User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

The idea is to implement a massive level 60 zone where the Horde and Alliance battle over objectives. Similar to Alterac Valley, only it would not be instanced, but rather an open world battleground. Sort of a mix of open world + battlegrounds. Anyone could enter during the battle. Instead of the constant ganking of level 50 players in leveling zones, what if there was a zone bigger than the Barrens where level 60s could fight without chokepoints.

The Alliance and Horde would each have bases at the entrance of the Frontiers. From there they would roam the zone looking for objectives to complete and enemies to kill. Smallgroup and solo play would be incentivized, similar to how it is in Arena. Players would be encouraged to roam in small groups, but there would be large scale objectives for large groups as well. There would be more diminishing returns for each additional player in a group. Roaming as a zerg would be discouraged, and unlike Alterac Valley, players would be rewarded substantially for killing enemies and completing minor objectives.

The objectives in the Frontier would be varied and spread out. Capture points, collection tasks, treasure chests etc.. Players would be rewarded with contribution points for completing objectives. These contribution points would be converted to honor at the end of a Frontier Battle. The more an individual player contributes, the more honor they would receive. The Frontier would heavily reward players on an individual level. The intention is to limit and mitigate zerging. Once one realm earns enough Frontier Score the battle ends and a new one begins. Each player is then awarded honor based on their contribution.

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
The idea is to implement a massive level 60 zone where the Horde and Alliance battle over objectives.
So no balance? Star wars the old republic did this and it killed the game. This magnifies faction imbalance and incentivizes players to roll on overpopulated factions for easy wins. Because this is open world, and is a PvE mode that rewards PvP honor, the entire system is inevitably going to be bad. You dont need the other faction to be competitive or to have people attend the BG to get rewarded. Players will swarm and rip the BG apart like locusts on one faction and the other faction wont attend.

This idea seems similar... No. Exactly the same as your geyser idea, youve just changed the location. I see you've also done a throwback adding in "treasure chests". Another of your ideas... haha.

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
The idea is to implement a massive level 60 zone where the Horde and Alliance battle over objectives.
So no balance? Star wars the old republic did this and it killed the game. This magnifies faction imbalance and incentivizes players to roll on overpopulated factions for easy wins. Because this is open world, and is a PvE mode that rewards PvP honor, the entire system is inevitably going to be bad. You dont need the other faction to be competitive or to have people attend the BG to get rewarded. Players will swarm and rip the BG apart like locusts on one faction and the other faction wont attend.

Faction imbalance is a concern, just as it is on any PvP server. The biggest downfall of these PvP systems is the zerging or large group domination. You need objectives that are spread out to split the playerbase. Frontiers would reward bonus contribution points for less populated factions. The maps would not have chokepoints or funnels. Playing solo would potentially be the most efficient playstyle. Zerging in general would be penalized, but there would be a large scale battle objective. The Frontier would offer a more dynamic World PvP setting.

What happened in SWTOR?

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

Faction imbalance is a concern, just as it is on any PvP server.
No. Not a concern. A definite variable that single-handedly invalidates this idea. Give me faction balance and I am all ears. Without faction balance, the idea never gets implemented, and if it does, it wouldnt be compelling gameplay.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

The biggest downfall of these PvP systems is the zerging or large group domination.
Which killed SWTOR. No skill required. No coordination required. Players are incentivized to roll on imbalanced realms and to zerg.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

You need objectives that are spread out to split the playerbase.
Which furthers the neccessity of zerging. Instead of a coordinated group that is underpopulated being able to overcome odds with good communication and gear, those same players now MUST spread out, are thus thinned out, and the overpopulated faction wins each and every time.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

The Frontier would offer a more dynamic World PvP setting.
No it wouldnt. It would be predictable and stagnant. The overpopulated faction would win each and every time.

edit: the low pop faction stops attending, and the overpopulated faction is locked into grinding all of their PvP honor in a PvE setting. Youve now ruined the PvP aspect of the game.

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
Ashenvale
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1041
Likes: 786
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

This seems like a bad idea. Having an instanced battleground means the match won't start unless there is an equal number of players on each side. If it's outside and things are awarded for whatever objective, you're just going to end up with whatever faction has more players taking it every single time.

   Stfuppercut Selexin
User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

Faction imbalance is a concern, just as it is on any PvP server.
No. Not a concern. A definite variable that single-handedly invalidates this idea. Give me faction balance and I am all ears. Without faction balance, the idea never gets implemented, and if it does, it wouldnt be compelling gameplay.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

The biggest downfall of these PvP systems is the zerging or large group domination.
Which killed SWTOR. No skill required. No coordination required. Players are incentivized to roll on imbalanced realms and to zerg.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

You need objectives that are spread out to split the playerbase.
Which furthers the neccessity of zerging. Instead of a coordinated group that is underpopulated being able to overcome odds with good communication and gear, those same players now MUST spread out, are thus thinned out, and the overpopulated faction wins each and every time.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

The Frontier would offer a more dynamic World PvP setting.
No it wouldnt. It would be predictable and stagnant. The overpopulated faction would win each and every time.

I totally get why these system fail in other games. Faction imbalance and zerging. The entire focus is to reward solo/small scale PvP. Even the objectives would be designed around that. Zerging would give little to no honor, and have even greater diminishing returns. Underpopulated factions would earn bonus contribution. Imagine you have 2x as many Horde as Alliance in a Frontier. The Alliance earn double the contribution points, and the Horde would also likely have more bad players. Small group and solo roaming would be the optimal way to earn honor. There would be a lack of chokepoints, and players would be just as concerned with their individual honor gains as with winning the battle.

The Frontier is a zone where players could enter for an allotted amount of time and earn Honor. Think of the issues with Old Alterac Valley. Too much Mob PvE, too little reward for objectives and kills, and too many chokepoints. It was only worthwhile if you were present for Faction Boss Kills. Frontiers would be totally different.

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
The entire focus is to reward solo/small scale PvP. Even the objectives would be designed around that.
Your intent is irrelevant. Players will play. Players will zerg.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
Zerging would give little to no honor, and have even greater diminishing returns.
Whatever steps you take to try and correct this glaring issue, the players will find a work around. You will either nerf this to the point that BG's offer more honor per hour and players wont participate, or this will be valuable and players will zerg.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
Underpopulated factions would earn bonus contribution. Imagine you have 2x as many Horde as Alliance in a Frontier.
Sick. What multiplier will you give the lower populated faction? x2? x5? x250? Lets give them x1000 honor gain? Sounds crazy right... Check this out:
1000(their multiplier)x0(honor gained)=0
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
The Alliance earn double the contribution points, and the Horde would also likely have more bad players. Small group and solo roaming would be the optimal way to earn honor. There would be a lack of chokepoints, and players would be just as concerned with their individual honor gains as with winning the battle.
Ughhh... The old horde vs alliance debacle... They are the same playerbase. Most of us play both factions. Most of us also choose the path of least resistance. You will find most of your competent players on the overpopulated side, gearing quicker and thus, this makes the strong stronger.

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
The entire focus is to reward solo/small scale PvP. Even the objectives would be designed around that.
Your intent is irrelevant. Players will play. Players will zerg.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
Zerging would give little to no honor, and have even greater diminishing returns.
Whatever steps you take to try and correct this glaring issue, the players will find a work around. You will either nerf this to the point that BG's offer more honor per hour and players wont participate, or this will be valuable and players will zerg.
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
Underpopulated factions would earn bonus contribution. Imagine you have 2x as many Horde as Alliance in a Frontier.
Sick. What multiplier will you give the lower populated faction? x2? x5? x250? Lets give them x1000 honor gain? Sounds crazy right... Check this out:
1000(their multiplier)x0(honor gained)=0
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
The Alliance earn double the contribution points, and the Horde would also likely have more bad players. Small group and solo roaming would be the optimal way to earn honor. There would be a lack of chokepoints, and players would be just as concerned with their individual honor gains as with winning the battle.
Ughhh... The old horde vs alliance debacle... They are the same playerbases genius. Most of us play both factions. Most of us also choose the path of least resistance. You will find most of your competent players on the overpopulated side, gearing quicker and thus, this makes the strong stronger.

None of these MMOs like The Old Republic or Dark Age of Camelot were designed around solo PvP. It was actually the opposite. The Frontiers in WoW would be designed for playing solo primarily. The objectives would reflect that. I understand the Zerg mentality as well as anyone, but it can be mitigated through map design, objectives, and diminishing returns. There will always be zergers, and having a Keep Fight for them could work. Instead of roaming as a Zerg mowing down solo players, they could fight over large scale objectives and earn honor.

You have drops that can only be looted or collected by one player. You have capture points spread out everywhere. You further diminish the honor gains for additional party members. You diminish the honor gain from adding in fights.

Ashenvale
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1041
Likes: 786
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Another thought - world PvE works because the PvE encounters are predetermined. A certain amount of mobs spawn, you can party up, but get no quest rewards from sending raid groups at quests. Blizzard roughly balances outdoor PvE content in this way.

Instances work because the number of players and the number of mobs are also pre-determined. It has a certain balance baked into it. Not much you can do to overpower the balance of the instance, other than out-leveling and out-gearing the content. But by the time you do that, you've also out-geared and out-leveled the rewards. Blizzard roughly balances instanced dungeons in this way.

Raids work because again the number of players and the number and health of the mobs and bosses are pre-determined. Everything is scaled to ~40 players of a certain rough gear level, and the encounters operate within a certain prescribed difficulty band. Blizzard roughly balances raid content in this way.

Random outdoor PvP has no control over faction balance, nor does it have any control over how many people are attacking each other. But there is a built-in diminishing returns for killing the same person over and over again (I think... don't remember, been too long). It's fun, but very minimally rewarded so there is no real worry about abuse. Blizzard roughly balances random world PvP encounters this way, or at least keeps it from being abused.

Structured outdoor PvP content can't be balanced because the game has no control over how many people are playing on each side. Yeah, battlegrounds also suffer from poor 'balance' because the battleground has no control over what types of players queue up, or what classes queue up, but at least the numbers of players on each side is roughly the same. And this is at least an acceptable baseline that lets battlegrounds work. There is no such control over random outdoor PVP encounters. Whatever faction has more players will just win the objective every time. And if the objective is even worth doing, then it is impactful, and it would draw more players to that side and just make the situation worse. By the very nature of being outdoors and non-instanced, faction balance is impossible and the idea is broken.

I'm not even against new content in general a long time post-launch... but no interest in retarded new features being added to the game. I can't see this kind of feature ending well no matter what is thrown at it. It's broken by design...

   Stfuppercut
User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Pippina wrote:
1 year ago
Another thought - world PvE works because the PvE encounters are predetermined. A certain amount of mobs spawn, you can party up, but get no quest rewards from sending raid groups at quests. Blizzard roughly balances outdoor PvE content in this way.

Instances work because the number of players and the number of mobs are also pre-determined. It has a certain balance baked into it. Not much you can do to overpower the balance of the instance, other than out-leveling and out-gearing the content. But by the time you do that, you've also out-geared and out-leveled the rewards. Blizzard roughly balances instanced dungeons in this way.

Raids work because again the number of players and the number and health of the mobs and bosses are pre-determined. Everything is scaled to ~40 players of a certain rough gear level, and the encounters operate within a certain prescribed difficulty band. Blizzard roughly balances raid content in this way.

Random outdoor PvP has no control over faction balance, nor does it have any control over how many people are attacking each other. But there is a built-in diminishing returns for killing the same person over and over again (I think... don't remember, been too long). It's fun, but very minimally rewarded so there is no real worry about abuse. Blizzard roughly balances random world PvP encounters this way, or at least keeps it from being abused.

Structured outdoor PvP content can't be balanced because the game has no control over how many people are playing on each side. Yeah, battlegrounds also suffer from poor 'balance' because the battleground has no control over what types of players queue up, or what classes queue up, but at least the numbers of players on each side is roughly the same. And this is at least an acceptable baseline that lets battlegrounds work. There is no such control over random outdoor PVP encounters. Whatever faction has more players will just win the objective every time. And if the objective is even worth doing, then it is impactful, and it would draw more players to that side and just make the situation worse. By the very nature of being outdoors and non-instanced, faction balance is impossible and the idea is broken.

