[Implementation Feedback] RvR design

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

Moderators: Balance Forum Mod, Developer, Management, Game Master, Community Manager, Moderator, Web Developer

User avatar
blaqwar
Posts: 471

Re: RvR design

Post#101 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:41 pm

Thank you for the insight, good to hear that some of the issues can be resolved at least while I have always realised that some of the problems revolving around large-scale combat are simple physical constraints and at some point throwing more tech at the issue does nothing to resolve it (Mythic's failure is a case in point). I guess I was just hoping that some workarounds/streamlining of the code could be done that Mythic simply didn't think of, but that's a bit of a stretch.

On the FPS issue, people seem to be complaining about low FPS a lot and I simply don't see how or why (this was happening on retail servers as well). It seems that it's a misnomer as yesterday in the thick of it there was an eye of the storm moment when I was close to the very frontline and everything slowed down. People started rubber-banding to the point of everything standing still and abilities wouldn't fire at all and I'd get stuck in animations. My FPS however was fine. I'm running graphics on a CPU (Skylake i7, granted settings are on the lower end) and my FPS wasn't the limiting factor. Sure it dropped but the actual frames displayed by my system and the client weren't unplayable (20 FPS or so). What made it unplayable was the unresponsiveness, players freezing and the rubberbanding, which are all server-side effects of straining the calculations/communication.

It seems that players have big difficulties differentiating between client issues, such as FPS dropping and stuttering and server issues that manifest itself as rubberbanding, unresponsiveness and animation/locality issues. Hence you'll see cries of "muh FPS" when the actual issue is the client appearing to slow down due to communication issues with the server.

As soon as I get my GPU I'll try to illustrate this with a video from the thick of it.

Edit: @The post above: In my experience the collision calculation area is what affects how server-intensive it gets, and that seems to be much bigger than a single room, I'd argue it's at least a keep-wide area.

Ads
User avatar
Marsares
Posts: 364

Re: RvR design

Post#102 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:55 pm

blaqwar wrote:It seems that players have big difficulties differentiating between client issues, such as FPS dropping and stuttering and server issues that manifest itself as rubberbanding, unresponsiveness and animation/locality issues. Hence you'll see cries of "muh FPS" when the actual issue is the client appearing to slow down due to communication issues with the server.
I concur.

FPS wasn't so much the issue during last night's event. Sure, it drop to 20-30 but things were moving and it wasn't a slide-show as sometimes during live. What was the killer was the unresponsiveness with 1-5s skills delays.
Karak-Norn /// Asildur - RR100 WL /// Marsares - RR95 AM /// Nirnaeth - RR64 SW

User avatar
merkin
Posts: 231
Contact:

Re: RvR design

Post#103 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:30 pm

Thanks to those who organized and hosted event. You're all amazing.
i played a bw and wp on volkmar

User avatar
Theseus
Posts: 519

Re: RvR design

Post#104 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 7:35 pm

Aurandilaz wrote:In hindsight dividing the t4 warfare into several zones might have helped alleviate the issue of freezing lags, back on live.

Heck, even keep sieges might become more tolerable once you divide the objects; I suggested in some other thread the idea of having 6 flags to capture (all guarded by strong mobs), 3 inside the keep on various floors and the rest divided on outer wall - the Keep Boss might still guard the last flag.
The idea being that instead of everyone rushing to one laggy room, people need to divide themselves to accomplish different objectives, hopefully resulting in less lag and more enjoyable playing.
I am not completely sure.... but it sounds as if that wouldnt help, as the lack is created when to many people are in one map.... it doesnt matter where on the map. But other than that i sounds like a nice concept.... hold the key positions of a keep to cature it.
Andyrion Ulthenair
Arphyrion Soulblade

navis
Posts: 656

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#105 » Mon Jan 09, 2017 3:12 am

There's a lot of feedback here, and a lot of different ideas but I think the best changes is just going to be more tweaks to BO's an such so that RvR is more interesting - give things like a 'tick' just for holding all BO's where enemies are also fighting

I like to think that for zerg's - if players are at least zerg'ing to BO's then the design is more than half way there.

I think the rewards near BO when they are active or being re-claimed need to be increased to draw players more to them - like a PQ that contributes to rewards and the other things going on in the zone.

As far as population limits for players in close proximity.. I'd like to think that increase of active player base (knowing that PvP could be found more commonly) would learn to play in a more relaxed manner, play sc, play earlier tiers... Players playing "frantically" during peak hours are likely doing so because they are trying to keep a keep bag (so badly)..

Feedback for Keep Lords - I think it would be good idea to try effects from NPC's to give player power items and such.. Increased DPS + increased Heals, auras.. The AI 'reset' because a WB can't tank mob's properly is frustrating - better to be out-witted by other players, if possible.

update: my thoughts on some of the subject discussed here

Order being terrible not willing to act aggressive - I agree - mainly because they typically not enough heals/too PUG/too squishy etc. Trust me, we wanted to be more aggressive because I personally love the Keep fights (both def and offensive) but the situation made it too hard for that small enough warband to start sieges - and fair enough - it was a good move. If any realm cannot assemble a strong enough force they should not engage Keeps and stay to BO's n scenarios.

The change to RvR that makes only 1 zone able to be taken at a time - this impacted the community negatively (reasons coming..) and ultimately exacerbates the problem of 'funneling' and realm imbalances - while simultaneously making team work or solo work less desirable.
- Liberty lost to players
- Players forced into one zone
- New elements point players back from RvR to Keep funnel - where they should result in more sustainable RvR gameplay (without Keeps).

With my solution I believe the best of all RvR gameplay types can be melded together with a formula roughly of:

-Resource Delivery as a optional element so as not to emphasize Keep takes

- Zone capture returned to incorporate BO's

- End zone requires capturing two Keeps once again! The reason for this is this gameplay reduces the need for players to focus solely on Keep capture. This alleviates many issues surrounding:
  • Funneling (combat balance breaks down)
    Performance in close proximity and in vicinity of Keep structures
    Imbalanced Realms (makes invading harder due to the need to take a keep right-away

User avatar
th3gatekeeper
Posts: 952

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#106 » Mon May 22, 2017 3:24 pm

I am writing this, hoping that we can have an honest discussion around the RVR issues....

PROBLEM 1) CONTRIBUTION GAIN
The issue I have with this is the priority of 6 mans > warbands as well as contribution being too limited in its reward "area". For example, if you have a warband, only the party that turns in supplies gets credit - not the entire warband. Also, when you capture a BO, only the players in the area get credit - not the warband. These things promote zergs as well as 6 man groups NOT wanting to be in warbands. EVERYTIME I have been in RVR lakes, I see several 6 man parties refusing to group - because of contribution, medallions, and the desire to Que for SCs.

This ultimately HURTS the RVR experience and causes a lack of desire for MANY players to RVR....

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.... Which brings me to my next point....

IMPORTANT: If possible, you should only get credit for things your warband does, if you are in the RVR lake. So you cant sit in spawn, outside the RVR lake, and rack up contribution from your warband. (BTW this is also avoided by a warband leader monitoring the parties and players and booting people that do this).

PROBLEM 2) CONTRIBUTION BONUS TO ROLL
I believe this is a perception issue, as well as creating a negative attitude and feeling towards RVR. First, its a matter of fact that some people are better at "gaming the system". It also creates "lack of desire" to join RVR, if its mid-way through or there is a large group in RVR because you know you wont get high contribution if there is already a warband in RVR... This DISCOURAGES RVR, which isnt something we want...

If a player logs in, and sees that Destro is on the Keep Lord, that player should have a STRONG desire to help. Right now, I can confidently say that is NOT the case. The primary reason? contribution to roll bonus... If you are the #1 guy, you get a MASSIVE advantage over some guy who comes in an hour late, who only gets +50... I fully admit, you need to reward the guys who have been there for a long time, but at the same time, you dont want to discourage a new player from joining, thats what builds momentum.

Another issue with the current system, is even within a party, or within a warband, you still have this feeling of "competition" because the roll bonus between the #1 guy and the #6 guy is a LARGE bonus... Its almost impossible (statistically) to come in 15th or higher, and end up with a Gold bag....

The final issue with this, is the "perception/feeling" of getting a high rank (like 1st) and then getting either NOTHING or a crappy bag... You feel "robbed" in a way... Sure its RNG, I am not saying remove that... what I am saying is that perception creates a negative feeling after completing RVR, rather than a positive one... Feeling like you earned a good reward because you stuck it out for hours and ended up with nothing or a crap bag...


SOLUTION 2)
I think contribution bonus to roll should be spread out and evened out more. As an EXAMPLE, here is what I think would work really well:
Spoiler:
1-6th place: +500
7-13th place: +300
14th - 20th place: +100
21st+: +50
Im not committed to these exact #s but they are merely an example. What this does is encourage and treats an entire group the same. So how this solves the above issues is, no 1 person gets 1st place or atleast "1st place bonus" So now youll have SIX people all getting the same "1st place bonus". Why this is key, is it encourages coordination but it ALSO lessens the feeling of "I got 1st and didnt get anything" since now you might get 1st but 5 other people got the same bonus... So in a sense you all got "1st". So it seems more "fair" when you dont win.

Also, the bonus to roll isnt THAT significant where the 1st place over the 10th place person cant be overcome via RNG. So even if you join late, you have a fair "opportunity" to win something cool - which encourages people to go to RVR even when its mid-way.

This will encourage more and more people to RVR. and STILL has a LARGE RNG function, but rewards those players who have been there for a long time.
Spoiler:
(I recall a time where I spent nearly 3-4 hours in a zone, but ended up with ~8th contribution in a warband. I felt robbed because I was there from the start, but wasnt in the group running supplies, I was doing my job in taking and defending BOs, but the roll contribution 1st and 2nd place got over me was massive and highly improbable I could overcome that with RNG....)
In this system, its a mere 200 point difference. Its evenly rewarding players who have been there for a while, in the warband, I think in a system like this, over time, makes players feel more rewarded for doing RVR. Especially since you dont feel your "only chance of winning something good is if you are there from the start". Its still largely RNG, but it "feels" more fair for all parties involved.


PROBLEM 3) THE CURRENT BO GAME
Ill try and sum this up. I think the above changes would help fix SOME of the BO system currently (such as contribution spread warband wide). Lock timers on BOs encourage zerging. You hit a BO hard, flip it, get contribution and dont bother to stick around defending it. Likely because its unlikely itll get hit if you just zerged it, but you also (according to "bro-science) dont get much contribution for defending the BO. So its better to zerg a BO, leave it, zerg another BO, etc. etc. Especially when you zerg it, and have a LONG lock timer, its better to just zerg around flipping BOs - which seems the OPPOSITE of what we should be rewarding. We shouldnt be rewarding the mere "attack" of a BO, but the DEFENSE and HOLDING BOs.

Also the BO game doesnt feel very FUN. People hate sitting around for lock timers. With lock timers, only 1 or 2 BOs are usually "open" at a time, which pigeon holes players into doing limited things - also encouraging the zerg. We need a much more dynamic and exiting/FUN system of BO captures. Right now youll hit a BO, it gets a few minute lock timer so you either sit and wait (boring) or you leave to hit another BO (less boring but not what we should encourage IMO) OR say you run up to a BO thats owned and its got 2:00 lock left, so now your sitting around for 2:00 to attack it (boring) and then waiting a few minutes for it to lock (boring).... Its all very BORING....

SOLUTION 3) I think this would be a much more fun system for BOs without changing the game much. The "resource" countdown should be increased from 2:00 to~5:00 or 6:00 and contribution should be awarded when that countdown hits 0:00, NOTHING should be awarded for merely attacking a BO. In order to get renown/influence/contribution you need to own that BO when the timer ticks to 0:00. This promotes defense! Also warband wide, it promotes splitting up parties to be at multiple BOs to have the entire warband get benefit from all BOs at once! (Note: you would obviously have to adjust the % to lock numbers to correspond with the increase timer) So no more contribution for merely capping a BO. You get contribution (warband wide mind you) for capping it and owning it when that timer hits 0:00. This is when it can "pay out" influence/renown and contribution. What this does, is makes capping BOs a much more dynamic game. I havnt decided if lock timers should still be a thing or not. If they are, the lock timers should be limited to like 2:00. So it still allows someone who lost a BO right at the beginning of the 5:00 or 6:00 mark to have a chance to post an attack on that BO for the "tick" at 0:00. What it does though, is once you hit the 2:00 mark, it becomes critical to hold BOs, because if someone caps one and locks it, there is no hope of getting it back due to lock timer. With this, you do need a "contested period" So I would suggest something like 2:00 contested period with a 2:00 lock timer. So (again) something capped at the BEGINNING of these "rounds" could still be fought for during the round. What this does mean though is if you cap this with 3:00 left and hold it to 1:00 left, youll get the "tick" at 0:00 due to the 2:00 lock.

If we remove the lock timer (what I would love to try FIRST) I would encourage the BOs change to a more "Nordenwatch" style BO cap if possible. Where you merely need to stand around it, without an enemy (player or NPC) and it will go from enemy owned to neutral, to owned by your faction. I think a system where it takes 10 seconds to become "unowned" followed by another 20 seconds of "contested" for a total of about 30 seconds would be fair. This creates very dynamic play. Because of no lock timers, all 4 BOs will be active almost the entire time. Itll split up zergs and warbands. Due to it not rewarding unless owned AT the 0:00 mark, it creates "timing" aspects to capping. You might see that timer at 4:00 and decide to not flip a BO until its closer to 2:00 to give the enemy less time to react.

You might even see more WE/WH "scout" roles as well, because of the "timing" aspect of flipping BOs. This also removes the "waiting game" that is very boring.

I think this would be much more FUN way to play BOs and due to the above solutions as well, get more people involves in RVR.
This makes BO captures more meaningful (as of right now they arent as meaningful). I think this would GREATLY increase the fun of RVR and rewards coordination over zerging BOs. Almost creating "mini rounds" within RVR. YOu "hold out" and hold 3 of the 4 BOs, get a big fatty reward (renown/contribution/influence + lock %) and can feel like "phew" that was hard but it paid off big! Versus right now, you can largely ignore the 2:00 ticker... and its just all a boring feeling unless there are players to kill.

This also allows smaller forces to post defenses if a warband isnt defending, since they can wait till the timer is low (:30) and just flip a BO right at the end of the 5-6:00 mark. So it creates something for all players. It helps the "outnumbered" side, by allowing THEM to pick which BO to attack and when.


I have more, but at this point, I think these are big enough changes where I would love to see this happen first, before addressing any other concerns.

DISCUSS! :)
Sulfuras - Knight
Viskag - Chosen
Ashkandi - Swordmaster
Syzzle - Bright Wizard
Curz - Marauder
Andrithil - Blackguard

User avatar
xyeppp
Former Staff
Posts: 808

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#107 » Mon May 22, 2017 4:49 pm

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.
Github / Stack in-game

Never assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding.

User avatar
th3gatekeeper
Posts: 952

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#108 » Mon May 22, 2017 5:50 pm

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.
Cheers! I appreciate this. Ive heard "through the grape vine" something was coming (hint: its not winter) and just hadnt heard since... Ill patiently wait and see :) I really hope this "system" takes a step back and asks the question "what behaviour do we want to see in RVR" and then seeks to reward that.

So if you want to reward warband play... the currently system actually discourages it... If you want to reward a losing force putting up a defense and not just "letting them lock so we get bags" then you need to reward defending!

Things like that. People will do, what you reward them to do.

I book I would recommend to anyone is called "how to win friends and influence people" one of the best books for personal growth. Chapter 3 talks about "there is only ONE way to make anyone do anything" The key: They have to WANT to do it.

You can force them by putting a gun to their head, or you can get them to want to do it themselves. One is MUCH more motivating than the other.

By trying to "force" people to do things, you get the behavior you want immediately, but it doesnt last.

If you design a system that encourages people to play, by giving a reason, this lasts much longer... So that would be my only suggestion: design a system that encourages people to play the way you would like them to. Dont try and "force" things, as its usually doesnt work long term :)

Im excited to test these changes! Ill dust off some T1 characters for the test!
Sulfuras - Knight
Viskag - Chosen
Ashkandi - Swordmaster
Syzzle - Bright Wizard
Curz - Marauder
Andrithil - Blackguard

Ads
User avatar
CegeePegee
Former Staff
Posts: 283

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#109 » Mon May 22, 2017 8:48 pm

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.

Dabbart
Posts: 1965

Re: [Implementation Feedback] RvR design

Post#110 » Mon May 22, 2017 8:52 pm

Hooray for Logic!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests