Fixing the Core Issue w/ Rift PvP

[Kyera]

And I think it's clear I struck a nerve in calling out the vehemence and anger behind your defense of twinks and we can safely dismiss this post.

Yeah, when you make a false statement and question my integrity -- and thus, my credibility -- you tend to strike a nerve. You do it in the rest of this reply, too, while working that spin machine into overdrive trying to pontificate that I'm solely here to jerk my e-peen when I'm trying to say you can contribute -- and, I suppose unless you're only here for big numbers, have fun, since I find utility specs fun -- and provide my anecdotal adventures of doing it on all four callings.

This "angrily barking at Trion" thing is hilarious, too. You seriously have to be confusing me with someone else, because at no point have I "angrily barked" at Trion. I've "angrily barked" at all the people flying in and making baseless accusations about my motives for twinking in the first place, and I've "angrily barked" at the people who make false statements, but I've never pitched the "woe is me" tent and yelled at Trion for nerfing a gametype I functionally played for a handful of evenings. I even provided a post with MAGICAL MATH regarding being competitive without needing the purple augment, top-tier gear, while in the same breath advocating for its removal -- but, clearly, I have an axe to grind, since my non-existent twinking advantage is gone.

You wonder why I "snap", and yet you continue to falsely represent my position in a further attempt to discredit me in this conversation. I have plenty of constructive things to add in the thread. I've added them. I've talked about time-to-gear, I've talked about genre expectations, I've talked about reasonable investment, I've talked about the traits of Rift, I've talked about the traits of progression-based MMOs, and I've shared my OPINIONs on the topic. Apparently it's only "constructive" if it's building towards the successful completion of the narrative you're trying to weave.

Yet after repeatedly telling me about how "50.5 hours was too much" and failing to make me decide that "yes, you're right, a one to two month investment in an MMO too much time to get competitive with people who have played since launch," you proceeded to attack my position that this is not unreasonable as being fueled by some secret, hidden resentment base regarding Trion's nerfing of a game type I didn't even play very much -- because I refuse to wholeheartedly and unconditionally accept your OPINION -- supported by math that really doesn't say ANYTHING except give a number you either feel is too long, not long enough, or just right -- is right and mine is wrong.

So, let me do some math to try and frame what I'm saying, since that seems to be the 'sticking point'

Llet's take a guild working on progression and trying to get T1 raid geared (arguably, HK is the 'middle tier' with ID's introduction, but let's say it's Experts - T1 Raid - T2 Raid). To get fully currency geared, you need to pick up 460 Marks of Ascension. I'm going to just ballpark things and say they can clear GP and DH in about two hours, clear the daily expert in 45m, and can do Warmaster and the three foci in RoS as well as up to Greenscale in GSB, in a combined, say, two and a half hours (this is sort of the situation the 'struggling' starter progression guilds were in when I maintained the Deepstrike raiding thread).

In a week's time, they're going to log about ten hours of 'raid time'. From the Expert Dailies, they'll get 14 Marks of Ascension. From GP, they'll get (and someone correct me if I'm wrong, it's been a long time since I've bothered with T1 10-mans) 12 Marks of Ascension. From DH, they'll get 12 Marks of Ascension. From RoS, they'll get 12 Marks of Ascension. From GSB, they'll get 12 Marks of Ascension. From the two weeklies, they'll pick up another, what, 6 Marks of Ascension? This puts them at, I believe, 68 Marks of Ascension in a raid week (if we assume they've got the talent, this could be estimated at about 78).

So, it's going to take about six weeks (or about sixty hours) of 'grinding' the PvE content (and I feel I'm being generous on the time, as you were) to get T1 raid geared (the 'middle-tier'), assuming they are playing with a guild who has clears in this time range, playing with a guild. This, of course, doesn't include the weapons or accessories, all of which are random drops and rolled upon by several people, and it also doesn't include the drop pieces that could be reasonable substitutes (but will eliminate the set bonuses).

Of course, this is going to get them well prepared to move on to the 'top' tier (or 'middle' tier), in Hammerknell, where the progression wall gets a little steeper (even with the nerfs) and they might require an even larger relative time investment to get where they need to be (especially considering they get fewer Greater Marks from the quests).

