SWTOR

[Sky]

You can't balance pve and pvp skills to make them both useful. To even attempt that goal is folly.

I don't think that's what he's saying. He's talking about what ;luckton said, how to bring tanking into pvp in a meaningful way. As I've posted, they're setting things to be able to have some granular control over effects between pve and pvp. I doubt it will be enough (ala EQ2 totally seperate effects). But really, anything is better than the Rift style of pve=pvp.

[Ingmar]

Tank specs have been useful/functional in WoW PVP for a long time now.

[luckton]

I don't understand luckton's explanation of "Taunt"...

If JediTank Taunts SithNoob, then when SithNoob attacks JediHealer, Smuggler or Trooper, SithNoobs damage is reduced.  If SithNoob attacks JediTank instead, SithNoob still does full damage.

Simplified enough for ya?  

[caladein]

Yes, the example clears it up.  I didn't read the "for" in "... except for the taunter." as "at", "on" or "for against", hence my confusion.

[Paelos]

If the same skills do different things in pvp as opposed to pvp, then they are not the same skills.

That's a fine way to do it, where they have different effects, but that's the same as just having completely different rulesets with common names.

[kildorn]

WAR did that taunt thing, it caused funny taunt circles for a bit, iirc (tank taunts, you wail on tank, other tank taunts, etc etc), how well it works depends on the counters available and the reduction % imo. Good idea, though.

Affect the game how? Meaning there's a new flag on a keep, or meaning that actual resources of some form change hands?

A keep isn't a resource?  As an example: In WW2O, I can go to sleep, wake up, and we could've lost 3 important towns or something.  Next time I log in, the game is going to be significantly different than when I logged off because of it.

When people say meaningful, a keep usually isn't a resource unless it provides something more than some walls. It's vanity. That said, I vastly prefer vanity rewards from pvp to "+10% damage for holding X"

[Sky]

I liked some of the Planetside base perqs, like being able to spawn air vehicles if you capture base X.

[eldaec]

WAR did that taunt thing, it caused funny taunt circles for a bit, iirc (tank taunts, you wail on tank, other tank taunts, etc etc), how well it works depends on the counters available and the reduction % imo. Good idea, though.

Affect the game how? Meaning there's a new flag on a keep, or meaning that actual resources of some form change hands?

A keep isn't a resource?  As an example: In WW2O, I can go to sleep, wake up, and we could've lost 3 important towns or something.  Next time I log in, the game is going to be significantly different than when I logged off because of it.

When people say meaningful, a keep usually isn't a resource unless it provides something more than some walls. It's vanity. That said, I vastly prefer vanity rewards from pvp to "+10% damage for holding X"

Daoc keeps provided access to dungeons, determined relic defence strength, have access to teleportation and merchants etc.

[kildorn]

Eventually they did. Initially they were just some walls.

edit: I'm pretty sure they added a lot of the rest of the functionality to them due to complaints that they were kind of pointless. If some groups took your keep.. who cared.

[eldaec]

If you mean for the first six months of the game when everyone was level 20 and just ran about like headless chickens anyway, then sure.

[kildorn]

That's about right, except we weren't level 20 when DF was released, six months after launch. Which I'm pretty sure is the first thing that was keyed to keeps.

[Ingmar]

That's about right, except we weren't level 20 when DF was released, six months after launch. Which I'm pretty sure is the first thing that was keyed to keeps.

Relic guards certainly predate that.

[kildorn]

What patch were relic guards? (amusingly, the patch list on the herald isn't actually sorted by patch number or date, which makes this a pain in the rear)

I'm pretty positive the first months of RVR were "we took a keep and nobody's trying to take it back, zomg give us meaningful pvp"

edit: relic guards based on keeps owned seems to be much later, they don't appear at all in any patch note after relics were added to the game. The patch after DF caused guards to despawn based on the number of relics held, however. And I found a hilarious note fixing the Minst 3s stun that was mistakenly stunning for 30s. <3

edit2: found it. 1.49, relic guards based on outpost keeps was added, April 2002, same month as DF.

[Ingmar]

I had forgotten relics weren't even in the game to start with, but I didn't start until February.

And people complain about unfinished games being released these days...

[Nevermore]

They didn't even have anything itemized past level 30 at launch, iirc.

[eldaec]

It was the dungeons that weren't itemized, the surface dropped stuff.

[Malakili]

Anyway, my point is that meaningful to me is less about losing or gaining items or cash, but how it effects what I do (what there IS to do) when I log in.  At least in an MMO PvP context. 

You could, for example, have "meaningful" PvP in Counter Strike if you were playing in a league, but thats an entirely different discussion, I just want to point out that I am just talking about MMO PvP, not any game in which players compete against other players.  I

[kildorn]

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, I'm just kind of curious what various people think of as meaningful. Like, I'd be totally happy with vanity wardrobes and such from pvp or raiding or dungeons, and have the loot statistically be the same. But I know some people get really upset at that idea.

I like having something to work towards in pvp or pve, that's really a driving factor in me logging in. But I'm okay with being driven by say, minipet collection.

[Malakili]

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, I'm just kind of curious what various people think of as meaningful. Like, I'd be totally happy with vanity wardrobes and such from pvp or raiding or dungeons, and have the loot statistically be the same. But I know some people get really upset at that idea.

I like having something to work towards in pvp or pve, that's really a driving factor in me logging in. But I'm okay with being driven by say, minipet collection.

I just like the things I'm working towards to be group oriented in an MMO.   So, if its PvP I'd like some kind of territory control meta game or something, and if its PvE something like raiding is enough.  Its not to say I don't like solo play or personal progression in principle, I'd just prefer to do it in a game like Diablo, which I think has superior gameplay AND a better personal progression meta game than any MMO to date (in my opinion).

[Fordel]

Some high end zones in Hibernia lacked drops for a long time too. I'm looking at you Bog of Cullen! 

[Sjofn]

I look back at DAoC PvP rather fondly. It was the one game that actually got my heart pounding as I went out into the frontiers looking for a fight... that I may or may not find.

I liked DAoC for the fact that the relics mattered.  You knew that if a strong opponent got their hands on one or both of your relics that they would make your life a living hell until you got them back.  I also enjoyed the tense feeling that came when you leveled alts in the frontiers or DF.

I want DAoC 2.0 damnit!

I had a love/hate relationship with the relics, because my teeny little realm couldn't hold one to save their goddamn lives, and it required a huge, huge, HUGE coordinated effort to take one. And then 150 Hibs would roll into our frontier, not even trying to be sneaky about it, and carry it off. It's part of why I say "fuck meaningful PvP" today. 

I'd still play the shit out of DAoC 2.0 for a while, though. I knows it.

[Nevermore]

That's because Hibs were assholes. 

Albion was even more populated than Hibernia, but we made up for that by being much more incompetent.

[Threash]

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, I'm just kind of curious what various people think of as meaningful. Like, I'd be totally happy with vanity wardrobes and such from pvp or raiding or dungeons, and have the loot statistically be the same. But I know some people get really upset at that idea.

I like having something to work towards in pvp or pve, that's really a driving factor in me logging in. But I'm okay with being driven by say, minipet collection.

Vanity wardrobes are on one side of the meaningful scale and raid dungeons clear on the other side.

[Ingmar]

The #1 problem with relics is they were a Win More mechanic. Oh good, the realm that is already big and strong enough to hold onto them constantly now gets to cap their spell damage through resists. 

[Nebu]

The #1 problem with relics is they were a Win More mechanic. Oh good, the realm that is already big and strong enough to hold onto them constantly now gets to cap their spell damage through resists. 

Gear as a reward for pvp is also a win-more mechanic.  So are realm ranks.  It's VERY hard to tie character advancement to pvp. 

[Malakili]

The #1 problem with relics is they were a Win More mechanic. Oh good, the realm that is already big and strong enough to hold onto them constantly now gets to cap their spell damage through resists. 

Gear as a reward for pvp is also a win-more mechanic.  So are realm ranks.  It's VERY hard to tie character advancement to pvp. 

Which is actually why I'd prefer someone to have the guts to just do away with it.  You don't need character advancement for an PvP MMO.  The world should advance, not the characters.

[Fordel]

Realm Ranks were a participation reward.

Gear was a baseline until ToA in DaoC, thanks to stat caps. ToA ballsed that up though.

[Ingmar]

The #1 problem with relics is they were a Win More mechanic. Oh good, the realm that is already big and strong enough to hold onto them constantly now gets to cap their spell damage through resists. 

Gear as a reward for pvp is also a win-more mechanic.  So are realm ranks.  It's VERY hard to tie character advancement to pvp. 

Neither of those things are disruptive on NEARLY the scale of DAOC's relics, though.

[luckton]

*makes notes in the f13 Forum Chronicles*

And on pages 302-303, the team stroked their e-peens to the glorious days of DAoC, instead of celebrating the fact that BW settles the dual-spec arguments of pages 260-290 (page locations are approximate  )

 

[Furiously]

I thought the problem was there was a forth realm that actively swithed to fotm and the winning realm.

[Paelos]

I thought the problem was there was a forth realm that actively swithed to fotm and the winning realm.

with Buffbots

[Rokal]

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, I'm just kind of curious what various people think of as meaningful. Like, I'd be totally happy with vanity wardrobes and such from pvp or raiding or dungeons, and have the loot statistically be the same. But I know some people get really upset at that idea.

I'd be completely okay with this. It would be a big improvement for PvP in any MMO, and it would probably make PvE balancing easier. The downside is the once you can't overcome obstacles with 'better' gear, it would encourage a really strict min/max culture. "Class B does 3% dps more than class C on this fight. Since our gear isn't improving, that gap will always be the same detriment to us". On the other hand, it should be easier to balance that 3% gap since gear is static.

[Simond]

I don't understand luckton's explanation of "Taunt"...

If JediTank Taunts SithNoob, then when SithNoob attacks JediHealer, Smuggler or Trooper, SithNoobs damage is reduced.  If SithNoob attacks JediTank instead, SithNoob still does full damage.

Simplified enough for ya?  

Oh, so they're copying EQ2 as well as WoW?

[Malakili]

I'm not trying to start a fight or anything, I'm just kind of curious what various people think of as meaningful. Like, I'd be totally happy with vanity wardrobes and such from pvp or raiding or dungeons, and have the loot statistically be the same. But I know some people get really upset at that idea.

I'd be completely okay with this. It would be a big improvement for PvP in any MMO, and it would probably make PvE balancing easier. The downside is the once you can't overcome obstacles with 'better' gear, it would encourage a really strict min/max culture. "Class B does 3% dps more than class C on this fight. Since our gear isn't improving, that gap will always be the same detriment to us". On the other hand, it should be easier to balance that 3% gap since gear is static.

Its already like that anyway.  The real problem is that people couldn't overcome sucking at the game with gear, which would alienate a LOT of people.

[Surlyboi]

Your WWIIOL example doesn't hold water in this argument because, for all intents and purposes, WWIIOL isn't an MMORPG, it's an MMOFPS. There, you CAN have meaningful PVP because that's the only thing there is in the game. By that measure, it's all meaningful because there's almost nothing else to the game but command and control of territory.