PvP Feedback

"

veritaserum wrote:

do not exaggerate,stay serious
using a "good" weap not means using fist
well, u just not get the point, comparing it to moba
gems and their combination+skill tree is super
well, let's see how things develop.
at least mirr's and legs removed from game
generally for same reason, balance and fun.
n8

"

MullaXul wrote:

I didn't want to toss names around but ya Dismantle,Dukan and QQDyness are all trolls that just literally do nothing but stand there. Sometimes they'll pester you with their main skills that do almost no damage so you will attack them back, thus triggering all sorts of shit. I agree between troll builds and EA every match PvP has fallen pretty hard. Shame too because realistically compared to where we were 2 years ago PvP has come a long way like the core game. There's potential for much more diversity in builds and the balance is overall better everywhere but a few areas.

When I was #1 on ladder, I went afk (literally walked away and watched tv) after wasting 2 rounds vs Dismantle. Ended up drawing out all 5 rounds or so, result me - 150+ points and him moving up a few places til he was #9 or 10. Tank builds should be a thing, but not to this extreme. There shouldn't be do nothing builds trolling their way through PvP.

Such builds can be RIPed by op traps and combined with very high, raw DPS, including a BCR support gem. The only thing I find bad about it, is the brick wall you hit, when you encounter them, requiring to change a part of your build, but not to the extent that you get a disadvantage against other builds and in PvE. The key in PvP is block / anti-block and mostly mobility and, on the other end, counter-mobility (curses, traps, stuns, freezes, chills) -- all, supposing you have some decent DPS. Most people focus on DPS, and when they get killed in under 2 seconds, they never play again. The game offers a counter skill / build for every kind of skill/ build, but, in order to play well against *most* of them (there is no such thing as killing every build, in this game), creativity and versatility is needed, with a good passive tree and equipment; thus months, if not years, of grinding and trading, until you get the required currency, for the gear needed, around which one must then build a new passive tree, on about lvl 85-90. All these, combined with experience with many, versatile builds in PvP, so you know what you're doing. I find such builds intriguing. MorganTheBard was the reason I had to change my end game build, to a better one.

PvP has come a VERY long way, since the closed beta and after a few thousands of matches, my humble opinion is, we have seen a huge number of improvements, in all areas. Still, there is much room for more improvement and what I personally find annoying in PvP (together with a few ideas) are the following:

- Unbalanced op damage of very few skills, like traps, Molten Shell (I use it) and especially Explosive Arrow and BladeFall (I use it also). I hope we should expect these to be nerfed in the upcoming version. Most with a DPS/ AoE reduction and, skills like Molten, with at least a 2-3 seconds cool-down, not from the time of casting, but from the time of triggering (explosion). For such skills, there could also be introduced a variable damage effectiveness system: the more support gems you link, the less the damage effectiveness of the main skill. Even only for PvP. So people have to choose 3-4 main support gems for their traps or Moltens. If applied to all active skill gems, this change may bring better overall balance, since overall damage in 1L-3L will be higher, so newer players will not be forced to grind / trade for very expensive 6L equipment; it may also win back casual players, who don't want to work so much on grinding. Overall damage of skills in 5L-6L will be less, thus GGG will not have to try so hard finding formulas against so many op 6L skills. Matches will last longer, more tactics will be needed, lesser players will feel less under-powered and less discouraged and Ascendancy mods will have a greater meaning in their additive stats and less a need for tweaking, later on. The HP and damage of the mobs will have to be reduced, to counter for this, so less powerful players will not be owned so easily in higher level maps (having a chance to level up faster), but good parties will be needed to clean T13 and T14 maps, even from T1 players, adding to the challenge. The game will focus more around the DPS on early game, winning casual players, bring more balance and less rage-quits in mid-game and focus more on the play-style and not the DPS, near eng-game. Example of such a change in a gem: "50% damage effectiveness, 6% less for each support gem linked, after the 1st one" (effectiveness will have to start much higher for 1L -- will give starting low lvl players more power, which is a need from lvl 1-40-- and end up much lower for 6L); so newer players can have faster progression and feel more powerful when they begin the game and all things become more balanced near end-game. This mechanic can also be useful around lvl 60, when most people hit a brick wall on Merciless (they can link just 1-3 gems on their main skill and be better-off). For this to work correctly, the reduced damage penalties in support gems like GMP should become less (in total or also per linked gem). Effectiveness reduction could also be non-linear. This would give a better, shorter gem description, like "50% damage effectiveness, reduced per linked gem" and apply a better reduction system, like an S-curve (the effectiveness reduction per linked gem being similar to the sigmoid curve of the experience required per level -- the more gems you link, the more % damage effectiveness you lose). And yes, this should also force troll builds with (spell) block / ES regen / Tempest to actually use active attacks :P. Better game-play overall, if applied correctly, no endless hours on the trade chat looking for op 5L and 6L. More focus on the actual game. More focus on crafting stats and not links. A required change would be to make it harder for good mods to roll on items, because then, we will be full of items with big stats (items with good mods will be in demand, even with 4L-5L), so player builds will all be easily about equally powerful (that or reduce the drop rates of the crafting orbs a lot -- but at the same time making it easier to obtain a 5L or 6L --else such items would be extremely hard to find). In short, harder to craft mods, easier to craft 5-6L, lower drop rates of fusing / jeweller, higher drop rates of the orbs which are used for mods. Exalt and higher orb drop rates should be raised a little, to cover for the prices of items with good stats AND 5-6L, which are expected to increase, due to these changes. The economy will adjust itself, especially after the suggested increase in the drop rate of the Exalt and similar high orbs, by making a great 4L-6L item much more expensive than a "not-so-good" 6L (and an item with good mods and 5-6L much more expensive). This way, the "professional" farming community will be substantially reduced, leaving server room for actual players (crafting mods will be hard, but mod crafting orbs will be abundant; crafting links will be easy, thus jeweler / fuse drop rates low, but not so many people will need them, after these changes, so demand will be lower; items with good mods and 5-6L will increase in price, but so will the exalt drop rates). Another side effect of this, is it will make players make better use of the game mechanics (eg we have people linking elemental damage gems to skills with physical damage, without adding a penetration gem) and will also make less tiring to figure out very complicated 6L builds, keeping things simple and effective. On top of all these, a new set of support gems could be introduced, with damage effectiveness reduction penalty, like all other linked gems, but adding purely abilities, on top of the decreased DPS, adding versatility in builds. Which could potentially introduce a new standard in game-play and make excuse for the much increased price in items with good mods and 6L. These gems should have a restriction of one use (if you use such a gem, you will not be able to link another), so that the demand for 5L-6L keeps low, as described above, to support the entire concept. Existing gems, such as Block Chance Reduction, Life Leech and the portal gem, could be added to this group of gems. It will make players understand the game mechanics much better, because they will try to investigate what this group of gems does (for most, these gems are "just another support gem"). Will also make mechanics a bit more interesting and builds less op, since they will not be combined. To make things easier for players, all these gems should be white, which could be added on any socket, so these gems can be changed, according to the player's needs. Given that their requirements will be retained, on top of the white, they could have a subtle coloring of the stat they need (red for strength, green for dexterity, blue for intelligence).
The "Tabula Rasa" unique should bypass the reduced % damage effectiveness penalty per linked support gem. So could a few more interesting unique items, GGG or their support could create. White sockets should also bypass it. White sockets should also bypass the restriction of an ability gem, so you can use another one, if you have already put one on a white socket. Corrupting an item should provide a small chance to produce 2 white sockets, introducing a new Tier of very rare, godly items. The Artisan's bench should provide a white socket with high fee, only if the item is 5L-6L and with chance to break all links. Should not provide a 2nd, on top of an existing, white one.


- All arenas now are too small and with many obstacles, which gives an unfair advantage to kiting op builds. Area damage is hard on such arenas. An arena is supposed to an open place for competition, and, sure, there have to be lots of obstacles, corpses, etc, to support a build which uses them, but, right now, they are over-used. Having such arenas is ok, as long as the old, open arenas come back, so one can have a chance to play in such.

- The game engine needs to make transparent, everything in 3D (walls, trees, whatever), at least when the player is standing behind them (when this 3D art is in between the character and the player); because, in such a case, the game character is supposed to have a line of sight, yet us, controlling the character, do not.

- AoE damage feels buggy in some cases: For example, you can try casting a storm in a narrow corridor, next to which are walls or the end of the arena. Even though the storm could be cast in the line of sight and the range for casting is ok (it should, of course,cover only the corridor, in this example), just because you click out of the terrain or on the wall, it will not be cast.
Another thing is that some AoE skills do 3D damage and some not. For example, Explosive Arrow covers 3D space, during the explosion, thus it can hit someone standing on a platform, 2-3 meters high. Firestorm, even though not an explosion, it has an impact, however it only affects a target having a hit-box on the same level. An ARPG in this case should be focused more in "simple" rules, not so much in physics.


- Point of View field:
For the PvE content, it has been explained many times, why the camera is in such a low height, and most people agree (I do not; I believed it's more because the game engine cannot handle so easily more content). However, in PvP, things are much different. There are cases, in which you do have the skill range to attack with / cast a certain skill, but you lack the line of sight to attack / cast. This forces you to check the mini map, but doing this and having to target with the mouse, on the main arena terrain is not effective at all, because the half second you lose is very important. Not even trying to name-lock is effective. This gives an unfair advantage to kiting builds, mostly archers and Ice Stormers who have a huge AoE. And the 3D content is very little in arenas, so the game engine should handle just fine, with a larger PoV.

- Match making: Not good at all
* Why would someone want to play 100 times in a row against the same opponent, who he could kill or from whom he could be easily killed, when there do exist many other players waiting in the queue? Best-of-7 (rounds) was a somewhat good idea, but in many cases it becomes best-of-100,000. Sure, penalty ranking loss is reduced, after each unsuccessful match, but still, it's very annoying and discouraging.
* Match making between players with a high lvl difference should be less frequent. Low lvl players are discouraged, each time they are killed by hugely higher lvl players. Should not be forbidden, because entering the open PvP is a choice and comes with consequences, but should be less frequent. In the same way, match making between people with a big difference in their DPS or overall build quality, should be less frequent. Many players hit the 90 lvl mark relatively fast and think they can compete against same lvl player who develop their character for 1-2 years or more; and when they get owned easily, they accuse the PvP as broken and almost never join again, not taking into account the actual game depth and the amount of work it takes, in order to make a decent build. How this difference can be calculated: a character can have a total of points, as a hidden statistic, based on his DPS, defenses and overall stats, his achievement, his PvP ranking and the no of matches won / lost, the number of high Tier maps he has cleared and so on.
* There are many cases in which the game fails to find a match. I have, many times, joined with many friends, from the same country, the PvP queue. The queue system made us wait for 4 to 10+ minutes, only to fight someone else. I'm not sure what algorithms are used there, but they are less than effective.
* Match making needs to be more clever: the system should be able to find opponents of similar power, gradually progressing to more op players, so the player feels more satisfied and less discouraged. Not that frequently, match make him against more op players, so he can have an incentive and opportunity. Point rewards should be much less against lower players and much more against op.
* The more times in a row you beat an evidently more op player, the point system should give you more ranking points and not less (this does not contradict previous arguments: if a lesser player beats a much more op player, then he can be matched against him again; if not, then reduce the chance of matching again.). The more times you kill a lesser player, the system should give you gradually less, down to 0.
* The more times you play against a specific player, in a given time-frame (day or week), the chance to meet him again should become less. Even if you are just the 2 of you online, in the queue.


- PvP-only gear, crafted from Leo, with special stats. Or 1-2 additional crafted mods, on certain equipment, which will only work in PvP. Also a total max No of PvP crafted mods, on all the equipment (so, for example, you can have only a total of 3-4 PvP crafted mods working, on all your equipment). Crafting such mods should count the total of the PvP-crafted mods in the inventory and stash, to define this limit (not craft a mod, if you have a total of 3-4 in stash and inventory). In the same way, forbid getting items from trade, which include such mods, when you have reached the limit already in the inventory and stash. Same for picking up, if a friend drops them in a map. Leo is an arena master and he gives you crafted mods for what? For PvE? Omg...


- Lack of overall architecture and incentives:
* Give us a PvP lobby, like the old Battlenet. So players can "log in", check at least the players in the lobbies (lobbies could also be categorized per class or whatever), perhaps see the stats and the lvl of all other players and invite a player of their choice for PvP. You can have such lobbies count for the PvP ladder or not. We do have the Sarn Arena, but the lag there is humongous and discourages players. The european players prefer to play on the US arena, more frequently.
* Frequent PvP races, 1 match elimination Cup or other tournaments (with rewards --diminishing rewards, if the same people win over and over) would be nice.
* PvP Hall Of Fame and PvP achievements: Sure we have the seasonal ladders. But do we know who was #1 a year ago, do we have the final top #20 of all seasons so far, do we know who has stayed the most time on the top #20, who has finished in the top #20 in the most seasonal ladders, who has killed the most players with a big lvl difference in his career, and so on? No.
* Perhaps grant the ability to the players who have a certain total No of PvP achievements to win a place in the "Hall of Grandmasters" map. Don't make this standard, though: Pick, once per year, the players with the most PvP achievement points and make them fight in elimination Cup. He who wins, wins a place on the map.

- And finally, the worst thing in PvP is the community in these threads, bashing PvP and discouraging new players from joining and competing, because they give negative advertisement, instead of doing the math and trying harder.

Very few builds can slap on a gem set up at will and down a troll tank build that won't engage you. Melee is not going to kill anyone with traps, spells and barely gets sufficient damage from bow swaps to use as a secondary versus normal players.
Only casters and bow users have this option where its viable...yet don't need it in the first place.
So you're wrong, but go ahead and show me otherwise.

Maths done my friend, trying every option for viability is done my friend. All that's left is facts to be ignored and threads that mirror other peoples comments from the past as if they just thought of it. You keep crunching those numbers though just dont forget to come back to your post when it doesn't work out like the rest of the ppl that thought they had it figured out.

"

aryosgr wrote:

Jesus christ dude cut your text a bit, ease the task for GGG, i dont even want to read it myself.

"

MullaXul wrote:

Very few builds can slap on a gem set up at will and down a troll tank build that won't engage you. Melee is not going to kill anyone with traps, spells and barely gets sufficient damage from bow swaps to use as a secondary versus normal players.
Only casters and bow users have this option where its viable...yet don't need it in the first place.
So you're wrong, but go ahead and show me otherwise.

Maths done my friend, trying every option for viability is done my friend. All that's left is facts to be ignored and threads that mirror other peoples comments from the past as if they just thought of it. You keep crunching those numbers though just dont forget to come back to your post when it doesn't work out like the rest of the ppl that thought they had it figured out.

Mulla i understand why you think people are saying what has been said and done many times, however its not by sitting there and thinking that GGG will actually scroll tru the old threads that things are going to change. We both know they are not going to go recheck all these dead threads full of biased feedback. Which is why i created my newest thread about compiling every balance data into a single one. Its really simple and will keep everything together and GGG wont have to search for hours to find what they wanna see. PvP Feedback is good, but we need more than that since most of the feedback gets bypassed by new patches and the feedback is now biased/non up to date. I suggest you put up your main post in my thread and start compiling data there instead.

.

Leo rewards (including his HO) are for people invested in pvp. Pve players should understand that and stop begging for help. I don't race yet I don't cry on the forum because I can't get the racers rewards, this is exactly the same thing here.

But I agree Leo is really bad for pvp right now, I would like him removed and his mods scattered between the other masters to end this endless wav of crying carebears invading sarn every day.

.

See the main problem is those player think Leo is a regular master. He is NOT. He is something pvp dedicated (he doesn't even take a master slot) created for the pvp crowd. He is NOT designed for pve players, yet you guys endlessly come to sarn without even trying to do the daily, usually insulting pvp players because you think you deserve the be handle the daily either by begging for a couple of kill or to be left alone in dedicated FFA arena and you get crazy when we refuse.

My main problem is that those people don't even express a bit of interest for pvp, they just want the reward without even playing the game. Like I said, why should I be rewarded with race rewards when I don't race ? Why should I get the uber drop when i can't kill her. Seems fair right ? So why should you get pvp rewards without even trying ?

And your example about other master is non relevent, i can do either pve AND pvp so it's perfectly ok for me to be able to level them all at the difference of players who can't (don't want mostly) pvp. I don't beg for someone to clear my Haku or kill my Vorici target. Master sharing is also a bad example, cooperation is a basic of pve, competition is the basic of pvp. You don't see athletes cooperate to win the Olympics in a race or duel right ?

If you guys were at least a bit interested, the pvp crowd would be way nicer. You blame pvp players for killing you, you should blame all your other little friends who days after days come to sarn insulting us for doing what those place are designed for.

I truly hate Leo's dailys like most PvP players and PvE players, GGG devs probably had good intentions when they created him but it turned out to be a really bad mess and the best move for both crowd would be to remove him.