Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

lol bolster

First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

Arutar's Avatar


Arutar
04.19.2013 , 11:42 AM | #1281
Quote: Originally Posted by Burtlebe View Post
I agree criticism is needed and warranted but read some of these post, folks act like the end of pvp is upon us and that nothing short of a complete reversal will fix it.
Well, we can surely agree on this one.

People getting worked up in the forums over nothing and often this is embarassing, even when there is a valid issue at hand.

Honestly I usually cannot take a posting which, for example, includes the words "Biofail" or "I just unsubbed" serious anyway.

Still, people on the "other side" of the fence in a discussion are often not any better, by outright dismissing any criticism as QQ.

Omophorus's Avatar


Omophorus
04.19.2013 , 12:34 PM | #1282
Quote: Originally Posted by Spincrossover View Post
Do you know a game called World of Warcraft?
I advise you to see: these players. I'll give you a tip: PVP resilience==Expertise.
This doesn't address what I said at all. I contended that the primary motivation of non-MMO PVPers is the competition rather than the grind.

Saying that WoW has a grind does not refute my contention.

MMOs, as a genre, are in an outlying position in the competitive landscape as ideas like "progression" are as central as ideas like "winning". Non-MMO gamers have no problem with ideas like "winning" being primary motivators, even when there is no point to playing besides winning (you don't unlock anything in RTS games, many FPS games, etc. except maybe vanity items).

Quote: Originally Posted by L-RANDLE View Post
But you are ignoring the fact that those other PvP games have similar balance and exploit issues.

Look at the latest version of Madden and tell me the stats are similar for a team like the Patriots versus a team like the Dolphins... How many serious Madden players play with the Dolphins?

FPS? "No tangible benefit"? Sorry bro, but that is like telling me a SCAR or a M1 is just as good of a rifle as a M4A1 with ACOG (and you have to wait til level x). It's just not true... All PvP games have built in advantages you either choose to use them or you don't. There was nothing really wrong with this game from a competitive standpoint besides some class balance and resolve issues. People either did what they needed to do to be competitive or they didn't and QQ about it so much that we have the lovely system we have today.


The only thing this mess has shown is that the bads will still be bads, regardless of gear... So hopefully they will somewhat revert back to the way it was because this current system is broke and unbalanced because of the exploits present.....
People play the Patriots on Madden because they are not balanced and provide an advantage when it comes to winning, absolutely yes. But playing the Patriots more doesn't gradually upgrade them into Superpatriots and give you an even larger advantage (discarding things like free agency, which could make any team into equivalent Superpatriots, as there is nothing inherent in the team or team-restricted unlocks to provide them their advantage, and the system intentionally self-regulates in any case).

Free agency comes as close to progression as that genre has, but online competitive play isn't 100% centered around custom teams, so that argument is drastically lessened. Everyone choosing the same stock team to be competitive means that the game has poor balance (quite possibly intentionally to reflect that real-life football teams aren't balanced either), but it doesn't convey any mechanical advantage not available to all players.

I even said in my original posts that some modern FPS games are poorly balanced because unlocks are unfairly good. This is not a central concept of the genre as it is with most MMOs. It wasn't even explicitly meant to be that way in the first place. On top of all of that, early unlocks and weapons in stock kits (e.g. SCAR, FAMAS, UMP in MW2) are basically as good as anything that can be unlocked later. G18s in MW2 and MP7 in MW3 are big counterexamples to this, as they *are* unfairly good unlocks, but they are seen more as negatives than positive by the community as a whole. I don't mention BO at all as Treyarch is godawful at game balance and shouldn't be allowed to make solitaire games, much less AAA FPS games.

Even then, most of what actually wins a COD game comes from tactics rather than unlocks. Drop-shotting/dolphin diving, quickscoping (when available), strafing to reduce recoil, map knowledge/positioning, etc. are not based on unlocks and can be executed equally by all players. Certainly it takes time to build map knowledge just as it takes time to build knowledge of tactics for teamplay in a WZ, but there's no element of progression to to that, and missing knowledge is not 100% reliant on grinding gameplay to remedy.

Quake-series, Unreal-series, even CS-series games have no unlocks at all, and all meaningful equipment is available to all players. Sure, CS has had oddball things like AWPs, but competitive play bans or limits access to blatant gamebreakers and those bans can easily be enforced via server rules to make them fair and universal.

All this brings back around to the original point - MMOs are the only genre where progression is considered an important motivator for competitive gameplay. Everyone else is fine with playing to win, and except in individual cases of poor game design, playing more conveys no bonuses other than experience and vanity.
Srs'bsns, GM of <Proper Villains> of The Ebon Hawk
5/5 Nightmare Power DF & DP
"This is why we don't bring Assassin tanks"

Darth_Vampirius's Avatar


Darth_Vampirius
04.19.2013 , 01:04 PM | #1283
Level 30s in empty shells walking around two-shotting 54s in EWH? Level 55s in PVE greens owning vs people in full Partisan? What could possibly be wrong?

Bolster is taking development time and money that they could be spending on important things!
Quote:
//We have seen the argument of Skill vs. Gear throughout the existence of MMO PvP and we are of the opinion both are good for an RPG, falling on one side of the scale (gear has no purpose in PvP vs. gear is the only thing that matters in PvP) is not desirable.//

L-RANDLE's Avatar


L-RANDLE
04.19.2013 , 01:30 PM | #1284
Quote: Originally Posted by Omophorus View Post
it doesn't convey any mechanical advantage not available to all players..
And SWTOR does? Sorry but those games have the same "mechanical advantages" as SWTOR does. In an MMO its gear, in something like Madden its player stats (which can be changed/customized), COD its weapons (each with their own stat builds).
Quote: Originally Posted by Omophorus View Post
Even then, most of what actually wins a COD game comes from tactics rather than unlocks. Drop-shotting/dolphin diving, quickscoping (when available), strafing to reduce recoil, map knowledge/positioning, etc. are not based on unlocks and can be executed equally by all players. Certainly it takes time to build map knowledge just as it takes time to build knowledge of tactics for teamplay in a WZ, but there's no element of progression to to that, and missing knowledge is not 100% reliant on grinding gameplay to remedy.
Again SWTOR has these same qualities..
plus there is no real grind to get gear. BM tokens was a grind, the last version was a joke, but of course it still wasn't enough to satisfy people.

Quote: Originally Posted by Omophorus View Post
Quake-series, Unreal-series, even CS-series games have no unlocks at all, and all meaningful equipment is available to all players. Sure, CS has had oddball things like AWPs, but competitive play bans or limits access to blatant gamebreakers and those bans can easily be enforced via server rules to make them fair and universal...
So do you think the previous system was a gamebreaker versus what we have now?

Quote: Originally Posted by Omophorus View Post
All this brings back around to the original point - MMOs are the only genre where progression is considered an important motivator for competitive gameplay. Everyone else is fine with playing to win, and except in individual cases of poor game design, playing more conveys no bonuses other than experience and vanity....
No truely competitive person has a problem with meeting certain game critera in order to "be competitive". Regardless of what the ground rules are, they do what they need to "be competitive", whether we talking hours upon hours of "practice", utilizing "exploits", or picking the "right" team. This game is no different. If you like to compete for vanity sakes, how do you do that without getting said gear in order "to compete"?

Getting gear= playing to win

^^^because that is the way the game was designed initially

All games have ground rules, this is the only one where QQ led to a gamebreaking change, but do you think it actually helped? smh....
PvP Gear Viability? Read this first.
Tired of being broke? Stop being Felica and read this.
I'm not trying to be Rambo..... I'm trying to be Ray Tango

Omophorus's Avatar


Omophorus
04.19.2013 , 02:30 PM | #1285
We're arguing past each other at this point.

I'm trying to make the point that gear-as-progression as a primary motivator for playing at all is ludicrous for a competitive activity, rather than competition as a primary motivator for playing.

There are a ridiculous number of people (including the guy I originally quoted) who present PVP as not worth doing if there isn't a gear grind. That attitude boggles my mind. PVP is worth doing with or without a gear grind because it's not the grind that defines it, but the competition.

What I'm trying to argue against is the idea that the grind is an essential component. I'm not arguing whether or not people will exploit any advantages available to them (they will) or that many games have systems to give people advantages (they often do).

People don't play Madden competitively to get a better player on their roster. They do it to win a football game. People would still play the hell out of CoD, BF, etc. if all of the unlocks were cosmetic because those same people were playing other games, including other console FPS games like Halo, where that's all there was (if there were any unlocks at all). Thousands of games of StarCraft are played every day despite having no reward other than winning and the opportunity to play stronger enemies if you do.

It's not my place to tell other people how to play, but I do fundamentally believe that it is destructive to the competitive aspects of the game to insist on gear progression in PVP. With or without gear progression, the success of SWTOR's PVP is going to be predicated on whether or not it fosters competition. If people don't feel like they can fight and win, they won't play. That is, and should be, where BioWare's efforts are focused, and how they go about doing it is ultimately secondary to whether or not they succeed.
Srs'bsns, GM of <Proper Villains> of The Ebon Hawk
5/5 Nightmare Power DF & DP
"This is why we don't bring Assassin tanks"

L-RANDLE's Avatar


L-RANDLE
04.19.2013 , 02:59 PM | #1286
Quote: Originally Posted by Omophorus View Post
We're arguing past each other at this point.

I'm trying to make the point that gear-as-progression as a primary motivator for playing at all is ludicrous for a competitive activity, rather than competition as a primary motivator for playing.

There are a ridiculous number of people (including the guy I originally quoted) who present PVP as not worth doing if there isn't a gear grind. That attitude boggles my mind. PVP is worth doing with or without a gear grind because it's not the grind that defines it, but the competition.

What I'm trying to argue against is the idea that the grind is an essential component. I'm not arguing whether or not people will exploit any advantages available to them (they will) or that many games have systems to give people advantages (they often do).

People don't play Madden competitively to get a better player on their roster. They do it to win a football game. People would still play the hell out of CoD, BF, etc. if all of the unlocks were cosmetic because those same people were playing other games, including other console FPS games like Halo, where that's all there was (if there were any unlocks at all). Thousands of games of StarCraft are played every day despite having no reward other than winning and the opportunity to play stronger enemies if you do.

It's not my place to tell other people how to play, but I do fundamentally believe that it is destructive to the competitive aspects of the game to insist on gear progression in PVP. With or without gear progression, the success of SWTOR's PVP is going to be predicated on whether or not it fosters competition. If people don't feel like they can fight and win, they won't play. That is, and should be, where BioWare's efforts are focused, and how they go about doing it is ultimately secondary to whether or not they succeed.

I'm in disbelief at some of your statements. Yes, people play Madden for competition, but they also don't choose a team that will not enable them to "be competitive". It would be similar to the Madden Devs deleting certain players online records because "it's not fair to other players". SWTOR is nothing more than Madden in SWTOR clothing. Every game in existance has been the same formula, get the best stats/use the best stats available and try to beat people/the game....

On top of that, it don't even matter which team I pick, my nephew will ROLL me with any scrub team on that game... Why? Because he put countless hours in becoming a excellent Madden player. So at the end of the day, stats don't mean ****.... Skill and Commitment always > than any game design/exploit/mechanic.... That is another problem here. Gear is looked at as this awe-inspiring, holy grail to PvP pwnage by players of certain ilks. Sorry, but its not...

Class/skill/tactics/ranked barriers always ruled SWTOR PvP. Gear was a every minor subset and was not exclusive to anyone. The gear gap argument was a joke to begin with, and now PvP is an outright mess because of the people claiming to "wanting to be competitive".
PvP Gear Viability? Read this first.
Tired of being broke? Stop being Felica and read this.
I'm not trying to be Rambo..... I'm trying to be Ray Tango

Omophorus's Avatar


Omophorus
04.19.2013 , 04:26 PM | #1287
Quote: Originally Posted by L-RANDLE View Post
I'm in disbelief at some of your statements. Yes, people play Madden for competition, but they also don't choose a team that will not enable them to "be competitive". It would be similar to the Madden Devs deleting certain players online records because "it's not fair to other players". SWTOR is nothing more than Madden in SWTOR clothing. Every game in existance has been the same formula, get the best stats/use the best stats available and try to beat people/the game....

On top of that, it don't even matter which team I pick, my nephew will ROLL me with any scrub team on that game... Why? Because he put countless hours in becoming a excellent Madden player. So at the end of the day, stats don't mean ****.... Skill and Commitment always > than any game design/exploit/mechanic.... That is another problem here. Gear is looked at as this awe-inspiring, holy grail to PvP pwnage by players of certain ilks. Sorry, but its not...
Disbelief why?

Your example does not have any direct relation to what I said. If you read my post, I even agree with you that people will make an effort to gain every advantage available.

There is a key difference between what we're each trying to say. People *IN THIS THREAD* have explicitly said that the PVP isn't worth doing without the gear grind. The goal is thus the attaining of better gear, rather than the winning of warzones. Maybe the reason for attaining the better gear is to win more warzones, but to imply that the goal of winning warzones isn't worth pursuing without the gear is where I take issue. Warzones are worth winning in and of themselves, gear or no gear. If BioWare wants to make it so that playing a lot of Warzones allows you to have better gear and win more often, that is A-OK. I don't care in the slightest about it. I do care about people acting as though the gear grind is a necessary component, and focusing more on the gear than whether or not the actual PVP itself is fun.

And yes, skill + commitment + experience are ways to level the playing field. But before 2.0, which is all any of us really have to go on, even the most skilled, committed, experienced player was at a woeful disadvantage when they dinged 50 (and, on the flipside, the skilled, committed, experienced player on a new class could be effective against those many levels higher than themselves in lowbie thanks to bolster). That's what 2.0 bolster is trying to address. It's doing a bad job of it right now, certainly, but more of the same from 1.0 (a big gear grind providing a massive advantage) is not a good alternative.

A player in Recruit vs. a player of the same class in augged EWH in 1.x was at a >20% HP deficit (potentially 30-35%, even over 40% in the worst case scenarios), significant Expertise deficit (giving the EWH-geared player a 5-10% swing in damage dealt/received before any other stats came into play), down easily over 100 bonus damage, down significantly on Surge, etc. Those kinds of stat differences are enough to eclipse skill and commitment, except in the cases of really good undergeared players versus really bad geared players.

Quote: Originally Posted by L-RANDLE View Post
Class/skill/tactics/ranked barriers always ruled SWTOR PvP. Gear was a every minor subset and was not exclusive to anyone. The gear gap argument was a joke to begin with, and now PvP is an outright mess because of the people claiming to "wanting to be competitive".
The gear gap exacerbated the problem considerably, and is a design choice BioWare is choosing not to repeat. It aided significantly in stifling competition, along with the more crippling barriers.

Class barriers have been eroded somewhat due to rebalancing and we'll see how bad the disparity is once 2.0 PVP has settled out a bit more (though I'm sure it'll never, ever be perfect). Skill is what it is, and skill difference is an inherent part of any competitive activity. Tactics, especially team tactics and coordination in team-based gameplay, will always be a problem and there is no solution other than adding more PVP variety (which BioWare should do, but that's its own thing).

PVP isn't an outright mess because people want to compete. PVP is an outright mess because BioWare did a poor job of implementing a system to make that possible. The core goal is a good goal, and a laudable goal, but the efforts undertaken to obtain it were neither good nor laudable. That doesn't change that the goal is valuable and worth pursuing, or that a more competitive PVP environment is a bad thing for SWTOR.
Srs'bsns, GM of <Proper Villains> of The Ebon Hawk
5/5 Nightmare Power DF & DP
"This is why we don't bring Assassin tanks"

Alphasgimaone's Avatar


Alphasgimaone
04.19.2013 , 04:49 PM | #1288
Quote: Originally Posted by L-RANDLE View Post
I'm in disbelief at some of your statements. Yes, people play Madden for competition, but they also don't choose a team that will not enable them to "be competitive". It would be similar to the Madden Devs deleting certain players online records because "it's not fair to other players". SWTOR is nothing more than Madden in SWTOR clothing. Every game in existance has been the same formula, get the best stats/use the best stats available and try to beat people/the game....
This whole argument is based on a false analogy.

For your analogy to be true, people would need to be allowed to choose what gear they want. A quest terminal would have to offer a quest that states: "Choose one of the following: Conqueror, EWH, Recruit, Champion."

Transversely, people would be forced to suffer through X number of games playing Phins, Lions, Browns before they were allowed to play Pats, Niners, or Ravens.

Quote:
On top of that, it don't even matter which team I pick, my nephew will ROLL me with any scrub team on that game... Why? Because he put countless hours in becoming a excellent Madden player. So at the end of the day, stats don't mean ****.... Skill and Commitment always > than any game design/exploit/mechanic.... That is another problem here. Gear is looked at as this awe-inspiring, holy grail to PvP pwnage by players of certain ilks. Sorry, but its not...
Except there is no disparity between any two teams in Madden that equals the difference in Recruit and EWH. Could people in Recruit be competitive? Absolutely. Could they ROFLSTOMP? Never. People bring the pawnage with crappy Madden teams all the time.
SWTOR PvP: now running on the Ellipsis engine.

Biscreet's Avatar


Biscreet
04.19.2013 , 05:19 PM | #1289
So ya, I like all the Dav talk on what is meant to be on the chnages. And it is clear they have to do even more fixing of the armor / stats & PVP.

However I am most unhappy with the following.

I spent a great deal of time in building up Com's/Points for PVP armor with. (not that it even was working right at the time.) But never the less you have taken all the time I spent in getting PVP armor and basicly come back and told me tuff luck you have to start over for your PVP armor.
Sorry SWTOR... You stink!

Elegances's Avatar


Elegances
04.19.2013 , 05:30 PM | #1290
Quote: Originally Posted by Biscreet View Post
So ya, I like all the Dav talk on what is meant to be on the chnages. And it is clear they have to do even more fixing of the armor / stats & PVP.

However I am most unhappy with the following.

I spent a great deal of time in building up Com's/Points for PVP armor with. (not that it even was working right at the time.) But never the less you have taken all the time I spent in getting PVP armor and basicly come back and told me tuff luck you have to start over for your PVP armor.
Sorry SWTOR... You stink!

This gear reset happens for pve as well, so yea.