.

[Azarael]

Don't misunderstand my approach here.

I'm not labelling everyone who disagrees with me a whiner. There are people who disagree / criticise me frequently (I'll raise bloodi as an example) who do so in a constructive and agreeable way.

My policy regarding any change is to discuss it internally first, then implement it for direct feedback from the players. I cannot stand theorycrafting when direct testing will suffice, nor can I tolerate complaints about intermediate states in the process of making something better.

I state this clearly and openly, for those who are not yet experienced with this type of process. When making any kind of major change to a game's design, the game will get worse before it gets better. This is a given. People need to learn to tolerate the idea that there will be flawed iterations / builds, and they need to learn that whatever problems present themselves will be fixed.

I present myself, here. You get feedback and replies directly from me, the one executing the changes. I go through my thoughts and intentions, and the reasons behind both. I do not hide behind a PR team or leave a void of silence, like some professional developers do. I mention it very quickly when I see problems, and do my best to fix them. I'm doing my part in this arrangement, and I don't have any guilt over that.

I have never denied the consequences of my actions. The consequences of most actions of this type range from outright support to tepid acceptance to constructive criticism to whine. I accept that all will happen, but nothing states that I have to yield to whine, or treat frustration with a temporary state as a reason to revert to the previous one.

I continue on now, having faith in the ability to reach a better state than the previous one. If I objectively cannot do so, then I will yield, but I will not falter because some people who are under no obligation to play the objective-based scenarios feel the need to complain when those scenarios are made more true to their concept. I have not left those people without a home - they have the classic scenarios, which have remained unchanged, and they can queue for those if they so wish.

One must always be careful not to jerk one's knee when dealing with complaints, lest complaint from a perspective that has not been fully considered be used to immediately block the process of change during its more contentious phase. The gamble I make is that either the original complaints are unfounded or that I am able to rectify the lingering issues within a reasonable timeframe. It's one I'm happy to make.

As for the scenario display? It was complained about because players would drop the scenario upon seeing strong opposition, so I removed it. Dodging premades penalizes your realm in scenarios and is not acceptable.

[Arteker616]

Don't misunderstand my approach here.

I'm not labelling everyone who disagrees with me a whiner. There are people who disagree / criticise me frequently (I'll raise bloodi as an example) who do so in a constructive and agreeable way.

My policy regarding any change is to discuss it internally first, then implement it for direct feedback from the players. I cannot stand theorycrafting when direct testing will suffice, nor can I tolerate complaints about intermediate states in the process of making something better.

I state this clearly and openly, for those who are not yet experienced with this type of process. When making any kind of major change to a game's design, the game will get worse before it gets better. This is a given. People need to learn to tolerate the idea that there will be flawed iterations / builds, and they need to learn that whatever problems present themselves will be fixed.

I present myself, here. You get feedback and replies directly from me, the one executing the changes. I go through my thoughts and intentions, and the reasons behind both. I do not hide behind a PR team or leave a void of silence, like some professional developers do. I mention it very quickly when I see problems, and do my best to fix them. I'm doing my part in this arrangement, and I don't have any guilt over that.

I have never denied the consequences of my actions. The consequences of most actions of this type range from outright support to tepid acceptance to constructive criticism to whine. I accept that all will happen, but nothing states that I have to yield to whine, or treat frustration with a temporary state as a reason to revert to the previous one.

I continue on now, having faith in the ability to reach a better state than the previous one. If I objectively cannot do so, then I will yield, but I will not falter because some people who are under no obligation to play the objective-based scenarios feel the need to complain when those scenarios are made more true to their concept. I have not left those people without a home - they have the classic scenarios, which have remained unchanged, and they can queue for those if they so wish.

One must always be careful not to jerk one's knee when dealing with complaints, lest complaint from a perspective that has not been fully considered be used to immediately block the process of change during its more contentious phase. The gamble I make is that either the original complaints are unfounded or that I am able to rectify the lingering issues within a reasonable timeframe. It's one I'm happy to make.

As for the scenario display? It was complained about because players would drop the scenario upon seeing strong opposition, so I removed it. Dodging premades penalizes your realm in scenarios and is not acceptable.

why isnt acceptable to dodge a premade . its more acceptable watch ur pugs getting rolf stomped with 0 chances to win ? all the changes in scs are moot when it comes to a fight where based in the oposition u know u stand no chance to beat the enemy team.

in a RVR variation would be like being denied to dodge the zerg when u have aao and be forced to frontal assault em .

with such course of action eventualy random players will stop using the sc, because as u said earlier now most premades farm the enemy team and when 2 minutes remain get all the sc objetives and even achieve bigger reward.

my question to you is the following , if thwe time come where sc get more dead than T3 currently is as eventualy they will turn to the 6 pack teams on both sides personal playgrounds and the casuals still will not play much of the rvr what will happen when that segmentun of your server population get tired .


thank you for the reply in the last post btw .

[Azarael]

It's not acceptable because it deprives the people who do join the scenario of teammates and cements their loss based on a few players' beliefs regarding the outcome of the scenario.

I view queuing for a scenario as a covenant. You agree that you will join the scenario, and you accept that there is a risk of being matched against stronger opposition than you, just as you will be matched against weaker opposition.

