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.
PvP needs real changes
Printable View
-
09-02-2016, 02:19 AMPhantomsmilePvP needs real changes
-
09-02-2016, 03:21 AMFebrus
- 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.
- 1) No.
-
09-02-2016, 11:08 AMPhantomsmile
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.
-
09-02-2016, 11:14 AMPhantomsmile
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?
-
09-02-2016, 12:35 PMHamayumi
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. -
09-02-2016, 06:07 PMZojhaSomewhat amazing how such things can coexist with the statements in the healer thread that healers don't carry extraordinary influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamayumi
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. -
09-02-2016, 11:05 PMPhantomsmileIt 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamayumi
-
09-03-2016, 12:23 AMAramyth
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. -
09-03-2016, 01:19 AMKoltik
These are among the worst changes SE could make to PvP. This wouldn't fix pvp, it would break it.
-
09-03-2016, 07:58 AMFebrusIt 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantomsmile
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. -
09-03-2016, 08:07 AMFebrusYou seem to predicating your entire suggestion on this premise, but, quite frankly, it's a false premise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantomsmile
Taking out the healer first is most certainly NOT the only viable strategy. It may not even be the best strategy, depending on the circumstances. That is actually the main difference between Feast and WD. In WD, the kill order literally was fixed. You always killed the healer first. It was the only way to win. In Feast, it is not. The buff boxes at the start of the match make a huge difference in which target can, and should, make the priority. It's not always the healer, especially if they have the defense buff. In fact, more often then not, the priority target is the melee dps, because they stand to pose the biggest threat at the start of the match. Even if you do go for the healer at the start and score a kill, the priority immediately shifts. The entire concept of heavy medal stacks and available coins encourages you to chase other targets, because the dmg on those targets is higher and the reward is greater. The only time that purely prioritizing the healer is a viable strategy is if that healer is so good that they are carrying their team, and even then, that's only the case if the dps are too weak to score kills. Otherwise, thinking that killing the healer first is the best and universal kill order is a novice mistake that can actually cause far more harm than good, especially if the healer is good enough to carry themselves through a burst or CC.
The reason I mention the healer's personal skill is because healer's do, in fact, have the resourced to heal through a double burst. It's not easy, certainly, but it is possible. For one, they have an awful lot of emergency heal measures that they can take advantage of if they need to (such as big heals like Benediction, or PvP skills like Attunement, etc). The strongest healers I've seen in the Feast actually needed to be CC'd, otherwise nothing would ever die. That's how potent their heals can be, if used correctly. It's not uncommon, especially in mid-ranked matches, to see an LB fail to kill a target, or have a match get thrown into Culling Time. It all depends on how skilled the healer is at using the tools they have available to them. The problem isn't with those tools. They're strong enough. The problem is with the healer's ability to manage their healing while also dodging the CC attempts of their enemy. A lot of healers lack that skill, and a lot more tank/dps teams fail to give adequate support to their healers when they need it (such as with purifies, covers, stuns, etc). Reducing the number of dps in the match is not going to fix that problem. It would make CC easier to achieve, but most dps can't capitalize on that time with two people bursting, let alone one. The dramatically reduced dps would make it far easier for healers to breeze through the average dps burst. To be honest, I wouldn't be surprised to see Culling Time become a lot more common as a result. -
09-03-2016, 08:54 PMEvangela
I'd rather keep the gears synced. It's better to have smaller gap between veterans and newbies. Experienced PvPers already have more skills and experiences. Giving them better gears will make the newbies stop queing for PvP, nobody wants to get owned every match.
-
09-03-2016, 10:07 PMPhantomsmile
it seems as tho all you guys feel that even the slightest of idea to any sort of change to pvp is a break. yet you all sense that there are things wrong with it. yet you guys dont want to change it at all? how is any suggestion being shot down by all of you guys going to help pvp's future?
sure some of my suggestion would seem to break rather than fix but something is better than nothing.
regarding the morale my suggestion is tanks get more defensive, healer heals a bit more and dps do more dps. your guy's thought on this? -
09-03-2016, 10:50 PMSynestra
Stuff like 2v2 and 3v3 would propably work with upcoming custom match as it doesnt have role requirement. I know custom match is supposed to be training/funzie mode but on hi-pop servers i could see some serious premade vs premade matches done via custom match option as it doesnt require que and has no role requirements + there is spectator mode.
I never really did old WD properly but was it really always "kill the healer"? did anyone tryed to CC healer(before sleep nerfs etc)and kill DD instead? that sounds pretty valid strategy imo. Also stuff like WD would propably be totally diffirent now that almost all jobs has some kind of burst that they missed back in lvl50 era. -
09-04-2016, 05:07 AMFebrusIt's not that we're totally opposed to changes in general. We're just opposed to these specific suggestions. You have to remember that a lot of us have already been back and forth on these issues in the past (especially in the WD days). Even SE has wrestled with them, and us, over how this stuff should be handled. A lot of the things are the way they are for very good reasons. Change in itself is fine, so long as it makes the game better, not worse. Sadly, the majority of the suggestions here would have some very serious negative effects, some of which we've already lived with in previous game modes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phantomsmile
As for Morale, that's an interesting topic. I myself would love to see morale make a comeback of some kind, because I want the PvP gear to serve a purpose other than just vanity (I also would like SE to have a little more encouragement to give us more regular updates to the gear vendors). The problem is how to do it without making it too unfair to new players. Even SE asked us on our feedback on this in a previous thread because they, themselves, don't know how to get around it. They just know that they don't want a repeat of WD and early Secure, where rank 30 (at the time, this was max PvP rank) PvP players could basically face roll anyone in PvE gear. Someone once suggested opening the morale effect in brackets (lvl 1, 2, 3, etc) as you rank up, but Introductory players would need a way to get a low level set early on ... I suppose they could always give new players vouchers with the introductory PvP quest, so they could have instant access to at least a few pieces of PvP gear. It's hard to say if that would be viable or not, though. -
09-04-2016, 05:21 AMFebrusYes, this was the way it was. To this day, there are still a lot of die-hard WD fans who would defend it to the grave. I loved it myself, but there is no denying that it was flawed, because there really were very few exceptions to how the matches played out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synestra
CC'ing the healer was a valid strategy for scoring a kill, but that strategy had a very big pitfall. So long as the healer was still alive, they could simply resurrect the player you nuked while they were CC'd. The match would then continue in a deadlock until one healer died. The ONLY time that changed was if the two competing teams were on equal footing, or had equally skilled healers. If that was the case, then the fight became a battle of attrition to see who could run the other healer dry on Mp. That was pretty rare outside of organized matches, though. Nine out of ten times, it was more efficient and expedient (as well as far less risky) to simply nuke their healer as quickly as possible in order to secure your victory, especially if you were CC'ing the healer long enough to score that kill. Once the healer was dead, the possibility of a comeback was reduced to zero. The one exception to that was if they had a Smn who had access to battle resurrection, but that was exactly why the kill order went: Healer > Ranged > Melee > Tank. Once the healer was dead, the Smn was the very next person to hit the floor, usually within a couple of seconds.
I imagine that this would only be worse as things are now. Even back at 50, all dps classes had access to a pretty hefty burst. There was never a time when they didn't. Blm's were rocking either items in their hotbars to score triple Flare burst rotations (quadruple, for a short time, until SE nerfed it). Dragoons had their jump burst rotation. Etc. Those bursts have only gotten stronger since HW, so nuking the healer in a perma-death match would only be easier.