Recent Topics

Ads

Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas.
Forum rules
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use

Structured class balance suggestions belong in the Balance Proposal subforum. Class-related discussion in this section are considered as ongoing debates and ARE NOT reviewed for balance changes.
emiliorv
Suspended
Posts: 1295

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#51 » Wed May 20, 2020 8:05 pm

If ppl dont enjoy "playing the game" before being full sovereign...what will they do when get the last piece of sovereign?? => log out his main until a new set is released and roll an alt or play other game....exactly the same as now when waiting for city happens.

Im not against the OP proposal (really i dont care) but that will not change the mentality of "gear grind" and play "only for gear rewards", its a player issue. For sure some gear progression is "needed" but isnt everything.

Ads
emiliorv
Suspended
Posts: 1295

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#52 » Wed May 20, 2020 8:06 pm

Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:23 pm Aparthe, we are light years away from the doomflyer and warpforged sets and how it made the game absolutely unbalanced and ridiculous (made by professionnal).
LMAO

meowngolianwarlord
Posts: 3

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#53 » Wed May 20, 2020 8:07 pm

Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:51 pm
Telen wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:44 pm
Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:23 pm According -afaik- there is around 3% stats progression between a set and the next one, according being vanquisher is doable by anyone without any condition of triggering (and it is a pretty good set), i think it is almost the case.
Unless this 6% gap between vanq and sov transform an average player in a terrifying monster -which is not the case- the difference is pretty low.

Aparthe, we are light years away from the doomflyer and warpforged sets and how it made the game absolutely unbalanced and ridiculous (made by professionnal).

In conclusion, "triggered" content is not a mandatory to be efficient in any aspect of the game.
Again if it didnt matter there would be no need for gear at all.
But you couldn't whine in this case ;).
The sheer amount of smug posting from obvious long-term players in here about how access to endgame content isn't necessary to enjoy the game or gear your character is staggering. You're completely ignoring the actual root issue that started the conversation in favor of making bad faith arguments punctuated by emojis.

gebajger
Posts: 209

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#54 » Wed May 20, 2020 8:17 pm

Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 4:34 pm VERY PERSONNAL 2 CTS (and no troll or taunt):

i think, if all you see in this game is "progression", meaning, "because i have nothing to win on ORvR (for exemple) i see no reason to involve, and i wait for city to make my character "progressing"; there is a problem.

Ask yourself in first place why you are looking for "progression". If answer is just "to progress" without any other goal like "shining in ORvR where i have nothing to win" maybe lot of time would be saved doing something else, like playing Pokemon Go (no offense, Pokemon Go is a great collecting game).

All this game is about fighting each other, and not about gathering best **** for no reason. Gear is a means not an end. Cause in the end of the day, no one will give a **** how your character is if you don't play it, but you. And thats not a solo game.
I couldn't agree more. I've been playing this game on live and here as well (not to mention SWG , the real starwars mmo) at times for years with pretty much zero gear progression, and I have no problem with that.
Why? Because I play for fun.
I'm not buying the whole carrot idea, in my opinion playing against other players provides more than enough variety, every fight is different.
I understand that in a sub based environment it was a necessity, but RoR isn't about money.
Yes, you progress as you level up, but if you start a new alt every time you 'max out' maybe your motivation to play is questionable.
Maybe it's just me.
Rioz

User avatar
jimpjorps
Posts: 8

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#55 » Wed May 20, 2020 8:38 pm

"Gear progression doesn't matter" would be a better counterpoint if there weren't, say, character builds that depended on having the mastery +1/+2 from the high-tier sets that enables certain combinations of ability picks at the high end.

User avatar
Yaliskah
Former Staff
Posts: 1973

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#56 » Wed May 20, 2020 8:41 pm

meowngolianwarlord wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 8:07 pm The sheer amount of smug posting from obvious long-term players in here about how access to endgame content isn't necessary to enjoy the game or gear your character is staggering. You're completely ignoring the actual root issue that started the conversation in favor of making bad faith arguments punctuated by emojis.
Oh, it seems you are completely ignoring the begining of my convo with Telen; starting with those 4 words : "VERY PERSONNAL 2 CTS".
It is not bad faith, it is my personnal opinion (unless you consider that not sharing the same exact pov than the OP is by nature bad faith). An opinion i don't expect to be shared by anyone else btw.

I don't run after any piece of gear like a crazy cow, my mains are barelly 80 full vanquisher, have maybe 1 or 2 invader pieces here and there, i miss lot of forts and cities, voluntarily or not and i don't really see how it is a problem when i'm playing.
I'm confident in the teammates i play with ( who aren't full invader too), as they are confident in my gameplay, and result is pretty satisfying. Inv, sov will come when it will come, have no pressure on it. So what? Bad faith?

So, my advice (very personnal too, i take the risk), would be to find a team to play with in all circonstances, which is much more valuable in very long term than a piece of gear giving +10 stat points. But again, i may be wrong.

EDIT : It doesn't mean all is fine and fair. If you look in old post, have said continuously we (the team) would have at a moment or another to focus on progression in general. Fact is we do, in small touches (reduced price of conq/vanq/oppressor few weeks ago as an exemple).

User avatar
Telen
Suspended
Posts: 2542
Contact:

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#57 » Wed May 20, 2020 8:41 pm

Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:51 pm But you couldn't whine in this case ;).
People Ive know in game for years are getting stressed. Its exactly the same as I remember from live when you hit city. The problem is theres a disconnect in the games design and its one of the main reasons why the game failed at end game. You have a persistent rvr campaign where you can just jump in and progress. Its why the actual game was very popular, particularly the lower tiers. Then you hit forts and city and locked content and progression behind instanced triggered content that you needed to be on at the right time for. This disconnect is what saw people quit in droves. Other games learnt this lesson and I think Mythic did too but too late.
Image

DrFistMD
Posts: 2

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#58 » Wed May 20, 2020 8:45 pm

Forts were changed a few weeks ago to alter the rewards slightly and it completely changed the entire landscape of the game and cities became so rare that the change had to be reverted. Clearly a significant portion of the player base is invested in trying to improve their character, and declaring that everyone should align to your position of the game (only play for the sake of playing) is just out of touch with reality.

Whether or not you agree or disagree, I will say it's in bad taste for someone to try and offer a critique/suggestions on a way to improve the game for the people who might otherwise deflect off, and have an official representative of the community essentially go **** you, play your casual mobile games. The community is not a monolith, and no amount of smug put downs and flippant asshole behavior will change that. Growing a community is good for everyone on the server.

Use your big boy words and have a talk instead of bragging about how you have infinite free time and luck and everyone should align to your personal values.

Ads
User avatar
Xergon
Posts: 798

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#59 » Wed May 20, 2020 9:10 pm

If ppl need carrot to play the game then thats players issue not game. Why cant ppl play game, enjoy it and get carrot when it comes, as a reward, not as reason to play it...

I've heard many ppl talking, they want to kill, they want to do PvP not grinding... then why u even care about any kind of currency or gear. Yes, better gear helps, but its not mandatory to play better, no gear will change bad players into better player...

I'm against dropping END GAME currency from kills, as it will stop any kind Campaign progression, and u will never see Fort or City again...

Sure, system is not perfect or very far from perfect, probably will never be perfect as it's almost impossible to satisfy everyone needs... Zarbix on hes stream compared Warhammer progression with WoW Dungeon progression, u cant and you shouldnt compare it... PvP based Campaign is much more dynamic and much more factors plays into it. Sure you should try to make it much better system. Maybe better system would be increasing time in which City is available, for example, if 1 faction managed to push/win 2 of 3 forts, City Instance will be available lets say for next 8h-12h, during which, each player has 1-2 personal/account limit to get in. This would allow more players to organize properly and would increase independence of time/irl stuff, and allowed players to plan for END GAME content which is currently a City Siege. This would also increased cooldown between Cities Sieges, so it would not be farmed everyday, but be more of rare EVENT for which you should and you can prepare as player/group of friends/guild/alliance/faction...

Another better system would be making City Siege constant Weekend Event available, lets say from Friday-Sunday, again with some personal/character/account limit number to get in. In this form each zone lock (including forts as x2/x3 worth of normal zone) would add some personal contribution to character/account which would be used during City Instance rewarding, Also zone locks would affect rank of the Cities (not making it timed thing not dependent from players/faction effort/performance).

MMR for CitySieges would be also good idea, lets say (very simple form), each player have some number of wins, when u make WB you got some average number of wins. IT would make much more interesting fights, spark much more competition, avoid more pug stumping/farms...
Last edited by Xergon on Wed May 20, 2020 9:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
The Unlikely Plan
YouTube

User avatar
Yaliskah
Former Staff
Posts: 1973

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#60 » Wed May 20, 2020 9:19 pm

Telen wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 8:41 pm
Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:51 pm But you couldn't whine in this case ;).
Other games learnt this lesson and I think Mythic did too but too late.
Let start to compare what is comparable. Size of the team, abilities of the team, finished project vs work in progress (cause, again, no, all this thing is not based on original server sources, not a single line).

I'm gonna be very clear. Things come when they come. When this data will be well anchored in all minds, we will have taken a big step forward. Ofc, it wont happen. Never (however it should be a fairly simple update ...)

Not i/we/the team don't care about players concerns on the contrary, just it seems you are looking for an immediate solution to your instant concern. It doesn't work like this. It can't. For the record, we are all players. But maybe you consider our player experience as inconsistent.

You see the weekly patchnote? Each line is hours of work of someone, where someone can , how someone can. Point is they are working on their own agenda, it is the least they deserve according the fortune they are not paid for. (the same old song you deliberately prefer to ignore, because your instant matter is the only one who should be considered as the priority).

You feel "stressed"? Take a break, or join us roll up your sleeves and work, and see what "stressed" means, when you will read how the hours you wasted to make a baby move are instantly ignored and forgotten, because it is not YOUR CONCERN.

If you cant wait, if your patience and your frustration has reached his short limits, if you missed all the progress and the CRAZY amount of work who have been done all those last years, if you want something engraved and polished there are plenty of other commercial free games, not in beta, not in alpha, not made by a bunch of stupids full of bad faith who haven't "understood" the "essence" of your concerns.

So no; your are not "stressed". You are frustrated. As we all are.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests