PvErs will once again be forced into PvP

[Beatman]

It's a PvE game though.
PvP is a mini-game and was never the focus.

Heck, most expansions don't eaven add a simple map for PvP. Of course it makes zero sense to force players into playing that.
It's like giving out max level gear from pet battles.

Why are idiots like you even allowed to post here?

[Niroshi]

You "WoW is a PvE game" types just seem mad spiteful. You have this entire community of people who have to do exactly what the OP is complaining about, and a lot of them really don't like it. Yet instead of finding common ground and agreement that both communities should play their respective modes for the best stuff for them, you have to go and try to invalidate their part of the game.

Just get out of here.

[Aggrophobic]

You "WoW is a PvE game" types just seem mad spiteful. You have this entire community of people who have to do exactly what the OP is complaining about, and a lot of them really don't like it. Yet instead of finding common ground and agreement that both communities should play their respective modes for the best stuff for them, you have to go and try to invalidate their part of the game.

Just get out of here.

While it would be best if everyone got to play the game the way they want thats generally not what Blizzard seems to want though.
M+ players have to raid and PvP, PvPers have to raid and so on. It's a the core of the design in Shadolwands.

The choice that was added before has been stripped becacuse Blizzard seems to find less choice means more fun. It's hardly the players fault. No one aksed for it.

[Vargrik]

Not directly on topic but, as someone who likes both PvE and PvP, I wish they implemented siege warfare in the game, which is a great bridge for players divided between the two worlds.

[Baneto]

You "WoW is a PvE game" types just seem mad spiteful. You have this entire community of people who have to do exactly what the OP is complaining about, and a lot of them really don't like it. Yet instead of finding common ground and agreement that both communities should play their respective modes for the best stuff for them, you have to go and try to invalidate their part of the game.

Just get out of here.

But it is a PvE game..

PvP is a mini-game they added on top of it, it has allways been more PvE-centered.

[Eurhetemec]

Not directly on topic but, as someone who likes both PvE and PvP, I wish they implemented siege warfare in the game, which is a great bridge for players divided between the two worlds.

They intended to when they designed WoW. The original manual has references to it, to taking over zones, and to siege weapons in the open world. But WoW's PvP was severely underdeveloped when the game launched, and when they did get somewhere, they implemented the BG system, which was pretty cautious (and similar to the lower-level PvP systems of other games). Then in TBC and WotLK they experimented very lightly with these systems. You could sorta-kinda "take over" some zones in TBC, but all it did was give a bonus, except in Nagrand, where you controlled a small town, IIRC, and in WotLK they had Lake Wintergrasp, for open-world PvP with siege stuff, but it was pretty limited and linear. Then they sort of gave up, and whilst they had the odd PvP-related system or area in most (all?) expansions since, they never went back to that idea. I think it's probably too late now. It doesn't really work with the level treadmill anyway, because each expansion you'd change the zones you were fighting over. They should probably have implemented a couple of "frontier" areas like Dark Age of Camelot's frontier (one on each continent), which did seem to something they were thinking about, but oh well.

- - - Updated - - -

But it is a PvE game..

PvP is a mini-game they added on top of it, it has allways been more PvE-centered.

I think this is a bit misleading. When WoW was being developed, PvP was represented as a priority and important, and initially, PvP-enabled realms were significantly more popular than PvE-only ones (I think this has since changed).

WoW released without much in the way of PvP systems, but they planned significant ones, as you can see in the original manual and if you were on the forums around then this got discussed a lot. The BG system they eventually implemented was a sort of "stop-gap", not intended to be the "final form" of WoW PvP. We were promised sieges, capturing zones, and so on.

But like the Boyfriend meme, WoW's head turned from a game supporting both PvE and PvP strongly and as part of the world, to a game which was primarily PvE, and had PvP as this entirely optional and entirely instanced activity. A lot of this comes down to Tom Chilton, who was in charge of PvP. He was extremely keen on the idea of "fair" PvP, and eSports (even before that was really a thing), and world-PvP is inherently never entirely fair and certainly not an eSport. So he brought in BGs, which people saw as a stopgap for PvP, and then Arenas, which had a mixed reception - I was for them at the time, because the PvP in them was intense and skillful and WoW's PvP worked really well in small group combat (or 1v1 or 1v2 or the like).

Which is another point. WoW's skill design was bad for mass-PvP. To work well with mass-PvP, you need a certain design of skills, which means stuff that's simple, doesn't interact in a complex way with enemies, and doesn't bog stuff down. You also need solid multi-target CC and so on (this is shown by various games, but particularly Dark Age of Camelot). WoW's combat just sort of devolved into a grey paste when enough people were in a fight. Not only did it get laggy AF, but all your precise, cool, move-countermove abilities became largely meaningless. So the designers wanted mass-PvP, but they didn't think about that when designing skills (and it's clear this was an error, because even in say Alterac Valley this "grey paste" effect happened).

Anyway, Blizzard didn't give up straight away. They did try to make most of their ideas work in the small scale, and kept trying different things, but none of it really stuck, and PvE stayed popular and what WoW was known for, and something it was clearly better at than other games (which was not the case with PvP when more than about 6 people were involved, 7-10 it's good but other games were as good - Warhammer Online, for example, 11+ WoW was pretty bad - I mean directly involved in a single combat not just "in the battleground" here), so PvE eventually won out in a more solid way.

[Zoibert the Bear]

You are one of the reasons the game keeps going downhill.

[LordTakeo]

The original reason this thread exists has already been proven to be wrong, and all these effects are PvP based anyways.

This has devolved into slinging opinions around in hope something sticks.

So, whats so bad about doing PvP? Or PvE? Both are pretty fun, especially since I don't need a full gear change to participate, yet both require alot of time to be optimal in it.
Sounds good to me, no?
Especially, considering I don't have to grind AP anymore, or grind specific azerite traits on my gear. I'm much much more willing to do every content offered, as I don't have to work through my weekly "checklist" of content.

So, while it's not actually forced, I'll happily do it anyways.

[Vargrik]

They intended to when they designed WoW. The original manual has references to it, to taking over zones, and to siege weapons in the open world. But WoW's PvP was severely underdeveloped when the game launched, and when they did get somewhere, they implemented the BG system, which was pretty cautious (and similar to the lower-level PvP systems of other games). Then in TBC and WotLK they experimented very lightly with these systems. You could sorta-kinda "take over" some zones in TBC, but all it did was give a bonus, except in Nagrand, where you controlled a small town, IIRC, and in WotLK they had Lake Wintergrasp, for open-world PvP with siege stuff, but it was pretty limited and linear. Then they sort of gave up, and whilst they had the odd PvP-related system or area in most (all?) expansions since, they never went back to that idea. I think it's probably too late now. It doesn't really work with the level treadmill anyway, because each expansion you'd change the zones you were fighting over. They should probably have implemented a couple of "frontier" areas like Dark Age of Camelot's frontier (one on each continent), which did seem to something they were thinking about, but oh well.

- - - Updated - - -



I think this is a bit misleading. When WoW was being developed, PvP was represented as a priority and important, and initially, PvP-enabled realms were significantly more popular than PvE-only ones (I think this has since changed).

WoW released without much in the way of PvP systems, but they planned significant ones, as you can see in the original manual and if you were on the forums around then this got discussed a lot. The BG system they eventually implemented was a sort of "stop-gap", not intended to be the "final form" of WoW PvP. We were promised sieges, capturing zones, and so on.

But like the Boyfriend meme, WoW's head turned from a game supporting both PvE and PvP strongly and as part of the world, to a game which was primarily PvE, and had PvP as this entirely optional and entirely instanced activity. A lot of this comes down to Tom Chilton, who was in charge of PvP. He was extremely keen on the idea of "fair" PvP, and eSports (even before that was really a thing), and world-PvP is inherently never entirely fair and certainly not an eSport. So he brought in BGs, which people saw as a stopgap for PvP, and then Arenas, which had a mixed reception - I was for them at the time, because the PvP in them was intense and skillful and WoW's PvP worked really well in small group combat (or 1v1 or 1v2 or the like).

Which is another point. WoW's skill design was bad for mass-PvP. To work well with mass-PvP, you need a certain design of skills, which means stuff that's simple, doesn't interact in a complex way with enemies, and doesn't bog stuff down. You also need solid multi-target CC and so on (this is shown by various games, but particularly Dark Age of Camelot). WoW's combat just sort of devolved into a grey paste when enough people were in a fight. Not only did it get laggy AF, but all your precise, cool, move-countermove abilities became largely meaningless. So the designers wanted mass-PvP, but they didn't think about that when designing skills (and it's clear this was an error, because even in say Alterac Valley this "grey paste" effect happened).

Anyway, Blizzard didn't give up straight away. They did try to make most of their ideas work in the small scale, and kept trying different things, but none of it really stuck, and PvE stayed popular and what WoW was known for, and something it was clearly better at than other games (which was not the case with PvP when more than about 6 people were involved, 7-10 it's good but other games were as good - Warhammer Online, for example, 11+ WoW was pretty bad - I mean directly involved in a single combat not just "in the battleground" here), so PvE eventually won out in a more solid way.

Yes, I was thinking something like DAoC and WAR had.

[Tyze]

No i got to do pvp in warcraft!!1

[Varvara Spiros Gelashvili]

Since Raids in SL drop higher lvl loot, doesn't that mean PvP'ers will be forced to do PvE content?

Yes and that is bullshit as well. They should increase pvp items level while pvping... It's a Band-Aid but helps alleviate a problem.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh my god, what will people do in a boss fight when they don't do 10% more damage against frozen enemies (which most bosses can't be) or Chainheal/lighting making the other instant...
Barely any of the effect could even see any real uses over the "proper" PvE legendaries, as they're usually about CC or other utilities you don't have in PvE

It's still dumb a complaint that should be addressed. This is why wow loses player. Blizzard need to see bad design and wage war against it rather than letting bad choices slide constantly.

[Queen of Hamsters]

Since I have actual free will and autonomy, I can say I'm not being forced into anything. Next!