing too much. It's an opposed roll, not a static DC.

As for as sneaking up to someone and tripping him: You won't even get an attack roll, because you won't be within reach. Why would the enemy let you into reach? You can test it yourself: go into sneak mode, and then ask a helper to pretend he doesn't see you, and yet prevent you from reaching him. It's not hard.

I can see your point here, and I'll probably have to conceed this one. Off the cuff, the only other idea for the hypothetical ranger I'd have would be perhaps a WoE manyshot/repeater after getting into a good position while stealthed, and hope for overburdened/helpless, but that probably wouldn't work.

Although, if stealth were being reworked at all, perhaps it's worth considering a speed increase and limited jump? It's largely underutilized for the same problem in questing.

Shall I suggest that females have a much larger amount of opportunities for football, due to the recognized imbalance?

While I'd consider that a poor comparison (it's much easier to change to an appropriate character than it is to change your gender), technically speaking they do. There's nothing officially barring them from the NFL, yet organizations such as the Women's Football Alliance exist as well.

You're suggesting that a weak opponent would be given more opportunities to fight, because the challengers think they can win. That may be true, but unless he enjoys losing, he'd tend to agree to many fewer fights. Assuming similar player psychological motivations, it evens out.

I'd suggest that's a factor in the event that betting was added/utilized. In that case, individuals would have an interest in attempting to gauge the power level of a given build in comparison to their own. Beyond the imbalance between a pure caster and a noncaster, however, the degree of advantage one build may have over another isn't obvious without specific prior knowledge of gear and build. Thinking you can win isn't the same as winning.

However, that wasn't all I implied. If we don't consider a betting system, or are simply looking at casual/fun PvPing, the dominant factor would likely be character population. If a recognized imbalance exists between casters and non-casters, and it's reasonable to say that there is at the least an approximate even distribution between casters and non-casters at an appropriate level (if it's not distributed in favor of non-casters), then the non-caster will on average have more opponents interested in combat.

You admit yourself it evens out - what is the issue, if that's the case?

If you don't believe me, you could test this stuff. There are PVP rooms already in DDO; with a few other players to help, you should be able to see what actually happens.

The problem is precisely that - we have "rooms" where people just jump into it. For any sort of competitive PvP to exist when class imbalance is a persistant and unavoidable issue, there needs to be voluntary participation by each individual, specifically recognizing the other involved individual(s).

Incorrect. Those other communities are based on game designs that are fundamentally functional.

Define fundamentally functional - is that in regards to the design of interaction specifically for PVP, or are you referencing functionality in regards to class design, or something else?

No, I did not ignore them. The example made no sense, and was unrelated to "equal balance".

This looks like a basic logical error: Having observed that differences do not prohibit balance, you decide that differences are irrelevant to balance. That's unjustified. Here's the reality: Game balance is hard, and is unlikely to happen by accident. Simply having a bunch of characters with different strengths and weakness doesn't magically mean they'll be useful for different PVP needs in an entertaining way.

I didn't imply differences were irrelevant, but that gross differences can often be overcome in MMO's with limited game development by the community themselves. On the contrary, I agree that in an ideal game design, all characters could theoretically combat each other with relatively similar degrees of success, and yes, that is incredibly difficult to design while maintaining class differentiation.

However, if development is limited, slow, or unresponsive, what's wrong with the player community responding by agreeing upon rules themselves? I'd rather have a few small additions to add rewards and fix major bugs, with development still focusing on more pressing issues such as content, fixes to new quest rewards, etc.

Do you know the difference between "is a goal" and "has been perfectly achieved"?

But has it ever been the case, throughout the game's history? Most often the "balance" between caster and non-casters is described as swinging one way or another rather than allowing both to excel equally. I'd say without significant and drastically game-altering changes, it's not possible - and that's alright.

The effectiveness of a character or build is judged based upon comparison; I don't think it's possible under D&D rules (except perhaps fourth) for that level of equality to be reached. That's what makes building characters fun, though.

What, you're saying Diablo2 is as unbalanced as DDO? No. The fundamental core is more balanced, and even if there exist certain items that can be overpowered in combination, they're fairly restricted in natural and could be specifically disallowed by match agreements. Not so with things such as "divine spellcasting"

Clearly you haven't played competitive Diablo II, then. Antidote pots are available from the start of the game, for ten gold, and instantly cure any applied poison, along with providing resistance to it - yet some character paths are solely based around poison, such as the one I mentioned I had used. Paladins, who are generally seen as the most powerful class, are the only character with a (virtually) unresistable, unblockable, ranged attack. They also happen to have access to easier and much faster blocking, naturally atainable higher resistances, one of (if not the) best melee attacks in the game, a unique skill which lets them move in a rapid and unpredictable manner, etc.

The game community as I mentioned also segments dueling into "melee only" games, specific matchups such as "sorc vs sorc", etc. What's the difference between that and disallowing divine casters?

The current restrictions created by some players are quite inadequate at producing entertaining PVP on a meaningful scale

I agree, there needs to be further consideration by players interested of what's "fair" and what's not, although that just requires a discussion/debate on the topic.

and similar ones would be no better.

Why's that?

And of course if there was an actual reward for victory that persisted outside the memories of people who viewed the fight, you could forget even about those kinds of limits being used.

If we're discussing class or level (and therefore item) restrictions, you can clearly see the class and level of an individual prior to accepting a duel request. Limits beyond those (such as specific spells) wouldn't see usage here in most cases, you're correct - but I don't see that as an issue if dueling becomes the norm. As well, I wouldn't completely discount the possibility of them being used - look at Khyber's Friday Night Fights.

If you want to PVP, then the primary consideration will be maximizing the percentage of other characters that you can defeat (possibly with an emphasis on other PVP-focused builds). As PVP consists of defeating other player characters in combat, the ability to defeat player characters will naturally be what is encouraged.

This is one of several reasons I'm in favor of a betting system, as counter-intuitive as that sounds. The perception of your own character's strength comes into play in this case.

You've still got this idea that stealth is significant. It might help you to consider what would happen to a rogue who (somehow) sneaks up to a paladin or barbarian and thus gets two free unopposed attacks. What's he supposed to do next? (That's an experiment you can conduct with a helper)

I'd say it's a poor matchup for the rogue in this case, and I've admitted that heavy fort is still perhaps an issue. However, rangers and monks have the same access to stealth. I'd say the ranger that gets in an early trip probably has a significant, yet not insurmountable, advantage.

I suspect if you elaborate on that suggestion, the shortcomings will become clear.

What's to elaborate? Non-casters in general prefer to duel other non-casters once heavy fort, displacement, and FtS are all factors to consider. Therefore, casters are more likely to find duels with other casters.

[Visty]

lots of text

so, if i got right what you are sayingm then you say that pvp will be lots of fun within certain rules

if so, then answer me this:
why dont you make those freaking rules yourself and leave the devs alone with it?
resctrict certain classes as much as you want but leave the classes as they are alone

and even if stealth would work as it should, it would still suck and be totally underwhelming

[Dretharis]

so, if i got right what you are sayingm then you say that pvp will be lots of fun within certain rules

if so, then answer me this:
why dont you make those freaking rules yourself and leave the devs alone with it?
resctrict certain classes as much as you want but leave the classes as they are alone

and even if stealth would work as it should, it would still suck and be totally underwhelming

A couple of pages was too much for you to handle, then?

That's what the entire last two or three posts Angelus and I have been going back and forth with were about, the community making their own rules. At least skim so you can get the gist of it or something.

[Visty]

A couple of pages was too much for you to handle, then?

That's what the entire last two or three posts Angelus and I have been going back and forth with were about, the community making their own rules. At least skim so you can get the gist of it or something.

well, then forgive me not reading posts which are as long as a book

you wont find some general rules anyway, ppl are too differant for that

rules have to be done befor the match starts

which just shows that nothing is wrong about pvp and this whole thread is pointless

[Dretharis]

well, then forgive me not reading posts which are as long as a book

Give me a break. Kindergarten books are longer than that.

you wont find some general rules anyway, ppl are too differant for that

rules have to be done befor the match starts

So we're supposed to re-invent the wheel every time?

Either way, I'm not saying they have to be specifically established or recorded somewhere - of course people are going to disagree on some points. My argument is that it is acceptable for PvP to be balanced by player-made rules.

In essence, we're saying the same thing you're saying here. Although I would say that for a healthy community, it's a good idea to have some commonly established or well-known rules, again such as the Otto's example. It doesn't need to be a comprehensive rulebook (although I'd probably like that ).

which just shows that nothing is wrong about pvp and this whole thread is pointless

There are some issues, or it would be a more viable endgame option. I'd say (mostly) all it needs is an incentive. Add betting done through a tradescreen in the duel negotiation screen to put up bets, and the rest will sort itself out. A couple of things (such as stealth/invis, heavy fort) might warrant revising, but I'd say those issues are also problematic for the game altogether, not just in PvP.

[Elvejon]

PvP Will never be better at this game. Casters always win. If you want to make fair. they have to re-configure the entire game into world of warcraft.

[Angelus_dead]

All caster classes are inherently poor at stealth and antistealth though. While they can get respectable stealth/antistealth skills, there's no way for them to approach classes such as rogues and rangers without sacrificing too much. It's an opposed roll, not a static DC.

1. It's about characters, not classes.
2. False. Caster characters can approach and nearly equal rogues and rangers without much problem.
3. It can be called an opposed "check", but not an "opposed roll", as it's not a random die.

I can see your point here, and I'll probably have to conceed this one. Off the cuff, the only other idea for the hypothetical ranger

The people who want stealth changed for PVP are generally doing so to help rogues, who have no noticeable ranged ability.

Although, if stealth were being reworked at all, perhaps it's worth considering a speed increase and limited jump? It's largely underutilized for the same problem in questing.

I have repeatedly suggested that characters be allowed to jump and tumble while sneaking, causing them to take a brief penalty of about -10 on all involved skills.

While I'd consider that a poor comparison (it's much easier to change to an appropriate character than it is to change your gender), technically speaking they do. There's nothing officially barring them from the NFL, yet organizations such as the Women's Football Alliance exist as well.

Technically they do not, as can be observed by technically counting the number of female football players.

You admit yourself it evens out - what is the issue, if that's the case?

That's a really fundamental question, and as such is hard to answer. It would probably help if you looked closer at the question of female professional athletes and their relative degree of success and popularity.

The problem is precisely that - we have "rooms" where people just jump into it. For any sort of competitive PvP to exist when class imbalance is a persistant and unavoidable issue, there needs to be voluntary participation by each individual, specifically recognizing the other involved individual(s).

Uh, have you looked at DDO's existing PVP options? Click on a guy, click the "duel" icon, pick the room from the list... there's no opportunity for any outsider to jump in and interfere without you allowing it.

However, if development is limited, slow, or unresponsive, what's wrong with the player community responding by agreeing upon rules themselves?

As explained already, what's wrong is that your'e talking about something else than what this thread is about, which is the developers adding PVP improvements. To the extent that players can fix the problems themselves, the players already could have fixed the problems themselves. Evidence demonstrates that they did not.

Evidence from other games suggests they would not.

The game community as I mentioned also segments dueling into "melee only" games, specific matchups such as "sorc vs sorc", etc. What's the difference between that and disallowing divine casters?

What's a divine caster? Answer in terms usable in a formal automated rule or computer program.

What's to elaborate? Non-casters in general prefer to duel other non-casters once heavy fort, displacement, and FtS are all factors to consider. Therefore, casters are more likely to find duels with other casters.

What's a caster?

[Angelus_dead]

There are some issues, or it would be a more viable endgame option. I'd say (mostly) all it needs is an incentive. Add betting done through a tradescreen in the duel negotiation screen to put up bets, and the rest will sort itself out.

How do you reconcile these two positions?

1. Problems with game balance can be mitigated by players establishing informal rules about what abilities and items are disallowed, which would be administered by an honor code.

2. Imbalances in character power can be compensated for by enabling wagering on the results, which would be administered by server software.

Bit of a contradiction there...

[Dretharis]

1. It's about characters, not classes.

Semantics. Any character can be a "caster" with a splash of a level, but the imbalance we're discussing here involves at least a majority of character levels being caster.

2. False. Caster characters can approach and nearly equal rogues and rangers without much problem.

First, they'd have to splash for the uncap. Second, they'd have to max at least three cross class skills in that case, along with pumping balance. Not much room for leeway there. Third, they're still missing out on enhancement boosts. Adequate for questing doesn't cut it.

3. It can be called an opposed "check", but not an "opposed roll", as it's not a random die.

The people who want stealth changed for PVP are generally doing so to help rogues, who have no noticeable ranged ability.

I already conceeded this point overall anyway.

I have repeatedly suggested that characters be allowed to jump and tumble while sneaking, causing them to take a brief penalty of about -10 on all involved skills.

Good suggestion.

Technically they do not, as can be observed by technically counting the number of female football players.

"Technically" isn't the same as "in practical experience", or "in reality."

That's a really fundamental question, and as such is hard to answer. It would probably help if you looked closer at the question of female professional athletes and their relative degree of success and popularity.

It's still a very poor comparison, as I already said. It's easy for a player in DDO to switch from one character to another. Can't really do the same for football in your comparison.

Uh, have you looked at DDO's existing PVP options? Click on a guy, click the "duel" icon, pick the room from the list... there's no opportunity for any outsider to jump in and interfere without you allowing it.

Thought you were referring to the tavern rooms instead of the dueling option.

As explained already, what's wrong is that your'e talking about something else than what this thread is about, which is the developers adding PVP improvements. To the extent that players can fix the problems themselves, the players already could have fixed the problems themselves. Evidence demonstrates that they did not.

Evidence from other games suggests they would not.

What's a divine caster? Answer in terms usable in a formal automated rule or computer program.

Why is it necessary to answer in that format? I said nothing in the example I was using for comparison regarding the game itself distinguishing between casters and non-casters. Hell, in the example I was discussing, it's much more difficult to informally categorize characters than it is in DDO - one of the best Lvl 9 tier melee dueler builds was a necromancer, while the paladin build I had mentioned earlier was predominantly caster, but also used melee attacks as well.

In DDO, all you need to do is look at their class - a battlecleric is the only popular build I can think of which could fit in either category.

How do you reconcile these two positions?

1. Problems with game balance can be mitigated by players establishing informal rules about what abilities and items are disallowed, which would be administered by an honor code.

2. Imbalances in character power can be compensated for by enabling wagering on the results, which would be administered by server software.

Bit of a contradiction there...

They're not too simultaneous positions, I [u]clearly said earlier[/b] that they're one of two possibilities - either the vest interest of the individual, or the community as a whole, can serve to compensate for ingame inbalances. The former would come into play if a formal system of wagering was introduced, the latter would be necessary if not.

Frankly, I would agree that the community doesn't seem organized or motivated enough to come to any formal agreement on "fair" or balanced rulesets, but that's why I favor the creation of a simplistic wager system.

[assamite]

PvP in dnd will always be the pit where you beat up your buddies and then lick their faces cus there is nothing they can do about it :PPPPPP. And after licking their faces over and over again for the next 3 days you raid together... possibly getting your face licked for the next 3 days if the right gear drops for them.

Its a huuuuge pass time nothing more. And I'm ok with that .

[Pwesiela]

PvP is really just for testing out your cool new equipment on friends!

/QFT

The biggest problem with PvP is that it's in the game in the first place.

[ravane]

Turbine would have to rewrite 3.x rules to make it right aka Balanced. Fact of the matter is that the classes are not balanced. We already have people complaining that one class can do X which they can't defend against, and.. yeah. Casters are nerfed on some of their more fun spells already for PvP, then you have the tickets for griefing...

No, PvP was put in a while back because of enough complaints. This game was NEVER designed for PvP, so be greatful for what you do have currently. For now, ask for things that are within scope of the system.

1. Make them finally give you a leadership board. This was supposed to be given to you PvPers back with Mod 3. I hate PvP, but Turbine stated it back then, so I'll /sign with you guys to get it in.

2. Other styles of PvP arenas. Aka an anything goes area with no nerfs on spells, or anything would be one idea. Let the mage have their full power back at their finger tips. A spell battle areana where casters can compete, a gladiator arena where after X time mobs are thrown into the phray, or even an arena where the environment effects change around such as the ground turns to ice, fog covers the area, rocks drop from the sky, etc.

If there are glitches in the queing and such... Well, honestly, I guess the best thing to do is file bug reports on why you think the system isn't working correctly. And if you find a bug, continue after it. I mean it took months, but we were able to get them to make changes to ranged attacks 1.5 years back or so. Still trying to get more made to them. But the idea is stick with it. Why do I say stick with it? There isn't going to be budget either for a rewrite of the system (at least in the near future. The rest of the PrEs need to be finished at a minimum), but you know.. in about a year or so if you've garnered enough support, I bet it will become a lot more feasible.

I don't have much experience with the pvp in ddo, but I was thinking it could be quite fun to have a multi party dungeon with the goal of only one party leaving with the prize. This would allow for a more even fight as you would be dealing with both pve and pvp forcing your party to bring a suitable team. I could see this being quite popular with a large number of people and there would be room for some interesting situations if the area was large enough and there were enough people (64 maybe?)

[Visty]

I don't have much experience with the pvp in ddo, but I was thinking it could be quite fun to have a multi party dungeon with the goal of only one party leaving with the prize. This would allow for a more even fight as you would be dealing with both pve and pvp forcing your party to bring a suitable team. I could see this being quite popular with a large number of people and there would be room for some interesting situations if the area was large enough and there were enough people (64 maybe?)

it would just lead to large guild farming those rewards

you know, when 1 side doesnt move, the other gets the reward easily

[croger1520033]

The idea that fighting players is frustrating or impractical shouldn't be used as an excuse. PvP is already in the game, obviously Turbine spent time putting it there, so why not do it right?

Fighting players is tougher and you have to think differently, but that doesn't mean PvP should be abandoned. PvP can and has been designed to work with all classes in mind in plenty of other MMOs, and there's no reason DDO couldn't work the same way. DDO has so much potential for variety in character builds, there's no reason players couldn't come up with plenty of effective PvP builds to fill any role.

I have fun with the PvE game as much as anyone, but isn't it at least a little frustrating to anyone else that Turbine created a PvP feature that isn't being utilized because of a simple functionality issue that could be fixed relatively easily? In Champions Online, they had worldwide queuing as soon as PvP was introduced in the closed beta, and it was a godsend. It was so great to be able to just jump in and play a couple of matches when I was bored of doing missions without having to travel to some terminal to initiate PvP content. I really think that if it was done the same way in DDO people would participate much, much more.

Not only would it be nice to have, it would be a draw for more new players, and that's what Turbine wants right now.

You will never win this argument If you like champions online PvP go PvP there, not here. When this game was first developed the original programmers and dev team said PvP would never be in this game for the reasons that you have refused to accept. The other thing that was also said when PvP was announced by the new team was that they would never change things to make PvP more balanced.

PvP will never be great in this game, the reason it was never supposed to be here in the first place. It was an afterthought and it is fun if you stop comparing it to Champions online PvP.

It boggles my mind why people who want to play a certain game like champions online, why they come here and try it out and like everything else better but they want one feature of the game to be exactly like the game they just left. It's like I didn't like champions online but I like DDO, but could you make DDO more like champions online?? It's like ***, why did you even bother posting.

[Angelus_dead]

it would just lead to large guild farming those rewards

you know, when 1 side doesnt move, the other gets the reward easily

That's called a "Fight Club" exploit. There are ways to avoid it, but they require serious developer effort, and nobody seems to get it right on their first few attempts.

[ravane]

That's called a "Fight Club" exploit. There are ways to avoid it, but they require serious developer effort, and nobody seems to get it right on their first few attempts.

I think the solution is simply make a limit on how many guild members can join. You also don't make it a 32vs32 player thing, you do something more like 5 groups of 12 with no more than one guild per group. Or 10 groups of 6 with not more than two guilds per group.

If you design the map right you could even leave room for a more ruthless free for all battleroyal/ highlander style thing(when your dead your out of the contest). There would have to be lots of map design choices to allow advantages to different classes and races.

As far as loot goes, you could just not have any and your guild gets a win for their ranking or something. Loot could also be straight cash, every player has to spend x amount of money to get into the contest. one group leaves with the pot.

You can always balance pvp by changing game play mechanics in favor of pvp. In the arena your in pvp game mechanics, everywhere else it's same as it ever was. One can even leave the option to play a match with old rules. Old school people are happy and people who like the balances are happy.

[Pwesiela]

I think the solution is simply make a limit on how many guild members can join. You also don't make it a 32vs32 player thing, you do something more like 5 groups of 12 with no more than one guild per group. Or 10 groups of 6 with not more than two guilds per group.

If you design the map right you could even leave room for a more ruthless free for all battleroyal/ highlander style thing(when your dead your out of the contest). There would have to be lots of map design choices to allow advantages to different classes and races.

As far as loot goes, you could just not have any and your guild gets a win for their ranking or something. Loot could also be straight cash, every player has to spend x amount of money to get into the contest. one group leaves with the pot.

You can always balance pvp by changing game play mechanics in favor of pvp. In the arena your in pvp game mechanics, everywhere else it's same as it ever was. One can even leave the option to play a match with old rules. Old school people are happy and people who like the balances are happy.

The limitations on guilds does nothing for collusion.

And in the end, what you're suggesting here is an astronomical investment in pvp for a game that is overwhelmingly pve. The playerbase doesn't want it. You simply don't devote 95% of your resources to satisfy 5% of your players. Sorry.

[96th_Malice]

And in the end, what you're suggesting here is an astronomical investment in pvp for a game that is overwhelmingly pve. The playerbase doesn't want it. You simply don't devote 95% of your resources to satisfy 5% of your players. Sorry.

It amuses me that peeps that have no purpose for PvP STILL manage to read the PvP Forums and comment on em !



You wont find me even browsing through the Wizzy or Sorc sections of the Forums. ( Cause I have NO interest in those classes )

Now onto your reply !

No one is asking that 95% of the resources be put into 5% of the players

BUT maybe a little more than what it is ! ... ZERO

For the record I pay JUST as much as you do per month to play this game .........

So what makes you more important than me ?

Absolutley nothing

I understand that devs have to put more time into PvE than PvP or this game would die ...... I do alot of questing as well and only PvP is to pass time when I know I dont have time to run quests or raids !!

You dont have to like PvP BUT it does serve as a great deal of fun and a break from predictable AI creatures in the game .. and anyone who has been in Khybers Wayward Lobster with 3 instances of PvP going knows that there are in fact a great deal of toons who do enjoy PvP !

Busiest time last night had 43 people in the Lobster "Pit"

PvE is Mod central and always has updates !! I would say that "yes" 95% of the resources have been used in PvE Mods !!

PvP was added to the game but there have never been any updates !! Give us our 5% !!



Trust me a dev can find 5% of his time to look at some issues !!

Just my thoughts !!

[Visty]

sorry, i have to comment on that

For the record I pay JUST as much as you do per month to play this game .........

what if he is f2p?
he doesnt pay anything
you mean, you also dont pay to play the game?
you dont pay and DEMAND???

sheesh, what do they teach you in school?

not paying and wanting things, pfff





sorry