Return of Reckoning

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:43 pm**

If players/guilds chose to split instead of running in a super blob and making rvr dull and usually a wc - bo fight then you wouldnt be seeing actions taken to penalise blobbing.

Yet to see how the change works but i have no sympathy what so ever, certain guilds and players created this issue themselves, i have loss count the amount of times i have logged off after going into rvr and seeing only 1 single blob and a boring wc - objective fight and i know im not alone in doing this.

I still hope that we get more than 1 zone open at a single time, having just 1 zone does promote blobbing, i dont expect to get a response but can we atleast try having all pairings open ? its not a bad compromise, log off due to boredom or go look in a different zone.

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:44 pm**

100% agree

Spoiler:

CommissarG wrote:
Azarael wrote:
It's almost as if this is the intent. I don't know why some people are still under the impression that there is any skill or interest in the current implementation of large scale combat in this game. Your own fears make this clear - without bombing, you say, large scale combat will resolve down to mass ST. You make no mention of battlefield strategy and tactics, and it seems that the epitome of strategy in this game is a basic flank attack or hitting M2 in sync. I'm sorry but it doesn't make you amazing battlefield commanders. It's basic ****, and if the pinnacle of this game is getting 23 people to listen to you and fire off M2 in sync then you should be embarrassed.

This is likely to be an unpopular opinion, as usual. That's OK. I can honestly say that I've never been impressed by anything I've seen in ORvR, and I don't think that's because I'm the one with the problem.
I'm going to take a stab at this. Firstly, what is this "zerg" people keep talking about? Is it 1 warband of pugs? 2 warbands? Anything larger than a 6 man? What about 4 totally coordinated guild warbands?

I see a few fundamental issues with trying to make zerging obsolete.

Firstly, people who enjoy 6-man controlled combat already have outlets for that style of game-play, scenarios, the recent BO changes so they can dodge zergs on open rvr, pick off stragglers trying to re-inforce the main group. They already have a use, a place and can work in orvr.

Is it as technically skilled as dedicated 6 man teams? Absolutely not. But zergs offer one absolutely crucial place for people who are more casual at the game. The guy that plays two hours a week or a day, and just wants to log on his shadow warrior, participate in an epic fight and shoot goblins. The VAST majority of people playing this game do not have guilds, friends, groups or spare time to form such dedicated and coordinated forces, and the zerg allows them to have their fun regardless.

But you should just "git gud" isn't a good enough argument, because instead of "getting gud" people will "git gone".
People who want to play in dedicate 6 mans or organised guild warbands already likely are, and their numbers are much smaller than the joe bloggs from what I have seen.

The zerg allows me if I just have an hour to play to jump on, straight into the safety of a group and have a scrap without needed to find 6 people all on the right classes, hoping my guild/friends are all online. I do understand it's less "tactical", but for many of us, it is plain fun and mostly important for a low population private server keeps the game accessible.

The game HAS to be accessible to people outside the elite hardcore, because if the game reaches the point where pugging is so heavily punished that they just get steamrolled by game mechanics they will just leave. Then who do the organised ones have to play against? The same 40 hardcore guys who stuck around will become stale opponents.

There is also the perception that Warhammer Online was always meant to be about the clash of armies, my fondest memories from live were of fortress defences or assaults with hundreds of players, yes it was a zerg, yes it was chaotic, but it looked glorious and was enjoyable.

Now, I lead pug warbands almost every day. It can be hard enough to get them to do simple things like xguard each other. If I now have to teach them to spread like schools of fish in the two minutes before we start fighting I might as well just not bother.

So if I stop leading pug warbands because I can't get them to do what is needed to beat guild groups (whereas at least now there is a fighting chance who will? There isn't exactly an abundance of people who lead groups on order. About 5-6 regulars. So the pugs will stop playing?

I'm just voicing some concerns I envisage from taking the game down this route. If you remove zerging, what is your plan to keep the less hard-core player in the game?

TL:DR: While zerging might be seen as less skillful I firmly believe it keeps the games population large enough to keep RoR alive.

I would love to play in a premade, but as CommisarG has already stated, I have about 1 or 2 hours per gaming session and I simply don't want to waste this precious time waiting for guild mates to login.
Look how many guilds with less than 6 man online are on this server and how few with more than 6 man.

But IMHO the role of the devs is not to force a certain play style or "philosophy", but to give choices.
Diversity will keep this game fresh and alive.

This is not meant as a critic on the changes, I'm willing to test the changes and will adapt eventually.
This is a +1 to CommisarG's post.

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:48 pm**

Azarael wrote:Regarding people wanting to zerg: it's path of least resistance, not some kind of requirement. People band together in big groups because it's easier and stronger. The last part is the problem.

Not entirely true. People band up because the game itself dictactes objective based gameplay. If one wants to win a zone, there is no real reason to lay ambushes. Most of the fights happen on the flag or during the way to them. Take A, B, C and D and after that the keep. It would be nice not to put concerns down as "fears" so lightly. How are people not supposed to mass at keeps eventually, unless they want to give up their zone for free? Charging behind on ramps, which is a tactic that already happens, will now be very interesting with a small force, but not really anymore fun or challenging when you can smash the entire pugband with only two slayers.

There's plenty of time were we went solo, split up to take different objectives while dragging pugs around that looked for strenght in numbers. Some maps are better for ambushes or roaming (Praag <3), others are downright terrible and promote the blob (Chaos Wastes, burn in hell!). Eventually it all cumilates into that one big brawl however, not by choice but by rule.

While also true that RvR was a late addition, it's also highly questionable that splitting up warbands will add any tactical depth than having a bombsquad on the spot. This game is not very demanding to begin with, and there is no difference in having 4x6 mans in a more spread out formation to dismantle the opposition. It's actually the pugs that will suffer more so than premades will.

The maps are small, chokepoints are plenty and everybody is heading in the same direction. Low player pop can sustain a skirmish
system, perhaps, but let's say we get double the players in T4 or even more?

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:53 pm**

CommissarG wrote:
Azarael wrote:
It's almost as if this is the intent. I don't know why some people are still under the impression that there is any skill or interest in the current implementation of large scale combat in this game. Your own fears make this clear - without bombing, you say, large scale combat will resolve down to mass ST. You make no mention of battlefield strategy and tactics, and it seems that the epitome of strategy in this game is a basic flank attack or hitting M2 in sync. I'm sorry but it doesn't make you amazing battlefield commanders. It's basic ****, and if the pinnacle of this game is getting 23 people to listen to you and fire off M2 in sync then you should be embarrassed.

This is likely to be an unpopular opinion, as usual. That's OK. I can honestly say that I've never been impressed by anything I've seen in ORvR, and I don't think that's because I'm the one with the problem.
I'm going to take a stab at this. Firstly, what is this "zerg" people keep talking about? Is it 1 warband of pugs? 2 warbands? Anything larger than a 6 man? What about 4 totally coordinated guild warbands?

I see a few fundamental issues with trying to make zerging obsolete.

Firstly, people who enjoy 6-man controlled combat already have outlets for that style of game-play, scenarios, the recent BO changes so they can dodge zergs on open rvr, pick off stragglers trying to re-inforce the main group. They already have a use, a place and can work in orvr.

Is it as technically skilled as dedicated 6 man teams? Absolutely not. But zergs offer one absolutely crucial place for people who are more casual at the game. The guy that plays two hours a week or a day, and just wants to log on his shadow warrior, participate in an epic fight and shoot goblins. The VAST majority of people playing this game do not have guilds, friends, groups or spare time to form such dedicated and coordinated forces, and the zerg allows them to have their fun regardless.

But you should just "git gud" isn't a good enough argument, because instead of "getting gud" people will "git gone".
People who want to play in dedicate 6 mans or organised guild warbands already likely are, and their numbers are much smaller than the joe bloggs from what I have seen.

The zerg allows me if I just have an hour to play to jump on, straight into the safety of a group and have a scrap without needed to find 6 people all on the right classes, hoping my guild/friends are all online. I do understand it's less "tactical", but for many of us, it is plain fun and mostly important for a low population private server keeps the game accessible.

The game HAS to be accessible to people outside the elite hardcore, because if the game reaches the point where pugging is so heavily punished that they just get steamrolled by game mechanics they will just leave. Then who do the organised ones have to play against? The same 40 hardcore guys who stuck around will become stale opponents.

There is also the perception that Warhammer Online was always meant to be about the clash of armies, my fondest memories from live were of fortress defences or assaults with hundreds of players, yes it was a zerg, yes it was chaotic, but it looked glorious and was enjoyable.

Now, I lead pug warbands almost every day. It can be hard enough to get them to do simple things like xguard each other. If I now have to teach them to spread like schools of fish in the two minutes before we start fighting I might as well just not bother.

So if I stop leading pug warbands because I can't get them to do what is needed to beat guild groups (whereas at least now there is a fighting chance who will? There isn't exactly an abundance of people who lead groups on order. About 5-6 regulars. So the pugs will stop playing?

I'm just voicing some concerns I envisage from taking the game down this route. If you remove zerging, what is your plan to keep the less hard-core player in the game?

TL:DR: While zerging might be seen as less skillful I firmly believe it keeps the games population large enough to keep RoR alive.

While I can empathise with your concerns, it still goes back to the fact that, if people aren't grouping, and are deliberately choosing the path of least resistance - for whatever reason - then it should not be as powerful as it is, given the lack of thought put into it.

Zerg is the reliance on overwhelming numbers to beat an enemy, throwing away skill and tactics. Regardless of a person's schedule, if we are to balance PvP then PvP balance ought to come before anything else. Also your other concerns regarding people not listening to you/learning new tactics is, yet again, another community problem and not a PvP problem.

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:54 pm**

roadkillrobin wrote: I explained in a rather simple way. I try to simplefy it even more then.

A group in ORVR warband function the same way way as a individual player in a group does in a small scale groups. Its to fill a purpose in the composition. You're gonna have the dps groups thats main purpose is to do damage these groups function much like a DPS class, in its purpose. And you gonna have support groups wich main purpuse is to counter play, rift, debuff aswell as aply support damage these function much like the tank class for its purpose. Wich is increasing dps output and the surivabillity of your warband as a whole. A melee ST group within a warband function much like a WH or WE wich is to inflitrate backlines and kill of healers. Weather or not it uses 2/2/2 set up or not to compose the group for thid role is irrelevant. You compose the group to have a purpose for the warband. Is that logical enough for you?

Look, I'm not gonna get into a shitpost war with you so you can stop trying to insult my intelligence. Judging by your previous posts and post counts you will, inevitably, out post me. A warband is just a larger version of a 6 man group. You are still trying to accomplish the same thing, just on a larger scale. Your logic is flawed. Good day sir.

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 2:56 pm**

Tifereth wrote:Not entirely true. People band up because the game itself dictactes objective based gameplay. If one wants to win a zone, there is no real reason to lay ambushes. Most of the fights happen on the flag or during the way to them. Take A, B, C and D and after that the keep. It would be nice not to put concerns down as "fears" so lightly. How are people not supposed to mass at keeps eventually, unless they want to give up their zone for free? Charging behind on ramps, which is a tactic that already happens, will now be very interesting with a small force, but not really anymore fun or challenging when you can smash the entire pugband with only two slayers.

There's plenty of time were we went solo, split up to take different objectives while dragging pugs around that looked for strenght in numbers. Some maps are better for ambushes or roaming (Praag <3), others are downright terrible and promote the blob (Chaos Wastes, burn in hell!). Eventually it all cumilates into that one big brawl however, not by choice but by rule.

I think you may be confusing my view here.

I do not have an issue with lots of players being in the same place, lag issues notwithstanding.

I have a problem with how the combat system handles this.

It's perfectly fine for a lot of players to be in the same general location (within 400 to 500 feet of an objective, for example) as long as this does not result in degradation of the quality of the gameplay. If such a situation were to resolve to a group of separate fights, each being fought with a tactical aim in mind, that would not be a problem whatsoever - isn't that what RTS games are, in the end? But it doesn't resolve to that - it resolves into a huge, singular, laggy clash, and skill goes out of the window because of how much more effective some abilities become over others in that kind of huge blob situation.

Objectives and keeps are therefore not the problem. The combat system is.

Tifereth wrote:While also true that RvR was a late addition, it's also highly questionable that splitting up warbands will add any tactical depth than having a bombsquad on the spot. This game is not very demanding to begin with, and there is no difference in having 4x6 mans in a more spread out formation to dismantle the opposition. It's actually the pugs that will suffer more so than premades will.

The maps are small, chokepoints are plenty and everybody is heading in the same direction. Low player pop can sustain a skirmish
system, perhaps, but let's say we get double the players in T4 or even more?

You're right that this isn't a particularly demanding game, but might as well try to make the best of what we've got. I find the game plays far better on the 6v6 or 12v12 scales than it does on the 24v24 or 48v48 scales, so I'm aiming to split engagements into that. Enforcing a limit on mass size also deals with the secondary issue of relative numbers being an unduly large factor on chance of victory.

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:04 pm**

Azarael wrote: You're right that this isn't a particularly demanding game, but might as well try to make the best of what we've got. I find the game plays far better on the 6v6 or 12v12 scales than it does on the 24v24 or 48v48 scales, so I'm aiming to split engagements into that.

But you already have that split! If someone like playing 6vs6 or 12vs12 there are scenarios for that.

If someone like to roam in 6 man party they can do it and you have introduced a mechanic (BO timers and resources) which makes it meaningful.

Open RvR lake is for a large scale combat and this what people (at least my friends) want. If we want a small scale we go roaming with AAO or go scenarios but open rvr lake aim is a large scale fight.

Meaning large scale I don't mean a mindless blob of 100+ people standing in one place but a proper tactical game with the WB trying to flank, go around and use CC for its advantage.

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:08 pm**

Honestly i think that implementing quick escape would have been a better idea. Smaller groups would have a better chance of getting away from these so called ''zergs''. Nonetheless i thank you for updating the game, thanks.

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:11 pm**

sabat80 wrote:snip

And how would you suppose that scenarios accommodate for larger strategy? The ideal for RvR is to emulate a battlefront with squad mechanics being represented by groups. That's why RvR should be the main focus of the game - correctly done, it should resolve to something bigger and more interesting than scenarios.

Don't get me wrong here, if large scale combat were actually good, interesting and deep, there would be no reason to look at it, but it's not. It's awful, it sidelines multiple classes and a significant number of abilities, it has very poor flow and massive downtime compared to uptime, it lags like hell when masses attack one another, it's full of imbalanced combats because of number issues, and that's probably why you don't see people flocking here to indulge in the pure awesome that is ORvR. The main defenses are from people who benefit heavily from the present situation (no surprise) and from casual players.

A rule I've found is that no matter how bad something is, there will be someone who will defend it as the greatest thing in the world and do anything they can to preserve it. Sometimes, the reason is because it is bad.

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2017 3:18 pm**

lastalien wrote:
Azarael wrote:
Infernal Wave / Fiery Blast
Already realized this. AoEs that don't scale with Strength can no longer get a damage bonus (as of the keep lord patch last night.)
I ask for explanation. This means that the damage increases only for a mele AoE?

So RDPS AoE cannot benefit from the increase but is it still debuffed?

Return of Reckoning

Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017