After the Paladin/Shaman thing: time to tear down the faction wall

[TheWesson]

I am afraid that zero-sum just further penalizes lesser-geared or lower-level players in the current system. One of my biggest problems with the honor system on PvP servers is that it isn't half as difficult to kill someone who is already fighting a mob, but it is potentially worth more than half as much honor. (Honor is awarded based on the damage your group deals to a target during the fight; damage from a mob decreases the available honor in proportion to that damage).

The threat of the 'other side' (or being that threat) is the thrill of a PvP server, but the "Honor" system provides greater rewards for ganking than for a fair fight. If zero-sum rules were added to this system, then lowbies would potentially have levels and levels of dishonor to grind off.

In a ladder system, the amount you gain or lose is proportional to the estimated probability of you winning. So an 'unfair' fight will gain the victor very little and cost the loser very little.

Estimated probability of a victory would have a lot to do with level, naturally, so ganking greys would be pretty unrewarding.

Also, there would be a floor to honor - zero honor - so some poor schmuck who had been ganked a zillion times (resulting in microscopic honor gains for his attackers) could make all of that back with a few fair-fight victories. Hope I'm not misconceiving ladder math here.

I agree that there are multitudes of complications as to how this would all work in group play.

Also, Blizzard may not want a system that isn't quite as grindable. But personally I would like to be in awe of the skills of a "High Warlord" on my side, and be terrified by a "Grand Poobah" (or whatever) on the other side.

[oldmandennis]

Hope I'm not misconceiving ladder math here.

No, you are incorrectly conflating ladders and zero sum.

There is already a ladder, flawed though it may be. It is stopped from having runaway inflation by decay over time. It features relative rather then absolute rankings, and rewards players for killing based on the size group you do it with, the position of the killed player on the ladder, the health the player had at the start of the battle, and level. All this is aready in the game, so proposing a system with these features isn't saying anything new unless you say how you would do it differently.

Some of these features could use tweaks, but I think most logical people would agree that most of them are necessary in some form. For example, without the much detested decay feature, eventually the entire horde would be all warlords and no grunts.

The addition of a zero sum system to all of this simply means that there will have to be some sort of CP penalty attached to dieing and losing. The question is would this be more or less fun.

In particular, this eliminates any chance of an epic, "storm the battlements" type Battleground.

In addition

If a member of a group gets killed, the group shares the dishonor ... protect your priest!

Protect him? Or kick him in favor of a less squishy healer.

[TheWesson]

No, you are incorrectly conflating ladders and zero sum.

There is already a ladder, flawed though it may be. It is stopped from having runaway inflation by decay over time. It features relative rather then absolute rankings, and rewards players for killing based on the size group you do it with, the position of the killed player on the ladder, the health the player had at the start of the battle, and level. All this is aready in the game, so proposing a system with these features isn't saying anything new unless you say how you would do it differently.

Some of these features could use tweaks, but I think most logical people would agree that most of them are necessary in some form. For example, without the much detested decay feature, eventually the entire horde would be all warlords and no grunts.

The addition of a zero sum system to all of this simply means that there will have to be some sort of CP penalty attached to dieing and losing. The question is would this be more or less fun.

In particular, this eliminates any chance of an epic, "storm the battlements" type Battleground.

In addition
Protect him? Or kick him in favor of a less squishy healer.

I suppose my terminology was wrong, rather than "ladder" I should have been thinking "skill ranking system". Such as chess uses.

If "fun" is "developing skill in a game and being rewarded for your skill" then zero-sum CP is more fun than just being able to grind CP.

Positive-sum CP means rank rises mostly by time spent (grinding). Every encounter for anyone produces on the average some CP, so you can just spend enormous quantities of time to get to the top, as long as you are at least of middling skill.
Zero-sum CP means rank rises mostly by skill developed (or it should if your ladder system is reasonable.)

This would let casual players have a chance, because everybody would eventually be ranked by their skill level; casual players would just take longer to get there. (And of course, they would probably have less skill due to less time spent playing, but that's fair.)

...

I don't see why storming the battlements shouldn't be done in zero-sum CP (or other skill-ranking system.)

