Jump to content

Let’s Make PVP Better.


DarthEnrique

Recommended Posts

Honestly, PVP is probably one of the most toxic things in this game. Recently it has turned into nothing more than gank fests instead of actual fair and fun matches. There are many teams that go in just for kills and don’t do

The objective at all, I actually went into a match where all the team did was farm kills. It was the Alderaan one and they went for none of the turrets just kills and lost the match. Then you got teams that’ll sit there and if it’s the one with 3, Alderaan, Yavin 4, Novare Coast and Ancient Hypergate where teams just go for both or all three and some how are able to keep them all. There’s actual a group or guild on my server that has 4 snipers go into pvp and say it ends up Ancient Hypergate they stalk the respawn point and keep people from getting out. So because of the ganking and unfairness or these farm groups here are some suggestions on how to better PVP in this game.

 

1. Get rid of kills counting in objection based warzones, leave them solely to the 4v4.

2. Speaking of 4v4 get rid of the ability to tell which player is what role. This pretty much marks healers for ganking and instantly targeted.

3. Get rid of the ability to mark targets in PVP, this should be a PVE only ability. This is the biggest cause of ganking in warzones especially for healers.

4. When it comes to Alderaan, Yavin 4, Novare Coast and Ancient Hypergate, make it where once a team has 1 pylon (Hypergate) or two turrets they are locked from being able to get a 3rd one until the other team takes one away or in the case of Hypergate neither team can have both pylons. This would really make it better for a lot of people to get medals seeing as we now have conquest points based on receiving 8.

5. Give us the ability to choose what maps in pvp we go into. I don’t mind Huttball, it’s a lot better than Odessen Proving Grounds but it pops up way too much. Personally I’d rather choose my maps for e.g. I’d prefer Voidstar, Alderaan, Novare Coast, Ancient Hypergate and the new Huttball map over the rest of the PVP maps so I would prefer to have the ability to choose to queue up for those then the others.

6. Make it where groups can’t queue with more then 2 DPS, got it where groups can’t queue with 2 tanks or 2 heals now not when there’s more then 2 DPS? What sense does that make?*

 

So there are my thoughts I am sure there will be people who oppose.

 

Add-on: I want to help people understand one thing: I’m a conquest person when it comes to this game, if it wasn’t for fellow guildies wanting to pvp I wouldn’t bother with it because of the issues I mentioned cause getting under 7 medals in a pvp match makes the match not really worth it and I want to enjoy it with my guildies but not with the issues I have mentioned. I like conquest and OPS when it comes to this game but when it comes to these issues honestly you want more people to do it maybe not poo-poo on their suggestions.

*Add-on to the list.

Edited by DarthEnrique
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So....you were ganked (not a common thing these days) and your solution is to go to forums and demand a change to wz's?

 

Why not make your own 4 man group and do the objectives or counter those farmers?

 

One of those snipers is gonna queue alone one day and you can gank him, give him his poison, exact your revenge, channel your hatred into your weapon! :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear.....

 

I’m all for making pvp better, but some of these suggestions would just dumb it down even further and make it worse

 

People already don’t play properly, doing some of what the OP suggests would make people care even less.

(Idea’s 1 to 4 are just ridiculous IMO)

You may as well remove all semblance of objectives and turn it into battle royal.

 

I’m all for choosing maps, but we already don’t have enough people anymore. The “window” for introducing map choice has passed us by. It should have been introduced 6-7 years ago.

 

I am for the queue system changing so that Hutt Ball map pops are treated as one. When a HB popped, it would then roll the dice again to determine which map. This would reduce HB pops to be back inline with other maps instead of them being 33-40% of all the map types that pop.

 

I would also like to see Arena maps put back into the normal rotations during primetime. I was a strong advocate of them reverting in the reg queue to 4v4 when the queue numbers dropped, but I was never an advocate of them removing them from the normal primetime rotation.

Edited by TrixxieTriss
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So....you were ganked (not a common thing these days) and your solution is to go to forums and demand a change to wz’s.

 

Why not make your own 4 man group and do the objectives or counter those farmers?

 

One of those snipers is gonna queue alone one day and you can gank him, give him his poison, exact your revenge, channel your hatred into your weapon! :p

 

Okay the bold is a bit uncalled for. I have a right to voice my opinion without such statements being made. That is not helpful to the conversation.

 

To the underlined, this does not fix the issue, I’ve soloed and been grouped with fellow guildies and talking on discord So this will not fix the issues. Nice of you to assume I am just soloing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh dear.....

 

I’m all for making pvp better, but some of these suggestions would just dumb it down even further and make it worse

 

People already don’t play properly, doing some of what the OP suggests would make people care even less.

(Idea’s 1 to 4 are just ridiculous IMO)

You may as well remove all semblance of objectives and turn it into battle royal.

 

I’m all for choosing maps, but we already don’t have enough people anymore. The “window” for introducing map choice has passed us by. It should have been introduced 6-7 years ago.

 

I am for the queue system changing so that Hutt Ball map pops are treated as one. When a HB popped, it would then roll the dice again to determine which map. This would reduce HB pops to be back inline with other maps instead of them being 33-40% of all the map types that pop.

 

I would also like to see Arena maps put back into the normal rotations during primetime. I was a strong advocate of them reverting in the reg queue to 4v4 when the queue numbers dropped, but I was never an advocate of them removing them from the normal primetime rotation.

 

To the bold: Kills mean nothing if you lose, especially in objective bases warzones such as Odessen, Yavin 4, Alderaan, Novare Coast, etc. I have seen many players say this and I have not been the only one who complains about being on teams that just go after kills and aren’t doing the objective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the bold: Kills mean nothing if you lose, especially in objective bases warzones such as Odessen, Yavin 4, Alderaan, Novare Coast, etc. I have seen many players say this and I have not been the only one who complains about being on teams that just go after kills and aren’t doing the objective.

 

If you have ever read any of my thousands of posts and threads on pvp, you would know I agree 100% with this. But your solutions aren’t the way to fix it.

 

Might I suggest you jump over to the pvp forums and have a read of some of the ideas over there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have ever read any of my thousands of posts and threads on pvp, you would know I agree 100% with this. But your solutions aren’t the way to fix it.

 

Might I suggest you jump over to the pvp forums and have a read of some of the ideas over there.

 

Okay let me give an example: Take Ancient Hypergate, without the kill count and the ability to grab both pylons the teams would be fighting over orb gathering which I am fine with because you’re doing the objective trying to gather more orbs before the other team. Nothing wrong with that.

 

The turret oriented ones same thing, you’re focused on the objective. Eg. A team gets two of the side turrets but not mid, they are unable to get mid at all leaving them to have to to fend off the team from stealing theirs or stop them from getting mid all together and you’d still need someone there guarding them just in case that does happen, eg. you have 1 person at one of the turrets which is what most teams end up doing two to 4 people come after that turret and take it before you can stop them. But if they don’t have mid it’s still a fight for both teams to get either mid or the other one back the lock out only happens when 1 team gets both. Honestly it’s the teams that go for all 3 that bug me. It really just stops them from being able to take all 3 and allows people to get at least 8 medals.

Edited by DarthEnrique
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay let me give an example: Take Ancient Hypergate, without the kill count and the ability to grab both pylons the teams would be fighting over orb gathering which I am fine with because you’re doing the objective trying to gather more orbs before the other team. Nothing wrong with that.

 

The turret oriented ones same thing, you’re focused on the objective. Eg. A team gets two of the side turrets but not mid, they are unable to get mid at all leaving them to have to to fend off the team from stealing theirs or stop them from getting mid all together and you’d still need someone there guarding them just in case that does happen, eg. you have 1 person at one of the turrets which is what most teams end up doing two to 4 people come after that turret and take it before you can stop them. But if they don’t have mid it’s still a fight for both teams to get either mid or the other one back the lock out only happens when 1 team gets both. Honestly it’s the teams that go for all 3 that bug me. It really just stops them from being able to take all 3 and allows people to get at least 8 medals.

 

Trying for all 3 is a stupid tactic and more often than not will equal a loss. It’s only when a team is OP compared to the other team that it should be possible to take all 3 and hold them.

That isn’t a problem with the map mechanics or even the players. It is a matchmaking and balance issue.

 

I’m an objective player and always have been. It annoys the crap out of me when my team goes for all 3 because if the other team have a few good objective players, it will normally result in a loss for me. Usually if my teams are going for all three nodes, I just leave the match. That sort of play isn’t fun and I find I have to try and carry teams that play that way.

 

On the flip side, if I see an opposing team playing that way and my team is trying to play properly, I can often help carry my team to a win because the other team is stretched too thin.

 

The issue isn’t game mechanics, the problem is people are stupid. You can’t fix stupid, which unfortunately most pvpers are now.

 

If this is all about getting 8 medals or getting focused, then that’s a very poor excuse. It’s easy to get 8 medals even when they take all 3. If you are getting focused, then you need to learn how to counter that. It’s part and parcel of playing any form of pvp. Even without markers, which 99% of people now ignore or mark the wrong people (so really irrelevant), normal pvpers use focus target or focus target of target.

 

Pvp skill and ability to understand basic tactics and strategy has diminished into full death match noobism. Most of these types of players don’t care if they win or lose. All they care about is their own scoreboard egos when comparing their dps, defence and healing numbers. Most can’t even kill anything unless they are 3,4,5,6,7,8 v 1 person.

 

The only score that matters is if you win. Everything else is window dressing and doesn’t prove you are a good player or not.

 

IMO, if you want to change that mentality in pvp, you have to make winning the only objective.

1. Don’t give any rewards or only minimal rewards for losing (pvp shouldn’t be political correctness and offer participation trophies). Make people work for it.

2. Don’t publically display people stats. They could be made private so you can still see how you are doing.

3. Only medals and objective points should be displayed publically

4. Change the medal system to make it unique for each map type. Offer more medals for playing in a way that helps win matches in those maps and not just dps’ing

5. Offer better rewards for winning

6. Fix the queue system and matchmaking to work in conjunction with each other so premades end up vs premades and similarly skilled players end up in the same matches

7. Have the queue put people in a lobby after they accept before it makes the teams.

8. Don’t start matches that don’t have an equal amount of players. If a match starts with less than a maximum amount of players and teams are even, then don’t back fill. Just leave them at 6v6 or 7v7 for objective maps and 2v2 or 3v3 if arena starts without enough players.

9. Back fills should only be for matches that have people leave after the game starts,

10. Leaving a match puts a debuff on you so you can’t requeue for x amount of time. (But first Bioware need to fix the queue and matchmaking system)

 

There are just some basic bullet points of ideas that have been floated by the pvp community and myself. All have fallen on deaf ears for 5-7 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay let me give an example: Take Ancient Hypergate, without the kill count and the ability to grab both pylons the teams would be fighting over orb gathering which I am fine with because you’re doing the objective trying to gather more orbs before the other team. Nothing wrong with that.

 

Half the objective in AHG *is* killing the other team. AHG was never designed to be purely a "gather orb is the objective" map. You actually earn points with kills, and the way it is designed, it's actually better to get kills early on than it is to get orbs. Kills are counted again and again every round. Orbs, while worth more up front, are only counted once. Of course, the best is to get both. And later in the match it probably starts to switch to orbs being more valuable (I haven't done the math).

 

Also, removing the ability to take both pylons would completely ruin some of the great come-backs that happen on that map. Where a weaker team can still pull off a win by ninja-capping the 2nd pylon.

 

All of that, in my opinion, is *objective* based game play.

 

The "deathmatchers" in that game are the ones, as you say, who camp spawn, and don't even bother to go take a pylon at all.

 

The turret oriented ones same thing, you’re focused on the objective. Eg. A team gets two of the side turrets but not mid, they are unable to get mid at all leaving them to have to to fend off the team from stealing theirs or stop them from getting mid all together and you’d still need someone there guarding them just in case that does happen, eg. you have 1 person at one of the turrets which is what most teams end up doing two to 4 people come after that turret and take it before you can stop them. But if they don’t have mid it’s still a fight for both teams to get either mid or the other one back the lock out only happens when 1 team gets both. Honestly it’s the teams that go for all 3 that bug me. It really just stops them from being able to take all 3 and allows people to get at least 8 medals.

 

I'm all for adjusting how medals are handed out. I agree that the current system rewards the wrong thing. But taking the turrets *IS* the objective play. To stop a team from taking all 3 (or trying to) is not, in my opinion, going to stop the death-matchers. I think very few of the people that "go for the third" actually care about taking the third. They do it for "sh*ts and giggles" mostly.

 

But there's also definitely a strategy, again for the "weaker at fighting" team, but maybe "better at strategy". Maybe we know we can't actually hold 2 in straight up fights... so while a couple people who are good at delaying the enemy capping on us hold them off, the rest of the team goes and grabs the one they have. We might have 3 for a bit, but we know we are going to lose the other one. Admittedly, that's judgement call - and also I'll agree that *most* people who go for the 3rd aren't doing it for that reason. But I still want that option open if I happen to get on a team that cares and is good enough to recognize the need and pull that off.

 

Anyway, it sounds like mostly you want the game changed so that it practically guarantees 8 medals for anyone who comes in. I think that's a mistake. I actually wish that 8 medals was *harder* to get. I understand you don't do PvP regularly? But for anyone who does, even a mediocre skill person like myself... 8 medals is way too easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if squads of fury maras and sorc healers in regs annoy you, as they probably should, please come join us in solo ranked

 

we need more players and unlike the unranked pvp warzone/battleground mode of every MMO we don't have an obnoxious arms race encouraging people to run in increasingly large squads of increasingly meta classes in voice comms into a queue that is mostly people not doing those things

 

we've got the meta class arms race but at least teams are random and we've got support role parity! if you queue solo and want fair matches, play solo ranked!

Edited by bUrself_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in regard to arenas, I think the role thing should be just the opposite to the original poster:

  • corellia square spawn zones are so far apart that you cannot mark opponents. you should always be able to mark from spawn.
  • along the same lines, stealth should be disabled behind the spawn gate so that you can mark everyone.

 

it's a LOT easier to identify players with marks, especially with the BS of adaptive clothing. you have to rely on name plates or portraits (or abilities used), which are far more difficult to read. with a star on the healer, shield on tank, I don't have to look for the weapon or read a comparatively tiny name or class name to know which op, sin, jugg to CC or attack.

 

cog on dps jugg, gun on dps op, etc., you always know instantly who is who. there's no need for mark swapping or looking for a specific abil before you decide how to deal with the person. there's only 4 in the map.

 

yeah. my eyes are pretty bad (astigmatism + keratoconus). but ***? marking everyone is perfectly logical, and you're supposed to know who is who in arenas.

 

having to wait and see which op (in WZs) casts (e.g.) an aoe heal just to figure out which is the healer from the dps is stupid. meanwhile, mandos have the green beam of death pointing the entire enemy team directly to them. lul

 

side note: I've been studying too many dead languages. does "to be" (is) take the subjective in front and behind in english? I can't decided between who is who and who is whom. :(

Edited by foxmob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

in regard to arenas, I think the role thing should be just the opposite to the original poster:

  • corellia square spawn zones are so far apart that you cannot mark opponents. you should always be able to mark from spawn.
  • along the same lines, stealth should be disabled behind the spawn gate so that you can mark everyone.

 

it's a LOT easier to identify players with marks, especially with the BS of adaptive clothing. you have to rely on name plates or portraits (or abilities used), which are far more difficult to read. with a star on the healer, shield on tank, I don't have to look for the weapon or read a comparatively tiny name or class name to know which op, sin, jugg to CC or attack.

 

cog on dps jugg, gun on dps op, etc., you always know instantly who is who. there's no need for mark swapping or looking for a specific abil before you decide how to deal with the person. there's only 4 in the map.

 

yeah. my eyes are pretty bad (astigmatism + keratoconus). but ***? marking everyone is perfectly logical, and you're supposed to know who is who in arenas.

 

having to wait and see which op (in WZs) casts (e.g.) an aoe heal just to figure out which is the healer from the dps is stupid. meanwhile, mandos have the green beam of death pointing the entire enemy team directly to them. lul

 

side note: I've been studying too many dead languages. does "to be" (is) take the subjective in front and behind in english? I can't decided between who is who and who is whom. :(

 

I agree with this...

 

I remember players and focus them based on their marks. I cannot remember names and so on.. but there are players who are bothered by too many marks. :D

 

To the OP...

 

Practice makes perfect, a wise player told me once in game. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a LOT easier to identify players with marks, especially with the BS of adaptive clothing. you have to rely on name plates or portraits (or abilities used), which are far more difficult to read. with a star on the healer, shield on tank, I don't have to look for the weapon or read a comparatively tiny name or class name to know which op, sin, jugg to CC or attack.
do you not have class symbols turned on? class symbols are a god send

 

side note: I've been studying too many dead languages. does "to be" (is) take the subjective in front and behind in english? I can't decided between who is who and who is whom. :(
I don't understand the concept of "taking the subjective" because I'm a native english speaker so all that stuff is completely transparent to my brain

 

But I can say I've never seen nor heard "who is whom." I became curious if this is because the 2nd pronoun there is not an object, and therefore should be who and not whom, or if it's just one of those english things where the phrase became entrenched as "who is who."

 

I found the following

 

we use who as the subject and whom as the object. Isn't the second who in Who is Who an object?

 

If you can ask that question, you have reached at least the intermediate level in the game of correctly choosing between who and whom. At this level, we must distinguish between action verbs and nonaction, or linking, verbs. The verb to be and all its forms, including is, are, was, were, will be, has been, and all the other forms for the 12 tenses, is a linking verb. It links a subject to one of three things: an adjective describing that subject, a phrase identifying the current location of that subject, or a noun or pronoun that refers to the same person or thing as the subject.

 

That last situation pertains to the who is who situation. When a linking verb links a subject to a noun or pronoun, it is almost as if that sentence has two subjects.

 

so apparently the 2nd pronoun is not an object, so it's who is who!

Edited by bUrself_
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I can say I've never seen nor heard "who is whom." I became curious if this is because the 2nd pronoun there is not an object, and therefore should be who and not whom, or if it's just one of those english things where the phrase became entrenched as "who is who."

 

I found the following

 

we use who as the subject and whom as the object. Isn't the second who in Who is Who an object?

 

If you can ask that question, you have reached at least the intermediate level in the game of correctly choosing between who and whom. At this level, we must distinguish between action verbs and nonaction, or linking, verbs. The verb to be and all its forms, including is, are, was, were, will be, has been, and all the other forms for the 12 tenses, is a linking verb. It links a subject to one of three things: an adjective describing that subject, a phrase identifying the current location of that subject, or a noun or pronoun that refers to the same person or thing as the subject.

 

That last situation pertains to the who is who situation. When a linking verb links a subject to a noun or pronoun, it is almost as if that sentence has two subjects.

 

so apparently the 2nd pronoun is not an object, so it's who is who!

 

Don't ever do that again. That was a total mind ****. :rak_01:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do. class symbols don't differentiate between healing op and dps op. they don't show up on portraits. but most importantly for me, they are not nearly as large/visible as the manually applied markers.

 

you should see me in RL when trying to heal. I spend 1-5 seconds trying to find the tiny F-ing cursor to click the raid frame. and then I proceed to lose the thing again cuz I constantly have the right mouse button depressed to move/turn/look.

 

I need to setup a friendly tabbing system, but I just haven't been arsed to do it yet.

 

 

so apparently the 2nd pronoun is not an object, so it's who is who!

 

correct. the verb "to be" is hyper-conjugated in every known language (afaik) because it is a fundamental concept and used with great frequency. I just couldn't remember if it had no subject-object. it's the only verb I'm aware of that you can swap subject with object and mean exactly the same thing (as opposed to "dog ate cat" vs. "cat ate dog"; "dog is cat" and "cat is dog" carry the same meaning). I just couldn't remember if that rule pertained to english.

 

(also, yes. I have that "google" app thing. I also enjoy conversations. ;) )

Edited by foxmob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't understand the concept of "taking the subjective" because I'm a native english speaker so all that stuff is completely transparent to my brain

 

But I can say I've never seen nor heard "who is whom." I became curious if this is because the 2nd pronoun there is not an object, and therefore should be who and not whom, or if it's just one of those english things where the phrase became entrenched as "who is who."

 

I found the following

 

we use who as the subject and whom as the object. Isn't the second who in Who is Who an object?

 

If you can ask that question, you have reached at least the intermediate level in the game of correctly choosing between who and whom. At this level, we must distinguish between action verbs and nonaction, or linking, verbs. The verb to be and all its forms, including is, are, was, were, will be, has been, and all the other forms for the 12 tenses, is a linking verb. It links a subject to one of three things: an adjective describing that subject, a phrase identifying the current location of that subject, or a noun or pronoun that refers to the same person or thing as the subject.

 

That last situation pertains to the who is who situation. When a linking verb links a subject to a noun or pronoun, it is almost as if that sentence has two subjects.

 

so apparently the 2nd pronoun is not an object, so it's who is who!

 

That also hurt my head “ouch”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Honestly, PVP is probably one of the most toxic things in this game. Recently it has turned into nothing more than gank fests instead of actual fair and fun matches. There are many teams that go in just for kills and don’t do

The objective at all, I actually went into a match where all the team did was farm kills. It was the Alderaan one and they went for none of the turrets just kills and lost the match. Then you got teams that’ll sit there and if it’s the one with 3, Alderaan, Yavin 4, Novare Coast and Ancient Hypergate where teams just go for both or all three and some how are able to keep them all. There’s actual a group or guild on my server that has 4 snipers go into pvp and say it ends up Ancient Hypergate they stalk the respawn point and keep people from getting out. So because of the ganking and unfairness or these farm groups here are some suggestions on how to better PVP in this game.

 

1. Get rid of kills counting in objection based warzones, leave them solely to the 4v4.

2. Speaking of 4v4 get rid of the ability to tell which player is what role. This pretty much marks healers for ganking and instantly targeted.

3. Get rid of the ability to mark targets in PVP, this should be a PVE only ability. This is the biggest cause of ganking in warzones especially for healers.

4. When it comes to Alderaan, Yavin 4, Novare Coast and Ancient Hypergate, make it where once a team has 1 pylon (Hypergate) or two turrets they are locked from being able to get a 3rd one until the other team takes one away or in the case of Hypergate neither team can have both pylons. This would really make it better for a lot of people to get medals seeing as we now have conquest points based on receiving 8.

5. Give us the ability to choose what maps in pvp we go into. I don’t mind Huttball, it’s a lot better than Odessen Proving Grounds but it pops up way too much. Personally I’d rather choose my maps for e.g. I’d prefer Voidstar, Alderaan, Novare Coast, Ancient Hypergate and the new Huttball map over the rest of the PVP maps so I would prefer to have the ability to choose to queue up for those then the others.

6. Make it where groups can’t queue with more then 2 DPS, got it where groups can’t queue with 2 tanks or 2 heals now not when there’s more then 2 DPS? What sense does that make?*

 

So there are my thoughts I am sure there will be people who oppose.

 

Add-on: I want to help people understand one thing: I’m a conquest person when it comes to this game, if it wasn’t for fellow guildies wanting to pvp I wouldn’t bother with it because of the issues I mentioned cause getting under 7 medals in a pvp match makes the match not really worth it and I want to enjoy it with my guildies but not with the issues I have mentioned. I like conquest and OPS when it comes to this game but when it comes to these issues honestly you want more people to do it maybe not poo-poo on their suggestions.

*Add-on to the list.

 

Farm them back. Players that enjoy ganking only understand suffering. After they have been killed 10 times in a match they will usually either stop number farming or log out. If that is not your cup of tea then play a stealth class and join the humble school of node thieving. They can run around farming and you will easily get the win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...