Constructive Feedback Pug Leading T1

[Wam]

You wanted constructive feedback and I will give you some from pug leading POV

Some people may or may not know me, but I usually lead guild warbands in T4 (sometimes t3)
I am fairly experienced with over 13 40's on live, and 8 40's on ROR so I know a few things

Your T1 System is Fine/Perfect for Nordland because the bo's are so close together and the third one up north is a bonus which no one rarely ever fights over / forgotton about... so its 2 bo's in kiting range basically

However your system in T1 Dwarfs is super bad... it's so bad its twice as bad as Kadrin Valley to lock in T4 and you know why... here is why

2 Spawn Area's near Bo's that are never ever secured... so you have to spread forces massively and your enemy does not they can just move around you as your forced to spread and spread over a two Map zone (most players do not read map, especially in T1)
Its okay if you have enough organised "6 man" pressence to spread... but for pug warbands when getting people to follow the basics and even In T1

The Map is soooo big for super slow mounts in T1

The map switching from zone to zone losing certain buffs etc.

Also needing to leave behind one guy on each BO is very bad... people play to play together and have fun/fight not to be a half afk scout doing nothing / missing the fun/action

VP system is better than domination system in the above map...

Elf land server got rebooted when we was starting to lock it so didn't see its flaws as much as the horribly exposed ones in dwarf land.

I am a experienced leader and I feel sorry for any new player or new leader who wants to play T1 Dwarfs because of the above issues.

Any Average 6 man group could prevent a zone lock on T1 Dwarf map indefinately vs just one Warband... it is so easy to do with the double spawns and no "secure"

If this mechanic was in T4 with no keeps or securement... it would require phalanx on one BO, TUP on another, Ocara on another, and Tesq on another... and even then one of those groups would get countered by 1-3 order wb's atleast... and with BO not being secure = Indefinate ending until one side gets bored/tired/sleeps... because forces are spread too thin

I know why you guys changed system to encourage activity which in short term yeah sure it will do because of event... but long term is it really better on these maps no i dont think so because of the flaws i mentioned which create stalemate and people dont have 10+ hours to lock zones especially in T1 where things should be more fluid/easier especially for pugs and not require comms/hardcore/veteran players level of co-ordination on a grand scale.

Also in t1 you have to take into consideration lack of certain skills like Rez... most healers will be below level 10, and when you wipe the half split in ekrund... half split in mount bloodhorn, makes regrouping for pugs very very unlikely any time soon.

TlDR: Nordland = GOOD
Ekrund = Terrible to lead/play on
Shadowlands = somewhere in the middle

I Completed quest on kills long ago and had hundreds of kills tonight... but I kept going for the realm / system to see how it played out... I stop at 11:00 and less than 30 mins later it locks because rest of destro get bored because stalemates are pointless/sleep/rl despite us having massive domination of that zone, so its easy to see why Chaos/Empire is the preference for both sides because no one wants KV x 2.

[Wam]

I also forgot to mention that Ekrund/Mount encouraged fight avoidance and just kiting back to spawn (even more so than other maps) The proximity of Cannon Battery BO to spawn is a issue when you have to spread forces so much / cannon /guard protection if you pushed them off BO / spawn rez > under lvl 10 healers

Nordland map is direct and centralized which encourage the big epic running battles which i assume/guess that most people enjoy/play T1 for

The mechanics make ekrund less streamlined/fluid (see fight avoidance)

you can lock Tier 4 with holding just 3 bo's that can be secured for 15 minutes... with multiple organised / veterans warbands

yet in Tier one you want one pug warband+ to hold 4 BO'S that cannot be secured when you know only 75% of people will follow in pugs

It is too easy to play defensive and stop lock vs that

In theory it sounds good, in practice Chaos works, Greenskin not so much... I could of left after I got my kill quests done early but not my style, I lead us for awhile for realm, I would do Chaos again no problem with pugs... but Greenskins that is not worth the effort or hassle to lead imo because of the sheer co-ordination and spread you need to cover 4 bo's in TIER ONE.

Leading can be a thankless task at best of times... only reason I create this post is for honest feedback and maybe future leaders in T1 GS have a better time. Otherwise I think there's a high chance these alternate zones will end up partial ghost town again after event novelty wears off and then they become not super active like Chaos always tends to be.

[geezereur]

I had great fun in your wb today wam.

[dansari]

I think these are fair points. Without one side relatively dominating (like 1.5 wb vs 2 group), it does seem rather difficult to flip the zone. Would like to see how the team tweaks the new system (which I think is still a massive improvement from the old)

[Musax]

that's the fundamental problem though...

you either have a system where a small group can make a difference against a huge zerg outnumbering them, but then it will be almost impossible with even forces to get a lock

or you have a system where the dominant side can do locks even against almost the same numbers without much coordination, but then any huge number difference will lead to auto-locks without the smaller side having any effective methods to stop it from happening




I prefer a system that gives small groups a chance VS huge zergs (because the huge zergs are forced to split) even if that means that zone-locks are rare

[zaauk]

that's the fundamental problem though...

you either have a system where a small group can make a difference against a huge zerg outnumbering them, but then it will be almost impossible with even forces to get a lock

or you have a system where the dominant side can do locks even against almost the same numbers without much coordination, but then any huge number difference will lead to auto-locks without the smaller side having any effective methods to stop it from happening




I prefer a system that gives small groups a chance VS huge zergs (because the huge zergs are forced to split) even if that means that zone-locks are rare

+1 Agree

[dansari]

Hmm I think I support a system somewhere in the middle, which is why I like a points based system more. Something that still enables the breaking up of the larger force, but not so much that the larger force feels frustrated that they can't lock a zone if the ratio is like 1:3.

[Collateral]

I prefer a system that gives small groups a chance VS huge zergs (because the huge zergs are forced to split) even if that means that zone-locks are rare

But don't you think that this system encourages the zerg as well? If you read what Wam said, when one side spreads over the BOs (one wb or couple of groups on each), what discourages the other side to also split up? No order warband wants to fight us (Phalanx) one on one (I would give an exception to LNM, Invasion and probably dwarfs), so they always bring 2-3 warbands, because they know their chances improve drastically. And of course this goes for every warband that is split up from the main force. If you bring more numbers it's gg. I'm still waiting for this system to be implemented into middle tier, so maybe then I will debolster. But I really wonder what it will be like in T4.

[dansari]

Spoiler:

I prefer a system that gives small groups a chance VS huge zergs (because the huge zergs are forced to split) even if that means that zone-locks are rare

But don't you think that this system encourages the zerg as well? If you read what Wam said, when one side spreads over the BOs (one wb or couple of groups on each), what discourages the other side to also split up? No order warband wants to fight us (Phalanx) one on one (I would give an exception to LNM, Invasion and probably dwarfs), so they always bring 2-3 warbands, because they know their chances improve drastically. And of course this goes for every warband that is split up from the main force. If you bring more numbers it's gg. I'm still waiting for this system to be implemented into middle tier, so maybe then I will debolster. But I really wonder what it will be like in T4.

We gotta keep in mind there are still going to be iterations of this system before it hits T4.

[Collateral]

Spoiler:

I prefer a system that gives small groups a chance VS huge zergs (because the huge zergs are forced to split) even if that means that zone-locks are rare

But don't you think that this system encourages the zerg as well? If you read what Wam said, when one side spreads over the BOs (one wb or couple of groups on each), what discourages the other side to also split up? No order warband wants to fight us (Phalanx) one on one (I would give an exception to LNM, Invasion and probably dwarfs), so they always bring 2-3 warbands, because they know their chances improve drastically. And of course this goes for every warband that is split up from the main force. If you bring more numbers it's gg. I'm still waiting for this system to be implemented into middle tier, so maybe then I will debolster. But I really wonder what it will be like in T4.

We gotta keep in mind there are still going to be iterations of this system before it hits T4.

Of course. That's why I'm looking forward to test it out in mid tier.