Additionally, the text was never intended for this purpose. It was intended to deflect comments about bugs in the scenario system by showing exactly who was selected for the scenario. That way, if a scenario started imbalanced, players knew who to blame for dropping it. Because the text was not on live and was primarily a debug aid for me, I made the decision to remove it in response to player feedback.

If premades become such a huge problem that they weaken the casual base, that will have to be dealt with. If you look through my post history, I have never said anything different. Strong players are not the prime lifeblood of a game, though they are a very important part of it. Casuals keep a game moving.

[Arteker616]

It's not acceptable because it deprives the people who do join the scenario of teammates and cements their loss based on a few players' beliefs regarding the outcome of the scenario.

I view queuing for a scenario as a covenant. You agree that you will join the scenario, and you accept that there is a risk of being matched against stronger opposition than you, just as you will be matched against weaker opposition.

Additionally, the text was never intended for this purpose. It was intended to deflect comments about bugs in the scenario system by showing exactly who was selected for the scenario. That way, if a scenario started imbalanced, players knew who to blame for dropping it. Because the text was not on live and was primarily a debug aid for me, I made the decision to remove it in response to player feedback.

If premades become such a huge problem that they weaken the casual base, that will have to be dealt with. If you look through my post history, I have never said anything different. Strong players are not the prime lifeblood of a game, though they are a very important part of it. Casuals keep a game moving.

thanks for the reply .
in a personal question, would you be interested in feedback from scs of pug vs premade since ur sc changes come live to adress some concerns of the people i do have social intereactions in ror ?.
Because i would like to see ur thoughs about em . i can provide order and destruction though .

[Azarael]

Go ahead.

[Asherdoom]

ppl whine, yet for is one of the few mmorpgs where developers and gm really take care of their ppl and try to improve game for them. i played many moms in the past and i can assure here they are making a great job. If someone do not like changes, do as i did in the past, post in suggestion area of forum and feedback with screens and videos. I agree with Arteker616 scenarios were something ridiculous, very few ppl joined em preferring open rvr instead. This could have mangled the game, which is based on rvr and scenarios, making some tiers literally dead till next one.

If someone love to roam alone making big numbers can go open world in enemy area hunting them, i don't see the need to flame about a needed scenario criteria changed.

Concerning remade dodging:

imagine something like this.

-you are a random guy guileless coming into this game or returning after a break.
-join scenario, meet premade. loose. well might happen . that's life.
-join other scenarios where dos of em are the same premade and taste the great experience of stay afk waiting for scenario to end hoping you will never see that remade again-
-repeat point 2 and 3 till u get bored
-logoff

sounds funny?

[peterthepan3]

imagine something like this.

-you are a random guy guileless coming into this game or returning after a break.
-join scenario, meet premade. loose. well might happen . that's life.
-join other scenarios where dos of em are the same premade and taste the great experience of stay afk waiting for scenario to end hoping you will never see that remade again-
-repeat point 2 and 3 till u get bored
-logoff

sounds funny?

i would assume anyone who experiences this would: a) try to find a group immediately; b) form/join a guild to alleviate this problem. if you knowingly join scenarios when there are premades out on your own, you're being masochistic willingly.

[zazie]

imagine something like this.

-you are a random guy guileless coming into this game or returning after a break.
-join scenario, meet premade. loose. well might happen . that's life.
-join other scenarios where dos of em are the same premade and taste the great experience of stay afk waiting for scenario to end hoping you will never see that remade again-
-repeat point 2 and 3 till u get bored
-logoff

sounds funny?

i would assume anyone who experiences this would: a) try to find a group immediately; b) form/join a guild to alleviate this problem. if you knowingly join scenarios when there are premades out on your own, you're being masochistic willingly.

Honestly its a bit harder with people from so many countries playing. It would be fantastic if there was a solo que scenario only. I literally ran with Schwarze Hand the other day and was in TS with them all speaking German and had NFI what was going on, managed to not embarass myself in oRvR and scens being significantly lower RR than them and we did just fine, this is a really bad example but it shows that players who are given the opportunity or make the effort can create a functioning group that can compete.

On the other side of it, a lot of players haven't played as long as I (for example) have and (not to toot my own horn) don't have the experience to compete even with a lack of gear.

It's a problem that should be addressed to keep casual players (and I include myself as casual as get about 1-2 hours a day to play per my Wife lol) around and feeling like they can enjoy the game too.

[ursvamp]

good discussion on this page. the game needs to become viable for casual who just want to have an acceptable experience. say that the game is like that, and that you are required to interact with other people is wrong because it is not everyone who has control of fluent english. and then feel extremely out of context.

I believe that the popular games are moving more and operating without the need of player interaction - you can have your opinion she is agreeing or disagreeing - but it exists. the mentality of people changed the years 2008 until now. It is not for nothing that MOBAS and fps are successful, and then opened wow increasingly play to this style, as ranking with the solo queue .

if you give strength to 5/15 6x6 existing premades the game will fall. if you take the game to 200/300 people who want to have a fun experience the game live. you choose.

not everyone has time to search group and enter the designated time that was marked. just they want after work, or any need, get in the game to spend 2 hours and have a good experience. search for groups coming in second background. not in the first.

[altharion1]

just leave the sc if it sucks, the portals work