RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Because if you killed that other player, they might drop 20 Gold, 15 Lumber, and 15 Food. Killing that player might reap far faster rewards than roaming the zone and gathering more resources. If you think you can win a fight, why would you not attack them, especially if you already capped 25 resources.

The numbers are irrelevant for your argument. Let's say you do tons of analytics and calculate node placement, respawn rates, and travel times to produce a system in which honor gained via resource farming is roughly on par with battlegrounds, to attract players and bring them out into the world. In this system with competitive honor rewards for your event, any PvP you do during the event is icing which will further increase your honor gain, making this world PvP event a lucrative one.

In this ideal world PvP scenario, it is still sub-optimal and unfun because the primary focus is not PvP, it's resource gathering. The PvP is a side-mission to the honor-gaining mechanic.

You are trying to PvE-ify PvP. Stop. Playing with the numbers to make PvP "Integral" to your PvE resource event just moves the needle, but doesn't change the underlying format of the event - collect stuff, receive rewards. This doesn't work, has been proven not to work in multiple MMOs, including WoW, and isn't a new concept.

How about you just institute a larger honor gain for Honorable kills, with a greater penalty for killing the same player repeatedly, and increasing values for killing a variety of players? This encourages large bands of players seeking each other out and discourages corpse-camping. Additionally, have the faction leaders power be buffed but add very large honor gains for killing them, encourages city raids which are always good content.

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

World PvP happens organically...

This, organically! Adding objectives in the world, would not improve world pvp or make it any better, it would probably make it worst because you will feel like you need to do it as opposed to just having fun, wreaking havoc on the opposite faction, and having it organically happen. Back then faction hatred felt real to me! it sometimes ended in an out right war! and nothing was accomplished besides having tons of fun!!

When I or with friends wanted to world pvp it wasn't to gain Honor points or progress my character by turning in things to get gear...It was to make someones day a living hell lol

I mean world pvp starts with someone one ganking someone whether the same level or not and the other side retaliates.
In Vanilla helping your brothers out was something you did, you participated in some world pvp and it was glorious!

Frosted wrote: ↑

5 years ago

The numbers are irrelevant for your argument. Let's say you do tons of analytics and calculate node placement, respawn rates, and travel times to produce a system in which honor gained via resource farming is roughly on par with battlegrounds, to attract players and bring them out into the world. In this system with competitive honor rewards for your event, any PvP you do during the event is icing which will further increase your honor gain, making this world PvP event a lucrative one.

In this ideal world PvP scenario, it is still sub-optimal and unfun because the primary focus is not PvP, it's resource gathering. The PvP is a side-mission to the honor-gaining mechanic.

You are trying to PvE-ify PvP. Stop. Playing with the numbers to make PvP "Integral" to your PvE resource event just moves the needle, but doesn't change the underlying format of the event - collect stuff, receive rewards. This doesn't work, has been proven not to work in multiple MMOs, including WoW, and isn't a new concept.

You have to create objectives to split up players, otherwise the bigger group will just dominate. The Resource Battlezone system provides these objectives. Players care about honor. If they are repeatedly getting stomped by premades in WSG, then they can collect resources at their own peril in a Battlezone. It is an alternative way to farm honor. It can be a limited event, which is only active a few times a day. You kill playerd and loot their resources. That is an element of Battlezones.

Frosted wrote: ↑

5 years ago

How about you just institute a larger honor gain for Honorable kills, with a greater penalty for killing the same player repeatedly, and increasing values for killing a variety of players? This encourages large bands of players seeking each other out and discourages corpse-camping. Additionally, have the faction leaders power be buffed but add very large honor gains for killing them, encourages city raids which are always good content.

I agree Honor in World PvP should be increased, but you need a carrot to bring players to the zones. The point is to create more small scale PvP involving level 60 players, as well as introduce a loot pvp mechanic. I am aware that Blizzard's World PvP objectives failed, but that doesn't mean Battlezones will. Offer specifics and shortcomings of Battlezones.

Nyxt wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

World PvP happens organically...

This, organically! Adding objectives in the world, would not improve world pvp or make it any better, it would probably make it worst because you will feel like you need to do it as opposed to just having fun, wreaking havoc on the opposite faction, and having it organically happen. Back then faction hatred felt real to me! it sometimes ended in an out right war! and nothing was accomplished besides having tons of fun!!

When I or with friends wanted to world pvp it wasn't to gain Honor points or progress my character by turning in things to get gear...It was to make someones day a living hell lol

I mean world pvp starts with someone one ganking someone whether the same level or not and the other side retaliates.
In Vanilla helping your brothers out was something you did, you participated in some world pvp and it was glorious!

That is just not reality once battlegrounds are released. Don't be surprised if player mentality is different now. Sitting in Orgrimmar spamming crossrealm battlegrounds will be what players do. Battlezones give players an alternative for ranking up, while adding a twist to World PvP.

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Nyxt wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

World PvP happens organically...

This, organically! Adding objectives in the world, would not improve world pvp or make it any better, it would probably make it worst because you will feel like you need to do it as opposed to just having fun, wreaking havoc on the opposite faction, and having it organically happen. Back then faction hatred felt real to me! it sometimes ended in an out right war! and nothing was accomplished besides having tons of fun!!

When I or with friends wanted to world pvp it wasn't to gain Honor points or progress my character by turning in things to get gear...It was to make someones day a living hell lol

I mean world pvp starts with someone one ganking someone whether the same level or not and the other side retaliates.
In Vanilla helping your brothers out was something you did, you participated in some world pvp and it was glorious!

That is just not reality once battlegrounds are released. Don't be surprised if player mentality is different now. Sitting in Orgrimmar spamming crossrealm battlegrounds will be what players do. Battlezones give players an alternative for ranking up, while adding a twist to World PvP.

Battlegrounds killed world PvP?

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

That is just not reality once battlegrounds are released.

I disagree, it may be different this time around but i believe people will still recreate the glory of world pvp even after battlegrounds are released

This was not the case on our server in vanilla.
My friend did the grind to Rank 14 and he would still world pvped all the time (before, during and after he got rank 14).
To rank up and get honor, yes, people went to battlegrounds but like i said world pvp wasn't about that.

It was about having fun and messing with the other faction!
Causing trouble!
Ganking their alts!
Starting a war!

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Sitting in Orgrimmar spamming crossrealm battlegrounds will be what players do.

I think you underestimate why people are coming back to vanilla and what they want to recreate.
You have a Retail mentality, and yes that will bleed into classic but it wont infect the majority and take over...

Nyxt wrote: ↑

5 years ago

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Sitting in Orgrimmar spamming crossrealm battlegrounds will be what players do.

I think you underestimate why people are coming back to vanilla and what they want to recreate.
You have a Retail mentality, and yes that will bleed into classic but it wont infect the majority and take over...

In patch 1.12 that was literally what happened.

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

You have to create objectives to split up players, otherwise the bigger group will just dominate. The Resource Battlezone system provides these objectives. Players care about honor. If they are repeatedly getting stomped by premades in WSG, then they can collect resources at their own peril in a Battlezone. It is an alternative way to farm honor. It can be a limited event, which is only active a few times a day. You kill playerd and loot their resources. That is an element of Battlezones.

Let's pretend you devise mechanics in which all of the above works as you hope: players do the content in small groups, as a limited time event - or not, whatever you prefer - In the end, the players are really just focused on the resource gathering. Given the opportunity, they would exclusively gather the resources and not PvP, as the resources generate more honor/hour than HK farming. If the resource gathering doesn't generate enough honor/hour on its own to compete with battlegrounds, it'll be a ghost town. If the mechanic is only competitive while there are other players to kill, it'll be a ghost town, as it never reaches critical mass again after the initial release of the event.

The battlezone mechanic is an unfun impediment to the actual goal, PvP.

If you make it so that the resources are only harvest-able from other players, and not the world, that would potentially solve the gamesmanship, but we already do that. The turn in for that 'quest' is the pvp quartermaster and the resource is honor.

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I agree Honor in World PvP should be increased, but you need a carrot to bring players to the zones. The point is to create more small scale PvP involving level 60 players, as well as introduce a loot pvp mechanic. I am aware that Blizzard's World PvP objectives failed, but that doesn't mean Battlezones will. Offer specifics and shortcomings of Battlezones.

I did. The concept of the 'carrot' you're offering in your battlezone model is not fun - it's about as fun as daily quests. It becomes an 'obligation' to play the game your way to optimize your time. Adding incentives or structure to WPvP breaks down the model, it doesn't shore it up. People will play to the objective and min/max the pvp component to optimize time, not fun. We have that scenario in Retail already.

