Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime
-
@jetah said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
@phaethonas not to mention DS said they'd have 400 abilities, so they'd have to balance all combinations. or homanzied the damage so that 20 ability's are the 'same damage but GFX is different'.
Good point that I left out for simplicity.
Another way to "balance" classes (or otherwise for classless games) is to make the 400 different abilities, basically 20 abilities.
If you want to have diversity gameplay wise, you will have a hard time balancing the different builds. This is why you end up with "mirror classes" and the like.
People need to understand what the devs are trying to do, and what the devs are trying to do is not easy.
and another will be range and will be useful in situations [Y]. What the devs need to do in that case is for all 4 DPS classes to be useful even necessary in a group. After all it is called MMO for a reason.
-
problem with that is people will calculate the best damage for pvp (probably burst) and pve (probably sustain) and most players will get the builds for both.
I'd love to have multiple build be great but outside of support I see people playing the best 'tank' and 'damage' abilities.
-
@jetah Thats kinda inevitable cus most of the time what is best is simply just what works most of the time
-
@jetah I don't see it as a problem. In every game top players plays the best meta classes/heroes. I do it too and I want to. They will balance spells time by time.
-
the people i'm talking about grab a calculator and spreadsheets to find the best build. it isn't a 'oh i use x because it was an early unlock'. it's more like 'i need to find y because it's best in slot damage'.
-
I'll do that and I hope to see a recount meter to make it easier. Patches will balances the spells. Is the same as you get the best pattern to crft the best equip with the best stats.
-
no damage mods!!!
-
@jetah you have your and I have mine. I care just about meta. Somehow people will get there anyway also without a meter. Meter make it easy for everyone that's a big difference. Albion had no meter but top guilds had tables with builds to use and builds to not use. It's just tricky cause you have to duel and use combat logs to make tables by your own. Something possible that happen evevry where but not all players are doing. A meter up for everyone means that everyone can check what's the best if want play the best.
Cool lovely FX are just for rp tho none cares about that when fighting. People care to successfull kill thingy. For example I usually play games with maximum performance and less graphic as possible.
-
@lovechildbell said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
@jetah Thats kinda inevitable cus most of the time what is best is simply just what works most of the time
If the goal of Fractured is horizontal and not vertical progression, how would that statement be valid?
-
@jetah said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
problem with that is people will calculate the best damage for pvp (probably burst) and pve (probably sustain) and most players will get the builds for both.
I'd love to have multiple build be great but outside of support I see people playing the best 'tank' and 'damage' abilities.
As I said the devs need to make multiple builds not only "viable" but also necessary. Maybe this is easier to be done (or at least theorised) for pve. You can have a boss for which you will need a burst phase, then you will need high sustained DPS (as you correctly point out). The boss may require, through some mechanics, both melee and range DPS, and voila. Now everyone is needed/required and group leaders will try to find "1 melee burst DPS, 1 melee sustain DPS, 2 range DPS, 2 tanks, 2 healers" or something similar.
At pvp things are more complicated, because pvp is more demandind and fluid. As long as there are more than 2 "meta" builds and these (let's say 5-7) "meta" builds are close to each other and not far ahead from other "Great but not meta" builds then I'd say that the devs will have done a good job at having variety in their game.
And to put things back into prespective, what I am describing is possible, albeit difficult. So, if you/we want to play a game with variety then the devs don't need to make their job even more difficult by adding unnecessary concepts/features (like instanced pvp and/or pve). They want to make an open world, sandbox game, let's allow them to do just that.
If someone wants to play/support/follow a game that will try everything, they can try Ashes of Creation. That said, I have to say that I consider AoC a money grab vaporware for a number of reasons, including the fact that they are promising everything to everyone.
As I have said, so many times, you can't please everyone, you can't do everything. Especially since we are talking about an indie studio here with limited resources.
-
@phaethonas do you think and are you trying to say that if we have no instances they can leave small scale PvP and PvE unbalanced because who cares? Cause otherwise I'm not getting your point about balance and instances problem.
And what you're saying about PvE group only makes sense if you're talking about instance because otherwise you will always have too many players there and it will not matter what are the requirements - if you need 1 burst, 1 sustain, 2 range, 2 tanks, 2 healers it will just go with 50 burst and 1 tank
And everyone will have to have build prepared for PvP anyway.Your argument would be valid if that was the other way - if we had instances and wanted open world PvP. Then it would require more balancing, the other way around is already included in non-instanced.
-
@finland said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
@jetah you have your and I have mine. I care just about meta. Somehow people will get there anyway also without a meter. Meter make it easy for everyone that's a big difference. Albion had no meter but top guilds had tables with builds to use and builds to not use. It's just tricky cause you have to duel and use combat logs to make tables by your own. Something possible that happen evevry where but not all players are doing. A meter up for everyone means that everyone can check what's the best if want play the best.
Cool lovely FX are just for rp tho none cares about that when fighting. People care to successfull kill thingy. For example I usually play games with maximum performance and less graphic as possible.
there's no reason to have a damage meter in an open world pvp game.
-
@tulukaruk said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
@phaethonas do you think and are you trying to say that if we have no instances they can leave small scale PvP and PvE unbalanced because who cares? Cause otherwise I'm not getting your point about balance and instances problem.
No, I am not saying that. What I am saying is that you can have four combinations (instanced pvp, open world pvp, instanced pve, open world pve) with all four having different gameplay. This results at requiring to balance the game four times!
And what you're saying about PvE group only makes sense if you're talking about instance because otherwise you will always have too many players there and it will not matter what are the requirements - if you need 1 burst, 1 sustain, 2 range, 2 tanks, 2 healers it will just go with 50 burst and 1 tank
And everyone will have to have build prepared for PvP anyway.Indeed the example was orianted towards instanced pve, which is the simplest to theorize about. With variations similar situations can be theorized about the rest.
Your argument would be valid if that was the other way - if we had instances and wanted open world PvP. Then it would require more balancing, the other way around is already included in non-instanced.
What you are saying makes no sense.
-
@jetah I don't think the same sorry.
-
@phaethonas open world pvp and open world pve are the same. You go with pvp build not pve.
-
@phaethonas in instanced PvP there is a difference between small scale instance and large scale. In non-instanced you have to balance for both as you will have both huge sieges and small scale skirmishes. It's a bit different with PvE but not that much and balance in PvE isn't as important as in PvP. And exactly as @Finland said in open world pvp you have to build for PvP not PvE.
-
I think any discussion about balancing builds is pure speculation. We are talking about 400 + skills here, that are not class bound in any shape or form. Sure, some will cater to survive-ability, other towards dps, and so forth, but players can mix and match at will. I'd personally approach this in a rock paper scissors way. Each skill would have about 5 or 6 counter skills (at least one for each play-style). This way, there will never be a perfect meta, since when one build becomes popular, it will quickly be matched by a counter-build, that will force everyone to mix their stuff around in order to surprise their opponents. Diversity in builds will thus be encouraged. As for pve. I'd love to see a system where you need to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the creatures you are about to hunt (either through experimentation, lore or simply talking to other players), and adapt one or two of your skills to the situation, while keeping the rest of your kit ready to be employed in case of attack from other players.
-
@jetah true but even then your best in slot sword is moot if the mob/player is jumping around alot making it hard to hit them, plus they could pull an eve and say sure get that "best in slot" module thats only like sometimes more then 1% better at like 1000 times the cost
@Logain simple just do what @Darian suggests and have it be like a game of rock paper scissors where most of the skill comes from peoples knowing what does what and how to work around it
-
@finland said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
@phaethonas open world pvp and open world pve are the same. You go with pvp build not pve.
:man_facepalming:
-
@tulukaruk said in Feature Spotlight #6 - PvP, Alignment & Crime:
@phaethonas in instanced PvP there is a difference between small scale instance and large scale. In non-instanced you have to balance for both as you will have both huge sieges and small scale skirmishes.
So, as I said instanced/open world pvp are different and need different balancing.
It's a bit different with PvE but not that much and balance in PvE isn't as important as in PvP.
So, despite any considerations you may have, you are basically are telling us that different balancing will be required as well. It may be easier, or not as important, but it will be required.
That said, you are wrong. If PvE balancing isn't important people wouldn't be raging when devs were trying to balance classes for pvp and in the process they were "ruining the pve balance".
And exactly as @Finland said in open world pvp you have to build for PvP not PvE.
(In general) That makes no sense whatsoever. That would make sense only in one case actually. Assuming an open world game in which you can either pvp or pve. Then yes, it makes sense to always have the pvp build active. But this isn't the case with Fractured. The pvp/pve ratio/balance (call it what you like) will be different at each planet.
At Tartaros it will make sense to always be on a pvp build, where at Arboreus it won't, especially with the harsh restrictions that have been announced. Even without them though, it still would be better to be on a pve build instead of a pvp build. At Syndesia it would make sense to use a hybrid (of sorts) or to have two (one for pvp and one for pve) and swap accordingly, if the game allows that.
