Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

New World Talks PvP Wars And PvE Invasions In New Dev Diary

13»

Comments

  • Ancient_ExileAncient_Exile Member RarePosts: 1,303
    edited May 2020
    Bloodaxes said:
    Have you ever considered the possibility that there may be a way to Solve the Griefing Problem in OWPVP Sandbox MMORPGs?

    There is actually a thread in The Pub at MMORPG.COM which explores this potentially revolutionary idea.
    Well there won't ever be a solution that appeases both sides so that thread is useless. 

    So certain are you?





    Btw, Soul Eater is not my idea of a decent anime. 


    YashaX
    "If everything was easy, nothing would be hard."


    "Show me on the doll where PVP touched you."


    (Note:  If I type something in a thread that does not exactly pertain to the stated subject of the thread in every, way, shape, and form, please feel free to send me a response in a Private Message.)

  • SkitzoXSkitzoX Member UncommonPosts: 189
    edited May 2020
    Wizardry said:
    I don't liek the idea of pvp ,balance ,ctf idea doesn't intrigue me at all.
    However Invasions is the type of content i love to see and take part in.The problem is implementation.Lots of devs have cool ideas on paper but in the end they just see these as gimmicks to sell their product but don't put much effort into designing them.

    Example Rifts in Trions games was a cool idea on paper but after a few rifts i was bored and didn't care anymore.So for me Invasions is the ONLY selling point of this game,is it going to be good enough to keep me engaged long term or will i take part in 2/3 and get bored and never play the game again,is the question.

    The one issue i have and it's part of the pvp fail reason and that is WHAT IF,nobody is online from your guild/clan,you just lose to invasion,you just lose to pvp?You do not have to accept or even engage in a Siege to know the fail of pvp in these games.A very large clan can just hangout in front of your fort waiting for anyone to leave and gank them,,fun yeah...oh hell no.

    So Invasions yes pvp still a huge thumbs down.
    If you lose a pvp siege defense then you lose control of the settlement to the attacking vanguard guild.

    If you lose a pve invasion you lose town/fort upgrades.

    Your comment about the guilds camping outside the fort is not really an issue. Both the attackers and defenders have a full day to setup their roster and the siege is instanced so defenders get ported into the fort and the attackers into the siege camp 15 minutes before the battle. If your losing the battle bad enough that they are spawn camping you then you can just leave the instance.

    One of the problems is these invasions are not tied to any in game mechanics as far as how they are triggered so you have no way to delay or prevent them. They just happen on a set schedule. They are the same regardless of the settlements upgrade level or location so undesired settlements in low level/underpopulated areas arnt properly defended because nobody cares about them and even if smaller guilds take them and try to slowly upgrade them they will not be able to win these invasions and will lose any upgrades they have worked towards. You also have to be level 50+ to participate.At the very least these invasions should scale in difficulty based on the upgrade level of the settlements.

    Outside of the couple centrally located settlements there’s no reason to upgrade/maintain the other settlements. These invasions are fun at first but get old fast... and if you don’t show up then you lose upgrades. Crafting station upgrades determines what level items your able to make so losing them is a big deal. On top of that 40 of the participants for the invasions are random... so your guild puts tons of time and effort to upgrade your crafting stations and then an event that is made up of random players can destroy your progress/work. These random players do not have to be invested in these settlements at all to sign up for these events. They don’t have to be a resident or even be part of the same faction. The system is just really poorly thought out.

    This game is just so poorly designed. The two major pillars suck to be frank. A 30 minute pvp siege that may happen once or twice a week at most where participation is controlled by the guild leaders (don’t even get me started on the process to open up the possibility to siege and how the vanguards are selected) and pve sieges that are scripted, not dynamic and don’t scale at all but are mandatory to attend/win or you lose a significant amount of progress and 40 of the 50 people are chosen at random with the only requirement being level 50+. There are many problems with both systems but the devs don’t listen to anything but positive feedback.

    Owning a settlement doesn’t matter, factions don’t matter and to a lesser extent guilds,there’s no real risk vs reward, pvp is practically non-existent, pve is as basic and boring as any f2p on the market. It just blows my mind what this game has become and the changes they have made since the first Alpha. I’m fine with them changing the focus to pve but it sucks. At least before it had a niche audience, now it’s just bad at everything. So many bugs and broken things in game I can’t imagine it launching without at least one more delay.
    Post edited by SkitzoX on
    IselinbcbullyAsheramYashaXAncient_ExileTacticalZombehKyleran
  • AsheramAsheram Member EpicPosts: 4,588
    Ok I didnt know all that ty for the fyi.
  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 2,781
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    First off, to those of you complaining that there won't be any PvP outside of the scheduled 50 vs. 50, why is that? If you're so hardcore PvP then flag up and stay flagged up. If you can't find anyone else flagged up to fight than what does that tell you? If you do find someone else flagged up then you got your PvP. One way or the other, the outcome is destined. Either a lot of people want to PvP and will flag up or no one will flag up because no one gives a shit about OWPvP. Not really hard to comprehend the logic in that.

    There is so much wrong with what you have said here that it is hard to know where to start.
    I'd certainly love to hear your spin on it, because let's face it. PvP doesn't need everyone forced into it for it to work. The ONLY reason forced PvP is interesting to people like you is because you love being part of a gankfest against lowbies or part of a zergfest taking out much smaller groups. Either of those scenarios is NOT challenging in the least.

    So please, explain to me why forced PvP is so much better, because deep down inside there isn't a single reason you can come up with where it is a requirement to have meaningful PvP engagements. As I just explained, if people WANT PvP, they can flag up for it. I'm surprised you find that so hard to understand.

    Someone else suggested having multiple server types. Which would probably be the best alternative. I certainly have nothing against that alternative.
    You seem to be very focused on this pve vs pvp thing, kind of an "us" vs "them" mentality. To me that is not the issue at all. One of my favorite mmos is D&D Online and that is purely pve, and there are other great mmos like ESO and GW2 that take pvp completely out of the "main" world so that you could feasibly play the game without having to pvp at all.

    However, all those games have compelling pve, and were built from the ground up to be able to stand alone as rich pve focused experiences. My concern for New World, which looked like a very promising new game, is that the pve side of the game is not built out enough for it to be fun/interesting. And that didn't matter up until a few months ago because the pvp WAS the content.

    Now that they have stripped out the main content (the pvp), all that is left is a very mediocre pve game with a disastrously badly thought out "pinnacle" pvp/pve experience in the fort raids. At least that is the impression I get from the information they have released, hopefully I'm wrong.

    From my perspective there is no "us" vs "them", we are all gamers that I assume want to play awesome games. With no pvp apart from the occasional fort raid at end game, what is the draw of this game? Does it have a good story? awesome lore? interesting quests? intelligent mob AI? a large range of cool monsters to fight? awesome crafting? dungeons? world bosses? What's gonna be good about this game @Rhoklaw?

    SkitzoXAncient_ExilebcbullyIselinRhoklaw
    ....
  • RhoklawRhoklaw Member LegendaryPosts: 7,429
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    First off, to those of you complaining that there won't be any PvP outside of the scheduled 50 vs. 50, why is that? If you're so hardcore PvP then flag up and stay flagged up. If you can't find anyone else flagged up to fight than what does that tell you? If you do find someone else flagged up then you got your PvP. One way or the other, the outcome is destined. Either a lot of people want to PvP and will flag up or no one will flag up because no one gives a shit about OWPvP. Not really hard to comprehend the logic in that.

    There is so much wrong with what you have said here that it is hard to know where to start.
    I'd certainly love to hear your spin on it, because let's face it. PvP doesn't need everyone forced into it for it to work. The ONLY reason forced PvP is interesting to people like you is because you love being part of a gankfest against lowbies or part of a zergfest taking out much smaller groups. Either of those scenarios is NOT challenging in the least.

    So please, explain to me why forced PvP is so much better, because deep down inside there isn't a single reason you can come up with where it is a requirement to have meaningful PvP engagements. As I just explained, if people WANT PvP, they can flag up for it. I'm surprised you find that so hard to understand.

    Someone else suggested having multiple server types. Which would probably be the best alternative. I certainly have nothing against that alternative.
    You seem to be very focused on this pve vs pvp thing, kind of an "us" vs "them" mentality. To me that is not the issue at all. One of my favorite mmos is D&D Online and that is purely pve, and there are other great mmos like ESO and GW2 that take pvp completely out of the "main" world so that you could feasibly play the game without having to pvp at all.

    However, all those games have compelling pve, and were built from the ground up to be able to stand alone as rich pve focused experiences. My concern for New World, which looked like a very promising new game, is that the pve side of the game is not built out enough for it to be fun/interesting. And that didn't matter up until a few months ago because the pvp WAS the content.

    Now that they have stripped out the main content (the pvp), all that is left is a very mediocre pve game with a disastrously badly thought out "pinnacle" pvp/pve experience in the fort raids. At least that is the impression I get from the information they have released, hopefully I'm wrong.

    From my perspective there is no "us" vs "them", we are all gamers that I assume want to play awesome games. With no pvp apart from the occasional fort raid at end game, what is the draw of this game? Does it have a good story? awesome lore? interesting quests? intelligent mob AI? a large range of cool monsters to fight? awesome crafting? dungeons? world bosses? What's gonna be good about this game @Rhoklaw?

    Trust me when I say, not enough developers take games like DAoC, ESO or GW2 into consideration when making a PvP/PvE MMOs. I'm trying to remember though, what incentives each of those games had in regards to PvP and PvE.

    For instance, DAoC gave a lot of bonuses to PvP and PvE mechanics based on how many Castles and Towers ( depending on which version you played ) as well as Relics you owned. Not to mention the PvP dungeon Darkness Falls. DAoC was and almost 100% sure still is the pinnacle of PvP/PvE game design in an MMO.

    My problem with OWPvP which is what New World focused on in the beginning and just recently opted out of for a more balanced PvP/PvE approach, is that OWPvP draws in the trolls, gankers and zergs ( this was proven true once again during New World alpha where countless instances of lowbie ganking was occuring ). Which is probably why you never really see a successful PvP focused MMO compared to PvE MMOs which drastically outnumber PvP MMO success, time and time again.

    I'm not against PvP at all. I just find OWPvP MMOs to be completely and utterly useless because of the massive imbalances between new and veteran players, between casual and hardcore players and so on. I will ALWAYS state that OWPvP in a progressive RPG setting does NOT work.

    PvP in a controlled setting such as DAoC, ESO or GW2 is perfectly fine. New World has done something a little different, which is to have PvP in the main world albeit within scheduled raid times. While that might prove to be inadequate for those who love PvP more than PvE, it is what it is. As for the 50 vs. 50 PvP battles, again, in my eyes that is a BALANCED engagement. Controlling numbers in a PvP engagement is one way to ensure a fair fight, so it doesn't get hammered to death with zerg excuses. That is a problem in ALL PvP games, such as Last Oasis, which just recently launched. I can't even fathom how many times we had clan members in that game get ganked / zerged while out gathering materials by groups twice their size, then when we show up with the cavalry to wipe out the attackers, THEY complain about us zerging them. It's a never ending issue in PvP games.

    As for the PvE invasions, its a start and probably the simplest or easiest form of meaningful PvE encounter to create in such short notice. Probably much easier than trying to create multiple fully fleshed out raid dungeons. My guess is, they will add dungeons in future updates, but for now, they only had time to implement the PvE invasions.

    Will PvE invasions be the ONLY PvE content at launch? I don't know. I'm sure there is other PvE content, just not raid dungeon content.

    Now that we both explained our opinions and insight into what we feel makes PvP/PvE games possible. The original argument I was dealing with was the fact certain people were complaining that there wasn't enough PvP or PvE content or that scheduled PvP / PvE wasn't going to work. That only having 50 vs. 50 wasn't going to be enough. My rebuttal was that 50 vs. 50 is balanced. That scheduled raids and invasions isn't any different than scheduling a raid in a dungeon. I think it's safe to say that no game is perfect for every type or style of gamer. Pretty sure that horse has been beaten to death, rezzed and beaten dead again several times over.

    I personally don't have a problem with the scheduled raid / invasions. It's just a means to an end to weed out zergs and offline raiding.


    ScotKyleran

  • YashaXYashaX Member EpicPosts: 2,781
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    First off, to those of you complaining that there won't be any PvP outside of the scheduled 50 vs. 50, why is that? If you're so hardcore PvP then flag up and stay flagged up. If you can't find anyone else flagged up to fight than what does that tell you? If you do find someone else flagged up then you got your PvP. One way or the other, the outcome is destined. Either a lot of people want to PvP and will flag up or no one will flag up because no one gives a shit about OWPvP. Not really hard to comprehend the logic in that.

    There is so much wrong with what you have said here that it is hard to know where to start.
    I'd certainly love to hear your spin on it, because let's face it. PvP doesn't need everyone forced into it for it to work. The ONLY reason forced PvP is interesting to people like you is because you love being part of a gankfest against lowbies or part of a zergfest taking out much smaller groups. Either of those scenarios is NOT challenging in the least.

    So please, explain to me why forced PvP is so much better, because deep down inside there isn't a single reason you can come up with where it is a requirement to have meaningful PvP engagements. As I just explained, if people WANT PvP, they can flag up for it. I'm surprised you find that so hard to understand.

    Someone else suggested having multiple server types. Which would probably be the best alternative. I certainly have nothing against that alternative.
    You seem to be very focused on this pve vs pvp thing, kind of an "us" vs "them" mentality. To me that is not the issue at all. One of my favorite mmos is D&D Online and that is purely pve, and there are other great mmos like ESO and GW2 that take pvp completely out of the "main" world so that you could feasibly play the game without having to pvp at all.

    However, all those games have compelling pve, and were built from the ground up to be able to stand alone as rich pve focused experiences. My concern for New World, which looked like a very promising new game, is that the pve side of the game is not built out enough for it to be fun/interesting. And that didn't matter up until a few months ago because the pvp WAS the content.

    Now that they have stripped out the main content (the pvp), all that is left is a very mediocre pve game with a disastrously badly thought out "pinnacle" pvp/pve experience in the fort raids. At least that is the impression I get from the information they have released, hopefully I'm wrong.

    From my perspective there is no "us" vs "them", we are all gamers that I assume want to play awesome games. With no pvp apart from the occasional fort raid at end game, what is the draw of this game? Does it have a good story? awesome lore? interesting quests? intelligent mob AI? a large range of cool monsters to fight? awesome crafting? dungeons? world bosses? What's gonna be good about this game @Rhoklaw?

    Trust me when I say, not enough developers take games like DAoC, ESO or GW2 into consideration when making a PvP/PvE MMOs. I'm trying to remember though, what incentives each of those games had in regards to PvP and PvE.

    For instance, DAoC gave a lot of bonuses to PvP and PvE mechanics based on how many Castles and Towers ( depending on which version you played ) as well as Relics you owned. Not to mention the PvP dungeon Darkness Falls. DAoC was and almost 100% sure still is the pinnacle of PvP/PvE game design in an MMO.

    My problem with OWPvP which is what New World focused on in the beginning and just recently opted out of for a more balanced PvP/PvE approach, is that OWPvP draws in the trolls, gankers and zergs ( this was proven true once again during New World alpha where countless instances of lowbie ganking was occuring ). Which is probably why you never really see a successful PvP focused MMO compared to PvE MMOs which drastically outnumber PvP MMO success, time and time again.

    I'm not against PvP at all. I just find OWPvP MMOs to be completely and utterly useless because of the massive imbalances between new and veteran players, between casual and hardcore players and so on. I will ALWAYS state that OWPvP in a progressive RPG setting does NOT work.

    PvP in a controlled setting such as DAoC, ESO or GW2 is perfectly fine. New World has done something a little different, which is to have PvP in the main world albeit within scheduled raid times. While that might prove to be inadequate for those who love PvP more than PvE, it is what it is. As for the 50 vs. 50 PvP battles, again, in my eyes that is a BALANCED engagement. Controlling numbers in a PvP engagement is one way to ensure a fair fight, so it doesn't get hammered to death with zerg excuses. That is a problem in ALL PvP games, such as Last Oasis, which just recently launched. I can't even fathom how many times we had clan members in that game get ganked / zerged while out gathering materials by groups twice their size, then when we show up with the cavalry to wipe out the attackers, THEY complain about us zerging them. It's a never ending issue in PvP games.

    As for the PvE invasions, its a start and probably the simplest or easiest form of meaningful PvE encounter to create in such short notice. Probably much easier than trying to create multiple fully fleshed out raid dungeons. My guess is, they will add dungeons in future updates, but for now, they only had time to implement the PvE invasions.

    Will PvE invasions be the ONLY PvE content at launch? I don't know. I'm sure there is other PvE content, just not raid dungeon content.

    Now that we both explained our opinions and insight into what we feel makes PvP/PvE games possible. The original argument I was dealing with was the fact certain people were complaining that there wasn't enough PvP or PvE content or that scheduled PvP / PvE wasn't going to work. That only having 50 vs. 50 wasn't going to be enough. My rebuttal was that 50 vs. 50 is balanced. That scheduled raids and invasions isn't any different than scheduling a raid in a dungeon. I think it's safe to say that no game is perfect for every type or style of gamer. Pretty sure that horse has been beaten to death, rezzed and beaten dead again several times over.

    I personally don't have a problem with the scheduled raid / invasions. It's just a means to an end to weed out zergs and offline raiding.



    Yes, I think the initial plan to have full-loot owpvp was crazy, for exactly the reasons you mention. But I think the change they made was even crazier, because, to borrow your phrasing, they seem to be set to release a game that is not fun for any type or style of gamer.



    IselinRhoklaw
    ....
  • bcbullybcbully Member EpicPosts: 10,289
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    YashaX said:
    Rhoklaw said:
    First off, to those of you complaining that there won't be any PvP outside of the scheduled 50 vs. 50, why is that? If you're so hardcore PvP then flag up and stay flagged up. If you can't find anyone else flagged up to fight than what does that tell you? If you do find someone else flagged up then you got your PvP. One way or the other, the outcome is destined. Either a lot of people want to PvP and will flag up or no one will flag up because no one gives a shit about OWPvP. Not really hard to comprehend the logic in that.

    There is so much wrong with what you have said here that it is hard to know where to start.
    I'd certainly love to hear your spin on it, because let's face it. PvP doesn't need everyone forced into it for it to work. The ONLY reason forced PvP is interesting to people like you is because you love being part of a gankfest against lowbies or part of a zergfest taking out much smaller groups. Either of those scenarios is NOT challenging in the least.

    So please, explain to me why forced PvP is so much better, because deep down inside there isn't a single reason you can come up with where it is a requirement to have meaningful PvP engagements. As I just explained, if people WANT PvP, they can flag up for it. I'm surprised you find that so hard to understand.

    Someone else suggested having multiple server types. Which would probably be the best alternative. I certainly have nothing against that alternative.
    You seem to be very focused on this pve vs pvp thing, kind of an "us" vs "them" mentality. To me that is not the issue at all. One of my favorite mmos is D&D Online and that is purely pve, and there are other great mmos like ESO and GW2 that take pvp completely out of the "main" world so that you could feasibly play the game without having to pvp at all.

    However, all those games have compelling pve, and were built from the ground up to be able to stand alone as rich pve focused experiences. My concern for New World, which looked like a very promising new game, is that the pve side of the game is not built out enough for it to be fun/interesting. And that didn't matter up until a few months ago because the pvp WAS the content.

    Now that they have stripped out the main content (the pvp), all that is left is a very mediocre pve game with a disastrously badly thought out "pinnacle" pvp/pve experience in the fort raids. At least that is the impression I get from the information they have released, hopefully I'm wrong.

    From my perspective there is no "us" vs "them", we are all gamers that I assume want to play awesome games. With no pvp apart from the occasional fort raid at end game, what is the draw of this game? Does it have a good story? awesome lore? interesting quests? intelligent mob AI? a large range of cool monsters to fight? awesome crafting? dungeons? world bosses? What's gonna be good about this game @Rhoklaw?

    Trust me when I say, not enough developers take games like DAoC, ESO or GW2 into consideration when making a PvP/PvE MMOs. I'm trying to remember though, what incentives each of those games had in regards to PvP and PvE.

    For instance, DAoC gave a lot of bonuses to PvP and PvE mechanics based on how many Castles and Towers ( depending on which version you played ) as well as Relics you owned. Not to mention the PvP dungeon Darkness Falls. DAoC was and almost 100% sure still is the pinnacle of PvP/PvE game design in an MMO.

    My problem with OWPvP which is what New World focused on in the beginning and just recently opted out of for a more balanced PvP/PvE approach, is that OWPvP draws in the trolls, gankers and zergs ( this was proven true once again during New World alpha where countless instances of lowbie ganking was occuring ). Which is probably why you never really see a successful PvP focused MMO compared to PvE MMOs which drastically outnumber PvP MMO success, time and time again.

    I'm not against PvP at all. I just find OWPvP MMOs to be completely and utterly useless because of the massive imbalances between new and veteran players, between casual and hardcore players and so on. I will ALWAYS state that OWPvP in a progressive RPG setting does NOT work.

    PvP in a controlled setting such as DAoC, ESO or GW2 is perfectly fine. New World has done something a little different, which is to have PvP in the main world albeit within scheduled raid times. While that might prove to be inadequate for those who love PvP more than PvE, it is what it is. As for the 50 vs. 50 PvP battles, again, in my eyes that is a BALANCED engagement. Controlling numbers in a PvP engagement is one way to ensure a fair fight, so it doesn't get hammered to death with zerg excuses. That is a problem in ALL PvP games, such as Last Oasis, which just recently launched. I can't even fathom how many times we had clan members in that game get ganked / zerged while out gathering materials by groups twice their size, then when we show up with the cavalry to wipe out the attackers, THEY complain about us zerging them. It's a never ending issue in PvP games.

    As for the PvE invasions, its a start and probably the simplest or easiest form of meaningful PvE encounter to create in such short notice. Probably much easier than trying to create multiple fully fleshed out raid dungeons. My guess is, they will add dungeons in future updates, but for now, they only had time to implement the PvE invasions.

    Will PvE invasions be the ONLY PvE content at launch? I don't know. I'm sure there is other PvE content, just not raid dungeon content.

    Now that we both explained our opinions and insight into what we feel makes PvP/PvE games possible. The original argument I was dealing with was the fact certain people were complaining that there wasn't enough PvP or PvE content or that scheduled PvP / PvE wasn't going to work. That only having 50 vs. 50 wasn't going to be enough. My rebuttal was that 50 vs. 50 is balanced. That scheduled raids and invasions isn't any different than scheduling a raid in a dungeon. I think it's safe to say that no game is perfect for every type or style of gamer. Pretty sure that horse has been beaten to death, rezzed and beaten dead again several times over.

    I personally don't have a problem with the scheduled raid / invasions. It's just a means to an end to weed out zergs and offline raiding.


    PvP a few times a week due for anyone who considers themselves a pvpr 
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 14,164
    As yet I am not sure what sort of balance they are trying to achieve. They do not seem from my skimming of the thread to have gone down the RvR or PvP zone route but are allowing PvE areas to be sometimes invaded? That's full of issues and will make PvE's fed up with PvP.

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 14,922
    Scot said:
    As yet I am not sure what sort of balance they are trying to achieve. They do not seem from my skimming of the thread to have gone down the RvR or PvP zone route but are allowing PvE areas to be sometimes invaded? That's full of issues and will make PvE's fed up with PvP.
    No you got it wrong. The PvP 50 v 50 is an instanced thing and so are the PvE invasions. They are also level 50 only, scheduled and infrequent - infrequent as in once or a couple of times per week.

    The non-instanced part of the world has just a simple optional PvP flagging system.
    Scot
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
Sign In or Register to comment.