on population cap world pvp zones has worked in the past and as a reward for winning the zone you open a boss operation that is only available to the wining team of the zone, and NPC vendors provideing something useful(HARD to obtain rare weapons mods ect.)

 

I think Hard to obtain is the key there cant have all the players geting the pro stuff.

 

time based as it is now with gear is a bit predictable as the end result is everyone that plays alot is max sloted to early in the patch and either dont play much till next patch or just go on slaughtering nubs with his max sloted gear, and ending is QQ'ers on the forums whineing about how that guy is so OP and needs to be nerfed.

 

makeing gear abit harder to get and perhaps rateing players with the WZ's or arena 1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4 and then offering rated gear 2 or 3 lvls or gear for PVP obvioulsy each rank will be better then the last(will make patches for seasons last longer and make players work abit harder for the gear) will seperate the men from the babys.

 

anyways probly abit off track in the end but

 

Thexremstar

While its not quite open world PvP, what about a larger scaled warzone that lasts longer? Say you allow 16-20(more?) man teams to enter these objective based maps (like the Ilum zone) and players have to fight to take control of and hold a neutral outpost(s) or perhaps a siege scenario with turrets and so on for defense? There could be loopholes in this I haven't considered but I guess some of the advantages of this could be:

• Capped number of players on each faction so you dont have faction-biased populations dominating these
  
• Using various environment elements eg one player can carry a rocket or something to that effect to break a wall , carving the way for a team of attackers to flank a defending team holding an outpost with turrets, etc.
  
• By having players earn points for the objectives such as defending key locations, it would promote strategies for dividing up the teams, communication and so on
  
• Could be used for creating new content like planets dedicated to this, or reworking existing world regions (I believe Ilums PvP zone is being phased out to go back to the drawing board?)
  

 

It's probably not relevant, but I thought I'd throw the thought out there

 

If not, I'm all for PvPvE as there are times when there just isn't enough online or faction imbalances make it difficult.

 

Having a Warzone like an Alterac Valley would be very good way to tie people over until hopefully forts/siege type stuff was brought in, for those that like the bigger scale stuff.

 

It's why I wasn't particularly happy with yet another 8 v 8 WZ in 1.2 as far as variety goes and hasn't got me nearly as excited as I would have been, needed something at least a full ops, bigger map and different objective type

Edited April 8, 2012 by LillyWhiteS

Having a Warzone like an Alterac Valley would be very good way to tie people over until hopefully forts/siege type stuff was brought in.

 

It's why I wasn't particularly happy with yet another 8 v 8 in 1.2 as far as variety goes and hasn't got me that excited, needed something at least a full ops, bigger map and different objective type

 

There are so many people hating on Alterac Valley it's not even funny. In fact, I have yet to see any suggestion of "this game did it this way" that a mass of PvPers didn't hate on.

 

How can we find something we all like when there are so many haters among us?

Edited April 8, 2012 by JeramieCrowe

There are so many people hating on Alterac Valley it's not even funny. In fact, I have yet to see any suggestion of "this game did it this way" that a mass of PvPers didn't hate on.

 

How can we find something we all like when there are so many haters among us?

 

That's the trouble with PvP, what it means to one person, is totally the opposite of what it means to another.

 

Take Alterac Valley, it's one of the few things I miss from WoW lol, a big 40 v 40 Warzone type PvP and had different aspects compared to all the others I have played, was different.

 

I like big scale stuff, don't care about who is the best player or group, that has no real consequence unlike losing forts and having your city raided etc

 

Like I mentioned in a previous post on page 31, Warhammer could have been so great, they had the ideas right with forts and city raid etc, but they didn't go far enough and had other problems.

Edited April 8, 2012 by LillyWhiteS

That's the trouble with PvP, what it means to one person, is totally the opposite of what it means to another.

 

Take Alterac Valley, it's one of the few things I miss from WoW lol, a big 40 v 40 Warzone type PvP and had different aspects compared to all the others I have played, was different.

 

It's self-defeatist. It means that no matter what a developer does, PvPers enmasse will think it failed. BioWare can't win for losing.

 

Look at the poll. Almost 45% for PvPvE. Yet, if you go through this thread, much more that 45% are railing AGAINST PvPvE.

 

What the hell?! Y'know?

