Recent Topics

Ads

[Implementation Feedback] RvR design

After feedback has reached it's viable limit, it will retire here to keep the main section clean and tidy.
DeaDL0cK
Posts: 19

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#121 » Tue May 23, 2017 12:28 am

Spoiler:
The thing is that you must ask yourselfs why 6 mans or solo players dont join wbs.Wbs come in two forms,Pug wb with randoms and ally wbs.Ally wbs are having players that use voice chat and work all for the campaign game.Each of their ally wb player is there for a reason and most of the time you know that they will use their abilities,morales,detaunts,heal spells,dmg spells etc.In other hand there are pug wbs.Pug wbs having random guys that large majority of them dont have clue about how to play their class or to contibute to an rvr fight.Sometimes pug wbs provide a goal for the players in rvr if the pug leader is knowing the mechanics and strategy of how the campaign works.Again the problem with RVR will be the players mentality.When you are 1or2 or 6 untill 24 people in real life this adds in strength.It suppose to work here as well but right now 6man are more powerfull vs random wbs and have some possibilities in taking kills and survive vs ally organize wbs.(that is not bad)Wbs are also 4groups of 6 mans and people forget that.In rvr this provide and advantage x4 in strength.
So now that we look how powerfull a wb must be in theory we see in practise that is not close to that at all.This is happening because many people are rushing to t4 without earning the experience of how the game campaign works.Should be working like live:a) T1 rvr getting to know with zone changing and objectives.
b)T2 you earn the experience of sieging a keep and the use of siege equipments .tacticks of what bo are crusial to cap and when.
c)T3 Experience fight in larger map and terrain, 2 door keeps with new tacks of foothold after you get 1st door down,postern strategy etc
d)T4 After you took t1,t2,t3 experience in rvr campaign and mechanics, t4 provides larger map that holds more people online.Because is not implement but dont forget t4 keep sieging was a part of large campaign to locking eact tier, to attack every fortress in every tier that was bigger than t4 keeps.And after taking fortresses then the opponent city was open and that was other playstyle strategies and tacticks.
To ask for better contribution to make people join wbs that is not helping the learning curve of the game.People must join wbs because that is the strength and organization of having 24 people.But now wbs are not provide anything like that instead you get more cordination in 6 man groups than in random wbs.You join a random pug wb and you feel that i have better chances in solo than with these guys.This is not supppose to feel like that.Again i will mention a wb is 4 x 6man and as the game it is only organize wbs are close to that.So when we talking about RvR design implementation we must forget about talking for Pug wbs and take feedback from organize wbs that use the full potential of the term.As the RVR it is now T4 is not fully oppened (fortress,city) to have a macro goal.Joining a wb in live was primary for the campaign lock not for any contribution for keep gold bags and right now this goal is not existing.(we wait for implementation in near future ofcourse)
Please, edit your post with structure, a wall of text with no spacing is impossible to read.
Gerv.

Ads
dansari
Posts: 2524

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#122 » Tue May 23, 2017 1:36 am

One of the goals here is to allow warbands to feel like they contributed to a zone flip, whereas at the moment it seems most times the people at the top of the contribution list are the top 6man groups on either side. This doesn't mean that versatile 6mans who can move around the zone quickly don't have their place; it's simply balancing out the imbalance most would argue exists. The organization that thrives in this is something like phalanx, with a capable leader like haojun, moving his groups around the map like a general or bringing them together when necessary. That's the kind of play that should be encouraged instead of semi-mindless zerging.
<Salt Factory>

User avatar
Tesq
Posts: 5704

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#123 » Thu May 25, 2017 11:43 pm

Spoiler:
What lack the game is any form encouragenent to stay in an active guild/ally; dosent really matter what rvr system get implemented

There is no difference right know between be out or in guild/ally and of course there is no competition in the realm to get inside a good one.
Because there is no profit. Profit only came from comunication right know but is not mandatory be part of a guild/ally for that. Things as banner for exemple made the difference between guild and guild. That's not a call for banners but for similar stuff. Guilds with high level had privileges in live such acces to npc with higher craft material and it was easy for bigger guild keep ppl interested as they had dedicated crafters and they could simpky ler ppl play.
The change to talisman for exemple make extremly hard for few ppl keep up the guild talisman craft.
Instead improved the life of talisman crafters you made it worst. In live i could craft what i wanted with not much problem and had still some issue grind armor talismas... here is a bane do all these activity.
Craft any resistences purple talismans is a mess.
Some classes need 1-2 of these. With the nerf to salvage this is even worst.
This does not contribute to the discussion of RvR systems and its functionality on the server, stay on topic.
Gerv.
Image

Wittygamertag
Posts: 30

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#124 » Fri May 26, 2017 2:17 am

Spoiler:
I wil try to keep it breif. Skip to the last paragraph if you dont want to read it all.

I am completely against "zerging" it lacks any organisation, skill, grp composition, tactics, communication, synergy and makes my soul die.

Why do people zerg? because of the incentives. Firstly the incentive of getting kills and rr which may be of very limited gain while not in the zerg if the player is , low lvl, new to the game, is very casual or is unable to get in a good grp.

However the game is so much more incredibly rewarding in both in-game rewards and enjoyment wise when you are in a good 6 or 12 man and that is what I believe is what the devs are striving for.

I play a Kotbs named Louie and got to the point where I felt almost ashamed of what was happening.
I played in organised 6 man grps 99% of the time however more often than not I was finding when we engaged in a good fight against same or even slightly more numbers inevitably the "zerg" would come in like a wave and just wipe over everything.

So, In contrast to this experience I recently decided to roll a shammy and spec him for solo, duo or 6 man rvr.
What took me 2.5 years to achieve on my Kotbs has taken me 2-3 months to achieve on my Shammy so far as gear and rr, as destro are always the underdog and often have aao.

The conq gear grind is slow and I like that but there is a way around that and I think it should change.
Last night (just as an experiment) i joined a pug wb in DW, within 2 hours I had completed both conq quests " Secure TM" x8 medals and the DW quest cant remember the name x4 medals plus the 3-4 you get lucky on rolls. So a total of 15

To get the same amount of medals in our very good 6 man grp takes literally Days, ( not every player drops conq and the ones that do have to be shared amongst 6).
To achieve this we used voice comms, most of us have 8+ years of experience, grp tactics, strategy etc etc
Don't need the back story.
Gerv.

Here is my point, currently a player in a zerg achieves more medals in the same amount of play time than a non zerging 6 or 12 man grp would and that's the incentive when most are focused on gearing up.

navis
Posts: 783

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#125 » Sun May 28, 2017 5:46 pm

th3gatekeeper wrote:
SOLUTION 1) I would LOVE to see contribution spread amongst the warband and NOT being divided up (not sure if it does or not). this may require some tweaking of the actual #s, or maybe not since its all relative... But as an example, if 2 parties in a warband capture a BO, and the other 2 parties in a warband defend a different BO, the ENTIRE warband should get contribution for the warband's efforts and ALL parties should be rewarded contribution for the defense as well as the capture.

Same with supplies, if 1 person in the warband turns in supplies, the ENTIRE warband should get credit for supplies. This PROMOTES warband play - which is what RVR is all about. It ALSO promotes "splitting up" and accomplishing more than 1 task at a time, since you dont have to be local to get credit. This splits up zergs and rather than having 1 solo guy run supplies all day, its going to encourage that guy to join a warband and run supplies because he will also get credit for everything else the warband does, as well as the warband gets credit for what he does.

This will discourage the 6 man mentality in RVR, however you MIGHT still see 6 mans INSIDE warbands, but it will still encourage warbands > 6 man groups. It ALSO discourages queing for SCs in the middle of RVR which IMO is a huge plus.

It ALSO, removes the feeling of "fighting your own warband" for contribution. The current system is extremely selfish where your stealing supplies from your own warband so YOUR party gets contribution. Also, you are hoping to cap BOs before the rest of your warband gets there... just so you and your party get the most contribution.... all because of the contribution bonus to rolls....
My solution for this is slightly different and I think would be less work and won't need complex work done with the warband system. Offer more viable reward buffs multiplier during certain phases of Battlefield Objective stages, or Keeps. This way doesn't hurt solo players as much and instead focus again on Realm accomplishments (objectives), for rewards.


--
xyeppp wrote:
th3gatekeeper wrote:WALL OF TEXT
I'm afraid you just have to wait and see, because an RvR design rework is already laid out in place and being worked on.
We will start by changing the T1 Dark Elf pairing to accommodate the new system, and expand it from there given the testing phase succeeds.

Stay tuned.
Wow, awesome news!
Image

Musax
Posts: 21

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#126 » Tue May 30, 2017 1:15 pm

Spoiler:
th3gatekeeper wrote:
CegeePegee wrote:keep in mind that the resource turn in requires the group members to all be present to get credit. Now imagine if the entire wb got credit, THAT would encourage zerging, would it not? Picture an entire wb escorting supplies, during EU hours you can call that 4 wbs escorting a supply each. As it is people seem to really hate zerg-encouraging mechanics and that change would make worse.
Maybe I wasnt clear. Sorry! Dansari is correct below:
dansari wrote:Gate's idea is to change that so that the entire warband gets credit, no matter where they are in the zone, if I'm not mistaken. This encourages splitting so that one group can escort supplies while another two take a BO and a fourth guards another BO, for example.
Yes, the idea is that anyone in the warband gets credit "RVR Lake WIDE" so this encourages people doing multiple things at once - so quite the opposite from the zerg.

Party A might be running supplies.
Party B and C might be attacking a BO
Party D might be roaming the zone/defending a BO.

The ENTIRE warband would get credit for:
- A's Supplies
- B&C's attack on the BO
- D's defense of a BO

So it encourages warband play while encouraging to NOT zerg - to get the most rewards/contribution.

This discourages 6 man parties because they can only do 1 "job" at a time where a warband can do several... If the warband zergs... it would be REALLY stupid because you wouldnt NEED to be local to get credit... So there is no reason to zerg.

Right now, people zerg because of the "local" requirement for BOs and supplies. It becomes less about "how am I going to get contribution" and more about "what can our warband do to get more contribution/win".

Is that more clear? :)
xanderous wrote:Can you imagine if the leader could turn on an option so players get auto kicked from the warband if they go 300 feet outside of leaders radius :D
On the current RVR system, this would be ENCOURAGED - because everything requires you to be local....

On my proposal - this would be a STUPID thing for a WB leader to do, because he would be giving up free contribution for anything his warband did inside the RVR lake - regardless of where he was in the lake...

So if he had 4 parties all running supplies, he would get credit for all 4 turn ins....


Imo, there is a huge flaw in this system, which will make it just a hassle and not change much.
It seems like there is just some hate against organized 6mans getting contribution while you feel like the random warbandzerg is doing more than them. Regardless of that being the case or not (as that is a huuuuuge offtopic discussion), no system should encourage people to form groups, and then spread out.

1. An unorganised warband with random-setup will not spread out because they would just get killed and then flock together again. That guy solo running supplies maybe even leaves so he doesn't have to share his contribution, lessening information about the supplier carrier and his status in the WB. If the casual random-zerger would be able to run in one grp and secure a battle for himself on the other side of the map, then he wouldn't be a casual random-zerger.

2. Multiple WBs that want to defend mulitple positions should not be incentived into sending grp1and2 from both WBs to X and having group3+4 from both WBs at Y. Why should that be more rewarding than just having WB1 move to X and WB2 stay at Y?
It encourages to play less organized...why would that be a good thing?

3. Do you really think such a solution would make the presets join into the random WBs? Nope, not happening. They will flock to each other and will be playing the system far better than any random-WB could ever do. Now pooling their effort it will be much easier for these group-WBs to now top all slots in the contribution because they are averaging their efforts accross the preset-groups while the random-WB is averaging their contribution across all randoms

4. it makes leeching FAR easier. We don't need to implement systems that encourage leeching and AFKing unless there are other HUGE benefits. I don't see any benefit currently.

5. You can already split currently and earn contribution in different parts of the map. 2grps at BO1 / 2grps at BO2. Both BOs are taken. Currently:everyone gets ((BO-contribution)/12). With your system everyone would get ((2*BO-contribution)/24) which is exactly the same. So for succesfull plays nothing changes
Last edited by Musax on Tue May 30, 2017 1:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

freshour
Banned
Posts: 835

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#127 » Tue May 30, 2017 1:29 pm

I know people are going to flame this mostly the people who run in 6 mans - but why not give WB's an RR bonus? Medallion bonus? Order has no problem with WB's, but destro rare if ever makes WB's other than Phalanx usually.

Especially NA time you'll see endless small roam groups, you put "Keep Defense!!!!" in /t4 and you get a full wb in 5 seconds, you do it before that... no one will join because they know they get more of everything in a smaller group.

I can't speak for the order side, but for a lot of people on destro it is very difficult to get into a WB. Unless you roll a meta spec like Rift Magus - any other magus will most likely not get invited. If you are a DPS shammy, most likely not invited. Melee DoK don't even think about it. 2h Chosen after nerf? Yah... maybe if you have a lot of friends.

I think after all the pushing for 6 man groups, destro really doesn't have much WB presence anymore other than 1-2 guilds doing it. We have the people, they are all just spread out in smaller groups.

It always changes though I'm sure destro will zerg eventually like order is now.

Musax
Posts: 21

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#128 » Tue May 30, 2017 1:42 pm

forming huge groups should be done because of the benefit in fighting power...not because of artificial bonusses imo

the problem with casual-PUG-WBs isn't that they get too few rewards for what they do, the problem is that they don't do much 90% of the time

Ads
User avatar
Darosh
Banned
Posts: 1197

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#129 » Wed May 31, 2017 2:02 am

Spoiler:
All things considered its a communication, and with that a mentality; community, issue.
It very likely won't get any better for as long as there is no integrity and everyone plays on his own one way or another.
RvR just doesn't work out if people consider even the members of their own realm to be competitors - loot rolls are to blame as it comes to the system, more or less.

A far bigger problem than the system as such is the mentality of players and the fact that most have been conditioned to strive for their personal gain at all costs, as they deem gear and shinies to be the only thing holding them back from pugfarming themselves - which arguably is not the case.

A majority of progression driven players will bugger off once they notice that their grinded conq gear doesn't carry them and will very likely not consider joining in on attempts to coordinate efforts/groups, as they deem it unreasonable to not be granted the leeway and opportunity to be able to emulate a swiss-knife completly on their own.

As there is no chance in hell of loot rolls being abolished or people being forced with draconian law to band together (with the latter having the potential to horribly backfire):
We probably have already reached a point at which sophisticated commnity development is necessary to ducttape both, the system and the community.
Fixing it with community driven events bringing the people together, to have them establish ties with each other, might ultimately be the last straw...
Once you get to know each other you'll be less inclined to **** each other over because of some shiny pixels - thats the theory at least.

You are essentially looking at 8 subsets of population at the moment:
1.) The run of the mill pugs that will do what ever they think is the easiest, most effortless way of getting shinies; that join pugWBs to hide in and roflstomp with them; that consider coordinated WBs to be no more glorified, mean and arrogant epeen acrobats - which do not contribute to getting their very shinies; that consider 6mans to be no more than glorified, mean and arrogant epeen acrobats - or leeches; that get farmed 24/7 by anything remotely coordinated; that, for the most part, xrealm like mad.
2.) The run of the mill 6man pugs that only group up to get an edge in the loot rolls; that only strive for the shinies aswell and neglect objectives - and with that their realm - if they can do so; that consider pugWBs to be scrubs; that consider coordinated WBs a good opportunity to leech DBs and contribution off - or targets to dodge at all costs and, still, scrubs; that consider proper 6mans to be, again, no more than glorified, mean and arrogant epeen acrobats - and direct competitiors/targets to dodge at all costs; that dodge every remotely challenging fight (pugs included); that recklessly and relentlessly farm pugs and rile them up (and enjoy that very aspect of it the most); that, for the most part, xrealm like mad
3.) The proper coordinated WB (type A) that could not care less about shinies and neglects objectives most of the time - and with that their realm; that considers pugWBs to be scrubs; that considers 6mans to be, again, no more than glorified, mean and arrogant epeen acrobats - and leeches/kiting scrubs; that dodges coordinated WBs at all costs; that recklessly and relentlessly farms pugs and riles them up (and enjoys that very aspect of it the most).
4.) The proper coordinated WB (type B) that occasionally cares about shinies and does play the objectives most of the time; that considers pugWBs to be a mild annoyance; that considers 6mans to be a mild annoyance; that considers coordinated WBs the only target worthwhile.
5.) The proper 6man (type A) that couldnt care less about shinies and neglects objectives - and with that their realm; that considers just about everyone to be a scrub; that relentlessly dodges fights to make sure their epeen remains untouched (k/d); that recklessly and relentlessly farms pugs and riles people up (and enjoys that very aspect of it the most); that does occasionally xrealm.
6.) The proper 6man (type B) that couldnt care less about shinies but does not necessarily neglect objectives; that does only consider the dodgy 6mans to be scrubs; that does not relentlessly dodge fights; that recklessly and relentlessly farms pugs and riles people up (but does not enjoy that aspect at all); that does not xrealm.
7.) The players that play in every format at times, for the fun of fights and occasional shinies - but most of the time have not enough time to invest into the game to stick around for long enough.
8.) The pugs that are so hardcore in their approach to the game that they hit the release button 24/7.

Did I miss something?
How does this relate to the current RvR system and how would you go about making changes to the system to address the community issues?
This is not the place to post text about the subsets of the community, continued off-topic discussion away from the system itself is better placed in a general discussion or suggestions and feedback sub forum, warned.
Gerv.
Last edited by Darosh on Wed May 31, 2017 2:46 am, edited 10 times in total.

KikkL
Banned
Posts: 263

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#130 » Wed May 31, 2017 2:20 am

Spoiler:
We gonna be able to dps door again? Sometimes nothing to do other than stand around..

You fixed siege. But implemented usaged based on supplies, in theory is good.
If siege def was more constant atleast would make us healers/tanks be more usefull if nothing else is happening.
Please provide useful feedback rather than open demands, as per the rules, logical thought out posts with reasoning, with a solution and why it is valid, read the rules, no exceptions next time.
Gerv.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests