Recent Topics

Ads

new invader farming

Let's talk about... everything else

Moderators: Developer, Management, Web Developer

User avatar
Yaliskah
King of Nothing
Posts: 1926

Re: new invader farming

Post#11 » Fri May 01, 2020 4:03 pm

Hello! (and sorry for my frenglish)

I'm responsible of this change, and it seems some explanations are needed. Some gonna hate me after reading my wall of text i fear, but "C'est la vie" i guess.

So. Why this change has been done?

In fisrt place, this change was based on players feedbacks :

1 invader token reward : Why should i involve in last zone defense when losing it is more rewarding (fort defense -citiy defense)? Reason is pretty acceptable, even it is not supposed to be the direction of the game itself.

Of course, lot of players -i thank them- are invovling in their realm and even they not gonna have their precious currencies in forts, they play the game. I think as i am, their best reward is to deprive their enemies to be rewarded, in all friendship ofc...

In the over hand, we have a not negligible amount of people recommanding to leave last zone, waiting in cities, on discord waiting for a signal, or in forts (exploiting : read rules guys, just in case Sauron's eye see you some day) to harvest what they need for their own, never involving in ORvR , with super good reasons not to involve :
-you see,i don't need anything in the lake, so i have no reason to go in.

The corollary being, "why do i need anything if i don't play with what i have."

It is what i call colllusion and/or oportunism. Thats a choice, and well, such is life, but don't ask me to feel sorry for such behaviour.

Sorry if some feel offended, but that's a fact. Some may be tempted to hide behind a bad game design to feel right. Point is 90% of players play the game in the state it is, in the way it is supposed to be played. Eventually, ask them why, and blame them why they ruin your plans.

Now the reward issue.
We have an issue in the reward equation since always. Not solved atm, and probably never solved.

A-If reward are not juicy, player don't involve.

You recommand to increase rewards in the mid. Which one? winners only? both?
-Case 1 Both factions : Can we agree, that there is no campaign interest to do it? and unless your gain in mid are > to what you could get defending last zone, you wouldn't have any reason to involve. Ofc, players will get faster their currencies, but it is not what you wanna try to solve isn't it? :)
.
-Case 2 Reward is bigger for winners. Do you smell the incoming Xrealm when ram is deployed? ;). > no real defense. Losers will be strong in last defense area, and prepare to come back to mid.

B- Even if you lose, you want to win. If you lose for real, you don't play. So loser needs to be rewarded.

C-Some want to see their time rewarded even if they don't do anything interesting with this time. (15 mins sc 0-500, and i have nothing, have lost 15 mins of my life, i deserve something for this) so we can't "punish" losers for losing.

So question is, shall we reward players for the time they are connected? On the base of the result of a comon action?

I'm sorry for the digression, but i had to show you that it wasn't as simple as many may think it is.

Now, you probably misse the intent behind the supposed issue :). The more factions are gonna play ping pong, the less they gonna be able to see a city siege.

So, if some really want their sov set, you have now a good reason to involve in ORvR (basically playing the game...), pushing, harder than defenders, and not just waiting for a signal, cause i think no one gonna drop anything.

Ads
Toonman
Posts: 197

Re: new invader farming

Post#12 » Fri May 01, 2020 4:26 pm

Jesus, devs are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

User avatar
Banjomissen
Posts: 69

Re: new invader farming

Post#13 » Fri May 01, 2020 4:31 pm

First I want to say that I fully understand ppl playing both side and I do it myself. Lots of fun classes and lore on both side and why limit yourself to 50% of the game when you have the possibility to enjoy it all.

I’ve bee thinking about a way to give players and incentive to play one side for a longer period of time. The new ranked system seems to follow in the same path as what I hand in mind: weekly realm contribution system. A weekly campaign that requires you to chose side in order to earn contribution and in the end receive rewards depending on your contribution. If you chose to earn contribution with the forces of Order you’ll only receive contribution while playing Order. Sure you can switch to Destro but it won’t make you earn contribution.

Rewards could be I tiers and every activity could help build contribution.

sogeou
Posts: 215

Re: new invader farming

Post#14 » Fri May 01, 2020 4:36 pm

Yaliskah wrote:
Fri May 01, 2020 4:03 pm
Hello! (and sorry for my frenglish)

I'm responsible of this change, and it seems some explanations are needed. Some gonna hate me after reading my wall of text i fear, but "C'est la vie" i guess.

So. Why this change has been done?

In fisrt place, this change was based on players feedbacks :

1 invader token reward : Why should i involve in last zone defense when losing it is more rewarding (fort defense -citiy defense)? Reason is pretty acceptable, even it is not supposed to be the direction of the game itself.

Of course, lot of players -i thank them- are invovling in their realm and even they not gonna have their precious currencies in forts, they play the game. I think as i am, their best reward is to deprive their enemies to be rewarded, in all friendship ofc...

