how 1vs1 can be used to find issues in pvp (take2)

[Chrys]

Let's hope I get the main points in. Wall of text alert.

Lesson #1: A bird in hand is worth two in the bush

Ebag attempts to claim that more people would PVP if only FC designed PVP the way he likes it. I always chuckle when people claim the silent majority are on their side with their anecdotal anonymous frandz as proof that Most (tm) people want to play this way.

The simple fact is, PVP is a competitive part of MMO worlds, and it attracts certain types of players. And those players are the hardcore competitive types. That's why people who say "oh well I'd play Counterstrike if I wanted pure PVP" make me chuckle, because their mentality shows they wouldn't last an hour on a good CS server because of their mentality.

It's sort of like McDonald's finding out a year later that despite people saying they'd like healthier choices on their menus, after putting those options in for them, they didn't find any increase in sales. The people who wouldn't eat at McDonald's before, won't eat there now, whatever is on the menu. (I can't seem to find a link to it, but it's a true story... some time in 2005/6 or so) Same with PVMers trying to tell FC how to make PVP. It's not going to change anything. I would like to make PVP more casual player friendly, but Ebag's way of doing it is simply not the case. It's hardcore-PVMer friendly.

The lesson from SWG: Don't chase the mythical unnamed audience, breaking things fundamentally despite warnings from PVPers but banking on the claims of people who cite unnamed ghost players who would supposedly love your changes. We have a core of PVPers giving the warning signs, we have one barely active prof who hasn't been in game for 6 months saying otherwise.

How do I know for sure Ebag is wrong? Because his claim about more people PVPing is simply wrong. PVP numbers went up at the start of LE with the introduction of Ofab - basically people going after the loot, long before FC gradually introduced the team-based stuff. If anything, BS happens a lot less, with fewer numbers now. Indeed, it often comes grinding to a halt much faster than before... see below.

Lesson #2: No one likes to play second fiddle

Teaming per se has never been the issue. As I already stated, the problems with poor defense are magnified in a team situation. You can pick your ideal combo of players and paper-peeveepee all you like to show "omg look this combo would pwn omg" but the fact of the matter is, people die in pvp, people get split up in pvp, and pvp isn't only about BS. So individual survivability is always important.

Even when I was a levelling gimp PVM MP, squishy like hell especially around tl6, I hated being a liability on the team, or that others had to look out for me. I doubt you'll find any self-respecting player who feels otherwise. Why shouldn't this logic apply in PVP? Because the only answer I see is RP-reasoning.

Apropos of nothing, I know a bunch of casual players who came to BS, promptly got alpha-killed a few rounds, and decided they hated it and won't go unless I (or other good pvpers) go along with them. Most of these players don't understand the much more complex issue of how to set up a good team, or that a team of gimps that doesn't know how to pvp can still be solo'd by one enf or adv who does know how to pvp, and won't see your point. They need to learn the basics without expecting help from others, because that is the reality on BS. In short, you need to fix alpha-protection especially for the casual player so that either SS actually does something vs melees, or a perk damage debuff. Giving us more evades would work if it's toolset based, but to actually give enough to matter would make shield MPs even more OP.

Teaming also really allows a prof's shortcomings to be glossed over, such that they never get fixed. Now Ebag has had both crats, engies and PVP mps laugh him down over his claims about team PVP. I'm not sure I can state the claims any less rudely considering how immediately apparent it is that his pvp claims are absurd and don't mesh with any kind of reality.

Lesson #3: People can only improve and play their own characters, and no one else's

You see how many people nowadays complain about pickup teams? It's 10x worse on BS. And the fact is that the only thing a player can work to improve on is his own character. Forcing people to team with bad players, aside from letting it gloss over the gimp's shortcomings, won't make anyone happy. It's true yes, when you form a good team of experienced PVPers (e.g. when my org goes to BS as a group), you totally wipe the BS dry in seconds and the other side stops coming. They don't suddenly all team up and start fighting back. They simply quit. Team buffs given the 'right' combo already are extraordinarily OP, gloss over profession weaknesses and yet... kill BS. Hell when I go there with a certain advy/agent trio, the 3 of us can wipe BS by ourselves.

Why does everyone leave? Because the majority of people on BS are the PVMers who don't like PVP anyway, and are only there for VPs and don't much like the taste of competition to begin with (not condemning them, people play games for different reasons). And making them able to debuff that uber team of PVPers while being alpha-killed really doesn't increase their enjoyment any more than before. No amount of teaming can overcome the profession differences if the other side is also teamed, or worse, experienced and teamed. See point 1.

The basic point is: team buffs are already more than fine. In the hands of top players teamed vs average players teamed, it's still a wipe. In the hands of top vs top teamed in equivalent scenarios, you always come back to the situation of looking at individual player's toolsets... The fact that Ebag still doesn't comprehend this point and pushes for "hey if you're organised and they're not you win woot!" just demonstrates why we get frustrated about that repeating gong that makes no sense and shows a sure sign of being out of touch.

When he harps over and over on things like:

I would like to see 6 people on a server do some practicing together for PvP, and figure out how the whole team thing works, then challenge some of the naysayers who believe that working separately (and unteamed) is more effective than working together.

He shows how much he doesn't understand. Nowhere has anyone ever claimed that teaming doesn't work. It's exactly the opposite: Look at the engies laugh at Ebag: they said it was ridiculously OP and spoils the BS because they win without a sweat. And then Crattey said the same thing. And that's my experience too. There aren't balance issues to find in team PVP because you can always just claim a different mix of professions will balance the situation. You got a problem with NTs and traders? Have a team of 6 NR8 shades! Problem with soldiers? Team trader/engy/doc/crat! Problem with enfs? 6 solds will fix that! We're saying that doing this glosses over prof-specific issues and gives them an excuse not to see what is lacking. And the more Ebag repeats himself on this issue, the more it is clear that he doesn't understand PVP mechanics and can talk his way out of any problem by finding the Right (tm) combo and you will never find a balance issue in PVP again.

And of course it goes without saying that PVP determined by who-has-most-ideal-mix of profs is also not a good way to go. It's just an excuse not to look at the profession per se

As I already said, you see this play out at small skirmish towers with top players vs top players which aren't the spam AS stupidity that they were since people learned to use OS. But Ebag hasn't been to a tower war in years. For all his high-faluting paper peeveepee, at the end of the day, things don't work out that way. The reason why all the PVPers disagree with you Ebag, is that when it comes down to it, and you compare top with top, experienced with experienced, coordinated with coordinated, teamed with team, it all boils back down to the various toolsets, which has been our point all along but which you refuse to see, constantly pulling another Irrelevant Rabbit out of your Hat of Irrelevance (tm).

Lesson #4: Given that players can only affect their own toons, balance it!

If you're going to make players squishy, give them a decent offense. I have always maintained from the beginning, I would gladly run around spamming debuffs if they actually made some kind of difference. But as is very clear, making the debuffs hurt while giving the opponents no recourse in PVP to deal with them is bad game mechanics. Period. Which means they can't hurt too much, or else everyone complains about them (ironically, the cries from casual gamers tend to be much worse on this account - it's actually the PVPers who usually tell people to l2play when they complain about this or that debuff).

No, 11-sec AS and a low-AR pet is not a decent offense, triple (look at how squishy NTs are... oh wait, they're not ) and GTH (oh poor squishy traders... er wait, the top ones aren't ), and shade alpha (omg those squishy melee toons) are good offensive tools that make a difference (non-troxe shades who haven't discovered their AAO/AAD drains work just fine on our pets and then they can switch to alphaing the defenseless MP need to l2play). The fact that MPs sucked so badly for years is no reason why that should be their given offense - in fact the comparisons with other profs illustrate how far below MPs are in the prof-offense/def balance. Engies and Crats, aside from having pets with better AR than us, have Master's Bidding x2. Now if you ever saw that in action, you would see why they should have more trouble capping AS than MPs. Whoever claimed agents have more trouble with AS than MPs has to be kidding me (or doesn't have the faintest clue)... none of them wear 275 scopes except for PVM anymore.

I don't mind being alpha-able to all the melee professions out there if you gave me an alpha equivalent to a sold, who of course has better defense and offense than us, on top of having a very useful debuff (RI) that makes the agents cry. Or alpha of an enf, who still has way better def than us (3.1-3.2k STATIC def lol) and will have better heals, and an effective CC/antikite/kite tool in PVP as of next patch.

One idea as an aside: reduce swaptime on Tigress to 1 sec (but not Shield of Zset, make that a 15-sec swap lol) - it's not like the "support" MPs are going to be able to self it, we will have very narrow windows in which to swap given that you can't do it in recharge, so why not give us something like that for an alpha/blocker remover option if not fixing our defenses?

15-second ENSD, or the scourges (haha), or wrath abatement (lol?), or impossible-to-land CoC (haha recharge, pwnt!) is not a good offense. The silly MP who tries to use other parts of his toolset other than SS, on the other hand, is laughable, perkable, rootable, alpha-able and basically will find out how quickly you need SS constantly up to survive, the minute you run into the good PVPers. 2.8k static def is less than NTs get, for comparison. 3k def is about the same as the good NTs get it needs either a proc or SS up to achieve - one luck-based, the other nerfing our defense.

Lesson #5: PVP involves more than one player

Ebag makes the claim that support profs should be able to use their PVM toolsets in PVP more. But unfortunately, if he bothered to learn about the history of PVM debuffs coming into PVP, it is that they don't translate into a fun gaming environment.

Look at Curse of Chronos. Look at Stun procs. Look at roots and snares. These are just a whole host of debuffs that worked fine in PVM in their original incarnations, but FC have nerfed one after another, because it simply wasn't fun for the other player to stand there without recourse to a defense. The next should be NSD procs, and rightly so. The whole root-player-and-leave idea is a recipe for failure. In an ideal PVP scenario, neither player should ever feel that the outcome of a PVP encounter is predetermined. And that is what is wrong with those things.

I like however, the way Ebag attempts to imply that FC is on his side on this.

Now just a few of the common twisting I've come to expect:

i'm still waiting for an explination on how you're suppose to balance group pvp by only focusing on 1vs1.

Where have I ever said to only focus there? I said it can and does inform tweaks to balance, the furthest I claimed is that it's the starting point, because how else can you look at a profession's issues? You implied it can't be used to find issues at all, a claim that is absurd just from looking at it. See why I get frustrated with people like you and Ebag?

The final irony, of course, is that FC are moving PVM in a more solo direction now.

[shadowgod]

...whatever...

you're still trying to rationalize your views, and not answering the questions. it doesnt matter if your version of "everyone" wants to only do 1vs1 pvp. FC has never ever in its entire history said it would balance for it.

yes yes.. change can be scarey. omg... it'd be like... a co-op game. the horror, i know!

but hey, if you want us to tell FC, all we want in pvp is for everyone to be stripped of nanos, procs, and any unique profession abilities, and just let everyone pick a weapon and go. then we'll pass that along. they'll laugh, but we'll tell them.

[Chrys]

See how this degenerates, Xtremtech?

[Ebag333]

I like however, the way Ebag attempts to imply that FC is on his side on this.

I submit to you, exhibit A.

Ok folks, firstly before I give a little bit of insight please take it in the manner in which it is intended. You will disagree with parts I am sure, but that does not mean you can start flaming and name calling, to us, or your fellow players.

Any PVP topic seems to bring out the worst in forum posters, and people seem to think they are obliged to flame and insult anyone who has a different opinion to their own. That will get this post closed very very quickly and maybe even earn you a forum vacation. So take this constructively as it is intended.

On the topic, first thing to clarify again, as we have said hundreds of times down the years. We never consider PVP balance in terms of 1v1. Never, its just not something that fits with a system as complex, flexible and open as we have in AO. It would be impossible to balance without destroying much of the flexibility that makes AO what it is, so we don't even consider that when working on PVP in AO. There will always be some professions stronger (or far stronger) then others in 'duel' situations. That wont change and we wont be trying to change it.

Ok, so that said, what do we consider?

We consider the situational PVP, namely tower battles and now battlestation combat.

What do we aim for?

What we try and aim for is that all professions have a viable role to play and can have fun in those scenarios.


Ok, so if thats the top level concern what do we currently look at more specifically ?

Roles in PVP....

We try and do this in a way that will promote more people to PVP and consider it something that is fun to do when they want to. They should also be able to participate (not necessarily excel) without needing to totally dedicate their character to it. (Tweaking your character for PVP should improve your chances in PVP, and allow you to take on lesser experienced PVPers better, but it should also not make you totally unbeatable to them)

Now what we saw was that clearly isn't the case in AO in the past, at least some professions clearly didn't have as much fun in PVP. I don't think anyone denies that. The problem was that we also have to always consider PVE alongside it and balancing abilities in one area so we don't unbalance the other is a key concern.

Now a consideration here is that players PVP and PVE for different reasons, what they can contribute in PVE might not appeal to them as much in PVP. At the end of the day everyone would like a chance to kill someone (even if its not as often or as easily as other professions ). That though isn't so easy to do without unbalancing other things so we had to think a little differently.

Undeniably the depth and flexibility of the AO skill system is its greatest asset and its greatest design difficulty at the same time. Balance in MMOs is usually about restricting effectiveness so that there is a more level play field, thats obviously something that is harder to do with a system like AOs that allows for such vast differences in player power based on equipment, implants, symbs, perks and abilities.

Therefore we took a different approach and introduced elements with Lost Eden that would be designed for just that purpose, to allow anyone to participate in PVP and feel that they were genuinely contributing to the PVP situation.

The mechs and turrets achieve this and allow people to take part in PVP and have some fun.

Debuffing....

Also we felt that players are generally a little too hard to kill in PVP, or to be more specific there are so many ways in the game to mitigate damage that it makes it hard to kill, so you have already seen some changes in that regard with the shield changes, and some of the new nanos and items coming up will build on debuffing opponents more effectively so that the support roles are more viable.

The problem in a historical context was that all the debuffs in AO were designed for PVE and many are quite powerful in a PVP setting due to their duration so ended up with high resist checks.

What we are moving towards is more debuffs with lower resist checks, but much shorter durations so that the support professions with debuffs can actually feel that their debuffs matter. Remembering that we are considering the entire situation, so maybe profession X can 'shutdown' profession Y for 15 or 30 seconds, but that will make them a quick target for profession Z etc or force people to watch for them and target them rather then ignoring them as someone who doesnt do enough damage to be a threat.

On the subject of death!

In many ways one of the biggest issues for PVP balance in AO, was that the PVP players had gotten used to being able to set up so that not dying was a primary concern. We want people to die in PVP, people should die lots in fact, its integral to a good fun PVP environment. A good build and PVP knowledge should help you die less often or be more difficult to kill, but people should die. In gameplay terms it's not something people should be afraid of (hey, thats what reclaim is for right ).

Times they are a changing...

We understand that all the changes to PVP for Lost Eden were always going to not be accepted by some people. Its been more of a relatively minority pastime for the last few years in the game, and in any situation where you bring something, anything, and make a concerted effort to make it more accesible or 'mainstream' then there will always be some compromises to the way it was before. We genuinely believe though that these changes are good for the long term appeal of PVP in the game, and we are seeing more people PVPing, and having fun PVPing.

Yes, it means that some elements of what composed PVP in AO before are changing, we are trying to make a more dynamic and fun PVP experience for players that allows people to participate and feel worthwhile.

There are sure to be some surprises too, if experience has taught us one thing its that players sometimes adapt in ways we would never have guessed and always get the absolute most out of any gameplay mechanics so I am sure there will be some further tweaks down the road.

In Closing

...I think thats a good overview of how we consider PVP and how we look to improve it. Will it ever be 'perfect'? No, I doubt that, as mentioned at the top the beauty of AO is its skill system but the trade off is that there will always be some imbalances.

What we attempt to do is manage those as best as we can so that in the overall scheme of things people still have fun in PVP. Of course for some people 'having fun' is clearly enjoying being the beneficiary of those imbalances so I guess its fair to say that we are trying to move towards a situation where that might be less of a factor. So we always try to level the playing field as much as we can, but of course its fair to say that given the complexity and flexibility available to players we wont always be successful and what we have to do is provide the PVP scenarios that allow players to participate and not feel marginalized in PVP because the 'experts' dominate.

Being an expert should give you an edge, not be an excluding factor from PVP for those who aren't.

We believe we are heading in the right direction, and for sure there will always be tweaks to be done and something that can be done to improve the situation. We just have to try and manage that within the confines of what all you guys enjoy about AO in the first place.





....and finally

Remember what I said at the top, keep it constructive or keep it yourself. You might disagree with some of the above, thats ok, its allowed, but please keep it constructive and flames and insults will be dealt with appropriately.

[Chrys]

lmao, I wrote that in the context of levelling debuffs into something workable in a PVP setting, and then you post Sil's direct quote that says exactly what I said: "The problem in a historical context was that all the debuffs in AO were designed for PVE and many are quite powerful in a PVP setting due to their duration so ended up with high resist checks." lol.

Now where's our debuffs that matter? It's been 2 years since Sil wrote that and we got all of... er ENSD in that time - which er, doesn't matter at all when you're being alpha'd by a melee prof in the time it takes to recover from recharge.

Seriously now, stop reminding us that your experience of PVP is limited to 2007 Seriously, I'm cracking up here

[Ebag333]

I find it interesting that you ignore 98% of Sil's post, and focus on the single line that somewhat backs up one of your points.


Of course, that ignores the fact that Sil said many debuffs. Not all.

Many nanos have times measured in 5+ minutes (and some nanos are 30+ minutes!). Is that too long? Of course.

Now look at MP debuffs.

Heavy dmg debuffs: 45 and 10 seconds.
NSD: 1 minute.
CoC: 5 seconds.
MQ Debuff: 18 seconds


Are those too long? Considering that the only "long" one we have is removable, and is only 1 minute, I'd say that our debuffs (even our PvM ones) fall right in line with what Sil was saying.


Especially considering that some of our new PvP designed nanos are 45 seconds long.

And only eNSD? Did you forget the four scourges we got? Or how about that our dmg debuffs were redone to be much more effective? (Not to mention the LE PvP nanos, not that I find that one particularly useful.)

Nor have I ever believed that long debuffs/nanos should be used to the extent they are. That is a huge complaint of mine (along with the other pet professionals), because many 5+ minute nanos are not removable from our pets (short of repulling them). Those nanos either need to be removable, or tweaked for PvP use.

For MP's the only long debuffs we have that are even somewhat useful are the dominates (5 minutes). Those are probably too long, but given that they are relatively small and single (rather than composite), they don't have the same effect on PvP that many other nanos do (like say, UBT).



Now that you've pointed out the one single sentence that you've tried to use to prove your point, perhaps you'd like to go back and reread the other dozen or so points that are completely opposite to what you've been saying?

[Chrys]

I find it interesting that you ignore 98% of Sil's post, and focus on the single line that somewhat backs up one of your points.

That'll be because if you read the entire exchange, you'll discover the context of that sentence. It was about balancing debuffs in PVP. Go reread the sentence before it, I'm too tired to link it for you.

Heavy dmg debuffs: 45 and 10 seconds.
NSD: 1 minute.
CoC: 5 seconds.
MQ Debuff: 18 seconds

lol look at recharge on them to see how many can actually be used in PVP too please? Remember, 10-15 second window. After that MP is dead (again, talking about top vs top pvpers here, teamed and coordinated!). Unless he has SS up (well er, it's still pretty much dead with SS given melee opponents in top gear). How is MQ consequential in PVP? It's not. How are damage debuffs consequential in PVP? I have used them before, the -damage doesn't do anything when you're being alpha'd by perks. How is NSD consequential in PVP? It's not: hell it doesn't land. How is CoC consequential in PVP. Laff. Sorry. If you think this is our PVP toolset, and it's sufficient... well it's what I said about Electronite-lite. You can annoy gimps with these things, but not the top PVPers. But then my AS-whore MP can not only annoy but also kill gimps without using them, so it's not really any good, is it?

Now that you've pointed out the one single sentence that you've tried to use to prove your point, perhaps you'd like to go back and reread the other dozen or so points that are completely opposite to what you've been saying?

Funny you seem to accuse me of only listening to myself, when you consistently misread what is said. Perhaps it's intentional on your part?

Please, try harder.

[Ebag333]

How is MQ consequential in PVP? It's not.

That's funny...I seem to....oh yes, here it is.


(On the subject of dominates)

You have no idea how useful it would be, given the reqs of new nanos. And smacking a IMQ on top if it really didn't stop them.

(Emphasis mine.)

How are damage debuffs consequential in PVP? I have used them before, the -damage doesn't do anything when you're being alpha'd by perks.

You do realize that we have a nano that reduces much perk damage by 50%, right?

As for when it's useful, plenty of situations. Take any player who relies on lots of smaller hits instead of fewer big ones. Fixers often fall under that category, crats or engies with dual pistols, heck, even pets if they bother you that much....

-1k dmg per hit is -1k dmg per hit.

How is NSD consequential in PVP? It's not: hell it doesn't land.

Thats funny.

I used to actually be on the flip side, and was far more in favor of eNSD than NSD. But lately on BS I find myself falling back to NSD more and more. It lands extremely well (far more often than not).

Then again I guess if you gimp your nanoskills by going with full CSS/CC and implants instead of symbs....yeah, I can see how NSD would be a problem to land. Guess that's the trade off there.

How is CoC consequential in PVP. Laff. Sorry.

CoC is one of the most powerful tools in a smart MP's toolset. If I could only choose one nano to use, it'd be a *VERY* tough choice between NSD and CoC.

If you don't know how to use CoC to your advantage, then that's your own fault. Several of the applications of it are quite simple and should be readily apparent. Of course quite a few of them aren't....

If you think this is our PVP toolset, and it's sufficient... well it's what I said about Electronite-lite. You can annoy gimps with these things, but not the top PVPers. But then my AS-whore MP can not only annoy but also kill gimps without using them, so it's not really any good, is it?

I've never said that Tigress MP's aren't effective or can't kill people. Quite the contrary, for what they are setup to do they can be incredibly effective.

Now, I've said (and will say again) that many Tigress MP's ignore 95% of their toolset, using only SS. I've had Tigress MP's complain to me that SS isn't fair because they can't keep SS running and use NSD, etc.

Hmm....seems to me that's exactly the way it was designed. (And I've confirmed that.)

I've said that many (not all) Tigress MP's aren't very flexible. When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails. I've seen this in complaints and comments about how we need more AS, or AS added to symbs, or higher AR, or faster AS recharge, or more easily capping AS. When an alternate tool is suggested, even when it's complimentary and takes nothing away from the AS/SS setup (oh, like say bow spec attrib) it's scoffed at.

And heaven forbid someone suggest that MP's stop spamming SS once in a while and try out the dozens of other tools they have at their disposal.


I've tried explaining it, I've given simple examples, and you still do not understand why a support MP can do far more than "annoy gimps with these things". It's crystal clear to me that you don't want to understand, and you will fight tooth and nail against anything you perceive as hurting AS/SS, or hurting us from a 1v1 standpoint.

The only problem is....you're fighting for something that's already been lost.

On the topic, first thing to clarify again, as we have said hundreds of times down the years. We never consider PVP balance in terms of 1v1. Never, its just not something that fits with a system as complex, flexible and open as we have in AO. It would be impossible to balance without destroying much of the flexibility that makes AO what it is, so we don't even consider that when working on PVP in AO. There will always be some professions stronger (or far stronger) then others in 'duel' situations. That wont change and we wont be trying to change it.

Sil's said they don't balance for 1v1, Byrom's said it, and you can find the exact same thing all the way back to Gaute.

For (almost) 8 years now FC has stated that they will not balance PvP for 1v1. If they haven't changed their mind now, they are not going to, and it would be absolutely be a waste of time for me to present arguments based on 1v1 scenarios that FC is simply going to ignore.

That's been made explicitly clear to the professionals.

You can continue on believing that I know nothing about PvP and can only "annoy gimps". It actually makes me smile a bit.

That'll be because if you read the entire exchange, you'll discover the context of that sentence. It was about balancing debuffs in PVP. Go reread the sentence before it, I'm too tired to link it for you.

I've read it, still is the same exact context. Matter of fact, Sil clarifies it in one of the following ones. Let me post it for you.

What we are moving towards is more debuffs with lower resist checks, but much shorter durations so that the support professions with debuffs can actually feel that their debuffs matter. Remembering that we are considering the entire situation, so maybe profession X can 'shutdown' profession Y for 15 or 30 seconds, but that will make them a quick target for profession Z etc or force people to watch for them and target them rather then ignoring them as someone who doesnt do enough damage to be a threat.

(Emphasis mine)

15 or 30 seconds clearly shows that they want debuffs to be short. I doubt 5 seconds, 10 seconds, or 18 seconds would be considered "long" when 15-30 seconds is considered average.

Fact is that MP's debuffs already fell in line with the ideal time frames for debuffs in PvP. Unlike some profs with 30+ minute debuffs. (Which again, still causes problems to this day.)

And of course, that first sentence that I requoted for you really says all that needs to be said on debuffs.

Perhaps it's time to stop limiting your PvP to 2008, and look at PvP in 2009. Welcome to the future.

[Chrys]

That's funny...I seem to....oh yes, here it is.
(On the subject of dominates)
(Emphasis mine.)

The missing ingredient would appear to be a nano we don't have yet, right? Seriously, this is what you're coming up with after being told to read more carefully?

You do realize that we have a nano that reduces much perk damage by 50%, right?

Yes, but you don't block an alpha with two different nanos 3 seconds apart. Either we cast SS and block the deadly specials (like brawl, sneak, FA, AS) that any competent player will be making capping hits with, or we cast a scourge and reduce the (smaller but many) perks by 50%. In an alpha situation, the choice is abundantly clear - perks take a while to land, specials are all keyboard-piano instant), so you need SS then (because 50% won't save you if you get hit for 2 capping specials instead ) you can think about the scourge.

As for when it's useful, plenty of situations. Take any player who relies on lots of smaller hits instead of fewer big ones. Fixers often fall under that category, crats or engies with dual pistols, heck, even pets if they bother you that much....

-1k dmg per hit is -1k dmg per hit.

lol. You do realise the debuff effect is calculated before PVP damage?

Thats funny.

I used to actually be on the flip side, and was far more in favor of eNSD than NSD. But lately on BS I find myself falling back to NSD more and more. It lands extremely well (far more often than not).

Then again I guess if you gimp your nanoskills by going with full CSS/CC and implants instead of symbs....yeah, I can see how NSD would be a problem to land. Guess that's the trade off there.

Perk removers. Alpha. You=dead if not fighting gimps. Geez are you seriously still banking on the whole "it works vs gimps" idea?

CoC is one of the most powerful tools in a smart MP's toolset. If I could only choose one nano to use, it'd be a *VERY* tough choice between NSD and CoC.

lol. 5 second stun/10 second recharge removable with free movement. Oh right, it works vs people who don't know how to pvp.

If you don't know how to use CoC to your advantage, then that's your own fault. Several of the applications of it are quite simple and should be readily apparent. Of course quite a few of them aren't....

If you haven't heard of free movement then that's your fault. Nice preaching there though, too bad it comes off the back of ignorance about game mechanics.

Now, I've said (and will say again) that many Tigress MP's ignore 95% of their toolset, using only SS. I've had Tigress MP's complain to me that SS isn't fair because they can't keep SS running and use NSD, etc.

Because I'd rather be alive to fight another day than dead. Remember, other than BS where you're back in action in seconds, the penalty for dying at towers (oh look that's one of those things Sil said they were focusing on, and BS was the afterthought) is harsh. So surviving is very important, and currently support profs are the worst at it.

And on BS, because of the availability of greens to pick off, you get godmode and don't need SS. But try without these greens around against the top players and... Haven't we been through this before?

Hmm....seems to me that's exactly the way it was designed. (And I've confirmed that.)

I've said that many (not all) Tigress MP's aren't very flexible. When the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails. I've seen this in complaints and comments about how we need more AS, or AS added to symbs, or higher AR, or faster AS recharge, or more easily capping AS. When an alternate tool is suggested, even when it's complimentary and takes nothing away from the AS/SS setup (oh, like say bow spec attrib) it's scoffed at.

No, this is your rather convoluted attempt at saying l2play when you still miss the point. What you're missing is that a dead MP doesn't contribute to his team so much. Again, the numbers are very clear: MP static def is very low (2.8k def in full 300 gear before towers - far worse than enfs, advs, MAs, shades, crats, fixers, keepers, NTs and traders (interestingly, our offense is worse than all of them, except for crats). The ones who have less def than that are engies, docs, HP agents (most are actually on par), and soldiers - all of whom have much better, other defensive options than us (healpet and SS perk lol and er...). But really, you're happy for the profession to be mediocre while docs and traders and soldiers and NTs and all the other professionals constantly ask for more and better things while we get bugger all. You know why we keep getting bugger all? Because you are satisfied with where we are and don't push, publicly talk about your own ideas (still have no clue what it is you've been doing the last year), or show any urgency while other profs get further and further ahead. It's not like we got significant new debuffs or anything else since 2007.

If you're teamed ideally to get it up to a nice level, but so is the other team (talking high end top players yada yada), then your static def still remains very low, relatively speaking. And worse, your nice little 5 blockers gets wiped in 2 seconds. Again, you have to try towers or tara or an exceptional BS where you meet a good team of clans vs a good team of omnis (very very rarely ever happens). Then you witness all the support profs dying first and then the combat profs pvping on.

And heaven forbid someone suggest that MP's stop spamming SS once in a while and try out the dozens of other tools they have at their disposal.

Because anything less is root and kill? Geez, you know if you rely on not-being-called as your defense, your tactic works just great. But um... MPs tend to get called, especially if they don't have SS up because that makes them an even easier kill. Rule No. 1 of group PVP: After docs, go for easiest kills next. Traders & crats (no specials protection), MPs (perkable), NTs (NBG sucks vs zerg), etc. are all in this bracket. But you have no experience with the top range pvp (or hell any group PVP outside BS) to know how callers decide, and why alpha protection can help MPs in a huge way.

I've tried explaining it, I've given simple examples, and you still do not understand why a support MP can do far more than "annoy gimps with these things". It's crystal clear to me that you don't want to understand, and you will fight tooth and nail against anything you perceive as hurting AS/SS, or hurting us from a 1v1 standpoint.

If I ever reactivate my account, let me show you how my gimp 220 sold in 200-240 symbs alphas you dead without SS. In any situation you care to ask for, even with your procs up. Ok?

For (almost) 8 years now FC has stated that they will not balance PvP for 1v1. If they haven't changed their mind now, they are not going to, and it would be absolutely be a waste of time for me to present arguments based on 1v1 scenarios that FC is simply going to ignore.

This old chestnut. For the 11-bazillionth time, I'm not asking for 1v1 balance. I'm saying it informs FC where to go with the biggest imbalances currently around, that need fixing. Dear lord, you just keep hearing what you want to hear then get on your soapbox and yadayadayada. Seriously. The point is: Remove huge imbalances = More balanced game. Not perfect. Not solely balanced in 1-on-1. But a better equilibrium.

Please don't make me get out the crayons to explain this to you and SG again

You can continue on believing that I know nothing about PvP and can only "annoy gimps". It actually makes me smile a bit.

What's your MP's evade+AAD rating? Hm? I bet you whatever gear you're in, my soldier can alpha you without SS in under 12 seconds.

I've read it, still is the same exact context. Matter of fact, Sil clarifies it in one of the following ones. Let me post it for you.

(Emphasis mine)

15 or 30 seconds clearly shows that they want debuffs to be short. I doubt 5 seconds, 10 seconds, or 18 seconds would be considered "long" when 15-30 seconds is considered average.

Fact is that MP's debuffs already fell in line with the ideal time frames for debuffs in PvP. Unlike some profs with 30+ minute debuffs. (Which again, still causes problems to this day.)

And of course, that first sentence that I requoted for you really says all that needs to be said on debuffs.

Yes, you're proving my point that PVM debuffs don't translate well into PVP. And?

[Ebag333]

If I ever reactivate my account, let me show you how my gimp 220 sold in 200-240 symbs alphas you dead without SS. In any situation you care to ask for, even with your procs up. Ok?

What's your MP's evade+AAD rating? Hm? I bet you whatever gear you're in, my soldier can alpha you without SS in under 12 seconds.

Reactivate your account and lets see.

Funny how you make a lot of claims when you can't back them up. You can OD me in PvM (with bow), you can q/afk kill me in PvP.....as the saying goes: "put your money where your mouth is."

I've tried explaining it, I've given simple examples, and you still do not understand why a support MP can do far more than "annoy gimps with these things". It's crystal clear to me that you don't want to understand, and you will fight tooth and nail against anything you perceive as hurting AS/SS, or hurting us from a 1v1 standpoint.

'nuff said.

[Chrys]

Reactivate your account and lets see.

Soon as FC give me a free trial, probably in 18.0. Not paying for a game while the management has no interest in issues I care about, at least for now.

All our debuffs as intended by Silirrion are short lasting and removable. That's called being a pest, and nothing more. You aren't dangerous at all, I'd love to meet you on BS with my MP, hell I'll duel you with MP in 18.0 if you want to see.

As I said:

But as is very clear, making the debuffs hurt while giving the opponents no recourse in PVP to deal with them is bad game mechanics. Period. Which means they can't hurt too much, or else everyone complains about them

And Sil agrees. And between short durations, virus scanners and free movements, no "debuff" profession is ever going to be able to just get by with debuffs alone (never mind when that gets them to become alpha-able). The only ones that hurt an experienced PVPer right now are the unremovable ones. CB, GTH, UBT on pets, etc.

[Racatti]

Team a fixer and forget yout GTH probs in 18.0!

[Chrys]

Team a fixer and forget yout GTH probs in 18.0!

With GSF we can kite and be unkillable woot!

Edit: So er Ebag, what is your MP's evades+AAD rating?

[Racatti]

To be short and to the point: teaming is boring as ****, negates any twinking and effort you put into your char and reduces pvp to what you desrcribed it was before LE. Whichever team has more ranged specials to spam, gets thru team blockers faster and eventually wins.

Ofc I will team-up for when it matters such as tara and towers, and I see your point why it's better for ppl only going BS to farm VP. On the other hand, PvP for PvPers is about measuring yourself to other ppl, clash of egos, call it epeen if you want, but those epeeners get you towersites and side benefits.

We don't blame you enjoying easy-mode PvP, but you can't blame us not doing so either.

[Ebag333]

We don't blame you enjoying easy-mode PvP, but you can't blame us not doing so either.

I have no problem with 1v1 PvP. In fact, I do enjoy dueling folks, even though I know I'm pretty much guaranteed to lose.

If you want to go solo in BS, I really have no problem with that. If you can make it work for you, then that's all the more impressive.

My perspective is rather similar to PvM. There are people who do incredibly well soloing in PvM, and they have some well deserved bragging rights (Davias was a great example of an extremely well setup 1HB MP).

But Davias never pretended that soloing was better. He realized that he leveled slower, died easier, and took longer to kill the mobs than if he teamed.

Now you take PvP....and the hardcore PvPers would like you to believe that going solo is somehow better or more effective than being teamed.

That's flat out wrong. The only advantage to flying solo on BS is if everyone else is solo, then if you're setup extremely well you may very well dominate BS. The problem is that it takes just one single team of even just 3 or 4 people who are working together, and no matter how well you are setup, you are not going to be able to survive them all working together to kill you.

I've done enough BS's to see what happens (on both sides) when folks on one side start teaming up and working together. If the other side doesn't do the same, it is rarely even close. But instead of working together, usually the other side just quits, and complains about how "cheap" the side was that started working together.

I honestly don't really get it. It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Yet the majority of PvPers turn a blind eye to it and pretend it's not there.

[Chrys]

Now you take PvP....and the hardcore PvPers would like you to believe that going solo is somehow better or more effective than being teamed.

That's flat out wrong.

Yet nobody has ever said this... Why do you keep talking to yourself?

[Ebag333]

Now you take PvP....and the hardcore PvPers would like you to believe that going solo is somehow better or more effective than being teamed.

Yet nobody has ever said this... Why do you keep talking to yourself?

I don't team on BS because it does nothing for me. Quite the opposite, in fact.
The only possible outcome is that everyone jumps on me the second they see me. My auras benefit everyone but me, making me, an already squishy profession, more squishier in comparison to y team.


Currently, teaming is a disadvantage to some professions.

(Emphasis not mine.)

Crattey said exactly that back in post #7.

So I guess you agree with me then that teaming in PvP is far more powerful than running solo? Good to know.

[Chrys]

(Emphasis not mine.)

Crattey said exactly that back in post #7.

All I see is how you twist statements. Crattey did not say the same thing you did.

Edit: What is with our professionals not understanding basic logic? Ebag, go google fallacy of accident plx.

[Ebag333]

Please explain to me how I am twisting "I don't team on BS because it does nothing for me" and "teaming is a disadvantage to some professions".

Because it sure as heck reads to me that Crattey is stating that he is better off not teaming in BS than he is teaming in BS.

Please, point out where I am misinterpreting Crattey's words. I simply don't see another explanation for them, but perhaps you see something I do not.

[Chrys]

Stacking team buffs, in general, is overpowered easymodeness.

A few professions, however, gain nothing directly while making themselves big fat PVP targets. See engies and blockers (you should remember this one, they called you names yet you kept your head stuck in dark places). Crattey's talking about the same thing wrt crat auras.

Overall, if everyone always teamed, engies and crats distribute their love all round, meaning their relative position (hrm, see the off/def thread) remains constant while everyone around them get big boosts. Indeed what is supposed to be a defining benefit for crats loses its edge when everyone teams everyone. Refer to tara for more examples (oh wait, you never go).

Going solo allows them to preserve some of their prof-defining abilities, which is why several engies absolutely refuse to team on BS, in a show of prof solidarity, despite how it might make it temporarily easier for them.

In short, see lesson #2: No one likes to play second fiddle

Team PVP in general, however, remains overpowered easymode for the vast majority of professions.