Poster: Nostaw at 7/19/2006 12:55:42 PM PDT
Subject: Neither Side Gets It (Long) |
| |
Neither Side Gets It
Am I one of the few people in this world blessed with the ability to see things from both sides of the proverbial coin? I doubt it. But sometimes the way that people debate a particular topic into the ground, all the while failing to stop and listen to what the other side might be trying to say, makes me believe that is the case.
Let's consider the current, rather large scale and heated debate, about World PvP in WoW.
On one hand, we have a side arguing for the "Glory Days" of WoW PvP where massive groups of people would gather in Hillsbrad Foothills and participate in the now legendary "Southshore vs. Tarren Mill" wars.
On the other, we have the people who are arguing against such implementation because of the negative side effects of such an encounter.
Both sides are so busy screaming their cause; they fail to listen to the other. Their energy would be better suited for screaming at a brick wall.
Finally, we have Blizzard stepping in and implementing something that they feel is a fix to the issues of World PvP, or as they put it, a start to fixing it. The result, no matter how you feel about it in game, was like throwing goblin rocket fuel on a fire.
I'm going to take a second to address each side of this debate here, from as neutral position as I can take on the matter.
To the first group, the "I Need World PvP" group, stop being so damned hostile and take the blinders off. All of you want to focus on the "Sandlol" aspect of their World PvP implementation. Yes, it's a bit lacking. What about the Towers in Eastern Plaguelands? Isn't this exactly the objective that so many of you ask for? So it gives you a buff, of which we don't know its effect yet (Is it on PTR?). Stop with the trolling of Sandlol, it's not going to help your cause.
To the second group, the "I don't want it to interfere with me," group. First, if you're referring to an amount of lag that causes the servers to crash...I can't blame you. However, if you don't want it to affect your questing, well...there are two sides to that. If you're on a PvP server, and you don't want to be affected by it...there's no way about it, you rolled on the wrong server. If you're on a PvE server, and you don't want it to affect you...well, it shouldn't.
So how do you go about appeasing both parties?
First, is the ever present issue of lag. Tarren Mill vs. Southshore caused massive amounts of lag on the server. Raids on Orgrimmar or Ironforge brought the server to a crashing halt. I'm a fan of the old days...but this is not how you implement World PvP. Argue for it all you want...crashing servers will not make us happy.
The work around is that you give more options than what existed previously. Tarren Mill vs. Soutshore was popular because of the proximity of the enemy, the nearness of capital cities (reinforcements) and the level of the mobs. It had the right mix to make PvP in that zone take off. That is why everyone congregated there. It wasn't because we enjoyed Hillsbrad, or those two cities as much as the mixture they allowed. This type of mixture needs to be recreated in several locations in the world to promote a distribution of the people like it into several places, rather than all of them gathering in a single place. The Silithus/EPL attempt is only a start, and only one of them appears to be aiming at the right style...I think we all know which one appears to have fallen short.
Next, let's look at the "I don't want to be affected by this," argument. Here's where I want to say that Blizzard has failed completely on something. I have a lot of faith in them, they make great games, but they have failed on the making the differences between a PvE and a PvP server what they should be. You get the same PvP effect from a PvE server that you do on a PvP, minus the ganking. The new "World PvP" objectives are geared to provide the same mechanic on both servers, which is a flaw that shouldn't have happened. It *needs* to be different or you, Blizzard, need to alter the rule sets of all servers to be identical.
The first change is that on PvP servers, all Civilian flags are removed. If you didn't want your game play to be affected by PvP, you shouldn't have rolled on a PvP server. The next change is, on PvE servers, to make all important PvE NPCs (Quest givers, vendors, etc.) immune to attack, much like children. The same argument applies...if you wanted to be able to attack these types of mobs, you should have rolled PvP.
Finally, any implementation of World PvP should not automatically flag you for PvP. Pick your jaw up, it's going to get dirty that way. The fact of the matter is that if you are willing to take part in World PvP, you should already be flagged as PvP. On a PvP server, this isn't an issue. On a PvE server, wellagain, it's a play style difference. If you want to participate in PvP, flag yourself.
Further, no implementation of World PvP should involve something that is primarily PvE in nature. Let's look at our two implementations in 1.12. On one hand, you have the towers in EPL. These towers need to be captured. No opposing guards, or NPCs will stand in your way. The defense is provided by the opposing faction. Its Tarren Mill vs. Southshore, only in a couple different locations around the zone, a World "Arathi Basin" if you will.
But look at the Silithus implementation. I know Blizzard cringes at the comment, but it's too spot on. You gather Sand. Not only that, you gather it from a PvE node. Yes it flags you for PvP, but...why? Forget the sand...or leave it...but you should be gathering it from the bodies of your enemy. The truth of the matter is that you could participate in this event and *never* PvP, and that's so far off base that it's sickening.
Sure, you can take the towers in EPL without PvPing. So it's not perfect either. But at least with its direct conflict of implementation, the other side has to confront their enemy to get it back and receive their buff. In Silithus, both sides could ignore each other and race to get their allotted amount of sand...you can't ignore the fact that your enemy is taking a tower that you need.
You want to promote world PvP? You want to provide a buff for taking objectives? You want to do it without breaking the server, and causing huge clusters of people in a given area? You want to do it without affecting PvE? You still can't figure out how with the above?
First, several major zones, preferably neutral ones, will have several new objectives in them. These objectives consist of an Outpost, a Gold Mine, and a Barracks. A particular zone will have at least one, if not more, of each of these objectives. Each provides a different bonus for having control of it.
An Outpost is just that, an outpost for that faction. Think Chillwind, Marshal's Refuge, the *old* Silithus flight point location, etc. It provides a blacksmith and general goods vendor, as well as a flight path. Control of the flight path provides you with supplies, and easy access to the zone. Outposts will be located in "out of the way" areas to provide a benefit for owning them. Transport and vendors in areas...such as southern Winterspring, or other places where long runs are normal in order to get there, is a decent benefit Perhaps, instead of Flight Paths, these can have Goblin Teleporters with a matching teleporter in all capital cities...only usable if your faction controls the outpost.
A Gold Mine, as I've seen recommended, would be an objective that increases monetary drops in the zone. This would be two things. It would increase all monetary drops in the zone for all monsters, and it would increase gold drops from players. This is in combination with the fact that killing players in the world should drop some sort of coin, based on their level, your level, and the difference between the two. Gold mines would increase the drop rate of said coin. They would be located in the same area as the outpost, though not immediately next to. They would be the reason the outpost exists.
A barracks would provide support to the outpost in the way of guards. No, not Tarren Mill guards. These guards are immune to attack, and ignore all enemy players. They instead attack all mobs in a radius around the outpost, mine, and barracks to keep them from interfering with the PvP. Barracks would also provide a buff to anyone in the zone flagged for PvP, similar to the various AV buffs.
Each of these provides a benefit unto itself, but used in connection they provide a greater benefit. As an example, controlling the barracks and the outpost provides a greater defense to the outpost. This is done by enabling towers inside the outpost, which have a flag-type object in their top. This flag generates a radial buff that increases both ranged and casting distance by a certain amount. The benefit of higher ground would exist. Controlling the Gold Mine would mean the town provides the vendors mentioned previously, a general goods vendor for example. It may also provide a vendor of some type in the Barracks, or (due to increased supplies), provide more guards or a better buff from the barracks.
The end result is an implementation that can fit into any zone, meaning PvP could be spread among the zones rather than being concentrated in a single area. The benefits from controlling the outpost and its other objectives, are beneficial to both PvP and PvE play to generate interest on all servers.
You can add even more mechanics by having the AV style drops occur on all players, and the vendors in the PvP outposts will take these items to provide buffs or other temporary bonuses to the players in that zone.
What about the raids on capital cities? Making the civilians immune on PvE servers as previously mentioned would help rekindle some of the desire there. Removing civilians on PvP servers would go a long way to helping it there. But the lag exists. The fact that these cities spawn guards faster than players can take them out, and in ever increasing quantities is a very bad thing.
The solution is to provide guard control objectives at the start, and throughout each city. Every guard is tied to a control point. Control this objective, and you keep the guards from spawning (or, if it's your faction, allow them to spawn). Also remove the multiplying spawn effect. The guards will respawn at a static rate, in a static time, with no increase. Take control of the front guard controller and eliminate the guards at the gates to get a foothold on the city. Take the next one to make further progress, and so on. Beware, though, losing a control point behind your raid could spell disaster.
This would go a long way to alleviating lag in capital raids, though massive amounts of players would still cause lag. This, unfortunately, is a hardware limitation and Blizzard needs to address it. It should be possible to raid these cities. It was advertised as part of the game, and many people want it. There is no reason hardware wise, that something can't be made to allow it. Even so, implementing the above Outpost ideas would take people's minds off of city raiding long enough to figure something out.
Now, the first argument that Im sure will come up against this the faction imbalance will mean the Alliance win all the time. Im sorry, but that is not the case. Faction imbalance, even on bad servers isnt anywhere near what people think it is. The fact is that in the great Tarren Mill vs. Southshore battles, the horde pushed the alliance just as much as the reversed happened. There is no way to balance the factions, the factions are imbalanced because of a choice of the players, not because of Blizzard.
However, you can alleviate some of this by offering incentives to the faction that is currently outnumbered. Other games with factions have offered this. Increasing XP reward for the lower population faction, or increasing their hit points, reputation reward, etc. would offer incentive for people to roll or play the lower populated faction. Its about all that can be done, short of making non-faction servers.
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=9130538&p=#post9130538 | | | Poster: Tseric at 7/19/2006 1:14:21 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Neither Side Gets It (Long) |
| |
First half of post is very good feedback.
Second half of post is general suggestions. Not bad, but still suggestions and not feedback.
But that point aside, there is some very good commentary in the post. Worth reading.
The path of least resistance tempts all ramblers.
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=9130538&p=#post9130876 | Poster: Tseric at 7/19/2006 1:20:45 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Neither Side Gets It (Long) |
| |
Q u o t e:
Thanks for the comments from those who have chosen to read it. I know it's a long post.
I'll make some alterations to it and post it in suggestions as well. It's not posted there already because of the first portion of the post addressing the arguments among the player base...which belongs here in general.
Arguments of the player base and stuff dealing with criticism of the company, as well.
I really just wanted to say that I'm reading this and think that the approach for taking a serious look at more than one side of the debate really gives this feedback a mark of quality.
I would like others to see what is being conveyed due to the OPs approach and how that serves the function of these boards well.
The path of least resistance tempts all ramblers.
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=9130538&p=#post9130979 | Poster: Tseric at 7/19/2006 5:31:03 PM PDT
Subject: Re: Neither Side Gets It (Long) |
| |
Q u o t e:
You gotta agree its very hard to give feedback without any suggestions in this given case.
And why is that, exactly?
I could give you one reason why feedback is difficult in this situation, but it has nothing to do with suggestions.
Seems like a lot of people just went ahead and said 'implement these ideas now!', which isn't really what I was going for in my initial replies. The feedback is good quailty because it deals with the OPs opinions of what they like and dislike about the situation and other people involved.
To take the next step into saying 'you should do it this way' is, I agree, very tempting, but not a necessity.
It is possible to provide feedback without suggestion even in a case such as this.
The path of least resistance tempts all ramblers.
| | | http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.aspx?fn=wow-general&t=9130538&p=#post9133875 |
View all recent official Blue Posts
|
