PDA

View Full Version : The Official PvP for PSO2 Support Group Thread.



MelancholyWitch
Apr 30, 2012, 11:50 AM
I know lots of topics here and there have jumped around to talk about it but let's just make 1 big topic about the reasoning you think in your opinion whether or not there should be PvP included in PSO2? My group is open to all people who are for implementing a style or system of PvP in PSO2.

Now before you go off in a fury and write your reply back to me, I'd like for you to think outside of the community, don't think in just old time PSO players, think about new gamers,old gamers, mediocre gamers, hard core gamers, etc. There's only one thing that can join such an old mix of online gamers, and that is PvP.

It's not about seeing who has the biggest E peen or what it's about thinking in what steps could Sega take in order to get a larger community... I'm tired of this idealistic thinking in oh surely we don't need PvP in this game, then you see that same person spending most their online time sitting in the lobby chatting rather than you know...playing the game. If you're going to post here with a reason to not having PvP please make it a good one because if you're going to say something stupid and inconsiderate like balance you might as well just gtfo this topic, I want serious opinions here, I'm not being biased I'll read both sides, but like I said before I don't want some half ass reasons, or simply oh PSO never had PvP before it doesn't need it, guess what? it's 2012 do something different for once.

My reason for the need of PvP:

First of all I am so tired of seeing people on PS games sit in the lobbies and talk about how they have nothing to do, yeah of course you don't because there's no end game, PvP fixes end game issues easily.
Second of all we need some form of competition yeah sure there is competition with gear and leveling mag but what then after that? wait till new gear comes? No, you find out who can controller their character better, or who can adapt to a situation more easily, etc.
Third of all it makes sense story wise to include it...Have people easily forgotten the Hunters guild missions in PSO ep 1 & 2? The offline ones had a story a long with it, running into blackpepper, the works group, etc. and what happened when you encountered these groups? YOU FOUGHT AGAINST THEM, Yes Hunter vs Hunter. Yeah they were npcs, but the idea is there Hunters didn't always side together, even fighting the easy works members was fun to me back then, can you imagine the way you could fight now?
Last reason is the online gaming community needs a new PvP game that isn't point to click like wow, solution!?!?!=PSO2.

My suggestions on how to PvP in PSO2:

It's easy and quite simple to understand actually, but the way it would work is when setting up a party & making a party name there would be a small box at the end by default this box is left blank but if you were to click on it this would now mean your party has a chance to encounter PvP before finishing the mission, it would use the similar set up there is now when running a mission basically it would go,
Zone 1= Random monsters & interrupt events (this area is with your party only)
Zone 2= Multiparty zone, Random monsters, interrupt events, etc happen here too, but now there are other parties with you, and you must find/fight these other players & beat them before you can move on, while dealing with interrupt events (like a code duel) maybe it could turn out to be a 4v4, 8v4, 4v4v4, or 1v1x12. Either way when setting up the party this way you risk running into PvP regardless of being alone or in a group of 4.
Zone 3= it can either be a buffer zone like zone 1 so there can be a zone 4 or this can be the one where you finish your quest, most likely the quest is finished in this zone or this is the last zone before boss, Think Nab Rappy quest where the middle zone was multiparty and the last zone was for the completion of the mission.

Basically the point of PvP in the game with this idea would be that your group is able to finish and complete the mission while the other groups have to redo the mission from the beginning or you could just increase the drop(s)/rate of the quest rewards. This gives people who want to PvP a chance to PvP, while those who don't want to simply do not have to PvP, also there wont be much balance issues to address except for damage, there will be monsters to fight as well as players at same time so quick thinking and good judgment is going to have to come into play here.

I will be doing my best to voice my ideas to Sega of Japan on the blog, official site,forums, etc. Anyone is more than welcomed to help me with this and join in on this, let's get our ideas heard to them, if enough people say it, they will listen, it's already being addressed seeing as one of the answer choices in their questionnaire survey is PvP. I'm not doing a poll because I know how people would just make multiple accounts for them, post your side Pro PvP or not, then post your opinion or idea on how you would implement it/why or why you think it's not needed. No flaming or troll posts, this is a serious discussion and like I said posts such as "PvP is lame, PSO2 doesn't need it because they couldn't balance it or would take time out of developing content" Will be considered as a brainless statement also known as trolling, which will also be ignored.

Peejay
Apr 30, 2012, 11:54 AM
I would have an objection to this, to some extent.

Depending on what sort of community gets involved, this could be a bad or a good idea. Some games had excellently thought out PvP. You could never get mad, and it was all in fun. World of Warcraft was like that, if you weren't big on tournaments.

Then you have games that are so competitive, you end up bleeding from every orifice because of the tension, or just everyone being mouthy little Rappies who don't know their place and think they're the best because they wait until everyone is near dead then get a few hits off, which I think is unsportsmanlike. A game called "Getamped2" is like that.

Considering it's going to be primarily open and free to play, it only increases chances we'll end up seeing a lot of "Noob", "spammer", "lagger", "aff", "wew", and the like.

I like it but I don't see it working.

Kraiseson
Apr 30, 2012, 12:01 PM
Any PVP at all would suffice. Not looking for quest rewards or any hinderance for it.
Maybe a special arena where you can PVP and a ranking system that keeps track. No rewards, aside from Ranking.

Gama
Apr 30, 2012, 12:04 PM
why not just mimic battle mode.

MelancholyWitch
Apr 30, 2012, 12:06 PM
My idea doesn't hinder you from completing any quest and that's what I"m saying you go to any game and get that loser 13 year old mentality of elitism you can just ignore stuff like that if you're mature enough to, I don't see how chatting to someone makes an in game feature not work. Sure you can shit talk to people you kill, but it's just like a sports competition you have the people who just talk big and you have people who play big. Just need to find out which one are you.

MelancholyWitch
Apr 30, 2012, 12:07 PM
why not just mimic battle mode.

Battle mode makes me feel too much like WoW battlegrounds, even though battle mode did come first, it wouldn't be bad honestly I'd be ok with a battle mode at least but think about the possibilities with PvP in this game... the way you can move your character...it's like playing a console game mmorpg.

Taitu
Apr 30, 2012, 12:10 PM
Well I certainly am for having PVP in the game. I don't think I care to have a for a lack of a better term 'world PVP' system as you suggest though. If there was PVP I would prefer it to be more sanctioned and fair for both sides. Simply a PVP matchup room that could be for both teams or solo dueling. Perhaps even the ability for players to spectate matches.

As far as it playing in a balanced fashion which seems to be the prime concern of PVP as a Hunter user myself I'm actually not very concerned. I can understand the concern of ranged players shutting out Hunters entirely; however, reading about the usefulness of dash away zoning for the ranged classes sounds as if it doesn't improve their ability to zone. Not to mention dashing has an absurd amount of invulnerability for Hunters to dash in to their opponent.

It really all comes down to how hitstun would work in PVP. Obviously Ranger attacks would have to cause far less if any hitstun at all to another player whereas Hunters would have to cause the most. (Perhaps hitstun can be determined by the amount of damage an individual attack causes in proportion to your max HP and doesn't occur at all under a certain threshold). The only other alteration I would make specifically for PVP is players can't lock on to other players so aiming would have to come into play for ranged skill. Of course this would only need to be implemented if Ranged vs Melee was still a major issue after the previous system was put into place.

FenixStryk
Apr 30, 2012, 12:17 PM
Not entirely against PvP, but the current balance between Hunter and Ranger/Force leaves things like balance extremely up in the air. Current HU tools are not enough for HU to close the gap if RA/FO is camping at the end of a corridor, and "fixing" this problem is more likely hurt the rest of the game than make HU viable in PvP.

The PSO series has always been made with PvE at the forefront, above all else. If you want a sort of competitive mode, I think twisting the game into a sort of Head-to-Head PvE Race would be better than putting two people in a box and telling them to swing.

Gardios
Apr 30, 2012, 12:30 PM
First of, why would talking about balance be stupid? That's probably one of the most important factors if you don't want to see just one class running around.

If they were to implement PVP they better do it with a proper arena, I honestly see no benefit of world PVP/PK over (team) PVP. PA/skill effects for PVE/PVP should also be seperated so SEGA doesn't mess up PVE when changing PAs/skills specifically for PVP and vice-versa.

Lastly, while I'm not opposed to it, the game definitely doesn't need PVP for competition because it brings out the worst in people. They could easily flesh out Interrupt/Weekly Ranking for the competition aspect of the game or introduce other possible game modes like tower defence with rankings based on a score, numbers of waves fended off etc.

Taitu
Apr 30, 2012, 12:31 PM
Not entirely against PvP, but the current balance between Hunter and Ranger/Force leaves things like balance extremely up in the air. Current HU tools are not enough for HU to close the gap if RA/FO is camping at the end of a corridor, and "fixing" this problem is more likely hurt the rest of the game than make HU viable in PvP.

The PSO series has always been made with PvE at the forefront, above all else. If you want a sort of competitive mode, I think twisting the game into a sort of Head-to-Head PvE Race would be better than putting two people in a box and telling them to swing.

This was another concern that people seem to have for some reason. 'Twisting' the game for PVP is not an issue as damage calculations/reactions and all other rebalances for PVP can be restricted to ONLY effecting PVP. There is no reason to be concerned that including PVP must effect the PVE only player.

MelancholyWitch
Apr 30, 2012, 12:48 PM
The reason talking about balance is stupid is because there is no game to this day that was released with PvP and was balanced. The game isn't even out yet, it's impossible to work out balance issues when we don't even know details like how many skill tree points do you get total? How many stuns does X class get, etc.

soulpimpwizzurd
Apr 30, 2012, 11:19 PM
if there was any actual player vs player there better be "basic" modes, where all stats are normalized, disregarding your equipment, and you can only have as many skill points into effect as the lowest level player. your PA/bullet/tech levels are also lowered to the lowest level player.

if stats will effect pvp (sadly they probably will) pvp will most likely be garbage.

pvp in terms of doing PVE races or something would probably be better. i'd like pvp but only if they implemented it properly and made it balanced.

seriously, pvp in combat mmos like this where stats aren't balanced is just ridiculous.

Zyrusticae
Apr 30, 2012, 11:27 PM
I don't know why anyone expects Sega to separate stats between PvP and PvE if they ever implement PvP to begin with.

There are two things wrong with that train of thought:
1. Sega simply aren't that competent, and
2. Japan's collectivist leanings mean direct competition is generally looked down upon.

I mean, golly, if you actually look at the MMO market, there are surprisingly few MMOs that actually do the whole PvP- and PvE-segregation thing. Even when they would clearly and obviously benefit from such a change! I really wouldn't expect Sega to be so clear-headed as to do such a thing.

NoiseHERO
Apr 30, 2012, 11:31 PM
I don't know why anyone expects Sega to separate stats between PvP and PvE if they ever implement PvP to begin with..

Because that's what they did with every other PSO iteration besides PSU and PSZ...

I wonder if people will get less "NO MMO PVP SUCKS" rage'd on the topic of PVP for PSO2 if we just call it battle mode. And then there's the whole "PSO SERIES ISN'T EVEN AN MMO" thing. But I'm not on any side of that bickering, I just want a battlemode.

And yeah sounds like Sakai REALLY wants to know whether or not people are interested in PVP, when he keeps asking about it in all of the surveys and bringing it up in a couple of interviews...

Ark22
Apr 30, 2012, 11:33 PM
Lol I would love a PVP mode, it would make it different for players. I think they could do it a good job with it seeing the whole defense system is different. So if you had Forces and theirs techs, spec for force defense.

Eggobandit
Apr 30, 2012, 11:34 PM
How about we just call it Battle mode and not PvP mode so the paranoid people wont start crying rivers at the notion of a little extra fun somehow turning the game into an insecure fest

Resanoca
Apr 30, 2012, 11:34 PM
Didn't read the OP, but all I saw was PvP. I'm in. D: Maybe they could revamp PSU's airboarding. Like, rip something straight from Sonic Riders. ;D

Chik'Tikka
Apr 30, 2012, 11:46 PM
i noticed odd blue and red rooms in the large lounge area that had the makeover shop+^_^+ first thought i had was red vs blue, the rooms were identical otherwise+^_^+

soulpimpwizzurd
Apr 30, 2012, 11:53 PM
Didn't read the OP, but all I saw was PvP. I'm in. D: Maybe they could revamp PSU's airboarding. Like, rip something straight from Sonic Riders. ;D

i just watched psu airboarding.

i like the idea, but i'd want them to make like, launcher racing, or something.

it should be easy enough shouldn't it?!?!?! i mean it's already in the game, they just have to extend the animation and not make the character to the dumb circle.

ShadowsCrush
May 1, 2012, 12:29 AM
If any of you got into the Continent of the Ninth beta like I did, would you be in support of the Intrusion system style of PvP?

For those that didn't, a brief explanation:
Basically, once you hit level 25, you have the option to turn on Intrusion in the dungeon you are about to start. At any point during the dungeon, other players (via the Intrusion NPC) can come into your dungeon to try and kill you, which, if you die, drop a token, and you respawn inside the dungeon. However if you kill them, they drop a token, and are kicked out of your dungeon. These tokens are traded for loot boxes at the same NPC, and having Intrusion turned on for your dungeon increases the points rewarded to you at the completion of the dungeon (even if no one actually intruded). Intrusion is balanced by restricting level and also by party size (ie if you are in a dungeon alone, only one person can intrude, but if you have a party of 3, 3 or less people can intrude, etc etc)

This is of course in addition to regular Arena-style 1v1 or group or guild pvp

Dabian
May 1, 2012, 12:43 AM
PSO's PvP (if battle mode was anything more than a tacked on, half-baked nod) wasn't what gave it its popularity. You could argue adding PVP would open up the market even more, but at the same time it'll be a nightmare to balance.

I come from seven years of World of Warcraft, and it's been nothing but a pain in the [censored] getting PVP to be anything other than flavor-of-the-month.

So I'm against PVP. You want PVP, make a game from the ground up DESIGNED with PVP in mind, not tack it on later.

NoiseHERO
May 1, 2012, 01:08 AM
"PVP" battle mode was NEVER taken seriously in PSO2, it was just there, and you could punch your friends in the face and laugh about it.

All of this balancing, gameplay design, PVP elitism drama. That's every OTHER MMO's problem, MMOs that takes PVP SERIOUSLY.

So yeah I'm sure 99.9% of the people saying they "want PVP in PSO2" simply just want a little mini game where you so happen to have the ability to nuke all of your friends. So people instantly thinking, and probably not reading that keep saying "Eww PVP just ruins the game's balance and makes the community awful" Yeah, you're right, no shit. But that's MMOs not PSO MINI GAME BATTLE MODE THAT COULD TECHNICALLY BE CALLED "PVP"

Starting arguments for completely different... things... And I end up saying this in like EVERY "PVP in PSO2?" thread and the same arguments just start all over again. >0

Oh wait... LOLPSOW.

Resanoca
May 1, 2012, 01:12 AM
"PVP" battle mode was NEVER taken seriously in PSO2, it was just there, and you could punch your friends in the face and laugh about it.

All of this balancing, gameplay design, PVP elitism drama. That's every OTHER MMO's problem, MMOs that takes PVP SERIOUSLY.

So yeah I'm sure 99.9% of the people saying they "want PVP in PSO2" simply just want a little mini game where you so happen to have the ability to nuke all of your friends. So people instantly thinking, and probably not reading that keep saying "Eww PVP just ruins the game's balance and makes the community awful" Yeah, you're right, no shit. But that's MMOs not PSO MINI GAME BATTLE MODE THAT COULD TECHNICALLY BE CALLED "PVP"

Starting arguments for completely different... things... And I end up saying this in like EVERY "PVP in PSO2?" thread and the same arguments just start all over again. >0

Oh wait... LOLPSOW.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUAL!

Rath-Kun
May 1, 2012, 01:18 AM
I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUAL!

-equips his spear- PSP2? It's go time.

Resanoca
May 1, 2012, 01:21 AM
-equips his spear- PSP2? It's go time.Shaw!

Eggobandit
May 1, 2012, 01:30 AM
I CHALLENGE YOU TO A DUAL!


*equips a second sword*


CHALLENGE ACCEPTED

Konflyk
May 1, 2012, 01:30 AM
oh PSO never had PvP before it doesn't need it
ಠ_ಠ
Wrong. PSO GC/BB had PvP, I recalled we had a forum event on the sega forums hosted by Rubyeclipse as a singles player tournament.




My reason for the need of PvP:

First of all I am so tired of seeing people on PS games sit in the lobbies and talk about how they have nothing to do, yeah of course you don't because there's no end game, PvP fixes end game issues easily.

ಠ_ಠ
If this were the case the highly popular SWTOR wouldn't be in major decline of player subs/player base, PvP won't "fix" end game issues easier or not, some people just don't like it, some people prefer non competitive games because frankly some people get butt hurt and it brings the worst out of them. I used SWTOR because it is a recent MMO that hasn't even been out for a year, and is already dying quickly.



Second of all we need some form of competition yeah sure there is competition with gear and leveling mag but what then after that? wait till new gear comes? No, you find out who can controller their character better, or who can adapt to a situation more easily, etc.

This seems to be the only thing you have said that has merit, thus far in your opinion, minus the better control of a character and such, really I'd say stats would play a role, and if they wanted to create a truely balanced PvP mode there would have to be restrictions in terms of player parameters such as level capped PvP ie. lv 20, 50, 100 only etc. with stat caps on said levels, with leeway for adjustments made with a mag.



Third of all it makes sense story wise to include it...Have people easily forgotten the Hunters guild missions in PSO ep 1 & 2? The offline ones had a story a long with it, running into blackpepper, the works group, etc. and what happened when you encountered these groups? YOU FOUGHT AGAINST THEM, Yes Hunter vs Hunter. Yeah they were npcs, but the idea is there Hunters didn't always side together, even fighting the easy works members was fun to me back then, can you imagine the way you could fight now?
Last reason is the online gaming community needs a new PvP game that isn't point to click like wow, solution!?!?!=PSO2.
ಠ_ಠ

No, just no. You want a solution, I'd suggest playing a fighting game, expecting a "quality" fight in an online game isn't going to ever happen, I suggest you go play PSOBB for an hour or so and then come back with new knowledge. It'll give you a better frame work to understand PvP in this series.



My suggestions on how to PvP in PSO2:

It's easy and quite simple to understand actually, but the way it would work is when setting up a party & making a party name there would be a small box at the end by default this box is left blank but if you were to click on it this would now mean...

ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ
I stopped reading where I cut it off, because I already understood where you were going with that, frankly I'm going to strongly disagree with that on so many levels that you can't comprehend. POS2 isn't a point and click MMO, I need not refrence SWTOR again. In PSO, all PvP ROOMs were made at the mission counter as you normally would go to, to set up a mission, said rooms would be set up for PvP that only allows you to select certain maps of choice based on stages from the game with all the goodies in em like traps, surprises and monsters that could kill you if you weren't careful. Once again go play PSOBB/GC/Xbox, that format of PvP fine. If I want PvP I'll make a room requesting it and people can join of their own free will, or I can sit there lonely because 80% of the community probably wouldn't join anyway unless it was a pre-planned event of some sort or pre-made arrangement.

OP Disapproval level 8/10

Edit: ಠ_ಠ

Eggobandit
May 1, 2012, 01:35 AM
BEFORE WE CONTINUE ANY FARTHER


Can you people please confirm to everybody what your definition of "PVP" is? Because i do not think everyone is on the same page here.



Either way, a battle mode like PSO, or even a Multiparty room where 6 players can randomly encounter another 6 players on the map and duke it out for player and monster kills?



