/v/ - Video Games

It's a pretty nice concept barely explored, but it isn't new. Competitive faggots would probably bitch about it.

>>13886173

Socom has been dead for over half a decade anon. Design trends dont follow dead games.

This has been around in video games for a long time

Even WoW had Battlegrounds.

That used to be common back when MP was handled as just adding multiple players to single player maps. Gradually evolved into a PvP/co-op split, then co-op got thrown out when consoles became a thing and the children couldn't work together.

>>13886192

>That used to be common back when MP was handled as just adding multiple players to single player maps

What the fuck are you talking about?

>>13886207

Hello '90s kid who wasn't around for the dawn of FPS.

>>13886234

A '90s kid wouldn't have been, at best, 2-3 years old at that time.

>>13886246

err would.

>>13886212

>>13886246

I don't think you understand what "90's kid" means. You probably think millennials are those born at the turn of the millennium too.

>>13886147

>Is it just insurance for failed player retention so matches still seem packed?

In the case of Halo, no it is not. Enemy AI aside from the 2 or 3 marines in each base, spawn in farther away areas usually. Meaning you have to go out of your way to kill them as they are easily avoided most of the time. The conflict there is mostly still PvP as you try to kill the other team before they kill the weak NPC boss characters. NPCs in that sense are a background prop of the PvP.

Titanfall comes closer to the PvPvE but even then the PvE part feels weak due to the very minimal threat that comes from grunts and such so the focus is still PvP. The way I've seen it implemented in most games has been ultimately disappointing as they usually gimp the AI too much compared to the strength of the player. So instead of being PvPvE it feels more like PvP and a small e thrown in. It could be an interesting bit if done well, but devs don't seem capable of that.

Shit though it's sure to be, the new Sword Art Online game will feature PvP modes where two teams of players compete to see which team can do the most damage to a boss enemy. You can't do damage if you're dead and waiting on a respawn timer, so killing opposing team members is one of the ways of limiting how much damage they can do.

>PVP with ai from a 3rd type of force attacking both or pvp where players are competing to take down pvp enemies and they can kill each other to stop the other team gaining any foothold on 1st place rank.

Dota already exists, OP. :^)

The Division does PvEvP decently well, unlike everything else in the game. The game has a Dark Zone area, where stronger NPCs spawn, and drop a lot of good loot, but players can show up, kill you, and steal your loot. The NPCs themselves are a pretty big threat, so it's not like it's a PVP zone with set-dressing NPCs. There's also a bounty system, where if a player kills too many carebears, he becomes a juicy target and gives you a good amount of money and XP if you kill him and all of that. It's seriously the only non-shit part of that game.

>>13886183

>Even WoW had Battlegrounds.

I remember this.

Alterac Valley had bosses for certain capture points and bunkers. It also has a cave of kobolds you could clear- I don't even remember the incentive and reward for doing that. I only remember my premade sending me and a few others to clear it out this one time.

>>13886500

Didn't they end up killing Alterac Valley in Cata or latter? I cannot remember what they did to it but they fucked it up.

>>13886531

Originally, AV matches could last hours or even days because the only way to win was to defeat the opposing commander at the far end of the valley. It was possible to join a match, play for hours, log off, then come back the next day and join the exact same match.

In BC, Blizzard implemented reinforcements that would dwindle as teams lost towers and players died, and if reinforcements hit zero, your team would lose. Thus, AV got faster and faster to complete, and eventually the strategy was just to zerg rush the opposing base and hope that the few players left behind at each tower could defend long enough to capture them and let you down the end boss. It's been that way ever since, so most of the PVE mechanics like summoning air support or literal raid bosses to fight for you are basically impossible to ever see in a match. Hell, there's even an achievement to win in under six minutes, which really isn't possible to acquire anymore due to gearing changes. But still, goes to show just how much it had changed over time.

Also AV has always been Alliance-biased anyway, so Horde players often blacklist it from their random BG map pool. Many examples of why it's biased, but one in particular: Horde players going into the Alliance base are funneled through a small canyon without much chance to spread out, with a deep valley over to the side they can be knocked into and killed with fall damage. They then have to cross a bridge that they can also be knocked off of into the valley below. In contrast, Alliance players can spread out more en route to the Horde base, and there was even a shortcut they could take where they could literally jump over the Horde's wall due to advantageous terrain. The shortcut was fixed literally four expansions later, but by now so few Horde players bother with the battleground that those that do play it don't know how to win.

>>13886639

I loved mind controlling alliance players into their deaths as a priest, so I didn't mind the bridge too much.

>>13886639

>>13886531

The changes to the pvp system were the main cause of the death of AV. Back with the old Honor system, pvp rewards were given to players who were able get a high number of pvp kills, therefore the best way to get pvp rewards was to actually pvp. So AV usually resulted in a massive battle in the center of the map with people farming resources to summon the boss mob. Those massive, drawn out battles resulted in people getting higher numbers of kills than most other battlegrounds would ever achieve.

Blizzard changed the pvp rewards system where "Honor" was a currency gathered from pvp and battlegrounds. Winners of a battleground match got a big bonus to honor, and it became more efficient to just end the match as quick as possible to get more rewards. People began to hate AV because it takes too long to end. Even with the base trading rush technique, people would much rather do Warsong Gulch since you could get twice as much honor from 2 quick WG matches than 1 AV. The reinforcement count wasn't nearly as damaging to AV as the death of the old honor system. AV isn't AV without it, it's just a frustrating waste of time.

>>13886639

Damn that bridge is really triggering some old memories. I remember a premade match where the Alliance was turtled at the end of the bridge and we couldn't get through for a long time. The raid leader told like 20 of us to stop brawling, mount up and charge across the bridge.

That moment literally earned a thread on the server forums.

>>13886729

They tried to bring something like AV back with Ashran, but (speaking as someone who never got to play the old-style AV) it just felt kind of hollow. It was mostly just a tug-of-war match in the middle, with a couple side objectives you could do for some bonuses. Still, it's basically continuous so you can go in and play as long as you want. I just got bored with it pretty quickly.

Wonder if the old-style AV will return when they release the official Classic servers.