Thus, do I think that "50.5 hours" (edit: apparently queueing solo, fwiw) is an unreasonable metric for someone to be dps-competitive with players who have played since launch, especially in a gear and character progression driven genre like an MMORPG? No, especially since steps are being taken to bring down the size of the gap and the time investment required to get to it in the next patch anyway. Is that "constructive" enough for you, since I put some numbers with my opinion?

After all, if I, the ****ty player who could only compete on a twink and is secretly conspiring to undermine Trion's authority through my subtle campaign of "keep the grind for the lulz", could do it on all four callings, surely this mythical player who possesses the skill but gets stymied by the gear gap can do it.

[Khelendross]

<snip>

You can't compare PVE and PVP like I said above. Its two different systems.

PVE is against a computer control opponent and is not individual based. Its group based. You can be carried to HK max gear in a matter of a week or two. And that time is not measured the same way. A raid takes a couple hours. So in a couple hours you will acquire several pieces of gear typically. If you are being carried to gear up in HK you may acquire alot more than that. There are two many variables, its a stupid comparison and it simply shouldn't be made becaue they are simply not comparable.

These systems might be more comparable if say the winning side had a chance to win a piece of PVP gear at the end of a warfront. But PVE raiding has multiple paths to progression where as pvp is just one (favor).

[Kyera]

You can't compare PVE and PVP like I said above. Its two different systems.

I'll respectfully disagree, so long as we're playing in a game that is clearly progression-driven on both sides and has cross-pollination of these two game types, with shared gear/play mechanics.

Optimal performance in both PvE and PvP hinge around group play -- a player trying to 'go at it solo' in the PvE context will require a far greater time investment than someone doing it with a group (I'm working towards my third piece of HK gear by pugging weeklies and expert dungeons, so I can surely speak from experience here -- it's far slower than if I had a group to speedrun the weeklies and dungeons and run through HK/RotP).

In theory, you can get 'carried' to HK max gear, but I'm assuming guilds aren't going to 'carry' someone out of the goodness of their hearts, and this is also implying you're playing with a guild that is clearly geared out enough to pass everything on down to you. So, yes, you can get "PvE powerleveled" by a group that wants you there for higher content, which cannot be done in PvP. That's certainly a valid point. However, I doubt any guild working their way through content is going to be gear powerleveling anyone, and I doubt an established guild is just going to start gear powerleveling random people, so I have a strong reason accepting this as a motive or justification for NOT comparing the two game types.

There are too many variables, but if someone is going to use a time investment and make an arbitrary decision that "this is too long", I'm certainly going to compare it to another element of the game that requires a time investment when trying to make a point that it isn't. Otherwise, at best, I can just say "nuh uh", which then gets me a reply trying to strawman a non-existent stance on twinking as justification for dismissing my dissenting opinion. I think we saw how well that turned out.

Edit: The problem with getting a shot at loot at the end of a warfront is that people can afk to the end of the warfront and I don't even know where I'd begin with trying to figure out a good 'drop rate' for a loot drop at the end of a warfront (one in how many warfronts should get a roll?) -- though, conversely, PvEers can't go buy dungeon dropped weapons and armor (yes, yes, with exceptions).

[Khelendross]

I'll respectfully disagree, so long as we're playing in a game that is clearly progression-driven on both sides and has cross-pollination of these two game types, with shared gear/play mechanics.

Optimal performance in both PvE and PvP hinge around group play -- a player trying to 'go at it solo' in the PvE context will require a far greater time investment than someone doing it with a group (I'm working towards my third piece of HK gear by pugging weeklies and expert dungeons, so I can surely speak from experience here -- it's far slower than if I had a group to speedrun the weeklies and dungeons and run through HK/RotP).

In theory, you can get 'carried' to HK max gear, but I'm assuming guilds aren't going to 'carry' someone out of the goodness of their hearts, and this is also implying you're playing with a guild that is clearly geared out enough to pass everything on down to you. So, yes, you can get "PvE powerleveled" by a group that wants you there for higher content, which cannot be done in PvP. That's certainly a valid point. However, I doubt any guild working their way through content is going to be gear powerleveling anyone, and I doubt an established guild is just going to start gear powerleveling random people, so I have a strong reason accepting this as a motive or justification for NOT comparing the two game types.

There are too many variables, but if someone is going to use a time investment and make an arbitrary decision that "this is too long", I'm certainly going to compare it to another element of the game that requires a time investment when trying to make a point that it isn't. Otherwise, at best, I can just say "nuh uh", which then gets me a reply trying to strawman a non-existent stance on twinking as justification for dismissing my dissenting opinion. I think we saw how well that turned out.

Edit: The problem with getting a shot at loot at the end of a warfront is that people can afk to the end of the warfront and I don't even know where I'd begin with trying to figure out a good 'drop rate' for a loot drop at the end of a warfront (one in how many warfronts should get a roll?) -- though, conversely, PvEers can't go buy dungeon dropped weapons and armor (yes, yes, with exceptions).

Heh the last thing wasn't really a suggestion. I don't much like RNG mechanics like that. I mean I wouldn't HATE it, but it would seem a bit odd to be sure. I was just making a point.

Like you even said there are to many variables which makes it a horrible comparison. So I think you secretly agree with me!

Another problem is far more people go it solo in pvp than in pve so its generally expected that progression be based around that while in PVE its the opposite.

As for powerleveling people. Alot of progression guilds do this, I'm kinda suprised you aren't aware. Its very common place. Progression raiding particularly often has a fairly high attrition rate since its so demanding. So progression guilds are notorious for "farming recruits up" quickly to get them into rotation if they need a more stable raiding core.

The point is with all these notable differences and exceptions its a poor point of comparison. The mechanics between PVE may share some surface similarities but they are very very different even at the core so thus its a bad comparison.

Lastly despite your own personal opinions its not really about my perception or your perception. All you have to do is go out into the MMO community and look for people trying to get into Rift and the general perception is that the PVP is a huge grind and not worth doing. Thats ultimately all that matters. Our opinion doesn't really mean anything.

[Kyera]

Like you even said there are to many variables which makes it a horrible comparison. So I think you secretly agree with me!

Okay, let's pretend I do. What would you suggest I use as a comparable for trying to uphold my stance that 50.5 hours isn't too much time for someone to be competitive in PvP against long-standing players, especially given that the PvE time comparison isn't "fair". DAoC? WAR? SWTOR? EVE? All are certainly 'grindy', perhaps moreso than Rift.

Another problem is far more people go it solo in pvp than in pve so its generally expected that progression be based around that while in PVE its the opposite.

Yet most of the content caters to larger-scale group or team play. Go figure.

As for powerleveling people. Alot of progression guilds do this, I'm kinda suprised you aren't aware. Its very common place. Progression raiding particularly often has a fairly high attrition rate since its so demanding. So progression guilds are notorious for "farming recruits up" quickly to get them into rotation if they need a more stable raiding core.

I am "aware". My point is that a guild PROGRESSING through lower-tier content (which is what I was comparing, that low-to-mid tier) isn't going to PL people when THEY need the gear, and certainly isn't PLing random strangers out of the goodness of their heart -- as you say, they have slots to fill, and they're going to fill them with people that have demonstrated some level of experience or commitment. They're not doing it for you, they're doing it for the team, of which you are now a part.

Lastly despite your own personal opinions its not really about my perception or your perception. All you have to do is go out into the MMO community and look for people trying to get into Rift and the general perception is that the PVP is a huge grind and not worth doing. Thats ultimately all that matters. Our opinion doesn't really mean anything.

Again, I have to ask -- what's the comparable? The perception is that it's very grindy, but compared to what?

[Khelendross]

Again, I have to ask -- what's the comparable? The perception is that it's very grindy, but compared to what?

To answer the top and bottom I would say nothing. Comparing isn't the point. Perception is the point. It doesn't matter if you compare it to DAOC (more grindy, but also much more level in terms of power for entry level), WAR (similar to DAOC), SWTOR (like Rift in terms of power gap, but the grind is alot less. The game is young though) and I won't even humor Eve with a response.

So the answer is really you can't and shouldn't. The real point is that should a player have to come in to the game and be largely ineffective for 50 to 90 hours? If the answer is no, thats fine. But should we wait until Storm Legion to try and bring PVP players in, especially with Conquest coming in 2 weeks? Trion should have a gameplan to get people in and pvping. I agree its not an ideal fix, I never said it was. But if the grind stays as it is it solves nothing, does nothing.

[Kyera]

The real point is that should a player have to come in to the game and be largely ineffective for 50 to 90 hours? If the answer is no, thats fine.

See, the problem is that we (me, you, Synovia, whatever) apparently have completely divergent views on a) the actual amount of time required, especially for someone who isn't trying to Lone Wolf their way to Internet Badass Status, b) whether Rift PvP is a grind, and c) the definition of "effective"/"ineffective".

As long as we continue to have divergent opinions here, we're never going to come to an agreement. I guess I'll take that as my queue to walk away, unless I get goaded into coming back.~

Edit: Hell, maybe an easy fix is for Trion to just hardline their queue brackets -- 1-28, 29-40 -- and stop mixing queues. Yeah, the pops might be slower, but then you wouldn't ever get the mismatch.

[Sebb]

Comparing PVE and PVP is stupid. Please don't do it. Especially time investment arguments.

Time is really the only common denominator in this case and also the issue in question.

The OP has a valid point in that a new player can't hope to be competitive, but he's focusing on time and not the itemization issue.

[Khelendross]

See, the problem is that we (me, you, Synovia, whatever) apparently have completely divergent views on a) the actual amount of time required, especially for someone who isn't trying to Lone Wolf their way to Internet Badass Status, b) whether Rift PvP is a grind, and c) the definition of "effective"/"ineffective".

As long as we continue to have divergent opinions here, we're never going to come to an agreement. I guess I'll take that as my queue to walk away, unless I get goaded into coming back.~

Edit: Hell, maybe an easy fix is for Trion to just hardline their queue brackets -- 1-28, 29-40 -- and stop mixing queues. Yeah, the pops might be slower, but then you wouldn't ever get the mismatch.

What's funny is if they had done that from launch it would have worked, but as pop has dwindled its not longer a possibility.

Yea we won't agree (on the current state of things) but what we do apparently agree on is that come Storm Legion, Rift should probably shift to a more horizontal style progression. So thats something anyways. In the meanwhile I'm gonna do some actual number crunching on Friday to get some hard figures based on my faction/wargroup. If I think the findings are compelling enough I'll do something with them.

[Synovia]

Okay, let's pretend I do. What would you suggest I use as a comparable for trying to uphold my stance that 50.5 hours isn't too much time for someone to be competitive in PvP against long-standing players, especially given that the PvE time comparison isn't "fair". DAoC? WAR? SWTOR? EVE? All are certainly 'grindy', perhaps moreso than Rift.



Yet most of the content caters to larger-scale group or team play. Go figure.



I am "aware". My point is that a guild PROGRESSING through lower-tier content (which is what I was comparing, that low-to-mid tier) isn't going to PL people when THEY need the gear, and certainly isn't PLing random strangers out of the goodness of their heart -- as you say, they have slots to fill, and they're going to fill them with people that have demonstrated some level of experience or commitment. They're not doing it for you, they're doing it for the team, of which you are now a part.



Again, I have to ask -- what's the comparable? The perception is that it's very grindy, but compared to what?

trying to uphold my stance that 50.5 hours isn't too much time for someone to be competitive in PvP against long-standing players

long-standing players

That is precisely the issue with your argument. You believe that "long-standing" players should have a sizable and significant advantage in player versus player combat - that they should be "rewarded for their diligence with a immense upper hand". In contrast, the reasonable and logical argues that what is best for the game of Rift, and therfore Trion, is to make competitive PvP as accessible as possible right out of the gate to show prospective customers exactly how fun Rift PvP can be. There's really no arguing this point.

[Kyera]

You believe that "long-standing" players should have a sizable and significant advantage in player versus player combat - that they should be "rewarded for their diligence with a immense upper hand".

No, I believe that IN. A. PROGRESSION. AND. GEAR. BASED. GAME. a new player should have to engage in some PROGRESSION. AND. GEARING. to compete with someone who has been from day one, and that a month and a half is entirely reasonable. It's a genre reality, and to be frank, compared to any other MMO I've bothered investing time into for PvP, a month and a half of play is not unreasonable, especially starting a year and a half into the game's life, and especially since the top is being changed so that the top dogs are, at least when the patch drops, firmly planted in that middle tier.

This is different from being "rewarded for their diligence with a (sic) immense upper hand". But, please, keep putting words in my mouth. It's certainly "constructive".

You might as well just say "Rift PvP would be fun if it wasn't Rift."

[Sebb]

That is precisely the issue with your argument. You believe that "long-standing" players should have a sizable and significant advantage in player versus player combat - that they should be "rewarded for their diligence with a immense upper hand". In contrast, the reasonable and logical argues that what is best for the game of Rift, and therfore Trion, is to make competitive PvP as accessible as possible right out of the gate to show prospective customers exactly how fun Rift PvP can be. There's really no arguing this point.

Synovia. The issue is not about time. EVERYTHING about an MMO is a giant time sink. When you walk away from the computer, you don't have +5 strength in real life. It's all a game. The point is to make you have fun while doing it.

Stop focusing on the time. Every MMO in history has come up with ways for players to keep playing. You have a legitimate point that a new player cannot hope to be competitive against anyone else but other new players.... Focus on that. Focus on how you can resolve the fact that r10 gear might as well be meaningless against my r40 gear. Focus on the itemization, not the time.

[Synovia]

No, I believe that IN. A. PROGRESSION. AND. GEAR. BASED. GAME. a new player should have to engage in some PROGRESSION. AND. GEARING. to compete with someone who has been from day one, and that a month and a half is entirely reasonable. It's a genre reality, and to be frank, compared to any other MMO I've bothered investing time into for PvP, a month and a half of play is not unreasonable, especially starting a year and a half into the game's life, and especially since the top is being changed so that the top dogs are, at least when the patch drops, firmly planted in that middle tier.

This is different from being "rewarded for their diligence with a (sic) immense upper hand". But, please, keep putting words in my mouth. It's certainly "constructive".

You might as well just say "Rift PvP would be fun if it wasn't Rift."

You believe that "in a progression and gear-based game" a new player should have to engage in some "progression and gearing". So let's start with the proverbial square one, shall we?

We agree this is a game.

We agree that many aspects of this game are built around the concept of "progression".

We agree that many aspects of this game are built around the concept of "gear".

Are we good so far? Here's where I part ways:

The PvP in Rift can both:

1) provide a sense of progression

while

2) allowing players to rapidly be competitive.

We're talking about the starting point here. You feel players should have to put in quite a bit of time before they can essentially reach a "starting point" of competitiveness - a point at which they are competitive and may now begin an actual "grind" to moderately improve the gear that has made them competitive in the first place. I say start them out there and let them progress beyond as they so choose in the way of titles, mounts, dyes, costumes, artifacts and moderate gear upgrades.

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about this and I'm not sure why anyone would legitimately opposed a level and fair playing field.

Edit: Hell, maybe an easy fix is for Trion to just hardline their queue brackets -- 1-28, 29-40 -- and stop mixing queues. Yeah, the pops might be slower, but then you wouldn't ever get the mismatch.

That might put another band-aid on the problem like the bolstering mechanic but for it to entirely cover the wound (not that a band-aid is ever good when there is a deep wound) you'd need brackets to the tune of 1-35 and then 36+ as, at almost r31 myself I am STILL not to a point where I am "competitive" from a gear perspective.

[Synovia]

Synovia. The issue is not about time. EVERYTHING about an MMO is a giant time sink. When you walk away from the computer, you don't have +5 strength in real life. It's all a game. The point is to make you have fun while doing it.

Stop focusing on the time. Every MMO in history has come up with ways for players to keep playing. You have a legitimate point that a new player cannot hope to be competitive against anyone else but other new players.... Focus on that. Focus on how you can resolve the fact that r10 gear might as well be meaningless against my r40 gear. Focus on the itemization, not the time.

But the time is precisely the issue. To get the gear to be competitive, I've already shown that, at absolute bare minimum, and using optimal favor gains, you are looking at 50.5 hours of time in Warfronts. You essentially have two choices then:

1) Drastically increase favor/prestige gains (mainly favor)

or

2) Drastically reduce gear costs

Both of which combat the "time" issue.

[HannonHellbringer]

But the time is precisely the issue. To get the gear to be competitive, I've already shown that, at absolute bare minimum, and using optimal favor gains, you are looking at 50.5 hours of time in Warfronts. You essentially have two choices then:

1) Drastically increase favor/prestige gains (mainly favor)

or

2) Drastically reduce gear costs

Both of which combat the "time" issue.

Aren't you a raider?

If you are then what you fail to see is that Trion is creating the grind for dedicated pvpers who only pvp. If you are a raider then what you might be trying to do is bend the content around to fit your schedule so you can do both with relative ease. No offense but if that IS the case then you need stop stop complaining and find one content to focus on because your threads are getting no where.