Is BZ PvP really PvP?

  • Blazing wrote:

    did you win? then it's a fair fight, great pvp, lets do it again

    did you lose? its a bullshit tryhard zerg that killed you with op weps thatll get nerfed next patch
    Haha so true for so many PVP/E games. Slaughter them... GGWP, get owned... silence or fck this noob team/your hacking, usually from worst person on the team xD.
  • Elarahis wrote:

    Starting a GvG requires you to zerg a siege camp first, not player limit there so ZvZ. Castle fights are ZvZ. Controlling who gathers in your territory is ZvZ. More ZvZ content has been announced in Kay
    Wether you like it or not this game has both small and large scale PvP. And there are already mechanics to help small groups fight off large groups. See focus fire and AOE tutorials.

    Maybe you do not like it but playing cat and mouse gatherer vs gankers is quite fun. Ihave been enjoying it playing both roles.
    Predictable.

    Controlling who gathers in your territory is hardly "ZvZ". It's patrolling a territory. Outside of when a few key resources spawn, it's a tremendously dull affair. There's nothing more sad than watching 40-60 zerglings assembled across a few black zones to try and patrol "their" territory. If that's the kind of "PvP" a lot of the zerglings expected, it's no wonder they're bored today and complaining (see the above post I replied to initially) that there isn't any BZ PvP to be had.

    Starting a GvG doesn't "require" a zerg, but a lot of guilds do it because that's how they've ended up organizing and it's the only PvP where they can truly call their entire army. Castle fights are a bit of the same.

    In both cases, however, you're not really giving examples of content that's specifically designed for "large armies" (as opposed to what I did with literally the rest of the game being designed around less than 20 guys), you're just giving examples of stuff where you can still bring zergs and they get to do something, provided they can work through the lag.

    My main point isn't that there isn't large scale PvP. I know there is and I know it's possible to assemble 50 guys in the open world and chase folks around a few zones. My main point is that most of the content the game has to offer is not designed for very large scale PvP or zerging and that's why so many guilds are losing members and that's why a lot of them complain there isn't much to do for them (part of large zerg alliances). It's pretty straightforward: they're bored because they're playing in a way the game allows but wasn't designed for.
  • Mardonius wrote:

    Black_Pedro wrote:

    Mardonius wrote:

    Is this really the PvP that this game is being advertised as? Because I don't consider ganking to be PvP as the other party is not actively fighting you. Sandbox Interactive really need to make ganking less profitable and put more focus on proper PvP, which should be about two, or more, parties actually wanting to fight each other.
    if SBI made ganking less profitable, what would be the motivation for bandits to go after the weak and reckless?Open world PvP, that is unbalanced and unrestricted PvP is the only true PvP out there. Two people wanting to fight each other isn't a real fight, it is just sparring and while that can be fun and good practice, it isn't a real battle. A true open world fight takes place on many levels, and there are consequences on the line for losing. That may not be your thing, but it is what SBI claims to be developing. If it isn't, there are plenty of other games out there they strive to give you balanced and consequence-free PvP you seem to be looking for.
    Talk about being an absolutist. Is there anything between unrestricted full loot and consequence free PvP?
    And "true" PvP? I don't even know what that means. PvP stands for player vs player. Not real battle, dog eat dog, simulation. And "real" battle? This is a computer game, man, nothing in it is "real".
    Of course there is. There is a whole spectrum of PvP in Albion Online from "fun" consequence-free sparring, to full-on winner-take-all Battle Royale open world play. Everyone needs to learn, or have some down time and just play for kicks, and it is definitely more interesting to have 5v5 and other shaped encounters to mix up the types of fights and provide variety and different things to do.

    The "real" PvP I refer to is though is zero sum, there-can-be-only-one battle for dominance that is suppose to be at the heart of this game. Here you are competing rather than playing, just as you are competing when playing Poker for money but are playing when you play Go Fish with your kids.

    As in poker, the people that most need to be killed in this game are the ones that are least interested in fighting. Likely this is because they are wearing or transporting too much in gear and it is in your interest to attack them and take their stuff. Similarly, the people most looking for a fight are the ones you want to avoid as they clearly are confident in their position and think they can win. This is the distilled essence of PvP and the heart of an open-world game.

    But, I take your point any competitive interaction between two or more players is PvP. My dogmatic stance was just to make the point that not everyone is playing the same game as you and looking for entertaining fights. Some are just trying to win the game.
  • Holoin wrote:


    make ganking less profitable? What game are you playing? Cause ganking is a very high risk high reward. The risk of ganking is high, cause the chances of finding other ganking groups is high wich could means you lose it all in one mistake.
    I just saw somebody write, in essence, that gankers (players who "want" to PvP) when they run into other gankers (players who "want" to PvP) face the unfortunate situation of having to actually fight other players who are prepared to PvP with them. While they would prefer to just gank gatherers.

    Yes, there is the risk that a ganker might run into somebody who actually wants to fight with them. Or I guess it could just be an embarrassing encounter for both parties.
  • Ulfnaor wrote:

    Elarahis wrote:

    Starting a GvG requires you to zerg a siege camp first, not player limit there so ZvZ. Castle fights are ZvZ. Controlling who gathers in your territory is ZvZ. More ZvZ content has been announced in Kay
    Wether you like it or not this game has both small and large scale PvP. And there are already mechanics to help small groups fight off large groups. See focus fire and AOE tutorials.

    Maybe you do not like it but playing cat and mouse gatherer vs gankers is quite fun. Ihave been enjoying it playing both roles.
    Predictable.
    Controlling who gathers in your territory is hardly "ZvZ". It's patrolling a territory. Outside of when a few key resources spawn, it's a tremendously dull affair. There's nothing more sad than watching 40-60 zerglings assembled across a few black zones to try and patrol "their" territory. If that's the kind of "PvP" a lot of the zerglings expected, it's no wonder they're bored today and complaining (see the above post I replied to initially) that there isn't any BZ PvP to be had.

    Starting a GvG doesn't "require" a zerg, but a lot of guilds do it because that's how they've ended up organizing and it's the only PvP where they can truly call their entire army. Castle fights are a bit of the same.

    In both cases, however, you're not really giving examples of content that's specifically designed for "large armies" (as opposed to what I did with literally the rest of the game being designed around less than 20 guys), you're just giving examples of stuff where you can still bring zergs and they get to do something, provided they can work through the lag.

    My main point isn't that there isn't large scale PvP. I know there is and I know it's possible to assemble 50 guys in the open world and chase folks around a few zones. My main point is that most of the content the game has to offer is not designed for very large scale PvP or zerging and that's why so many guilds are losing members and that's why a lot of them complain there isn't much to do for them (part of large zerg alliances). It's pretty straightforward: they're bored because they're playing in a way the game allows but wasn't designed for.
    If the game does not restrict the number of players to attein an objective then obviously it is designed for ZvZ. When an obkectivenis crucial enough and the player number is not restricted the large groups will form. Everyone knows it, it has always happened and it would be an insult to the devs i telligence to claim they did not exlect large groups to form and fight when numbers are not restricted.

    That said it is true that the game could use more significant open world objectives, and thisbis coming with Kay in december (hopefully they will release this update on time). Hopefully everyone will not be gone by then. The gane is advertised as annopen worls full loot sandbox games and instanced arenas with no full loot have no place in a game like. I do not think they will hurt the game too much as in empty the world but a 6 month wait for the next release of actual open world content is going to be long.
  • Mardonius wrote:

    Black_Pedro wrote:

    Mardonius wrote:

    Is this really the PvP that this game is being advertised as? Because I don't consider ganking to be PvP as the other party is not actively fighting you. Sandbox Interactive really need to make ganking less profitable and put more focus on proper PvP, which should be about two, or more, parties actually wanting to fight each other.
    if SBI made ganking less profitable, what would be the motivation for bandits to go after the weak and reckless?Open world PvP, that is unbalanced and unrestricted PvP is the only true PvP out there. Two people wanting to fight each other isn't a real fight, it is just sparring and while that can be fun and good practice, it isn't a real battle. A true open world fight takes place on many levels, and there are consequences on the line for losing. That may not be your thing, but it is what SBI claims to be developing. If it isn't, there are plenty of other games out there they strive to give you balanced and consequence-free PvP you seem to be looking for.
    Talk about being an absolutist. Is there anything between unrestricted full loot and consequence free PvP?
    And "true" PvP? I don't even know what that means. PvP stands for player vs player. Not real battle, dog eat dog, simulation. And "real" battle? This is a computer game, man, nothing in it is "real".
    Yes, there is a good section between the two. Runescape did a good job of making it so you kept 3 items unless you were "skulled" (attacked another player). The Wild had very good mid/high tier resource collection nodes, so it wasn't like Miners weren't getting the Ruinite, or the guys trying to get Coal avoided it. Hell, even the lower-levels went into the Black Castle and farmed the Knights for Runes back in RS2. I feel like a system here that did that would be useful.

    I mean, why bother bringing your highest tier gear on a PvP? Why even bother making it? To duel and show that you've made it? People keep saying that everything in the game is designed to set you up for PvP, but I've yet to see people willingly going into a fight with equipment that's 40% of their liquid/solid currency. No one's taking that risk. It's a whole bunch of .1 gear and MAYBE some .2 from a lower tier. no one wants to whip out their .3 gear in a PvP unless they know they can win the fight. It's kind of boring.
  • Aringhe wrote:

    I mean, why bother bringing your highest tier gear on a PvP? Why even bother making it? To duel and show that you've made it? People keep saying that everything in the game is designed to set you up for PvP, but I've yet to see people willingly going into a fight with equipment that's 40% of their liquid/solid currency. No one's taking that risk. It's a whole bunch of .1 gear and MAYBE some .2 from a lower tier. no one wants to whip out their .3 gear in a PvP unless they know they can win the fight. It's kind of boring.
    That's kinda the point of a full-loot PvP game - the side with the deepest pockets, or the biggest balls, gets an advantage much like in poker. The poorer side, or the one to afraid to put assets on the line, is at a disadvantage.

    That's not boring at all. It makes the game much more complex, and makes losses meaningful to give the PvP shakes when something is on the line.

    What is boring is consequence-free PvP, like say in WoW. In six months, everyone would be sporting top-tier gear so that only established players would be viable, and the number of builds you would see would only be a handful.

    If you find full-loot PvP boring, perhaps you just aren't risking enough?
  • Black_Pedro wrote:

    What is boring is consequence-free PvP, like say in WoW. In six months, everyone would be sporting top-tier gear so that only established players would be viable, and the number of builds you would see would only be a handful.

    If you find full-loot PvP boring, perhaps you just aren't risking enough?
    I think everyone's established that consequence-free PvP isn't what people want, but you might want to ask why YHGs are more popular than RHG and BHG for a personal reference in the future.

    But, to kind of hit your own point home, isn't that the state of the game now, after a month and a half? Maybe change out "established players" with "established guilds" but it's taken an insanely small amount of time for people to monopolize markets and establish a very solid base.
  • Aringhe wrote:

    But, to kind of hit your own point home, isn't that the state of the game now, after a month and a half? Maybe change out "established players" with "established guilds" but it's taken an insanely small amount of time for people to monopolize markets and establish a very solid base.
    Yup. Not sure SBI has built a viable open-world sandbox game.

    YHG and other 'capped' PvP systems are absolutely necessary to give a place for upcoming players to compete on a more even footing. There probably should be more of that, but like any PvP game with resource and territory control, the real problem is letting the 'King of the Hill' get too entrenched and impossible to dislodge, and to give reasons to people to go to the effort of trying. I won't claim to know how this is going to play out or if there even is a problem, but it does seem that a steady state was reached awfully fast.

    It's probably too early to say what is going to happen as once people are feeling more established and confident (and bored for that matter), the few guilds on top might splinter and fight amongst themselves. Or not, and SBI has built just another game with a cabal of farmers getting fat on virtual resources in near safety until they get bored and quit.
  • Black_Pedro wrote:

    Yup. Not sure SBI has built a viable open-world sandbox game.
    YHG and other 'capped' PvP systems are absolutely necessary to give a place for upcoming players to compete on a more even footing. There probably should be more of that, but like any PvP game with resource and territory control, the real problem is letting the 'King of the Hill' get too entrenched and impossible to dislodge, and to give reasons to people to go to the effort of trying. I won't claim to know how this is going to play out or if there even is a problem, but it does seem that a steady state was reached awfully fast.

    It's probably too early to say what is going to happen as once people are feeling more established and confident (and bored for that matter), the few guilds on top might splinter and fight amongst themselves. Or not, and SBI has built just another game with a cabal of farmers getting fat on virtual resources in near safety until they get bored and quit.
    Well, fully-scaled open world PvP has been done for quite a few games. The problem with this one is ALL of the end-game content is in PvP areas. This game is a heavy PvE grind, and a decent amount of PvP content for late-game. Right now, we have the hype of a new game, but that'll likely wear off. The game is drawing people who like the PvE grind, but offers nothing but excessively risky PvE areas at the end, when they get a chance to use the gear they got.
  • Aringhe wrote:

    Mardonius wrote:

    Black_Pedro wrote:

    Mardonius wrote:

    Is this really the PvP that this game is being advertised as? Because I don't consider ganking to be PvP as the other party is not actively fighting you. Sandbox Interactive really need to make ganking less profitable and put more focus on proper PvP, which should be about two, or more, parties actually wanting to fight each other.
    if SBI made ganking less profitable, what would be the motivation for bandits to go after the weak and reckless?Open world PvP, that is unbalanced and unrestricted PvP is the only true PvP out there. Two people wanting to fight each other isn't a real fight, it is just sparring and while that can be fun and good practice, it isn't a real battle. A true open world fight takes place on many levels, and there are consequences on the line for losing. That may not be your thing, but it is what SBI claims to be developing. If it isn't, there are plenty of other games out there they strive to give you balanced and consequence-free PvP you seem to be looking for.
    Talk about being an absolutist. Is there anything between unrestricted full loot and consequence free PvP?And "true" PvP? I don't even know what that means. PvP stands for player vs player. Not real battle, dog eat dog, simulation. And "real" battle? This is a computer game, man, nothing in it is "real".
    Yes, there is a good section between the two. Runescape did a good job of making it so you kept 3 items unless you were "skulled" (attacked another player). The Wild had very good mid/high tier resource collection nodes, so it wasn't like Miners weren't getting the Ruinite, or the guys trying to get Coal avoided it. Hell, even the lower-levels went into the Black Castle and farmed the Knights for Runes back in RS2. I feel like a system here that did that would be useful.
    I mean, why bother bringing your highest tier gear on a PvP? Why even bother making it? To duel and show that you've made it? People keep saying that everything in the game is designed to set you up for PvP, but I've yet to see people willingly going into a fight with equipment that's 40% of their liquid/solid currency. No one's taking that risk. It's a whole bunch of .1 gear and MAYBE some .2 from a lower tier. no one wants to whip out their .3 gear in a PvP unless they know they can win the fight. It's kind of boring.
    That is one of the biggest issues with full loot. You have all this nice gear in the game but the vast majority won't use it because who would risk something valuable when you can easily go down to a gank or even a disconnection.

    Full loot is bad for PvP and needs to be restricted to black zones only and more red zones should be added.
  • angrad wrote:

    If you don't want full loot go to the yellow zone..

    What you want is alreasy in the game.
    if we want great skillbased openworld pvp we lobby hard for it on the forum and if it do not works out we find another game. This storyboard "already" worked out a bunch of times : )

    - I will not pay monthly subscription to offer my ass to wannabe zergfests in open world as a solo, small scale pvp player.
    - I will not be the one who buys a game due to openworld full loot aspect than I will trash my rl time in yellow zone AKA playing a game what I was not looking for
    - I will not start to spend 2 hours of my rl free time to gather a huge zerg on our aliance chat that wanna grief players in BZ true meaningless zergfest (would be the most pathetic scenario)

    gvg events are a different scenario, there zerg is accepted, the power of zerg has a meaning, but we are talking about random daily openworld pvp.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Cartographer ().

  • You know whats funny. I look at a post like this...and then remember all the posts in Beta on the beta forums pleading with the developers to stop ruining PvP with their reputation system, red/yellow zones, and other mechanics designed to reduce and hinder PvP in a game advertised as a full Item loot pvp game.

    You see PvP is like water. It will ALWAYS find the path of least resistance. That path will define the meta. What happened in Albion is that you have very inexperienced developers who refuse to listen to any feedback from people who understand what they are talking about. You do not have to be a developer of a game to understand and know what makes a game work and what makes a game fail. Just like a basketball player understands and knows the game, however the coach is there to direct (unless your name is Lebron). MMO's have been around since the 90's. That means some people have 17 years of MMO experience. Through that they can tell you by a glance what will work, what will become stale, and generally will be able to tell you how long a game will last. Its these people who pleaded with the developers not to do what they did.

    When you try to restrict world pvp what happens is you always tip the scale in favor from the few to the many. Why? Because as I said before, pvp is like water. If 1 player can not kill someone efficiently, he will look for another player to help. If they to can not kill efficiently, they will invite another to help. Albion's issue is that mounts define the open world pvp meta. Gallop made sure that 1 player can not consistently catch another player. The stupid way of thinking is,

    "If gallop prevents players from engaging someone who doesnt want to fight, it will end up with people who want to fight only fighting each other!"

    WRONG. Its that way of backwards thinking that got us into this garbage version of Albion Online we currently have. You see what happened in turn was not the above, but people just grouped up in 5-9 players and are now able to catch players on horses consistently. You thought water was going to try to bore its way through rock looking for the hard fights, when in reality it just went around the rock with the help of more water.

    Then you have the terrible central hub map we have. Completely destroys the need for trade runs in the black zone. They just are not needed. The trade runs to the blue cities from red are 1 and 1/2 zones and you can do it on an alt, naked, with your eyes closed. This leaves the black zone filled with gatherers and the people that want to kill them.

    There is no PvP driving content in the black zones. They removed it all. And in September they will add more arena's and expeditions that you can queue from in town. Meaning the black zone might as well not exist. The open world might as well not exist.

    This game failed because risk adverse carebear pve developers tried to make a pvp game.