No combination of world pvp objectives besides "bad guys over there, kill them for sport" increases the fun. Battlegrounds give structured objectives, which allows for people to put an endpoint on their playtime. World PvP events are best enjoyed as 'unending' situations that occur organically without structure.

Frosted wrote: ↑

5 years ago

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

You have to create objectives to split up p0layers, otherwise the bigger group will just dominate. The Resource Battlezone system provides these objectives. Players care about honor. If they are repeatedly getting stomped by premades in WSG, then they can collect resources at their own peril in a Battlezone. It is an alternative way to farm honor. It can be a limited event, which is only active a few times a day. You kill playerd and loot their resources. That is an element of Battlezones.

Let's pretend you devise mechanics in which all of the above works as you hope: players do the content in small groups, as a limited time event - or not, whatever you prefer - In the end, the players are really just focused on the resource gathering. Given the opportunity, they would exclusively gather the resources and not PvP, as the resources generate more honor/hour than HK farming. If the resource gathering doesn't generate enough honor/hour on its own to compete with battlegrounds, it'll be a ghost town. If the mechanic is only competitive while there are other players to kill, it'll be a ghost town, as it never reaches critical mass again after the initial release of the event.

The battlezone mechanic is an unfun impediment to the actual goal, PvP.

If you make it so that the resources are only harvest-able from other players, and not the world, that would potentially solve the gamesmanship, but we already do that. The turn in for that 'quest' is the pvp quartermaster and the resource is honor.

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I agree Honor in World PvP should be increased, but you need a carrot to bring players to the zones. The point is to create more small scale PvP involving level 60 players, as well as introduce a loot pvp mechanic. I am aware that Blizzard's World PvP objectives failed, but that doesn't mean Battlezones will. Offer specifics and shortcomings of Battlezones.

I did. The concept of the 'carrot' you're offering in your battlezone model is not fun - it's about as fun as daily quests. It becomes an 'obligation' to play the game your way to optimize your time. Adding incentives or structure to WPvP breaks down the model, it doesn't shore it up. People will play to the objective and min/max the pvp component to optimize time, not fun. We have that scenario in Retail already.

No combination of world pvp objectives besides "bad guys over there, kill them for sport" increases the fun. Battlegrounds give structured objectives, which allows for people to put an endpoint on their playtime. World PvP events are best enjoyed as 'unending' situations that occur organically without structure.

I outlined reasons why players would choose to PvP in Battlezones. If you had little to no resources, you could loot another player and take theirs. Everytime you cap 10 resources and receive the honor bonus, you would reset at 0 and be inclined to gank somebody who might be closer to 10 resources. Ganking and looting other players would be a viable playstyle in a Battlezone. You act as though Horde and Alliance will just ignore eachother, when killing another player could more than double your resources.

The battlezone honor rewards could be better than battlegrounds, but would only be available a few times a day. You also have to recognize that most players do not have access to premade honor farming groups. This way to farm honor isn't even available to most players, which is why they might be encouraged to play a battlezone.

The reason why World PvP happens is that players have non-PvP reasons to be in zones. They are leveling, farming materials, doing quests etc.. The resource mechanic in battlezones offers players another reason to leave capital cities. Roam and collect resources for honor, at the risk of being ganked and losing it all. What are some forseeable flaws with the Winterspring Battlezone listed above?

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

In patch 1.12 that was literally what happened.

Not sure how much vanilla you actually played or even played on a PVE server...?
You are acting like battlegrounds and crossrealm killed world pvp to a point all zones were a ghost town and none were happening...
World PVP on our server started dying halfway through TBC, not in vanilla

Like I said this was not my experience on my server in vanilla (PVP server), even when crossrealm came out, world pvp was still happening.
I know this because our guild would participate in it all the time even when we were doing naxx. And we were doing naxx right before tbc came out so we were still doing it. We would do this before every raid and just camp Blackrock Mountain, sometimes we would get alot of action sometimes not so much.

Like I said your bringing retail mentality over into classic, i definitely did BGs and spam the queues, but I also went out in the world when farming and with friends to stir things up with the other faction by ganking the horde.

EDIT: Crossrealm pvp may have hurt pvp in general because when you queued up for a battleground you would know the opposing players but crossrealm made it so, you may never see these people again or recognize them at all. You couldn't see them outside of the battleground which was a big turn off to some people, it was to me. I would rather have longer queues but thats me. But it sure didnt kill world pvp, the statement i would always hear is....flying killed world pvp.

