PvP needs real changes

PvP'ers give me your feed backs on these ideas whether you disagree or agree give reasons as to why you agree or disagree.

1) Cd timers needs to be faster we're fighting a player behind the screen not an AI. As i heard before the cd timer we got now are longer than usual for changing course of action for PvE not for pvp.

2) Don't Sync gear we worked long and hard especially the que times for these gear. With how easy it is to obtain them now even the lower skilled players can get it all. We all know where they stand in terms of pvp skills. There is no need to baby them and try to balance them to us in terms of skills.

3) 3v3 instead of 4v4 there just isn't enough health pool to get a strategy to exist rather than grab bag of coin and run away while your teammates try to kill for the next bag. That aside give us a 3v3 where death is permanent which will speed up the match. keep the roles of tank, healer, (any dps) this can increase dif strategy of team compositions.

• 1) No.
  
  GCD timers are still effected by skill/spell speed. If you want to be faster, then you have to min/max your secondary stats accordingly. Preparation is part of PvP, and it's already a pretty minimal part. I wouldn't like to see it reduced further. As for PvP skills and oGCD moves, again, no. Working efficiently around your oGCD timers (PvP and PvE) is part of the game. Doing this skillfully is what makes the difference between a good PvP'er and a bad one. It can also mean the difference between winning and losing. Further, reducing their timer would completely mess up job balance, because Dps burst would be accessible faster. Healer Mp pools can already be pushed to the limit as things are now, so it would be an unfair. It would also mess up job balancing between dps, as the jobs with the fastest accessible burst would become king over all else. Utility or varied play-style would disappear.
  
  
• 2) No.
  
  Mostly because of stat caps and newcomers. PvP is already an end-game thing, and it's a pretty exclusive end-game thing. Allowing unsync'd players who are at the edge of progression raiding into matches with people who only just cleared Thordan in the MSQ would be laughably unfair. We had that same problem in Wolves Den, back when the morale stat still worked, and morale didn't even hike our levels that far. It was a tiny increase to the overal stat value, but people were up in arms about it being ridiculously unfair. They complained, and SE removed it.
  
  
• 3) Absolutely not.
  
  Firstly, for queues. Getting rid of the 4th player would leave 50% of the dps out in the dark, and they already have the longest wait time as it is. Secondly, because of party balance. Right now, teams are balanced equally with one ranged, one melee, one tank, and one healer. If they took out the 4th player, then the dps slot would have to be opened up to any dps. Meaning that ranged and melee would become a flip of the coin. That would be a huge problem, and could place you at a massive disadvantage depending on what your enemy party composition is. Thirdly, there's nothing wrong with hp pools. If you don't have enough, you can always stack a bit more into your PvP loud-out. That's part of the preparation of PvP. I have to disagree greatly that there's no strategy involved in this, because the teams that win are the ones that play with coordination, rather than just running around like chickens. Evenly stacking medals, timing your bursts for stuns, and changing your kill priority according to vulnerability and necessity are all part of the deal.
  
  Fourth, and lastly, HELL NO for your suggestion of a 3v3 with a perma-death. We had something similar, back in the day. It was called Wolves Den, and it was terrible. In case you weren't around for that crap shoot, here's what happened: every match, the gates would open. Two teams would file into the arena. Both teams would immediately, without fail, jump the enemy healer. The team that had the fastest and strongest burst, won. Healer goes down. Match is over. Remaining players on the dead healer's team would promptly sit on the floor and wait to be executed in the order of 1st) ranged 2nd) melee 3rd) tank. This happened every. single. match. There was almost no variety, ever. You want to talk about a game mode that has no strategy? That was it.

Take a look at what you just told me. Taking out the 4th dps isnt an issue if you ask me. even now the 2 dps will still focus burst that one single target that they need the coin from. A healer can barely keep up with the burst dmg as the heal cast time is there that can or cant compete against it. hence your "comeback" isn't that what old wolves den was doing at the start? the only difference now is that there is a coin involved and you need that coin bfore u can win. we're still nuking each other its just not at the start if you havent seen that with your own eyes. With a 3v3 there wont be no big burst dmg at the start or near the end it'll take a more strategic way with your tank and healer to help you take someone down. Perm death would be a much better match in 3v3 than an objective match overall putting in an objective is just denying the thrill of pvp.

The que time would be the same regardless if we took out the 4th dps or not. Without the 4th dps it wont become a race to kill the healer due to the 4v4. Taking out the healer was the most viable option to guaranteed a win than to chase after any role. In old wolves den it seems as tho 2 dps was able to burst down a healer while a tank was on the tail to slow them down and whoever can do it fastest was the winner from what you are all telling me. what makes it any different now in the feast we have now? its just a coin system involved we're still the same old wolves den nothing new still have 2 bursting dps on the field the tank still chases the healer at the start. how is feast any different from old wolves den?

In Wolves Den, once a healer dies, their team dies with them shortly after. Killing your healer means a death sentence for the rest of the group.

In the Feast, your healer can die, but will respawn, which allows for a potential comeback win. Killing a healer in the Feast is not a death sentence for the rest of the match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamayumi

In Wolves Den, once a healer dies, their team dies with them shortly after. Killing your healer means a death sentence for the rest of the group.

---

Somewhat amazing how such things can coexist with the statements in the healer thread that healers don't carry extraordinary influence.
Let's try logic:
1. The influence of healers is not extraordinary (A <= B, C, D)
2. Killing a healer equals a death sentence for the team (B+C+D < 1) B+C+A 2) C+D+A 3) B+D+A 4) B+C+D+A)
Logically, only the 4th case of 2 can coexist with statement 1., ergo:
-> Killing anyone equals a death sentence for the team, if and only if nobody on the enemy team dies in turn.
(To be fair - not entirely pure logical conclusion there :P
The pure logical conclusion would be: Killing "a healer" equals a death sentence if and only if nobody on the enemy team dies in turn)

Anything else would prove either of the statements false.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hamayumi

In Wolves Den, once a healer dies, their team dies with them shortly after. Killing your healer means a death sentence for the rest of the group.

In the Feast, your healer can die, but will respawn, which allows for a potential comeback win. Killing a healer in the Feast is not a death sentence for the rest of the match.

---

It all comes back to the 4v4 as you all been stating like a dead horse. IF healer dies its death sentence to the team and as stated earlier in the reply 2 dps can burst a healer down. Im asking for a 3v3 where there is only 1 dps which can burst, but not enough power alone to burst a healer down. 3v3 is more viable than 4v4 where you'll have to add some sort of objective to the match to make it worth while. Also seeing as SE dont plan on giving us a variety of feast objective rather than just a different map so its not the same arena over n over. Perm death 3v3 has more strategic involved than the objective matches.

PvP definitely needs changes but not what you are suggesting, but I do agree that pvp being an "endgame" thing is a problem.

1) All pvp games need to be raised to 60 cap.
2) PvP Gear - morale needs to mean something and make pvp gear for all levels, maybe every 10 levels.
3) Bolster low level players to 60 so they can complete with 60s. We already sync down, it shouldn't be hard to sync players up and give them some bonus stats so they can compete.
4) Make one pvp queue for Frontlines. This should increase pvp queue times.
5) Better balance between classes.
6) Stop putting so much PvE in my PvP.

These are among the worst changes SE could make to PvP. This wouldn't fix pvp, it would break it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phantomsmile

The que time would be the same regardless if we took out the 4th dps or not.

---

It is undeniable that queue times would be longer. Just stop to think about it for a second. Imagine there are 2 tanks, 2 healers, and 10 dps in queue for Feast. With that number of tanks and healers, you have enough players to generate 2 complete matches. Right now, with 2 dps per match, 4 out of those 10 would get in, leaving 6 behind to wait on the next queue. By the second round of matches, the next 4 dps would get in, leaving behind only 2 players, and so on. In this scenario, with 2 dps per match, it would take 2.5 matches to completely cycle every waiting dps player as well as get 2 into their second match.

Now, imagine the same scenario with only 1 dps per match. The number of dps left behind during the first match is increased to 8, then 6, then 4, and so on. It would take a grand total of 5 matches to get every dps waiting in queue into just one match a piece. None of them would have gotten into a second match until the 7th match began. Obviously, I'm simplifying the math here, but the concept remains the same no matter the number of players. So long as dps outnumber tanks and healers, this is the way it would be. The bottom line is that reducing the number of dps per match by 50% increases the number of dps waiting in queue, thus increasing queue times for dps players. This works the same way in PvE as it does in PvP, and it's easily demonstrated and documented in every roulette. There's a reason the only fast queue for Dps is 24 man raids, and that's because more dps are allowed into each instance.

Another issue is dps balancing. Removing the ranged + melee balance would create some extremely one-sided matches. You don't have to take my word for that, either. Just wait for the dueling pit to open up and spectate some duels. The result will vary a little depending on personal skill, obviously, but imagine a monk verses a blm. You'll see, very quickly, that not all jobs match well. Having a balance of one ranged and one melee allows for compensation of faults. Removing that element would make for some catastrophic match ups.