[Sept 18] PvP

"

Hardcoregmr wrote:

Cmon pvp! dang none yet gotta wait on DL the new patches until pvp comes out! the bandit quest pvp is silly as all hell. hope to get an arena soon i know i read it dont send me a link so cool sounds great guys looking forward to tear it up in POE PVP!!! glad to see balance is in main focus thats awesome :)

I know I hinted at cut-throat last week, but it's not quite ready. Looking really likely for the weekend after this one though! We're going for a regular hardcore one this time.
I hope next week event would be cut-throat :D

Cant wait to play and pvp it up! :D

when is softcore arenas going to be tested/implimented either with our own characters or preset 90s?

As a suggestion for testing builds and character levels for PvP.

We can steal the idea from Archlord, where there is a specific time when PvP Arena will commence, and anyone within the game will get a prompt to participate in a PvP style Arena,(having the ability to choose yes or no to participate).

If yes is chosen you will be transported to a waiting room where Character level is taken into account, as well as defense and attack. You are then paired up against someone of similar level, and the PvP commences in its own little room kind of area. The winners are awarded some meager prize, and the winner and loser are taken back to the waiting room to be paired with another person. PvP Arena usually lasts until everyone of similar level has gone against everyone else. and then you are transported back to your home area afterward.

I found this as an amazing way to implement PvP, but not destroying the gameplay of those that do not want to participate. It also makes it fair as it pairs you with those of similar levels.

"

Nolimitation wrote:

"

GusTheCrocodile wrote:

Sure, but if we're arguing about things having a point: if you're going to assume inequality, what the point of having competition in the first place?

To reward the people for earning their gear that will make them competitive.

Hand me outs just so competition is " Fair " just destroys the point of an item based game. It diminishes the value of the items that people worked hard for when they're just handed out to other people.

To me, people should have to earn the gear to be competitive first, that makes sense in an item based game. Hand me outs do not.

TBH i think that this issue can be more or less easily be solved by different game modes: a game mode where everyone gets the same equipment and skills (choises) and another where you bring your own gear. The only downside of this would be the question if both modes would be enough populated, but even from this discussion it seems that we would find players for both...

Just my 2 cents.

EDIT: or the above solution of having a matchmaking system, BUT making a fair matchmaker can be a real pain in the ***

All skills and imba dps aside the camera needs a serious readjustment so players can actually see what is below them. in "PvE" i feel most players write off the camera as a design choice/style but in PvP good players may adapt strategies to keep far enough below their targets at all time as to block vision, and I do not believe that GGG or anyone wants this as an obvious and understood mechanic/exploit.

EDIT: sorry ya'll i didnt read all your posts therefore if i am reposting i am sorry.

REEDIT: I know I am beating a dead horse here but if an arena pvp mode is the first to be expected then it is not wrong to assume that there may be a north-south spawn positioning in which case north would always be more gimped... unless south was completely melee...

"

thepmrc wrote:

"

CodeOrange wrote:

That's all well and good, but there is flexibility to be seen yet in balance.

If GGG took the pokemon route to balancing pvp, where where all players will have their level temporarily reset to let's say, lvl 30/60/90 and have their gear/gems delevelled to accommodate these changes, or use stock equipment/gems if this proves too trying on ggg's/the player's end. All players will only have 30/60/90 passive points + quest reward points to spend in building their character, meaning that they would have to build strategically on the same grounds as their opponent(s), while also providing concrete level milestones to balance the game around.

Ofc I'm only suggesting that this be used for more formal forms of pvp such as arenas or tournaments.

Please god no! Balancing PVP in this way would ruin the economy. Why would anyone want good gear when it is not used for pvp?

For God's sake, I'm not suggesting that this method of balance be applied to generic pking or pk-based modes like cutthroat. I also NEVER said that this should be the ONLY way to formal pvp, that it should only be a possible alternative to item-based battles that are wholly dependent on item drops (ie luck) for the most part.

Can't you people read? If so, then actually do so before posting something stupid like this. I also understand that some of you also prefer item-based combat, but if the crux, weight and conclusion of your argument is going to consist of one or two sentences stating that you prefer item-based combat over game balance, then don't even bother posting in the first place.

Personally, I believe that a player should be rewarded on how skilled they are at the game, not on how lucky they are or on how long they've been playing the game (or in some cases, how much disposable income they have). But that's just me and my ridiculous and controversial ways.

"

dirin wrote:

If yes is chosen you will be transported to a waiting room where Character level is taken into account, as well as defense and attack. You are then paired up against someone of similar level, and the PvP commences in its own little room kind of area. The winners are awarded some meager prize, and the winner and loser are taken back to the waiting room to be paired with another person. PvP Arena usually lasts until everyone of similar level has gone against everyone else. and then you are transported back to your home area afterward.

I found this as an amazing way to implement PvP, but not destroying the gameplay of those that do not want to participate. It also makes it fair as it pairs you with those of similar levels.

This doesn't seem like a bad way to balance pvp around character levels at all. I've got a few questions though: when you say defense and attack, what exactly does that refer to? A character's total amount of dps? How does that apply to their various skill gems with varying dps for aoe and single target abilities? Does this mean that a glass cannon cannot be paired up with pure tanks, and that all games would be for the most part, mirror matches? How on earth will this work that's larger than 1v1, and in matchmaking?

I like the idea of meager prizes. Let the true reward be in the glory of battle and ladder rankings. Perhaps GGG can also incorporate a ranking system much like SC2, to prevent those with powerful gear pubstomping those who only want to give this mode a shot or two.

I have one idea for a PvP setting and one for PvE.
I don't know if they are good or feasible, but maybe they can be food for thought. :)

1. KING OF THE HILL PvP
A permanent battleground where players dead bodies stay and pile up into a mound of corpses that keeps growing. If a mound is to difficult a battle field would also do fine. When a player dies 1-3 of his/her items stay with the corps. Player can then loot corpses while fighting players. There would also be a reward for surviving at the top for a set amount of time.

2. FIGHT THE TIDES PvE
Stand against waves of undead, where each wave is bigger and bader than the last. Who can stand against the most waves. There could be a title for the current record.

i would love risk fighting like runescape the pvp is the onyl thing good about that game. so if you die in pvp you lose your items and the person who killed you gains them. for this to work you would have to be matched vs people the same level as you.

also i would like a multy pking would love to risk pvp in groups