Revolution

[Collateral]

24v24 WB sc is cool provided only warbands can queue for them, and not ungrouped pugs.

Yes ofc that's the idea, but I fear that it would end the same as 6v6 scs. The community for it is so low it just wouldn't be worth it. I mean let's be realistic, Phalanx is probably the only guild which can come up with a decent composition and full 24 player warband. So who in the world would we fight? If we dominate them people would just stop playing as there would be no incentive. Just like 6v6 scs where a few order groups dominate the scene and destro simply doesn't queue for them.

As for other points. I want a change in CC system. The current CC is sort of gamebreaking to me tbh. The amount of CC is incredible, and as Hao said, the perma snares are simply retarded (I play with aoe snare on my bo and I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be on order side). Either give a CD to ALL CC in the game, or create an immunity to snares which lasts a couple of seconds. Also make juggernaut not remove snares, since you will get an immunity afterwards and the snare is not wasted (if you indeed give a CD to all of them). This would force people to really think tactically, when to apply snare and on which target, not just spam snares and gg (unless the enemy has RD, which the great majority of people don't have or can't afford anyway).

[Darosh]

24v24 WB sc is cool provided only warbands can queue for them, and not ungrouped pugs.

Yes ofc that's the idea, but I fear that it would end the same as 6v6 scs. The community for it is so low it just wouldn't be worth it. I mean let's be realistic, Phalanx is probably the only guild which can come up with a decent composition and full 24 player warband. So who in the world would we fight? If we dominate them people would just stop playing as there would be no incentive. Just like 6v6 scs where a few order groups dominate the scene and destro simply doesn't queue for them.

As for other points. I want a change in CC system. The current CC is sort of gamebreaking to me tbh. The amount of CC is incredible, and as Hao said, the perma snares are simply retarded (I play with aoe snare on my bo and I can't even imagine how frustrating it must be on order side). Either give a CD to ALL CC in the game, or create an immunity to snares which lasts a couple of seconds. Also make juggernaut not remove snares, since you will get an immunity afterwards and the snare is not wasted (if you indeed give a CD to all of them). This would force people to really think tactically, when to apply snare and on which target, not just spam snares and gg (unless the enemy has RD, which the great majority of people don't have or can't afford anyway).

DRs > immunities, imho.

[th3gatekeeper]

[ please don't wot, hear me convert and viskag ]:

Testing Phase:

1- Increasing TTK; suggestions:

a- Adding a wounds buff in RvR lakes like %X of current wounds [imo %50+ for real testing, maybe bound to AAO]
b- Disable all damage morales. [ just disable without replacing with some other thing ; from M2-M4 ]
c- Changing the crit damage formula. [obviously in a negative way]
d- Changing healing formula [obviously buff for healing]
e- Get rid off AP-feeders. [ less AP, less damage ]

haha! Not sure why you mentioned Convert and I, but I largely agree with you my brother!

Starting with increasing TTK suggestions.


A) Wounds buff tied to lakes. I have suggested this before and really think this could be a good thing, Especially if tied to AAO somehow, maybe the buff itself grows with AAO. My ONLY fear with purely a wounds buff is now Wounds > ALL other defensive stats. So people would be stacking wounds rather than toughness, armor, mitigation %s...

But, I am not opposed to this at all!

B) Yeah, we might have to just go this route. personally id rather see these modified to not be so broken. Some have suggested making them a DOT rather than a pure upfront damage. This could work. You could also have them pass through normal mitigation and be impacted by toughness, or armor, or what not... Thats another option.

C) Crit Damage formula I think is fine as is. The only problem comes into play when classes get increased crit damage via mechanics or tactics. So I would suggest possibly changing THAT aspect of crit damage, not the crit damage itself. From a pure "game design" concept, I think crits dealing 50% more damage is a very good spot.

If you then have a choice of 1% more overall damage, versus 1% crit, that 1% crit is really .5% more "DPS" but it comes ALL at once, via burst. So this is a tradeoff. Less "DPS" and more "burst".

THE PROBLEM comes in with classes like Sorc or BW for instance, who get a TON more crit damage via their mechanic. So to them 1% more crit is more like 2.5%+ more DPS (I forget the exact #s) so for THOSE classes, Crit % > other stats. THIS is where the problem lies. Not with the crit mechanic itself but with classes who get to boost their crit damage up.

- Removing this, or severely nerfing it, would increase TTK as well.

D) Not sure what you mean here. Frankly, I dislike how healers dont seem to NEED to stack willpower. I dont play healers so I wont weigh in on this point.

E) Less AP ALSO = More boring. Because we run out of AP and have no abilities to use. However I do think something could be done about this as well as it seems a TAD overtuned.

[Dabbart]

Spoiler:

I'd love to see radical changes tested for set periods(ie a week or weekend) to gather data. And most of those posted by OP would be worth trying out. And there are ways to try them w/o "breaking" things as well(rollbacks could help with this also).

For instance, the 24v24 SC, during T3 times there was talk about allowing the last stage of City Invasion as a SC. Events like THAT would be beyond epic. WAR has tons of instances that can be utilized more freely than they are. Patcher and all that though...

Balance wise, I think it would be extremely interesting to see how the game plays out without various aspects, or with them severly Nerfed. How "viable" is every DPS class out there, if Tanks are the ONLY ones with CCs for instance? How does it impact general survivability? And based on THAT(ie how much classes actually rely upon various aspects) then balance discussions could actually have something to base arguments around...

Considering how the Devs/GMs view the players(not intended negatively), the Alpha state of the game, and the upcoming patcher... I doubt this will be taken well, but everyone goes on and on about Testers and Testing... How about we actually Test out some brand new things and just see what happens? It couldn't possibly generate anything worse than past changes have...

Im sure you realise that time and manpower on this freely provided project are finite, and we dont have a 'make silly ****' department outside of myself so who exactly is going to make the systems and do the work necessary to enable people who are bored so as to play silly buggers?

We arent shy of ideas, we are shy of manpower resources and what we have goes into the reconstruction of the still unfinished game so a question of "how about we test new stuff" is answered by even a little thought about how things are made and best use of resources. Still to come are forts, cities (including the omitted from live orc and dwarf ones) so its not like the team just sits around doing nothing you know, I leave big long lists of 'to do' that many of the staff have the joy of waking up to every morning.

You can talk about whatever flights of fantasy you like, in among the mountains of poop there may even be some gems that are worth exploring but reality is reality and confines are confines, such as time, manpower and only being able to do what the client allows us to do at this precise point. We could stop working on the launcher and the full access to modification it would allow us and just set about bastardizing systems through a series of ugly and exploitable hacks and slow actual development to a crawl...... or we could do it properly.

A team of 200+ professional coders would be sweet, however we have like a dozen people, all with jobs and RL concerns who do this for free in their own free time to reconstruct what was a $100 million MMO which, understandably, takes time.

So come up with whatever you like but try and have a understanding as to why you are exceptionally unlikely to see any of them.

to be fair mate, it's unlikely because you don't want too. You guys decide what you want to spend your time on ingame. Same as the players. Yea, small team and time. I've made that same arguement enough to get flamed plenty of times in my time here. If you saw an idea here you liked, you'd input it. Or create something for it. Cause you decide how you spend your time... that's not a negative.

If you see an idea or a theory you like, you'd do it. So why shouldn't we, the supposed testers, post our thoughts? I don't care if you disagree with my theory of forming a baselines for some game balance issues such as CC. Just as you don't care about my Thoughts. There's nothing harsh or personal in there. Just different opinions.

The day you dont want us to post our thoughts and ideas anymore, close down the forum. Yea, you are one of the few people that do "work" on this server. I've always gone out of my way to be respectful towards the staff. But I'm not trying to "play silly buggers." Anymore than you guys making weekend events. It's fun, different, and just an idea... besides the fact...

I've done my own work on a few priv servers over numerous games. Short term radical changes with a prewarned rollback can give a LOT of useful information. And no, it doesn't slow anything to a crawl. No more so than you coding up a marching dwarf ability to be used in the X future...

If the lead Dev wants to spend their time, and have others dedicate towards specific things cool. Go for it! Your server and your time. No one here is making demands of you. Just posting what we would "like" to see.

Edit: for the record, natherul's change to morale scaling in the most recent patch is exactly the type of thing I was talking about. And I was very happy to see it in the patch notes...

[footpatrol2]

Slight sidetrack:
To get rid of the AE snare from a BO all you have to do is ap drain the BO. You can barely maintain it as is. Your suppose to Ap drain the BO that is AE snaring. If you don't then you suffer the snare. If your group comp can't easily AP drain then a weakness of your group comp is BO AE snare. You can suffer the snare and still win depending on group comp.

There are counter's built into this game.

Back on topic
And... I don't like any of those idea's...if my opinion matters...

About TTK, the game just doesn't scale well after 24 vs 24. Why do I say that. Because city fights were 24 vs 24. The game's progression tries to help player's slowly adjust to 24 vs 24 fights. T1,T2, T3 scenario's were all 12 vs 12. Some T4 scenario's introduced 18 vs 18. City fights are 24 vs 24. Its a slow progression. Scenario's had a ton of meaning at one time and were tied to the campaign. Funneling everyone into one zone pairing will cause imbalance issue's. The game will feel imbalanced because it is when you have multiple warbands fighting each other at that scale.

Gear is also tied to TTK. By having low defensive stats on gear your going to get shorter TTK.
TTK is also tied to tanks. If you have bad tanks the TTK will be lower.
We lost a lot of the defensive morale cycle's which really prolong's the TTK. This was mythic's doing not RoR.

[roadkillrobin]

People here doesn't seem to undrstand that these points arn't purposals. They are test points to check what the direction the game would take, for better or worse if you would activate em. Its for collecting information.

[footpatrol2]

Another reason on why TTK is lower is lower morale gain rates.
You have distracting bellow and immaculate defense which distracting bellow should be obtained fairly normally as opposed to every 180 sec's. On AoR it was obtained every 50 sec's at 36 morale per sec or 30 sec's at 60 morale per sec.

[hogun]

I do not understand this principle of wanting to change the mechanics of the game while the game itself is still not finished, it is in my opinion a bad way to advance in a project. When the capital will be released and that all the bugs will be corrected and that there will be no more repair done then this kind of question could be asked, by the time of the work that this post will be forgotten since a long time

And we are here because we all think that this game is well ... and you all want to change ?

by

[Yaliskah]

I do not understand this principle of wanting to change the mechanics of the game while the game itself is still not finished, it is in my opinion a bad way to advance in a project. When the capital will be released and that all the bugs will be corrected and that there will be no more repair done then this kind of question could be asked, by the time of the work that this post will be forgotten since a long time

And we are here because we all think that this game is well ... and you all want to change ?

by

Hogun, i don't know of which version of the original game you have played, but afaik, there was X versions of the original game. At least 3 different mode of capital Siege, 4 different kind of ORvR mecanics including fortresses or not, and about class balances, a lot. Each of us has probably a prefered version, and each of us has probably regrets about the original experience.
If in the past changes have been made on the original game, there were reasons. Our purpose is to find a way between all these versions to provide something interesting. We are not looking to make a different version just to mark our difference, regardless quality, interest and players concerns. i don't think we are inventing something new. Probably i bit different in the assemblage, the the essence itself of the game will be preserved.

Now about "changing" while the game isn't finished. i personnaly don't understand why the project evolved to TIer 4 'so fast'', when the T1 itself wasn't "perfect". If the base isn't correct, how to expect good playground in higher tiers in this condition ? I'm 100% against flight forward, but well, some people in past have made different choices. And now, here we are. I don't want to proceed to changes for selfish reasons, i'm not looking to be praised for what i do. Like all of you, i want to play this game in the best conditions, and it great and funny, and not just a shadow of the past.

We are just asking your support, trust and patience (A LOT). We are all players, we are all passionate.

[Haojin]

I do not understand this principle of wanting to change the mechanics of the game while the game itself is still not finished, it is in my opinion a bad way to advance in a project. When the capital will be released and that all the bugs will be corrected and that there will be no more repair done then this kind of question could be asked, by the time of the work that this post will be forgotten since a long time

And we are here because we all think that this game is well ... and you all want to change ?

by

Do you know that this game died on live right ? Without any bug, working city sieges, fortresses ect.

Biggest problems of the game are: lack of endgame and powercreep. If you fix everything without solving these problems, this game gonna die aswell.