Sandboxes and player categories

[victor]

3 hours ago, Bach said:

I think this is a common misconception.  Its not that players are scared so they stay in port. If that were actually the case they had the entire PVE server to play in.  What actually happens is that players get bored or feel there is little point to coming out of port and just slowly drift off into other games.  Boredom is the real killer in MMOs.  The more protection you put in, no matter how well meaning, often results in more paths to boredom and/or futility.

I find strange that still a lot of people think it is really possible to keep up a PVP sandbox MMO without a consistent PVE playerbase included in the PVP environment. Pure PVP community is actually possible solo in MOBAs and arena games. If you want to build up a solid MMO (even if sandbox and even PVP oriented) the experience of other games - EVE online is the best example of a success PVP oridented sandbox MMO - shows quite well than you need to make a game that allows PVPers and PVErs (both missioners and crafter/traders) to live together in the same map. Also Darkfall and Mortal online (which may be considered the top of the top for hardcore PVP) include viable PVE content. So the success or failure of NA depends on the fact that Devs will find a fair balance (in terms of risk vs rewards) for each of the categories (OS PVPers, RvR PVPers, Missioners, Traders/crafters) so that none of them will loose interest in the game and quit. The idea "PVE server for pure PVE and PVP server for pure PVP" is likely to raise a lot of problems (jn particular in underpopulated games like NA).

Edited May 11, 2017 by victor

[jodgi]

6 hours ago, victor said:

EVE online is the best example of a success PVP oridented sandbox MMO - shows quite well than you need to make a game that allows PVPers and PVErs

EVE is definitely a success as a long running online game, but "success PVP oriented" has a very specific ring to to it.

Boring numbers:

 

EVE doesn't just allow PVE. As far as player activities goes EVE is PVE incarnated with a PVP rate of occurrence that could be viewed as statistically insignificant.

Here's a cool quote from an EVE player:

Quote

 

If I were being facetious...

The way to win FW is to shoot an NPC and circle an NPC station.
The way to win Null-sec is to shoot at structures that can't shoot back, and then farm NPCs faster than your competitors. 
The way to win a hi-sec war dec is to deny the other person from shooting NPCs.
People living in wormholes exist BECAUSE of the NPCs that live there.

Of course that's not the whole story, but I doubt there's any capsuleers out there that haven't shot a red cross in their career.

A good question would be: What would Eve be like if it was a pure PvP game?

 

Now, tell me more about how I should look to EVE as a shining example of a PVP game...

Edited May 11, 2017 by jodgi
spoiler tags were placed properly, forum does what it wants regardless :(

[jodgi]

4 minutes ago, Hodo said:

What that is leaving out are those flagged for the faction war, or in a corp who are also at war.

Ok, then, fair enough. Here's a chart of a "period that encompasses two major null sec conflicts, the Fountain War in the summer of 2013 and the Halloween War in the autumn and winter of 2013-2014.  The overall NPC kill to player death ratio was 248:1 during that time period."

I've never seen anyone suggesting there is no PVP in EVE, I'm simply pointing out the, in my opinion, absolutely horrific ratio.

I know full well many sandbox fans are fine with this, I don't seek to change anyone's mind. All I ask is to have my complaint noted.

 

[victor]

51 minutes ago, jodgi said:

EVE is definitely a success as a long running online game, but "success PVP oriented" has a very specific ring to to it.

Boring numbers:

  Hide contents

EVE doesn't just allow PVE. As far as player activities goes EVE is PVE incarnated with a PVP rate of occurrence that could be viewed as statistically insignificant.

Here's a cool quote from an EVE player:

Now, tell me more about how I should look to EVE as a shining example of a PVP game...

I'll give a short answer from an active player - with some pauses - from almost the very beginning of EVE (more or less 200.000 skill points):

- all ships have one dura (and you loose all the fitting, a part of it getting looted by your killer)

- 0.0 (zero sec) is full PVP (RvR mainly)

- low sec is full PVP (almost only piracy)

- wormholes are full PVP

- high sec is PVE and relatively safe if you do not belong to a organization (with some low risk of being ganked if you are a moron)

- PVE can be done everywere, but only in High sec is (almost) safe.

- Craft and trade is all around, but basically the mass products are produced in high sec and exported in O.O

- there are WAR declarations between organization even in high security space that allow non consensual PVP

- there is facitonal warfare

- if you exit High sec empire it is VERY likely that someone kills you.

- if I make a proportion of the times I have been killed in EVE online (keeping in account the time played of cours) and the times that I have been killed in NA, well I should conclude that NA is the carebear's dream.

But, you seem to not pick the point, that is related to the history of the game: the very fact that EVE, in order to keep on the marked and maintaining its success during the years, had to shift its focus from "hardcore pvp" only game (as it was at the very beginning) to a blend of PVE and PVP just confirms my point. If you want to have success in MMO you have to keep PVErs and PVPrs in the same server. And the only way to do it is reward both in a balanced way. CCP had to learn it when the playerbase of the game started declining, so ... why just not take advantage here of that lesson (where BTW we can just dream about the population of other massive games)?

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by victor

[jodgi]

3 minutes ago, victor said:

But, you seem to not pick the point

Because I'm THAT dense?

5 minutes ago, victor said:

at is related to the history of the game: the very fact that EVE, in order to have success, had to shift its focus from "hardcore pvp" (as it was at the very beginning) to a blend of PVE and PVP just confirms my point. If you want to have success in MMO you have to keep PVErs and PVPrs in the same server. And the only way to do it is reward both in a balanced way.

I accept that as God's honest truth! However, I find that blend to be so diluted that it offends me. It's not common to see this brutal honesty about PVE/PVP ratio of 300:1 when we discuss the OW sandbox, though it has popped up from time to time with admin quoting the numbers at one point.

I really am dense because I still dream of a PVP filled and fun OW.

 

[victor]

16 minutes ago, jodgi said:

Because I'm THAT dense?

I accept that as God's honest truth! However, I find that blend to be so diluted that it offends me. It's not common to see this brutal honesty about PVE/PVP ratio of 300:1 when we discuss the OW sandbox, though it has popped up from time to time with admin quoting the numbers at one point.

I really am dense because I still dream of a PVP filled and fun OW.

 

no, not dense, let's say optimistic ... 

Edited May 11, 2017 by victor

[Bach]

8 hours ago, victor said:

I find strange that still a lot of people think it is really possible to keep up a PVP sandbox MMO without a consistent PVE playerbase included in the PVP environment. Pure PVP community is actually possible solo in MOBAs and arena games. If you want to build up a solid MMO (even if sandbox and even PVP oriented) the experience of other games - EVE online is the best example of a success PVP oridented sandbox MMO - shows quite well than you need to make a game that allows PVPers and PVErs (both missioners and crafter/traders) to live together in the same map. Also Darkfall and Mortal online (which may be considered the top of the top for hardcore PVP) include viable PVE content. So the success or failure of NA depends on the fact that Devs will find a fair balance (in terms of risk vs rewards) for each of the categories (OS PVPers, RvR PVPers, Missioners, Traders/crafters) so that none of them will loose interest in the game and quit. The idea "PVE server for pure PVE and PVP server for pure PVP" is likely to raise a lot of problems (jn particular in underpopulated games like NA).

You may have my view wrong. I do not think the sand box works better separated into PvP and PVE servers.  I merely made that comment about players having the ability to play on a PVE server to show that it's unlikely they are "scared" to exit port.  If that were true they would just play the other server.  Sand boxes by far work better as one large populace of PvP, PVE, RvR and explorer type players all mixed into one sand box.  One of the best examples is not EVE but early Ultima Online.  It started as safe city zones with lawless frontiers everywhere in between.  Merchant players would mine ore in the frontier and PVE players would hunt dragons.  Pvp and RvR players alike we all bought the miners crafted goods and the PVE players npc harvested stuff.  But also murderous minded Pvp players hunted them while they were in the frontiers.  Thieves sometimes pick pocketed or stole their stuff. So bounty hunter and defender pvp players started appearing to protect them and thwart the murderers and highwaymen.  Meanwhile guilds waged rvr wars and tried to control huge tracks if countryside and profitable dungeons. Alliances, politics, merchants wars and every player made content under the sun developed.  But it all starts with crafters and NPC hunters in a symbiotic relationship with everyone else.

After running a few years Ultima caved in to player complaints about being "ganked" by other players and they split the game into two servers. PvP and PVE.  Players that were truly to "scared" to leave the protected cities went and played on the PVE server.  Eventually the majority of the PVE players drifted to the PVE server.  Meanwhile on the PvP server the murders faded away with no targets. That may have been what the complainers wanted but it didn't stop there.  Once the murderers were gone the bounty hunters and defenders had nothing to do and they disappeared. This then depleated the pvp players available for wide spread RvR. The battles became less numerous and shrunk down to a low numbers of players all hovering in the same area just to try to get PvP with each other.  The PVE server flourished for awhile. But you can only kill the same dragon so many times. Unlike a random player the dragon also makes the exact same moves in battle everytime. So the PVE gets patterned and boring without the occasional thril of murderers randomly mixing things up. So the PVE population shrinks if the Devs ever stop feeding new content into it.  Both servers just became scarcely populated Sony computer run computer games that made money selling pets, hats and trinkets to those willing to play it.

The only thing that has kept EVE going is its Devs staunch unwillingness to separate into different servers and to not allow players easy computer protected ways out the challenges of the sand box.  I think we saw this in NA last year. You put in a lot of computer protectionism and easy mode stuff for players and the server gets boring for many and population shrinks.

Edited May 11, 2017 by Bach

[Teutonic]

4 minutes ago, Bach said:

Stuff

Honestly could not have said it better myself.

the trick is to make sure PvE players, whether they get ganked or killed, can get back up again. PvP lives on PvE in an MMO from my experience.

[victor]

35 minutes ago, Bach said:

You may have my view wrong. I do not think the sand box works better separated into PvP and PVE servers.  I merely made that comment about players having the ability to play on a PVE server to show that it's unlikely they are "scared" to exit port.  If that were true they would just play the other server.  Sand boxes by far work better as one large populace of PvP, PVE, RvR and explorer type players all mixed into one sand box.  One of the best examples is not EVE but early Ultima Online.  It started as safe city zones with lawless frontiers everywhere in between.  Merchant players would mine ore in the frontier and PVE players would hunt dragons.  Pvp and RvR players alike we all bought the miners crafted goods and the PVE players npc harvested stuff.  But also murderous minded Pvp players hunted them while they were in the frontiers.  Thieves sometimes pick pocketed or stole their stuff. So bounty hunter and defender pvp players started appearing to protect them and thwart the murderers and highwaymen.  Meanwhile guilds waged rvr wars and tried to control huge tracks if countryside and profitable dungeons. Alliances, politics, merchants wars and every player made content under the sun developed.  But it all starts with crafters and NPC hunters in a symbiotic relationship with everyone else.

After running a few years Ultima caved in to player complaints about being "ganked" by other players and they split the game into two servers. PvP and PVE.  Players that were truly to "scared" to leave the protected cities went and played on the PVE server.  Eventually the majority of the PVE players drifted to the PVE server.  Meanwhile on the PvP server the murders faded away with no targets. That may have been what the complainers wanted but it didn't stop there.  Once the murderers were gone the bounty hunters and defenders had nothing to do and they disappeared. This then depleated the pvp players available for wide spread RvR. The battles became less numerous and shrunk down to a low numbers of players all hovering in the same area just to try to get PvP with each other.  The PVE server flourished for awhile. But you can only kill the same dragon so many times. Unlike a random player the dragon also makes the exact same moves in battle everytime. So the PVE gets patterned and boring without the occasional thril of murderers randomly mixing things up. So the PVE population shrinks if the Devs ever stop feeding new content into it.  Both servers just became scarcely populated Sony computer run computer games that made money selling pets, hats and trinkets to those willing to play it.

The only thing that has kept EVE going is its Devs staunch unwillingness to separate into different servers and to not allow players easy computer protected ways out the challenges of the sand box.  I think we saw this in NA last year. You put in a lot of computer protectionism and easy mode stuff for players and the server gets boring for many and population shrinks.

In EVE PVE is rewarded. That's the point. The new "hardcore mode" that NA is taking (no actual rewards for PVE marks, no direct trade among players, super grindy crafting, hours of travels in sea with speed nerf on traders, aggressive IA) does not provide in my opinion sufficient rewards to PVE acrivity that can balance the higher level or risk of doing them.

"The trick is to get PvE players, whether they get ganked or killed, can get back up again". NO, that's the mind of PVPers. People does not want just to get up again, they want have ships, things, craft, roam.

I do not mind the risk, but if only PVP get good rewards (which is not just "getting up after having been killed, rinse and repeat"), the playerbase will shrink. It's so difficult to get it?

Of course it is (for the average PVP player). But it should not be for the developer of a MMO

Edited May 11, 2017 by victor

[jodgi]

34 minutes ago, Bach said:

to not allow players easy computer protected ways out the challenges of the sand box.

What do you mean by this when people can stay in safe areas forever? Risk is a choice in EVE, it's the king of "computer protectionism".

[Zoky]

There is NO safe space in EVE!!! If you think that you are safe in high sec then you must be new to EVE, because some years back I have personally participated in high sec ganking of freighters and super expensive mission runners ships near jita, not even for profit but for fun! As for 300 to 1 bots/players death ratio well I would speed run missions on my alt while gate camping with main char, in venal no less. In most mission you need to kill at least 20-30 npc even when speed running them. I a'm supportive of merging PvP and PvE servers as long as PvE area is like high sec in EVE - safe but not invulnerable. But currently like someone said NA is carebears paradise compared to EVE, we are essentially playing in PvE area with all those AI fleets around.

[Barberouge]

Brought some posts from Hotfix 7 for testbed 9.99 to this new topic.

[Bach]

1 hour ago, jodgi said:

What do you mean by this when people can stay in safe areas forever? Risk is a choice in EVE, it's the king of "computer protectionism".

Exactly.  In EVE you have to take a risk if you want the bigger rewards of the lawless frontier.  You don't have to take that risk but safe space rewards are smaller and slower.  By protectionism I am talking methods that allow players to avoid the risks for the same bigger reward.  In NA that is computer enforced ROE that protects soloists from taking the real risks that should be present when hunting prizes directly off a foreign capital.  

[victor]

1 hour ago, Zoky said:

There is NO safe space in EVE!!! If you think that you are safe in high sec then you must be new to EVE, because some years back I have personally participated in high sec ganking of freighters and super expensive mission runners ships near jita, not even for profit but for fun! As for 300 to 1 bots/players death ratio well I would speed run missions on my alt while gate camping with main char, in venal no less. In most mission you need to kill at least 20-30 npc even when speed running them. I a'm supportive of merging PvP and PvE servers as long as PvE area is like high sec in EVE - safe but not invulnerable. But currently like someone said NA is carebears paradise compared to EVE, we are essentially playing in PvE area with all those AI fleets around.

But in eve PVE is actually as rewarding as PVP. So the formula is making PVE rewarding almost as PVP but put some (resonable) risk of getting caught in non consensual PVP also in doing PVE stuffs. 

PS (EVEwise): You'd adimt that in the mighty burn jita event were actually killed only noobs and morons (I have a eco/clone in Maurasi and went forth and back to jita 4.4. dozens of time with no harm) and when you chase L4 missioners for officer or deadspace modules - if the missioner is cautious and knows how to use local scanner in order to detect your probes - you cannot gank him no matter what.

Edited May 11, 2017 by victor

[Ned Low]

14 minutes ago, Hodo said:

In the long list of sandbox PVP games I play or have played, there has always been large risk in pvp.   
 

Mortal Online- Open world sandbox PVP full loot game.  There you can be killed anywhere at any time, you are safer in cities but not by much.   PVE unfortunately is not that attractive so it is mostly PVPer vs PVPer, not a lot of good content.   

Wurm Online (Wild/Chaos server), Full loot sandbox PVP.  The PVE is ok, the crafting depth is what kept most people around.    

EVE- no need to go into it you all are hammering it into the ground.  But PVE and PVP are very much core parts of the game, and equal shares in development.  One of the KEY reasons this game has been the poster child for successful indie game development.  

DarkFall Online (DFO)- Again OW Full loot PVP sandbox.   Twitch skills are king, and teamwork can change the fight.

Roma Victor, Vendetta Online, and Ultima Online (pre-Trammel) All of them have one thing in common, they all had decent PVE that drove the PVP.   They either placed some mobs and resources in limited VERY limited quantities in areas that will lead to conflict.   OR they restrict the flow of those resources through unregulated regions.   This would lend itself to pvp.

But you have to make the risk worth it for the PVEr, otherwise they wont bother.  

This is where Mortal Online failed, they didnt make it worth it for the PVEr.   EVE succeeded at that in spades with it, they made low and null sec the best place to mine and explore for resources.   This lead to a VERY high margin of profit but in return the risk was equally high, because of the value.   

In NA, without the high value resources that can either be gained through PVE means in a high risk environment, like EPIC encounters, that stay open and are marked on the world map.   Or neutral/free towns bordering on rival nations producing a higher than normal quantity of high end goods.   This creates risk, mostly from pirates and enemy nations, but also has reward because the payoff in getting back to your production capital is you can make FAR more than you would if you had used base materials like Oak.

Devs will realize it the hard way, but here is a quick example how PvE effectively works with PvP. For example in Potbs you can get items that are very good for pvp. Back in the days you had to complete the story line and could get Naval 4th rate, that thing was awesome in pvp as a tank. Naval Action is focused on simulator/pvp environment that is very poor. By poor I mean it's population is very small and that small population won't be able to supply this game with all needed key elements to function properly. I have been trying to point these things for a 2nd year now, but we all get tired sooner or later. 

[Sir Texas Sir]

I think we need PvE to make PvP work.  The PvP and even RvR crowd is only a small part of the population.  Most of them are just your casual players that might want to PvP on there terms.  We saw this big time on PvP2.  You have 15-20 hard core PvP players in one nation that rolled the two biggest nations while they where in a n alliance down to 11 ports in the US and 1 port for GB.  They where the two largest nations so the issue wasn't they didn't have the numbers. It was more they didn't want to loose ships.  They would constantly loose fights that was 15-20 vs 20-25 (some time with over 30-40 out side screening.)     The problem wasn't they had numbers, the problem was they lacked the PvP players in three nations to fight us.  So instead they all just hide and stop showing up to port battles.  We knew every time we beat them with something like 19-21 players vs 25 even if it was a 1st rate battle they where going to show up in force the next time.  So we had to hit major econ ports to get them to show up.

 

The reason they didn't have a a major number of hard core PvP and RvR players cause many of them got bored and stopped player or switched to pirates.  Why did they do that?  Cause when you have the three largest nations in an alliance and no one is fighting each other other than showing up to small nation port battles and rolling them you get bored.  Maybe of them stopped playing. A few and not many switched over to Pirates as we where the only ones going out in force and trying to PvP and fight.   

There was a lot of small clans in US/GB that wanted to fight each other, but they couldn't cause of the stupid alliance system and old timers that where PvE oriented players having a vote and keeping the alliance.  There is a problem when the two largest nations hadn't had a port battle since August of last year.   Which by the way when the alliance system came out.   Even now with every one waiting on the patch they won't break the alliance.  I kid you not they told a PvP1 players they are still scared the Pirate will zerg them.  So the same players that wouldn't show in proper ships back when there was numbers are not rolling the map slowly before the patch.  

I for one can't wait for the merge so it will shake things up and US and GB actually fight each other it would be nice to see two big nations actually do RvR for once.

The only problem I'm seeing with the new 1 dura system and crafting is like before folks will stop going out if it cost to much to get back into a ship.  That is why they stopped showing up at 1st rate port battles.  instead they bring 2nd rates or lower and wonder why they get beat even though they had the numbers.  Which also meant if they worked together instead of bickering in nation they could out produced us on pirates on the 1st rates with no problem.  Though they spent all there time in port instead of out doing the grind and fighting to keep there war machines supplied.  I can see this happening again.   Though with the new no teleport and limit on docks I can see most regions are going to be Clan based not nation based other than around the capitals.   So you might not get 25 vs 25 port battles every time and they won't all be the meta ships.  This is going to be good, except if you get one strong nation/clan that all ways brings the numbers vs a smaller weaker or unorganized big nation.

[Sir Texas Sir]

32 minutes ago, Ned Low said:

Devs will realize it the hard way, but here is a quick example how PvE effectively works with PvP. For example in Potbs you can get items that are very good for pvp. Back in the days you had to complete the story line and could get Naval 4th rate, that thing was awesome in pvp as a tank. Naval Action is focused on simulator/pvp environment that is very poor. By poor I mean it's population is very small and that small population won't be able to supply this game with all needed key elements to function properly. I have been trying to point these things for a 2nd year now, but we all get tired sooner or later. 

My clan was the first to beat Forteleza de Luz.   They had a dev come with us to watch how we keep beating it cause every one else keep complaining you couldn't beat it.  It was to hard so the nerfed it after watching us.  Though we beat it the same reason we could beat the Brits in port battles if we took it to the forts.  We had all the avcom gear from doing all the missions cause we would grind the crap out of them to get all the best gear.   So we would out number either take it to boarding or to the forts and beat the crap out of them some times 4 vs 1 in numbers.  The funny thing was that one Dev stayed in our clan from that point on and played with us.  It was there way to get feed back cause while we where small.  Spain on Roberts at that time was very active.  We started on the Aussie server cause I worked night shift it was the best server for me to play on.

The point is your hardcore players will always have better gear then your casual player.   They took the time to grind and do the hard work so they should have the better gear.  Though the game should be made around the casual players when they come up with mechanics for the most part.

[Zoky]

11 hours ago, victor said:

But in eve PVE is actually as rewarding as PVP. So the formula is making PVE rewarding almost as PVP but put some (resonable) risk of getting caught in non consensual PVP also in doing PVE stuffs. 

I would argue that in EVE PvE is more rewarding then PvP. Sure sometime you catch some fat target worth few billions but most of the time I PvP for fun. Back when I was playing EVE i would speed run missions for ~2 hours every day and get crystal omega from LP store daily! Thats 1.2 bil daily to fuel my PvP. I could never make that money just by PvP. But to be able to do missions in 0 you had to defend your space from other people so PvE generates PvP needs and PvP generates PvE needs. Magic circle 

11 hours ago, victor said:

PS (EVEwise): You'd adimt that in the mighty burn jita event were actually killed only noobs and morons (I have a eco/clone in Maurasi and went forth and back to jita 4.4. dozens of time with no harm) and when you chase L4 missioners for officer or deadspace modules - if the missioner is cautious and knows how to use local scanner in order to detect your probes - you cannot gank him no matter what.

I never participated in burn jita but me and my corp would go sometimes to high sec in t1 frigs and destroyers and kill afk people You are right, if someone is not afk and not total noob he can evade high sec piracy easily. At same time you would be surprised how much people like to do stupid things 

[Zoky]

10 hours ago, Sir Texas Sir said:

 

The point is your hardcore players will always have better gear then your casual player.   They took the time to grind and do the hard work so they should have the better gear.  Though the game should be made around the casual players when they come up with mechanics for the most part.

True that. Without casuals game will die. Just look at WildStar, they try to cater to hard core end game raiders and game died faster then you can say "stupid move". Same is true for every game ever.  For example in EVE (again i know) casuals had everything they needed to play in highsec. They never needed to leave if they didn't want to. But if they dared to leave to low sec of 0/wormhole they would be rewarded if they survived that is. I read somewhere that 80% of EVE population never left highsec, but at same time those 20% that dared managed to make more ISK then those 80%.  And another fun fact - statistically there is more PvP kills in highsec then anywhere else in EVE 

[Rychu Karas]

atm it's my the most favorite game. Started right after potbs collapse around 2013.

 

BTW if we talk about how eve is NOT pvp focused, because it's not. I am not a hardcore one and within 4 years I hit top100 in game which is over 10 years old. IMO there is less than 5% of the community pvp focused. maybe a bit more in pvp blopfests in fleets 200+ local 2-3-4k+ which is not fun for me. So if we want to adapt it to the NA. Devs should strongly focus at PvE atm, because PvE is sad and boring part of this game

Edited May 12, 2017 by Rychu Karas

[SeamanStaines]

The most skilled players or those belonging the most aggressive well-organized clans will enjoy a primarily PVP server (one with little reward for PVE). Why wouldn't they, they will have a win ratio much higher than 50%. So they will thrive as they are at the top of the food chain. Those with a win ratio of around 50% will find it harder. Those less skilled will struggle and gradually move out of the game unless they can top up with PVE XP. 

There has to be progression for all skill levels to keep interest high.

Then after the PVE population has declined you will still have elite players, but some of those who were previously in the plus 50% win range will find themselves losing more than they win because their traditional prey has been hunted to extinction and they find themselves moving down the food chain. And they will start to struggle. And so it goes on.

 

 

Edited May 12, 2017 by SeamanStaines

[Smithy]

In my opinion the most skilled/ hardcore/ etc pvp orientated players will not be OW at all. they will get their kicks in the arena game.

pulling into OW on occasion for a port battle or two.

this is how I've seen it pan out in a similar game.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Smithy

[Bach]

1 hour ago, Smithy said:

In my opinion the most skilled/ hardcore/ etc pvp orientated players will not be OW at all. they will get their kicks in the arena game.

pulling into OW on occasion for a port battle or two.

this is how I've seen it pan out in a similar game.

I think you are correct with one caveat.  They are hard core in the sense all they wish to do is PvP.  They are also very good PVPrs in their arena with everything known, predetermined and set pattern.  True OW PVPrs tend to wipe the floor with them when it's terrain, numbers and reading variables that matter over button mashing and gear.

easiest way to tell which is which is a simple question.  "What is a fair fight?"  If they say equal numbers then they are arena Pvp players.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Bach

[Zoky]

31 minutes ago, Bach said:

"What is a fair fight?"

No such thing exist! Now did I pass the test 

Edited May 12, 2017 by Zoky

[Bach]

1 hour ago, Zoky said:

No such thing exist! Now did I pass the test 

Yes. You are qualified for OW PvP. 

Most wise generals agree with John Stienbeck's quote "If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck."  

If you are simulating a war and you aren't prepared for a 1 on 3 situation you have a totally unrealistic view of warfare. Soldiers don't wander across a battlefield with the expectation that some magical invisible computer God will force an enemy platoon to fight him one at a time. But arena pvp players do.  They tend to kill off war simulations and RvR, with demands for fair fights, faster than Econ or PVE players ever dream of doing so.  The Devs are absolutely correct in that the two Pvp mantras, OW vs. Arena,  cannot be in the same sandbox.

Edited May 12, 2017 by Bach