In the over hand, we have a not negligible amount of people recommanding to leave last zone, waiting in cities, on discord waiting for a signal, or in forts (exploiting : read rules guys, just in case Sauron's eye see you some day) to harvest what they need for their own, never involving in ORvR , with super good reasons not to involve :
-you see,i don't need anything in the lake, so i have no reason to go in.

The corollary being, "why do i need anything if i don't play with what i have."

It is what i call colllusion and/or oportunism. Thats a choice, and well, such is life, but don't ask me to feel sorry for such behaviour.

Sorry if some feel offended, but that's a fact. Some may be tempted to hide behind a bad game design to feel right. Point is 90% of players play the game in the state it is, in the way it is supposed to be played. Eventually, ask them why, and blame them why they ruin your plans.

Now the reward issue.
We have an issue in the reward equation since always. Not solved atm, and probably never solved.

A-If reward are not juicy, player don't involve.

You recommand to increase rewards in the mid. Which one? winners only? both?
-Case 1 Both factions : Can we agree, that there is no campaign interest to do it? and unless your gain in mid are > to what you could get defending last zone, you wouldn't have any reason to involve. Ofc, players will get faster their currencies, but it is not what you wanna try to solve isn't it? :)
.
-Case 2 Reward is bigger for winners. Do you smell the incoming Xrealm when ram is deployed? ;). > no real defense. Losers will be strong in last defense area, and prepare to come back to mid.

B- Even if you lose, you want to win. If you lose for real, you don't play. So loser needs to be rewarded.

C-Some want to see their time rewarded even if they don't do anything interesting with this time. (15 mins sc 0-500, and i have nothing, have lost 15 mins of my life, i deserve something for this) so we can't "punish" losers for losing.

So question is, shall we reward players for the time they are connected? On the base of the result of a comon action?

I'm sorry for the digression, but i had to show you that it wasn't as simple as many may think it is.

Now, you probably misse the intent behind the supposed issue :). The more factions are gonna play ping pong, the less they gonna be able to see a city siege.

So, if some really want their sov set, you have now a good reason to involve in ORvR (basically playing the game...), pushing, harder than defenders, and not just waiting for a signal, cause i think no one gonna drop anything.

Yaliskah you are 100% right. The new change is perfect. People will always whine, problem is the people who are whining don't understand when a side does not have enough people it is easy to push a zone, holding it and taking a fort is much harder for say Order due to the destro pop most times.

I would still love to see a pop lock when there is a 20% player advantage or see a stats buff to the underdog by the % they are out numbered. Starting at 100% AAO.

User avatar
Arcrival
Posts: 32

Re: new invader farming

Post#15 » Fri May 01, 2020 4:50 pm

Wow people complain regardless either they don’t like the grind or it’s too easy or this thread which began with lower ranks are going to get more invaders than higher ranks. Who cares there is still a RR required to use the gear and it’s a little soon to have data that would support the claim either way they played right next to you. X realm yep it happens if it’s malicious take pic and submit it. I don’t know about you but I want gear to have a more effective toon but the game is endless war and whether it’s in the lakes or keep it is all about winning regardless if I am on a Destro or Order toon. Rock on devs keep trying!
It's OK to heal a Slayer! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Mistdancer
Posts: 28

Re: new invader farming

Post#16 » Fri May 01, 2020 5:07 pm

Yaliskah wrote:
Fri May 01, 2020 4:03 pm
Hello! (and sorry for my frenglish)

I'm responsible of this change, and it seems some explanations are needed. Some gonna hate me after reading my wall of text i fear, but "C'est la vie" i guess.

So. Why this change has been done?

In fisrt place, this change was based on players feedbacks :

1 invader token reward : Why should i involve in last zone defense when losing it is more rewarding (fort defense -citiy defense)? Reason is pretty acceptable, even it is not supposed to be the direction of the game itself.

Of course, lot of players -i thank them- are invovling in their realm and even they not gonna have their precious currencies in forts, they play the game. I think as i am, their best reward is to deprive their enemies to be rewarded, in all friendship ofc...

In the over hand, we have a not negligible amount of people recommanding to leave last zone, waiting in cities, on discord waiting for a signal, or in forts (exploiting : read rules guys, just in case Sauron's eye see you some day) to harvest what they need for their own, never involving in ORvR , with super good reasons not to involve :
-you see,i don't need anything in the lake, so i have no reason to go in.

The corollary being, "why do i need anything if i don't play with what i have."

It is what i call colllusion and/or oportunism. Thats a choice, and well, such is life, but don't ask me to feel sorry for such behaviour.

Sorry if some feel offended, but that's a fact. Some may be tempted to hide behind a bad game design to feel right. Point is 90% of players play the game in the state it is, in the way it is supposed to be played. Eventually, ask them why, and blame them why they ruin your plans.

Now the reward issue.
We have an issue in the reward equation since always. Not solved atm, and probably never solved.

A-If reward are not juicy, player don't involve.

You recommand to increase rewards in the mid. Which one? winners only? both?
-Case 1 Both factions : Can we agree, that there is no campaign interest to do it? and unless your gain in mid are > to what you could get defending last zone, you wouldn't have any reason to involve. Ofc, players will get faster their currencies, but it is not what you wanna try to solve isn't it? :)
.
-Case 2 Reward is bigger for winners. Do you smell the incoming Xrealm when ram is deployed? ;). > no real defense. Losers will be strong in last defense area, and prepare to come back to mid.

B- Even if you lose, you want to win. If you lose for real, you don't play. So loser needs to be rewarded.

C-Some want to see their time rewarded even if they don't do anything interesting with this time. (15 mins sc 0-500, and i have nothing, have lost 15 mins of my life, i deserve something for this) so we can't "punish" losers for losing.

So question is, shall we reward players for the time they are connected? On the base of the result of a comon action?

I'm sorry for the digression, but i had to show you that it wasn't as simple as many may think it is.

Now, you probably misse the intent behind the supposed issue :). The more factions are gonna play ping pong, the less they gonna be able to see a city siege.

So, if some really want their sov set, you have now a good reason to involve in ORvR (basically playing the game...), pushing, harder than defenders, and not just waiting for a signal, cause i think no one gonna drop anything.
Yes. You are absolutely right. People not making an effort to get to the part of the campaign that they desire stuff from, and just waiting for others to do the work for them, is called opportunism. What would you call people pushing zones and then xrealming in order to get inflated defense rewards, effectively undermining the effort of their previous realm? You guessed it. Its (also) opportunism. A more "active" opportunism, but opportunism nonetheless.

If your intent is to make people more actively pursue the culmination of the campaign (which is the city siege) - a goal with which I 100% agree - trading a passive egocentric opportunism for an active exploitative opportunism, sadly, leaves you with the same number of opportunisms, it does not help in the completion of your vision. What helps in that regard, is making (forcing if needed) people more involved with the faction their choose to play at a given time. The elephant in the room is xrealming.

Experiencing both factions and all classes etc, is one thing, and its fine ofc - realm swapping every other zone flip, constitutes a mockery of the whole concept.

User avatar
Grimir
Posts: 10

Re: new invader farming

Post#17 » Fri May 01, 2020 5:11 pm

Mistdancer wrote:
Fri May 01, 2020 5:07 pm
Experiencing both factions and all classes etc, is one thing, and its fine ofc - realm swapping every other zone flip, constitutes a mockery of the whole concept.
This !

SaintRon
Posts: 44

Re: new invader farming

Post#18 » Fri May 01, 2020 9:48 pm

Nameless wrote:
Fri May 01, 2020 3:07 pm
personally for me new way is better cos now it is worth defending last zone and there is some real orvr going on. Only problem is that mid zones becomes obsolete. It should be win mid 1 inv, defend last 3, defend opposition last zone go fort so each zone help progressing toward invader.

Now i, as more casual, feel that there is possible progression for me toward invader. Before that patch i would be forever wearing vanq being rr+80.
Yeah mid should reward something, but not as much as zone before the fort.

Ads
User avatar
Shadowgurke
Posts: 618

Re: new invader farming

Post#19 » Fri May 01, 2020 11:36 pm

The issue is that pushing a zone (read: fort) only rewards 1/3 of the players in the zone with a reservation, the rest gets nothing. Pushing an end zone needs to give 3 invader crests, and winning a fort should give 3. Losing a fort give 2.

So for defenders: 4 on a zone defense, 2 on a failed fort defense, 4 on a succesful fort defense. 0 for losing and no fort.
Attackers: 3 on a succesful push and no fort, 5 on a succesful push and fort loss, 6 for a fort win.

This only gives 1 more invader crest for the fort for attackers, but rewards everyone who participates.

Also, and this should be fixed anyway, no contribution players should not get invader.
Image

User avatar
CountTalabecland
Posts: 553

Re: new invader farming

Post#20 » Fri May 01, 2020 11:57 pm

As someone who only plays Order, the new change is just fine and a good solution to the never ending Invader grind that many ppl with rr 70 toons were stuck in.

The only reason there seems to be problem is xrealming as ppl on one side have every incentive to attack if they have the numbers and defend if they dont. The only wrench in the system seems to be the constant switching of sides but honestly pop fluctuations everytime someone deploys a ram or wipes on a keep has always been a thing.
Brynnoth Goldenbeard (40/74) (IB) -- Rundin Fireheart (40/50) (RP) -- Ungrinn (40/35) (Engi)-- Bramm Bloodaxe (40/77) (Slayer) and a few Empire characters here or there, maybe even an elf.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: blechkautz, Tamarlan and 77 guests