Recent Topics

Ads

Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas.
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.
Hypernia
Posts: 101

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#81 » Thu May 21, 2020 10:45 am

Yes.

That's what full loot means.

Ads
User avatar
hammerhead
Posts: 308

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#82 » Thu May 21, 2020 11:06 am

If someone wants a smallscale, there is a SWTOR, if someone wants full loot and endless grind, there is a Lineage, someone doesn't like WAR dungeon, there is a fascinating WoW. In this game, the main gem is oRVR. It was and will be.
(\|)o0(|/)

M0rw47h
Posts: 898

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#83 » Thu May 21, 2020 11:12 am

Hypernia wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 10:08 am Did someone just suggest all currencies being full loot pvp? Yes please
Give all our currency to zergers and groups of WE/WHs griefing people!

Dajciekrwi
Posts: 700

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#84 » Thu May 21, 2020 11:16 am

wargrimnir wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 3:14 pm
Ramlaen wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 3:13 pm
wargrimnir wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 3:11 pm We have explicitly and very intentionally designed the system to not reward kills with currency. Currency comes from the completion of content, which requires realm-wide coordinated effort to enable and engage in.

Suggestions like this have been heard before, they haven't been implemented because it is diametrically opposed to the concept we have implemented currently. We are very aware how simple and easy it would be to just give a teeny tiny chance for currency to drop in RvR, but this currency is not intended as an RvR reward. RvR is the gate to Fort/City content. Fort/City content is where you earn this currency.

You know all of this, suggest it anyway, and I certainly hope you're not surprised by the answer.
This was a long winded way to say you want to drive away your playerbase.
Why are you still here? Surely you can go farm coins in some mobile game or play a shooter with perfect balance and matchmaking.
And ofc Mister Wargrimm and his eternal song: "Why You still here?". :D In any topics this same story:)
Is any other way You can speak and answer to ppl ?
If anyone have a other conception of game , he surely should go away?
Are everything is oki with You?

User avatar
anarchypark
Posts: 2073

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#85 » Thu May 21, 2020 11:56 am

meowngolianwarlord wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:31 pm
Spoiler:
Thought I'd chip in with my two pence, since it seems like a lot of the posters in this thread are longer-time players. I joined a few weeks after the big zerg that the video attention and the start of quarantine brought RoR and hit 40 on my first character several weeks ago. I've sunk several hundred hours into this server since joining which, while maybe not impressive comparatively, is a rather serious time investment for me as someone who works full time and has outside responsibilities.

My playtimes have been flagging lately as my motivation to play has dropped considerably due to how City currently functions. I'm Pacific-Coast US time, which means the majority of the Cities that have popped in the past 3 weeks have been between 1 am and 7 am my time, and of the 5 or so Cities that have popped before midnight (to my knowledge), I only got in to 3 due to Destro/Order population mismatches. It's very disheartening to invest so much time pushing zones only to have the "only" gearing path blocked off by Euros who log in and slam it home (nothing against the euros, just bad luck for the PST-EST timezone folks). All of these were pugged, since no group wants a fresh 40 in a mix of Beastlord and Genesis.

Sure I've been steadily improving my gear with vanquishers medallions from oRVR and the occasional bag from zones, and I've been able to (almost) afford a single Invader's piece with the few cities I've managed to get in to and Forts, but it definitely really sucks to have the primary progression path intended (per the GMs own statements here) dead end into content that my timezone doesn't seem to get to engage with very often.

As much fun as I've been having with RoR, I don't feel like the game respects the time investment I've put in to it as much as it should.

you're hunting the end gear after few weeks.
go play other mmo who respect your play time. I'm pretty sure you'll sit at full spec in 2weeks. that's how game should be, amirite?

@OP
if there's kill farm method,
why would defenders push and break funnel farming ?
why anyone attack keep to get farmed at funnel ?
seems you haven't seen 200 ppl sitting at their keep waiting enemy to attack their ass, i mean door.
as soon as door down defenders get pop advantage it's funnel stalemate.

RoR have moved from there long time ago.
maybe mythic called it PvP back then.

time to put 'this is sparta' meme. I mean RoR.
SM8, SW8, AM8, WL7, KoBS5, BW5, WP8, WH7, IB7, Eng5, RP5, SL6
BG8, Sorc8, DoK8, WE7, Chs8, Mg8, Ze7, Mara8, BO6, SH7, Shm5, Chop4
SC summary - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20415
( last update : 2020.06.09)

User avatar
Alfa1986
Posts: 542

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#86 » Thu May 21, 2020 11:56 am

Yaliskah wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 10:04 am
Alfa1986 wrote: Thu May 21, 2020 8:51 am About six months ago, you collected ideas for new scenarios, a lot of ideas were given from the players, let's see what came of it. first came the pve sc, which completely failed. but tell me who and why intended to create a barrier between Order and Destro? Naturally, nobody is interested in just killing mobs without the ability to kill a player. that is, this sc could have worked if that idiotic barrier had not been introduced. Then the sc with dragons was introduced; it turned out to be relatively successful. Well, it’s not at all clear why we chose a long winded way in the ranked scenarios? again "elitits" lobby?)

I became interested in who plays them at all and even created a survey on the forum, it turned out that only 30% of community are interested in this type of content, while 15% are ready to play often, and 15% with some frequency (about 100 votes).

why am I writing this? oh yes, if I keep moving bricks from one place to another all the time, the work will be done tremendously but the house will not be built. if I make the same mistakes all the time, the result will be the same.

Regards.
So you are quoting me.

What have been done?

-Rework of Logrin Forge. Submitted to community, more or less validated by comminity (it was not a NOOOOOOO). Now it is a more complex scenario. I don't know if it is better than it was or not, but its sure it is more difficult to understand what to do (but thats not the subject).

-An april fool PvE scenario. Starting pointing this very particular event and transform it as an exemple to make your point really ? I guess 99% of community have understood it was a joke, i think Max posted (for this 1% remaining) it was a joke. So what exactly are you trying to achieve pointing the skaven sc ?

Ranked.A project who was in the air for long time has been deployed. Some like, some don't. It is buggy? yes, yes and yes like anything new, and for a long time i fear. So what? Some never do a single step in PvE too, or a single ToK unlock, and if we were looking closely, i'm pretty sure we will find someone ppl who never do SC. Is it supposed to be revelant ?

-The Week End Warfront as been deployed, giving to dev the opportunity to focus on a specific SC, making changes based on players feedbacks for new sc, and adjustments on those already existing ( Battle at the Cairn, Reikland factory...).

So i don't understand the point you are trying to raise, quoting me,speaking about scenarios, unless you try to confirm my words.
Things come when they come
6 months is too long? For you it is. For someone who have few hours a week to work on it is not.
You see the weekly patchnote? Each line is hours of work of someone, where someone can , how someone can. Point is they are working on their own agenda, it is the least they deserve according the fortune they are not paid for.
There are litteraly hundreds of propositions. What do you expects exactly? That each of them will be done following precisely each word of the proposition? Ofc, it is not possible. Plus a proposition is not a plan, even some are more detailled than some other. A proposition is a proposition. Some are very interesting and doable, some are not. Some are time consuming in term of realisation, and some are just irreallistic.

The direction this project takes is not about what I want. It is not based on what Wargrimnir wants, or Max, or Dalen, or Secrets. Each step -for the most important- are the consequency of a discussion, based on feedbacks, on personnal feelings, on reasonnings, and on feasibility. Even in the team we have very opposed visions on this or on that, and the answer is in compromises/status quo.

For exemple, i campaign in favor of meds upconversion, in the gear degradation over time, in the loss of token when you die. Unfortunately for you or luckily, many in the team disagree. The history of RoR show to anyone, that things are moving slowly, but they find their place at a moment or another. It is all about patience and time.

Now to come back in the subject, and to conclude.

> I would be 100% ok to drop all token of the world with a 100% drop rate chance in all parts of the game, if those tokens are yours (it is always a different story when it is your wallet). It respects the OP proposition, and it justify the presence of such kind of currency in alt place, and imo it would be fair. Of course, those who are carrying such highly coveted currencies would have some hesitation to come in the lake, unless they like chalenge.

Maybe the Strawman could force fate and abuse its position.
I quoted you only because you then created that topic, and the scenarios for me as a player right now are probably the only topic that is of interest. in reality, this is only the point of view of the player (one of the points of many view) who looks at your work from the side. Yes, half a year is not a long time, given that the project is already five or six years old. but during this period you have done a lot in other aspects of the game (city sieges have been introduced as an example). that is, it cannot be said that during these half a year the development of the game has stopped, and certain steps have also been taken in the field of scenarios. I just pointed out that by developing scs in the direction of "elitist" content, you probably make a mistake.
because, firstly, few people are interested in them, and secondly, even those who want to play will not be able to finally find rivals because of low popularity.

and this is a very good example of how could transfer bricks from place to place without building anything in the end.

and in fact, the same can be said about almost all the proposals that were given for all the time. don’t get me wrong, I don’t accuse you of working slowly and other nonsense, you’re just rejecting almost all the proposals that are given by the community (ofcoz itis not you concretely). you spend your time, and we respect and appreciate it very much, but we also spend our time (and time is known to be money), and if we write something, because we really care (Someone maybe just trolling, there are enough idiots everywhere).
15th orks on a dead elf's chest
yo ho ho and a bottle of rum

User avatar
Yaliskah
Former Staff
Posts: 1973

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#87 » Thu May 21, 2020 12:35 pm

Checks all my post if you got some time. Have probably explained a billion time that team members are not commutable.

The one who focus on cities is not the one who focus in scenario or dungeons, or gear, or balance, because they have no clue, because they are not convinced, because they are not interested at a personnal level.
Again :
Point is they are working on their own agenda, it is the least they deserve according the fortune they are not paid for.
Accusing us to ignore community suggestions and propositions is absolutely unfair. There are many examples. Some suggested to reward in a better way last defense before fort. It has been done. Some suggested to rescale conq and vanq prices, it has been done, Some are asking to change everything, and it is not, because even the idea would be good, it is a crazy amount of work, for an uncertain result in the end.

My point Alfa, without any offense or condescension is that it is always easier to tell a story than making it real when someone else is doing it while the others are having fun.

XX concern is Gear, YY concern is RvR, yours is Scenario. Ours are all parts of the project.

How 20 ppl are supposed to please thousand of ppl, who -and this is the crucial point- don't even share the same opinion on a precise proposition ?

Just read this whole thread. Some agree the OP ( i showed i partially share it, with a small condition), some don't. Who is right (and who is sufficiently imbued with his person to decide who is right) ? anything we do, whatever we do, i suppose those who are against the way we will follow -whatever the way- will come here and will say the same thing as you do : " You don't listen to your community" even we would have listened a part of it.

So what ? Do we give a coin and start over ? I'm not trying to divide community, the community is obviously divided on each part of this project, each detail, each change made), i just point a fact, our purpose in our miserable life is not to make everyone miserable, and no one in team feels more intelligent than anyone. The only real difference is that we are judged on the result. No one judge you on your propositions.

This is why is tell you you are unfair. It is demoralizing that you (:a part of the community) don't understand that. :(

Foofmonger
Posts: 524

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#88 » Thu May 21, 2020 1:42 pm

This entire thread is an interesting microcosm of the gaming industry. Love it.

Players having good ideas that are immediately dismissed by devs? Check
Players harassing other devs over the quantity or quality of their work? Check
Fragmented playerbase that has diametrically opposed opinions? Check

Look folks, this is par for the course in this industry. Nobody can please everyone. The devs can't please the entire playerbase, the playerbase can't get their **** together and communicate properly with the devs as to what they want, etc... There is no blame game here and no one person or group is "at fault" these are typical and normal issues.

So let's be fair here, there's a give and take, and the best way to move forward as usual, is to compromise.

Devs: To stick you head into the sand and say "there is no problem and we want it this way", when there very clearly is a problem (regardless if this is the solution), isn't helpful.

Players: To harass the devs about their work or them not making immediate changes to what you want to see happen is disrespectful and delusional. This is a small unpaid private team who do this in their free time, they've done an amazing job and continue to do so. Yes, they aren't perfect (to my point above), but nobody is. We need to work together, not opposed to one another.

To the topic at hand: There is very clearly a middle ground here that can be had, where some progression can happen without being locked into FOMO content (unfortunately a basic game design issue and a legacy of 2008). The reality is, and let's be clear here, that this style of progression engine is outdated, not widely used in the gaming industry, and led to the issues that caused the live WAR to collapse. Simply replicating Mythic's failures will just lead to the same failures happening twice.

Now, to be fair, the devs have already started to do some of this. You can get Royals from gold/purple ORVR bags. To be fair to the players devs, you say "we don't want you to be able to progress in ORVR" well that's just not true based on the system you've already implemented, it's just incredibly slow/tedious.

