That wouldn't be a problem because of one hilarious reason: a vast majority of the people who would switch over to the winning GC are also the same people who aren't all too great at PvP and are looking for carries, which means that that always winning GC would... stop winning all the time. So, in the end, free switching would actually help balance PvP. XDQuote:
Originally Posted by Remilia_Nightfall
Of course, it's not like people would switch willy-nilly even if they did keep their PvP levels, as there are other costs and requirements.
PVP ranks and changing Grand Companies
Printable View
-
07-27-2014, 06:23 PMVandril
-
07-27-2014, 09:54 PMDivinemightNo it won't, you will just end up with no Frontline at all. You will just end up with one GC is lacking of enough players and everyone will be getting horrible long que. By the way, Twin Adder is already have issue because their much smaller population on the Primal. Your arguments is short sighed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandril
-
07-28-2014, 04:37 AMmcgoo94
Sounds like you want everything handed to you. I have friends that switched over GCs, rank 40 pvp and had no problem switching and reranking back to 40. If you want to play with friends switch over, shows more about your character doing it for your friends than not doing it because of a video game rank.
-
07-28-2014, 07:17 AMVandrilIf this were true, then we'd already have that problem due to the fact that players already have to choose one of 3 GCs. Many people personally like their GCs and take pride in them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinemight
You're right. I (and the OP, too, I'd imagine) want my PvP ranks that I already earned handed to me. I don't want them taken away; that's not fun. Earning the ranks the first time is fun as a progression mechanic, but having to re-earn them due to them being arbitrarily linked to individual GCs is unfun and bad game design. Expecting and receiving a certain level of comfort/entitlement in a game is a good thing. Refer to the Rule of Fun.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgoo94
Also, don't confuse "wanting everything handed" and "wanting what was already earned". -
07-28-2014, 07:54 AMDivinemightExactly the opposite, restriction is what have been preventing a mass jump to the winning wagon (Malestorm). Rule of fun, it is merely a laughable joke. It's logic has holes everywhere. Modern games is not linear, it is made up by the choices, and these choices will alter course the game. Like it or not, your so called rule of fun is just a sugarcoated excuses for you to get second chance, by sacrificing game system for your own good. You apparently forgot that the game on purposely send you all tour for three cities before you choose your GC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandril
-
07-28-2014, 11:44 AMmcgoo94No, you didn't earn rank 40 or whatever your rank is currently in the other two GC so you DO want it handed to you hunny :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandril
-
07-28-2014, 03:52 PMYaHiKoDrG
Lets go with the old FFXI route to keep the batle in but a new storyline to allow different GC members to fight together. So in 2.4 we put an end to evil plots and instead of GC fighting over the land in frontlines we now practice combat in skirmishes with the Crystal Braves.
-
07-28-2014, 04:53 PMVandrilTechnically, you're correct. But that's what I'm arguing against. The fact that PvP Ranks are restricted by GC is just a bad way to design it. It makes players feel like they're being punished for the sake of doing what they want to do and playing with who they want to play with. You don't want to make your players feel like they're being punished when using a mechanic of your game. It's self-defeating.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgoo94
Come on, Divine. You know very well that it wouldn't turn out like that in the end. Yes, people would mass transfer over the Maelstrom. However, most of these people will also be people who are not good at PvP and/or want to be carried. This, in turn, would make Maelstrom not always win anymore, which would cause those same people to jump to the GC that wins every game now that Maelstrom doesn't, which would make that GC lose more often, and so on. Eventually, the GCs would reach a balance when those GC-hoppers realize that hopping isn't helping them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinemight
First off, I'd like you to avoid ad hominem attacks toward me. My memory is fine, and even if I was using the Rule of Fun as an excuse for my own personal gain - which I'm not, as I have no intention of leaving The Immortal Flames - the fact still wouldn't be relevant to whether or not the Rule of Fun applied here and is the right way to go. The condescending tone you're taking toward me is not appreciated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinemight
Second, I think you're misunderstanding the point of the Rule of Fun, because what you just said implies that you believe that the Rule of Fun requires that a game be linear, without choice, and without depth, when that's not the case at all. What the Rule of Fun essentially states is that as many aspects of a game as possible should be designed to be fun for the player and that aspects of a game's design that are unfun or inhibit fun should not be kept. This does not mean that a game must be linear, lack choice, and lack depth. What it means is that the game's non-linearity must be fun, its choices must be fun, and its depth must be fun. It's really a very strait forward game design philosophy - if it isn't fun or even restricts fun, then don't put it into your game. There are no holes in the logic of the Rule of Fun, as it embodies the entire purpose of games to begin with: entertainment.
The fact that PvP Ranks are tied to GCs and that they reset when you change GCs is in no way necessary, nor is it fun. If it was necessary for the game to function properly, then it would be an exception to the Rule of Fun. However, it is in no way necessary for the game's function, balance, or anything else. It is an entirely arbitrary restriction added to the game. It doesn't even effect most players, since only a handful actually PvP seriously enough to notice the loss in PvP Ranks, which means that, on top of being a useless, arbitrary, and unfun restriction, it's also an uneven and unfair restriction.
Ignoring for a moment whether or not you feel that PvP Ranks being tied to GCs is important for GC population balance, let me ask: do you honestly feel like having your PvP Ranks reset when you change GCs is fun? -
07-29-2014, 12:37 AMDivinemightFirst of all, out of respect, do not take this personal, this is not about you. I am merely agaisnt the idea of using Fun and Friendship as sugarcoated excuses to destroy a game's lore and mechanic. The best illustration for this would be WoW. (Yeah, WoW again.) In the past two expanions, Blizzard has been bend over for player's subscription. To make it a long story short, you can see imblanace between population Horde and Alliance on all WoW servers. The ratio can be as bad as 8:2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandril
Use friendship as excause is evern worst. The outlines for Frontline has been released very early. If you are friends that want to play together, you would be open the bridge communication to determine which GC you want to play together..
No offense, but you seems to got it all wrong. The penalty for GC switch is minor, it will never put you in a postion of being useless. Let's take a look, shall we?Quote:
Originally Posted by Vandril
First of all, you do lost your PvP rank with yous own GC, but impact is very minor because there is no morale involve (thanks god). There is no worry about not being able to equip previously earned PvP gear when switching to other GC. No one would wear them at first place because morale has no role in the Frontline. Everyone will be sync to ilvl 80.
Secondly, PvP action system has been tweaked. All players now have access to the primary PvP actions (besides those attribute ones). It doesnt really put you in a devastating akward position after you switch, you will never end up as an easy prey. Not sure why people think it is a world end scenario.
From my opinion on this matter, the truth is people want to keep their superiority perforamnce when they are switching to new GC: shorter pvp action cd, longer duartion, and a little damage boost. It really has nothing to do with Fun and Friendship. Again, this is not a personal attack against you, but NO, NO, and NO. (It is important, so I have to repeat it for three times.) I dont want to see a game to sacrifice its lore and game mechanic for such stupid intention.
If people want to hop on the winning wagon (Malestorm). It is fine, pay the minor penalty. If people want to play with your friends, that is definitely a yes, but this penalty is merely a small price to pay. -
07-29-2014, 06:56 AMVandrilAlright, thank you. I can sympathize with that, for sure. The Rule of Fun is often used as an excuse by some, when, really, it's a general philosophy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinemight
I somewhat agree, but also hold reservations as to this being used as an example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinemight
On one hand, I agree that Blizzard had gone too far with bending over backwards to appease their players. Players often complain and make "demands"/suggestions without realizing the implications of the changes they want, and Blizzard was fairly bad in that they often followed along these suggestions blindly, not even trying to mitigate the negative repercussions that spawned from these suggested changes. I have fairly high hopes for the new WoW expansion due to their "take it or leave it, but let me explain why we're doing it this way" take on it so far, or, at least, I have higher hopes for WoD than I had for Cata or MoP. Their stance is strong, firm, and opinionated, but they're also talking with players and still considering what they're saying that they want. But all this is another conversation entirely.
On the other hand, WoW is a pretty terrible example to make a comparison to when talking factions, faction pride, and faction changing. The reasons for this are that WoW's faction choices are larger and more all-encompassing than just who you can play with. Both factions have their own set of unique, exclusive races, each with their own sets of stories, lore, and unique feel, as well as unique abilities (racial abilities) that can greatly effect gameplay. As well, the entire game is split in two. Depending on which faction you choose, nearly every quest in the game changes, with some only existing in any form to only one faction. Even the zones you quest in from start to finish are entirely different. My point is that there's a lot of exclusivity to the factions. Each faction has many things that the other faction does not have, which adds an extreme depth to the split of the factions. While that's not a bad thing in and of itself, FFXIV does not have such complex faction depth.
In FFXIV, every race can choose any of the three "factions" (GCs). No race has racials, aside from some very minor passive Attribute and Elemental Resistance bonuses, making race choice entirely aesthetic, and not a gameplay choice like it is in many MMOs and, even if it were, since races are not GC restricted, it wouldn't matter. No GC has any big-time exclusive content - the biggest exclusive content I've seen between GCs is the occasional GC Seal gear piece, where some of them have different Secondary Stats on them depending on which GC you're in. The quests are all the same, minus some dialogue differences, so not even that is exclusive to any particular GC.
In summary, there are a lot of factors in WoW's faction system which increase complexity and influence faction choice that make it an ineligible comparator to FFXIV's GC system, which lacks said complexity.
Oh, actually, I think you might have misunderstood me, there. I wasn't saying that it makes the player useless in what you quoted, I was calling the PvP Rank GC-restriction useless, as in it doesn't serve any real function. I doubt it even really helps keep the people who want to mass exodus over to Maelstrom from doing so, because those people will probably do it anyway. Given that, I don't see what purpose this restriction serves that makes up for how it feels so negative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinemight
Which brings me to my next point. I agree that the difference is fairly minor (at least until they fix PvP gear in Frontlines, however they decide to do so), not to mention temporary (since you can just re-earn the lost ranks), but that's not my problem with the restriction. My problem with it is that it doesn't feel good. When you change GCs, as a PvPer, you feel like you're being punished for doing so. You don't feel restricted from doing so, you just feel like you're taking a punishment to do so. There should definitely be restrictions to GC switching, and they should definitely be felt in some way (such as that loss of 50,000 Gil and inability to use the old GC's seals - it's not much, but most players will feel it), but the PvP Rank restriction is almost depressing. It's the only restriction that directly effects your ability to compete in content, however minor an effect it does have, and that makes it feel like a terrible thing rather than just part of the process.
As someone who really only plays MMOs to PvP, this particular restriction hits a sore spot. Sure, I'll never feel the effects of it myself, since I don't intend to join the Adders or Maelstrom unless I just want to grind GC Ranks (not PvP Ranks) in them, but I can understand why it would bother other people. As such, I'm wary of how such a restriction could actually be bad for overall PvP health, in the fairly long term.