new invader farming

[Yaliskah]

Let me expose clearly the equation :

case A : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to the winning side (actually what happens in last zone). This should be logical to reward winners and not losers. What do we see ? : A majority of players are moving to the winning side.

case B : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to losers. It is stupid and non productive. I imagine 800 player waiting a poor guy lock the area alone.

case C : (symetric rewarding) > Give same reward for both faction, cause time is valuable and no one want to lose, defending or attacking (as for fort city siege, or mid zones). No reason to make a real realm effort. Contribution being personnal and at some level equal, amount being slightly different but no so much, there is no need to involve too much. Waiting for fort or city being the tendancy. On side note, the campaign is a pure non sense, losing or winning being the same, would be easier to put everything in the same place, let say praag and voila. Which lead me to case D.

Case D : (no reward) > All for nothing. Spawn a GM shop in each warcamp giving you all gear you need to play for free, freeing your mind of this stress to have your gear to focus on the game itself and on the campaign, for fun and for the realm you choose. Never tested, but, i'm ready to bet that is not gonna work; according the amount of player who stop playing when they are 80 and top geared, and they would be anything to win...

I don't see any other possibiitily. In conclusion, whatever the case, conclusion is always the same : Path of least resistance wins. And we can't do much against path of least resistance. There is no code in the emu related to this.

So tell me. What is the right answer in all honnesty (not the one you want for yourself) ? The one who isn't too punishing, where all player can play following the direction of the game assuming their role without trying to abuse it or look for the path of least resistance ?

Maybe you have this obvious answer we haven't found those last 6 years.

[jtj5002]

Let me expose clearly the equation :

case A : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to the winning side (actually what happens in last zone). This should be logical to reward winners and not losers. What do we see ? : A majority of players are moving to the winning side.

case B : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to losers. It is stupid and non productive. I imagine 800 player waiting a poor guy lock the area alone.

case C : (symetric rewarding) > Give same reward for both faction, cause time is valuable and no one want to lose, defending or attacking (as for fort city siege, or mid zones). No reason to make a real realm effort. Contribution being personnal and at some level equal, amount being slightly different but no so much, there is no need to involve too much. Waiting for fort or city being the tendancy. On side note, the campaign is a pure non sense, losing or winning being the same, would be easier to put everything in the same place, let say praag and voila. Which lead me to case D.

Case D : (no reward) > All for nothing. Spawn a GM shop in each warcamp giving you all gear you need to play for free, freeing your mind of this stress to have your gear to focus on the game itself and on the campaign, for fun and for the realm you choose. Never tested, but, i'm ready to bet that is not gonna work; according the amount of player who stop playing when they are 80 and top geared, and they would be anything to win...

I don't see any other possibiitily. In conclusion, whatever the case, conclusion is always the same : Path of least resistance wins. And we can't do much against path of least resistance. There is no code in the emu related to this.

So tell me. What is the right answer in all honnesty (not the one you want for yourself) ? The one who isn't too punishing, where all player can play following the direction of the game assuming their role without trying to abuse it or look for the path of least resistance ?

Maybe you have this obvious answer we haven't found those last 6 years.

Case A, with a system in place to better prevent /discourage people from moving to the winning side.
Just pushed a mid zone? You cannot xcream or you cannot receive reward from the next zone lock.

[Dabush]

if it was very difficult to xrealm this wouldn't be an issue but right now it's really bad.

[sjemen]

Code: Select all

The changes to how Invader medals are now earned past 70 RR is very welcomed.Thank you for listening to us.

the city bags still give royal crests for rr70+ players without invader unlock.

[TimOh]

Let me expose clearly the equation :

case A : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to the winning side (actually what happens in last zone). This should be logical to reward winners and not losers. What do we see ? : A majority of players are moving to the winning side.

case B : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to losers. It is stupid and non productive. I imagine 800 player waiting a poor guy lock the area alone.

case C : (symetric rewarding) > Give same reward for both faction, cause time is valuable and no one want to lose, defending or attacking (as for fort city siege, or mid zones). No reason to make a real realm effort. Contribution being personnal and at some level equal, amount being slightly different but no so much, there is no need to involve too much. Waiting for fort or city being the tendancy. On side note, the campaign is a pure non sense, losing or winning being the same, would be easier to put everything in the same place, let say praag and voila. Which lead me to case D.

Case D : (no reward) > All for nothing. Spawn a GM shop in each warcamp giving you all gear you need to play for free, freeing your mind of this stress to have your gear to focus on the game itself and on the campaign, for fun and for the realm you choose. Never tested, but, i'm ready to bet that is not gonna work; according the amount of player who stop playing when they are 80 and top geared, and they would be anything to win...

I don't see any other possibiitily. In conclusion, whatever the case, conclusion is always the same : Path of least resistance wins. And we can't do much against path of least resistance. There is no code in the emu related to this.

So tell me. What is the right answer in all honnesty (not the one you want for yourself) ? The one who isn't too punishing, where all player can play following the direction of the game assuming their role without trying to abuse it or look for the path of least resistance ?

Maybe you have this obvious answer we haven't found those last 6 years.

You also previously said that 90% of players play the game as intended. I question then why would a system be implemented that so clearly encourages poor player behaviour essentially punishing the 90% who play as intended?

I may be misinformed, which if I am let me know. Was not the problem with gear just the bottleneck of invaders for sub 70 renown rank?

The are just some ideas. I am sure these have been repeated before.

1) Cities give invader/sov as currently implemented. Forts give four tokens to both sides winners get bags make the number of bags rewarded scale with the population of the winning side. Pre fort zones gives two invader tokens to the side that locked zone. Mid zone gives one invader token to the side that locked zone.

2) Similar to the first one. Cities give invader/sov as currently implemented. Forts give four tokens to both sides winners get bags make the number of bags rewarded scale with the population of the winning side. Pre fort zones gives two invader tokens to the side that locked zone and one invader to the losing side. Mid zone gives one invader token to the side that locked zone. This still has the draw of snowballing on whichever side is winning.

3) Cities give invader/sov as currently implemented. Forts give four tokens to both sides, winners get bags make the number of bags rewarded scale with the population of the winning side. All other zones give standard rewards like prior to this curent patch. Have enemies drop invader tokens and possibly crests based on ones renown rank at a semi low rate, thereby incentivizing standard rvr behavior and the desire to still go to fort to city.

4) Remove the system to gain gear sets that is in place. Implement a new system which allows players to wear gear based solely on their renown rank. Something like 80+ can access sov, 70+ can access invader etc.. Make all sets have a very basic appearance, tokens would then be spent to access the appearance of items that one desires. This is not really realistic as gear is sort of used to guage what your opponents strength is. This is just to have more ideas.

5) Simply have a more expansive token conversion system. Some number of vanq tokens can be turned into invaders, some number of invader to crests.

[Shooshpanzerer]

Let me expose clearly the equation :

case A : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to the winning side (actually what happens in last zone). This should be logical to reward winners and not losers. What do we see ? : A majority of players are moving to the winning side.

case B : (asymetric rewarding) > Give a better reward to losers. It is stupid and non productive. I imagine 800 player waiting a poor guy lock the area alone.

case C : (symetric rewarding) > Give same reward for both faction, cause time is valuable and no one want to lose, defending or attacking (as for fort city siege, or mid zones). No reason to make a real realm effort. Contribution being personnal and at some level equal, amount being slightly different but no so much, there is no need to involve too much. Waiting for fort or city being the tendancy. On side note, the campaign is a pure non sense, losing or winning being the same, would be easier to put everything in the same place, let say praag and voila. Which lead me to case D.

Case D : (no reward) > All for nothing. Spawn a GM shop in each warcamp giving you all gear you need to play for free, freeing your mind of this stress to have your gear to focus on the game itself and on the campaign, for fun and for the realm you choose. Never tested, but, i'm ready to bet that is not gonna work; according the amount of player who stop playing when they are 80 and top geared, and they would be anything to win...

I don't see any other possibiitily. In conclusion, whatever the case, conclusion is always the same : Path of least resistance wins. And we can't do much against path of least resistance. There is no code in the emu related to this.

So tell me. What is the right answer in all honnesty (not the one you want for yourself) ? The one who isn't too punishing, where all player can play following the direction of the game assuming their role without trying to abuse it or look for the path of least resistance ?

Maybe you have this obvious answer we haven't found those last 6 years.

Well it's just my guess, but making least resistance path unrewarding seems to be the way with removing of gatekeeping and making rewards slightly assymetrical, so bonus for winning is more "oh, nice" than anything.
Let's say, we give 1-5 crests for locking the zone based on contribution and average enemy aoo in the zone for winners. If loser on average had big AOO, diminishing returns for winners (PvDoored - enjoy your 1 crest). In t4 zones +1 extra crest for winning middle zone, +2 for winning enemy last, +1 for defending your last.

[Maltar]

My suggestions for a possible way to motivate, and indirectly punish x-realming, while massively encouraging balanced fights.

Finding what motivates players to actually play the game, use all the systems, and be involved both while winning and losing that is a never ending struggle.

Finding the balance between carrot and stick, while leaving the overall power of reaching balance in the hands of the system the gm's design.

The overall desire is to leave no zone unused, no content unplayed. Enough motivation for players to want both to stay on their faction, push zones, defend zones, push city and defend city.

Now from seeing how the players have been responding to pure carrot (defend last zone for invaders), is a bit troublesome. Invaders are progression gear, and I would suggest they belong in forts and in winning last zone, and city(city change fixes the rr70+ issue)

But many players do wish for carrots from defending the zone before fort, but invaders are permanent rewards, and these defenses would be a perfect place to have some temporary rewards. A beefy 3-6 hour buff/temporary potion maybe call it Defender of Order/Destruction. Or like the talisman system for weekly dungeon quest, a list to choose from of goodies that you can exchange your defense effort for(all temporary and on ticking timer).

Basically, attacking giving permanent rewards, defending last zone giving help in pushing a counter attack. Forts giving a mixture of invader and temporary special talisman or buff. If you change side the buff is lost, timer ticking even if you are offline, use it or lose it, but would be excellent if it is not character bound, but to what side you are playing, so no punishment for changing between your characters as long as they are on same side.

Now if the buff on top of this gives a % increase to rewards and bags but fades if your side loses 2 last zone or fort pushes. You want the big and easy rewards, you have to push on the side you dedicate yourself to for the evening.

And then to top it all off, “balanced” rvr buff, break open some truly great and rare drops, items, talismans, pocket items you will never see unless the sides are balanced, maximum 20% aao active, some rare stuff from kills, some from zone locks, rewards for defense and for attacking. The more balanced the fights, the more intense people should feel about fighting to get them. BiS ultra rare weapons, weird proc items, make the drop rate scale from balanced fights, increase drop if you have the defender buff while attacking, make the players salivate about fair fights to get the unique level juicy loot.

Players seek the best loot, always, easy gains, so the best stuff should only be available if the battles are truly neck and neck. If the sides are unbalanced, then no good stuff for anyone.

If the sides are very unbalanced on average over say 20 minutes, the loot table can be switched to contain the x-realm potion in rvr, or unlock a quest giver with reward, temporary potion, duration 15 minutes, you may freely change to your other side character to improve the realm balance if done during the next 5 minutes after drinking this, even if you have lockout. You also get to keep your current buffs if you have the defender buff.
(so x-realmers with 2 accounts will be punished over players using only one if the balance is bad)
And it leaves any family with 2+ accounts active in use to not be punished by the new mechanic.

The gm's then get to both reward balanced battles, and indirectly punish those who try to game the system. + to drops for those who change when game balance demand it, no + to those who x-realm otherwise.

Give the control of side balance directly to the hands of the gm's, balanced fights or less shiny loot. Defend or attack, both gives unique and wanted items, stuff you only get while doing one or the other, removing any "best" way of grinding, and with sufficient tweaking of drop rates/buffs/quality of drops, would hopefully make players want to have balanced fights that go through all the different aspects, and never throwing a fight.

[NSKaneda]

I don't see any other possibiitily. In conclusion, whatever the case, conclusion is always the same : Path of least resistance wins. And we can't do much against path of least resistance. There is no code in the emu related to this.

People will always go for the easiest way, that is true. So making the easy way harder while keeping current 90 min xrealm lock (which tbh is just enough to take mid zone and switch for defence) would make mid zone pushes introductions to real struggle in forts (while keeping forts and city "the easiest way" to get medallions).

Invaders on locking fort zone - sure, but not 4 at once. Make players work for their reward.
For taking 0 star keep you get 0 invaders (other rewards still apply)
For taking 1 star keep you get 0 invaders (other rewards still apply)
For taking 2 star keep you get 1 invader (other rewards still apply)
For taking 3 star keep you get 2 invaders (other rewards still apply)
For taking 4 star keep you get 3 invaders (other rewards still apply)
For taking 5 star keep (basicaly a minifort) you get 4 invaders (other rewards still apply)

Ranking up a keep takes time. If you let enemy rank up to 5 you will loose the zone if BOs are not blocked and keep itself is very hard to take - not to mention the fact that you need numbers to do it. Meanwhile other zones are ranking up as well - huge numbers either get divided or xrealm to stop or push it - but you still have a higher chance of getting more invaders in fort (and royals in the city). This is solution #1


Solution #2: reward contribution (bags+lock currency) for zone taking is frozen for, say, 2 hours - timer starts on xrealm. You can do scenarios. You can switch sides to pve, check mail, AH, roam or fight for the other side. But you will not get rewarded (apart from renown and player currency drops) for jumping on xrealm train. After given time you are "one of us" and contribution applies normally.

Solution #3: remove inv reward for end zones. Instead introduce inv drops from inv-rank players (AKA retail solution). Up the price of inv set to 280-320 medallions.

Solution #4: end zone rewards are rank based (invader set tome unlock for royals still applies, it's brilliant move IMO). Reduce number of inv to 1 for loosers, 2 for winners. Exploit friendly but not so much as 1 for loosers, 4 for winners.

Solution #5: with introduction of new armour sets old progression got compressed. Invader set used to be rr55, warlord rr70, sovereign 80. This gave players time to grind up to new set and acquire resources for new one. Now with vanquisher/dominator in the middle the need to skip one or two sets comes from simply ranking too fast - before you get currency for next in line set you're eligible for a set two ranks higher (this does not mean that prices should be reduced)...
Make warlord rr80 set and Sovereign rr90. It's a long grind, true, but it will give players goal to grind up to and give devs room to introduce new PVE sets: for example Dark Promise as rr80 equivalent and Tyrant (yeah, two weeks ) as rr90.

[tookmypearl]

I don't see any other possibiitily. In conclusion, whatever the case, conclusion is always the same : Path of least resistance wins. And we can't do much against path of least resistance. There is no code in the emu related to this.

People will always go for the easiest way, that is true. So making the easy way harder while keeping current 90 min xrealm lock (which tbh is just enough to take mid zone and switch for defence) would make mid zone pushes introductions to real struggle in forts (while keeping forts and city "the easiest way" to get medallions).

Invaders on locking fort zone - sure, but not 4 at once. Make players work for their reward.
For taking 0 star keep you get 0 invaders (other rewards still apply)
For taking 1 star keep you get 0 invaders (other rewards still apply)
For taking 2 star keep you get 1 invader (other rewards still apply)
For taking 3 star keep you get 2 invaders (other rewards still apply)
For taking 4 star keep you get 3 invaders (other rewards still apply)
For taking 5 star keep (basicaly a minifort) you get 4 invaders (other rewards still apply)

Ranking up a keep takes time. If you let enemy rank up to 5 you will loose the zone if BOs are not blocked and keep itself is very hard to take - not to mention the fact that you need numbers to do it. Meanwhile other zones are ranking up as well - huge numbers either get divided or xrealm to stop or push it - but you still have a higher chance of getting more invaders in fort (and royals in the city). This is solution #1


Solution #2: reward contribution (bags+lock currency) for zone taking is frozen for, say, 2 hours - timer starts on xrealm. You can do scenarios. You can switch sides to pve, check mail, AH, roam or fight for the other side. But you will not get rewarded (apart from renown and player currency drops) for jumping on xrealm train. After given time you are "one of us" and contribution applies normally.

Solution #3: remove inv reward for end zones. Instead introduce inv drops from inv-rank players (AKA retail solution). Up the price of inv set to 280-320 medallions.

Solution #4: end zone rewards are rank based (invader set tome unlock for royals still applies, it's brilliant move IMO). Reduce number of inv to 1 for loosers, 2 for winners. Exploit friendly but not so much as 1 for loosers, 4 for winners.

Solution #5: with introduction of new armour sets old progression got compressed. Invader set used to be rr55, warlord rr70, sovereign 80. This gave players time to grind up to new set and acquire resources for new one. Now with vanquisher/dominator in the middle the need to skip one or two sets comes from simply ranking too fast - before you get currency for next in line set you're eligible for a set two ranks higher (this does not mean that prices should be reduced)...
Make warlord rr80 set and Sovereign rr90. It's a long grind, true, but it will give players goal to grind up to and give devs room to introduce new PVE sets: for example Dark Promise as rr80 equivalent and Tyrant (yeah, two weeks ) as rr90.

I love this man.

[Jollyjoker]

I’ve been saying this since forever but the medals and crests should be dropping from player kills mainly with locks giving you possibly only a small bonus to encourage people to actually play the game (not that you should need gear to want to play...).

I see constant whinning about gear, forts and city but it stems mostly from people playing the game for the wrong reason. Make a proper group/wb and actually play the game and get kills instead of focusing on leeching or standing in a blob waiting for everyone to knock down the keep and pve the lord.

The devs made getting the gear and loot bags so trivial compared to how it used to be that now you can get conq vanq within a week which is enough to be competitive. You dont even have to do ANYTHING to get a loot bag from a zone and run flags on fort to be top cont, its a joke but the devs made it because of people crying but the crying still continues on.

Like I srsly wonder what are some people going to do when they get the gear, stand around the city looking better? You really dont need gear to be running in a blob, leeching zones, pve lords or running supplies lol.