There is certainly a way to open up ways to achieve royal crests, without simply flooding the playerbase with them and making them extremely easy to get. The issue is not the rate of progression in a vacuum, it's the "access" to that progression. Simply put, it's not about "how fast you can get your end game gear", it's that "if you do not play at the proper times, or 24/7, or discord/sor citywatch, you do not progress". So everyone needs to understand that any response such as "you just want to progress faster" is completely irrelevant and misses the point. It is not about speed, it's about being able to progress at all.

Now, I've seen a lot of posts about motivation, etc.. I want to nip this in the bud right here. There are plenty of different types of people, with different personalities, who play games for different reasons. There is plenty of objective research on this subject if you want to educate yourself (and functionally how modern game design works). Your anecdotal experience of what you want as a person is frankly, irrelevant. You aren't the entirety of the playerbase. Different players play games for different reasons, fact. And some people play games to feel a sense of "progression", fact. Gear grind games fill that itch, fact. Now from my subjective viewpoint, I like playing the game regardless of having BIS gear, but I much prefer to pay the game with BIS gear. You say "if I don't want to play without BIS slot gear, why would I play with it", and I can tell you, because then I can play the game on an even playing field. Why do I want to try and go do ranked 6v6 vs people in full BIS slot gear when I don't have it? Why do I want to go try to solo roam and gank people when I'm gonna find people who I can't beat due to gear discrepancies? Etc... (for the record, I do still play, and I don't have BIS slot gear, but I'm giving hypothetical examples).

Regardless and to wrap this up, there is a way to free up progression from FOMO events, without flooding the market with royals. Devs, you do not need to speed up the progression, but if you want to keep your playerbase healthy you need to figure out some ways to allow people to progress that doesn't involve them quitting their jobs to play this game 24/7, or waking up at 3 AM just to log on and do a city. Ignoring this issue is going to lead to a dwindling playerbase and eventually, a dead server. I'm not saying this to "threaten you" or to be hyperbolic. I've seen more MMO communities rise and die than most people can count. I've seen all of this happen before, and I'll see it all happen again. I highly suggest you take this issue seriously and not be flippant about "what you think is best", if you think locking progression behind FOMO events is best, you are wrong, and the entire gaming industry as a whole will tell you that.

Now, I'm not saying "this proposal is the way", or that "players should drop Royals". I make no stance on what I believe the solution to be (frankly because I haven't thought it through and I don't have one currently, I'm not going to propose a half-assed solution), but I want to ensure that we have a shared understanding of what the actual issue is. It's hard to solve problems if we can't all agree on what the root cause is. I'm sure the devs or someone else can come up with some neat and inventive solutions that solve this issue and satisfy both the devs desires for their vision and growth of the server and the playerbases wishes.

For just a rough brainstorm on the topic:
Royals from X activity but are capped at Y per day/week
Royals from Ranked 6v6 (maybe capped)
Royals from player kills, not capped, but reduce the royals you get in cities by the same amount per week. If you get the royals from the cities, then the royals you get from player kills count towards this total (I'm not wording this well, but basically, imagine if you can get 20 royals a week from player kills, however, this total is not "additional" to cities, so for instance, lets say you get 20 royals from kills, the first 20 royals you get in that same week from cities give you 0 royals, you already got them from kills, you only get any additional royals from getting 21 or more from cities.
etc...

I'm sure there's like 50 "solution ideas" people could come up with on this topic. Just want to get peoples brain juices flowing here!
Last edited by Foofmonger on Thu May 21, 2020 1:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ads
Hypernia
Posts: 101

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#89 » Thu May 21, 2020 2:03 pm

Simply put, it's not about "how fast you can get your end game gear", it's that "if you do not play at the proper times, or 24/7, or discord/sor citywatch, you do not progress".

This.

User avatar
Telen
Suspended
Posts: 2542
Contact:

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#90 » Thu May 21, 2020 2:17 pm

I do agree that the problem isnt the devs creation. We all had a great time with the pick up and play orvr aspects of the main game. Now were starting to see why end game was such a failure at launch. Mythics legacy of locked off progression behind triggered content. I mean how couldnt Mythic see the problem with that in an mmo. Imagine if you could have only done molten core at 3am.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests