Recent Topics

Ads

oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

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.
emiliorv
Suspended
Posts: 1295

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#81 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:47 am

Kaelang wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:23 pm
Spoiler:
space44 wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:10 pm Want to know why all that stuff was taken away? In the devs own words they did it because they felt Orvr should have been a side show, and make city siege more common in a everyday basis. In the Patch notes relating to those interactive Orvr experiences, they have mention them wanting city siege to be 90% of the games experience one way or another.
At the same time this was happening, the community were complaining that cities were too rare and that oRvR was just zones being pushed back to the mid zone over and over again - meaning cities would only pop at NA time when the majority of the population went to sleep.

So, it's a double edged sword - but it's ironic that the post only seems to focus on the reaction as opposed to the problem that was being raised during the time these changes were made.
Remake the actual campaign...change the requirements for a City siege happen, for example (realm requeriments):
-Lock XX pairings
-Win XXX SCs
-Kill XXXX enemies
-gather XXXXXX honour (could be better to use honour points to avoid massive AAO imbalances or lowbie farming)
-Whatever you feel that could be a interesting requeriment

The realm which achive all requeriments first will siege the enemy capital.

Its only a idea....but with something like this you will:
-encourage REAL PvP: ppl need to kill others in order to get kills and honour points
-renew the interest in SC´s
-avoid massive poplation imbalances: without anemies to kill you cant siege
-avoid stalemate: campaign can still progress even with balanced populations

Ads
sighy
Posts: 259

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#82 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:18 pm

wonshot wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:57 am
Spoiler:
Kaelang wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 2:26 am ..The problem typically stems from player behaviour - and that people will always find the optimal way of doing things to get rewarded. We could theoretically implement a plethora of RvR 'fun' things to do, but unless we attach something shiny that's the 'new BiS' people won't be interested. Currently, the oRvR is zergy - however this isn't necessarily new, it's always had an element of zerging. But if we delve deeper into reasoning as to why people are zerging, it comes back around to the ease of it all, and the quicker rewards...
I agree with this.
But if the players will naturall flock to the path of least effort, then the systems can still be adjusted to make the least effort "harder" to improve the effort required, right?

Zonelocks right now are more rewarding if you run boxes and ram the doors, which funnel the majority of the players towards joining the ram zerg and leaving the BOs ignored when a Ram is currently spawned in a zone. Yes you can get bagrolls if you are fighting and succesfully killing in the zone, but speaking of experience when you have a "killer" warband or group out and a ram is spawned either from your own or the enemy realm all players on both sides will flock to the besieged keep, and roaming dies down. Simply because there is no system that promotes activity in the rest of the zone.

During the periode of a zone there are a few phases.

1)Zone opens
2)Realms build stars towards 2 stars ( small to medium activity)
3)If a realm reach 2 stars and feel they have dominance they spawn a ram (medium to high activity)
All BOs go neutral and both realms go to the one keep (high density in one area activity)
Keep siege (compact activity)
Depending on succes on the siege the phase3 might happen again but the other realm taking a turn at spawning a ram if they succesfully defended
4)Lord is killed (pve activty no pvp)
5)capture 3/4 BOs. (highest activity lots of fighting over BOs but shortest periode of them all)

As i tried to highlight here, the periode of a zone where we see most activity is actually in the end of the zone. The climax when all players flood out use the entire map, all 4 BOs matter equally and fighting breaks out all over the map. Yet this phase is usually only 2-4 minuts long and then we go right back into a short to medium activity phase after a zonehop.
This could maybe be stopped by having BOs having a locked timer after being succesfully capped, so this last phase of the zone is lasting longer untill 3/4 BOs are controled.

I understand that RvR is for everyone, casuals, hardcore, soloers, smallscalers, gankers, 6mans, smaller guildgroups, closed warbands, open warbands, campaigners, alliance warbands etc.
There should naturally be something for everyone to do during oRvR. But right now, when a keep is besieged only the large groups have their use. Smaller groups can maybe gank a latercomer but they dont find fights are find themself being that useful. As everything is happening around the walls and in a scale where they are unimpactful.
Right now the orvr systems just doesnt promote people fighting or hold the BOs (enough) Yes I agree that promotion must come from a carrot for this playerbase. But if we look at the rewards for orvr alot of it is funneled into killing the lord, based on pervious contribution in the zone upuntill the lord kill.
How about breaking the rewards up into shorter bursts of progression?

Whenever kills happen on a BO area the BO will acculumute the renown gained and after holding it for X minuts it will burst out a tick of bonus renown based on how many kills or boxes have been succesfully turnt in from this BO in the keep/warcamp.
This promotes holding the BO and fighting/defending the BO. for attackers this will give them targets to attack and hit plus clear supply lines to gank and promote smallerscale fights on the roads from BOs.
So how do we stop the BOs loosing value during a keepsiege? We introduce a mechanic where BOs are tied to the Ram. Each held BO will empower the ram damage for the attackers, but also make the ram more vurnable if the defenders hold more BOs

Example:
Order siegeing destro
order holding 1 bo: 25% out of 100% normal ram damage as we see it atm
order holding 2 bo: 50%
order holding 3 bo: 75%
order holding 4 bos: 100% (current ram damage)

But if destro are holding any of the BOs
destro holding 1bo: 25% increased damage to the order ram
destro holding 2bo: 50%
destro holding 3bo: 75%
destro holding 4bo: oil can now damage the ram

Now we have an example of a sytem where pvpers have something to do in the zone if they run smallerscale or dont want to play the keepsiege, they can hold value in a system where BOs matter and will attract players from both sides.

Alot of the current progression comes from killing the lord, running boxes etc. That is fine for gearing and bags. But I also think the rate of how renown is obtained need to be looked at. the Lord tick from killing keep/fortress lords are too big compared to just killing players, and it promotes a more pve/objective focused mindset. Royal and invader shards dropping more often is fine, but the renown gain from kills could potentially be turned up to promote hunting for kills. Maybe even the buff that already exsists (field of glory i think its called) might need to get a smaller adjustment. Gear bags coming from zonelocks, im fine with that. But what happend to actually grinding the scenarios, pvping in orvr and learning to play your classes while you obtain Renown. instead of this system where people just run boxes and ram keeps to rr80 and then donw know how to detaunt.

I agree that the playerbase is to get blamed for some of this. But so are the current systems for not promoting pvp enough and instead funnel (force) the action into zergs, simply because its too rewarding. We see it with the quotes from the builders. There are plenty of people longing and wanting to fight, but if the systems only promotes action at the keep and the zones are pretty much over after the lord is dead, despite that is the most fun and buisy periode of the zone periode then some of the systems probably need changing.
To be honest i think the first and most important step is to revert supply running, because it actively goes against pvp and incentivises avoiding fights and abandoning the BOs. Say what you will about ticks, but that system did put an incentive for the inherently selfish playerbase to hold the BOs. I know they were the scapegoat whenever the zergs got outzerged, but with retrospective we know it only got worse and scapegoating moved onto the next culprit. Especially in T1, which has become a nightmare to play through, Nordland in particular is prone to one side getting constantly farmed at Warcamp, which essentially kills the rest of the zone, because there is no point in going for BOs since you would have to go directly through the enemy zerg to use your supply. Dwarf and Elf zones are mostly dead content to their own side of the map, which kind of ironically was one of the issues devs tried fixing by removing the ticks.

As far as punishments for holding fewer BOs go i think it probably should affect the gameplay loop, in accordance to how many more than you enemy has, with the state of enemy holding all BOs significantly tangible in general gameplay loop. Like say for example reducing all ap gain by 50%, healing by 50% and damage dealt by 50%, on top of a dot effect, because unless you are outnumbered by like 5 times of people being evenly and strategically spread all over you've got no excuse to hold no BOs, but on your 1 BO you would get something to help you against all odds.

AtlasShoved
Posts: 15

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#83 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:37 pm

emiliorv wrote: Fri Jun 18, 2021 10:47 am
Its only a idea....but with something like this you will:
-encourage REAL PvP: ppl need to kill others in order to get kills and honour points
-renew the interest in SC´s
-avoid massive poplation imbalances: without anemies to kill you cant siege
-avoid stalemate: campaign can still progress even with balanced populations
I disagree with your last point. If the zones have truly been fought out to a stalemate through much effort on both sides, that should be a permissible outcome. Instead, some method of consistent, (but slower than winning zones, perhaps), individual progression, tied maybe to your above list, kills, RR, or some other method, needs to be added as an alternative so that stalemate does not outright prevent gear progression. If the only method of gear progression available is to leave the lakes and go pve, this is not going to lead to spirited resistance. The leading motivator for throwing zones is, of course, that city gives the potential reward of hours and hours of RVR, with comparably zero effort to actually playing in the lakes.

AtlasShoved
Posts: 15

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#84 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 12:56 pm

As far as my own suggestions go:
Forts should be population gated by the defender. To explain: If attacking the enemy city is the end goal of the campaign, the carrot, the big cheese, then it stands to reason that the potential loot should be greatest from WINNING in an aggressive city. It follows that the second best thing should be preventing the enemy from sieging your city. Technically several zones lead up to this, but the fort is the lynchpin that locks the whole pairing, and as such should be the point in the campaign where it becomes necessary to care about things like limiting number advantage. Because we cannot guarantee even or close numbers throughout the day, it should remain possible for defenders willing to show up to a fort to have a fair fight, up to a point. A large, structured, fair fight is what forts are designed around, or else why gate the population at all? (Performance is also an issue in forts and sieges in general with enough people, of course).

To go along with this change, the rewards for successfully defending a fort need to be drastically improved. Less than a win in an aggressive city, but a sizeable amount more than ordinary keeps, and with even a slight edge over winning in a defensive city. Letting your city be sieged should be something that you are encouraged to avoid, not throw for. As such there should be a REASON to fight to stop your city from being attacked, else the current culture of throwing will continue.

The current max pop in fort is, 167attackers to 135defenders, roughly a 23% allowed aggressive numbers advantage, (and not even an even amount of 6's, 12's and 24's). The defenders have the advantage of terrain (funnel and superior spawn location). I propose that, down to a minimum limit to prevent griefing, Fort pop be changed to scale based on the number of defenders. For example, (numbers of course flexible) If there are only 60 defenders in fort, Attackers would only be permitted to bring around 75, to maintain the ~25% attacker advantage. This would accomplish several things:

1) During severe server pop imbalances, which are most pronounced during off peak hours, This change would permit dedicated defenders even a slight chance of a fight they can win. People would be more motivated to show up to defend forts if they knew they wont just be outmanned 2 or even 3:1
2) With the above suggestion to increase the rewards, it would create further incentive to attend, a tangible reason to "pride". A fair(er) fight and a chance at a good reward will put more butts in seats than a half hour+ of sitting waiting to get wiped instantly by twice your number for a single (1) guaranteed invader. This would, I believe, hold true during full house forts during peak hours. Again: limiting the incentive to throw a fort while still encouraging defenders to attend.
3) Should more defenses be successful, It would allow for more fighting in the lakes and a more healthy rotation for when cities get sieged.
4) Should fort defenses fail despite the above change, then the resulting city could not just be blamed on "xrealmers" or "zerging" or any other excuse. (Which is not to say those never happen, only that excuses in a competitive environment are unhealthy to improvement). If you lose a fair fight then the campaign (rightly) should proceed apace.
5) Tying into the topic of the thread, This would allow for a determined, semi or full organized band a greater share of the ability to affect the campaign, primarily during off peak times. The theme of what many of the guild leads spoke of in their letters was: 'we want to be able to be significant outside of the zerg', and my suggestions allow for that somewhat, but with a focus at the endpoints of the campaign instead of the middle.

My example numbers are of course flexible, and changes like this would no doubt require adjustment post implementation. But I think that it addresses a critical issue of flawed player incentives. This suggestion is also not meant to say that no other changes might or should be made, just addressing a specific problem I have observed.

User avatar
Stophy22
Posts: 444

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#85 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 2:52 pm

I think there is a lot of good suggestions and a lot of good intelligence gathered by this thread.

I do hope it doesn't get skipped over... for the longest time when changes happened players were told, "this is an alpha server change is bound to happen." I think this is a perfect case where you have a lot of players and their opinions gathered into one location and a lot of them are saying the same thing,

"The Orvr system is stale in its current state."

to summarize. And this is such a good thing to know in the perspective of someone available or able to ensue that change.

You guys just hit balance hard, nerfing destro morale game and then said bye-bye to a crutch that players got very used to leaning on. Some good changes have been happening recently and I'd love to see the trend keep going with implementation of something the player base has been shouting for, for years: the importance of the battle objectives. And yes dev power and resources are small but something as simple as an announcement of big up-and-coming changes and a, "we see and hear you." would probably fill the tankards of thirst for those famished from the experience that is RoR, and give the team enough time and breathing room to implement steady and small changes, collect data, then revert or adapt and proceed.

It won't be easy especially with the way players react on this server and I don't know if other things are planned in the timeline after Hunters Vale but the timing for something like HV coming out opens up a lot of room in which to maneuver if previous plans were not established. And if they were I hope they takes precedence over something as crucial as the war-campaign and Orvr because that is literally the entire game for some players. Stay true to the alpha server nature and don't be afraid to make changes like the previous ones that zoinked nerf buttons and thrashed an unholy morale meta, also don't be afraid to revert changes because pride can also be a fatal flaw, a moment of silence to my Waaagh brothers out there.

I personally enjoy the suggestion related to making rams stronger via BO's; simple and easy to implement and pretty impactful. I also liked the ideas of making cities happen when x number of SC's Zone locks, pairings, and possibly even PVE has been ran, would be maybe more friendly for the timing at which a city was popped? Interesting ideas for sure, wonder how they'll preform under practice.
[2 Weeks]/[Definitely Not Heretics]
Kuro Mara R8x
Bunji DoK R6x
Kurodon BG R8x
Curo Whitelion R8x
Scryptmar WP R6x
Aiero Swordwizard R5x

TheDave
Posts: 5

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#86 » Sat Jun 19, 2021 1:24 am

Hello there!

To be honest, as an old WB leader, even if all the points discussed from other wb leader are true. I think right now we just have 1 real main issue: People that want to just fight for the sake of fighting are long gone(most of them). Right now leftover population (beside some few black goat) just want to win at all cost/get gear. We can talk for hours about things that we can do to improve rvr(that definetly need to be improved(BOS please, give us something to fight for)) but we will still have the problem of people not willing to fight:

How many times(talking to pug WB leader) you need to hear people spending time discussing that you should take crates, or u should go behind a wall because siege is incoming or "(put a good organized wb here) are here we should group up and zerg?

People just don't want to play organized. Is an old game with an "old" playerbase that rarely knows half of the basic mechanics of their own character and they are happy with that, and that's fine. The problem is that there are still people in this game that want something more than just "free farm" or hide their weakness behind "Order op, or Destro op", "nerf this, nerf that" but we are less than the others. So no matter what we/dev should do, even with the perfect map, perfect mechanic we will still have that issue.

This game goes with waves, sometimes you are lucky and the good people are back playing and then you have quality content, sometimes they quit and u are left playing with the others.

Honestly as a guild leader or a wb leader you (in general) should try to fight that mentality that is killing this game "the free farm mechanic" the "i need gear". You should explain that even if u get a full sovereign by just being afk and loosing you will still be uncapable to play the game so why rushing that.

Said that, we need to be realistic with ideas. We can't change map, we can't redefine core mechanics, we just need to modify what is already here. Give BOS a purpose. Stop the ranking keeps. Let the keeps be siegeable only if u hold 51% of the bos. You need to split the zerg. You want major fight on the map not on the doors. Let tanks go on damn wall to fight that ranged nonsense on top of walls. Give specific siege bonus on Bos that affect the entire map (idk, holding this bo will give x amount of hp regen to the faction, holding this will increase def or decrese morale gain to enemy) give the opportunity to play around bos and use maps that are beatyfull but basically not played at all because of the rush for the siege.

I think devs shouls stop to care about the "average clueless playerbase" opinion and listen to the more "experienced" people. No matter what they gonna do the clueless people will always stick with the game and find a way to satisfy their lazyness, but they will keep losing more and more experienced people that are actually the people that give content. ChatBanning warband leader because they lose the patience when dealing with kids because they think this is a school where you should be "polite" or chat banning people that give strong suggestion because they have a real point is not helping either. Helping the true pugs is not what you wanna do to keep this game alive. You need to be more brave and start to stop listen all the complain about balance, about gearing difficulty or other things. Beside some really true unbalanced mechanics the other you modified were jutst modified because people didn't know how to play, and modifing that you screwed the entire system.

Many times wb leaders and organized guild have asked to be able to fight other organized guild/wb in city. You made the "challage" ranked 6v6 so why we still don't have a challange 24/24 sc?

(i rather have an epic 8 hours defence of Black Crag like old gold days than that shitty rush for city)

That's are just my 2 cents.

Cesar66
Posts: 2

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#87 » Sun Jul 11, 2021 10:24 am

bump.
bump.
bump.
bump.

Off page2. You guys still playing wallhammer?
Hows that wallhammer going.

sadface*

ZillaT
Posts: 14

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#88 » Sun Jul 11, 2021 10:33 am

How BOs should work.
BOs should have a minimum 25 minute lock timer.
BOs should take 15minutes to lock.
BOs should have a long capture time, (right click to capture BO, 30sec).
BOs should grant resource points on lock.
BOs locking should restore 25% door/lord health.
BOs take on the aspect of resources, with much greater effects.
Additional rules can be added to BOs to make them behave like PQs.
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=45411

Ads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests