Comments on: Making PvP Scale, Part 2 http://aiiane.net/blog/2009/12/making-pvp-scale-part-2/ The best work gets done after 2 am Thu, 29 Apr 2010 21:28:10 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Aiiane http://aiiane.net/blog/2009/12/making-pvp-scale-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-700 Aiiane Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:22:59 +0000 http://aiiane.net/blog/?p=183#comment-700 Bonuses for holding should not be combat bonuses, but rather bonuses towards the economy of the game, et cetera. This assumes a combat system where you can't completely out-gear your opponent - that is, in a 6v6 battle, neither side is just going to destroy the other based on items. Gear-based combat systems are deficient in that regard. Bonuses for holding should not be combat bonuses, but rather bonuses towards the economy of the game, et cetera. This assumes a combat system where you can’t completely out-gear your opponent – that is, in a 6v6 battle, neither side is just going to destroy the other based on items. Gear-based combat systems are deficient in that regard.

]]> By: Raccool http://aiiane.net/blog/2009/12/making-pvp-scale-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-698 Raccool Sat, 05 Dec 2009 05:11:03 +0000 http://aiiane.net/blog/?p=183#comment-698 There would have to be limits put on the "bonuses for holding them that accrue over time" lest it encourages a system where "the strong get stronger", I think, and the players that get the bonus will never leave. But if you make the bonuses too small, then the players don't have enough incentive to stay. And, at the same time, if you make the rewards for attaining those bonuses too great, it will further encourage the "RVR-train" that we saw in WAR. Another thing that I think needs to go the way of the dinosaurs (with regards to PvP) is the two-faction system. Though this may be a topic for a different discussion, we've seen it time and time again where balance is hard to maintain if you only have what boils down to two opponents. Even if you were to somehow balance both sides perfectly, things would get boring because of two reasons. One, you would either stalemate or have even scores. Two, you could never introduce something new because it would disrupt the balance in some way, possibly irreparably. There would have to be limits put on the “bonuses for holding them that accrue over time” lest it encourages a system where “the strong get stronger”, I think, and the players that get the bonus will never leave. But if you make the bonuses too small, then the players don’t have enough incentive to stay. And, at the same time, if you make the rewards for attaining those bonuses too great, it will further encourage the “RVR-train” that we saw in WAR.

Another thing that I think needs to go the way of the dinosaurs (with regards to PvP) is the two-faction system. Though this may be a topic for a different discussion, we’ve seen it time and time again where balance is hard to maintain if you only have what boils down to two opponents. Even if you were to somehow balance both sides perfectly, things would get boring because of two reasons. One, you would either stalemate or have even scores. Two, you could never introduce something new because it would disrupt the balance in some way, possibly irreparably.

]]> By: Aiiane http://aiiane.net/blog/2009/12/making-pvp-scale-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-697 Aiiane Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:58:31 +0000 http://aiiane.net/blog/?p=183#comment-697 That's one of the things a quick-travel system for small groups solves: two small groups can cover many more objectives faster than a single large zerg. You still want to provide incentives for combat, but you don't need to make them ridiculous to the point where people just want to kill trade. As for objectives, don't make them provide on-capture bonuses, but instead provide bonuses for holding them that accrue over time, such that people want to defend them. The combination of small forces being able to cover more objectives than a single large force, plus rewards for actually holding objectives, leads to a game where people want to stay split up, but also still want to defend. That’s one of the things a quick-travel system for small groups solves: two small groups can cover many more objectives faster than a single large zerg. You still want to provide incentives for combat, but you don’t need to make them ridiculous to the point where people just want to kill trade. As for objectives, don’t make them provide on-capture bonuses, but instead provide bonuses for holding them that accrue over time, such that people want to defend them. The combination of small forces being able to cover more objectives than a single large force, plus rewards for actually holding objectives, leads to a game where people want to stay split up, but also still want to defend.

]]> By: Raccool http://aiiane.net/blog/2009/12/making-pvp-scale-part-2/comment-page-1/#comment-696 Raccool Sat, 05 Dec 2009 04:53:21 +0000 http://aiiane.net/blog/?p=183#comment-696 Well, I agree with some of this. But the first thing I thought when you said "instead of having 3-4 objectives in a zone, have 10-20" was how, in WAR, you would have two zergs running around, avoiding each other, to get the objectives and pummeling anything that stood in their way with sheer numbers. Path of least resistance, remember? How would you suggest that be avoided? Well, I agree with some of this. But the first thing I thought when you said “instead of having 3-4 objectives in a zone, have 10-20″ was how, in WAR, you would have two zergs running around, avoiding each other, to get the objectives and pummeling anything that stood in their way with sheer numbers. Path of least resistance, remember? How would you suggest that be avoided?

]]>