Weekend Scenario Events

[Phantasm]

Spoiler:

I think this recent event has highlighted a lot of things for us here. Like most systems, when one mechanism is pushed to an extreme, it can cause cracks to show in related places. One of them that stands out pre-eminently to me is the way the weekend Scenario events are handled. The extreme population imbalance made queuing for the scenario a near futile endeavor for Order. I will use both my personal experience, and a review of the scenario win / lose as examples, and put my proposals at the end after detailing my observations.

You can follow this link (https://killboard.returnofreckoning.com ... e=standard) to see the scenarios played. Last I counted the ratios, it was about 75% destruction wins. That is an extreme imbalance. To use other games as a reference, in DotA2, when a particular hero has over a 60% win-rate, it's considered overpowered. Obviously, this isn't a 1:1 translation, but that is a very strong sniff test failure.

I don't queue for anything other than discordant if I'm solo (which is almost always), except for the weekend Scenarios. I understand that I'm solo, and don't want to run against premades constantly. That's totally fine and okay, but the weekend scenario events force me into there if I want to get the weekly rewards. Typically, of feel, this means I have to run the weekend scenario about 10-15 times to get the 500 point wins, which is not an all-together bad ratio. My suspicion, is that the reason why there are 5 wins and 10 plays required each week is because there is an expectation of a 50% win rate.

This weekend blew that expectation out of the water. I easily ran over 20, and I suspect closer to 30 instances of the Serpent's Passage scenario this weekend. It was routinely being crushed by Destruction premades, causing order to almost always just lead to surrenders. Past experiences this happens a lot at the start of the weekend, and by the end of the weekend pop rates go down because Destruction isn't queuing for it anymore as premades, so it's easier to solo queue into it and get wins, but not this time.

This extreme population imbalance, caused by the big event, highlights an issue of expected number of played scenarios to finish the weekend event. Another "feels-bad" moment was around a Fortress battle occurring. I got into an instance of Serpent's Passage, and it closed down due to imbalance because the destruction side of the match did not join. The scenario ended with order early, and the side that showed up, got 125 points. It felt punitive given the framework of the event.

So, I believe there are a couple ways to improve this overall. I believe the most straightforward and best solution is to change it from "Win the scenario 5 times with 500 points" to "Earn 2500 points in the scenario over the weekend". The objection that I see about this solution is a perspective that players aren't "earning it" or that it somehow is unfair to guarantee progression. I feel neither are valid and is counter to the design philosophy we've seen everywhere else in the game. I can see some knock-on effects that are for the good though.

• Players would surrender less.
  • Much like the voting systems in the United States, it's winner-takes all, discouraging participation.

• More active player engagement in the scenario
  • Knowing that all points would lead towards the weekend scenario goal would push to compete

• Less need to change scenarios that close down prematurely due to imbalances
  • Players can run the objective while waiting for the other side to show up, and bank points

• More granular control for future changes.
  • If it feels like the balance of desired total matches played doesn't work, the points can be easily adjusted in whatever increments desired (i.e. 100, 250, 500,...)
  • Possibility for other rewards down the line like, "Use this item to give you a free 500 points towards your weekend scenario" (or whatever)

The other solution is multi-faceted requiring changes to a few other systems.

• Add a solo-only queue for the weekend scenario (similar to the discordant), or at least, add it to the list of discordant scenarios.

• Make wins that happen because of imbalances in scenarios give the side that showed up 500 points, like a surrender.

• Rework the matchmaking to more aggressively try to match solo-queuers against solo-queuers
  • I like this the least as it's probably a lot of work, and it would reduce frequency significantly

Year ago I would share you concern and agree on all you saying, but this is RoR, we play game made by group of people and they set rules.
If they make special weekend events, cyclical month events and they expect to put some effort to get that rewards thats fine.
This wont change.
Appropriate their effort, accept rules. Thats it.
There is lots of fun u missing playing solo. There is also fun in playing a group where every member knows what to do and press their buttons.
I used to be a fan of pug scs and solo people, but the amount of people experimenting, trolling, afking, XXX-ing - pick whatever you want, is astonishing.

[Belanoite]

Atm Order is passing by a decadence, same decadence destro was in few months ago. This is a circle. Soon Destro will get in this decadence and order rises. Give time to time. Meanwhile, all you can do is wait. Leve scs if there's no chance to win, or dont queue.

I leave lots of sc when I see a bad comp, or enemy premade or players are playing dumb. I don't waste my time feeding the enemy. But also i dont use .surrender unless very necessary. Usually I leave he sc.

A negative point are these (terrible) new scs. They haven't got any portal to leave so you need to spend a WR for that. I'd like to chose which sc i want in Discordant Skirmish, cos i'd remove these new scs for sure.

[Omegus]

Nothing presented indicates that these weekend SC's are meant to be a group endeavor.

Huge bonuses to renown, XP, top-tier crafting rewards and bonus war crests for completing the event mean people will try-hard the event to win, as expected.

Weekend warfronts are a bloodbath, and I stand by what I've said in the past that most of the complaints would go away if the live event text in game made this clear rather then presenting it like any other normal live event which are far more focused on the single player rather than playing well as a realm.

[Aluviya]

I would debate that "just building a premade" is sufficient to change the statistics towards a remarkable balance. As a very active played that I've been in the past years (until recently) these are my observations:

1) Summer population decline and its effects: came quite early this year (not including the latest statistics as there is an event ongoing) My impression of the recent days is that there are simply not many active premades left on order that play on daily basis exclusively order vs active veteran players who almost exclusively play destru and have an excessive online presence that can go from 12-1 pm till 3-4 am Altdorf time - in which they snowball usually most scenarios.

2) The stacking: usual suspects (veterans that have a deep insight to the game & play this game in organised groups almost on daily basis) tend to stack on one side: destruction (various reasons such as playability of certain setups) As an organised order group you usually have to overcome the odds that your group is at best paired with semi -PUGs vs full premades on destruction side. There is also less to 0 incentive to log here to the other realm (nor is it really always possible as xrealming is treated as "problematic" on this server rather then seen as a chance to actually balance). Why would any1 log to the side where you would actually have to put effort into every game to win it?

3) Unequal design of scenarios: attracts certain groups to play "safe" setups (such as 3 Rangedps 1 Tank 2 Healer comps) which have a high potential to snowball unaware PUGS. Here one would most likely play a destruction setup, as Sorc+ Squig feels way more smooth than BW+SW. And the current checks of the marauder-pull make it somewhat difficult for a pure rangeassist group on order to operate with the same efficiency as a destru team that simply kills the lion pet everytime it is on field. For regular melee-setups it can be very challenging to fight these groups in open field due to punt on rotation while the range groups sustain with the alltime escape into the warcamp while fighting.

4) Everyone knows it better: Adressing the design of scenarios additionally - I'd say that for a lot of unaware PUGs it is quite unclear how to behave in order to win a scenario alongside with premades. Some want to desperately cap objectives while abandoning everything and everyone else only thinking as far as the first capture. Some just want to fight isolated while never contributing towards objectives and play scenarios as if they were a less zergy orvr and gank people on their own. In such an environment even having a PUG group with you that is perfectly archetype balanced can still mean a clear loss if a whole group of sumbit to escort a single flag, abandoning your premade vs 2 premades. Even for me it's sometimes unclear why objectives are there when a scenario is clearly requiring to dominate one side to be actually able to do the objectives. Caledor woods is here the perfect positive example while most "carry the objective" scenarios usually tend to lead to overcommitment in terms of running to the objective rather then actually trying to build a longtime dominance so more than just 1 flag could to escorted.

5) Veterans: Some people have experiences with this game and its community beyond 10+ years and have set expectations how certain classes should be played. Having a "premade" that you just recently filled from /5 will most likely not save you from being still beaten (farmed) by active experienced groups that do know the game well and play with their teammates for years - there is simply a limit where a good setup carry you. The true experience that allows a group to stand out is not just based on individual skills but even more in synergy. Because of the big disparity here there is quite a lot hostility for newbie mistakes here and most veterans simply avoid playing outside of their known circle of people (which then again leads the phenomenon that less experienced players will most likely not find a suitable group for themselves even if they were open for it).


Lastly - My personal motivation to queue up for a scenario is that I mostly want to escape zergy RvR experience and enjoy the game in a more balanced, small scale environment. Due to the reasons I've mentioned above I most likely never experience that. Even when I am playing in my own premade. It's most likely a onesided stomp. Because of that I can actually only guess how difficult it must be for PUGs to "just have fun" with this game when they just try play this game, get the weekly scenario done (we are talking about 50 crests here and/or a few minor rewards here). I struggle seeing positive motivational aspects for new players to actually learn and embrace the game, which worries me a lot.

[Sofong]

solo quers are less skilled or putting less efforts in game? and to be taken as less of a player than a premade only player? idk what to say this is just plain false assumption and pure bias.

[Everdin]

solo quers are less skilled or putting less efforts in game? and to be taken as less of a player than a premade only player? idk what to say this is just plain false assumption and pure bias.

Going to the cinema and there is one person afraid of the dark, 100 people around him not. Would you leave the light on?

[Xergon]

Imo, the grand alliance of order should decide to boycott scenarios as they did with lotd, that will solve all the issues.

Similar how guilds boycotted City Sieges... or how WBs boycotts openRvR by sitting in keep and waiting for siege... just overall boycott the whole idea of group/team play... after all its not an MMO we playing right?

Our guild started doing event on destro and most likely will continue doing on destro because its unsure how hard will be to create rings we all want... Im expecting switching maybe on the weekend but its not decided.

[Caduceus]

I have to say, the suggestion that "just grouping up" solves all issues is very dishonest.

A group of intermediate players in terms of gear, skill and experience, will just get chancelessly crushed fighting the stronger premades.

I like to think that I play as part of these 'stronger' premades, and even I think this is a massive issue that is pushing the people we so desperately need out of the game.

Really what these players need is a carrot, yet the devs only seem to know how to wield the stick.

[Banjomissen]

I fully agree that "just grouping up" doesn't solve anything. Alot of premades are made up of veteran players who's been playing together for many years. A random guild group or a /5 group won't stand a chance.

In the end we'll all end up losing as there won't be a large enough playerbase to keep this game relevant,

[Lutodon]

So, I believe there are a couple ways to improve this overall. I believe the most straightforward and best solution is to change it from "Win the scenario 5 times with 500 points" to "Earn 2500 points in the scenario over the weekend".

You under the opinion try to make a beautiful logical design. According to your economic model, "Whoever earns more points is a good fellow." People will fight even less and do even more pve on stages. Even now it's annoying.

Even now, this is observed when half of the scene starts whining in the chat about "running around the points" and not fighting. Do not suggest scenes to make it worse.