Does AoW really need battlegrounds?

bcbully · January 2013

As far as we know, they are still scheduled for launch. Do you think the game needs them? I'm a guy who had somewhere around 400k HK's in WoW, all post BC, and played about 1000 huttball matches, you would think I would feel like "hell yeah," strangely I'm not.

In fact, I think battle grounds may hurt the game. The Wpvp in this game is organic. It's built around farming nodes, guild carts, scripts and such. Opportunity presents itself often. You get to choose if it's worth it to engage. I think battlegrounds could eventually dry all this up.

Gamers travel the least path of resistence for the most part. Even if there were no rewards, the least path to the engagment fix will be there, in battlegrounds.

What do you guys think?

edit - "Opportunities of engagement," to put it in perspective, during a typical battleground a person may get 20,30 kills. Since December 20th in AoW, I have about 140 pks.

Biskop · January 2013

I think battlegrounds are a terrible thing in an oPvP environment, unless they're somehow incorporated in the open world dynamics.

Biskop · January 2013

I think battlegrounds are a terrible thing in an oPvP environment, unless they're somehow incorporated in the open world dynamics.

ShakyMo · January 2013

I thought this was a sandbox?

Why the hell are they adding the most themepark pvp style of the lot?

ShakyMo · January 2013

I think battlegrounds are a terrible thing.

No need to add anymore.

xeniar · January 2013

its quite simple. adding BG's will destroy World-pvp, so you cant have both in the same game it just does not work. Openworld-pvp will never give any rewards. and people like their rewards thus they go BG's and the only world pvp youl see is the ganking of low-lvl players.

edit : unless you bg's will be arena type things where you can test your skills (no rewards) world pvp is dead.

AresPL · January 2013

for my guild battleground is practice field, where they can practice team work for pvp in instances and guild war, in L2 You have arena but here You can make 6v6 and 12v12, some will like some will not

xeniar · January 2013

Originally posted by DMKano
Originally posted by ShakyMo
I thought this was a sandbox?

Why the hell are they adding the most themepark pvp style of the lot?

I dont think that there is a rule book that says these features are sandbox, these are theme park - both of those terms are very subjective and they frankly mean different things to different people.

I am not a fan of battlegrounds, but I see nothing wrong with them as some folks love them, and why should they be excluded, just as some folks love open PvP, so they dont have to do battlegrounds.

Choice is good - it won't take away from either as battleground fans will do those, open PvP will be done by folks who like that option more (as long as both features are done equally to where doing either one does not give an advantage)

cant you read? look at WoW wherte is there open PvP? there is non apart from ganking and the ocasional city raid to kill the king (wich is PvE for a achievment) world pvp dissapears when you add bg's with rewards

Sovrath · January 2013

Originally posted by ShakyMo
I thought this was a sandbox?

Why the hell are they adding the most themepark pvp style of the lot?

Isn't the idea of a sandbox to have many options? The idea of following your playstyle?

I think battlegrounds CAN work in an open pvp game provided that it has a context.

It could be used as gladitorial bouts "during peace time" or it could be to determine who leads a clan.

Heck, in Lineage 2, an open pvp game, there were arena games that didn't take away from open pvp.

Asheram · January 2013

Originally posted by DMKano
Originally posted by ShakyMo
I thought this was a sandbox?

Why the hell are they adding the most themepark pvp style of the lot?

I dont think that there is a rule book that says these features are sandbox, these are theme park - both of those terms are very subjective and they frankly mean different things to different people.

I am not a fan of battlegrounds, but I see nothing wrong with them as some folks love them, and why should they be excluded, just as some folks love open PvP, so they dont have to do battlegrounds.

Choice is good - it won't take away from either as battleground fans will do those, open PvP will be done by folks who like that option more (as long as both features are done equally to where doing either one does not give an advantage)

I think these people think that if you only provide the option that they like those that dont care for it will go that direction rather than just not play the game.Its the same as the whole group vs solo content imo and it just doesnt really work the way these people think it will.If I dont care for the options that are available and the ones I like are unavailable I just simply will not play the game,I will just move on to a game that has the options that I like.I think these people "think" forcing only "their" playstyle and options that they like will force people their direction but actually it will just force people to move on.

For me it is simple put in as many options as you can- as the more options = more players = more chance that $$$ will be spent in your game which = your game staying alive longer and being updated.

xeniar · January 2013

Originally posted by Asheram
Originally posted by DMKano
Originally posted by ShakyMo
I thought this was a sandbox?

Why the hell are they adding the most themepark pvp style of the lot?

I dont think that there is a rule book that says these features are sandbox, these are theme park - both of those terms are very subjective and they frankly mean different things to different people.

I am not a fan of battlegrounds, but I see nothing wrong with them as some folks love them, and why should they be excluded, just as some folks love open PvP, so they dont have to do battlegrounds.

Choice is good - it won't take away from either as battleground fans will do those, open PvP will be done by folks who like that option more (as long as both features are done equally to where doing either one does not give an advantage)

I think these people think that if you only provide the option that they like those that dont care for it will go that direction rather than just not play the game.Its the same as the whole group vs solo content imo and it just doesnt really work the way these people think it will.If I dont care for the options that are available and the ones I like are unavailable I just simply will not play the game,I will just move on to a game that has the options that I like.I think these people "think" forcing only "their" playstyle and options that they like will force people their direction but actually it will just force people to move on.

For me it is simple put in as many options as you can- as the more options = more players = more chance that $$$ will be spent in your game which = your game staying alive longer and being updated.

or you could vieuw it like this : More options = ALOT more work = a much more shitty game because you cannot polish the whole load of it and make it all coexist without anyone being inferior to anyone else. I rather play a game with a nice lsit of features wich works then a game with 10000's of features wich are all crappy in execution.

bcbully · January 2013

Originally posted by xeniar
its quite simple. adding BG's will destroy World-pvp, so you cant have both in the same game it just does not work. Openworld-pvp will never give any rewards. and people like their rewards thus they go BG's and the only world pvp youl see is the ganking of low-lvl players.

edit : unless you bg's will be arena type things where you can test your skills (no rewards) world pvp is dead.

Opvp does give rewads in AoW. good/evil points, xp, silver etc. Despite giving rewards I think bgs would still be harmful, with rewards or not.

It's a quick fix for pvp junkies.

xeniar · January 2013

Originally posted by bcbully
Originally posted by xeniar
its quite simple. adding BG's will destroy World-pvp, so you cant have both in the same game it just does not work. Openworld-pvp will never give any rewards. and people like their rewards thus they go BG's and the only world pvp youl see is the ganking of low-lvl players.

edit : unless you bg's will be arena type things where you can test your skills (no rewards) world pvp is dead.

Opvp does give rewads in AoW. good/evil points, xp, silver etc. Despite giving rewards I think bgs would still be harmful, with rewards or not.

It's a quick fix for pvp junkies.

does it give the same rewards as bg's ? or will the bg rewards be better?

if the bg rewards are better then bg's will dominate world pvp, if they are the same then bg's will still dominate because its easier to fight people in a bg then look for them outdoors. unless bg's will hold no reward or a muhc lesser reward open pvp with a point will be nonexistant.

bcbully · January 2013

Originally posted by xeniar
Originally posted by bcbully
Originally posted by xeniar
its quite simple. adding BG's will destroy World-pvp, so you cant have both in the same game it just does not work. Openworld-pvp will never give any rewards. and people like their rewards thus they go BG's and the only world pvp youl see is the ganking of low-lvl players.

edit : unless you bg's will be arena type things where you can test your skills (no rewards) world pvp is dead.

Opvp does give rewads in AoW. good/evil points, xp, silver etc. Despite giving rewards I think bgs would still be harmful, with rewards or not.

It's a quick fix for pvp junkies.

does it give the same rewards as bg's ? or will the bg rewards be better?

if the bg rewards are better then bg's will dominate world pvp, if they are the same then bg's will still dominate because its easier to fight people in a bg then look for them outdoors. unless bg's will hold no reward or a muhc lesser reward open pvp with a point will be nonexistant.

This is yet to be seen.

Biskop · January 2013

More options does not necessarily make a game better and no game can cater to every playstyle.

AoW is a great oPvP game and it will have a good-sized audience because of that because there aren't that many oPvP games around.

It doesn't need to cater to the instanced PvP/BG/MOBA fans as well. That audience already has multiple games to choose from and they'll probably won't appreciate AoW's other features anyway.

Nilden · January 2013

I don't get it why do all these MMORPGs with huge worlds and the potential to make awesome open world pvp with territory, buildings, politics, economics and resources feel the need to turn the pvp into subpar matches of every FPS that do lobby based pvp matches better.

Battlegrounds are a horrible idea for any serious open world pvp game.

ObiClownobi · January 2013

Originally posted by nilden
I don't get it why do all these MMORPGs with huge worlds and the potential to make awesome open world pvp with territory, buildings, politics, economics and resources feel the need to turn the pvp into subpar matches of every FPS that do lobby based pvp matches better.

Battlegrounds are a horrible idea for any serious open world pvp game.

Amen

GrayKodiak · January 2013

Wushu already has battle grounds, school wars, no one seems to mind them. It all depends on how they implement them.

mindw0rk · January 2013

No. I also like battlegrounds in WoW, played tons of them. But I want them to develop sandbox features further and integrate more PvP events with better rewards. Instead of BGs let it be regular tournaments, so people could watch them live and know the best fighters. More school battles stuff. More clan warfare. There are many opportunities and I hope they do it right

Howdy, Stranger!

Does AoW really need battlegrounds?

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Does AoW really need battlegrounds?

Comments