It's self-defeatist. It means that no matter what a developer does, PvPers enmasse will think it failed. BioWare can't win for losing.

 

Look at the poll. Almost 45% for PvPvE. Yet, if you go through this thread, much more that 45% are railing AGAINST PvPvE.

 

What the hell?! Y'know?

 

The sad thing is, for all the complaints Warhammer had for example, the grass isn't always greener, I bet a decent % of the players that played that game and now TOR, would gladly take Wars PvP over what we have in TOR now, myself very much included and a few friends who also played both and left TOR already.

 

Tiered PvP, forts etc, no level 10 against a level 49 etc, the list goes on

 

PS : I did vote for PvPvE myself, didn't want to vote for Guild based, worried what it would do to smaller guilds and solo players, also was in War so I know what it's like and it could be used along with buffs to help pop balance issues etc

 

I like meaningful PvP with real consequences, not losing items you wear, not personal stuff but faction stuff, like having a city raided by the other side if you lose

Edited April 8, 2012 by LillyWhiteS

The sad thing is, for all the complaints Warhammer had for example, the grass isn't always greener, I bet a decent % of the players that played that game and now TOR, would gladly take Wars PvP over what we have in TOR now, myself very much included and a few friends who also played both and left TOR already.

 

Tiered PvP, forts etc, no level 10 against a level 49 etc, the list goes on

 

PS : I did vote for PvPvE myself, didn't want to vote for Guild based, worried what it would do to smaller guilds and solo players, also was in War so I know what it's like and it could be used along with buffs to help pop balance issues etc

 

I like meaningful PvP with real consequences, not losing items you wear, not personal stuff but faction stuff, like having a city raided by the other side if you lose

 

Can you imagine, though, if TOR led out with a fully Warhammer-type of PvP? The outcry and QQ against that would be enormous. There would be no difference here on the forums.

 

What if they led out with a DAoC-type PvP? Judging by this very thread of how many posters deride DAoC PvP, again, the outcry and QQ against would be enormous. Again, no difference here on the forums.

 

Thus, BioWare cannot, nor any MMO developer, do it right. Ever. Because PvPers can't even agree on what they want among themselves!

 

It's a true Lose/Lose situation... Catch-22.

Can you imagine, though, if TOR led out with a fully Warhammer-type of PvP? The outcry and QQ against that would be enormous. There would be no difference here on the forums.

 

What if they led out with a DAoC-type PvP? Judging by this very thread of how many posters deride DAoC PvP, again, the outcry and QQ against would be enormous. Again, no difference here on the forums.

 

Thus, BioWare cannot, nor any MMO developer, do it right. Ever. Because PvPers can't even agree on what they want among themselves!

 

It's a true Lose/Lose situation... Catch-22.

 

I havent noticed anyone in this thread "Deriding" DAoC RvR/PvP

 

The only people that I ever saw bad mouthing DAoC was for Trials of Atlantis PvE in DAoC. I honestly cant remember anyone saying they didnt like DAoC's RvR/PvP that had actually PLAYED the game.

 

If another MMO ever gets their PvP to be as half as good as DAoC's, they will have a huge hit on their hands imo

World PVP can be one of the greatest long term game assets. One of the best PVP games I've plaed was Dark Age of Camelot (first 3 years, then played WOW do can't vouch for later changes), which was based around RVR World PVP. However, SWTOR being a close WOW simulacrum in design, would need to be tweaked to really reap benefits from world PVP. DAOC at the time I played, you could tweak your gear any way you wished, and PVP/PVE gear was roughly the same unless you geared for a specific fight. DAOC's end game was PVP, not gear farming.

 

I played WOW for 6 years. Most players I know from the game agree that the best world PVP in the game was in its early year or two - before resilience PVP gear was really in existence, the only PVP gear was just like raid gear but Stam weighted. 5 players couldn't invade a city and take on 30 players and guards with impunity, you needed at least some numerical parity. In addition with the BGs & arenas people did their PVP there, and only went to world PVP to grief other players who didn't have the PVP gear but might be high hour players in raiding guilds with top end gear. Those players generally are not appreciative of their wasted effort if forced into PVP encounters with people that have gear that nullifies theirs.