I'm not even against new content in general a long time post-launch... but no interest in retarded new features being added to the game. I can't see this kind of feature ending well no matter what is thrown at it. It's broken by design...
You are viewing the objectives as a win condition involving flag capture or keep takes. In such scenarios the large faction will dominate, especially considering the lack of AE abilities in WoW. However, the purpose of the Frontiers isn't just for your faction to win the battle, but for individual players to earn honor. That is what players care about more than anything. Even if the overpopulated faction won a Frontier Battle, the less populated faction might have players who earned more individual honor due to underpopulated bonuses. It is not like AV or WSG, where the faction that wins the battleground earns the most honor. The distribution in Frontiers would work differently. The intention is for small scale PvPers to earn the modt honor.

Warlock Affliction
User avatar
US Kirtonos
Posts: 475
Likes: 227
Horde
Warlock
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

 Blizzard Entertainment
The Heavy Weight Division
  • @Stfuppercut Vs @RedridgeGnoll

Round 2! FIGHT!

At Madison Square Garden 10PM

Image Image
Image Image
| Nýxt - Affliction Warlock | Kirtonos PVP | Level 60 | =-|-= | Awkaran - Resto Druid | Kirtonos PVP | Level 27 |
Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
You are viewing the objectives as a win condition involving flag capture or keep takes. In such scenarios the large faction will dominate, especially considering the lack of AE abilities in WoW. However, the purpose of the Frontiers isn't just for your faction to win the battle, but for individual players to earn honor. That is what players care about more than anything. Even if the overpopulated faction won a Frontier Battle, the less populated faction might have players who earned more individual honor. It is not like AV or WSG, where the faction that wins the battleground earns the most honor. The distribution in Frontiers would work differently.
One question... How are you going to balance factions in an open world encounter that anyone can join?

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Nyxt wrote:
1 year ago
 Blizzard Entertainment
The Heavy Weight Division
  • Stfuppercut Vs RedridgeGnoll
    Round 2! FIGHT!

    At Madison Square Garden 10PM
I mean... Its sort of like a heavyweight(me) bullying a toddler(gnoll), but yea, I can get behind this!

I think of this more as a debate exercise. Whether hes so out of touch that he believes this stuff, or whether he is intentionally choosing a contentious topic to create conversation (ie: trolling), I'm all for it. Its a fun exercise and I'm usually onboard until he stops adding new information to the conversation.

   Nyxt
g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
You are viewing the objectives as a win condition involving flag capture or keep takes. In such scenarios the large faction will dominate, especially considering the lack of AE abilities in WoW. However, the purpose of the Frontiers isn't just for your faction to win the battle, but for individual players to earn honor. That is what players care about more than anything. Even if the overpopulated faction won a Frontier Battle, the less populated faction might have players who earned more individual honor. It is not like AV or WSG, where the faction that wins the battleground earns the most honor. The distribution in Frontiers would work differently.
One question... How are you going to balance factions in an open world encounter that anyone can join?

Because it isn't about winning the battle in a frontier, as much as it is about farming honor. The goal is to make solo/small group play the best way to honor farm. This could be achieved through underpopulation bonuses. The Frontiers are about earning Honor on an individual basis. The underpopulated faction would earn more honor from objectives and kills. If more players on the underpopulated faction realized the best honor was in the Frontiers, then they might join. That is how it would balance out. If players in the overpopulated faction are receiving less honor, then perhaps they would return to doing battlegrounds. You would have fewer players to kill and more honor to split when in the larger faction. Don't think of it as being like WSG or AV, where the winning faction gets the best honor reward.

Why Zerg in a Frontier if you could get better honor from a crossrealm AV? What if the group that deals the most damage only gets honor? There are additional anti-zerg mechanics available. The Highest Honor gain would be from killing players, not doing a small scale objective. The objectives exist to spread players around.

Ashenvale
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1041
Likes: 786
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Players already get honor points for PvP in battlegrounds.. except battlegrounds are a more controlled and balanced environment by design. If your argument is that single players don't get enough honor when they lose battlegrounds, this outdoor thing does nothing to help... if you are on the smaller faction, you're still going to lose. And then you'd get the same honor you would have in a battleground.

It sounds like you're trying to find a way to spread players out so you're more likely to end up in 1v1 situations. You can already do this... just go out into any given contested territory and go hunt.

This whole idea is just a solution looking for a problem.

User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Pippina wrote:
1 year ago
Players already get honor points for PvP in battlegrounds.. except battlegrounds are a more controlled and balanced environment by design. If your argument is that single players don't get enough honor when they lose battlegrounds, this outdoor thing does nothing to help... if you are on the smaller faction, you're still going to lose. And then you'd get the same honor you would have in a battleground.

It sounds like you're trying to find a way to spread players out so you're more likely to end up in 1v1 situations. You can already do this... just go out into any given contested territory and go hunt.

This whole idea is just a solution looking for a problem.
Of course I am trying to spread players out to get 1v2, 2v2s for more competitive PvP. In Battlegrounds something like 90% of the honor gain is earned from winning the battleground. The Frontier is just an area where players are incentivized to roam in smaller groups. The honor gain would not be rewarded mainly from just winning a frontier, but killing other players. Killing enemy players would contribute to your faction's Frontier Score. The concern is whether Frontiers can prevent Zerg playstyles from dominating. WSG isn't about farming honor from players, but rather turning in 3 Flags. That is not the goal of Frontiers.

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

Because it isn't about winning the battle in a frontier, as much as it is about farming honor. The goal is to make solo/small group play the best way to honor farm. This could be achieved through underpopulation bonuses. The Frontiers are about earning Honor on an individual basis. The underpopulated faction would earn more honor from objectives and kills. If more players on the underpopulated faction realized the best honor was in the Frontiers, then they might join. That is how it would balance out. If players in the overpopulated faction are receiving less honor, then perhaps they would return to doing battlegrounds. You would have fewer players to kill and more honor to split when in the larger faction. Don't think of it as being like WSG or AV, where the winning faction gets the best honor reward.

Why Zerg in a Frontier if you could get better honor from a crossrealm AV? What if the group that deals the most damage only gets honor? There are additional anti-zerg mechanics available. The Highest Honor gain would be from killing players, not doing a small scale objective. The objectives exist to spread players around.
How are you going to balance factions? If the answer is NO, just say no and we can end the thread.

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago

Because it isn't about winning the battle in a frontier, as much as it is about farming honor. The goal is to make solo/small group play the best way to honor farm. This could be achieved through underpopulation bonuses. The Frontiers are about earning Honor on an individual basis. The underpopulated faction would earn more honor from objectives and kills. If more players on the underpopulated faction realized the best honor was in the Frontiers, then they might join. That is how it would balance out. If players in the overpopulated faction are receiving less honor, then perhaps they would return to doing battlegrounds. You would have fewer players to kill and more honor to split when in the larger faction. Don't think of it as being like WSG or AV, where the winning faction gets the best honor reward.

Why Zerg in a Frontier if you could get better honor from a crossrealm AV? What if the group that deals the most damage only gets honor? There are additional anti-zerg mechanics available. The Highest Honor gain would be from killing players, not doing a small scale objective. The objectives exist to spread players around.
How are you going to balance factions? If the answer is NO, just say no and we can end the thread.

Do PvP servers have faction imbalances? Yes. Does that prevent underpopulated factions from ranking up in World PvP? No. It even offers them more enemies to kill. I understand the faction imbalance concern it is valid, but I believe that Frontiers would actually fix some of the issues with Open World PvP in classic. (Flight master camping, level 50 farming etc..) The Frontier is intended for farming honor, where the underpopulated faction would be able to potentially earn more honor on an individual level.

Elaborate how the overpopulated faction would be at such an advantage in a Frontier in terms of honor farming? Consider some of the measures in place to prevent that.

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
Do PvP servers have faction imbalances? Yes.
Not in BG's where players primarily grind their honor and are rewarded for PvPing.

So how do you plan on balancing factions so this will be viable?

edit: This statement summarizes my feelings on this topic, and every other one of Gnoll's suggestions perfectly:
Pippina wrote:
1 year ago
I'm not even against new content in general a long time post-launch... but no interest in retarded new features being added to the game. I can't see this kind of feature ending well no matter what is thrown at it. It's broken by design...
Retarded new features that are broken by design. Designed by someone who has no foresight. Regardless of what issues we point out with his idea, he will quickly scramble and try to offer some sort of quick fix that doesnt acknowledge the greater issue... Its as if he has no ability to tap into a gamers perspective and predict their VERY predictable actions... He may actually be a perfect Dev in this regard haha.

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
Do PvP servers have faction imbalances? Yes.
Not in BG's where players primarily grind their honor and are rewarded for PvPing.

So how do you plan on balancing factions so this will be viable?

edit: This statement summarizes my feelings on this topic, and every other one of Gnoll's suggestions perfectly:
Pippina wrote:
1 year ago
I'm not even against new content in general a long time post-launch... but no interest in retarded new features being added to the game. I can't see this kind of feature ending well no matter what is thrown at it. It's broken by design...
Retarded new features that are broken by design. Designed by someone who has no foresight. Regardless of what issues we point out with his idea, he will quickly scramble and try to offer some sort of quick fix that doesnt acknowledge the greater issue... Its as if he has no ability to tap into a gamers perspective and predict their VERY predictable actions... He may actually be a perfect Dev in this regard haha.
If solo play is incentivized and players are spread out enough, then faction imbalances are not as big of an issue. However, let's say there is a cap of 100 players per faction in the Frontiers. This way it wouldn't be 300 Horde vs 50 Alliance, but 100 Horde vs 50 Alliance. What do you do about the 200 other Horde players that want to be in the Frontiers? Do you add a queue time for entering the Frontier? What if when players died they had to leave the Frontier and new players that were waiting in queue would enter.

I hate to use the whole Battle Royale dynamic, but let me know what you think. What if there was a player cap of 100 in a Frontier, and if players died they would be put back into queue. This way the underpopulated faction would have more access to the Frontier than the overpopulated faction. They wouldn't have to wait in any queue. Dying would put players back into the queue as an added risk/reward.

Below is an example using the Wandering Isle as a Frontier. The Alliance would enter the zone on Boats that circle frontier zone (Blue Lines). The Horde would use Zeppelins to enter the Frontier (Red lines). This way players would not get stuck in chokepoints, but could enter the zone almost anywhere. There would be small-man objectives spread across the map, as well as a few Keeps/Fortresses to capture for larger groups.

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

So now there is a cap to factions? This isnt open world at all... Your idea is slowly getting closer and closer to what we already have. Its as if your original idea posed issues that are broken by design.

I'll reiterate my previous question because I still havent gotten an answer:
But how do you plan on balancing factions? As this idea will fail without faction balance?

I can answer this for you if you want? Its pretty simple.

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
So now there is a cap to factions? This isnt open world at all... Your idea is slowly getting closer and closer to what we already have. Its as if your original idea posed issues that are broken by design.

I'll reiterate my previous question because I still havent gotten an answer:
But how do you plan on balancing factions? As this idea will fail without faction balance?

I can answer this for you if you want? Its pretty simple.
I think that if players were removed from the Frontiers upon death and sent back into queue it would fix potential zerging issues as well. Big groups would fall apart when players die since they wouldn't be able to just return to the Frontier. They would be put in a queue.

It is a hypothetical. It would be server-only and it would force population balances in the Frontiers. Is it necessary, no I don't really think so, but it could still make for an good system. I agree with you that faction imbalances in World PvP are a considerable setback. The entire purpose behind this is to incentivize small scale PvP. That is what competitive PvPers want. They don't care about Random Battlegrounds, and in Classic WoW it will be a huge turnoff. I am aware that making PvE ana really efficient way to farm honor is not good. Players want to PvP for honor. They want to kill eachother. Frontiers are intended to promote an small scale PvP environment that holds lots of players.

Dark Age of Camelot had Frontiers. It was a three faction PvP game in open world zones. The biggest issue was that it was group focused. You need to make World PvP Frontiers solo focused. There is a reason Arena was 2v2 and 3v3, because small scale is more competitive.

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
I think that if players were removed from the Frontiers upon death and sent back into queue it would fix potential zerging issues as well. Big groups would fall apart when players die since they wouldn't be able to just return to the Frontier. They would be put in a queue.

It is a hypothetical. It would be server-only and it would force population balances in the Frontiers. Is it necessary, no I don't really think so, but it could still make for an good system. I agree with you that faction imbalances in World PvP are a considerable setback. The entire purpose behind this is to incentivize small scale PvP. That is what competitive PvPers want. They don't care about Random Battlegrounds, and in Classic WoW it will be a huge turnoff. I am aware that making PvE ana really efficient way to farm honor is not good. Players want to PvP for honor. They want to kill eachother. Frontiers are intended to promote an small scale PvP environment that holds lots of players.

Dark Age of Camelot had Frontiers. It was a three faction PvP game in open world zones. The biggest issue was that it was group focused. You need to make World PvP Frontiers solo focused. There is a reason Arena was 2v2 and 3v3, because small scale is more competitive.
So to clarify this is no longer an open world concept because you cant fix faction imbalances?

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
User avatar
Posts: 285
Likes: 47
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

Stfuppercut wrote:
1 year ago
RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
I think that if players were removed from the Frontiers upon death and sent back into queue it would fix potential zerging issues as well. Big groups would fall apart when players die since they wouldn't be able to just return to the Frontier. They would be put in a queue.

It is a hypothetical. It would be server-only and it would force population balances in the Frontiers. Is it necessary, no I don't really think so, but it could still make for an good system. I agree with you that faction imbalances in World PvP are a considerable setback. The entire purpose behind this is to incentivize small scale PvP. That is what competitive PvPers want. They don't care about Random Battlegrounds, and in Classic WoW it will be a huge turnoff. I am aware that making PvE ana really efficient way to farm honor is not good. Players want to PvP for honor. They want to kill eachother. Frontiers are intended to promote an small scale PvP environment that holds lots of players.

Dark Age of Camelot had Frontiers. It was a three faction PvP game in open world zones. The biggest issue was that it was group focused. You need to make World PvP Frontiers solo focused. There is a reason Arena was 2v2 and 3v3, because small scale is more competitive.
So to clarify this is no longer an open world concept because you cant fix faction imbalances?
Open World by design can not have faction balances. That is impossible. That doesn't mean open world PvP has to fail. It fails largely due to zerging and faction imbalance. I offered ways to mitigate those issues. There would be an underpopulation bonus, so players would earn more honor while on the underpopulated realm. Solo/small scale players would receive way more honor, and there would be increased diminishing returns for playing in a full group. Players would receive little to no honor for adding onto fights, because the group or player that deals the most damage to a target would basically receive full honor.

The alternative is to make a queue system, but keep it server wide. Have a population cap, and perhaps a mechanic that players would have to requeue upon death so that players wouldn't need to wait in queue as long.

Classic WoW battlegrounds will not keep competitive players interested. Competitive players want competitive PvP. Arena offered that sort of, but also damaged many other aspects of the game. Frontiers are keeping with the Contested Zone PvP that Classic offers. I am trying to determine if Frontiers could exist in an open world environment, as long as zerging is not the dominsant playstyle. I am convinced it is possible, but it is concerning if there are 300 Horde and 50 Alliance in a Frontier. You can't think of it as 300 v 50. The goal is for players to be roaming in small groups or even solo, not zerging over the less populated faction. Let's discuss this matter. If most players are roaming in small groups, then why is faction imbalance that much of an issue? You will encounter other groups on your faction more often than the enemy, but why would the enemy action be outnumbered when encountered?

Warrior Fury
User avatar
US Fairbanks
Posts: 1218
Likes: 808
Gnome
Warrior
1 year ago (Beta)
 •  Unread

RedridgeGnoll wrote:
1 year ago
Open World by design can not have faction imbalances. That is impossible. That doesn't mean open world PvP has to fail. It fails largely due to zerging and faction imbalance.
This is exactly what it means. And this is why this has failed in EVERY MMO it has ever been implemented in. Your idea (as usual) is not new. It is broken by design.

So how will you balance factions so your idea is viable?

I can give you a hint to the solution of faction imbalances... It rhymes with sharding and starts with an "s". Why dont we add sharding to Classic so your idea can function? Does that sound good?

g0bledyg00k wrote:
10 months ago
Never making a single investment again until I 100% know it pays off.
2000 IQ :wink:
Similar topics
to 'Introducing World PvP Frontiers'
Posts ViewsLast post

Latest Blue Posts

View all
  • Screenshot of the Month

    View gallery