Honestly, I'm not a "hardcore" PvPer, not in the least. I enjoy the occasional PvP, but when I play games I focus more on myself enjoying my time in the game rather than breaking down stats and skills, etc. I'm not knocking anyone else's playstyle here, just giving a small insight into my own.
After reading this thread, I would say the best compromising idea I've read so far is the one of having the guilds vying for a siege compete head to head in an instanced PvP "tournament" of sorts. Say there's four guilds all vying for a chance at this one keep. Have the system devide them into two sets of 1Gv1G, or hell even 2Gv2G. In the 1Gv1G, the winners of each set then go on to fight each other and the final winner gets the lead spot. In the 2Gv2G it would be similar in that the team that wins then gets to fight against one another for the spot.
Granted I'm not sure how difficult or easy it might be to impliment this kind of system and especially at this juncture with the release ebing so close, but this is by far I think the best idea that's been mentioned.
"Death is a dignitary who when he comes announced is to be received with formal manifestations of respect, even by those most familiar with him." - Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce
Rewarding Mini-game PVP is BS.......Shake your heads Funcom.
Guilds that sign up for Siege should have to PVP against the other guilds for priority. That could be in a mini-game setting.
I agree... is funcom attempting to substitute content with the lame-ass minigames? It sure sounds like it. I'm starting to re-think pre-ordering.
Substitute? Do you even have the slightest idea what's being talked about?
Fact of the matter is. ANY guild can participate in Sieges against other guilds. There is no restriction (except the restriction of numbers on the battlefield per se, but there's no set numbers there yet) on how many Guilds can attack an enemy Keep. The only thing this Mini-Game rating does set, is which guild will get the chance to -TAKE- the keep and keep it.
Now that the explanation is out of the way, how would you have done it? I'm asking for constructive feedback here, not more slandering. How would you determine the guild that is allowed to take hold of the keep after a victory? First come first served? There'd be even more whining then. World PvP Ranking? Might be an alternative, but it would give a big advantage to "big" guilds (in numbers), while smaller but maybe more "skilled" guilds would have a disadvantage (of course, depending on the PvP Experience System, that might not be the case, just tossing out concerns here).
So, how would you do it? Any people willing to make a constructive proposal instead of just wildly slandering the game?
Iknow it s not the answer but as i ve stated before and will stand by it G vs G games are terrible. The pre determined time to attack was bad now this is worse. Only way to fix this is do Faction vs Faction. Oh well if thats what they think is a good system. I for one think it is terrible.
Well, that is personal preference. Guild vs. Guild is, in my opinion, a much better system, because it leads to more politics and more player interaction. You can see this in EVE Online (to a much larger extent), and there are people who like it that way.
As it has been stated countless times before, AoC will not be for everyone. But to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of whining before even trying the game or seeing how it plays out is just...well, that's just not the way I would go about it.
Yeo i agree with you. If you prefer G v G well good I prefer F v F for a realm pride feeling etc. Anyways enough about that. I said it before along time ago and this idea falls into what i was thinking. The servers will be owned by the biggest guilds, if this systme is implemented. Oh well i honestly can t believe after i and many who thought Funcom was the anti WOW would do this. We ll have to wait and see.
They could've left out structured world pvp altogether.
I don't care if the entire game isn't tailored around what i or my 20 friends think is a good system. The majority of the game is more than acceptable for me.
it's not like I will cease to breath if the world pvp conditions aren't to my liking. It won't kill me.
sarcasm anyone?
Oh no! my beloved realm vs. realm freedom of keep capturing isn't a true DAoC mirror mold!! oh no what will i ever do! I don't think I can go on for much longer! I can't cancel my preorder oh no why god why did i pay for it, it couldn't have been the 10 videos and 250 screenshots that made my wet my pants, it couldn't have been the dev reports and game mechanics that i bragged to my friends about, why oh god why did i pay for this game in advance!
*you trying to respond* AAAAAND CUT. *you trying to respond again* THATS A RAP. *you trying again* WE GOT IT.
"Sometimes, things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. People are basically good. Honor, courage, virtue mean everything. Power and money, money and power mean nothing. Good always triumphs over evil. Love, True Love Never Dies." Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
I have not experienced the high end pvp in AoC and prolly wont until the game goes live. So can't really say if this is a good or a bad thing. But from what I can put together with the info I know about AoC this seems like a pretty poor way of doing things. It seems as they want the pvp "grind" groups in their mini pvp games slaughtering the casuals over and over again. Perhaps they will learn after ppl complain enough or start leaving the game.
This tho is all based on what I know of the game, and that is very little.
If the OP is correct in his understanding of the procedure, I agree it doesn't seem like the best idea,
The only time it will come into play is if there are 19 guilds that want to siege at once, all of which are so large that they won't accept help from a second guild.
I am not sure about WoW, I never got into the PvP and high end raiding in that game, but in EQ there were maybe 12 guilds that would be large raid capable on a given server, and their server sizes were similar to what was reported here previously.
If the system winds up excluding people from participating in both parts of the siege warfare, then they'll probably change it. I am not sure that's a realistic scenario. 20 large guilds all wanting to do seige warfare on a Saturday night? That's 2000 people right there.
The leader (guild) in a siege will have some special capacity for organizing the attack? To me that make sense. Proven leadership/tactics (or the numbers to create a mindless horde) work for me. (well, it would work for me if I was into PvP/sieges). Or does it mean that if 5 clans sign up for a siege the one with the highest PvP 'score' will get to run in first. Again...go for it. Unless they overwhelm in one quick wave (which would indicate that again they have a horde or that the defenders don't have much of a defense) they will earn the title of 'Cannon Fodder'. (Trebuchet fodder if you prefer)
In general it's a way of keeping PvP clans active and fighting each other to keep vying for the top spot which means more PvE for me! Yay!~
I don't know why they don't just do an EVE with this BK thing. When I first heard of it I thought that was what they were going to do. Not this BS about only 8 guilds are allowed on the field at any time and you have to play the PVP minigames 1000 times just to get up on the list.
But I wasn't really going for the PVP for this game anyway. So I'm not that bothered.
Haha I guess Funcom thinks the more PvP minigames you grind the more "World PvP Experience" you'll have, so you'll be better suited to lead the siege. Hahahah.
-------------------------------------- A human and an Elf get captured by Skaven. The rat-men are getting ready to shoot the first hostage with Dwarf-made guns when he yells, "Earthquake!" The naturally nervous Skaven run and hide from the imaginary threat. He escapes. The Skaven regroup and bring out the Elf. Being very smart, the Elf has figured out what to do. When the Skaven get ready to shoot, the Elf, in order to scare them, yells, "Fire!"
I wouldn't condemn the system to failure before seeing how its implemented. I think it is basically there to keep a 40 man guild that has not proven themselves from locking out a 300 man guild from sieging a battlekeep. There are 9 Battlekeeps, so if you can not be one of the top 18 guild on the server, then you should probably reconsider your ability to seize and hold a battlekeep.
I don't think the requirement is going to last very long. It's an obvious mistake in the making. I have no plans on playing on FFA server and since I will have a newborn around the time of launch my playtime will be limited,, so I doubt I will be able to even do much in a guild. Hence, I got no stake in the outcome here. Just observing.
To me, it's a classic case of apples and oranges. Mini-games and Sieges are both PVP, just like both oranges and apples are fruits. The similarity ends there. Skills from one don't necessarily cross over into the other. Sieges, or large scale battles for that matter, have a lot more variability and randomness than CTF.
I think the guys outlining the negative effects that the minigame req will have on world PvP on FFA servers is pretty spot on. You just have to observe and note what happenedi in previous games.
Pre-BGs in WoW, Tarren Mill was a place of constant mass warfare. After the BGs, it was nearly non-existent. Why? Because doing BGS gave you stuff, the open world PvP of Tarren Mill did not. That is the reality. People like what they do, even in games, to matter. Given a choice of doing something fun in an MMO, over something that will improve their character most people choose to improve. That's the reality.
Since your PvP xp level effects what PvP rewards you get and the mini games effect the siege priority, most guilds that PvP will opt to do the mini games because it kills two birds with one stone. Even if world PVP yields more PvP xp, doing the mini games will be the more efficient route since you are accomplishing two things at once.
Look at any MMO - people do things that are more efficientexpedient. Developers (should) know this.
Rewarding people more by doing X (min-games) over doing Y (world PvP) means, people will do X over Y.
It's monumentally stupid of them to put any emphasis on PvP minigames. I'm sorry, but a lot of people quit wow because they were sick of "ok lets put our cookie cutter arena team together and roll everyone, we know exactly how it's gonna go, exactly the surroundings (instanced)".
That is so damned boring to me. I will not take part in that crap for one minute. World PvP is where it's at, and apparently funcom decided to crap all over it by giving an incentive to minigames.
I really hope they dont make this to a battleground grind game like WoW is, then I have to change my primary aim to play to WAR and hope they dont do something similar.
Everyone knows im a huge fan of AoC, and I love the game to death.
But this is complete crap, I liked the PvP mini games but not that much, im really into the game for the siege warfare.
Thats what i think funcom is getting wrong here, the PvP crowd is divided into "Instanced PvPer's" and "Open World PvPer's" making us do both is just simply unacceptable.
Everyone knows im a huge fan of AoC, and I love the game to death.
But this is complete crap, I liked the PvP mini games but not that much, im really into the game for the siege warfare.
Thats what i think funcom is getting wrong here, the PvP crowd is divided into "Instanced PvPer's" and "Open World PvPer's" making us do both is just simply unacceptable.
-Jive
I'm glad to see someone here who 'gets' it.
The part that bothers ME the most is that there is already an MMO on the market that has made these mistakes and has gone through a 2 year process of trying to correct it. Why are we ignoring what Blizzard has already been through over this? Do you know what happened to that games' world PvP when Battlegrounds hit? It died, overnight. Wanna know what happened when they had a tiered PvP system for PvP gear? Only 3 people per sever ever had decent gear from it...the rest had to raid.
For gods sakes...its not like we DON'T have something to compare this to. Blizzard has already made these mistakes and taken steps to correct it. Maybe they haven't chosen the best corrections...but they at least acknowledged the mistake. You can't divide PvPers up, because one of the two groups will disappear. You can't make PvP super exclusive, because that forces raiding. Worse, you can't make this super exclusive gear equal to raid gear, because THEN no one wants to put the effort into PvPing for it.
I was all about Funcom making a mild success here, but this information absolutely destroys it for me. They have no chance, they aren't even paying attention to what works. I have no ideal what player they are trying to appeal to...but from what I'm seeing they aren't going to appeal to any. The model they are working with has already been polished and, with WoTL, probably perfected more than what they will offer. This Ath guy speaks just like the Blizzard guys did 3 years ago. He should really be pushing to focus on something, rather than try and do the whole "Hey guys, you can raid AND PvP here" thing.
Comments
Honestly, I'm not a "hardcore" PvPer, not in the least. I enjoy the occasional PvP, but when I play games I focus more on myself enjoying my time in the game rather than breaking down stats and skills, etc. I'm not knocking anyone else's playstyle here, just giving a small insight into my own.
After reading this thread, I would say the best compromising idea I've read so far is the one of having the guilds vying for a siege compete head to head in an instanced PvP "tournament" of sorts. Say there's four guilds all vying for a chance at this one keep. Have the system devide them into two sets of 1Gv1G, or hell even 2Gv2G. In the 1Gv1G, the winners of each set then go on to fight each other and the final winner gets the lead spot. In the 2Gv2G it would be similar in that the team that wins then gets to fight against one another for the spot.
Granted I'm not sure how difficult or easy it might be to impliment this kind of system and especially at this juncture with the release ebing so close, but this is by far I think the best idea that's been mentioned.
"Death is a dignitary who when he comes announced is to be received
with formal manifestations of respect, even by those most familiar with him."
- Ambrose Gwinnett Bierce
I agree... is funcom attempting to substitute content with the lame-ass minigames? It sure sounds like it. I'm starting to re-think pre-ordering.
Substitute? Do you even have the slightest idea what's being talked about?Fact of the matter is. ANY guild can participate in Sieges against other guilds. There is no restriction (except the restriction of numbers on the battlefield per se, but there's no set numbers there yet) on how many Guilds can attack an enemy Keep. The only thing this Mini-Game rating does set, is which guild will get the chance to -TAKE- the keep and keep it.
Now that the explanation is out of the way, how would you have done it? I'm asking for constructive feedback here, not more slandering. How would you determine the guild that is allowed to take hold of the keep after a victory? First come first served? There'd be even more whining then. World PvP Ranking? Might be an alternative, but it would give a big advantage to "big" guilds (in numbers), while smaller but maybe more "skilled" guilds would have a disadvantage (of course, depending on the PvP Experience System, that might not be the case, just tossing out concerns here).
So, how would you do it? Any people willing to make a constructive proposal instead of just wildly slandering the game?
Well, that is personal preference. Guild vs. Guild is, in my opinion, a much better system, because it leads to more politics and more player interaction. You can see this in EVE Online (to a much larger extent), and there are people who like it that way.Iknow it s not the answer but as i ve stated before and will stand by it G vs G games are terrible. The pre determined time to attack was bad now this is worse. Only way to fix this is do Faction vs Faction. Oh well if thats what they think is a good system. I for one think it is terrible.
As it has been stated countless times before, AoC will not be for everyone. But to cry havoc and let loose the dogs of whining before even trying the game or seeing how it plays out is just...well, that's just not the way I would go about it.
Yeo i agree with you. If you prefer G v G well good
I prefer F v F for a realm pride feeling etc. Anyways enough about that. I said it before along time ago and this idea falls into what i was thinking. The servers will be owned by the biggest guilds, if this systme is implemented. Oh well i honestly can t believe after i and many who thought Funcom was the anti WOW would do this. We ll have to wait and see.
I read somewhere that server capacity will be 2000 players at one time, with the ability to handle spikes to 4000.
They could've left out structured world pvp altogether.
I don't care if the entire game isn't tailored around what i or my 20 friends think is a good system. The majority of the game is more than acceptable for me.
it's not like I will cease to breath if the world pvp conditions aren't to my liking. It won't kill me.
sarcasm anyone?
Oh no! my beloved realm vs. realm freedom of keep capturing isn't a true DAoC mirror mold!! oh no what will i ever do! I don't think I can go on for much longer! I can't cancel my preorder oh no why god why did i pay for it, it couldn't have been the 10 videos and 250 screenshots that made my wet my pants, it couldn't have been the dev reports and game mechanics that i bragged to my friends about, why oh god why did i pay for this game in advance!
*you trying to respond* AAAAAND CUT. *you trying to respond again* THATS A RAP. *you trying again* WE GOT IT.
"Sometimes, things that may or may not be true are the things a man needs to believe in the most. People are basically good. Honor, courage, virtue mean everything. Power and money, money and power mean nothing. Good always triumphs over evil. Love, True Love Never Dies."
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
I have not experienced the high end pvp in AoC and prolly wont until the game goes live. So can't really say if this is a good or a bad thing. But from what I can put together with the info I know about AoC this seems like a pretty poor way of doing things. It seems as they want the pvp "grind" groups in their mini pvp games slaughtering the casuals over and over again. Perhaps they will learn after ppl complain enough or start leaving the game.
This tho is all based on what I know of the game, and that is very little.
If the OP is correct in his understanding of the procedure, I agree it doesn't seem like the best idea,
The only time it will come into play is if there are 19 guilds that want to siege at once, all of which are so large that they won't accept help from a second guild.
I am not sure about WoW, I never got into the PvP and high end raiding in that game, but in EQ there were maybe 12 guilds that would be large raid capable on a given server, and their server sizes were similar to what was reported here previously.
If the system winds up excluding people from participating in both parts of the siege warfare, then they'll probably change it. I am not sure that's a realistic scenario. 20 large guilds all wanting to do seige warfare on a Saturday night? That's 2000 people right there.
The leader (guild) in a siege will have some special capacity for organizing the attack? To me that make sense. Proven leadership/tactics (or the numbers to create a mindless horde) work for me. (well, it would work for me if I was into PvP/sieges). Or does it mean that if 5 clans sign up for a siege the one with the highest PvP 'score' will get to run in first. Again...go for it. Unless they overwhelm in one quick wave (which would indicate that again they have a horde or that the defenders don't have much of a defense) they will earn the title of 'Cannon Fodder'. (Trebuchet fodder if you prefer)
In general it's a way of keeping PvP clans active and fighting each other to keep vying for the top spot which means more PvE for me! Yay!~
read the OFFICIAL aoc forums to see what uproar there is about the state of pvp. Their own forums will say it all.
I don't know why they don't just do an EVE with this BK thing. When I first heard of it I thought that was what they were going to do. Not this BS about only 8 guilds are allowed on the field at any time and you have to play the PVP minigames 1000 times just to get up on the list.
But I wasn't really going for the PVP for this game anyway. So I'm not that bothered.
Haha I guess Funcom thinks the more PvP minigames you grind the more "World PvP Experience" you'll have, so you'll be better suited to lead the siege. Hahahah.
--------------------------------------
A human and an Elf get captured by Skaven. The rat-men are getting ready to shoot the first hostage with Dwarf-made guns when he yells, "Earthquake!" The naturally nervous Skaven run and hide from the imaginary threat. He escapes. The Skaven regroup and bring out the Elf. Being very smart, the Elf has figured out what to do. When the Skaven get ready to shoot, the Elf, in order to scare them, yells, "Fire!"
Order of the White Border.
I wouldn't condemn the system to failure before seeing how its implemented. I think it is basically there to keep a 40 man guild that has not proven themselves from locking out a 300 man guild from sieging a battlekeep. There are 9 Battlekeeps, so if you can not be one of the top 18 guild on the server, then you should probably reconsider your ability to seize and hold a battlekeep.
I don't think the requirement is going to last very long. It's an obvious mistake in the making. I have no plans on playing on FFA server and since I will have a newborn around the time of launch my playtime will be limited,, so I doubt I will be able to even do much in a guild. Hence, I got no stake in the outcome here. Just observing.
To me, it's a classic case of apples and oranges. Mini-games and Sieges are both PVP, just like both oranges and apples are fruits. The similarity ends there. Skills from one don't necessarily cross over into the other. Sieges, or large scale battles for that matter, have a lot more variability and randomness than CTF.
I think the guys outlining the negative effects that the minigame req will have on world PvP on FFA servers is pretty spot on. You just have to observe and note what happenedi in previous games.
Pre-BGs in WoW, Tarren Mill was a place of constant mass warfare. After the BGs, it was nearly non-existent. Why? Because doing BGS gave you stuff, the open world PvP of Tarren Mill did not. That is the reality. People like what they do, even in games, to matter. Given a choice of doing something fun in an MMO, over something that will improve their character most people choose to improve. That's the reality.
Since your PvP xp level effects what PvP rewards you get and the mini games effect the siege priority, most guilds that PvP will opt to do the mini games because it kills two birds with one stone. Even if world PVP yields more PvP xp, doing the mini games will be the more efficient route since you are accomplishing two things at once.
Look at any MMO - people do things that are more efficientexpedient. Developers (should) know this.
Rewarding people more by doing X (min-games) over doing Y (world PvP) means, people will do X over Y.
It's monumentally stupid of them to put any emphasis on PvP minigames. I'm sorry, but a lot of people quit wow because they were sick of "ok lets put our cookie cutter arena team together and roll everyone, we know exactly how it's gonna go, exactly the surroundings (instanced)".
That is so damned boring to me. I will not take part in that crap for one minute. World PvP is where it's at, and apparently funcom decided to crap all over it by giving an incentive to minigames.
I really hope they dont make this to a battleground grind game like WoW is, then I have to change my primary aim to play to WAR and hope they dont do something similar.
There can be only one
I feel funcom is about to make mistake here.
Priority should be world PvP!
Everyone knows im a huge fan of AoC, and I love the game to death.
But this is complete crap, I liked the PvP mini games but not that much, im really into the game for the siege warfare.
Thats what i think funcom is getting wrong here, the PvP crowd is divided into "Instanced PvPer's" and "Open World PvPer's" making us do both is just simply unacceptable.
-Jive
I'm glad to see someone here who 'gets' it.
The part that bothers ME the most is that there is already an MMO on the market that has made these mistakes and has gone through a 2 year process of trying to correct it. Why are we ignoring what Blizzard has already been through over this? Do you know what happened to that games' world PvP when Battlegrounds hit? It died, overnight. Wanna know what happened when they had a tiered PvP system for PvP gear? Only 3 people per sever ever had decent gear from it...the rest had to raid.
For gods sakes...its not like we DON'T have something to compare this to. Blizzard has already made these mistakes and taken steps to correct it. Maybe they haven't chosen the best corrections...but they at least acknowledged the mistake. You can't divide PvPers up, because one of the two groups will disappear. You can't make PvP super exclusive, because that forces raiding. Worse, you can't make this super exclusive gear equal to raid gear, because THEN no one wants to put the effort into PvPing for it.
I was all about Funcom making a mild success here, but this information absolutely destroys it for me. They have no chance, they aren't even paying attention to what works. I have no ideal what player they are trying to appeal to...but from what I'm seeing they aren't going to appeal to any. The model they are working with has already been polished and, with WoTL, probably perfected more than what they will offer. This Ath guy speaks just like the Blizzard guys did 3 years ago. He should really be pushing to focus on something, rather than try and do the whole "Hey guys, you can raid AND PvP here" thing.