 

This factors into having a balanced experience where you have a roughly equal chance at killing your opponent assuming equal skill because the gear only makes a minimal difference. Later one and like in SWTOR, PVP stats skew the game toward people that farm PVP and don't play any of the other content, thus your part time or mostly PVE players are forced to shun PVP because they are ineffective against fully PVP geared players - and then your World PVP sucks because either you die all the time, or you can't find opponenets because no one wants to come out & play.

 

The other part of balance is factions. SWTOR is currently on fast track to the poor state of WOW where servers are lopsided by high ratios. Mine was 5 to 1 when I left WOW, it had ceased to be any fun at all when any fight you got into in the world was at long odds. There are ways to balance server/factions, but you have to get the structure in place to allow migration of players to achieve that. Then implement a system of rewards and penalties for pop ratios - and you'll have a dynamically balanced game.

I havent noticed anyone in this thread "Deriding" DAoC RvR/PvP

 

The only people that I ever saw bad mouthing DAoC was for Trials of Atlantis PvE in DAoC. I honestly cant remember anyone saying they didnt like DAoC's RvR/PvP that had actually PLAYED the game.

 

If another MMO ever gets their PvP to be as half as good as DAoC's, they will have a huge hit on their hands imo

 

I just did a cursory page-by-page, searching only for the term "daoc". Here's what I found:

 

PVP factions is an old style pvp no longer works.

 

As one if the poster's above mentioned the only way to make it more fair considering the faction balance is to make it guild based, and completely ignore the faction stuff.

 

PvPvE balanced - bolstering the underdog faction through NPCs, turrets, etc. Factions claim objectives.

Having experienced this in several MMOs, it rarely feels authentic when you win because of NPC bolstering.

 

PvPvE but for the love of god think DOTA and NOT DAOC.

 

As soon as you introduce factions you introduce imbalance, which is a major problem and has been for years. You can get some semblance of order by introducing a third faction but that's obviously a tonne of work and doesn't always help (my DAoC server had nobody RvRing on Midgard and only a few on Albion).

 

The only game that ever balanced factions correctly was DAOC because it could be controlled by the players.

 

No, it didn't work because it was GvG it worked in DAoC because you had 3 factions. It still wasn't trully GvG because you still had a faction behind you. In true GvG it's a free for all and everyone outside your guild is an enemy. Thus leading to mega guilds owning everything.

 

DAOC pvp was because of DAOC players a system like DAOC nowday would be impossible people is to focused on reward rather then just PVP...

 

Which I wholeheartedly agree with...

 

Every passionate PvP'er has grand, rose-colored memories of when they played DAoC

 

Now, if you actually go page by page and look at all the hate posts about faction vs. faction... well, it ain't pretty.

 

To say the least...

 

I'll say it again, and I'll keep saying it because it's true: PvPers, as whole, have no clue what the hell they really want. And those are just in this thread alone! This thread is even worse.

 

And I hope my point, by now, after dozens of pages, is clear: It's not the MMO developers failing (not just BioWare), it's the PvPers.

Edited April 9, 2012 by JeramieCrowe

I havent noticed anyone in this thread "Deriding" DAoC RvR/PvP

 

The only people that I ever saw bad mouthing DAoC was for Trials of Atlantis PvE in DAoC. I honestly cant remember anyone saying they didnt like DAoC's RvR/PvP that had actually PLAYED the game.

 

If another MMO ever gets their PvP to be as half as good as DAoC's, they will have a huge hit on their hands imo

 

Exactly as I had noted, then find my post was right after yours. DAOC did not do as well as it should have. The factors I saw that limited their players were at the outset, the loss of XP on death, I know of dozens of people that played in my clan at release that quit within 2 months because of backsliding when they logged in to play for a short time, died and lost ground because of it. 3/4 of those people quit. Change that one factor at release and DAOC would have easily doubled their sub numbers.

 

TOA introduced WOW type raiding and while it had its interesting points, sucked due to the widely different focus and the relative difficulty of getting PVE groups in the game (most people wanted to PVP, and the rewards from PVE were limited).

Soooo at what point is this feed back responded to?

 

 

 

Instead of stalling or whatever this thread is suppose to do.. why not make a PVP coordinator who actually gets involved in the pvp forum?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 9, 2012 by Typheran

I would like a combination of raw pvp and pvepvp based, heres why. I came from SWG we had base busts , city pvp ( in cities that where non player made) and a pvp area like you have with ilum. We had player made cities that would war against other guilds of opposite faction and had huge fights in our made cities. I am not a big fan of arena pvp like warzones and seriously my guild is bored to death with warzones. We already lost 5 members last weekend due to no world pvp. Another thing in the open world why do we not get credit for pvp kills towards our valor? In SWG we got credit for any pvp kills from the opposite faction on any planet, as long as they were not 20 levels below us. I do not understand why you have not set that up. Also the shards get rid of the stupid shards that separate the player base and make this game feel deserted. Edited April 9, 2012 by Fallensouls

I'm not sure what poll answer mine falls in, but the type of PvP I enjoy most is the one which gives the sides the most to lose/gain. I like item-loot based PvP. Lots of PvP in quest-based areas, so that you can stop their progression. Open world PvP, so you can stop an Ops or group from getting to their flashpoint safely, or delay them. These type of things gives value and meaning to PvP fights, both positive and negative. These type of things elicit passion and emotion from PvP that the current implementation of PvP doesn't. When I finish a WZ, I move on to the next. I don't contemplate how I could get better, what went wrong, what strategy works, etc. Note, I do try to perfect my craft as best I can, but the main point is that there just isn't much incentive to do so, especially since you can be the perfect player, know all the strats and timing tricks, but get stuck with 7 bad players, and all of that work you put in is a waste of time. In other words, we all just re-queue and go. The memory of that last WZ fades quickly, whether it was a good or bad experience.

 

If I PvP alone out in the open world, I know I can rely on my skills to accomplish my goal, and the objective isn't reliant on a group that I am forced into. And if I fail, then I know I failed -- the blame is on me, and the responsibility shifts to me to get better if I want success. If I were to lose some gear, or continue to get beat down on my way to a guild Ops event, I'm gonna be pretty peaved. I will need to accept the challenge to get better and turn the tables on my opponents. On the other hand, if I know I just hurt an opposing guilds chances of raiding, or took gear from an opponent, I'm gonna be pretty pumped -- and I have a token of my victory, too. These scenarios will get the attention of players, and will have a lasting effect on them, both good and bad.

 

In addition, PvP in SWTOR doesn't have any repercussions for death. You don't try your best -- no biggie, you just respawn somewhere close by, and continue on your merry way. No death debuff, no money loss, no loot loss -- nothing. Currently there is no tangible value for killing someone. There is absolutely no reason for me to leave the Fleet to go hunt down Pubs. Valor means nothing to most players, especially those above 60. And for those that want Valor, they can get it much quicker and easier via Warzones, without having to be outnumbered, outmatched, and without having to take travel time to engage in PvP action.

Ok where to start. First off, you need to make PVP purposeful. It has to have a purpose. A good way is to look at a few games and take some of their concepts. IE. Star Wars Galaxies, Warhammer, and DAOC. I can give you a couple scenarios on the way to fix open world PVP... here is....

 

SCENARIO 1

 

Phase ONE

 

make lakes on specific planets(like Illum). The only way to get to it is by flying in by a speeder. Pick a few planets that you can define a PVP lake. This is what Warhammer did. And basically each area can be WON. Give a faction bonus for winning it and owning it. For example, 2% bonus to physical armor or something along this line. Something worthwhile yet not very big to where its overpowering. basically start with like maybe 11 lakes.... 5 already owned by Republic and 5 already owned by Imps. with 1 neutral one. Once the ONe neutral one is taken they move towards the next lake. Say Imps take the neutral one the first republic lake is opened up for capture. you do this till all lakes are captured on one side. Imp side wins and the system restarts. Imp side gets a nice bonus for winning that will be maintained till republic side wins.

 

Phase two

 

 

In the lakes plop a base in the middle of the map. With a shield style gate. this what needs to be knocked out. In order to knock it out you need A WALKER to take it out. The walker is used like a siege weapon. once the force field gate is down then the player sieging begins. now you can have some spots around illum that you need to hold in order to be able to keep using the walkers. This would split up the zerg. Power nodes or something. YOu must maintain control over them to keep using the walker. If one node is taking out of say 4 of them then the walker is transported BACK to the home base. Once all 4 are taken back.. the walker begins its journey to the middle again. So basically thats the basic mechanic of this siege weapon(walker). get 4 nodes then it walks to middle and starts shooting the force field gate. till it falls. or till the walker is destroyed. Which we will talk about in the next phase. Also the opposing team can take a node to stop the walker. Only one needs to be captured for it to be returned.

 

Phase three-destroying a walker

 

there can only be 2 walkers at a time. To destroy a walker, blaster fire wont work. Grenades do some damage. Ie. Cybernetics make these grenades. but the damage that do the most against the walker are the 2 turrets that are on the base walls. it will be player controlled and aims at the walker. Meanwhile the attackers will be trying to blow up the turrets with grenades which do substantial amount of damage but not overpowering. once the turret is dead it will respawn after so many seconds... 30 seconds maybe. you could have armtech make these and have players replace the turret, if you want to involve crafting into the game more. this would have to be balanced with how long it takes to break down the gate.

 

Phase four- the player siege.

 

once the gate is down. now starts the invasion into the base. the defenders will do their best to fend them off. and the invaders will do there best to blow the base. This part is timed. I will leave it up to you for how long. Maybe 15 minutes or 20. after that. the gate goes back up. and the base can NOT be blown. basically they start all over and the defenders get a nice little bonus. Star wars galaxies had a neat base blowing procedure. 4 specific classes needed to be at the base to blow it. each one had to do something in order to blow it. This is what will need to be done. one for trooper and one for smuggler and one for counselor and one for knight. I will let you guys figure out what each class would need to do for them to activate. once they are done activating it cant be shut off. the only for the defender to stop them is by killing the person doing it. it cant be interupted. once all 4 have activated it starts a countdown of 30 seconds. In the meantime there is a deactivation terminal that the defenders can then push to stop. the attackers then go on defensive to stop them from doing it. this terminal is down at the bottom. again all this needs to be balanced by how much travel time to get back to the base. etc. I will leave that up to you for the test center.

 

again this is all timed... all this needs to be done before the gate is respawned. once gate is respawned they cant blow up the base even if they are inside the base.

 

Phase five

 

once the base is blown the next pvp area(pvp lake) is opened up for sieging depending on who won. If imps won the republic lake is opened up. leaving the other 4 still protected. if the republic wins it opens the imp lake available for siege leaving their other 4 still protected.

 

potential problems is unbalanced sides and zerging. give xp bonus for sides that are lacking in population.

 

SCENARIO 2

 

Phase ONE

 

if you dont want to do all that then you can shorten the version. you already have the system in place for different illum instances. same concept drop a base in the middle have the same sieging with walkers and turrets, etc.

 

the only difference is you limit the number to both sides before another instance opens up. for example illum 1, illum 2, illum 3, etc.

 

keep same bonuses... whoever wins the side gets a bonus for their realm. then people will ask but what if there are 5 illums running. thats simple. you have a tally. of wins and losses. for one hour. after that the one with the most wins gets the bonus buff for one hour. meanwhile the tally resets after the hour and then the new sieges start being tallied for the next hour.

 

this will be more of a controlled population open pvp. 1v1 raid or 2v2 raid... up to you guys... but illum is quite laggy i would say 1v1 raid

 

so both scenarios would be good. however I think if you want to liven up pvp really good take scenario 1. Scenario 2 is still good because it controls the population. And you wont hear about population imbalances as much.

 

 

what do you think?

Edited April 10, 2012 by Safgril

Great idea the guild based but then again it would have 2-4 leading guilds in a server and rest will just bite the dust but as my last mmo(WAR) it would be nice to see a Guild Vs ALL with pvpve and ''defensive'' postitions that give your guild the extra showoff in the server like a keep in WAR, giving the guild some benefits as in credit income or some other boost's so that every guild in the server will want it. an i would even say KING OF THE HILL solution where other guilds can team up in the OWPvP area and try to shove it to the ''Leading guild'' and try to take their base.. another solution would be just a party VS all thing to balance the gear of some guilds and the capacity of players example 5-10 party/ops vs all so it would have what about 4-20 different groups and would require some skills to work as a team and since people like to mess things up they would probably ''teamup'' somehow but thats another part that needs strategy.. But then again these are my Opinions and im always going over my head..

PVPVE is a nice way to turn a MMORPG in a game dominion-type (like LOL and DOTA). Use minions to get turrets and objectives, although I enjoy also more detailed open PVP (I kill a lone wanderer in Tatooine Dune Sea -> I get valor, items or commendation). But for the team based is definetely better PVPVE, a nice way to improve story using coop.

Voted PvPvE balance for various reasons some time ago, but now I will take the time to explain why:

 

1. SWTOR open world feels curently mostly dead, no I am not talking about PvP, I juat talk about the mobs in the open world, they just stand there and wait to get slaughted. So mixing that up with more PvP could at least help somewhat to make the world become more alive (but in the long run the NPCs have to be reworked). It is also boring as hell doing the open world PvP stuff, because the questing zones for both factions are to well seperated.

 

2. I really liked invasions in RIFT no not just the creatures from another plane, but also the playable factions have Invasion forces. So I could run with an invasion of my own faction and have some fun, even when no other player was around, one could even create with certain items troops of one owns faction to defend outposts.

 

3. When I am on Ilum and there is no player of the other faction it feels not in the least exiting to attack the walkers of the other faction. There should be mobs, and the faction that has less players on Ilum should get more defending mobs to balance it a little out.

 

4. I think GW2 is on the right way with the World vs World PvP zone they have there, where NPCs guard the castles even when no player is around, and there are things to do regardless of how many players are on my faction there or on the other side.

Definitely not Guild based. We tried that in Requiem and it didn't work. Pretty soon we wound up with 2 super Guilds and the rest were fodder. How fun is that?

 

I'm more a PvE player so I'd rather see PvPvE I think. make the NPC's useful (and for god's sake would you keep them out of the way when I go to pick a drop up?)

 

oh and one other thing. Please get rid of Hutball. I know of no one who likes it. We all do it cause of the pts but I gotta say, 4 rounds in a row of hutball drove me to take a break. That's where inequities show the most. Any kind of PVP or whatever you wanna call it needs balance, otherwise it's just no fun.

oh and one other thing. Please get rid of Hutball. I know of no one who likes it. We all do it cause of the pts but I gotta say, 4 rounds in a row of hutball drove me to take a break. That's where inequities show the most. Any kind of PVP or whatever you wanna call it needs balance, otherwise it's just no fun.

 

LOTS of people LOVE Huttball.

 

But don't worry, soon they'll allow players to choose a WZ to queue up for, as soon as they implement the cross-server queuing. So if you don't like Huttball, don't queue up for it!

 

I think it would cool if they "televised" the matches on the holonet so it can be watched and bet on. That'd be sweet.

Edited April 11, 2012 by JeramieCrowe

LOTS of people LOVE Huttball.

 

But don't worry, soon they'll allow players to choose a WZ to queue up for, as soon as they implement the cross-server queuing. So if you don't like Huttball, don't queue up for it!

 

I think it would cool if they "televised" the matches on the holonet so it can be watched and bet on. That'd be sweet.

 

Huttball is the only competitive WZ there is right now. Voidstar and CW are always blowouts one way or the other...

The guild warfare would work well for the empire side where infighting happens all the time( story/lore wise)

Would be really out of place for the republic side tho..

 

BUT no different than pub vs pub WZs i guess.

 

However, i certainly wouldnt complain if a guild ver guild system was set up or even better.

 

To have guild vs guild and faction vs faction system.

 

Allow guilds to build formal alliances with a chat channel and everything.

- this will build community on a server as well.

Have areas that these guilds and alliances fight over for the prestige or for resources/other perks

 

Make it so that factions have to fight over objectives that have real benifits IE - they allow certain daily missions to open up. Possibly other pvp dailies or pve.

 

I do think its best to have some sort of NPC balancing to off set the server in balance that might exist.

Huttball is the only competitive WZ there is right now. Voidstar and CW are always blowouts one way or the other...

 

I've heard nothing but good stuff about Navare Coast. Midnight tonight servers are going down to implement it with 1.2.

 

Good news, eh?

Huttball is the only competitive WZ there is right now. Voidstar and CW are always blowouts one way or the other...

 

From my Combat Medics view, 0-0 Voids were the most intense/competitive fights, you know in round two one door is game over and you do all you can to stop the cap and the same with the other side.

 

Huttball is the Warzone where classes play too big a part for me, some are just so much better than others and this is the WZ that shows it up.

Edited April 12, 2012 by LillyWhiteS

Open World PvP to Me is alot more Fun Compare to WZ. And i must say the best Open PVP system out there is still War Hammer where Realm is able to fight and Push from Point to Point.