If storming is harder than defending, the encounter will reward a successful offense more than a successful defense.

Yes, your expected overall gain from a given battle is zero (after everybody has bubbled to their "true" ranking by skill level). But, the real reward in playing a game ought to be feeling that you are becoming more skilled at it. That's what play is - it's the practice of skills. As your skill is increasing, each battle should reward you slightly. That's a good feeling.
...

Maybe players really just do want a system where they put X hours in and get reward Y out. In my opinion, that's not play, it's work, but to each their own.

[Edit: It occurs to me that WSG, AV, and AB already offer a good grind for their respective reps. So players who want to PvP and grind at the same time, would still have the option, even in a skill-ranking system.]

[oldmandennis]

We are getting pretty far off the reservation here, but since it was a highly speculative topic to begin with, I'll keep on going.

Positive-sum CP means rank rises mostly by time spent (grinding). Every encounter for anyone produces on the average some CP, so you can just spend enormous quantities of time to get to the top, as long as you are at least of middling skill.

It doesn't have to. Right now everything is warped by a few design flaws, notably the lack of matchmaking. First off, on most PvP relms, it takes more then an enourmous quantity of time, it takes a ton of time and a team that is capable winning 95% of the time by demolishing Pugs, scaring off lesser teams, and recognaising the teams that need to be /afked to.

Once matchmaking goes in, the good teams will no longer match up with pugs. Since /afk will not result in an easier match, there will be no reason to do that either. And since winning competitive games will now be exceptionally important, your middling player will be jettisioned by the pros he is trying to piggyback on. Or so I hope.

Zero-sum CP means rank rises mostly by skill developed (or it should if your ladder system is reasonable.)

I don't see why storming the battlements shouldn't be done in zero-sum CP (or other skill-ranking system.)

If storming is harder than defending, the encounter will reward a successful offense more than a successful defense.

Two things. I think you have to look at the effects on what little world PvP remains, especially for the lower number faction. Somebody who went from 55-60 only in a group of 5-10 from cities to the end game dungeons would be substantially higher in rankings then somebody who soloed all of the EPL/winterspring quests. Is that a fair reflection of skill? What about somebody who kicks tail in BG's for two hours a day, then goes to try and farm rep for a while in EPL or silithus. Does he deserve a middle of the ground ranking of skill?

Second, you would have to look at how it would affect battlegrounds. It would definatly discourage trying. The losing side would have a strong incentive to turtle up far away from the objectives, to stop from losing any more honor. It would also defeat 40v40 BG's. For this system to have any effect at all, you have to charge the people who leave BG's early for a defeat. But if a BG is supposed to go for 2hours, it can easily streach to four. Are you gonna penalize people for leaving early from that? And ofcourse, who will be willing to fling themselves into fearbombing a tower if they will be dinged honor for doing it?

[TheWesson]

We are getting pretty far off the reservation here, but since it was a highly speculative topic to begin with, I'll keep on going.
It doesn't have to. Right now everything is warped by a few design flaws, notably the lack of matchmaking. First off, on most PvP relms, it takes more then an enourmous quantity of time, it takes a ton of time and a team that is capable winning 95% of the time by demolishing Pugs, scaring off lesser teams, and recognaising the teams that need to be /afked to.

Once matchmaking goes in, the good teams will no longer match up with pugs. Since /afk will not result in an easier match, there will be no reason to do that either. And since winning competitive games will now be exceptionally important, your middling player will be jettisioned by the pros he is trying to piggyback on. Or so I hope.
Two things. I think you have to look at the effects on what little world PvP remains, especially for the lower number faction. Somebody who went from 55-60 only in a group of 5-10 from cities to the end game dungeons would be substantially higher in rankings then somebody who soloed all of the EPL/winterspring quests. Is that a fair reflection of skill? What about somebody who kicks tail in BG's for two hours a day, then goes to try and farm rep for a while in EPL or silithus. Does he deserve a middle of the ground ranking of skill?

Second, you would have to look at how it would affect battlegrounds. It would definatly discourage trying. The losing side would have a strong incentive to turtle up far away from the objectives, to stop from losing any more honor. It would also defeat 40v40 BG's. For this system to have any effect at all, you have to charge the people who leave BG's early for a defeat. But if a BG is supposed to go for 2hours, it can easily streach to four. Are you gonna penalize people for leaving early from that? And ofcourse, who will be willing to fling themselves into fearbombing a tower if they will be dinged honor for doing it?

I certainly can't entirely discount your points (which are good ones.)

Given some sort of theoretical situation in which you always gain/lose rank according to your estimated probablility of winning (which in this theoretical case is exactly equal to your actual probability of winning) most of your cases would be just fine. The lvl-40 ganked would gain huge honor from beating the lvl-60 ganker, so would be good-to-go even fighting mostly-futile battles vs the ganker.

But I agree the turtling effect would occur where you believed your actual current probability of winning was less than your honor-system-estimated probability of winning. This is quite possible if your probability of victory declines during the match ...

Anyhow thanks for the discussion it's given me much to think about.

[jhartelt]

I like the idea of both the factions players being able to 1) communicate, 2)trade and 3) party up. Something EQ2 did better from the start IMO. From the background story, there is IMO no reason for immediate hostilities between horde and alliance.

Even better would be the ability to get faction wih the 4 internal factions of the other side, so I could get friendly with the orcs as an alliance character, for example. After that I should be allowed to do get quests from them. Imagine Kodo riding dwarves or orcs on tigers:)

If not as a general change of things, it could be realised as a new type of server.

[MongoJerry]

I like the idea of both the factions players being able to 1) communicate, 2)trade and 3) party up. Something EQ2 did better from the start IMO. From the background story, there is IMO no reason for immediate hostilities between horde and alliance.

The reason why the Stormwind army is away from Westfall/Redridge/Duskwood is because they are at the "front lines" against the Horde armies. Yes, Onyxia is manipulating things, but the tensions are definitely there. Also, the undead in Tarren Mill are actively trying to destroy the Alliance town of Hillsbrad. Also, orc and Theremore forces are sending scouts, spies, and raiding parties against one another. Also, every time I walk into an Alliance town, I get attacked by Alliance guards, so that shows things aren't friendly. There is a temporary cease fire between the groups, but it's all fraying at the edges.

Personally, I think it's a major problem with the game that there isn't more encouraging the war between the factions. Things have gotten too chummy in Silithus and EPL. I can see why. It's easier to make one piece of content that applies to both factions than two pieces of content where each piece only applies to a particular faction. But I would like to see more that differentiates the two factions and give the game more replayability in that one's experience should be different depending on what faction you play.

Even better would be the ability to get faction wih the 4 internal factions of the other side, so I could get friendly with the orcs as an alliance character, for example. After that I should be allowed to do get quests from them. Imagine Kodo riding dwarves or orcs on tigers:)

The day Thrall entertains night elves in Orgimmar is the day I declare war on Orgrimmar, kill Thrall, and demand a new warchief. Luckily, I don't have to worry about Silvanis doing anything like this, because she's not the softie that Thrall is.

[oldmandennis]

I can't find it anymore, but the new arenas will be based on the chess ladder. I think that's excellent for that type of PvP. (still not zero sum, and that ladder doesn't apply to world PvP, from what I read). The fact that it's so team oriented means I probably woln't really participate.

Worrying is the lack of any details on battlegrounds. I'm very afraid of the possiblity that there are none. Gogo server imbalance. From the sounds of it, the arenas will just be a killem all type affair. That's OK, but I find other games more engaging. Even if there are BG's, it doesn't sound like there will be matchmaking in them.

The fact that the new honor rewards will be weaker then the arena awards will cause mind boggling amounts of whining.

The reason why the Stormwind army is away from Westfall/Redridge/Duskwood is because they are at the "front lines" against the Horde armies.

Wait... just where the hell are they? I have a suspecion they are in Ony's belly. "Sergent Smith, take 5 of your fattest men, dump cumin on yourselves, and report to that dark room nobody goes into for a special assignment!"

Maybe a few of them are in southshore or arathi. They arent really fighting in the plaguelands, AV is mostly staffed by dwarves and WSG by elves. Dustwallow/Barrens/Durotar are a colony, I can't think of any other humans in Kalimdor.