WPvP just felt more about faction pride and sticking it to the enemy than doing it for Honor. That’s why it occurred naturally and spread organically throughout the game.
Not everything have to be about gaining honor when it comes to PvP and that is exactly how it was, right?

So why change it? It’s a fundamental part of what it is.

Nyxt wrote: ↑

5 years ago

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

In patch 1.12 that was literally what happened.

Not sure how much vanilla you actually played or even played on a PVE server...?
You are acting like battlegrounds and crossrealm killed world pvp to a point all zones were a ghost town and none were happening...
World PVP on our server started dying halfway through TBC, not in vanilla

Like I said this was not my experience on my server in vanilla (PVP server), even when crossrealm came out, world pvp was still happening.
I know this because our guild would participate in it all the time even when we were doing naxx. And we were doing naxx right before tbc came out so we were still doing it. We would do this before every raid and just camp Blackrock Mountain, sometimes we would get alot of action sometimes not so much.

Like I said your bringing retail mentality over into classic, i definitely did BGs and spam the queues, but I also went out in the world when farming and with friends to stir things up with the other faction by ganking the horde.

EDIT: Crossrealm pvp may have hurt pvp in general because when you queued up for a battleground you would know the opposing players but crossrealm made it so, you may never see these people again or recognize them at all. You couldn't see them outside of the battleground which was a big turn off to some people, it was to me. I would rather have longer queues but thats me. But it sure didnt kill world pvp, the statement i would always hear is....flying killed world pvp.

Crossrealm bgs did a lot of bad. You played against randoms from other realms. It also made queue times much faster, which meant players would do less World PvP as queues would frequently pop. You used to have to run to thr battleground entrance, which also helped promote world pvp. Classic is offering a battleground experience that is similar to Retail.

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

WPvP just felt more about faction pride and sticking it to the enemy than doing it for Honor. That’s why it occurred naturally and spread organically throughout the game.
Not everything have to be about gaining honor when it comes to PvP and that is exactly how it was, right?

So why change it? It’s a fundamental part of what it is.

Because it is 15 years later and players want to be rewarded. I am just being realistic. Battlezones are a new PvP mechanic that intends to add a new layer to World PvP.

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

WPvP just felt more about faction pride and sticking it to the enemy than doing it for Honor. That’s why it occurred naturally and spread organically throughout the game.
Not everything have to be about gaining honor when it comes to PvP and that is exactly how it was, right?

So why change it? It’s a fundamental part of what it is.

Because it is 15 years later and players want to be rewarded. I am just being realistic. Battlezones are a new PvP mechanic that intends to add a new layer to World PvP.

Nothing affirms that we need new layers to WPvP in vanilla. If anything, everything that’s been tried have shown the opposite.

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

WPvP just felt more about faction pride and sticking it to the enemy than doing it for Honor. That’s why it occurred naturally and spread organically throughout the game.
Not everything have to be about gaining honor when it comes to PvP and that is exactly how it was, right?

So why change it? It’s a fundamental part of what it is.

Because it is 15 years later and players want to be rewarded. I am just being realistic. Battlezones are a new PvP mechanic that intends to add a new layer to World PvP.

Nothing affirms that we need new layers to WPvP in vanilla. If anything, everything that’s been tried have shown the opposite.

They added the world pvp objectives, because world pvp was dying out in Classic.

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

WPvP just felt more about faction pride and sticking it to the enemy than doing it for Honor. That’s why it occurred naturally and spread organically throughout the game.
Not everything have to be about gaining honor when it comes to PvP and that is exactly how it was, right?

So why change it? It’s a fundamental part of what it is.

Because it is 15 years later and players want to be rewarded. I am just being realistic. Battlezones are a new PvP mechanic that intends to add a new layer to World PvP.

Nothing affirms that we need new layers to WPvP in vanilla. If anything, everything that’s been tried have shown the opposite.

They added the world pvp objectives, because world pvp was dying out in Classic.

But the objectives like Silithus didn’t work, and I’ve not seen any facts about Vanilla WPvP dying either except people’s personal anecdotes.

You are trolling, but I don't mind. I'll pick this apart step by step for the benefit of anyone else reading the thread who is making a good-faith attempt at improving their understanding of MMO Game Design concepts.

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

I outlined reasons why players would choose to PvP in Battlezones. If you had little to no resources, you could loot another player and take theirs. Everytime you cap 10 resources and receive the honor bonus, you would reset at 0 and be inclined to gank somebody who might be closer to 10 resources. Ganking and looting other players would be a viable playstyle in a Battlezone. You act as though Horde and Alliance will just ignore eachother, when killing another player could more than double your resources.

• Being inclined to gank someone to take their stuff - without any indicator of potential reward, you're likely to see players focus their time on collecting for guaranteed rewards rather than ganking for potential rewards. This is the classic scenario of "would you rather have a 100% chance to receive 5 dollars or a 5% chance to receive 100 dollars?" - at some point the ROI on ganking might make sense (say, hanging out near the opposing faction turn-in, which would in theory be frequented by targets with full loads) but the majority of your players will be out farming resources.
• The time it takes to go find someone to gank, gank them, then get back to your own turnin without being ganked yourself will have to be less than the time it takes to farm the resources from nodes: this is extremely difficult to implement, because the time to identify a player and kill them is so variable, particularly if the area is in a low-traffic zone for non-participating players.
• Horde and Alliance will absolutely ignore each other in any resource-gathering battlezone, carrot incentives or not - some portion of people in the zone will be trying to complete other objectives, and others will only want to do one cycle and then be on their way, and not stick around. Your math about 'more than doubling your resources' doesn't make any sense, and is generally irrelevant to your overall model.

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

The battlezone honor rewards could be better than battlegrounds, but would only be available a few times a day. You also have to recognize that most players do not have access to premade honor farming groups. This way to farm honor isn't even available to most players, which is why they might be encouraged to play a battlezone.

• An infrequently available event drives player interaction down, not up, due to server population fluctuations and competition for other events. If it's during server primetime, some portion of people will be raiding, doing organized PvP, etc, driving down involvement. If it's during off-peak hours, the ceiling of player population is lower, driving down involvement. An occasional event would need to have dramatically greater rewards than other content to drive involvement, but then you have a significant 'unfun' mechanic - making players feel that they are not 'optimizing their time' if they don't play your event. This is the issue with daily quests, and it results in a short-term increase of player activity at the expense of long-term subscriber retention. It's a really bad idea for long-term server health.
• Organized honor farming or not only changes the threshold at which this event is worthwhile to the players - I don't care about that. I'm arguing that this even shouldn't exist at all, regardless of its value in comparison to other activities. it's just a straight up bad idea, and you keep ignoring that when people point it out.

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

The reason why World PvP happens is that players have non-PvP reasons to be in zones. They are leveling, farming materials, doing quests etc.. The resource mechanic in battlezones offers players another reason to leave capital cities. Roam and collect resources for honor, at the risk of being ganked and losing it all. What are some forseeable flaws with the Winterspring Battlezone listed above?

• Your model makes players feel bad if they don't participate in your event, because you're trying to make the potential rewards competitive with another activity through artificial mechanics. This is not fun.
• Your model abstracts combat and turns it into a PvE-able activity, which is not what PvPers are looking for. Examine the mechanics of battlegrounds:
  Warsong Gulch: Get the enemy's flag, bring it to your flag. Kill anyone in the way to ensure your flag is available.
  Arathi Basin: Control zones. Kill anyone in the way to ensure the zone is controlled.
  Alterac Valley: Kill the enemy NPC. Kill anyone trying to protect the enemy NPC.
  Your model, Winterspring Battlezone: Collect resources. Kill anyone trying to collect resources to collect even more resources.
  The difference here is that the battleground objectives explicitly involve killing the opposing faction to achieve. In all 3 of the BG's above, the objectives could be achieved non-violently, but they are zero-sum games - one side cannot achieve their objective unless it comes at the expense of the other. Your battlezone is not zero-sum, and therefore inevitably players will attempt to game-ify it via collusion.
• Your model relies on players engaging in riskier behavior than battlegrounds ("risking it all vs. sitting in cities") and is therefore a significantly worse choice to players who are risk-averse. As being risk-averse in inherent to human nature, this drives down player involvement in your battlezone. The rewards would have to be out of sync with battlegrounds to overcome this, which brings up the first issue from this particular list.

