Forums
-
English
-
Developer Tracker (845,768 visits to this link)
-
- 165.7k
- posts
-
- 3.6m
- posts
-
- 791.5k
- posts
-
- 3.8k
- posts
-
- 293.8k
- posts
-
- 168.3k
- posts
-
- 1.2m
- posts
-
- 172.4k
- posts
-
- 137.4k
- posts
-
- 13.4k
- posts
-
- 67.3k
- posts
-
- 153.8k
- posts
-
- 194.8k
- posts
-
- 22.7k
- posts
-
-
Français (French)
-
Fil du développeur (6,858 visits to this link)
-
- 5.1k
- posts
-
- 134.9k
- posts
-
- 31.2k
- posts
-
- 453
- posts
-
- 10.2k
- posts
-
- 2.7k
- posts
-
- 56k
- posts
-
- Records PvP 4.X
- By lras,
-
- 6.5k
- posts
-
- 5.9k
- posts
-
- 1
- post
-
- 1.2k
- posts
-
- 7.2k
- posts
-
- 4.2k
- posts
-
-
Deutsch (German)
-
Entwicklernews (9,979 visits to this link)
-
- 19.7k
- posts
-
- 298.6k
- posts
-
- 53.9k
- posts
-
- 1.9k
- posts
-
- 39.8k
- posts
-
- 90.5k
- posts
-
- Low LVL PVP
- By Fynnlagh,
-
- 19.1k
- posts
-
- 12k
- posts
-
- 3.1k
- posts
-
- 2
- posts
-
- 1.7k
- posts
-
- 19.9k
- posts
-
- 8.4k
- posts
-
-
Who's Online 10 Members, 27 Anonymous, 378 Guests (See full list)
Announcements
-
Posts
-
Well that was disappointing. After letting the download and install do it's thing (I didn't watch it, I wasn't at the house) I tried logging in. I was able to login and get to the server choice screen. The problem then became no servers listed - great. So I exited the game and relaunched. No Bueno. I'm back to the brief login swirly and then nothing. You guys need to look at your server authentication code. All this client stuff isn't the issue. -
By captainbladejk · Posted
Read what I said again because you missed "or vice versa" part of the statement. I'm saying there needs to be enough so neither side has to engage with the other unless they choose to. In other words you could see more pvp objectives and be able to complete it based solely on pvp if you wished. pvp guy can get his 7 pvp objectives done and not have to touch pve, pve guy can get or continue to get his 7 pve objectives done without having to touch pvp. If folks want to mix and match they can. Never said it meant exclusive or that it had to. I simply gave my own thoughts on the matter. If they're going to have galactic seasons and would be to include pvp objectives, there needs to be enough objectives so neither side has to engage with the other. Not only this but if they're going to also give pvp it's own season track exclusively to it, there also needs to be a pve exclusive track to go with it. Otherwise I guarantee you will see more threads like this one of pve folks feeling like pvp is allowed to intrude and force itself into their gameplay, regardless of whether one wants to believe it's valid or not. To some it can appear that there is favoritism being shown towards pvp by allowing them to essentially double dip with an exclusive track of their own plus that of galactic seasons on top of it, with no pve exclusive tracks. It's true they won't be able to expand their horizons if they don't ever try but one can't make them try either. And we've seen from the conquest changes that you and I both absolutely despise where their solution is purely "go do heroics", you can't force people to play something they don't want to play or do something they don't want to do. If I'm someone who likes vanilla, they can try to get me to chocolate, rocky road, and so on, but if don't want to do it, I'm not doing it and shouldn't be punished for it or made to feel like I'm being punished. More on this momentarily. For this bit here, we've seen the devs included pvp objectives in galactic seasons whether one wishes to believe it's good or bad. We have a player who feels there is not enough of his flavor of ice cream in stock without being forced into trying something else he's not interested in, whether one agrees with it or not. So what can we do. First examine the stocks to see how much there is. We see there is a shortage on flavors pertaining to pvp, so what do we do there? We increase stocks to make sure there is enough so the folks who prefer that can do that exclusively if they wish or mix and match. For the pve side of things, do we have enough of the major flavors in stock such as OPs, heroics, story, flashpoints, and rail shooter. Folks on both sides should be able to clear it using their major flavor if they want, which is the point. I don't see anyone saying the pvp objectives need to be outright removed. What I see is folks saying there is not enough of their flavor in stock with the limited supplies as is and there needs to be more flavor stocked. -
Way so many here use the expression " forced"" is getting pretty tiring. When ENTIRELY OPTIONAL Galactic Season features few ENTIRELY OPTIONAL pvp objectives, people have..absolutely no issue in concluding this is game ""forcing them"" to do pvp. If hyberbole ever ends up as an Olympics level sports event, maybe consider giving pvp a go in that arena at least. From Season 1, GS has always been all about offering a pretty nice deep cut to all things TOR has to offer. It is clear devs have always wanted to keep it as diverse as possible. It'd be foolish to mellow it out by actually removing pvp from the menu. Speaking of menus, if Jack Rabbit Slims burger menu features 10 different beef burgers and two veggie burgers, how on earth does this amount to Jack Rabbit Slims forcing you to eat veggie burgers? There are so many quite simple ways one can entirely ignore pvp objectives and still get as full a GS experience as they please. It is borderline sad there are people who actively campaign to have GS menu tailored for their own specific unique needs exclusively. Like..it is very clear GS does its best to be something for everybody."Naah, who cares of everybody, you can't spell ME with Everybody" It is almost terrifying to imagine the melt down, the epic forum pvp warfare that would follow, if Broadsword were to switch pvp season reward track to GS and GS reward track to pvp. We'd see a pretty glorious "Do what I want or I totally unsub from this game forever for eight time, Part XIV" Ie GS and PvP reward tracks aren't even remotely comparable, pvp season isn't presented as some equal-in-weight alternative to GS in that sense. We don't even have to look beyond cartel coins in this. PvP season was meant to replace ranked pvp, it was surely never meant to replace GS. -
No I'm not, I'm arguing that their AoE damage is fine as it is. Sure before 7.0 they used to be the tank far behind the others in AoE damage. But ever since Chained Volts got introduced that just isn't the case anymore. They have plenty of AoE damage with it. Certainly not the area to buff them in for any game mode. Giving them some more sustain in pvp like OP suggests seems like a way more useful buff. As they can struggle with survivability a bit in pvp. -
Yeah, I'm not out to point any individuals out obviously; I'm sure most people caring enough to post in here will also tend to be civil in advice and criticism to other players. But even so I'd also think you know not everyone puts it like that. Ok, fair enough on that. But then, such an environment isn't really dependant on "really good" pvp players being present, and I would argue most of the learning in actual playing (as opposed to reading and watching videos) isn't about watching how someone else does things, as there isn't a whole lot of time for that in pvp, but rather getting to play relatively even matches. When one side more or less farms the other there's usually not a lot of room for developing your skills whether you're on the winning or losing team. At least that's been true for me. I agree with all you're saying here, but again, I'm not talking about you or me personally. Fact still is a lot of players refuse to engage in pvp, partially because of toxicity and very likely partially because they don't like getting killed/ganked without really knowing what to do.
-
-
Popular Contributors
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
