PVP Balance idea: Everyone is equal.

[Genie]

Your suggestion is already implemented. Anyone can mech up and become completely equal in a fight.

[Stigman]

Your suggestion is already implemented. Anyone can mech up and become completely equal in a fight.

FC just forgot to implement the bit where you target someone and they mech up automatically.

[Obtena]

Yes your toon is better but your not.

Actually, I would put my money on him being better.

Idea is silly. if you want to be all equal, play another game where their isn't classes.

[Lazy]

Yes your toon is better but your not.

Actually, I would put my money on him being better.

Idea is silly. if you want to be all equal, play another game where their isn't classes.

as the old saying goes "money dont buy skillz, son". a superior player will do good in pvp even with an undergeared toon. at the same time if someone sucks they'll suck with even the most pimped out gear money can buy (case in point: someone that levelled from 1-220, threw in some betas and maybe did some solo daily missions between kite hill rounds and /following 220's around inf missions will do much better than someone who ebayed a 220/30/70 decked out fotm toon)

[Ciex]

I want my very own padawan.

Roll a crat?

[Otansaanpas]

There is a separate line of weapons, Amour and symbiants/implants
Nano’s, armor and weapons can be farmed and or quested.
you can customize your toon .
There will be ultimate setups

Everyone is equal!

not

[Obtena]

as the old saying goes "money dont buy skillz, son". a superior player will do good in pvp even with an undergeared toon. at the same time if someone sucks they'll suck with even the most pimped out gear money can buy (case in point: someone that levelled from 1-220, threw in some betas and maybe did some solo daily missions between kite hill rounds and /following 220's around inf missions will do much better than someone who ebayed a 220/30/70 decked out fotm toon)

I think the poster I was referring to has more than money going for him

[Lazy]

I think the poster I was referring to has more than money going for him

ofc. i've run into gun plenty of times in bs before he retired his solja. im not implying he's a player. im just saying that gear alone doesn't make a good player good. sure a finished setup helps but he'd be almost as good if he wasn't running around in full alphas/combined.

(as opposed to a bad player who would be just as bad in a perfect setup)

ironically, im pretty sure he's as good as he is because he put in the time and effort to finish his soldier.

[Obtena]

^^ Agreed to all of that, which goes to say that if people want a complex PVP game, then not all players can be equal and that includes the hard stuff (gear, levels) and the soft stuff (skills and knowledge).

The more 'equal' people want things, the more boring it gets to PVP. Imagine everyone is a trox ranged Advy with the same gear. Even without considering skills, that already seems like a pathetic PVP experience. If you want that equalized ingame stuff, there are way more games that cater to your desires than you can count. AO on the other hand, as well as other MMO's, shouldn't strive to remove that critical part.

[Lazy]

FC Can balance all the want but the game mechanic will always win no matter what. My suggestion is complete player skill and not restricted by game mechanic. The only thing that restricts you is your IQ or how well you can mimic what others have done and further more if you are able to use there tool set setup.

This game mechanic uses the Microsoft's Windows Handicap principals. Meaning if you are a terrible player the game mechanic can play for you!

for the record, i agree with this. certain mechanics hard-counter certain others (shade dr sodomizing keepers, trader gthing nt, nt doubles vs almost anyone, agents not being able to eat through blockers, certain profs having access to more than one special with no def check, etc) and i agree that this should be addressed (and is sort-of being addressed in the reblalance: dr being removed, gth reworked, doubles removed, blockers nerfed, fa/as/sa locking eachother out, etc) however saying that everyone should have access to the same gear, perks and nanos for pvp is inane and sounds like OP has spent maybe 30 minutes in bs, was 4shotted by a prof that hardcoutners theirs and suddenly thinks they are an expert in pvp balance.

[Lusos101]

I like the smell of fresh in the morning!

Almost all successfull pvp games share the characteristics of players being in identical situations and with similar chances of winning. Luck also plays a big part on these games. Really successfull PvP games dont have many upgrades or boosters to the toons and there are different levels of competition for players of different skill levels. All successfull multiplayer FPS or RTS* games work this way.

Why?

The answer is obvious and explained by all kind of specialists in human behaviour, threat assesment, gambling (not to be confuse with game theory), risk taking and other such stuffs.

Everybody likes to win and nobody likes to loose. And people only risk loosing if they have a chance to win. While there is great diversity in how much each person is willing to risk for a certain gain, most people are conservative. This means that most people are willing to risk a lot for a guaranteed win, a moderate amount for an uncertain win, and nothing at all for an assured defeat.

How does this translate into AO's PvP popularity? Hummm...

*I am aware that most RTS games imply boosting and upgrading stuff. But that is part of the PvP game, each player starts on a similar level of power and tries to win by upgrading more/better then the other players. Not what happens in AO and similar RPG games, where players PvP with toons that are very different from the beginning..

[Lazy]

I like the smell of fresh in the morning!

Almost all successfull pvp games share the characteristics of players being in identical situations and with similar chances of winning. Luck also plays a big part on these games. Really successfull PvP games dont have many upgrades or boosters to the toons and there are different levels of competition for players of different skill levels. All successfull multiplayer FPS or RTS* games work this way.

Why?

The answer is obvious and explained by all kind of specialists in human behaviour, threat assesment, gambling (not to be confuse with game theory), risk taking and other such stuffs.

Everybody likes to win and nobody likes to loose. And people only risk loosing if they have a chance to win. While there is great diversity in how much each person is willing to risk for a certain gain, most people are conservative. This means that most people are willing to risk a lot for a guaranteed win, a moderate amount for an uncertain win, and nothing at all for an assured defeat.

How does this translate into AO's PvP popularity? Hummm...

*I am aware that most RTS games imply boosting and upgrading stuff. But that is part of the PvP game, each player starts on a similar level of power and tries to win by upgrading more/better then the other players. Not what happens in AO and similar RPG games, where players PvP with toons that are very different from the beginning..

QFT! spoken like a true scrub

[Mostadio]

An integral part of this game is amassing better stuff so you can make people die more efficiently. While it might be a terrible grind, it is what it is and putting people on "equal" terms removes what's left of the complexity and high degree of character customization that earned this game its reputation as a superior product.

[Gunfytr]

ofc. i've run into gun plenty of times in bs before he retired his solja. im not implying he's a player. im just saying that gear alone doesn't make a good player good. sure a finished setup helps but he'd be almost as good if he wasn't running around in full alphas/combined.

(as opposed to a bad player who would be just as bad in a perfect setup)

ironically, im pretty sure he's as good as he is because he put in the time and effort to finish his soldier.

Interestingly enough, I only had 2-3 alphas in while I was pvp'ing.
Oh, and I came out of retirement...out of sheer boredom.

[Lazy]

Interestingly enough, I only had 2-3 alphas in while I was pvp'ing.
Oh, and I came out of retirement...out of sheer boredom.

orly? i always assumed you were finished o-o

anyway welcome back ^^

[Kazmosis]

This idea isn't very good but I do believe PVP playing field has to be leveled a bit more then it is. You can say that "Well they worked for their gear so they should 3 shot you!" and that is fine. Just know that you will never get any new players. If you can accept no one to PVP against then you can keep your PVP the way it is.

[Alternity]

This idea isn't very good but I do believe PVP playing field has to be leveled a bit more then it is. You can say that "Well they worked for their gear so they should 3 shot you!" and that is fine. Just know that you will never get any new players. If you can accept no one to PVP against then you can keep your PVP the way it is.

Yeah you're right, every new player will leave AO because someone in better gear and years more of experience killed them in PvP...

[Lusos101]

OF COURSE NOT!!!

AO is the most popular game in the whole wide web because of its incredible PvP!!!!

Seriously. Ofc the OP suggestion makes no sense. Otoh it is obvious that the existing chasm between new players and veterans should never have come to exist. Creating handicaps or different PvP categories, reducing the difference in quality of gear available to different players or adjusting the game's ruleset to make PvP more accessible to all are things that make sense, have been proposed for years and always heavily trolled by those who dont have anything to loose and everything to gain by keeping the "status quo".

[mcnurja]

I want my very own padawan.

i gotta promote you into jedi master first son. ure still padawan-jedi still yourself

[Gliese]

I have played AO for 7 years and PVP'd since the beginning. I'm not sure if I gave the wrong impression on my very first post but this is not a cry thread by all means - please treat this as an idea/suggestion to work with if its even workable. This is about leveling the playing field - Nothing personal.

Many of you said no way to this... Yet you want it the professions balanced to pvp each other; think about it? Balanced to pvp..... so what is the point of having a profession if its going to be balanced to pvp other professions leveled on the playing field. This is dice roll mechanic now since the professions are now PVP balanced. Meaning this is going to be like watching 2 end game doctors PVP'ing. Boring..... Balanced MP and Enfo = 2 docs PVP - Balanced Agent and Advy = 2 docs pvp - balanced Shade and Engi = 2 docs PVP and so on.

Balance in the current direction will be very difficult to make this happen; only a lot less complaints to FC to why the Enfo can still beat down a shade..

However, again my suggestion allows more PVP tower planning. If everyone wants to show up in pure DD, sure go a head because of the opposing faction shows up in roots and dots setup those DD setups will not fair very well. This idea allows planning for towers and how the leader wants everyone to show up on the battle field to have the upper hand. Numbers and well thought out setups will prevail. This allows us the players to have total control of balance.

I don't agree with what FC is doing with balance however I'am trying to be constructive.