In short, your idea is terrible. World PvP structures are best left unstructured. The most fun happens from player-generated events and content: city raids, camping low-level towns, stalking high-traffic areas like instance portals and so on. Designing a persistent game with a world PvP facet has been tried by many and few have met success. Your approach is not new and is firmly placed into the 'failures of history' category. Please stop.

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

RedridgeGnoll wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

WPvP just felt more about faction pride and sticking it to the enemy than doing it for Honor. That’s why it occurred naturally and spread organically throughout the game.
Not everything have to be about gaining honor when it comes to PvP and that is exactly how it was, right?

So why change it? It’s a fundamental part of what it is.

Because it is 15 years later and players want to be rewarded. I am just being realistic. Battlezones are a new PvP mechanic that intends to add a new layer to World PvP.

Nothing affirms that we need new layers to WPvP in vanilla. If anything, everything that’s been tried have shown the opposite.

They added the world pvp objectives, because world pvp was dying out in Classic.

But the objectives like Silithus didn’t work, and I’ve not seen any facts about Vanilla WPvP dying either except people’s personal anecdotes.

I know the Silithus one did not work. I went into detail why it was flawed. Battlezones seek to fix the flaws with the original system. Some players don't realize how popular loot pvp can be if implemented properly.

Frosted wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Being inclined to gank someone to take their stuff - without any indicator of potential reward, you're likely to see players focus their time on collecting for guaranteed rewards rather than ganking for potential rewards. This is the classic scenario of "would you rather have a 100% chance to receive 5 dollars or a 5% chance to receive 100 dollars?" - at some point the ROI on ganking might make sense (say, hanging out near the opposing faction turn-in, which would in theory be frequented by targets with full loads) but the majority of your players will be out farming resources

First of all, Battlezones do not have turn-in locations. This is one mechanic I would change from the Silithus system. Once you gather 10 resources you automatically receive the honor bonus and your total resets. This way you don't have players just camp the routes to the turn-in npcs. Interesting question though, let's say there was an indicator showing how much of a resource you had?

Frosted wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Horde and Alliance will absolutely ignore each other in any resource-gathering battlezone, carrot incentives or not - some portion of people in the zone will be trying to complete other objectives, and others will only want to do one cycle and then be on their way, and not stick around. Your math about 'more than doubling your resources' doesn't make any sense, and is generally irrelevant to your overall model.

How can you outright claim this? You can literally gank other players in a Battlezone and loot their resources. You could be at 1 resource, kill an enemy and loot 9 resources, and then receive an honor bonus. There are so many scenarios where players would be incentivized to initiate combat.

Frosted wrote: ↑

5 years ago

An infrequently available event drives player interaction down, not up, due to server population fluctuations and competition for other events. If it's during server primetime, some portion of people will be raiding, doing organized PvP, etc, driving down involvement. If it's during off-peak hours, the ceiling of player population is lower, driving down involvement.

That is fair concern, but Battlezones are an additional PvP mode. You act as though the 24/7 premade BG grinding is healthy for the game. 5 minute battlegrounds will be a thing, where premade 5 cap AB or 3 cap WSG in a few minutes. Battlezones give players an alternative to farming battlegrounds. Not everyone has the goal of reaching rank 14 using premades.

Frosted wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Your battlezone is not zero-sum, and therefore inevitably players will attempt to game-ify it via collusion.

The whole point of this thread is to point out flaws. What kind of collusion specifically?

Frosted wrote: ↑

5 years ago

behavior than battlegrounds ("risking it all vs. sitting in cities") and is therefore a significantly worse choice to players who are risk-averse. As being risk-averse in inherent to human nature, this drives down player involvement in your battlezone.

The risk/reward that Battlezones offer is what makes it enjoyable for many players.

Frosted wrote: ↑

5 years ago

In short, your idea is terrible. World PvP structures are best left unstructured. The most fun happens from player-generated events and content: city raids, camping low-level towns, stalking high-traffic areas like instance portals and so on. Designing a persistent game with a world PvP facet has been tried by many and few have met success.

Crossrealm battlegrounds change that. The "fun" dies out when players choose to do Warsong Weekend nonstop instead. The point of Battlezones is provide and alternative to BGs, which are focused on small scale PvP. I agree MMORPG World PvP has never be done well. World of Warcraft actually had some of the better world pvp, because players were incentivized to populate zones for reasons other than pvp.

@RedridgeGnoll how do you learn from your mistakes in other aspects of your life? I'm so curious how you learned the difference between hot and cold...

As a child touching hot water...
Ow... hot. I'll try again.
Ow... still hot. I'll try again.
Ow... hot
Ow, this water is still hot. Maybe if I stick my hand in again...
Ow, hot.
Ow, still hot...

Your mother must have had the patience of a saint. Its as if you don't learn... Either you are incapable of learning or you are intentionally being intellectually dishonest to protect your own ideas. Originally I thought you were trolling because your ideas were so poorly thought out, but given your post history and the clear effort and quantity of thought (completely separate of quality of thought) you have put into each of your posts I think we have ruled that out at this point. Either way, I pity you.

This idea has failed repeatedly. As outlined by everyone here. This idea is not new. This is a failed idea. Implementing a failed idea is not wise. Learn from your mistakes... Learn from the mistakes others have made.

Though, you do make for some good content when we are in a post drought! The quality is questionable, but it gets us all to post and while most of us cant agree on much, we all seem to find common ground in dismissing your outlandish ideas. In many ways, you have made the rest of us closer.

Not quite sure it has been mentioned since there has been some long a** posts in this topic.

"Battlezone" is also counter incentive for me. I don't want to have to go to a certain place for PvP. That's what WPvP
is all about. Being out questing, farming or whatever you are doing and suddenly you spot the opposing faction and you
go in for a kill. From there shit usually escalates and it turns into a minor scale war.

Or just being attacked by opposing faction, retaliate and suddenly you look at the clock and it has been 2 hours and all you wanted
to do was farm some herbs. Getting lost in PvP is the best feeling ever, it should happen "naturally".

No timers, no resources, no specific rendezvous, just RAW SLAUGHTER.

I wouldn't want to have a specific time or place to make sweet love to my partner,
would feel like "I had to". It should come naturally, in the heat of the moment.

"Make Love, Not Warcraft" - In natural World PvP you can do both!

Erik wrote: ↑

5 years ago

"Battlezone" is also counter incentive for me. I don't want to have to go to a certain place for PvP. That's what WPvP
is all about. Being out questing, farming or whatever you are doing and suddenly you spot the opposing faction and you
go in for a kill. From there shit usually escalates and it turns into a minor scale war.

Exactly! Which is based on good game design. That item or mob that you are farming is desirable (both for PvE AND for PvP players). That item is an instigator that causes conflict. Whether its an essence off of an elemental, some mining/herb nodes, a rare mob or simply some cloth, you will be incentivized to fight for control over that resource. The ensuing fight that you experience is REAL. It is not some arbitrary fight for an item that's sole purpose is to incentivize the fight itself... No. This guy is taking something valuable and you end up having a REAL altercation for that resource. Silithus sand is the sterile version of this system that already exists... You dont need to collect sand and have potential for pretend fights when the world already offers copious opportunities for real fights over real resources that really matter. This system will also attract BOTH types of players... The PvE player and the PvP player who just wants to get their resource and get back to town, now both are forced into confrontation. This also creates a social dynamic where players need to make decisions. Do I kill the guy? Do I settle for 1/2 of the resource and allow him to take the other half? Real decisions based on real resources that are actually valuable. The PvP that ensues will impact the competition for these items which then serves to impact the value of these items and in doing so all of these little "minor scale wars" will have a greater impact on the economy as a whole. Everything is connected. Collecting piles of sand is not. Collecting piles of sand is not necessary because there are already systems in place that incentivize world PvP and would be more effective. Unless they make sand collection MORE effective than farming premades, in which case they have bigger issues and would be taking the game down an entirely different path.

Blizz did a great job in creating world conflict. Take rare resources, spread them throughout the world to spread out the playerbase and then fix players on the ground and force them through bottleneck areas to incentivize conflict for players who were competing for that resource or mob.

Erik wrote: ↑

5 years ago

No timers, no resources, no specific rendezvous, just RAW SLAUGHTER.

Raw. Unfiltered and real.

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

In many ways, you have made the rest of us closer.

Alliance and Horde comes together to save classic from bad PvP features:)

Tec wrote: ↑

5 years ago

Stfuppercut wrote: ↑

5 years ago

In many ways, you have made the rest of us closer.

Alliance and Horde comes together to save classic from bad PvP features:)

Sometimes there is a threat so great that we must forget our own differences for a short time. A threat that could potentially change the world as we know it...

@RedridgeGnoll IS the catacylsm.