Count me IN man. Make use of that tall grass, those super high areas in the caves...it would be even more awesome if you could use like monsters on your side to hunt the other team! DARKERS vs NATIVES! DRAGON PEOPLE vs MONKEY...forest...people!!!!



And after a certain number of killls one team can summon VOL DRAGON or DARK RAGNE and then have them DUKE IT OUT, WHILE ONE TEAM RIDES ON TOP OF RAGNE AND THE OTHER ONE WITH AN ARMY OF VOL DRAGONS AND THEN WE DUKE IT OUT TO THE DEATH YEAHHH




yeahhhh, you guys are just boring and need to go outside for a while

Konflyk
May 1, 2012, 01:38 AM
Fine then

PvP = Battlemode like PSO Ep1/2 but with PSO2 maps of course, random layouts, instead of 1 map only like PSO where everyone knows the spawn points and such, of course this will have to support up to 12(3x4) people for teams and maybe 8 for singles.

Angelo
May 1, 2012, 01:57 AM
PsP2's PvP was really a great step in the right direction, unfortunately due to the nature of the PSP it suffered from some pretty poor lag. Also the game's limitation to 4 players per instance was a problem

For those that aren't familiar with how PsP2's PvP system worked, I'll sum it up;

The main objective was 'whichever team has the most points wins'.

You were split into two groups of two players. Each group would stop at the opposite side of a map at their 'base block', the map was scattered with capture points and would occasionally spawn 'big' monsters (not bosses, but akin to the Darkers big mobs like the big beetle, big flying... thing, and sorcerer looking flying thing in the cities).

Each team would get points for:

Defeating another player
Capturing a 'capture point'
Destroying the opposing team's 'base block'
Defeating a big monster.

This lead to some pretty fun matches, and I remember always being able to find a battle mode game no matter what time of day it was.

At the end of a match you receive points whether you won or lost, but the reward for winning was doubled.

I think if the reward for this was something like FUN points it could be a great end-game time waster and something that could breathe life into the game.

Of course, something no one wants to hear, but is true either way, is that it would benefit the longevity of the game and pump money into the cash shop system.

This could be pretty amazing in a big arena since the multiparty formula allows for 12 players per map. Imagine having 4v4v4 all on a huge map finding capture points on a randomized map and trying to find the opposing team's base.

PSP2 also gave the option at higher levels to use your own level and gear to play matches, which I think is pretty mandatory of this is being considered.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6JtvPzaKeY

It would be like that ^

On a much bigger scale, with bigger teams, and your own gear, and without the terrible lag and de-syncing that came with the Portable games.

That would be completely ideal.

Eggobandit
May 1, 2012, 02:54 AM
i dont care what anyone says, my idea of picking a Monster side and summoning an army of them to vs the other team is freaking awesome.


Who WOULDNT want a Dark Ragne / Vol Dragon on their team to decimate the other team? Defending and fighting with a boss, super awesome!


Hell, the AI seems versatile enough on this game, you could probably even have subpallete abilities that would pinpoint a target! Or maybe even have one person on the team who could send COMMANDS to the AI boss/swarm on your team, like you can with NPCs!




Nothing better than stun trapping that noob force on the other team who keeps spamming you with foie and then commanding vol dragon to unleash his firearmor gigaflare on him for massive damageeeeee

Wayu
May 1, 2012, 03:44 AM
I'd be fine with PvP, but only if PvPers play in a specialized block or something. Some kind of separate instance or block or ship.

That way you won't have PvP gankers running around PvE areas just to troll people to death like in Dragona (which failed pretty hard due to that).

-Wayu

Resanoca
May 1, 2012, 03:52 AM
I'd be fine with PvP, but only if PvPers play in a specialized block or something. Some kind of separate instance or block or ship.

That way you won't have PvP gankers running around PvE areas just to troll people to death like in Dragona (which failed pretty hard due to that).

-Wayu

That's not the kind of PvP I want. ;3; I'd want something like how PSP2/I was. Actually having PvP in-mission would just be chaos.

Wayu
May 1, 2012, 04:04 AM
PSP2i had separate instances, where players created PvP rooms.

-Wayu

NoiseHERO
May 1, 2012, 04:48 AM
i dont care what anyone says, my idea of picking a Monster side and summoning an army of them to vs the other team is freaking awesome.


Who WOULDNT want a Dark Ragne / Vol Dragon on their team to decimate the other team? Defending and fighting with a boss, super awesome!


Hell, the AI seems versatile enough on this game, you could probably even have subpallete abilities that would pinpoint a target! Or maybe even have one person on the team who could send COMMANDS to the AI boss/swarm on your team, like you can with NPCs!




Nothing better than stun trapping that noob force on the other team who keeps spamming you with foie and then commanding vol dragon to unleash his firearmor gigaflare on him for massive damageeeeee

Actually now that monsters can fight each other this would be a REALLY cool idea... ESPECIALLY after watching bosses fight.

You can separate the monsters by group so you can't have RAGNE vs a bobble head rappy. And they could be a new system where you'd "catch" a monster and store it as some kind of compressed digital form, so that you can summon them like pokemon when someone challenges you in a multiparty area or something. Maybe even a leveling/pet system to it as well to make it slightly more in depth.

Kraiseson
May 1, 2012, 06:51 AM
Team wars would be nice... Rewards for that of most definately...

MelancholyWitch
May 1, 2012, 10:43 AM
I'd be fine with PvP, but only if PvPers play in a specialized block or something. Some kind of separate instance or block or ship.

That way you won't have PvP gankers running around PvE areas just to troll people to death like in Dragona (which failed pretty hard due to that).

-Wayu

If you read my post you would see in there that I clearly state in order to have PvP enabled you would have to knowingly select it as an option in your party settings which is turned off by default so this way PvE junkies can fight in peace and PvPers can enjoy a gank type PvP system that requires strategy, Lineage 2 was exactly set up like that, never heard of Dragona but Lineage 2 has been quite successful in its' early years, especially the prelude/open beta where it was either be ganked or gank.

Gardios
May 1, 2012, 10:48 AM
All of this balancing, gameplay design, PVP elitism drama. That's every OTHER MMO's problem, MMOs that takes PVP SERIOUSLY.

Nowadays you'll always find people who take things seriously even if they weren't intended to be, especially if it comes to competition. Thinking otherwise is just naïve.

MelancholyWitch
May 1, 2012, 10:48 AM
Actually now that monsters can fight each other this would be a REALLY cool idea... ESPECIALLY after watching bosses fight.

You can separate the monsters by group so you can't have RAGNE vs a bobble head rappy. And they could be a new system where you'd "catch" a monster and store it as some kind of compressed digital form, so that you can summon them like pokemon when someone challenges you in a multiparty area or something. Maybe even a leveling/pet system to it as well to make it slightly more in depth.

I like this idea or by buffing forces and giving them an ability to control monsters/capture them like in an emergency code arrest quest, depending on level depends on how big/strong the monster is you could capture/control, this could create for really complicated and creative team fights think about having to focus killing down a vol dragon or dark ragne while dealing with 4 other hunters, it would be long worth while fights to see, ideas like this are what I want to convey to Sega..they wont lose as many players as they would gain with PvP like this, especially if there's an option that let's you turn it off..


Nowadays you'll always find people who take things seriously even if they weren't intended to be, especially if it comes to competition. Thinking otherwise is just naïve.

Exactly... I want to know what real issues would be presented if PvP was introduced but so far I don't see any issues, I see the same problems that PvP brings in every game, you either have enough maturity to deal with it or you don't.

MelancholyWitch
May 1, 2012, 11:29 AM
ಠ_ಠ
Wrong. PSO GC/BB had PvP, I recalled we had a forum event on the sega forums hosted by Rubyeclipse as a singles player tournament.



ಠ_ಠ
If this were the case the highly popular SWTOR wouldn't be in major decline of player subs/player base, PvP won't "fix" end game issues easier or not, some people just don't like it, some people prefer non competitive games because frankly some people get butt hurt and it brings the worst out of them. I used SWTOR because it is a recent MMO that hasn't even been out for a year, and is already dying quickly.



This seems to be the only thing you have said that has merit, thus far in your opinion, minus the better control of a character and such, really I'd say stats would play a role, and if they wanted to create a truely balanced PvP mode there would have to be restrictions in terms of player parameters such as level capped PvP ie. lv 20, 50, 100 only etc. with stat caps on said levels, with leeway for adjustments made with a mag.


ಠ_ಠ

No, just no. You want a solution, I'd suggest playing a fighting game, expecting a "quality" fight in an online game isn't going to ever happen, I suggest you go play PSOBB for an hour or so and then come back with new knowledge. It'll give you a better frame work to understand PvP in this series.


ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ ಠ_ಠ
I stopped reading where I cut it off, because I already understood where you were going with that, frankly I'm going to strongly disagree with that on so many levels that you can't comprehend. POS2 isn't a point and click MMO, I need not refrence SWTOR again. In PSO, all PvP ROOMs were made at the mission counter as you normally would go to, to set up a mission, said rooms would be set up for PvP that only allows you to select certain maps of choice based on stages from the game with all the goodies in em like traps, surprises and monsters that could kill you if you weren't careful. Once again go play PSOBB/GC/Xbox, that format of PvP fine. If I want PvP I'll make a room requesting it and people can join of their own free will, or I can sit there lonely because 80% of the community probably wouldn't join anyway unless it was a pre-planned event of some sort or pre-made arrangement.

OP Disapproval level 8/10

Edit: ಠ_ಠ

Loool okay random calm yourself there, first off you don't just take sections of someone's post then reply to cutting off parts of it to make it seem like something else is being sad, I played GC PSO A LOT, and NO I DID NOT STATE THERE WAS NO PVP in that game, I simply said that is the argument lots of people much like yourself tell me when I suggest open PvP in PSO2., but of course like most people on here you only read the first line.

ummm the reason why SWTOR is losing players have nothing to do with that... have you even played the game? let alone made a character past lvl 10? I have a lvl 50 immortal juggernaut , was one of the first who hit lvl 50 because I preordered. Anyways the reason they are losing players is because most of those players came from WoW, and the game has been designed to be pretty much identical to WoW in every way. SO saying PvP is the reason is just an idiotic response, PvP is the same as WoW, even the 2 factions...They made the same game with a different name this happens a lot and that's why it fails, nothing to do with PvP, the only reason it isn't doing so bad is because of PvP without that I know entire guilds who would of dropped subscriptions by now. SO now you know the real reason why SWTOR is dying do you kn
ow how many subscriptions WoW had at one point? OH YEAH NON COMPETITIVE GAMES DO SO MUCH BETTER !!!! that's 13million + subscriptions, let's see here 13millionx$50(game)x$15(month)x$30-60(expansions)..hrmmm let's see yeah that = a shit load of money, more than any other game company has made on ONE single game, and you're going to sit there and tell me games without PvP are more successful? exactly where are you getting this info?

As I stated before you can make stats specifically for PvP and have them not affect your PvE stats in anyway so this paragraph you said has no valid point to it.

I played more Ep1. & 2. than BB but nonetheless I have played BB probably a lot more than you have and I can still say yes there is some form of PvP needed.. yeah it was there in battle mode but not the way it should of been implemented, if battle mode was such a good idea why wasn't it in PSU? It didn't work it was just a fun means of fighting your friends with newly acquired weapons sure there were lots of tournaments on there I remember one from here actually, but 1v1 matches does not do PvP justice. We need an organized form of Team vs Team play in PSO2 battle mode just had too many issues like resta helping enemies too, etc. WE need something better than just battle mode or the 2v2 fight on PSP2i. The Idea of PvP was there in PSOGC even in the story line... you fought against other hunters although they were NPC's they still had the idea going there, You want to see proof? look at my join date and look at yours. I'm not just making shit up, I've experienced lots of quality fights in online games that aren't fighting games!?!? rofl why are you even talking about a different genre here.. I'm talking about online rpgs and Mmorpgs not fighting games....so what exactly are you trying to get at ? you make no sense at all, this is why I asked for posts with no valid argument to just be deleted, all you are doing right now is trolling. I still see no valid reason from you as to why not include PvP in PSO2. The only PvP in this series has been battle mode/instance in PSP2i and well those were still used people still had fun with them in their own way, those games were both released years ago, you can have change it's not going to ruin the game seeing as things are already different might as well throw in some PvP.

YOU TOOK MY EXACT idea and placed it in your own words....Then tell me I'm wrong and need to play a game that I have spent more time on than you? Professional help needed PM Konflyk.
"In PSO, all PvP ROOMs were made at the mission counter as you normally would go to, to set up a mission, said rooms would be set up for PvP that only allows you to select certain maps of choice based on stages from the game with all the goodies in em like traps, surprises and monsters that could kill you if you weren't careful. Once again go play PSOBB/GC/Xbox, that format of PvP fine. "
ROFL at this, in my idea you would set the party to PvP meaning that would turn the mission into PvP, meaning the missions may be a bit different/map size might change etc. This is the same thing as battle mode it just saves the time of creating a whole different form of levels/zones needed it saves them time and money something ovciously you don't understand. That format of PvP rofl did you even play those games? because if you are talking about battle mode which I hope you are since there was no other PvP, it is EXACTLY the same as my idea except it's not called Battle mode it's just a setting you put in making your party, THE SAME AS IF YOU WERE GOING TO CHOOSE NORMAL,BATTLE MODE, OR CMODE. OOOOH REALLY IS THAT IT?

Back to topic, if anyone wants to help promote these or any other PvP ideas feel free to post here or send me a pm, we can get organized and get heard. for those who have valid arguments/points in regards to why there should not be PvP then please feel free to post too but don't be like this idiot here who just talks out of his ass. I'll respect anyone who has a VALID argument against this but if you're here to just troll like the post I quoted then just gtfo, I want to know why from people with brains not people who have spent the last 10 years fighting against nothing but AI's. So far I still have not see a valid reason to keep PvP out so to this day PvP for PSO2 Would do NOTHING BUT BENEFIT THE GREATER GOOD OF THE GAME,unless you say something otherwise that is valid and coherent, then this statement holds truth in this thread.


Fine then

PvP = Battlemode like PSO Ep1/2 but with PSO2 maps of course, random layouts, instead of 1 map only like PSO where everyone knows the spawn points and such, of course this will have to support up to 12(3x4) people for teams and maybe 8 for singles.

Ok I didn't read this part yet probably should of had it in your first post. That idea is good and all but they would have to keep making different maps/layouts just for PvP when with my idea they could just use the same missions you get out, less time having to code/develop new maps or different courses, I just feel like with something like battle mode it would get unpopular quick, it's a good idea though and I wouldn't mind seeing a battle mode in PSO2 but there's just so much more than can be done with the way PSO2 is.


BEFORE WE CONTINUE ANY FARTHER


Can you people please confirm to everybody what your definition of "PVP" is? Because i do not think everyone is on the same page here.



Either way, a battle mode like PSO, or even a Multiparty room where 6 players can randomly encounter another 6 players on the map and duke it out for player and monster kills?



Count me IN man. Make use of that tall grass, those super high areas in the caves...it would be even more awesome if you could use like monsters on your side to hunt the other team! DARKERS vs NATIVES! DRAGON PEOPLE vs MONKEY...forest...people!!!!



And after a certain number of killls one team can summon VOL DRAGON or DARK RAGNE and then have them DUKE IT OUT, WHILE ONE TEAM RIDES ON TOP OF RAGNE AND THE OTHER ONE WITH AN ARMY OF VOL DRAGONS AND THEN WE DUKE IT OUT TO THE DEATH YEAHHH




yeahhhh, you guys are just boring and need to go outside for a while

I haven't been around yesterday and couldn't post but yeah my definition for PvP is pretty much the generic one, it's a way for players to be able to interact aggressively towards other players without having to use the chat function. A way for people to take out their stress on each other without having to use racial remarks or derogatory words. A competition between X amount of players against X amount players, where as one side will remain alive and the other must go back to lobby.

so that being said it could mean in way to implement PvP just as long as it's not some constant respawn death-match shit that makes it so when the PvP is over, both sides have people standing that isn't PvP to me, to me PvP has to end with 1 side standing only, regardless if it's just 1 person or a team but they would be the only ones standing any enemies or opposing teams would not be alive and forced to go back to lobby.

Yeah that's my point exactly the environment in this game in the 3 levels we have seen so far is by far the perfect scenario for an open PvP fight many cliff areas in caves to run up on, lots of bushes/grass in forest to hide in, going behind cars/signs in the city level...It just makes for an epic PvP game.


PsP2's PvP was really a great step in the right direction, unfortunately due to the nature of the PSP it suffered from some pretty poor lag. Also the game's limitation to 4 players per instance was a problem

For those that aren't familiar with how PsP2's PvP system worked, I'll sum it up;

The main objective was 'whichever team has the most points wins'.

You were split into two groups of two players. Each group would stop at the opposite side of a map at their 'base block', the map was scattered with capture points and would occasionally spawn 'big' monsters (not bosses, but akin to the Darkers big mobs like the big beetle, big flying... thing, and sorcerer looking flying thing in the cities).

Each team would get points for:

Defeating another player
Capturing a 'capture point'
Destroying the opposing team's 'base block'
Defeating a big monster.

This lead to some pretty fun matches, and I remember always being able to find a battle mode game no matter what time of day it was.

At the end of a match you receive points whether you won or lost, but the reward for winning was doubled.

I think if the reward for this was something like FUN points it could be a great end-game time waster and something that could breathe life into the game.

Of course, something no one wants to hear, but is true either way, is that it would benefit the longevity of the game and pump money into the cash shop system.

This could be pretty amazing in a big arena since the multiparty formula allows for 12 players per map. Imagine having 4v4v4 all on a huge map finding capture points on a randomized map and trying to find the opposing team's base.

PSP2 also gave the option at higher levels to use your own level and gear to play matches, which I think is pretty mandatory of this is being considered.


Phantasy Star Portable 2 Battle Mode 11/10 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6JtvPzaKeY)

It would be like that ^

On a much bigger scale, with bigger teams, and your own gear, and without the terrible lag and de-syncing that came with the Portable games.

That would be completely ideal.

I remember you showing me this a few months ago and it really gave me hope for PvP in PSO2 even something like this would be prefect for this game to implement, of course the maps would have much more detail in it and etc. For you to be able to elude your opponents while trying to capture a capture point. The whole monsters thing comes from battle mode I guess how they included monsters when you fought there sometimes they would randomly spawn. I'm all up for something like this, as far as the Japanese community goes if they didn't enjoy PvP why would it be implemented in a Japanese only game? I'd like to see comments about the PvP set up in PSP2i from Japanese players maybe those are the players we should reach out to help us express our love for PSO and the excitement of PvP that could come with it.

BWS-1
May 1, 2012, 12:11 PM
I remember back in PSO ver2, Battle Mode was pretty neat for a couple reasons:

+ It had unique maps, including areas which were later used in the GC version

+ it had rather interesting modes, including the ability to just go play the game IN Battle Mode, forcing the players to play a completely different co-op game as now not only was there ''friendly fire'' with EVERY attacks, but also COLLISION with every players.

+ DIDN'T break the stats of classes/races in the rest of the game to revolve around ''PvP fairness''

Of course, the fact it was implemented this way lead to its share of downsides:

- Casts were greatly inferior due to their inability to heal themselves through TECHs.

- Rules were roughly ''all or nothing''; either you fight with your current gear and level OR start off a match with set low-levels and hunt for items in the map...

- Anything Range-oriented > melee (unless the dude RUNS to you, is AFK or just lags)


PvP is a nice dream for PSO2, but it seems to be at an impasse if we're to only think:

It's to turn into a WoW-like PvP: one where the elements of every classes are changed left and right ''because one class or another is OP in PvP'', making everyone else NOT doing PvP pay for it still, utterly diluting the ''classes'' in the end.

OR

It stays as it is, focuses on allowing classes and races to mature and better themselves for their roles which, in the end, inevitably leads to have one race/class to be ''god-tier'' in PvP while everyone else bites the dust.


One way I'd see it possible without turning this into a WoW PvP model OR falling at disadvantage from NOT being said model is to keep the team-oriented PSO spirit... and maybe making the most out of both models!

It could have ''parties'' pre-set as ''PvP open/ready''. For that, you'd need to meet criteria as simple as party members Class. Want to go and fight in an interrupt encounter with other people? Your team needs to have 1 Force 1 Ranger 2 Hunters, and maybe vary on the ''pre-set'' conditions, but you'd still only encounter whichever pre-set you'd select, or that were deemed ''balanced'' (hopefully enough study would be done to open up as many configurations as possible without being limited to just one, AND still have it balanced out).

Gotta make the most out of the fact that the classes are different and might have ups and down toward one-another! In the end, you have each individuals fighting off with their classes fairly against another group. It's no ''Ranger vs Hunter = ma hunter dieded befor i could re3ch teh ranger!!1 wtf hax''. In the end, both sides have rangers, hunters and forces. You have to work it to deal with them.

Of course, for 1v1 or 2v2 (or how many you want) you could have Hunter tournaments, Ranger tournaments and Force tournaments! Perhaps even set up ''dream teams'' based on the winners of each tournaments too! I see great potential there without even breaking/separating whatever would be implemented for the PvE/Classes, on the contrary, it would use those very differences as not only a distinguishing feature, but its very foundation!

Hiyami
May 1, 2012, 12:12 PM
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSS PVP MUST HAVE PVP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Konflyk
May 2, 2012, 08:17 AM
OP I'm sorry my join date says I'm only 3 years old, I'll go back to psu and cod as requested.

Zyrusticae
May 2, 2012, 08:35 AM
Nowadays you'll always find people who take things seriously even if they weren't intended to be, especially if it comes to competition. Thinking otherwise is just naïve.
Yup.

PvP in Champions Online, for example, is a tacked-on afterthought. Doesn't stop people from treating it as seriously as anything else.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 09:23 AM
To implement PVP-anything that is more than an afterthought requires diverting development resources. I'd rather they focused solely on making the PVE good than trying to make PVP work.

There's no hard evidence PVP is for the game's benefit other than the "cuz we'll play it" mentality. If every potential game strapped on PVP and benefited out of it, why are we still seeing games that don't do that?

Because unlike the "oh man PVP would be cool" idea, the devs actually have to weigh their resource options, consider the impact on the game's community, and still make their core game great.

PVP in the most basic sense isn't going to help PSO other than satisfy some peoples' need to flex their peen. Ask yourself this: If you claim to love PSO, why ask for something to be put in it that, let's be honest here, was nothing more than tacked on? That isn't PSO you're loving anymore in my opinion. That's you overreaching and assuming to tell the devs what to do.

Which brings me to the actual PVP implementation itself. It always starts off innocently enough. "Crowd control" mechanics already in the PVE side of things seemingly transfers over to PVP for the first few trial runs no problem.

Then..."hey devs we can't be stunlocked like the monsters! That's imbalanced!" Fair enough. The devs tune the mechanics. 7 years with WoW has shown me that even with the best of intentions, that tuning is a nightmare to get right, if there even exists a "right".

Someone mentioned PSP2:i PVP. How to spot a pro? He shields up. No exception. Latency Gods willing, he'll counterattack you by merely playing defensive. "Oh noes this won't do devs! It's OP!"

And 7 years of WoW also brought up the well intended question of "just have 2 different rule sets for PVE and PVP then! Problem solved." ORLY. Since when did PSO get this serious, and more to the point, since when did Sakai and gang commit that much to PVP when their current stance suggests they just want to get the beta and net code right?

Or is your vision of PVP the "he-who-gets-the-first-hit-wins" mentality? Please don't bring that into PSO. Like I said, play a PVP-dedicated game, heck, excel at it before thinking PVP doesn't need to be balanced to anything other than a button-mash.

Let's not talk about stat/gear weighs either. Because soon enough you'll have the calls to limit items, (Team Fortress comes to mind), and the balancing cycle begins anew. This is why you don't find decent (and I stress decent) PVP in say, Monster Hunter, despite the sheer torrent of fan-petitions/pleas to have more modes. They weren't made with PVP in mind. And should stay that way.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 09:32 AM
Even if people seriously DID... SOMEHOW turn PSO/PSP2 style battle mode into something competitive and filled with drama...

Who the hell would seriously care? They would be that one small group of people that keeps to themselves in their e-corner like the Time-Attack fiends?

My god you guys have a really stubborn view of PVP that MOSTLY comes from games (BAD ONES) not even similar to the PSO series..... D:

At least all the games I actually put time into, PVP players were a small group, even had their own forum sections, and NONE of that drama rarely escaped their forum section/arenas. Everyone else just minded their business and played the game. Sure there were balancing issues but instanced PVP modifies your character's stats. so that was a problem only IN the arena. Nowhere near the players that hate PVP so much that they wouldn't even try it ONCE. AND THIS IS PSO, WHERE IT WOULD BE 20x MORE LAX THAN THAT!!!

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU GUYS?? sfkgjal;fkjgalkfjgalkfjgafg Ah forget it nobody listens to reason when you bring up PVP.

Ark22
May 2, 2012, 09:32 AM
Let me just kill my friend with gibarta spam or rafoie.

I would even accept a battle mode.

Also I agree with Mr. Cock Eastwood.

You guys are really ridiculous when it comes to PVP. You all hate it like a bunch of rich people getting taxed.

No, it will not break the game, did Battle mode break the game in PSO?

You guys are just drama filled with complaints, plus if this game (Which most likely will) comes out in S. Korea, Sega will most likely implement a PVP system to cater to the mass PVP fans their gaining EVEN MORE money. This is about supporting Sega, not your dumbass past hate.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 09:43 AM
Let me just kill my friend with gibarta spam or rafoie.

I would even accept a battle mode.

Also I agree with Mr. Cock Eastwood.

You guys are really ridiculous when it comes to PVP. You all hate it like a bunch of rich people getting taxed.

No, it will not break the game, did Battle mode break the game in PSO?

You guys are just drama filled with complaints, plus if this game (Which most likely will) comes out in S. Korea, Sega will most likely implement a PVP system to cater to the mass PVP fans their gaining EVEN MORE money. This is about supporting Sega, not your dumbass past hate.

I'd shake your hand but you called me Cock Eastwood D:

AH WHAT THE HELL!

/mickey mouse hand shake

Ark22
May 2, 2012, 09:45 AM
I'd shake your hand but you called me Cock Eastwood D:

AH WHAT THE HELL!

/mickey mouse hand shake

I try my best Mr. Brock Eastforest

*hand shakes* Cx I gladly accept this handshake.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 09:48 AM
Just as you claim it will not adversely affect the game/community, it also shows how much you are not willing to see beyond your need for PVP gratification.

And you are certain PSO battle mode was even worth the implementation other than cater to the "e-corner"? Why put it in then if it'll attract that dark side of the community that you seemingly distance yourself from?

South Korea doesn't have every game out there filling coffers because the games merely had PVP. Yes they're a competitive crowd. And they're also serious about their PVP. Gibarta spams will be theory-crafted at length, Rafoie's place in PVP will be fiercely debated. Or did you presume to think South Koreans were button-mashers?

I can certainly understand the "oh man this is great but I only wish I could hit my friends once in a while" mindset. But that's just as much a whim and fancy as my stance which you claim is nothing more than "drama".

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 09:57 AM
^ I don't even know what you're talking about at this point... are you supporting PVP and uncaring of the stupid and petty things people are whining about or not?

Or are you picking things apart to argue about implying this game shouldn't get PVP...

At this point saying this game shouldn't get PVP is like saying we shouldn't get more hairstyles. Then arguing...

"EVERYONE JUST CHOOSES THE DEFAULT HAIRSTYLE ANYWAY, Cept for the emo kids that just pick the combover but I don't want the emo kids to pick the combover because I'm pretending to care too much about the way OTHER people play this game for the sake of argument!!" D:

But yeah, I said only the "HARDCORE PVPERS" would be e-cornered, everyone else that's fun will continue to ignore them and enjoy it casually, and everyone that hates it will continue to pretend PVP doesn't exist and we'll all be happy.

Ark22
May 2, 2012, 09:58 AM
Just as you claim it will not adversely affect the game/community, it also shows how much you are not willing to see beyond your need for PVP gratification.

And you are certain PSO battle mode was even worth the implementation other than cater to the "e-corner"? Why put it in then if it'll attract that dark side of the community that you seemingly distance yourself from?

South Korea doesn't have every game out there filling coffers because the games merely had PVP. Yes they're a competitive crowd. And they're also serious about their PVP. Gibarta spams will be theory-crafted at length, Rafoie's place in PVP will be fiercely debated. Or did you presume to think South Koreans were button-mashers?

I can certainly understand the "oh man this is great but I only wish I could hit my friends once in a while" mindset. But that's just as much a whim and fancy as my stance which you claim is nothing more than "drama".

Just gonna point it out there, Techs don't hit as hard plus they need to be charged, so forces will easily get their shit wrecked. You also have specific defense for every type of attack (Tech, melee, range).

Each class had a huge advantage, Forces= AoE, Rangers = Long distance, Hunters = Best Def and Close range.

So that can work, plus S. Koreans usually play anything pvp base and get good at it, Brawl? they got good. Dissidia? They got good. I heard S korea is where they host a lot of those PVP tournies anyway.

And how am I causing drama when I am talking about the topic, it's not like i said, AWWWWW YA GUYS I WANT PVP TO BEAT UP MY FRIENDS. I said it nice and calmly.
=D

Also listen to Rock WestForest, He knows what he is talking about. Well time for me to head to class. FINAL EXAM HERE I COME!!! *cries*

Nurusanura
May 2, 2012, 10:04 AM
There was a battle mode kinda thing in PSO, which was used as a way to PvP back in those days. lolol I'm sure there would be a way to implement it in this game. I think that would be kind of fun!

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:07 AM
Reading, as opposed to quoting entire passages (don't really know why people do that anyway) is difficult it seems.

You're listing class traits/abilities that could be found in the manual or the front page of a wiki. What you're not seeing is the process along which the pros rise to the top, the process along which the tweaks/balances are made, the process along which resources are set aside to make it work.

And it doesn't seem Sakai and team should prioritize that at the moment when the net code (that'll eventually affect PVP as well) is still something they're working on.

At this point it's clear we love PSO2 and want it to succeed. And I'm saying that half-baked PVP isn't something I want in a game I love and want to succeed. But at the same time, if it's going to be any decent, it'll take away from development time/resources that could have been better spent on making the game better.

I'm not sure what was "given up" to give us Battle Mode, but if there was indeed something that had to give, I don't want a repeat of that in PSO2.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 10:09 AM
There was a battle mode kinda thing in PSO, which was used as a way to PvP back in those days. lolol I'm sure there would be a way to implement it in this game. I think that would be kind of fun!

This is actually exactly what we're talking about, but people keeping saying "AUGH *insert the name of some WoW had PVP and it ruined the WHOLE GAME! KEEP IT OUT OF MY NOTHING-LIKE-THIS-GAME-I'M-TALKING-ABOUT PSO2!!!!!!"

edit: And the development time thing, but actually this game is still coming out in summer, and they can add extra content when and wherever they want... And yeah just looking at PSO and PSP2's battle mode. I can't imagine that taking up a lot of resources.. That's like saying PSU's hoverboard racing took up resources...

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:12 AM
Show me where hairstyles will affect PVE balance. Maybe it'll get in the way of someone's view?

If tacking on modes could do no harm, why do games not have the whole nine yards in terms of known game modes? Every FPS out there should, by this logic, have every preceding game's mode list because it can only be a good thing to have more.

Again, it comes back to resource. My crystal ball is as broken as yours I wager so who knows Sakai will decide to put PVP in or not. But I sure don't want him to do it at the expense of what the majority are on this bandwagon for. The PVE game.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 10:17 AM
Like I said, we would obviously have instanced PVP, which means whatever skills and weapons are modified for PVP... wouldn't really have an effect or change in PVE instances...

Again you're assuming things from your experience with OTHER MMOs.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:19 AM
And you're certain it'll be "instanced PVP"? An assumption based on the PSP2:i model I assume. That's assuming Sakai and team decide to use that model again, which of course, in lieu of any info, we can only assume is the case.

But you're right. I assume too much.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 10:25 AM
W-what?

PSO, PSP2 AND PSP2i D:

Not only that... EVERYTHING you do in a Phantasy Star game will be instanced...!!

Auguashgausgh

Taitu
May 2, 2012, 10:27 AM
Show me where hairstyles will affect PVE balance. Maybe it'll get in the way of someone's view?

If tacking on modes could do no harm, why do games not have the whole nine yards in terms of known game modes? Every FPS out there should, by this logic, have every preceding game's mode list because it can only be a good thing to have more.

Again, it comes back to resource. My crystal ball is as broken as yours I wager so who knows Sakai will decide to put PVP in or not. But I sure don't want him to do it at the expense of what the majority are on this bandwagon for. The PVE game.

Your comparison is none the better. In the cases of most games you are limited to a specific dev cycle before the game must be released as a finished product. In the case of an MMO there is never a 'finished product'. Throughout the life of an MMO it's the developers job to continue supporting the game to add new content and keep it fresh. If they reach a point where new content becomes repetitive I fail to see why PVP would not be something for them to look into.

I also want to digress back to your comment earlier about the game's net code. Sega needs to work on their net code for this game? I'll say I've played my share of online action games and fighting games, and this has to be some of the most well written net code I've ever had the pleasure of experiencing. Most games similar to this that I can think of always had to place restrictions on itself to be able to properly handle collisions such as instancing trash enemies. That is not the case in PSO2 though, even connecting to their servers from the other side of the world did the game not only run smoothly, but collision detection was absolutely spot on. Not to mention I never had to see my allies looking like fools attacking an enemy that I couldn't see.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 10:30 AM
^
Actually while I haven't had much problems with this games network, they actually DID say that they're really trying to work out some kinks related to network stuff...

As well that's what their everyday maintenance was about in CBT.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:30 AM
Therefore it doesn't affect me what others want in their game. Only thing is, development will be affected, game will be affected, and I will be affected.

Of course, they could just tack on the mode after. Skip DLC. Forgo updates that PVE could have received instead. Let's put in that mode that was at the utter mercy of latency, without balancing, cuz who has the time for that? And let the E-corner have their day.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 10:33 AM
As for development being affected, yeah, taitu already beat me to that. online game, infinite content, this form of "PVP" not that big of a deal it could be included in a major update or expansion, then back on the road to PVE stuff.

and yes...

e-corners have their day, "let's take joke PVP seriousl~" :/

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:44 AM
If it's not serious, why even bother?

Even if you have ongoing development cycle for a game, there's still resource management at every juncture. New content over balance passes? Cosmetic stuff over interface tweaks?

I don't know how much Sakai has at his disposal. If I were to wager a bad guess though, if they could be bothered with a boob slider, a joke PVP mode mostly for lolz wouldn't seem impossible.

It would still bother me if that was implemented at the expense of other not-so-joke content though. A whole skin-pack would be more appealing to me than PVP.

PVP done badly will haunt you in future. PSO didn't see that come to pass because back then, content updates wasn't an integral expectation of an online game, and most had the silent understanding they were pretty much stuck with what they had.

PSO2 will however present opportunities in its development cycle for this. Already in CBT we have force/hunter angst at rangers with launchers. And it's a problem because there's the understanding that if stuff's broken (if at all), it should (I emphasize SHOULD) be fixed.

Cayenne
May 2, 2012, 11:01 AM
I don't see SEGA making a battle mode for a long time. They're busy trying to balance the game's mechanics itself let alone even think about making something other than focusing on the core gameplay.

I wouldn't get too hyped up about battle mode until something is actually announced besides what Sakai said, which is something around the lines of 'there will be no PvP at launch but might consider something later on'.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 11:02 AM
If it's not serious, why even bother?

I stopped reading there now you're just taking extra fun out of a game because it's not... "serious." Everything in a game haaas to be serious to be fun? I should hit you, then make you play a mario sports game. >0

More is better.

Obviously people found battle mode fun.

Battle mode wasn't this huge "drop everything and work on this for 4 months and slow down develop" big deal mode, if you played it at least once most people would get that...

Stop looking for reasons to antagonize what is simply a fun extra mini game, the only reason I'm going this far to defend it is because of the ridiculous reasons people are against it.




edit: @ cayenne I dunno about anyone else, and it's kind of funny that you bring it up when people are talking about development time, But I wasn't anywhere near thinking battle mode would or should be something we'd get early on.

Now off to bed.

Cayenne
May 2, 2012, 11:04 AM
Good point Rock.

The battlemode (which everyone loves calling PvP) is just a simple little mini game.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 11:16 AM
It's a joke pvp mode, let's just put it in. Didn't we have better things to do though, like say, optimize something?

Think from the devs' perspective. They'd probably be asking themselves the same question. If it's going to be a lolz mode, with they themselves not really caring, why bother at all? How did it get to that stage even?

More is better, given infinite resources, time, and a slight reduction in standards if you're just going to throw something in for the sake of throwing it in.

There's enough crying for PSO2 to be ported to consoles, more so than those crying for PVP. And yet? You presume to know Sega's state of mind regarding the "success" of Battle Mode and will surely implement it again?

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 12:07 PM
Sounds more like you're crying for the NOT to be battle mode/PVP, I've already listed all my points against your worries on the games development and battle mode in genral(which is sounds like you're still not even accepting how it works and how small it is, yet you keep blowing it up to something bigger.) Now you're just repeating yourself or looking for more ammo to argue with. :/

NOW I'm off to sleep! : D

BWS-1
May 2, 2012, 12:21 PM
BAH, just add ''Battle Mode'' for the sake of ''friendly fire''. I know THAT was fun in PSO ver2 (though I never got stuck playing as a Force in that mode, god that must have been hell haha).

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 12:56 PM
Listing your reasons = auto win and I have to accept them. I like how you think.

Your reasons haven't answered any of my worries, sorry to disappoint you. "It's a small part I don't see why you're upset." is not going to, and never should be, a valid reason to put the mode in for the sake of putting it in.

Sounds like you're the one helping me blow my worries out of proportion. And it also sounds like you care far more about battle mode than you claim.

Priest
May 2, 2012, 01:29 PM
PSO v2's battle mode would be awesome in this game, as long as there was no lock on target, and force people to use the manual aim. BF3 and MW3 would be obsolete.

Eggobandit
May 2, 2012, 02:00 PM
It's a joke pvp mode, let's just put it in. Didn't we have better things to do though, like say, optimize something?



Why create new weapons, animations or levels. Dont they have better things to do, like say, optimize something?




If Sonic Team thought that way when making Sonic Adventure / Sonic Adventure 2, the world would have never got Chao Garden and i would have never spent over 100 logged hours on my SA2:B Save file. God Bless those adorable Chao.



So yes, it's 100% worth their time. Anything to take your mind off the grind and give you more to do with the game is perfect. Why would anyone disagree with this?

MelancholyWitch
May 2, 2012, 02:04 PM
I don't see SEGA making a battle mode for a long time. They're busy trying to balance the game's mechanics itself let alone even think about making something other than focusing on the core gameplay.

I wouldn't get too hyped up about battle mode until something is actually announced besides what Sakai said, which is something around the lines of 'there will be no PvP at launch but might consider something later on'.

He did say that but he also said PC only so I'm not really taking anything he says into consideration anymore until it's completely confirmed. Who knows we may end up with PvP PSO2 and no battle mode at launch. Just like we had no idea it would get ported to the Vita.

BWS-1
May 2, 2012, 03:25 PM
I bet it will be around, but about a year after release.... for PSO2 v2!

¦3

Eggobandit
May 2, 2012, 03:26 PM
PSO2 ep I and II


trolololool

BWS-1
May 2, 2012, 03:33 PM
Or maybe they'll save it for PSO2 ep III...

C.A.R.D. BATTLE REVOLUTION!

(I just had to)

soulpimpwizzurd
May 2, 2012, 03:49 PM
Or maybe they'll save it for PSO2 ep III...

C.A.R.D. BATTLE REVOLUTION!

(I just had to)

the lols

they just wont stop

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 07:17 PM
Listing your reasons = auto win and I have to accept them. I like how you think.

No listing my points and reasons against ALL of your arguments as of to why you think PVP would totally ruin this game or "negatively effect" you and shouldn't be added at all, when 70% of everyone else in the game could still enjoy it...

Hmm most people would find it fun... Videogames are supposed to be fun... You think it'll mess up development time even though this is game has the ability to keep updating and recieving content infinitely now...

Yeeeeeaaaah you're the one that I should be sarcastically telling.. "I like how you think."


Oh and in case you pop up out of nowhere to pick at my "70% of people enjoying it" like 4 "should this game have PVP threads ago" there was a poll, and let's just say "YES" had a LOOOOOT of votes.

Angelo
May 2, 2012, 07:50 PM
This is the PvP Support Thread.

Not the PVP bitch and moan thread.

If you don't like it, don't come in.

Peejay
May 2, 2012, 07:53 PM
Oh and in case you pop up out of nowhere to pick at my "70% of people enjoying it" like 4 "should this game have PVP threads ago" there was a poll, and let's just say "YES" had a LOOOOOT of votes.

That means nothing unless you've carefully considered how a system would work without pissing people off. I sincerely doubt that has been thought out. And while a little competition is good, trying to just increase your epeen by hacking at eachother usually isn't the best way to make a contented community.

Angelo
May 2, 2012, 07:56 PM
This is the thread in question:

http://www.pso-world.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188899

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 08:00 PM
That means nothing unless you've carefully considered how a system would work without pissing people off.

THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE THING HAS BEEN ABOUT sdfgjkajsfhgkafhlkjfg

And yeah, my ego is fine enough as it is, if I wanted e-peen points this whole forum already gave me lightyears worth. Like I already said all dabian is doing it repeating the same points untill some other people came up to argue about.

Notice how I knew at least SOMEONE would try to get at me for the poll thing. which ouch 70% was actually accurate, so you regardless of what people THINK they want, they want it, SEGA putting time in to developing it wouldn't be WASTING development time at all, because in general it's for the game and making it more fun.

Eggobandit
May 2, 2012, 08:00 PM
That means nothing unless you've carefully considered how a system would work without pissing people off. I sincerely doubt that has been thought out. And while a little competition is good, trying to just increase your epeen by hacking at eachother usually isn't the best way to make a contented community.


Oh

My

God



You want a system that doesn't piss other people off? How about a system where you manually choose the mode? You know, like PSO's battle mode? And PSP2's battle mode?


Oh wait i completely forgot how Battle mode ruined PSO and PSP2's content pool. I completely forgot how they ruined the community and turned everyone into an asshole. Oh DAMN also forgot how it ruined PSO Episode III as well. It REALLY ruined episode III, oh man it was such a stupid idea.


Im sorry about that.






You know, just because some of you wince in fear at the concept of a little competitive fun doesn't mean you have to go off the deep end in a bunch of completely illogical reasons why we're wrong and you're right.


If you think "PVP" means "Epeen and terrible community" then thats something wrong with YOUR definition of PVP. Not ours. Don't like it? Nobody cares! Why dont you just play the game regularly like you did in the other 2 entries of the game that had PVP? Just pray you dont get PKed or anything like in PSO or PS-OH WAIT

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 08:04 PM
Oh

My

God



You want a system that doesn't piss other people off? How about a system where you manually choose the mode? You know, like PSO's battle mode? And PSP2's battle mode?


Oh wait i completely forgot how Battle mode ruined PSO and PSP2's content pool. I completely forgot how they ruined the community and turned everyone into an asshole.


Im sorry about that.

See?? this guy knows!

THAT's why I'm "hacking at the other guy" because people are being ridiculous! sklhahlkshlgkyjsg

/mouth foams

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 08:05 PM
Polling PSOW = the entire PSO-playing community has spoken? Pass it along to Sakai. Battle mode's a done deal then.

Except, the game's going F2P, potentially drawing negative community elements that coupled with improperly done PVP, could potentially affect the community in general. It's no longer a case of "you don't have to do it." Understand that aspects of the game if not done right, will come back to haunt the rest of those who claim that it won't.

It's not merely adding a PVP battle mode and calling it a day now.

PSO Addict
May 2, 2012, 08:10 PM
I totally want a card battle expansion. Then my PSO experience would be complete.

Eggobandit
May 2, 2012, 08:10 PM
Except, the game's going F2P, potentially drawing negative community elements that coupled with improperly done PVP, could potentially affect the community in general. It's no longer a case of "you don't have to do it." Understand that aspects of the game if not done right, will come back to haunt the rest of those who claim that it won't.

It's not merely adding a PVP battle mode and calling it a day now.


.........can someone please make sense of this?

I mean, i think i know what he's trying to say, but the moment i put any real thought to it, i can't get very far before i realize i dont have any clue what he's talking about.


So wait, wait....so somehow, being Free to Play means that PVP is going to be done wrong, which somehow means it's going to force everyone to play?





How can a seperate gameplay mode possibly affect anyone who doesn't want to even play it?



What does how even why i just dont-

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 08:11 PM
Polling PSOW = the entire PSO-playing community has spoken? Pass it along to Sakai. Battle mode's a done deal then.

Except, the game's going F2P, potentially drawing negative community elements that coupled with improperly done PVP, could potentially affect the community in general. It's no longer a case of "you don't have to do it." Understand that aspects of the game if not done right, will come back to haunt the rest of those who claim that it won't.

It's not merely adding a PVP battle mode and calling it a day now.



C'mon that's still just more nit picking that doesn't even add up to enough things to legitimately say BATTLE MODE shouldn't be added.

Taitu
May 2, 2012, 08:19 PM
Polling PSOW = the entire PSO-playing community has spoken? Pass it along to Sakai. Battle mode's a done deal then.

Except, the game's going F2P, potentially drawing negative community elements that coupled with improperly done PVP, could potentially affect the community in general. It's no longer a case of "you don't have to do it." Understand that aspects of the game if not done right, will come back to haunt the rest of those who claim that it won't.

It's not merely adding a PVP battle mode and calling it a day now.

Yes, POTENTIALLY it could draw a combative community, POTENTIALLY it could hurt the overall community. Perhaps they won't be done correctly, or perhaps they will get it just right or at least give it the proper support to make it an excellent inclusion to the game. Simply turning down a new element simply because it might not work out is not valid as it may just as well turn out excellently.

If you want to play play a game of probabilities then you need to take into account what is already known. Has SEGA failed to deliver anything on this game yet? So far SEGA has listened very closely to the PSO community at large and has taken very large strides in creating a fun and engaging game experience. They have already proven that they're willing to take some risks in game design and have managed to pull them off beautifully. With that being said probability seems to be leaning farther towards a successful inclusion of a new feature than a failure.


I totally want a card battle expansion. Then my PSO experience would be complete.

This guy deserves a medal.

Eggobandit
May 2, 2012, 08:29 PM
You guys may be joking.


but PSO Episode III was a damn good videogame.

Angelo
May 2, 2012, 08:35 PM
The whole backbone of Ep 3 was PvP.

Food for thought.

Rauten
May 2, 2012, 08:36 PM
A card battle minigame ala FFXI//XIV (Does XIV have the card minigame?) only with Ep3's mechanics would make my heart imexplode of joy.
Yes, imexplode; it'd explode and implode at the same time. Also, I claim copyright over the word "imexplode", that'll be 10AC per use, thank you very much.



The whole backbone of Ep 3 was PvP.

Food for thought.

I never played Ep3 online, or in any other form of PvP, merely PvE, it was bloody great. And from what I understand, online PvP was broken as F**K.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 08:42 PM
Yeah even a card battle mini game would "SATISY MY NEED FOR PVP" if anything not just battlemode but ANNYYYTHING other than just killing monsters would be cool. battle mode fitting into that category, it's just silly to antagonize it because of one or two negetive "maybes" and "what ifs" when past games have had it with no problem.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 08:53 PM
Ep3 was designed WITH pvp in mind. PSO2 wasn't. Plus Ep3 was in the same boat as v2. It went gold, and never received major updates ever again. Players knew they were stuck with what they had, imbalanced or not, and Ep3 was imbalanced when it came to actual PVP.

You already have CBT threads calling for nerfs/buffs because of the fear that should PVP be implemented, then it's either separate rulesets (which will require development resource), or make it so, for lack of a better term, casual that it wouldn't matter. Comes back to the question. If it's that casual, that inconsequential, why bother?

V2's battle mode was put in at a time when they knew the game was done. Finished. No more changes. PSO2 will be an ongoing thing. Players know that. They know, and they would want to influence design decisions because....well, because they can. Unless Sakai is willing to devote, it's not going to be pretty.

Look at Diablo 3. Arguably it's design mechanics are more "PVP-friendly" than PSO2, and still, Blizz put off on arena mode because they knew, despite claims to the contrary gamers and observers alike that it wouldn't, it would affect PVE. That's because players, (jaded on WoW or just empowered by the current generation of IT) are serious about it.

You might go into an arena casually thinking "let's just muck around". That's what prospective League of Legends players think to themselves. When your own PVP community bang heads over balance/exploits/abuse/ethics that conflict will spill over into PVE. And that's the part I dread.

PSO Addict
May 2, 2012, 08:59 PM
They should be aiming for some sort of in game balance regardless of PvP. The choice of role should come down to player prefernce and not simply who can do the most damage.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 08:59 PM
Ep3 was designed WITH pvp in mind. PSO2 wasn't. Plus Ep3 was in the same boat as v2. It went gold, and never received major updates ever again. Players knew they were stuck with what they had, imbalanced or not, and Ep3 was imbalanced when it came to actual PVP.

You already have CBT threads calling for nerfs/buffs because of the fear that should PVP be implemented, then it's either separate rulesets (which will require development resource), or make it so, for lack of a better term, casual that it wouldn't matter. Comes back to the question. If it's that casual, that inconsequential, why bother?

V2's battle mode was put in at a time when they knew the game was done. Finished. No more changes. PSO2 will be an ongoing thing. Players know that. They know, and they would want to influence design decisions because....well, because they can. Unless Sakai is willing to devote, it's not going to be pretty.

Look at Diablo 3. Arguably it's design mechanics are more "PVP-friendly" than PSO2, and still, Blizz put off on arena mode because they knew, despite claims to the contrary gamers and observers alike that it wouldn't, it would affect PVE. That's because players, (jaded on WoW or just empowered by the current generation of IT) are serious about it.

You might go into an arena casually thinking "let's just muck around". That's what prospective League of Legends players think to themselves. When your own PVP community bang heads over balance/exploits/abuse/ethics that conflict will spill over into PVE. And that's the part I dread.


Now you're already doing that thing where you say "I'm done" then come back again anyway! then you're just bringing up the SAME points already that I already countered but you're looking for issues in it that never even mattered enough to completely leave out battlemode. D:

And yeah as I've already said, it doesn't matter WHEN we get battlemode, no one is expecting them to pull it out in early development. But when they think the game is done? Man, that just sounds selfish. Especially in a game with what they called themselves: "INFINITE CONTENT."

Angelo
May 2, 2012, 09:01 PM
Dabian has convinced me.

I don't want PvP anymore.

Thank God for this thread! Pack it up, guys!

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 09:05 PM
You were the one who said you were going to bed (twice), stopped reading and all. I never said I was "done".

And respectfully, no. You had not countered my points. I can't change your beliefs. But no, I'm not feeling countered.

The game is done point referred to v2 and Ep3. Never said that would be the case of PSO2.

By your logic, infinite content would encompass far more than just mere battle mode. Let's just throw every mode in since we tout our game as infinite. /Looks at PSP2:i

Zyrusticae
May 2, 2012, 09:06 PM
I am still utterly amazed and flabbergasted that folks don't seem to understand that this WILL inevitably draw development resources from other things. Absolutely none of the supposed "counter-arguments" are even remotely sensible.

Angelo
May 2, 2012, 09:12 PM
I am still utterly amazed and flabbergasted that folks don't seem to understand that this WILL inevitably draw development resources from other things. Absolutely none of the supposed "counter-arguments" are even remotely sensible.

I completely understand that it will draw from development resources. I'm all for that, and I think the majority of the western and Korean playerbase would agree.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 09:13 PM
It's like the motion capture comment a few months back. Just because PSO2, like many games of its sort, have a long way to go in terms of development time and resource, doesn't mean it's worth investing in.

People need to understand that the devs have to consider amongst other things, whether or not it's worth diverting resources to implement something that maybe not as many people would actually use.

Sonic Team and Sakai team are 2 very different teams in 2 very different development generations. PVP was an afterthought in v2. Given the opportunities to do much more now in PSO2, are they simply going to go the v2 route and tack something on? Or take advantage of fan goodwill and try to make it work?

If you just want PVP "because PSO had it", then you're doing PSO2 a disservice. I'm sure Sakai and team wouldn't be merely satisfied with satisfying PSO desires in PSO2.

soulpimpwizzurd
May 2, 2012, 09:20 PM
if they made pvp good enough, it could effectively be "content" itself, as no pvp match can be exactly the same, different players and different matchups would call for different results, outcomes, and ways of dealing with the current situation.

which is why pvp games are so popular. it's hard for them to go dull when so many things could happen, even if it's the same map you've played for the 9999th time. no two games are -exactly- the same.

so it could be great content. hell, the only reason i played dragon nest up to lvl 24 was for pvp, it was actually really fun, and it wasn't a skill spam fest like it is now. dragon nest actualy wasn't even that fun for me until i started pvping.

with that said, dragon nest seems like it was a game made with pvp in mind. pso2 not so much. so they'd have to put considerable resources into developing it. but if it came out good it could entertain the masses for months on end.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 09:37 PM
You were the one who said you were going to bed (twice), stopped reading and all. I never said I was "done".

That was like tewlve hours ago.

You guy's level of reasoning for not wanting battle is like the same level of reasoning for not wanting pokemon games to have a new pokemon feeding system, it's just something extra, and it's fun and it's there. ANYTHING would take from the game's resources, but if players want it, then it's not WASTING resources.

All these petty reasons that you guys are being so stubborn about for us NOT to get battle mode are the ones that aren't "sensible."

Again, it's even fit into the game before.

Zyrusticae
May 2, 2012, 09:45 PM
Seriously, no. Stop it.

Not every goddamn game has to have PvE and PvP! Not every goddamn game is even made to accommodate both in the first goddamn place!

There are already games out there made for PvP! And they do it pretty darn well, to boot. We don't NEED PvP SHOE-HORNED into the game just because you think it might, possibly, could maybe, MAYBE be a decent addition to the game that recoups the development costs it will absolutely require.

PLAY ANOTHER GAME IF YOU WANT TO PVP SO BADLY. Seriously, that's exactly what I do! I have absolutely no problems with playing other games. And I have absolutely no desire to see things shoe-horned into those other games in a vain attempt to court all comers.


Edit: Also, it's not going to happen. Why? I CAN SEE THE FUTURE. The future does not include PvP in PSO2.

You may proceed to weep now.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 09:47 PM
Seriously, no. Stop it.

Not every goddamn game has to have PvE and PvP! Not every goddamn game is even made to accommodate both in the first goddamn place!

There are already games out there made for PvP! And they do it pretty darn well, to boot. We don't NEED PvP SHOE-HORNED into the game just because you think it might, possibly, could maybe, MAYBE be a decent addition to the game that recoups the development costs it will absolutely require.

PLAY ANOTHER GAME IF YOU WANT TO PVP SO BADLY. Seriously, that's exactly what I do! I have absolutely no problems with playing other games. And I have absolutely no desire to see things shoe-horned into those other games in a vain attempt to court all comers.

You're still on that OTHER MMO games and their PVP mindset, and we're barely even talking about REAL PVP, but battle mode.

You just keep walking into your own temper tantrums.

"En"
May 2, 2012, 09:53 PM
I'd like for them to finish the full game before taking a side skirmish. That's what I'd like.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 09:54 PM
Then don't say I'm done when I never said it.

Funny you should mention Pokemon. It was made with PVP in mind. Game Freak knew from the outset that players would link up and duke it out with their Pokemon. And feeding isn't extra. It's a natural step in a game based around breeding, rearing, and battling of monsters which, in the highest competitive strata, the feeding system is hardly inconsequential.

Whereas PSO2 wasn't designed with PVP in mind. Any inclusion of PVP requires recoding, rebalancing, optimizing for it to be anything but an afterthought.

It didn't "fit" in PSO. You couldn't call it an integral part. Let's be really honest here. Was it balanced? Was it actually competitively fun? Because I suspect while fun means something different to different people, the reason why the majority stayed away from it was that at the end of the day, it wasn't.

It didn't "fit" in PSO because it was rightly so, an afterthought. It was included, but it didn't fit. You're just as stubborn as you claim I am if your reasoning comes down to that.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 10:03 PM
Yes yes yes, it wasn't designed with PVP in mind, same thing with PSO and PSP2 and PSP2i. But you know why they had PVP anyway? because they were just fun mini games.

You're STILL stuck in the TYPICAL MMO PVP minset, but PSO battlemode is nothing like that.

And for the 4th time, no one said it had to be NOW, which for the 12th time should completely shut up the development slowdown problem, when it can be added at ANY time.

At this point we're just bickering for the sake of saying the other person is wrong, and you're purposely being completely oblivious to what we're talking about. Unless it's to find something else to argue about.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:11 PM
Now or down the road, still means resources have to be diverted, which doesn't shut up the development problem. You're acting as if pvp is already on the agenda. Well I'm arguing that it shouldn't be the case unless he's going to commit more than just "PSO battle mode".

Or are you stuck in the mindset that PSO2 [whatever]mode = PSO battle mode? Who's stuck now?

PSO Addict
May 2, 2012, 10:12 PM
Can't we all get along and kill each other in peace?

goldwing
May 2, 2012, 10:14 PM
Can't we all get along and kill each other in peace?

what a contradiction you are lol

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:16 PM
Short and troll answer: He started it!

Somewhat more calm answer: It's a topic that I suspect stems from our one unifying trait. That we love PSO2 and want it to succeed. Whether it be having a mode to attract/entertain or not having it because of fears that it'd ruin, we want the best for this game. Cheesy I know. :p

Cayenne
May 2, 2012, 10:19 PM
Short and troll answer: He started it!

Somewhat more calm answer: It's a topic that I suspect stems from our one unifying trait. That we love PSO2 and want it to succeed. Whether it be having a mode to attract/entertain or not having it because of fears that it'd ruin, we want the best for this game. Cheesy I know. :p

I see what you did there.

Too bad your other rantings say something else...

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:20 PM
Search function is great. I found yours.

Cayenne
May 2, 2012, 10:23 PM
Does that mean you're done beating a dead horse in this thread?

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:25 PM
As soon as the others beating on it stop.

Angelo
May 2, 2012, 10:29 PM
As soon as the others beating on it stop.

Regardless, if you don't support the notion of PvP, you're trolling by coming into this thread and mouthing off.

Zyrusticae
May 2, 2012, 10:29 PM
You're still on that OTHER MMO games and their PVP mindset, and we're barely even talking about REAL PVP, but battle mode.

You just keep walking into your own temper tantrums.
You seem to have a bizarrely specific definition of PvP.

The thread title has PvP in it. Your attempt to move the goalposts has failed.

And my point still stands.



Regardless, if you don't support the notion of PvP, you're trolling by coming into this thread and mouthing off.
This is silly.

Criticism is to be expected. Everywhere. Everywhere.

It doesn't matter what the intention of the OP is if everyone else lacks the wherewithal to respect it.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 10:29 PM
Now or down the road, still means resources have to be diverted, which doesn't shut up the development problem. You're acting as if pvp is already on the agenda. Well I'm arguing that it shouldn't be the case unless he's going to commit more than just "PSO battle mode".

Or are you stuck in the mindset that PSO2 [whatever]mode = PSO battle mode? Who's stuck now?

Yeah, you know, because PSO2 isn't a PSO game or anything. Down the road completely out of YOUR way, it's still taking away from "DEVELOPMENT TIME" when we're already settled into the game? Like really?

This game could be active for 5 years, and if they added PVP 2 years from now, a simple minigame in an expansion or a random large update, that's still taking away from your precious ANYTHING? More like in general you JUST don't want PVP to be in this game, when you're looking at it in a way where PVP could ONLY be a problem.

No development time is wasted for people that actually want ANY kind of content. Obviously the problem is that YOU don't.

I'm not saying "PVP IS COMING, STOP BITCHING" I'm saying "Battlemode a fun side mini game and nothing more would be an interesting addition to the game" And you're trying to counter that by constantly calling it something worse than it actually is and making excuses for it to be something that should stay out of this game completely.



We could have this same EXACT conversation about PSU's hoverboard racing, and you'd basically sound like a maniac, so again obviously you're just looking at battlemode with the wrong mindset. and again we're talking about/asking for BATTLE MODE. Not PVP, NOBODY want REAL PVP, I HATE real PVP, I just wanna tackle/blow up my friends, or capture the flag in a random instanced field.

I understand this is just another stupid internet argument, there's like 5 people ganging up on you, and you're probably misunderstanding a number of things I'm trying to say, and because this is an internet forum male prides and e-peens are on the line. But this conversation has obviously went far beyond reason a long time ago.

@ Zyru, I'm defending MY points about what you're right about, MY definition of not PVP but BATTLEMODE, and from the sounds of it regardless of what OP said that's what most people seem to agree with being the best idea. like I said, fuck REAL PVP, I agree with you it's stupid and this game wasn't designed for it, I'M asking for a minigame.

Griffin
May 2, 2012, 10:30 PM
When PvP becomes a mainstream element (which it usually does in online games) we'll lose what we played for.

Cayenne
May 2, 2012, 10:32 PM
This is ending up like the last PvP thread we had...

goldwing
May 2, 2012, 10:33 PM
i personally think they should add the battle mode and make it similar to pso's outside of that i really wouldn't want to see it as a main part of the game.

Angelo
May 2, 2012, 10:42 PM
This is silly.

Criticism is to be expected. Everywhere. Everywhere.

It doesn't matter what the intention of the OP is if everyone else lacks the wherewithal to respect it.

Well then someone should rename the title of the thread.

The title implies that those making posts in this thread are of the group that supports the idea. It's not ambiguous.

Dabian
May 2, 2012, 10:44 PM
It always starts with an innocent request to have some pvp on the side. It never ends well. If you actually found battle mode to be fun and enjoyable, you wouldn't even need a battle mode. Just a PVP-flag system.

That worked out really well for Diablo 2.

Angelo
May 2, 2012, 10:47 PM
It always starts with an innocent request to have some pvp on the side. It never ends well. If you actually found battle mode to be fun and enjoyable, you wouldn't even need a battle mode. Just a PVP-flag system.

That worked out really well for Diablo 2.

Not satisfied with that. I want a fleshed out version of the battle mode point capture instance from PsP2. There has been a battle mode eventually in both the PSO series and the PSU series.

It's coming eventually. I'd bet AC on it.

Eggobandit
May 2, 2012, 10:54 PM
Okay, lets end this.



It always starts with an innocent request to have some pvp on the side. It never ends well.



Elaborate.

Examples.

Now.



Name any trash-by-design videogames and we will vote on nulling them from even counting.


You seem to have a bizarrely specific definition of PvP.

The thread title has PvP in it. Your attempt to move the goalposts has failed.

And my point still stands.



You seem to have a bizarrely unspecific definition of PVP. Your definition is basically "will destroy community" and "will suck" without any sort of logical basis for the notion whatsoever.


I find it odd that people keep ignoring the undeniable truth of this little argument. PSO, PSO Episode III, Portable 2, and Portable 2 Infinity all had PVP modes. Yes, PVP. As in, literally one player killing another player. As in, competition. With rankings. And chat features.


Where on earth do your minds go when we discuss this? Do you guys just like, block this out of your head when we mention it? Where during the brain process does "PSO + PVP" become "EVERY OTHER GAME IVE PLAYED ON EARTH WITH BAD PVP SUDDENLY RELATED TO SEGA SONIC TEAM AND PHANTASY STAR MUST STOP FUTURE FROM HAPPENING ABANDON ALL LOGIC SEVER ALL TIES WITH REASON"


Seriously, its starting to get a little old man.

NoiseHERO
May 2, 2012, 10:57 PM
It always starts with an innocent request to have some pvp on the side.

Nope, still completely miss-interpreting what we're saying and going back to "PVP." It's fun side minigame mess around with your friends, terribly balanced because it's not that serious AND DOESN'T HAVE TO BE; battle mode.

Now you're just saying "oh sure if a fun side mini game NOOOOWWW" NO because it never turned into more of that in past games either. And before you say "HOW WOULD YOU KNOW" well it's not what we're ASKING for, and it's still very unlikely. Otherwise we wouldn't want your terrible evil definition of PVP either.

At this point I'm not even disagreeing with you, nor was I ever. I'm telling you that we have completely different definitions of battlemode and you're trying to turn what I'm asking for into YOUR definition of PVP. Which, no shit, would get us NOWHERE and that's why we sound like broken records.

edit: called battlemode PVP a couple times, don't need that now.

Cayenne
May 3, 2012, 12:15 AM
I remember when PvP was called versus mode.

Damn MMOs...

Eggobandit
May 3, 2012, 12:52 AM
lol Cayenne ikr



And i remember when "versus" mode involved 4 screens

Zyrusticae
May 3, 2012, 12:54 AM
PvP is a lot different when it's done with friends.

Especially when they're in the same room.

Don't expect anything online to match that in even the slightest way.

NoiseHERO
May 3, 2012, 01:09 AM
PvP is a lot different when it's done with friends.

Especially when they're in the same room.

Don't expect anything online to match that in even the slightest way.

Wait you guys don't play this game with your frrrrrriiiiiieeeeeennnndddssssss.s....

Oh, right.

No WONDER people care so much about what the rest of the community wants or is doing...

Dabian
May 3, 2012, 01:10 AM
I don't see the previous pages merely asking for a battlemode. I see more than just a side mode. I see far greater scope of pvp than what you are presuming I am saying what pvp is.

You might not see the problem with having pvp adversely affecting the community. It's not something that manifests itself immediately. You see harmless battlemode. I see potential pitfall.

Or are you going to even bash me for having that opinion?

NoiseHERO
May 3, 2012, 01:27 AM
I don't see the previous pages merely asking for a battlemode. I see more than just a side mode. I see far greater scope of pvp than what you are presuming I am saying what pvp is.

You might not see the problem with having pvp adversely affecting the community. It's not something that manifests itself immediately. You see harmless battlemode. I see potential pitfall.

Or are you going to even bash me for having that opinion?

I see harmless battlemode because that's what I'm asking for, again you're having an opinion opposing something I'm barely even talking about.

I'm not asking for PVP, I'm asking for battlemode.

Nobody wants real PVP.

Tell me how battle mode works in PSO, and what they've done with it. Then tell me how PVP works in normal MMOs and what they've done with it. After that keeping your argument is basically calling PSO2, NOT PSO but OTHER MMOS.

MelancholyWitch
May 3, 2012, 01:56 AM
well since so many randoms derailed the thread and were all ignored anyways, getting on to the Topic at hand, people fail to realize what the definition of PvP is, it is player versus player. This means any form of aggression between 2(or more) actual players not NPC's, yes battle mode was PvP considering it was player versus player scenario, just because it's an arena and not open world doesn't give it a different definition. Fighting against your buddy next to him in a game like Super smash brothers is called PvP fighting against only computers is called PvE, get it?

Basically what i'm still trying to look around on here is to see VALID reasons why ANY FORM of PvP should NOT be implemented, so far I have not seen any. If you would like to help in reaching out to express our desire for PvP (I don't care what,where,how,when) to Sega of Japan then give me a message or post on here and I'll get back to you. As of now I don't care how the PvP ends up I've already explained a very great way to implement it which of course idiotic people will read half of it and still say " NO NO NO PSO IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE A PVP GAME IN OPEN WORLD"

Point is post only if you can follow either
A) express your ideas INTELLIGENTLY on why you think it should not be implemented at all(and basically have another PSU where you spend more of your time on the 4th floor than anything else, go install msn or something geez...it's a game not a chat program.)
or
B) Explain why you think there should be PvP, regardless of how it is (if you want to explain to us how it would work, or if it should be battle mode,etc sure go for it, just don't make that the point of your post, we're suppose to explain why we want it, not how we want it)
and lastly
C) You want to help promote the idea for implementing PvP in PSO2, and/or you have someway to help out or contribute to this, then post away please. I will read any messages or posts regarding C as quick as I can then we can get our ideas together and start posting on sites like JP PSO2 official website/blog/twitter.

If you do not fall into category A,B or C then GTFO of my thread. This way we can keep the thread clean and on topic, just ignore and don't even respond to any posts that do not fall into the A,B, or C categories.

Zyrusticae
May 3, 2012, 01:59 AM
Basically what i'm still trying to look around on here is to see VALID reasons why ANY FORM of PvP should NOT be implemented, so far I have not seen any.
Fucking.

Pointless.

You'll just mindlessly dismiss everything like everyone else in this thread has. Why even make the challenge if there's no point? Ridiculous.

Angelo
May 3, 2012, 02:07 AM
The thing is that if we choose to see any type of pattern in the franchise, then PvP in some form is coming.

It's not really a matter of 'if', it's more of a matter of 'how' and 'when', and I thought that's what this thread was going to be about.

MelancholyWitch
May 3, 2012, 02:09 AM
Fucking.

Pointless.

You'll just mindlessly dismiss everything like everyone else in this thread has. Why even make the challenge if there's no point? Ridiculous.

I Don't dismiss any valid points, but all I have seen in this thread is either:

OH PvP won't work because battle mode failed in PSO

PSO has never been about PvP why should it be now?

There will be balance issues (this one pisses me off most because the people who say this don't realize how stupid they are for saying it.)

This isn't a MMORPG stop trying to make it one.

It will cause elitism to rise in the PSO community. (this one is just sad...)

Rangers are too strong.

I don't want to get ganked while running a mission. (SIGH really?)

PvP will cause a delay in future upcoming content or overall hinder new content from being released since they will be too busy fixing balance issues (okay now you are just acting like a 5 year old that doesn't know anything)

I'll add more as I find them again or think of them again but yeah pretty much this is all I see, no basis of reasoning or anything just a simple concept that either comes with any PvP that you need maturity to deal with, or has to do with something that would affect them personally (IE: Someone called me bad or noob after killing me and now I"m hurt!, or This guy keeps killing me and I can't run my mission) I facepalm when I see those reasoning.

MelancholyWitch
May 3, 2012, 02:11 AM
The thing is that if we choose to see any type of pattern in the franchise, then PvP in some form is coming.

It's not really a matter of 'if', it's more of a matter of 'how' and 'when', and I thought that's what this thread was going to be about.

it still is actually, the whole purpose of this thread was originally suppose to be to express how WE WOULD like to see PvP implemented in PSO2 to Sega of Japan so it still is pretty much how/when, I'm just tried of seeing these "NO OPEN PVP BATTLE MODE ONLY OMFG THAT'S HOW IT IS IN PSO" So as long as it gets implemented I'm happy now if you have a good idea on how to implement it yes sure post away but give details don't just say you want a battle mode and any other ideas are stupid, no that's being stupid.

Eggobandit
May 3, 2012, 02:17 AM
I don't see the previous pages merely asking for a battlemode. I see more than just a side mode. I see far greater scope of pvp than what you are presuming I am saying what pvp is.

You might not see the problem with having pvp adversely affecting the community. It's not something that manifests itself immediately. You see harmless battlemode. I see potential pitfall.

Or are you going to even bash me for having that opinion?


you mean am i going to bash you for having the opinion that my opinion isnt what im saying it is?


YES im going to bash you, whatdsha-urahfu-idashguhghff



uuuuugggggggh...But wait a second.




A) express your ideas INTELLIGENTLY


Fucking.

Pointless.


Suddenly everything in this topic makes sense.


you guys aren't TRYING to make sense. You're just typing random sentences that dont make sense on PURPOSE!


...you're trolling us? That is so not fair.

NoiseHERO
May 3, 2012, 02:19 AM
In terms of if we'll actually get PVP that's a good question.

Sakai brings it up in all of his questionnaires.

And in one interview he said they're considering PVP if this game gets released in Korea.

Koreans were the first to play this game in their own native language outside of Japan...

This game is obviously set up to have multiple languages...

Eeehhhnnn... People that sound like (for whatever reason I'm tired hearing) they absolutely DON'T want PVP.. should be more worried than people that do.

Zaix
May 3, 2012, 02:22 AM
I see no issues with optional PvP myself. To me, more content just isn't bad.

If it were bad, they better not add the casino, and take out the lobby actions, my room, and story mode. All of those things might not work and waste development time, right?

I would be a bit upset if it was forced, but there's no such thing as a bad optional feature, in my opinion.

Eggobandit
May 3, 2012, 02:23 AM
Jokes aside. All of us who are actually excited and stating all the great possibilities of PVP in this game are having fun doing it. Why do some of you feel the need to waltz in and state that all of our ideas will eventually decay into chaos?

with absolutely NO logical backing, NO evidence, NO deductive reasoning what-so-freaking ever, you just "DONT WANT PVP IT WONT ONLY RUIN THE CONTENT OF THE GAME ITLL RUIN PVE RUIN THE ECONOMY RUIN THE COMMUNITY RUIN EVERYTHING" your little fingers off until people like me lose my mind


because i really cannot understand how you justify this crap

Angelo
May 3, 2012, 02:38 AM
In terms of if we'll actually get PVP that's a good question.

Sakai brings it up in all of his questionnaires.

And in one interview he said they're considering PVP if this game gets released in Korea.

Koreans were the first to play this game in their own native language outside of Japan...

This game is obviously set up to have multiple languages...

Eeehhhnnn... People that sound like (for whatever reason I'm tired hearing) they absolutely DON'T want PVP.. should be more worried than people that do.

I'm not worried in the slightest, I'm just having fun speculating on whether or not they'll have multi-party 4v4v4 type of things and if they'll retain the capture points system from PsP2.

That's pretty much all I want. ...oh and to retain my own level and gear, but you could already do that in PsP2. PsP2 and infinity were pretty much taking everything terrible about PSU and adding all the things people wanted. Battle mode was obviously one of those aspects.

SephirothXer0
May 3, 2012, 02:45 AM
See how mad people are getting just talking about PVP?

I predict a LOT of anal irritation if it is actually implemented into the game.

If we were to see it happen, I would want it to be its own game mode, something similar to an arena fighter like Power Stone, Spawn: In The Demons Hand, that new Anarchy Reigns game, or even a little-known game called Phantom Dust. Arena fighters are more about fun than about srs bsns competition. It would be neat to have some well-designed arenas to run around with your party and play against another party for a ranking or even an item reward. Or maybe they could make it kind of like Challenge Mode where you have to use whatever weapons you can find in the arena, like how guns spawn in Quake or how items drop in Smash Bros.

Something like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCWLuJWTgfg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GABFEIG38Ms

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOI46FDIjkU&feature=related


What I DONT want to see is a PVP mode that requires everyone use the strongest equipment in the game or else you'll be getting your ass handed to you every time. Everyone running around with the same character builds, same armor, same weapons. We already have enough of that in the regular game. I'd like a PVP that's friendly to people who just want to have fun screwing around, as well as people who want to take it seriously.

And no, I don't like field PVP that can interrupt the main game and ruin it for many people, especially new players. Adding little checkboxes and whatnot is just going to muck up the main game. If you're going to add the option, then don't halfass it with a checkbox. Go ahead and make a separate mode.

MelancholyWitch
May 3, 2012, 02:46 AM
Yes which I think why it will most likely be implemented somehow, I don't see why people are so against the idea of having PvP in your missions no one really has given me a good reason on why not, especially when you are GIVEN THE CHOICE to include PvP or not before starting said mission.

Most likely though I'll get a reply saying " NO THAT'S STUPID YOU'RE STUPID! Why would I want to get ganked by a full party while running missions on my own ? I want to be able to run my missions in peace" I think all caps doesn't help some people read even though the letters appear larger.

Dabian
May 3, 2012, 02:46 AM
Eggo, at least Rock argued me on my points. Try reading a few pages back and actually answering to my concerns before getting on your "no evidence/logic/freaking-whatever" high horse.

Sakai polled for opinions as to whether we would want pvp in PSO2. They're not decided yet. We are as much speculating as we are dead set on what we expect the outcome to be. I listed my concerns, I didn't target anyone. And now, just like the ranger thread, someone becomes picked on for voicing his opinion.

NoiseHERO
May 3, 2012, 02:52 AM
Oh it's not just you, it's just that no one that agreed with you backed you up much. But the majority of people are still more open to the idea of whatever kind of PVP, compared to people calling it a spawn of satan.

MelancholyWitch
May 3, 2012, 02:53 AM
What I DONT want to see is a PVP mode that requires everyone use the strongest equipment in the game or else you'll be getting your ass handed to you every time. Everyone running around with the same character builds, same armor, same weapons. We already have enough of that in the regular game. I'd like a PVP that's friendly to people who just want to have fun screwing around, as well as people who want to take it seriously.

And no, I don't like field PVP that can interrupt the main game and ruin it for many people, especially new players. Adding little checkboxes and whatnot is just going to muck up the main game. If you're going to add the option, then don't halfass it with a checkbox. Go ahead and make a separate mode.

obviously you didn't read the first post completely, halfass with a checkbox? the idea of PvP and emergency code events happening together seems a lot more fun than just a straight on 4v4 that you know wont be interrupted by monsters or other random players/parties and will be set with predefined classes/equipment, but in missions this wouldn't happen because the PvP would be random, not something you go into KNOWING how many you will fight or what classes they are etc, instead you could encounter a situation such as a 2v4 where the 2 take advantage of their movements and positioning, defeating the full party. I'd like to see this so that skill is the key, not gear,class or party combination when you do arenas/battle modes then it becomes more strategy and less skill based, which leads away from Player Vs. Player and more so into Plan Vs. Plan.

FenixStryk
May 3, 2012, 02:57 AM
Jumping in to get a jab in before the thread is locked:

Why do some of you feel the need to waltz in and state that all of our ideas will eventually decay into chaos with absolutely NO logical backing, NO evidence, NO deductive reasoning what-so-freaking ever? I really cannot understand how you justify this crap! As things are now, Sakai does not have the resources to flesh out a full-fledged, competent and fun PvP mode. They barely even have enough content for a Level 40 cap, and they don't even have PvE balance nailed (you were IN the Ranger thread). This game is going to launch with maybe a week's worth of content... it's lean enough as it is.

I love PvP, and when I want to PvP, I play a game that was made for PvP from the ground up; it's not worth it to stress over PvP in games that weren't made for it. While I am not averse to PvP eventually being added in PSO2, the timing is all wrong and I don't think foreigners (who will be laggers and blights to any sort of PSO2 JP PvP scene) should be the ones to try and force Sakai's hand and tack on a half-baked Battle Mode ASAP.

The point is simple: Wait a couple of years, let the cap rise to 80 or 100, see how the balance evolves, get everyone on-board then and take it from there.


In regards to the topic:
Ever play Head-to-Head Tetris, or Puyo Puyo? It's competitive, but all it really is is two Player vs. AI boards taped together at the seams, where clearing one side quickly makes it harder for the other side. That same concept could easily be adapted for PSO2: a Head-to-Head Survival Mode. Spawn waves continually, and if one party clears a wave efficiently, spawn extra, harder creeps for the other parties. Simple, effective, PvE-driven, and better than all of the rushed Battle Mode ideas you guys seem bent on.

NoiseHERO
May 3, 2012, 03:01 AM
Well like I said before and I THINK a few others agree, for ANY kind of PVP. Obviously they CAN'T put it before full release, so I'm assuming we should automatically be talking about AFTER the game settles in..

MelancholyWitch
May 3, 2012, 03:07 AM
As things are now, Sakai does not have the resources to flesh out a full-fledged, competent and fun PvP mode. They barely even have enough content for a Level 40 cap, and they don't even have PvE balance nailed (you were IN the Ranger thread). This game is going to launch with maybe a week's worth of content... it's lean enough as it is.

In regards to the topic:
Ever play Head-to-Head Tetris, or Puyo Puyo? It's competitive, but all it really is is two Player vs. AI boards taped together at the seams, where clearing one side quickly makes it harder for the other side. That same concept could easily be adapted for PSO2: a Head-to-Head Survival Mode. Spawn waves continually, and if one party clears a wave efficiently, spawn extra, harder creeps for the other parties. Simple, effective, PvE-driven, and better than all of the rushed Battle Mode ideas you guys seem bent on.

OK first off I'd love this magical power gift that you have of foreseeing the future, How exactly do you know that the game will launch with a week's worth of content? Do you know that EVERYTHING in the game now will be exactly the same way with nothing added in before this summer? Do you know the way EXP needed to level up is scaled? from 20-30? how about 30-40? Say in the time it takes you to level 1 character to 20 5 times, you level once at level 35+. Things are subject to change, who knows the level cap for release can even change, nothing is set in stone as already proven to us, you are pretty much saying that we will only get what we got in closed beta at release, since it took the average player 4 days to almost a week to hit level 20 I'd guess.

And as for the releasing PvP later on, it's a bad idea... a later release of PvP will most likely be some crap battle mode that is even worse than PSO's was, or not have any interest in as people will just be sitting in lobby awaiting for the next update, implement PvP in the Open beta/release and you can avoid the sitting in lobby scenario we have been seeing in too many PS games.

MelancholyWitch
May 3, 2012, 03:12 AM
Adding Battle Mode does not detract from any content. If the game is only made for 40 levels, Battle Mode would do nothing but expand what you could get out of it.


I mean think about this, what do they really have to do to allow players to hit eachother? Tweak a few flags i guess? you're basically taking the content you already have and rearranging it into competitive minigames.


I previously said something about each team being able to summon monsters. What would that really take? Enemy AI already pathfinds and turns on itself (darkers vs natives, Ragne vs Vol). Switching allies should be somewhat simple.


What about player arenas? Take a few rooms, stick some teleporters here and there, maybe a few hazards. BAM you have multiple fighting arenas. Multiparty areas hold 12 players. You can easily just let them use an entire map.


Speaking of which, when you think of the scale of maps on PSO2, all sorts of things become possible. Assault mode, Capture the Flag, King of the Hill, Hide and Go Seek....honestly, PSO2's gameplay engine is very solid. The possibilities are endless.




And most importantly...you gained no items and gained no levels in PSO/PSP2's battle mode. You go in as you come out. The mode was ALWAYS about a little extra fun. No, they do NOT have time to implement the mode right now. But when they do, they'll have so much they would be able to do with it, i cant see how everyone isnt excited for the possibilities.


These are great ideas! After seeing some of the new areas from the 2nd media briefing and the ones we know already just imagine the possibilities for PvP in such environments... where you are not just fighting each other but the environment/terrain/creatures as well.

If you're talking about battle mode in PSO Ep 1 & 2, I'm pretty certain when you died you were given a handicap boost of a few levels, and could max out at 200 if you were killed enough times.

Angelo
May 3, 2012, 05:11 AM
obviously you didn't read the first post completely, halfass with a checkbox? the idea of PvP and emergency code events happening together seems a lot more fun than just a straight on 4v4 that you know wont be interrupted by monsters or other random players/parties and will be set with predefined classes/equipment, but in missions this wouldn't happen because the PvP would be random, not something you go into KNOWING how many you will fight or what classes they are etc, instead you could encounter a situation such as a 2v4 where the 2 take advantage of their movements and positioning, defeating the full party. I'd like to see this so that skill is the key, not gear,class or party combination when you do arenas/battle modes then it becomes more strategy and less skill based, which leads away from Player Vs. Player and more so into Plan Vs. Plan.

Oh shit, Emergency Code PvP sounds fucking awesome! I didn't even think of that!

BWS-1
May 3, 2012, 12:56 PM
Point is post only if you can follow either
A) express your ideas INTELLIGENTLY on why you think it should not be implemented at all(and basically have another PSU where you spend more of your time on the 4th floor than anything else, go install msn or something geez...it's a game not a chat program.)
or
B) Explain why you think there should be PvP, regardless of how it is (if you want to explain to us how it would work, or if it should be battle mode,etc sure go for it, just don't make that the point of your post, we're suppose to explain why we want it, not how we want it)
and lastly
C) You want to help promote the idea for implementing PvP in PSO2, and/or you have someway to help out or contribute to this, then post away please. I will read any messages or posts regarding C as quick as I can then we can get our ideas together and start posting on sites like JP PSO2 official website/blog/twitter.

It's funny, I recall having done just that, but I think I must have failed at something since it's as if I said nothing constructive at all. Or just nothing XD

Not that I was expecting people to flame at me or anything or even quote me on how relevant/irrelevant what I said was but... I guess I might have taken a too ''mellow'' stance on the matter... o wait... that might be it. I did exactly all that, which is why I got ignored: I failed at pulling drama in. O PSOW, you got me!

Chik'Tikka
May 3, 2012, 04:09 PM
wow this thread certainly grew, after reading for quite awhile i would have to say one thing to make people happy would be something like a gladiator arena, when you go in, your level is set to an arena level and your equipment is stowed away, you then select specific arena gear to suit your play style+^_^+ you could then have fair PVP without advantageous 10^ weps and higher level, it would then be based entirely on you skill level with your chosen race/class+^_^+ a lvl 20 could theoretically fight a lvl 100 and be better based on innate skill alone+^_^+

MelancholyWitch
May 4, 2012, 05:00 AM
It's funny, I recall having done just that, but I think I must have failed at something since it's as if I said nothing constructive at all. Or just nothing XD

Not that I was expecting people to flame at me or anything or even quote me on how relevant/irrelevant what I said was but... I guess I might have taken a too ''mellow'' stance on the matter... o wait... that might be it. I did exactly all that, which is why I got ignored: I failed at pulling drama in. O PSOW, you got me!

what? No the problem is you just have no basis for anything you say, and spout utter nonsense that either just gets ignored or made fun of. You took 1 sentence out of my first post and made it seem like nothing good would come from it based on that... at least try next time. you still have yet to say any valid flaws within my idea so another useless post.


wow this thread certainly grew, after reading for quite awhile i would have to say one thing to make people happy would be something like a gladiator arena, when you go in, your level is set to an arena level and your equipment is stowed away, you then select specific arena gear to suit your play style+^_^+ you could then have fair PVP without advantageous 10^ weps and higher level, it would then be based entirely on you skill level with your chosen race/class+^_^+ a lvl 20 could theoretically fight a lvl 100 and be better based on innate skill alone+^_^+

Arenas with set levels wont really be that great you just need to make different level group arenas at that case and just make anything on your gear normal while inside arena (non grinder/element) the game has so many defensive capabilities that something like that would be too unrealistic perhaps a lower level could kill a much higher level person or 1-2 people party could take out a full one, not because of their class, or weapons but merely because of their skill, this is the kind of game that is needed lately everything is just the same, grind good gear then win, with the way PSO2 feels it seems like gear wont matter much if you know what you're doing.

But honestly people just need to drop their whole attachment to a 1 sided generic genre game. Try both, I like PvE and PvP I think when a game has both of these elements it makes for much more play time or content availability,

after all we do know they intend to update PSO2 quite frequently with new monsters, weapons, weapon types,skills,levels perhaps even PvP zones/modes it's not going to be the exact same game you played as a small child/teen from junior high 10 years ago. Stuff will get updated quickly perhaps eventually even on a weekly basis if the Arks coins become popular, I'm not sure what this hostility is against PvP it will just bring more to the game and not something YOU HAVE TO DO,like a larger community ,more things to do, level caps will continue to get raised while balances are also worked out, new skills and techniques possibility even some very interesting ways to implement techniques which could make PvP something to crave.

It's not the 90's anymore, games can do this and be successful, updates can happen a lot more, and actually happen remember that many years ago updating a console game with new content was pretty much impossible server side, the way it is now and with PSO2 we will be receiving updates much more quickly than JP servers on PSU. I can except good things with PvP int he future.

Blackheart521
May 4, 2012, 05:10 AM
Stuff will get updated quickly perhaps eventually even on a weekly basis if the Arks coins become popular

I doubt it'll be on a weekly basis, I'm on the optimistic side for updates too but the most often I would think they would update would be a bi-weekly basis, considering Sakai keeps saying they plan on doing monthly updates THAT might even be wishful thinking on my part. ^^;

~Inu~
May 4, 2012, 05:20 AM
I'm not AGAINST PvP, I just wouldn't like to see it implemented until a little later on in PSO2's lifetime.

I always fear PvP roping in a very irritating crowd in any F2P MMO.
Sure, I'm sure you could just ignore them and maybe I'm just pessimistic...
I just think PSO2 would need a little time to grow and expand before we get there.

FenixStryk
May 4, 2012, 05:31 AM
Oh shit, Emergency Code PvP sounds fucking awesome! I didn't even think of that!If you can't see why forced PvP is a terrible idea, I don't know what to say.


You just have no basis for anything you say, and spout utter nonsense that either just gets ignored or made fun of.Hahaha, are you trolling? You should read some of the rubbish you write. Your definition of "valid" is so skewed that I'm not even sure if I want to respond. Between you and Eggobandit, I honestly don't see how anyone can take PSO-W seriously any more. It's no wonder Dinosaur snapped in the now-locked Ranger thread.


Back on topic, ignoring the fact that Sakai does not have the resources to add a competent PvP mode at release, and that adding PvP is not as simple as checking a few boxes and switching a few flags:

There's no harm in a PvP mode that counts level and gear, but PSO2 would be far better served by a Battle/Arena Mode where the only thing that carries over in any way is your class; the difference should be identical to that of choosing a fighting game character. Give each class their tools and weapons, standardize their stat numbers and go from there.

If you're going to add PvP, make it balanced or don't even bother.

chiyonictrilostick
May 4, 2012, 06:08 AM
adding emergency codes would be useful because players will know when they're about to get ganked. It always happens so fast in other games, this at least notifies players beforehand so they know what actually happened after they get killed

BWS-1
May 4, 2012, 07:48 AM
what? No the problem is you just have no basis for anything you say, and spout utter nonsense that either just gets ignored or made fun of. You took 1 sentence out of my first post and made it seem like nothing good would come from it based on that... at least try next time. you still have yet to say any valid flaws within my idea so another useless post.

Hmmmm, let's dig back a bit:


I remember back in PSO ver2, Battle Mode was pretty neat for a couple reasons:

+ It had unique maps, including areas which were later used in the GC version

+ it had rather interesting modes, including the ability to just go play the game IN Battle Mode, forcing the players to play a completely different co-op game as now not only was there ''friendly fire'' with EVERY attacks, but also COLLISION with every players.

+ DIDN'T break the stats of classes/races in the rest of the game to revolve around ''PvP fairness''

Of course, the fact it was implemented this way lead to its share of downsides:

- Casts were greatly inferior due to their inability to heal themselves through TECHs.

- Rules were roughly ''all or nothing''; either you fight with your current gear and level OR start off a match with set low-levels and hunt for items in the map...

- Anything Range-oriented > melee (unless the dude RUNS to you, is AFK or just lags)


PvP is a nice dream for PSO2, but it seems to be at an impasse if we're to only think:

It's to turn into a WoW-like PvP: one where the elements of every classes are changed left and right ''because one class or another is OP in PvP'', making everyone else NOT doing PvP pay for it still, utterly diluting the ''classes'' in the end.

OR

It stays as it is, focuses on allowing classes and races to mature and better themselves for their roles which, in the end, inevitably leads to have one race/class to be ''god-tier'' in PvP while everyone else bites the dust.


One way I'd see it possible without turning this into a WoW PvP model OR falling at disadvantage from NOT being said model is to keep the team-oriented PSO spirit... and maybe making the most out of both models!

It could have ''parties'' pre-set as ''PvP open/ready''. For that, you'd need to meet criteria as simple as party members Class. Want to go and fight in an interrupt encounter with other people? Your team needs to have 1 Force 1 Ranger 2 Hunters, and maybe vary on the ''pre-set'' conditions, but you'd still only encounter whichever pre-set you'd select, or that were deemed ''balanced'' (hopefully enough study would be done to open up as many configurations as possible without being limited to just one, AND still have it balanced out).

Gotta make the most out of the fact that the classes are different and might have ups and down toward one-another! In the end, you have each individuals fighting off with their classes fairly against another group. It's no ''Ranger vs Hunter = ma hunter dieded befor i could re3ch teh ranger!!1 wtf hax''. In the end, both sides have rangers, hunters and forces. You have to work it to deal with them.

Of course, for 1v1 or 2v2 (or how many you want) you could have Hunter tournaments, Ranger tournaments and Force tournaments! Perhaps even set up ''dream teams'' based on the winners of each tournaments too! I see great potential there without even breaking/separating whatever would be implemented for the PvE/Classes, on the contrary, it would use those very differences as not only a distinguishing feature, but its very foundation!

I guess... I really mostly end up SUPPORTING your idea and adding to it rather than add ''valid flaws'', so I'd say you're right on that part. But either you thought my ''first post'' was something else or you didn't read that actual ''first post'' entirely, because I fail to see where I mention that nothing good would come out of PvP in this chunk of text above (ei: my first post).

Gardios
May 4, 2012, 07:55 AM
After following this thread for a while I don't even see the point of it since it just boiled down to OP saying "this game needs PVP right this instant and there's nothing to convince me otherwise" - any attempts of discussion that do not consist of simply agreeing to him pretty much fall on deaf ears.

Cayenne
May 4, 2012, 09:57 AM
PvP has to be THE worst topic to ever talk about amongst gamers.

How about we throw away those broken bat and put those horses in their final resting place or do you still wish to continue going nowhere?

Sipher Mashai
May 4, 2012, 09:59 AM
If PvP is implemented it would have to either restric classes to just basic gear or be strictly as a side thing and not be needed to be used. I have never liked PvP for this kind of game since it easily becomes unbalanced.

Angelo
May 4, 2012, 10:12 AM
If you can't see why forced PvP is a terrible idea, I don't know what to say.

I didn't mean in the middle of a mission, I meant in the way that there are Emergency missions that pop up during prime time hours. Should've clarified

Having PvP instances that only pop up during 'emergency' times is a great idea, and completely consensual.

NoiseHERO
May 4, 2012, 10:53 AM
Sounds like the idea at hand keeps getting dragged back down to square one. The biggest problem is that nobody can actually come up with a fair compromise between the two sides. People that don't want ANY form of PVP seem to no matter what think there's a reason it shouldn't be in the game. And people that DO want PVP are trying to come up with new ideas that would be fun and actually possibly work.

But instead of anyone getting ANYWHERE on ANY interesting idea, it just has to be dragged back down to "NO, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE IN THE END IT'S STILL PVP AND PVP WOULD RUIN THIS GAME." Last time I checked video games were about fun. All most of us want is something new to add on to the game that's fun, in this case the topic COULD be anything where attacking another player helps you reach the goal.

Two players can have the ability to hit each other with million of numbers, weapons, stats, elements and balances being forcefully thrown in to create complicated controversy and drama. Then before development time comes up again, dunno if people are still forcing that to be a big deal, making a game more fun for MORE PEOPLE isn't wasting development time whether a small chunk of the community may enjoy what's coming or not.

TL;DR: stop making it complicated just because you can only see things in one way and then maybe everyone could find something to agree on.

Finalzone
May 4, 2012, 12:16 PM
Problem with this kind of topic is the elitism attitude displaying the worst side of the players. It is very easy to say include PvP where there is an hidden agenda behind like cyber-bullying against especially newcomers and big ego despite the good intention of such feature. That fact cannot be overlooked thus require a lot of babysitting.

What will be the point after the battlemode turned out a waste of time where few people will use. You want that mode? Play another game. Clearly that topic carries too much emotion that will bring divisions and it already started.

NoiseHERO
May 4, 2012, 12:32 PM
What will be the point after the battlemode turned out a waste of time where few people will use. You want that mode? Play another game. Clearly that topic carries too much emotion that will bring divisions and it already started.

What, plenty people messed around in that battle mode. And it was hilarious and fun attacking each other, was obviously never meant to be this huge part of the game. D:

Anyway I still want that one idea we had with capturing monsters and making them fight each other.

Rauten
May 4, 2012, 12:37 PM
What, plenty people messed around in that battle mode. And it was hilarious and fun attacking each other, was obviously never meant to be this huge part of the game. D:

Hrm, you and I must have played completely different games, then. Most of the time I saw a BMode game, the people in the game were cheaters trying to break the game and try new codes.

NoiseHERO
May 4, 2012, 01:01 PM
I saw a fair number of them in the portable games especially since, the whole "PVP" thing was just a fun short mission. I dunno what people were doing in PSO's battlemode I played that one offline, but I played "PVP" with my real life friends all the time and it was mostly fun just to mess around in.

Rauten
May 4, 2012, 01:04 PM
Well I can't really talk for the PSP games, I only own(ed... sort of, stupid backwards Vita compatibility) PSP2 and never played it online, but in PSO, there were a few BMode matches early on, but it quickly lost steam. Challenge mode on the other hand gained a certain... cult following.

NoiseHERO
May 4, 2012, 01:09 PM
I actually like challenge mode a lot too.

Only basic weapons and you start at lvl 50... or I guess level 50 or something with a clean preset class/stats. Then the rest is all strategy, speed and skill. None of that "I'm only good at this game and I can do speed runs the best because I have really strong equipment and lots of free time" crap. Challenge mode separates the REAL pros, from the people that just brag about having a lot of free time. 8D

And even PSO's battle mode did the same thing with stats and weapons, which is why I don't know why people keep bringing up balancing...

Rauten
May 4, 2012, 01:21 PM
And even PSO's battle mode did the same thing with stats and weapons, which is why I don't know why people keep bringing up balancing...

The problem isn't the stats, it's the mechanics.
Imagine a hunter vs a force, every time the hunter goes up close, the force can just mirage dodge to infinity, since Mirage is SO DAMN GOOD. And if you carry a gunblade and try to do ranged combat, you're giving the FO breathing room, at which moment, he/she is going to Rafoie your ass so hard you'll think you're a roasted chicken.

I'm sure people can probably pick a LOT of errors and possibilities in my half-assed attempt at an example, but the point is: it's not the stats, it's the mechanics.

NoiseHERO
May 4, 2012, 01:58 PM
basic skills, basic techs, proper use of environments team battles...

Or even if necessary...

Only same classed players can fight each other.

Hunter > Gunslash only > 1 v 1 > Preset stats and equips > your friends can spectate in the same map, from like... these seats behind a glass window or something, and 15 people can fit in the room (13 spectators altogether.)


Skill only, no game mechanic disadvantage because you have to agree to the use of one weapon and class, and preset stats, and your friends can even watch! The ONLY problem would be lag. Though that wouldn't be a problem for Japanese or Korean players (AT ALL) Otherwise, like challenge mode, no excuses the rest is all skill.

MelancholyWitch
May 4, 2012, 03:27 PM
Problem with this kind of topic is the elitism attitude displaying the worst side of the players. It is very easy to say include PvP where there is an hidden agenda behind like cyber-bullying against especially newcomers and big ego despite the good intention of such feature. That fact cannot be overlooked thus require a lot of babysitting.

What will be the point after the battlemode turned out a waste of time where few people will use. You want that mode? Play another game. Clearly that topic carries too much emotion that will bring divisions and it already started.

Sigh refer to my earlier posts on what reasons have no valid argument towards this...and you'll see one of them being "PvP in PSO2 will bring elitism to the community, I'm sorry but if you're playing online games and can't handle that you need to go back to playing kick the can with your neighbors and learn how to play nice without being bitchy about the outcome of the game, cyber-bullying? um...really? There's an ignore feature...and they can not make another character without paying $ so I'm pretty sure the ignore would ignore all his/her characters anyways...or there's you know THE OPTION TO NOT PvP AT ALL.

Just because PvP can be implemented into PSO2 very nicely doesn't mean you have to participate in it. Not everyone participates in PvP on games that have popular PvP. You can choose not to PvP and still get fun out of the game no one is forcing you so I don't see how it could possibly hurt anyone who is all for PvE, it wont affect you in any way if you don't PvP you wont be affected by it, common sense. (and crying about balance issues affecting PvE wont work either because there's very many ways around that, like including a PvP stat, or damage that's specifically for PvP, etc.) It really gets me that people come on here hating on PvP, instead of seeing both perspectives like myself. I want both to be in the game, and done to the best of their ability.

Even people who didn't like PvP in PSO days still did Battle mode, so not sure what this "play another game if you want battle mode" is you're referring to... since battle mode originated from PSO....Like I said lots of people here just talk out of their ass without doing any proper research or perhaps never have played any form of PvP in their entire time gaming, those are the best lol people who talk shit about it yet know nothing of it. As I stated before this is not the 90's anymore, games can be updated and include lots of features outside of PvE, the PvP will not hinder PvE in any way, unless it becomes forced PvP, which based on what I've seen it would never be implemented as forced PvP, but rather something you can turn off/on in party settings or set a premade group for.

We need to get back topic here, I'll remind people that saying anything along the lines of something like "PvP wont work in PSO2 because of balance issues! or because you will be forced to PvP and no one will be able to run missions properly/new players will have a hard time" Those are the statements that will earn you a nice clean back hand to the face.

terrell707
May 4, 2012, 08:52 PM
I thought battle mode was fun in PSP2. It did get annoying playing as a force and going up against a bunch of hunters who would spam that OP spear move (forget what it was called). But then it became funny when it became so predictable that I can just block it and then spam them with Techs. I do agree that the mechanics of this game could make PvP very interesting, and at the same time, very annoying. But i'm sure if Sega implemented it, they would try and iron out the kinks enough for it to be, at the very least, playable.

Dabian
May 4, 2012, 09:20 PM
Those are the statements that will earn you a nice clean back hand to the face.
Might as well beat people into submission if they won't agree with you.


Even people who didn't like PvP in PSO days still did Battle mode
And did they stick around? You might have, but there's cause for concern for the current devs if they see that battlemode wasn't all that popular.


Like I said lots of people here just talk out of their ass without doing any proper research or perhaps never have played any form of PvP in their entire time gaming, those are the best lol people who talk shit about it yet know nothing of it.

Do you want PSO battlemode or [morethanbattlemode] pvp? If all you want is unbalanced, unsupported PSO battlemode, you shouldn't criticize others' lack of pvp knowledge.

MelancholyWitch
May 4, 2012, 11:19 PM
Do you want PSO battlemode or [morethanbattlemode] pvp? If all you want is unbalanced, unsupported PSO battlemode, you shouldn't criticize others' lack of pvp knowledge.

To me if PvP gets implemented in any form I'll be happy but as I've expressed in the first post if you have even bothered to read it is a different style than battle mode I wouldn't mind it but I'd prefer something bigger than battle mode and more in depth towards PvP I never said I wanted an unbalanced PvP set up, all I've stated is that balance can't be perfect at released or whenever it is implemented it will need to get updated and fixed as time goes on, but this will not prevent, slow down or hinder any of the updates in content in regards to PvE stuff such as new areas/weapons/clothing.

Dabian
May 5, 2012, 06:57 AM
See, if you wanted a balanced pvp setup, that would take effort, resources, and time to perfect. I wouldn't dare speak for Sakai to declare that it wouldn't hinder/slow down development of other content. Other games have tried, with the noblest of intentions, to balance pve/pvp and content delivery. It doesn't always work out.

We're talking deep pvp now btw. Just so the battle mode-only supporters know.

Silenttank
May 5, 2012, 09:09 AM
I like the idea of Emergency Codes that implement PvP, I think it could be epic. An idea that could make PvP work in PSO2's mechanics could be objective based goals instead of standard Team vs Team last man standing. Something that would fit the scenario of the mission you signed up for, and would give benefits to the winning team for the rest of the instance run, like Iroquois suggested.

BWS-1
May 5, 2012, 09:34 AM
Anyway I still want that one idea we had with capturing monsters and making them fight each other.

O how i miss my Confusion Traps...

Zekester
May 7, 2012, 11:22 PM
I understand PvP and how it implements fun to some people, but let's be honest, PSO was never a PvP type of MMO.

Im not against it if people want it, just being realistic to the 'feel' the game has brought from Alpha/Beta footages. The potential is there, but with all the different attacks and PAs, I doubt there will be a solid PvP system in this game.



Besides I remember Battle Mode trying it out, getting Megid to the face; die, revived by the person who killed me only to re-Megid my face in again. No thanks.

StingArt
May 8, 2012, 04:36 AM
I loved the PvP in PSO1&2, i can only dream about that clunky battle type coming back to PSO2. I doubt it tho, it would get horrible reviews and tons of people would actually rate the game lower because of an added but unpolished game mode.

It seems that having less but making it in quality is better than having a quality product + something, not refined, that only 10% of the population enjoys. You know why its bad? Because the other 90% will look at it as 'lost potential' but you know whats funny? If it wasn't there in the first place, they don't even think about it.

MelancholyWitch
May 8, 2012, 06:18 AM
See, if you wanted a balanced pvp setup, that would take effort, resources, and time to perfect. I wouldn't dare speak for Sakai to declare that it wouldn't hinder/slow down development of other content. Other games have tried, with the noblest of intentions, to balance pve/pvp and content delivery. It doesn't always work out.

We're talking deep pvp now btw. Just so the battle mode-only supporters know.

That's what I'm actually trying to say... think about it this way there is no game that has perfect balance between PvP and PvE right now, so expecting them to either fix it up immediately or think that will really put so much stress on them and delaying content is a bit far fetched and kinda ignorant way of thinking. I'm all up for any PvP but I'd like to see some really in depth PvP being done with PSO2 you can still make PvP get involved a lot with the game yet still make it optional. This one track mind I've been seeing a lot gives the same generic reasons why PvP shouldn't exists or be outside of battle mode, I'm really curious to see what happens in response to the survey questionnaire that has happened recently, if enough interest is in PvP they could change their minds. There's too much thinking being put into it...it's not that difficult to implement the PvP they are more likely looking at what the community wants and trying to piece stuff together, that's why we need to get our voices heard over there, I'm not the only one around here who isn't selfishly thinking in their own real of a perfect game I want players who never have played PSO to come try it and enjoy it, unfortunately majority of the gaming population for MMO's/RPG's are on ones with PvP, a new game is wanted and with most games being similar Sakai really has an open shot here at a big success in the West.

Dabian
May 8, 2012, 07:33 AM
Wall of text aside (which I read btw), you (still) need to figure out for yourself what kind of pvp you want for PSO2 exactly.

One line it's battlemode, to which I say, go crazy. Just need to convince Sakai.
If it's the in depth kind, which I highly suspect you have very little experience with (otherwise you wouldn't be taking the balance/resource issue so lightly), then just read the previous posts.

Oh, it wouldn't be proper to call others ignorant if you're ignorant to the notion that your post needs to be you know, readable for there to be discussion. Or do you just want us one-track minds to just listen to you from now on?

Rauten
May 8, 2012, 07:50 AM
Are you really expecting the recent questionnaire to have an overall positive effect for PvP in PSO2? This is Japan we're talking about, they rarely ever, in almost no game, want any form of PvP.
Hell, it took SQuenix ages to add any kind of PvP (and it wasn't really PvP anyway) to FFXI, and only because westerners pestered them about it.

FenixStryk
May 8, 2012, 08:11 AM
This game's class balance is just dead-set on not translating well to PvP at all. A Rifle/Mechgun RA has so many factors stacked in their favor that I doubt there will be reasons to use the other classes over them.

Even if you exclude RA, HU vs. FO gets really messy. A bad HU will be set free by FO's Rafoie (instant travel times) before they can close the gap, but FO's glaring weaknesses of having a slow dash with long recovery frames in addition to having all of their attacks telegraphed (long charge times w/ animation + short swinging animation before cast) leaves them to be easily exploited by a good HU that knows how to read you at range, block when closing the gap and punish dashes once they're in. There's no middle-ground unless FO sits in their own Rabartas and expects them to run in before their PP runs out (which won't happen). FOs are too easy to read since every attack is essentially an overhead with 15f startup, charged or otherwise.

Suffice to say, a tacked-on Battle Mode is bound to get really stupid really fast, and a PvP mode that solves these issues will waste development time. While I won't particularly mind the former if it is included, I can't see either one being worth the time, especially for a JP-centric game.

Taitu
May 8, 2012, 11:25 AM
That's what I'm actually trying to say... think about it this way there is no game that has perfect balance between PvP and PvE right now, so expecting them to either fix it up immediately or think that will really put so much stress on them and delaying content is a bit far fetched and kinda ignorant way of thinking. I'm all up for any PvP but I'd like to see some really in depth PvP being done with PSO2 you can still make PvP get involved a lot with the game yet still make it optional. This one track mind I've been seeing a lot gives the same generic reasons why PvP shouldn't exists or be outside of battle mode, I'm really curious to see what happens in response to the survey questionnaire that has happened recently, if enough interest is in PvP they could change their minds. There's too much thinking being put into it...it's not that difficult to implement the PvP they are more likely looking at what the community wants and trying to piece stuff together, that's why we need to get our voices heard over there, I'm not the only one around here who isn't selfishly thinking in their own real of a perfect game I want players who never have played PSO to come try it and enjoy it, unfortunately majority of the gaming population for MMO's/RPG's are on ones with PvP, a new game is wanted and with most games being similar Sakai really has an open shot here at a big success in the West.

While I support the inclusion of PVP you're trying to say it will be an easy inclusion? On the contrary the system currently doesn't support players attacking one another at all. We don't know how Players and Enemies relate in code, how damage is calculated differently between the two, collision now needs to be handled between Player objects... It's not a simple matter of flipping a switch so now players can hit one another, it needs to be worked into the game's architecture which is not at all an easy task.


Are you really expecting the recent questionnaire to have an overall positive effect for PvP in PSO2? This is Japan we're talking about, they rarely ever, in almost no game, want any form of PvP.
Hell, it took SQuenix ages to add any kind of PvP (and it wasn't really PvP anyway) to FFXI, and only because westerners pestered them about it.

Where does this absurd myth come from that the Japanese hate being competitive? Japan is the home of and in fact adores the fighting game genre which is nothing but competitive. They even host the largest fighting game tournament in the world SBO. The Japanese love competition as much as anyone else does.

PhantasyStarMan
May 8, 2012, 11:28 AM
Are you really expecting the recent questionnaire to have an overall positive effect for PvP in PSO2? This is Japan we're talking about, they rarely ever, in almost no game, want any form of PvP.
Hell, it took SQuenix ages to add any kind of PvP (and it wasn't really PvP anyway) to FFXI, and only because westerners pestered them about it.

If you are referring to Ballista, I wouldn't even call that PvP. It was frustrating, and beyond time consuming.

Ryo
May 8, 2012, 11:32 AM
Honestly, I have very little interest in PvP for PSO2. I don't think it was particularly great in PSO, and I haven't enjoyed it in a single MMO I've played thus far. That being said, I'm all for having it in game; whatever brings more players!

Rauten
May 8, 2012, 01:53 PM
Where does this absurd myth come from that the Japanese hate being competitive? Japan is the home of and in fact adores the fighting game genre which is nothing but competitive. They even host the largest fighting game tournament in the world SBO. The Japanese love competition as much as anyone else does.

Not what I was referring to; not at all. They do love their fighting games (and I love their fighting games), but when it comes to online RPGs? PvP modes aren't something they're keen on.

MelancholyWitch
May 8, 2012, 03:30 PM
Wall of text aside (which I read btw), you (still) need to figure out for yourself what kind of pvp you want for PSO2 exactly.

One line it's battle mode, to which I say, go crazy. Just need to convince Sakai.
If it's the in depth kind, which I highly suspect you have very little experience with (otherwise you wouldn't be taking the balance/resource issue so lightly), then just read the previous posts.

Oh, it wouldn't be proper to call others ignorant if you're ignorant to the notion that your post needs to be you know, readable for there to be discussion. Or do you just want us one-track minds to just listen to you from now on?

well since you are like many of the others who don't seem to even bother reading the first post... I stated exactly how I had an idea for the PvP to be implemented, I gave details. I'm not trying to tell people what they can't or can do I'm simply saying this is what I think is best, read the first post.

I have seen other sides of the argument so no I'm not ignorant, it's just in a logical form, or in something simlar to my idea in the first post, I don't see really how PvP could change the game in any way for anyone to dislike it even the pro PvE enthusiast. It could be done in a way not to affect PvE, again read first post.

I'll listen to anyone's opinion and read it just don't give the same reasons everyone else is for disliking I'm trying to gather support not have a debate that was the original purpose for this topic.

Zyrusticae
May 8, 2012, 04:18 PM
Not what I was referring to; not at all. They do love their fighting games (and I love their fighting games), but when it comes to online RPGs? PvP modes aren't something they're keen on.
Pretty much.

I think they're smart on this point - fighting games are made to be competitive. You fight on (mostly, varying on balance) even grounds and the game itself is built from the ground-up for PvP.

Online RPGs, on the other hand, are very rarely built with a large focus on PvP. Most of the time it's a tacked-on afterthought. And even when they do put more effort into it, well, let's face it, most folks aren't going to be happy with the results.

Some genres are just better for competition than others.

Peejay
May 8, 2012, 04:57 PM
I'm trying to gather support not have a debate.

Then you're thinking unrealistically. While it's a nice dream, and I'd like to enjoy effective PVP, among others, I would have to say why I think it would fail and I'd also have to accept well-written points FOR PVP. Too bad I haven't seen any of those, either.

Being serious and being smart are kind of two different things. Being smart means being able to anticipate and react appropriately to feedback.

MelancholyWitch
May 8, 2012, 05:29 PM
Then you're thinking unrealistically. While it's a nice dream, and I'd like to enjoy effective PVP, among others, I would have to say why I think it would fail and I'd also have to accept well-written points FOR PVP. Too bad I haven't seen any of those, either.

Being serious and being smart are kind of two different things. Being smart means being able to anticipate and react appropriately to feedback.

what? That came out of nothing... you haven't stated why it would fail, there are plenty of good points I've already pointed out, I'm just not going to keep repeating myself for people like you who don't feel like reading the earlier posts on the thread.

That's exactly why something like PvP hasn't been implemented, I'm not sure where you're trying to go there with that other than stating the obvious.

Finalzone
May 8, 2012, 05:34 PM
Sigh refer to my earlier posts on what reasons have no valid argument towards this...and you'll see one of them being "PvP in PSO2 will bring elitism to the community, I'm sorry but if you're playing online games and can't handle that you need to go back to playing kick the can with your neighbors and learn how to play nice without being bitchy about the outcome of the game, cyber-bullying? um...really? There's an ignore feature...and they can not make another character without paying $ so I'm pretty sure the ignore would ignore all his/her characters anyways...or there's you know THE OPTION TO NOT PvP AT ALL.

Like the one dollars per extra character in FFXI?


Just because PvP can be implemented into PSO2 very nicely doesn't mean you have to participate in it. Not everyone participates in PvP on games that have popular PvP. You can choose not to PvP and still get fun out of the game no one is forcing you so I don't see how it could possibly hurt anyone who is all for PvE, it wont affect you in any way if you don't PvP you wont be affected by it, common sense. (and crying about balance issues affecting PvE wont work either because there's very many ways around that, like including a PvP stat, or damage that's specifically for PvP, etc.) It really gets me that people come on here hating on PvP, instead of seeing both perspectives like myself. I want both to be in the game, and done to the best of their ability.
Show any MMO game that become popular with the implementation of PvP as afterthought. On majority case, that mode requires intensive maintenance. The chance of participation is very small thus a waste of resource. Social side, PvP on such game


Even people who didn't like PvP in PSO days still did Battle mode, so not sure what this "play another game if you want battle mode" is you're referring to... since battle mode originated from PSO....
It turned out battle mode was not popular at all compared to Challenge mode. Those who like Battle mode were minority.

We are on topic. As a started, you should be ready for feedback on either for or against.

BWS-1
May 8, 2012, 08:43 PM
It turned out battle mode was not popular at all compared to Challenge mode. Those who like Battle mode were minority.



So Battle mode was not popular in the past... does that mean it shouldn't come back, or can't be improved? I think not. Might as well say ''well, previous PSO servers turned out to be repeatedly shut-down in NA and EU; might as well not bother releasing PSO2 there altogether''.

Even though I DID like Battle mode, it wouldn't be fair to say I did so for what it was intended, as I'd just like playing the game with the friendly-fire which enabled itself throughout the areas when starting a Battle mode game. The room for improvement is big while the improvements needed to make it ''much better'' or ''viable'' are few (given how bare the battle mode was in the first place).

Looking back, what would you get for clearing Challenge mode? The choice of any weapon type being close to the most powerful weapons in the game and then NAME IT the way you want. What did you get for Battle Mode? Just... a battle mode. There had been nothing put in place to give people any desires whatsoever to compete.

That being said, if the argument against Battle mode ends up being ''well, it would be unfair to give people decent items and loot only available through battle mode'', that very sentence could be brought up for anyone NOT wanting to complete Challenge mode. Then again, it's not like the rewards for Challenge mode were powerful to the point of being unfair when used in PvE or that PvE didn't have its shares of rares more powerful then those acquired in Challenge mode. Ultimately, it didn't hinder Challenge mode nor ''PvE''. Challenge mode wasn't perfect either, but definitely better implemented than Battle mode in the end. If a system similar to Challenge mode had been put in place for Battle mode, its popularity would have likely benefit from it.

yoshiblue
May 8, 2012, 08:53 PM
Fantasy Earth Zero knockoff for PVP yeah!

I would play PVP if it was like FEZ.

Angelo
May 8, 2012, 09:37 PM
Show any MMO game that become popular with the implementation of PvP as afterthought. On majority case, that mode requires intensive maintenance. The chance of participation is very small thus a waste of resource. Social side, PvP on such game

City of Heroes added PvP as an afterthought in their 4th update and the Arenas were always pretty hopping.

And even though it's not really an MMO... like I stated earlier, PsPo2 had a PvP mode (arguably an afterthought with the PSU engine) and I was always able to find a game and willing participants.

When you compare the popularity of C-mode to Battle mode, from my experience it seemed that the average (casual) western player was more interested in PvP and the average Japanese player was more interested in C-mode. Even as of now, the majority of casual westerners, and especially Koreans, have a big interest in PvP and directly competitive play.

If anything, with the advent of games like WoW and the surge of popularity of online games in the past 10 years has proven that PvP is a big selling point. A few developers (i.e. Cryptic studios) have gone on record to say 'Not implementing PvP at launch was one of the hugest mistakes we could have ever made'. The more online games fall into the mainstream, the more these aspects will become favorable points of attraction, even for a niche title.

But like I said, the point isn't really 'if' it's going to happen, it's 'when' and 'how'. Sega already has a fully working client of the game in Korean that they showed off at G*Star and the immediate response from that demographic was "Great combat, but where's the PvP?". The f2p market is HUGE in Korea, and Sega knows it. They are not going to pass up pleasing that audience.

EvilJohn
May 9, 2012, 04:12 AM
bring back pso ver 2 battle modes would be sick. and maybe some new ones?

MelancholyWitch
May 21, 2012, 05:11 PM
Like the one dollars per extra character in FFXI?


Show any MMO game that become popular with the implementation of PvP as afterthought. On majority case, that mode requires intensive maintenance. The chance of participation is very small thus a waste of resource. Social side, PvP on such game


It turned out battle mode was not popular at all compared to Challenge mode. Those who like Battle mode were minority.

We are on topic. As a started, you should be ready for feedback on either for or against.

It's not like I'm ignoring opinions against mine I'm simply just saying for those who are still interested in PvP for PSO2 need band together and see how we can get our message across to SEGA before they release the retail version of the game, which is more important to me than arguing about implementing it or not, it wont hurt the PvE loving fan... if only they understood that.

NoiseHERO
May 21, 2012, 05:14 PM
I'm...

in shock from the way you brought this thread back...

I can't put it into words.

MelancholyWitch
May 21, 2012, 05:25 PM
I was wanting to respond to that post for a while just never got a chance to and got eaten up by other topics, but the original post still stays true if you wanna join the support group message me on here.

DerpiestShazbot
May 21, 2012, 10:53 PM
With how awesome PSO2's combat looks, I think it would be a crime to not implement some sort of PVP eventually.

I don't normally invest too much time in multiplayer RPG's, especially when it's one that doesn't feature any sort of competitive multiplayer (that's just me) but I love Phantasy Star so much I already plan on playing the hell out of PSO2. If PSO2 had competitive modes and they were done right, that would just give me even more of an incentive to spend my time playing PSO2.

With versions already planned for Vita, iOS, and Android, investing time in your character will be even more accessible than ever. I think that will make being able to take your character and face others an even more rewarding experience.

I understand how a competitive atmosphere in games like this can sometimes bring out the worst in people but if you are someone who was never big on the idea of PvP before then just stick to your cooperative environment. No one will be forcing you to fight other players. This is just more for people who want it.

Ark22
May 22, 2012, 01:56 AM
Maybe if we called this thread battle mode instead of PVP people would not go crazy.

But yeah, I want my battle mode!

NoiseHERO
May 22, 2012, 02:11 AM
Maybe if we called this thread battle mode instead of PVP people would not go crazy.

But yeah, I want my battle mode!

OP actually wants full blown PVP though, which is kinda why I just took a step back. D:

Miyoko
May 22, 2012, 02:22 AM
I'm...

in shock from the way you brought this thread back...

I can't put it into words.

I realized something from a certain other thread, Rockypoo. I can derail this thread so it never gets back on topic if you want. Just say the word.

NoiseHERO
May 22, 2012, 02:25 AM
I realized something from a certain other thread, Rockypoo. I can derail this thread so it never gets back on topic if you want. Just say the word.

Nah, it's cool, yo. D:

Miyoko
May 22, 2012, 02:50 AM
Alright then, but if it doesn't die, I'm holding you responsible! :p

NoiseHERO
May 22, 2012, 02:58 AM
Alright then, but if it doesn't die, I'm holding you responsible! :p

I will take responsibility!

and set popcorn on the side for possible outbreaks.

Peejay
May 22, 2012, 08:04 AM
I realized something from a certain other thread, Rockypoo. I can derail this thread so it never gets back on topic if you want. Just say the word.

You know, I'd like that myself.

By the way, PvP will suck forever, end of. Most of the arguments are now pretty much invalidated anyways with, you know, PVP being the third lowest in demand from all those surveys.

Shinji Kazuya
May 22, 2012, 08:42 AM
Why would we want to fight against other people?

We need to befriend each other! :wacko:

NoiseHERO
May 22, 2012, 03:01 PM
you know, PVP being the third lowest in demand from all those surveys.

Actually before people start running in here to say that and this argument ends up rebooting (THANKS FOR POINTING OUT THAT "NOISE," MIKE!)

That was still compared to other things in this game people could've asked for and even simple battle mode could go under "things to do besides fighting monsters" in general. But most the thing people that wanted PVP kept saying is that it obviously doesn't have to be worked on and put in the game as soon as possible, of course it's not in high demand. It's getting it... AT ALL, where the drama multiplies.

NOW TO ROCKBLOCK AS MANY POINTLESS E-ARGUMENTS AS I CAN! UNTIL THE "SECOND HALF OF/LATE" JUNE!

When I'm bored.

Dragwind
May 22, 2012, 03:26 PM
The fact that it was mentioned in the first place must mean it held at least some degree of significance. Whether people want any form of PvP or not, I have a pretty strong feeling it's going to be in the game one way or another, even if it's not the ol' BA mode.

MelancholyWitch
May 22, 2012, 10:43 PM
yeah I would just really like to see ANY form of PvP at this point, if it's implemented that would be awesome, the way it is doesn't even matter. PSO2 has sooo much room for amazing features both PvE and PvP with the way you can control your character, I'm sure they will come up with many different ways to play the game, perhaps ones we have never even seen in gaming yet.

But I'm still looking out there for anyone who frequent the Japanese PSO2 boards/twitter pages and actually actively posts on there who is in full support/favor for the implementation of PvP in PSO2, we should get our ideas out and heard maybe even at least to the Japanese community of PSO2 maybe some of them share our same ideas/hopes of the way PvP can be implemented in PSO2 if it is to be.

~Inu~
May 23, 2012, 12:56 AM
I'm not against PvP, I would just avoid a strong opinion until I know what KIND of PvP.
Portable had a pretty neat PvP system, I wouldn't mind something along the lines of Team vs Team.

Other then that,
I have no strong feelings one way or the other.

soulpimpwizzurd
May 23, 2012, 02:14 AM
ROCKBLOCK

DAS MA BOI RAWK NAM SAYN DAS WUZ GUUUD

CUZ...

DEY SAY DA VILLAIN BEEN SPITTIN ENOUGH LIGHTNING TO

RAWK BLAWK

BOOGIE DOWN TO BRIGHTON (psoworld) AIIGHT DEN

Gama
May 23, 2012, 03:39 AM
i honestly hate pvp id rather cooperate with other players, then trying to kill them "or getting bloody murdered(did you see rafoie? crazy!)"

if they add some kind of arena good some people will be happy, just i really dont think pvp matches this game.

Ark22
May 23, 2012, 03:40 AM
Just letting you know, Rabarta spam + Freezing = Worst that PSO spam on SO MANY LEVELS. But I am more worried about Rangers and their launchers.



i honestly hate pvp id rather cooperate with other players, then trying to kill them "or getting bloody murdered(did you see rafoie? crazy!)"

if they add some kind of arena good some people will be happy, just i really dont think pvp matches this game.

See what people forget is in battle mode you can still work together just have to be more precise because you guys can hit each other when in a dungeo which made it more fun IMO. Or just got bored of an idle player so you wail on him/her to get your PB up.

~Inu~
May 23, 2012, 12:47 PM
Dashing/Rolling/Blinking may make PvP more interesting, I would wonder if people could get so good at it they're nearly unkillable.

MelancholyWitch
May 23, 2012, 06:29 PM
Dashing/Rolling/Blinking may make PvP more interesting, I would wonder if people could get so good at it they're nearly unkillable.

That's the same thinking I had going with the way PSO2 looks you could literally get enough skill where perhaps you are avoiding every attack done to you while fighting them off would make for some very interesting 1v4 fights.

Omega-z
May 23, 2012, 07:46 PM
~Inu~ , Iroquois Pliskin - I already do this on Bosses to render there attack's useless. Mirage is great for flying not as much as it was in Alpha 2 but still can be done. Going Super Melee with a Force is fun using this tactic.

~Inu~
May 23, 2012, 08:16 PM
Heh, yeah I was shocked at how fun Mirage was to use on my force.
Dashing and Rolling would take a lot more practice, but I could see plenty of players getting a decent mastery of it after a few months...

Good PvP is about anticipation.
Learn to read other classes behavior and have a quick mind, and there you go.

SalemSlighted
May 23, 2012, 08:20 PM
I may not have much PSU/PSO experience but i have played many pvp-systemed games.

I believe the best way to do it is tournaments and agreed matches. I played on games where entire areas where comitted to free-for-alls and that failed miserably. A system where one player/party agrees on a duel with another would allow for pvp and no pker's running aroung and knocking off people just to do it. Not only that, but it would draw even larger crowds of people to the game, like it has with WoW, Shaiya, and a multitude of others.


edit:( and now i facepalm due to my ignorance of how old this thread is.....) but i did have some good ideas, if anyone cares to read

~Inu~
May 23, 2012, 08:29 PM
Don't worry about it, Salem.

I agree with the "No PKing" style. I don't mind PvP, but when I want to PvE I don't really want to feel forced into a match by a ganker.

KaiNova7
May 30, 2012, 03:14 AM
Id love to see pvp return to PSO 2. But only if its seperate from PVE parties. But pvp gives the game more replay value.. i know on pso I was more motivated to find rare weapons/gear in order to compete with the big boys in battle mode..
And in my opinion the battle mode didnt effect the community much cause most didnt play it anyway.
But I hope sega atleast make it an option for those of us who like the pvp feature.

MelancholyWitch
Jun 4, 2012, 02:12 AM
yes I'm really sure they will release eventually at least it seems like most main stream mmo's are having PvP implemented in some form even it isn't done at launch. Could be anything at this point but with the type of content we're already getting to see so soon I can imagine stuff like PvP and other extra features are bound to be implemented at release or if not soon after.

RemChu
Jun 16, 2012, 12:15 PM
Don't worry about it, Salem.

I agree with the "No PKing" style. I don't mind PvP, but when I want to PvE I don't really want to feel forced into a match by a ganker.


Pking can be very "satisfying". It's very predatory when you have a higher level hunting down lower level opponents, lol.

RAnewearl
Jun 16, 2012, 03:36 PM
I think PvP would be fun :) but depending on what mode youre ib (pressing z) one potentially gets auto aim.. imo anyway) maybe make the nontarget mode required for pvp?

And yus please no pking.. it should be you can duel request one other person in a instance if you wish (like vindictus) but also have an arena in the ship whereyou have formal pvp. Ciuld fit in the story as "training".

Neirene
Jun 16, 2012, 04:21 PM
There are already a big amount of pvp oriented games on the market, PSO2 should be kept as a pve game only it's the soul of the game with challenging monsters and bosses!

PSO series are meant to be games which relies in cooperation between players against monsters and therefore are not meant to make players enemies of thenselves.
This is just my opinion (and i'm actually a pvp lover of all the mmorpgs I play)

AzureAsh
Jun 16, 2012, 04:59 PM
I think a Battle Mode could work if it was implemented well and didn't take away from the PvE experience. I'd love to play it, to be honest. :)

MelancholyWitch
Jun 16, 2012, 08:42 PM
Well after seeing what happened in the last CBT and POBT I would say PvP is very needed and people can argue all they want but in the end you will still spend most your time in lobby doing nothing but dancing & other various emotes, PvP would fix this.

Halcyote
Jun 16, 2012, 09:08 PM
people do that regardless whether pvp is implemented or not

Coatl
Jun 16, 2012, 11:27 PM
There will be PvP.
PSO2 is too much of a treasure for sega to not implement PvP.
Plus it's a good meseta sink.

Neirene
Jun 17, 2012, 01:38 AM
Well after seeing what happened in the last CBT and POBT I would say PvP is very needed and people can argue all they want but in the end you will still spend most your time in lobby doing nothing but dancing & other various emotes, PvP would fix this.

What pvp will bring is more people staying at the lobbies "Dancing and Talking" and not willing to play because of the zerging that always happens in pvp games, and considering that PSO2 also includes a clan/team like system for sure you gonna start to see 80%+ of the server in that guild bullying the others that don't belong to.

And i've seem this already in so many other games and that's how pretty much all of them died and failed and are still failing losing players everyday.

PvP nowadays isn't considered a "sport" or a "honorable battle" anymore because of the reasons i've explained previously.

mctastee
Jun 17, 2012, 04:13 AM
Seriously, no. Stop it.

Not every goddamn game has to have PvE and PvP! Not every goddamn game is even made to accommodate both in the first goddamn place!

There are already games out there made for PvP! And they do it pretty darn well, to boot. We don't NEED PvP SHOE-HORNED into the game just because you think it might, possibly, could maybe, MAYBE be a decent addition to the game that recoups the development costs it will absolutely require.

PLAY ANOTHER GAME IF YOU WANT TO PVP SO BADLY. Seriously, that's exactly what I do! I have absolutely no problems with playing other games. And I have absolutely no desire to see things shoe-horned into those other games in a vain attempt to court all comers.


Edit: Also, it's not going to happen. Why? I CAN SEE THE FUTURE. The future does not include PvP in PSO2.

You may proceed to weep now.
You hit the nail on the head. People nowadays don't realize it, but for developers to try and give everyone what they want in one game is ludicrous. I remember pvp in PSO1 not being any fun and it literally added nothing to the game. The gameplay was too pve oriented for it to be any fun. I think the same thing applies here too.

I don't mean to knock anyone who does want pvp in this game, but if they give in to you guys today. People may start demanding more from pvp, which in turn, as someone else said, takes resources away from developing other parts of the game. In the long run, for a game like this, I really don't see that as being feasible.

BWS-1
Jun 17, 2012, 12:02 PM
I remember pvp in PSO1 not being any fun and it literally added nothing to the game. The gameplay was too pve oriented for it to be any fun.

And, specifically FOR that reason, I found that the pvp in ver2 was awesome. Ever felt like playing around in a Battle Mode-set game but NOT using the Battle Mode missions? Going around in the wild and try to work as a team in the PSO worlds (no pun intended) rather than ''kick start the poor pvp mini-games''?

It triggered friendly fire and collision boxes between players! Adding nothing to gameplay you say? Daaammn, it added so many layers of gameplay to those 4 over-played worlds that we had back then! We had few Forces we could rely on unless they'd mostly be SUPPORT, Hunters had to be working carefully with big weapons not to hit other Hunters OR get in the line of fire of Rangers. It was great! The only other time I felt such a rush going through Forest 1 was the first time I played it on Ultimate.

Pvp brought depth to what I found was an enjoyable shallow hack-n-slash game which, until I poured 700 hours into it, found still quite enjoyable. As I'd spend more time into the game, I felt ''no stone had been left unturned'', and started losing interest. Doing pve in Battle Mode near the end of PSO ver2 brought enjoyment back in the game.

And with PSO2's ''ranking'' or whatever it's called ''score'' system in missions? I can see the game is already made to make good use of, say, JUST ''friendly fire'' to be added in missions as an option. You know, have bonus EXP rewards for games done with friendly fire on where people didn't die from an ally, penalties to player hitting/killing other players but only affecting their scores on the mission, while in the end, if you do complete a full game/mission with friendly fire on, it's counted as a unique bonus since it's a ''handicap'' not present in a ''normal'' game.

Dragwind
Jun 17, 2012, 06:52 PM
And, specifically FOR that reason, I found that the pvp in ver2 was awesome. Ever felt like playing around in a Battle Mode-set game but NOT using the Battle Mode missions? Going around in the wild and try to work as a team in the PSO worlds (no pun intended) rather than ''kick start the poor pvp mini-games''?

It triggered friendly fire and collision boxes between players! Adding nothing to gameplay you say? Daaammn, it added so many layers of gameplay to those 4 over-played worlds that we had back then! We had few Forces we could rely on unless they'd mostly be SUPPORT, Hunters had to be working carefully with big weapons not to hit other Hunters OR get in the line of fire of Rangers. It was great! The only other time I felt such a rush going through Forest 1 was the first time I played it on Ultimate.

Pvp brought depth to what I found was an enjoyable shallow hack-n-slash game which, until I poured 700 hours into it, found still quite enjoyable. As I'd spend more time into the game, I felt ''no stone had been left unturned'', and started losing interest. Doing pve in Battle Mode near the end of PSO ver2 brought enjoyment back in the game.

And with PSO2's ''ranking'' or whatever it's called ''score'' system in missions? I can see the game is already made to make good use of, say, JUST ''friendly fire'' to be added in missions as an option. You know, have bonus EXP rewards for games done with friendly fire on where people didn't die from an ally, penalties to player hitting/killing other players but only affecting their scores on the mission, while in the end, if you do complete a full game/mission with friendly fire on, it's counted as a unique bonus since it's a ''handicap'' not present in a ''normal'' game.

Not to mention it provided a fix for rangers- if you saw that hunter running after your red box, you could exact your revenge and take him out, grab the rare, then proceed to revive him with a smile.

Zyrusticae
Jun 17, 2012, 07:43 PM
So I've been playing Champions Online lately, another game that had PvP shoe-horned into it because they could.

The PvP is dead now. Nobody plays it. Somehow, I see a similar future for PSO2's PvP, especially if they're as forthcoming with post-launch support as Cryptic has been (re: almost none at all).

And if they DO give it a lot of post-launch support, that legitimizes all the complaints that the PvP takes away from the PvE! You guys just can't win here. :-?

MelancholyWitch
Jun 18, 2012, 11:18 PM
What pvp will bring is more people staying at the lobbies "Dancing and Talking" and not willing to play because of the zerging that always happens in pvp games, and considering that PSO2 also includes a clan/team like system for sure you gonna start to see 80%+ of the server in that guild bullying the others that don't belong to.

And i've seem this already in so many other games and that's how pretty much all of them died and failed and are still failing losing players everyday.

PvP nowadays isn't considered a "sport" or a "honorable battle" anymore because of the reasons i've explained previously.

That rarely happens...maybe on games or servers that use to be populated and then suddenly had a decrease in population. With constant updates there's no reason to believe that PvP would end up being awful and unappealing, Regardless if people still spend their time in lobbies or not in the end it's pretty obvious PvP would at least move some of those people out of the lobbies and onto the actual world. Which is I'm hoping gets accomplished... yeah I love the PvE aspect of PSO but in all the versions there was just too much time being spent in lobbies, or 4th floor, etc. I really would like that to change within PSO community at least to an extent where the game isn't becoming more of a chat room than a game. And how could you possibly zerg/bully in a game where there's only a minimum amount of people allowed in a party/zone/quest area? There's no way the PvP wouldn't be fair... the game mechanics itself wont allow it to be unfair. You can't really grab 30 of your buddies just to fight 8 that's not how PSO is =p. Let's just be hopeful about it... PvP can't possibly hurt anyone who's against it if it's done correctly...