Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Feedback request from James Ohlen - Open World PvP

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > PvP
Feedback request from James Ohlen - Open World PvP

View Poll Results: What type of Open World PvP objectives would you most like to see?
'Raw' Open World 500 22.77%
PvPvE balanced 1,021 46.49%
Faction population capped 340 15.48%
Guild based (non-faction specific) 335 15.26%
Voters: 2196. You may not vote on this poll

ProfessorWalsh's Avatar


ProfessorWalsh
03.29.2012 , 12:09 AM | #91
I, like many (the vast majority at this time), want PvPvE balanced Open World PVP.

I don't think "Raw Open World PVP" would work in SWTOR, as too many servers are extremely lopsided. It simply isn't fun to be a whipping boy when the enemy has 5 to 1 numerical odds on you. The sheer amount of everything (especially CC) is too much to overcome and have a truly enjoyable experience for most players. Maybe if the populations were better balanced, however that is unlikely to ever occur.

I think that "Faction Population Capped" is probably the second best choice. Again, the numerical advantage of some factions is simply too severe to overcome on many servers and it makes PVP not fun or rewarding.

Guild Based PVP is better kept to Warzones in my opinion. Like Raw Open World PVP this has all kinds of issues with population.

Now, onto my thoughts about PvPvE Balanced Open World PVP.

-----

There are many Pros and Cons regarding this, a few of these are:

Pros:
This method of Open World PVP allows as many people on each faction to participate as possible.

This method allows for the faction with a lower population a relatively fair chance to defeat the opposing larger populated faction.

-----

Cons:
It introduces PVE into PVP and some players really don't like Peanut Butter mixing with their Chocolate.

The larger populated faction may feel that it is unfair that the lower populated faction has advantages that they do not.

-----

This biggest factor in this is simply:

"What kind of advantages does the lower population faction get?"

And that is the "make or break" of this idea. The lower population faction wants to have fun and wants to feel like they are accomplishing something. So I don't think that automated turrets and NPC guards really help as much as other things. Personally I'd rather have guns that I can man, so that I feel like I am accomplishing the task of defending or assaulting my enemies.

So my suggestion would be to give players the tools to use and deploy these things.

Mr. Ohlen, as with all things I urge lore as the basis for anything in this product. There are already explanations in Star Wars explaining how lower population groups defeated higher population groups. I beg and I urge you to please for the love of the Force dip into those.

Heck, one of your own timelines states the following:

"In a surprising gesture, Moff Zelos sent an envoy to Master Allusis with an offer. Surrender and they would be spared. Though their defenses were broken and any chance of victory lost, Allusis and his men refused. Their decision was not base don pride, nor was it an act of foolhardiness. They were guided by the Force; they had passed beyond the fear of death. As the Imperial forces closed in around them, they fought more valiently then they had before. Hundreds of Imperials fell against Allusis's courageous last stand."

So why not, in addition to NPC buffs, give straight up significant buffs to the underpowered defenders. So that it would be possible for 10 Republic characters to have a chance against 50 Sith characters. Sure, they would eventually lose, but at least the 10 should score some kills before they go.

Currently though such a thing is not possible in TOR.

In lieu of that here are other examples of NPC aid PC's could get:

1. Airstrikes or Mortar turrets.

Ways to deal heavy AoE damage to large clusters of enemies. Possibly even scoring some kills outright when delivered. Put these on a long cooldown and make them only usable by a certain defense station at a fort.

2. Allow the underpopulated faction to have access to their companions.

The additional healing companions would come in handy and keep many people alive a lot longer which would give them a chance against foes who outnumber them. This would also give us a reason to gear our companions with PVP gear.

3. Vehicles.

Maybe give the underpopulated faction access to vehicles that they can drive around. Harder to kill, immune to CC, and dealing heavy damage on enemy troops. Yes, they would likely still fall, but again, the point isn't about the underpopulated realm always winning, the point is to let them take a few enemies with them when they go.
"There is no room for compromise. We walk the path of the light side, or we fall into darkness. There is no gray area, Ben."
~ Jedi Grand Master Luke Skywalker (P. 187 FotJ, Book II: Omen)
Host of the Jedi Council stream also author of From the Journal of Val Starwind

EchoTwoOmega's Avatar


EchoTwoOmega
03.29.2012 , 12:15 AM | #92
'Raw' Open World - faction vs faction, with no faction population restriction mechanics AKA 'true' Open World PvP. Factions claim objectives.

This one sounds the best of the offeriengs but it suffers from 2 problems.
1. The ZERG !
2. Population imbalances.
Both of whcih kill the joy from it rather quickly.

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

This option is better since it attempts to offset the population imbalance issues. BUT lets face it NPC turrets/combatants are no match for a real player....unless they have some darn good AI.
Still subject to zerging.
This option is also subject to objective swapping. Factions agree to allow the other to take the objectives for reward.

Faction population capped - strict balancing in place between faction populations in objective areas. Factions claim objectives.

This option also attempts to offset the zerging issue by limiting the number of people in the PVP area at any givien point in time. Populaiton imbalances can still be problematic.
The other issue is that now your basically talking about "open world warzones" where instead of queueing for it your running there instead.
AND. Your still subject to objective swapping.

Guild based - everyone is your enemy except players in your guild. Guilds claim objectives.

Not a bad idea but it only favors large guilds that can field X number of players.

Ultimatly open world PVP sounds great on paper but it is an entirely different animal in practice.



My suggestion is this:
The warzones are great but there are ONLY 3.
1. Add in cross server queueing.
2. Add in substantially MORE warzones.

Ideas:
+Team Deathmatch (but not just 2 teams, but with 3 or 4 teams going head to head...to head...to head.) yeah, its a hutt thing. The more carnage the merrier.
+Zone Control. ( players stand in the glowing are and score points. The zone moves periodically to various points on the map in a random order.)
+Double Domination (2 strategic points must be controlled at the same time in order to score)


More assault maps.
More huttball arenas.
+"Super Huttball" where you score 1 point for taking the ball across the line. You score 2 points for kicking the ball through a moving goal.
Squadron 367

HipieTheGreat's Avatar


HipieTheGreat
03.29.2012 , 12:24 AM | #93
I'm for the PvPvE.

I'd really like you guys to borrow a page from Planetside and Warhammer Online. Take the current Ilum for example.

Divide the map along the middle with some defensible positions that can be taken over. Use a lattice system, like Planetside, so you have to take 3 middle objectives before you can move to the next objective to capture it. you take the next objective and then you can attack the enemies base. This allows for a front like fight, NPC usage, put in some trenches like you see in Empire Strikes Back at the Hoth battle, and turret/bunker systems. You can bolster the underdog side by giving them more powerful NPC or turrents depending on the population in the zone. This system could also allow for some behind the lines tactics, with small units making surgical strikes to knock out enemy turret, drop enemy shield generators, etcetc to prep it for the incoming main force.

With a system like this you can also take it a step further, like Warhammer, and allow for zone capture. Say the enemy takes the current Ilum battlefield (objectives taken, base taken, etcetc) the zone flips to the winning sides control and the battle moves to the next zone. Take all the zones on the planet, it flips to the winning sides total control. Put in a reset timer, or the losing side has to build resources/run black ops/engage in guerrilla warfare to cause the planet to reset to the middle battle zone.

Give some bonus for the winning side so taking a planet is actually a decent goal, that will give you cause to attack and defend and really fight it out.

Tootzi_'s Avatar


Tootzi_
03.29.2012 , 12:41 AM | #94
My ideas for open PVP system

We need a system where big guilds can make citys, small guilds can roam and cause mayhem even if they lack the numbers. There should be someting other to fight about then gear, pride!

My plan would be too take Ilium and allow guilds from the same side too make alliances with a cap on numbers. This would make zerging impossible. These alliances would then fight each other. Even if they are on the "same" side. This is a must for unbalanced servers.

When an alliance is created, they can build bases that allows a guild to create harvesters that extracts credits or crafting material for smaller stuff like potions and mods. Nothting too big, because we dont want it to make a big impact in PVP balance. These buildings can of course be destroyed. Coming too that now...

The PVP on Ilium would be divided in two phases.

1) The "Caese fire phase": Guild cities and buildings can not be attacked. But you can attack other players, recognize enemy activity/bases and collect recourses for your buildings. This would make the planet active most of the time and allowing people too contribute too your guild whenever they have time.

2) The "War phase":
Every day on an exact hour the "War phase" begins for about two hours on prime time. This allows for attacks on enemy bases and cities, but be aware your base could also be attacked, so stay on alert! This is where pride comes too play!

Mercenary alliances
Some mercenary alliances may even run without bases, they would rely completely on the "bounty system". Where guilds can put bountys on players, cities or single buildings of the enemy alliances.

I could go on forever but this pretty much scratches the surface for what I believe is good world PVP that is, balanced, competivite and fun!

Sorry for any bad grammar, english is not my native language.
Dex the Vanguard
GM of Pro Patria
Lord Calypho

Edgecase's Avatar


Edgecase
03.29.2012 , 12:57 AM | #95
PvPvE but for the love of god think DOTA and not DAOC.

Make the NPCs constitute a meaningful part of the game objective, then subtly increase or decrease their numbers or spawn times to favor the underpopulated side. DO NOT make brainless uberguard NPCs who warp around mechanically one-shotting players or forcing people to bring PvE tank gear/specs to PvP.

Example: Walker groups deploy from opposing bases and roll across the map. Opposing NPC squads annihilate each other in the center of the map until players intervene. If player population becomes imbalanced, NPC squads on the low-pop side will spawn an extra walker.

In addition to slugging it out with enemy walkers, walkers will attack players with large-area, low-damage blasts that break neither stealth nor CC. This low-grade damage serves as a subtle HP-reducing mechanic for the overpopulated side, which scales with the additional walkers. The higher-population side could choose to attack the walkers rather than players in order to stop the additional damage; if they do so, then the walkers effectively serve as an HP buffer rather than a debuff to enemy HP, which still accomplishes the goal.

Creating multiple "lanes" of walkers allows the zone to scale the number of active encounter zones to match overall high vs. low population at different times of the day. When small numbers of players are present, only one "lane" of opposing walkers will spawn. When numbers are high, addition walker "lanes" activate, allowing more players to participate, while naturally encouraging them to spread out. Walker vs. base mechanics should encourage players to tend all active lanes rather than concentrating into one.

Killing walkers, killing enemy players, or being in the vicinity of a walker group that destroys an enemy base should grant PvP currency.

Athrins's Avatar


Athrins
03.29.2012 , 01:11 AM | #96
Quote: Originally Posted by Amp_ View Post
You can start with this Mr. Ohlen - http://www.swtor.com/community/showthread.php?t=234156
Thanks for that link!

I'm signing that thread.
Lord Calypho [EU]
The Athrins Legacy
Altoholic...

DarthMaulUK's Avatar


DarthMaulUK
03.29.2012 , 01:58 AM | #97
I think a World v World pvp system is the way to go forward. Allowing pvp addicts from all servers to join their factions and engage in battles.

Without a need to award coms/gear etc, I believe you guys should take the Guild Wars 2(which is already ageing SWTORs format VERY quickly) and award X-Server boosts for victory.

Victory in world vs. world grants a server-wide bonus called Imperial/Republic Might, which -- depending on your server's WvW score -- provides a number of useful bonuses to health, crafting experience, combat experience, and more to every player on the team's home server. While this may not be exactly world-altering, it certainly does provide a good reason to fight

This way, EVERYONE benefits from the success of pvp, encouraging more players to get involved

xHurogx's Avatar


xHurogx
03.29.2012 , 02:01 AM | #98
I would prefer to see MANY objectives for faction V faction set up WITH GUARDS and objectives that have to be DESTROYED BY ATTACKING no simply clicking a frekn button. Should be options for defenders to heal objectives. CASTLE SIEGE IN SPACE! What could be more frekn epic?!

Andreasus's Avatar


Andreasus
03.29.2012 , 02:12 AM | #99
They just should learn from DAOC. I mean this game is about pvp and runs over 10years.

Big zone for epic 4vs4 battles. Hotspots for 1vs1 battles and keeps for zerg vs zerg battles.

Give us points for killing people and new abbilities for this points.


I do not want pvpve or something. This is always stupid because people stay in the care baer zone with the npcs
"No lesson is truly learned until it has been purchased with pain."
—Vergere

Thanks to GeorgZoeller

ALDrinkwater's Avatar


ALDrinkwater
03.29.2012 , 02:22 AM | #100
Either raw pvp or pvpve balanced would be good, i dont like the idea of guild v guild pvp, just means big guids dominate.

thing is if you offer a great pen world pvp package, you will NEED to give us a universal faction based chat area, one where everyone can see it, whereever they are. not just on the same planet, that way it will make it easier to recruit people for pvp.
Revenge - Now let them tremble.