Loot Bags and Contribution

[M0rw47h]

I might actually complete the set by the time I hit rr70.

rr71 and still not full conqueror

i buy it on rr 70 almost full (except helm) with conq medailons on my zealot
but in my SH i have full at rr 50

I've similar issue with bag quality on healer.
On my Marauder its raining with non-white bags, while my Zealot is swimming in pool full of white bags.

[Hargrim]

New system is fine overall, it is unfair for everyone so better then sytem before which was unfair only for pugs and casuals.

Only thing what I think should be better is to increase rewards for winning side. So side who lock zone get minimum green bags, but only zone locks without aao or with max 20% aao. Locking zones without real threats shouldnt be rewarded so with 20%+ aao both sides gets minimum white bags.
Locking zone in prime times is not that easy so should be rewarded but not too much, players need to see their contribution in locking zone worth more then giving the zone to your opponent.

Perfect idea, totally won't make people relog to the winning side.

[Aurandilaz]

What about the "meme" that being in successful warband that causes your own realm to lose AAO (we started with 100 AAO yesterday, 3 hours later enemy has 60 AAO) and causes enough grief on your enemies that makes vast numbers of pugs either log off, and maybe minor number of them to hop on our "underdog" side, which eventually reverses the situation.
And even though facing 100-40AAO odds for 2 hours, in the end enough enemies give up and resulting in us possibly taking a zone where the enemy has been demoralized and decimated to reach a zone lock conclusion where we get penalties to our rolls for having slaughtered +1k enemies and turned the tide, only to shoot ourselves in our own feet when it comes to bags?

Throwing a valiant, maximum effort, numbers upsetting row of defensive victories that changes the situation in the field is something that feels like a penalty now. Throwing a halfassed defence where you do a few kills with AAO and then "suffer" from losing gets better rewards bag-wise.

Getting worst bags for giving 110% effort is getting tiresome. If we wanted to "game the system" we would do 20-30 mins farming kills with AAO, then AFK in warcamp and watch enemy lock the zone whilst our realm retains AAO, and probably get better bags.

Obviously you can't balance the game around what TUP/(any other organized warband guild) does, but it feels like we are given perverse incentives.

edit: many people in our guild already figured out that to get bags you must play outside guild warband sessons, getting kills in smallscale action and on the losing side. Somewhat ironic.

[rmpl]

It might be purely psychological but If I am to be screwed I'd rather not get double penetrated on top of that.

In similar fashion I would much rather prefer if the gold bags were much rarer but without the possibility of getting duplicates; two layers of rng are too much for my salt-o-meter to handle.

[Hargrim]

Valiant maximum effort is rewarded - you get bonus to your next roll if you won't win a bag. If you are so short sighted and 'need the bag nao!' it's your problem.

Also, do whatever you want with your time.

[xtc1999]

Valiant maximum effort is rewarded - you get bonus to your next roll if you won't win a bag. If you are so short sighted and 'need the bag nao!' it's your problem.

Also, do whatever you want with your time.

the thing is that this "bonus roll on next lock" does not work

[Hargrim]

Valiant maximum effort is rewarded - you get bonus to your next roll if you won't win a bag. If you are so short sighted and 'need the bag nao!' it's your problem.

Also, do whatever you want with your time.

the thing is that this "bonus roll on next lock" does not work

Sure it doesn't.

[Akalukz]

if the bonus roll on next bag is .1 or 1 then it will just take a long time to ever good a good +bonus that is actually worth while. Without knowing the numbers etc its tough.

[Palitelj]

New system is fine overall, it is unfair for everyone so better then sytem before which was unfair only for pugs and casuals.

Only thing what I think should be better is to increase rewards for winning side. So side who lock zone get minimum green bags, but only zone locks without aao or with max 20% aao. Locking zones without real threats shouldnt be rewarded so with 20%+ aao both sides gets minimum white bags.
Locking zone in prime times is not that easy so should be rewarded but not too much, players need to see their contribution in locking zone worth more then giving the zone to your opponent.

Perfect idea, totally won't make people relog to the winning side.

They can relog but then losing side will get higher aao and everyone will get minimum white bags so there is no point to switch sides + you need some cont to get bag if I am correct?

[oaliaen]

Palitelj wrote:
New system is fine overall, it is unfair for everyone so better then sytem before which was unfair only for pugs and casuals.

Only thing what I think should be better is to increase rewards for winning side. So side who lock zone get minimum green bags, but only zone locks without aao or with max 20% aao. Locking zones without real threats shouldnt be rewarded so with 20%+ aao both sides gets minimum white bags.
Locking zone in prime times is not that easy so should be rewarded but not too much, players need to see their contribution in locking zone worth more then giving the zone to your opponent.

i agree .. i may sugest the aao +100/40 side win higher rolls than wining side.