[Gear] State Stabilization
- peterthepan3
- Posts: 6509
Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.
Tbh the only people who would advocate having such gear gaps are those who, ultimately, prove to be entirely reliant on said gaps, so as to stay relevant. Lost count of the amount of people who would dominate lowbies at rr98+, but crumble against equal players.
Ads
Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.
well in live guilds had a renown counter which show the total renown gained with no cap.peterthepan3 wrote:Some sort of ranking/ladder system for PvP in general (not limited to smallscale) would probably serve to alleviate some concerns regarding stagnant endgame, imo. As stated many times before, nothing rouses interest more easily than appealing to the ego! My 2 c
- peterthepan3
- Posts: 6509
Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.
Renown gain doesn't really say who the top guilds/groups are, though. Some sort of k/d or scenarios/zones locked/won by X guild counter. Food4thought.
Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.
Problem with k/d ratio is that it rewards 'playing safe' (not getting out unless you're in good premade), perfect meta setups, non-gameplay avoidance of getting killed (alt+f4, scenario popup, running into guards, etc). Locked zones / non 6v6 sc counter won't tell much as counter will simply tick when pug-stomp scenario or come to zone everytime it locks.peterthepan3 wrote:Renown gain doesn't really say who the top guilds/groups are, though. Some sort of k/d or scenarios/zones locked/won by X guild counter. Food4thought.
6v6 scenario ladder would be best/good measure, but I don't think there is enough population for this to work well and that would exclude propablly a majority of population from ladder anyway.
Generally imho ladder systems are useless unless game is both popular and highly structured. Then you can have ladder system based on results of isolated fights through whole population of multiplayer in such game. Like i.e. Starcraft or Dota ladders.
Agree about gear gaps though. I dont see any reason as to why power gaps between gear tiers should be big or even medium. Never understood this huge inflation of power between content patches/expansions in MMORPGs.
I understand lack of interest to do that 'never ending work'.Azarael wrote:I'm not willing to perform any kind of balance if I'm going to have to repeatedly tweak lots of variables just to keep things stable because people want and need their extra stats and customisation. I've no interest in that at all.
Said that - I always thought that balancing was a continuous process that is basically never ending one (ending when game closes or is stopped being developed) rather than a task that was 'achieved' at some point in game. Anyway - I never saw pvp multiplayer game that was done with balancing and still receiving content patches. Good examples are Blizzard instanced competetive pvp games - Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 1&2. Each content patch (usually in form of expansion) required multiple balancing patches after landing.
Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.
Normally balancing is done in patches because of the nature of game development and how it's subject to the need for retaining/growing a playerbase to create revenue (paying costumers aren't happy with sudden major underlying changes, all they want is new content). In addition games usually aren't released balanced because of the pressure from investors/publishers who set restrictive deadlines.
RoR isn't subject to those forces (to my knowledge) but at the same time doesn't have the resources of a game developer. Applying logic that works for standard game development doesn't make sense when considering this project.
I believe that the aim of creating a stabilized base for further balancing and developing of RoR was to reduce the load on the development team and to be able to push out changes in a reasonable timeframe. If the team has to take time to objectively rebalance most of the careers after every content push they won't have time for much else, even if they completely ignore the playerbase and the balance forums (as that would speed up the process). It either results in painfully slow development or completely imbalanced game, both of which threaten the life of the project.
Not to mention that there's very few people up for the kind of endless rebalancing (and the associated energy drain) that mainstream games go through on a free project of a small dev team.
RoR isn't subject to those forces (to my knowledge) but at the same time doesn't have the resources of a game developer. Applying logic that works for standard game development doesn't make sense when considering this project.
I believe that the aim of creating a stabilized base for further balancing and developing of RoR was to reduce the load on the development team and to be able to push out changes in a reasonable timeframe. If the team has to take time to objectively rebalance most of the careers after every content push they won't have time for much else, even if they completely ignore the playerbase and the balance forums (as that would speed up the process). It either results in painfully slow development or completely imbalanced game, both of which threaten the life of the project.
Not to mention that there's very few people up for the kind of endless rebalancing (and the associated energy drain) that mainstream games go through on a free project of a small dev team.
Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.
Still, such an experience can only come this way. Whether or not it is preferred is another discussion. World doesn't end at the limits of one's conscience, most likely.peterthepan3 wrote:Tbh the only people who would advocate having such gear gaps are those who, ultimately, prove to be entirely reliant on said gaps, so as to stay relevant. Lost count of the amount of people who would dominate lowbies at rr98+, but crumble against equal players.
Yipikaye - "It doesn't taste like chicken!.."
Play - "Winds of Insanity trololol, omnomnom!"
Nycta - "Not again!.."
Jumaru - "Tenderness beats harshness!"
Oblivion - *Beckons..*
KnockedDown N bz
Play - "Winds of Insanity trololol, omnomnom!"
Nycta - "Not again!.."
Jumaru - "Tenderness beats harshness!"
Oblivion - *Beckons..*
KnockedDown N bz
- Eathisword
- Posts: 808
Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.
Well ty good sir for explaining courteously, in 2 sentences, in response to my feeble satirical caricature attempt to be as vacuous in my style as you were (as it is courteous to express simple ideas simply, on a server where lots of people aren't English natives), what you originally wrote using a gibberish and opaque language.Nycta wrote:By "limited" I was referring to the addition of new content(shinies and maps basically) which is in fact limited unless you think we can turn this into a WoW. We can't, and that was the point I made - class and pvp development is what we are left with basically. What I actually said, and you misunderstood, is that if the seemingly perpetual addition of content is what one needs to keep one's interest replenished, this is not the game one should pick.Spoiler:
Also, as one can find seemingly infinite things to do in a game, so can one find seemingly infinite things to do in other games, not to mention in life itself. Your point is empty, loss of interest doesn't necessarily come from the exhaustion of all permitted ways within a game, it could also mean "meh, screw this, I 'll go back to collecting nails!". Profoundly simple as well, isn't it?
Last edited by Eathisword on Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.
The truth here is that I don't know which path to take, and I'm unwilling to perform any balance changes with the uncertainty present, so I'm going to be honest and take the option I outlined in the OP.
The balance forums will be locked until further notice.
The balance forums will be locked until further notice.
Ads
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests