Need for a middle tier for rvr
Forum rules
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use
Structured class balance suggestions belong in the Balance Proposal subforum. Class-related discussion in this section are considered as ongoing debates and ARE NOT reviewed for balance changes.
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use
Structured class balance suggestions belong in the Balance Proposal subforum. Class-related discussion in this section are considered as ongoing debates and ARE NOT reviewed for balance changes.
- CountTalabecland
- Posts: 990
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
You can tell how popular T2 is by how many people go there when a fort is open per Hargrim’s comment above. I’ll give you a hint, its practically no one. Midtier=ghost town. Even now way more people show up if a T4 zone is open.
Brynnoth Goldenbeard (40/80) (IB) -- Rundin Fireheart (40/50) (RP) -- Ungrinn (40/40) (Engi)-- Bramm Bloodaxe (40/83) (Slayer) and a few Empire characters here or there, maybe even an elf.
Ads
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
Therefore, wouldn't my suggestion make sense? It gives lower ranked players an alternative and satisfies a niche group of players, but also takes T2 out of the T3/T4 rotation, which nobody of high rank wants to do in the first place. It also should have little to no impact on the T3/T4 map population if it can be implemented as suggested.CountTalabecland wrote: ↑Fri Jun 14, 2019 4:08 pm You can tell how popular T2 is by how many people go there when a fort is open per Hargrim’s comment above. I’ll give you a hint, its practically no one. Midtier=ghost town. Even now way more people show up if a T4 zone is open.
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
Blame It On My ADD Baby...
- CountTalabecland
- Posts: 990
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
Spoiler:
Brynnoth Goldenbeard (40/80) (IB) -- Rundin Fireheart (40/50) (RP) -- Ungrinn (40/40) (Engi)-- Bramm Bloodaxe (40/83) (Slayer) and a few Empire characters here or there, maybe even an elf.
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
All this back and forth is doing no one any good. I continue to state that a poll would be the best way to go forward. Voting is not ideal, but it's the best thing we have (besides needlessly filling up thread pages).
Unfortunately, Hagrim seems to have made up his mind. So the idea of low-levels or sub-par builds playing competitively will have to be put on hold.
Unfortunately, Hagrim seems to have made up his mind. So the idea of low-levels or sub-par builds playing competitively will have to be put on hold.
SW, Kotbs, IB, Slayer, WP, WL, SM, Mara, SH, BG
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
would be better to separate tiers in t1+t2 and t3+t4. Like this T1 is very cancerous and as soona s you hit tier 2 youre a meat bag wandering and leeching t4 areas, which is not the true definition of "having fun"
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
I share Hargrim opinion, and well, there are some facts...
Fact 1 : We already tested it in the past, adding DEBOLSTER to increase this middle tier population, and yes it was ghost land, and when some debolstered were joining the game to articially increase pop, it was a river of tears (cause they were organised > OP).
Fact 2 : Actually the worst part when in T2+ is when you hit lvl 31, meaning officially T4 compatible. There is always a moment where you are the little for some time, and i think the bolster system lift a lot the issue. I guess including lvl 16-39 in the same tier would be funny for some. Less for lvl 16. And i assume they would ask for separating Tier 2 for 16-25 or someting like this at a moment or another.
Fact 3 : Actually, all player between lvl 16 and 30 are crying scenarios are not popping. Why would it be different in ORvR? Probably worse according you need even more ppl than a SC to make it alive. And even worse if multiple areas must be opened in the same time.
Fact 4 : (i tested it) Going from 16 to 30+ takes few hours mixing, ORvR (joining friendly WB), or my guidies, (rare) Scenarios, and (super fast and easy) visit quests. FEW HOURS. And it gives you the possibility to anticipate (in ORvR), your future set, collecting some currencies. Btw, you prefer to play alone when you could join your guildies to play?
Fact 5 : I understand you wanna test things. Keep in mind it may take lot of time to make such changes (and obviously not yours) and it would have lot of involvment you probably don't even think about (but some will obviously complain later).
Fact 6 : The OP suggestion is based on Prime Time pop. What about the NA pop, rolling around 150-300 players? Will it still be viable, according it is already a bit complicated in term of population at this moment. If you don't think about or don't care, we must keep this in mind and take it into consideration.
Fact 7 : Probably the more "disputable". Players asked in the past we open multiple areas to split pop, and well, let them play far from the zerg (lol?). When prime comes, there are atleast 2 opened areas. More often 3. Systematically, everyone in evolving in only 1 area. EVERYONE. Why according you ask for a separation, don't you organize it; inviting all lvl X to XX to move on empty area? Have you even tested it?
Fact 1 : We already tested it in the past, adding DEBOLSTER to increase this middle tier population, and yes it was ghost land, and when some debolstered were joining the game to articially increase pop, it was a river of tears (cause they were organised > OP).
Fact 2 : Actually the worst part when in T2+ is when you hit lvl 31, meaning officially T4 compatible. There is always a moment where you are the little for some time, and i think the bolster system lift a lot the issue. I guess including lvl 16-39 in the same tier would be funny for some. Less for lvl 16. And i assume they would ask for separating Tier 2 for 16-25 or someting like this at a moment or another.
Fact 3 : Actually, all player between lvl 16 and 30 are crying scenarios are not popping. Why would it be different in ORvR? Probably worse according you need even more ppl than a SC to make it alive. And even worse if multiple areas must be opened in the same time.
Fact 4 : (i tested it) Going from 16 to 30+ takes few hours mixing, ORvR (joining friendly WB), or my guidies, (rare) Scenarios, and (super fast and easy) visit quests. FEW HOURS. And it gives you the possibility to anticipate (in ORvR), your future set, collecting some currencies. Btw, you prefer to play alone when you could join your guildies to play?
Fact 5 : I understand you wanna test things. Keep in mind it may take lot of time to make such changes (and obviously not yours) and it would have lot of involvment you probably don't even think about (but some will obviously complain later).
Fact 6 : The OP suggestion is based on Prime Time pop. What about the NA pop, rolling around 150-300 players? Will it still be viable, according it is already a bit complicated in term of population at this moment. If you don't think about or don't care, we must keep this in mind and take it into consideration.
Fact 7 : Probably the more "disputable". Players asked in the past we open multiple areas to split pop, and well, let them play far from the zerg (lol?). When prime comes, there are atleast 2 opened areas. More often 3. Systematically, everyone in evolving in only 1 area. EVERYONE. Why according you ask for a separation, don't you organize it; inviting all lvl X to XX to move on empty area? Have you even tested it?
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
excuse me why not place flat level 20 for all t1 and t2 tiers open rvr and join them and separate t3 and t4? so i beleive pop would be more even no?
Ads
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
During high pop times it would probably be ok. But during low pop times it would be terrible.
The added enjoyment you would get from a separate tier during high pop times would not be as big of a difference as how much worse it would be during low pop times.
A poll wouldnt provide any useful data. It might just prove what percentage of the player base has a very narrow point of view.
The added enjoyment you would get from a separate tier during high pop times would not be as big of a difference as how much worse it would be during low pop times.
A poll wouldnt provide any useful data. It might just prove what percentage of the player base has a very narrow point of view.
Re: Need for a middle tier for rvr
I would still argue against Fact 1 (really, when I joined RoR i remember having a blast in T2/3, during EU prime time; there were empty moments but not always), however you have convinced me.
Even if there would be a possible solution, the resources would not be worth it. Thanks for the detailed explaination.
Incidently, in which sub-forum would I find these guides that you speak of for fast leveling?
SW, Kotbs, IB, Slayer, WP, WL, SM, Mara, SH, BG