Yeah, I'm losing faith in the developers' vision for PvP.

The capture-sequencing is so dumb for PvP. Like I was playing Beerdrinkers yesterday. On Bootleg Islands we captured Residences, I think. Next target was Dunes Fortress on the other side of the map. Then Copabanana on the other side of the map again.

There'd been six or eight players and I was wondering why things were progressing a bit quicker than normal for PvP, and then I saw that all that was left was me and Dio on the same team.

As I've detailed in another thread, the problems with the "long play" PvP as used in Beerdrinkers are:

i) Games take way too long for a PvP game.

ii) The capture-sequencing system used in this mode is clunky, as described above, and the single-base capturing rule means that when there are more than a handful of players playing, it devolves into glacially slow "meatgrinder" games.

Well, developers, it's your game: you have your vision for PvP. That RWR PvP is rarely played by anyone and that the feedback of a large proportion of players is negative (from my experience of in-game chat and on the forum), should tell you everything you need to know about whether the format is working.

You seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room by focusing on teddy bear hunting games for PvP play. These are fine as side games, as "dessert", but I don't believe that they should be the "main course" of PvP play. That should be something that approximates a real military battle, like capturing objectives not teddy bears.

Anyway, I've said my piece and, unless there are moves made to revamp the main PvP format into a fun and functional game, I will not say more on the matter.

We know this very well and I have said numerous times that there will be changes once we get to a point we are able to work on them. We've just barely reached that now, the first step to it all was to get Classic to work under the Minimodes system in order to make further development sensible. Now that it's there, the ground work is complete. Currently of course the only thing that changed was that there's a timer to ensure maps change, which isn't awfully much.

Majority of the work for the next PvP related steps, the closest bases capture logic, visualizing all the capture possibilities in map view, enabling persistent profiles for PvP with possibility to also see match stats in-game, RP capping, changing what score means in scoretable, have already been completed during this weekend. Some of them include pretty risky changes in terms of overall stability of the game so it wouldn't have been smart to rush it into today's release, so they will be going to the next update.

What comes to Teddy Hunt, it's a bit of exaggeration to say we're focusing on it, the added 3-faction support for it took probably less than 30min to get in. It just makes the best PvP event content currently when it's either Teddy Hunt or Classic or Minimodes.

That's good to hear. When you get around to deciding on the game mechanics for the format, it would be great if you could outline it in the forum so the community of players can give any thoughts and feedback.


Could you expand on this? I think most players agree that XP and RP should reset after each game in PvP (which would include stash/inventory) so everyone starts each game on an equal footing.

If the persistent profile work here is just to link one's profile to the other official servers or to show long-term PvP stats that have no bearing on the game then that's okay.

(Unless, the persistent profile thing could be used in such a way as to allocate players to teams based on their overall game score to provide more balanced teams, which would be a good thing).

Persistent profiles are being added mainly in order to have a cosmetic element of progress (XP) and the overall PvP stats viewable in-game.

The plan is that XP would be close to being meaningless in gameplay in PvP, i.e. no weapon/call/etc restrictions, max squad size would be closer to 4 rather than 10. XP rewards will be probably tweaked to make it stand as score in the scoretable in this mode, i.e. you get +1 by killing a bot, +5 from a player, and similar small rewards for damaging vehicles and target and so on. The more you play and the more successful you are, the shinier rank insignia you'll get but it's just bling-bling, no boosts, perks or anything.

RP would either be reset each match start or made capped somewhere around 1000 RP perhaps.

What to do with valuable delivery items is largely undecided. Maybe they could be removed altogether so you won't have the choice of letting them pile up in stash as an extension to your capped RP. Rare weapons are planned to be made more rare than what they are currently, possibly all the way to becoming reward weapons only.

I saw the comms bug on Rattlesnake Crescent, as Greens. Our comms went down pretty early, so I found Gray comms and took it down. But then Grey comms came back and our comms was still down. IIRC, DIO was the only solid player on the other team, so it took them a really long time to beat us, but we eventually lost because we could never capture any bases after our initial cap. There was enough tie for comms to respawn multiple times, but it never dead. Not sure if DIO saw the bug on the same map or another map.

FWIW, I agree with shatner about pvp. I don't really play inva because once you learn how to fire single shots with the default rifles or hide and use silenced weaps effectively, you can get as many kills as you want without dying, which gets old fast. But PVP is screwed up for a bunch of reasons, and I'd say that I have a fun/good PVP game maybe 1 out of 10 times. The rest of the time, it ends up being an impossible stalemate, a really boring fight over comms, or the teams are stacked something like 5v1 or 7v2 (or if not that, you have 3 vets on one team against some noobs and maybe one vet which gives you the same result), or some griefer is teamkilling.

I'm not complaining about that, exactly. As a programmer, I get that it can take a long time to implement "simple" features, especially if you have other priorities. I'm just saying that, as it is now, I don't really find any of the modes to be fun, which is why I don't play much anymore.

Well, you're in charge, but if it were me, I'd remove stats from pvp entirely. Something I already see now is that some players will run up their kill ratio and kill-death score while doing things that aren't great for the team. I don't think that's going to improve if stats are tracked across games.

Excluding comms attacks, the players I find hardest to play against in PVP are Modest, Doom, and probably EFB. They tend not to have particularly good kill ratios and scores, and they often don't get super high XP because they're dying, but they're really good at attacking and capping areas. If you include comms games, DIO and Ram-Kults are also pretty scary, but taking out comms isn't reflected in the score either. You get some XP for it, but it's probably underrated in XP.

You might argue that you get XP for capping, which is true, but you get the XP just for being in the zone, not for being one of the critical players who actually makes it happen. Players who stay back and just snipe from behind cover get the same XP from capping if they run into the zone at the last minute, and they get way more XP from kills-deaths.

Is it possible you had lost the base that provides the radio tower?

I've played a several times in Rattlesnake Crescent and I've seen this bug at least once, even twice - green(or whatever they are) - the comms which belongs to the faction starting by the left side never respawn.


Negative - they had a few bases, but their comms was broken forever.

_________________
"Ad cogitandum et agendum homo natus es"

I work quickly, cheaply and qualitatively. You can choose only two of the three options.

I think this is a very good point. I feel stats from PvP should not be carried over to one's co-op score. I've seen it in PvP before: some players spending the game "farming" and not contributing to the team objective. This was a pointless thing to be doing anyway, since RP wasn't being carried over across games. It wouldn't be pointless if it was contributing to one's overall game score that carried across games.

I had been thinking that the persistent rank insignia idea you suggested would be an interesting way of showing some form of long-term progress in PvP. But I can't help but feel halp is right that you'd end up having some players who wouldn't play a team game and who'd end up playing some solo score-accruing game, They'd eventually end up as generals, while the players that are fighting hard to actually win the games are lower-ranked (although some might say the army's like that in real life ).

If carrying across score from PvP games would not work, bringing one's rank from co-op I don't think would work either. You might have someone who plays a lot of co-op and is a general who then plays a PvP game and seriously outranks another player who only plays the PvP mode.

I think that for this mode it needs to be focused around the team: there is no I in team! All that matters is the result of the battle - not improving one's personal score or K/D ratio, not collecting loot for the armory to build up one's RP or getting one's beloved rare weapon safely through the battle to the next map.

So I think a blank slate for players for each PvP game looks to be the most workable option, certainly for RP and inventory.

Right now, the only way I could think of rank working in PvP is to have a Kill stat that records a player's lifetime enemy human kills in PvP (and so not friendly human players!) and have ranking linked to that. Even that, though, would probably lead to players working on that stat rather than the objectives of the game (although they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive).

There could be a stat for a player's overall game win percentage, but even that could be abused by a player who played in the server at off-peak hours, say, when there were no other players playing. Indeed, the whole idea of residual progress in PvP looks a bit broken if people are able to work on their profile when there are no other humans present.


This is the reason I suggested in another thread that in the PvP format earning RP (and perhaps XP) from capping and other things could be redistributed as bonuses to all other friendly players. Because PvP's a team game, and that often involves doing stuff around the battlefield that means you're not in the right place at the right time to get the RP/XP reward.

People love stats, simple as that. We need to implement things that make PvP more attractive for others than just veterans, and for some people stats are the thing that can get you hooked initially. Persistent stats make each match count at least a little bit more than just being some time spent in the game. It can also help keeping up fighting morale when you're clearly going to lose a match, you'll anyway make at least some form of progress by continuing fighting.

We can't even get to testing PvP properly with enough players as people just disregard PvP -> we need to make it more attractive and it means making it that on multiple levels: better gameplay, better stat handling for PvP, rewards.

We could e.g. give rewards for someone who gets on a server as the first player, and waits for others to join for a certain time. Often the issue is that no one gets in a server as there's no one there, and if someone gets in, we need him to stay in there for much longer than 1 minute for others to notice there's someone in there. Persistent stats are good for this cause too, any fighting you do there against the bots on your own gets accumulated to your PvP profile - time not entirely wasted!

If we ever reach a situation that +20-player PvP games are being played without organizing an event, then we could consider making an effort to have hardcore servers and modes where everything is configured for you purists The effort itself could be minimal, just enabling the current profile/stats mode in Classic.

And yeah, no connection between PvP and Invasion profiles.