Recent Topics

Ads

Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Let's talk about... everything else

Moderators: Developer, Management, Web Developer

User avatar
toffikx
Posts: 279

Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#1 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:59 pm

Issues:

I thought the game was at its best with the conqueror/vanquisher grind. Meaning you could contribute regardless of which game mode you played, but also that you got currency from player kills which incentivized player vs player combat. You could also log in whenever you wanted, play for a short or long period of time, and be rewarded depending on your time investment.
Current "endgame" grind design, since forts, have made player vs player combat (which is what the game is all about) more or less insignifact. The possibility of logging on for your choice of time period is also gone, for city sieges (with last zone to take) you need 3 hours minimum. It makes progress on your endgame character during weekdays nearly impossible and it's not even sure you will get anything done on weekends (you could fight the zones, forts for hours withouth really progressing your character in any way). City sieges also encourages zone throws which is well...not fun


Solutions:

Revamp the "endgame grind system" (invader/sovereign) to drops from zones and player kills. Forts and city sieges would still be giving the majority of these tokens, but there would also be a purpose to play the game outside of these scripted events.
Shorten the duration of forts, they are not fun. Also shorten the duration of city siege stages ; "balanced" 24v24 fights are a minority, and the majority is either stomps or snowballs. If you didnt like to be farmed in scenarios by 6 mans, well here you can be farmed by 24 man warbands for an hour.
The core gameplay of the game (the way i see it aleast) should be spontaneous player vs player combat wherever it happens. The scripted events such as forts and city sieges can be decent additions to enrich the gameplay, but they should not be the sole purpose of either logging in or out.
Incentivize lake and fort defenses. That can only be done through reasonable rewards. Where is the fun if there is no challenge?


Radical solutions that will make the devs rage (spaghetti yolognese edition):

Remove forts. They are dogshit. They are neither pvp or pve. Just a mishmash blobzergfest which nonone enjoys. There is a reason they were removed on live (not like live was the role model game in any way, but you get the point). This isnt aimed negatively at the devs or aimed to disrespect their work put into forts, just a realisation that they have not worked out very well and do not provide a decent enjoyment.
Change city sieges back to the "original idea of 36v36 instances". Will this reduce instance pop? Not necessarily, just make the queqing system better for differnt sized groups ; 6 mans, 12 mans, 18 mans and so on. I also believe the possibility of having both warbands and 6 mans in city sieges will make for a) greater game mode variety, b) make more classes viable for city sieges. I think it's unjust that for example order classes that are not warband viable (wl, sw, wh) should have a lesser chance of getting into decent warbands, and as a result of this, lesser chance to obtain sovereign.
Regarding solo ranked : if the idea is to still put MMR requirements behind weapons and/or jewellry, i'd recommend strongly to re-evaluate this. Ranked solo isn't WoW arenas where you pick your teammates, or League of Legends where you can hard carry with certain classes. In fact it is totally random, and you are left to count on your luck regarding your teammates. MMR also encourages people to team up (guilds, alliances or friends) to grind that MMR and kills the idea of 6 solo players vs 6 solo players. I'd like to suggest to you to change the requirement of weapons/jewellries to WINS REQUIRED. You can make it grindy if you want. The way i see it, it will change two things : remove excessive salt from the game mode( if you loose nonthing bad happens) while still encourage to do your best to win (need those wins yo). A more causal approach i believe will also make people less encouraged to team up for solo ranked, which shouldnt be an idea to begin with.


TLDR/Summary

Make the "endgame" grind matter in all areas of the game. I can understand that the idea of this very long grind is to incentivize people to keep playing and stay with the server, but the grind should also be enjoyable. Doesn't mean it have to take less time to get gear, just that it's spread evenly across different aspects of the game.
Change future weapons/jewellry from MMR requirements to WINS REQUIRED. Solo ranked is neither WoW arena where you pick your teammates, or League of Legends where you can hard carry. It's too random for MMR. MMR also encourages people to gather in grps and solo quque "together" (it's solo ranked or not???) and makes the game mode extremly unfriendly and toxic (if i loose the game i go down in MMR). A more casual approach in WINS REQUIRED will aim at everyone doing their best in order to progress, remove unnesseray toxicity and group tryharding (which shouldnt be part of solo), while not necessarily being any less grindy.

Ads
Sulorie
Posts: 4787

Re: Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#2 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:27 pm

I guess you are the first to make this kind of suggestion. Add some pictures and spreadsheets and it will be even more convincing.
Dying is no option.

User avatar
larsulu
Suspended
Posts: 446

Re: Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#3 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 8:30 pm

Agree with you.
Yeah devs made a great job to bring up cities siege but I see a big issue About it. Players use to throw zones cuz they force to join wb city for sov/warlord gear.
Also those invader/sov tok doesn’t help much people.
Maybe add invader tokens in regular zones could be a good incentive for don’t throw zones up.
And the same issues “pugs “ found in sc vs 6 premade is the same on city siege.
Add invader tokens in regular zone, warlords crest in forts ( lots of +80 full inv ppl doesn’t care anymore about forts and they just wait for city sc ) and Sov crest in city only. It could be good to incentive people to keep playing where t2/t3 zones are opens or care more about forts.
decimo marauder
larsulu zealot
norsemanherra wp
stormurfru dok

User avatar
Toggle
Posts: 112

Re: Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#4 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:37 pm

I’m 100% in agreement with your suggestions. I was left sitting in a fort last night (rare for me to be on for one) only to have everyone but a few leave to prepare for city, which I couldn’t participate in due to time constraints. Putting end game gear behind a time gate (3+ hours of playable time in one chunk plus luck that it happens when you’re on) disincentivizes casual players.

I’ve seen Wargrim’s replies to these kinds of posts before, so I’ll go ahead and respond now. It’s not that I don’t want to put in the time to get the gear, it’s that it’s a logistical impossibility for me to do so. I have a job, a family, and I occasionally like to get some sleep. I’m willing and able to put in the time for end game gear, but in different increments. There are 100% skill based PvP games (GW2) where the gear doesn’t matter, and there are games that reward no-lifers with gear that casual players can’t ever hope to attain (Live). What’s wrong with a middle of the road approach?

#RoRcasual
Zealot - 40/7X
Shaman 40/6X
Magus - 40/4X
KotBS - 40/5X

Toonman
Posts: 196

Re: Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#5 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:42 pm

There are a ton of things RoR does better than live. RvR and medal drops isn't one of them unfortunately. Inv/War/Sov medals should drop from kills.

User avatar
larsulu
Suspended
Posts: 446

Re: Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#6 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:46 pm

Toggle wrote:
Fri Feb 21, 2020 9:37 pm
I’m 100% in agreement with your suggestions. I was left sitting in a fort last night (rare for me to be on for one) only to have everyone but a few leave to prepare for city, which I couldn’t participate in due to time constraints. Putting end game gear behind a time gate (3+ hours of playable time in one chunk plus luck that it happens when you’re on) disincentivizes casual players.

I’ve seen Wargrim’s replies to these kinds of posts before, so I’ll go ahead and respond now. It’s not that I don’t want to put in the time to get the gear, it’s that it’s a logistical impossibility for me to do so. I have a job, a family, and I occasionally like to get some sleep. I’m willing and able to put in the time for end game gear, but in different increments. There are 100% skill based PvP games (GW2) where the gear doesn’t matter, and there are games that reward no-lifers with gear that casual players can’t ever hope to attain (Live). What’s wrong with a middle of the road approach?

#RoRcasual
Agree with this system all “pugs “ are out from getting the end game gear, you need a wb and if you play a class which “ is not good for wb “ you are cut it off.
decimo marauder
larsulu zealot
norsemanherra wp
stormurfru dok

Ravai
Posts: 94

Re: Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#7 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:20 pm

Invader tokens from rvr kills solves the current issue, especially as forts only allow in a certain number of players anyway it makes sense you are able to farm invader through other means.
Gitrate - Rysto - Nuclearpotato - Tato - Billsmith - Avgor - Ezi - Dug - Mrglass - Ravz - Ripgor

User avatar
nolofinwe1991
Posts: 21

Re: Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#8 » Fri Feb 21, 2020 11:38 pm

- Well i agree 100% with that post. But i agree 250% with the "radical solutions" section :) . Playing lately more for the gear, less for the fun (where is fun? has been lost somewhere in time). I see only unskilled mindless zergs... While my arch-enemies (7th) dropped the guild cause im guessing dont like this form of mindless zerg play. To me that move was the ultimate F**k off to the game. Dunno if developers mind such moves but it cant be construed differently for me..
- And dont tell plz its the people to blame for that. NO its the system that leads u to this awful gameplay..
- Change it before its too late for the game thx
~ Hythonia rr83 ~

Ads
Shooshpanzerer
Posts: 83

Re: Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#9 » Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:01 am

Devs made it clear - to get rewards from content you should do content.

Main issue with fort/city compared to pve/sc/lakes arises from system. Latter is "on demand" content, whit forts/cities happen when they happen, not when a player has time for it.

Zxul
Posts: 723

Re: Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes

Post#10 » Sat Feb 22, 2020 12:54 am

The issue- no sane person with a job is going to schedule his life about cities. (With "even if you catch city, no matter the contribution you might not get in cause of quote system", just to add that little fu in there).

The solution- currently waiting for the next pve dungeon which will hopefully have a comparable gear. Or I guess for Amazon's New World in may.
"Can we play with him, master? He seems so unhappy. Let us help him smile. Please? Or at least let us carve one on his face when he stops screaming."

— Azeila, Alluress of Slaanesh

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests

cron