Page 34 of 39

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:02 pm
by wargrimnir
Zanilos wrote:
Spoiler:
wargrimnir wrote:
Zanilos wrote:
No no no, I think the general feel is that people are pro guild gameplay and the game is switching to pro group gameplay. Rather than utilising all the positives that guild gameplay brings.

Just a quick question, obviously this is a long term patch. How do these changes fit into City sieges. Where its 24 vs 24? Or do teh small scale guild just tell people to **** out the instance so they benefit from the buffs?
Guild gameplay, coordination. Talk to your members, explain the situations that the changes apply to. How to react, how to group, how to maneuver, and how to take advantage of blobs. Or just join the random deathball and be less effective than someone who is using the mechanics to their advantage. Numbers will still win out in the end, the changes aren't nearly as dramatic as this thread is making them out to be.

I can't imagine intentionally running lower numbers in a city instance would be favorable in any way, but do what you like I guess. Seems kind of a silly argument.
It's not an arguement pal, imagine the toxicity thats already on the server, then times it by 10. FOTM will be wrecking ball Mara. but by some chance some of the instance that youre stuck with, seeing as you can either build a WB or hope for the best, manages to wander into your attacks. Then youre ****. This is very very short sighted change.

Can you name a couple of instances where this change could possibly fall flat on its face?
I'm not your pal, buddy. Toxic server is nothing new, take a gander at every set of patch notes or the balance forums maybe. We get the usual suspects who come in, throw a fit, denigrate the staff, call them idiots, worst patch ever, very very short sighted, and we move on while picking out the useful constructive feedback and applying warnings where needed. Wrecking ball Mara as a front line zerg smasher is the point, isn't it? Flavor of the month is curious, doesn't that imply that different classes rise up as changes hit the server? Proc meta, bomb meta, morale pump meta, things come and go.

Embrace the change for what it is. Break the meta. Constructive feedback on what works, and how to improve on this direction. In the end, if we're not seeing the results after some significant tweaks it goes in the bin, business as usual.

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:02 pm
by Penril
Cities aren't even implemented yet. Too many ifs in this thread...

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:16 pm
by Zanilos
wargrimnir wrote:
Zanilos wrote:
Spoiler:
wargrimnir wrote:
Guild gameplay, coordination. Talk to your members, explain the situations that the changes apply to. How to react, how to group, how to maneuver, and how to take advantage of blobs. Or just join the random deathball and be less effective than someone who is using the mechanics to their advantage. Numbers will still win out in the end, the changes aren't nearly as dramatic as this thread is making them out to be.

I can't imagine intentionally running lower numbers in a city instance would be favorable in any way, but do what you like I guess. Seems kind of a silly argument.
It's not an arguement pal, imagine the toxicity thats already on the server, then times it by 10. FOTM will be wrecking ball Mara. but by some chance some of the instance that youre stuck with, seeing as you can either build a WB or hope for the best, manages to wander into your attacks. Then youre ****. This is very very short sighted change.

Can you name a couple of instances where this change could possibly fall flat on its face?
I'm not your pal, buddy. Toxic server is nothing new, take a gander at every set of patch notes or the balance forums maybe. We get the usual suspects who come in, throw a fit, denigrate the staff, call them idiots, worst patch ever, very very short sighted, and we move on while picking out the useful constructive feedback and applying warnings where needed. Wrecking ball Mara as a front line zerg smasher is the point, isn't it? Flavor of the month is curious, doesn't that imply that different classes rise up as changes hit the server? Proc meta, bomb meta, morale pump meta, things come and go.

Embrace the change for what it is. Break the meta. Constructive feedback on what works, and how to improve on this direction. In the end, if we're not seeing the results after some significant tweaks it goes in the bin, business as usual.
I'm not your buddy, friend.

I know, I know. I've seen it. My point is, if you can't think of things that can really mess this up, then you hav'nt thought long enough about it. I did'nt see proc meta btw, that sounded fun... Also, meta for a long long time was more players. Just more and more and more. Now, its just even more, as long as youre not AoE.
I do try to be constructive. I even tried to get Ruin and Destruction nerfed back in the day :)

@penril, thats because I like to think further than then next 5 minutes away. Maybe a roadmap should be produced. Like many other projects have. Just label it subjet to change and it's a win. To stop people comtemplating about what ifs.

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:21 pm
by Penril
The big, red "EXPERIMENTAL" doesn't tell you this patch is subject to change?

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:36 pm
by Zanilos
Penril wrote:The big, red "EXPERIMENTAL" doesn't tell you this patch is subject to change?
Alpha server does that, also, viewtopic.php?f=52&t=16391 Never forget to read the Guide:how an alpha server works section dude.

Surely you have a plan though? Rough guidelines on core gameplay changes you have in mind? Like, 6 months objective, 12 month objective?

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:10 pm
by Luth
Zanilos wrote:
Spoiler:
Penril wrote:The big, red "EXPERIMENTAL" doesn't tell you this patch is subject to change?
Alpha server does that, also, viewtopic.php?f=52&t=16391 Never forget to read the Guide:how an alpha server works section dude.
He asks you if you read the "experimental" note and you answer with "read how alpha server works, dude", which was exactly his point.
Image

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:13 pm
by Aurandilaz
Related thought; now with this patch more or less making melee trains more viable, it reinforces the Choppa/Mara dominance over WE, similarly Slayer/WL move ahead of WH when it comes to group utility, with DPS having to push deep into enemy and spamming AoE.
WH draws the shortest stick of them all, Dragon Gun is mostly worthless (especially compared to OYK) and light armour is kinda suboptimal for deep pushes into enemy lines...
Getting Sweeping Blade tactic for AoE RS is somewhat rare... it's the least specced tree because it simply sucks compared to the other two mastery trees.
So this patch kinda buffs mara/chop/Sl/WL... and leaves WE/WH somewhat behind on the "fotm"-curve.

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:43 pm
by Dresden
wargrimnir wrote:[Scenarios]

Natherul
-Changed all SC quests to have a shared drop off point in the capital cities, Order have Kaige Mortem in Altdorf Market Place and Destro have Riccekac Warshard close to the entrance of the Viper's Pit.

RyanMakara
- Moved a variety of Scenario quest NPCs closer to the Scenario spawnpoints
- Upped the reward for Scenario quests with 10 silver, and to 9999 XP for T4 quests.
- Placed shrine posts between Battle for Praag barricades to prevent players getting stuck.
Okay...

As the most vociferous/outraged critic of the post-T3 nerfing of RoR scenarios i am now (begrudgingly) happy to say i consider (as of this patch) RoR scenarios to be (JUST BARELY) almost playable again, ALMOST.

I am very grateful (and i gladly thank you for it) that you, the RoR staff, graciously accepted the essence of my suggested changes if not the entirety of the detail but...

Making it so that we cannot redeem scenario quests IN the scenario means if you want to redeem them you have to spend most of your won silver travelling from a zone to a CC and back IF you are not just simply idling (for a necessarily long time) in a CC so as not to waste any won silver as you WOULD if you wished to bother with scenario quests in the first place under this new system.

A single round of two minutes killing gors (near the scenario npc) in the IC can get you 1g if you kill all of them and sell at the stuff they drop, what do i want/need scenario quests for as they are now if i can just (as i've been doing since the kill-points nerf) kill a few high-yield mobs anywhere in the server between playing scenarios?

It will also cut into the standing RvR-lake population via those people who BOTHER to leave a zone after winning a scenario to redeem their win and then go back into the same scenario AND take the scenario quest again, those people will also be less likely to return to the zone they came from because of the travel cost wiping out most of their win.

TRAVEL COSTS, the first big problem to arise with scenarios earlier this year!

while it does mean people MAY join a wider variety of scenarios to get more scenario quest 'completes' BEFORE redeeming as many as possible at one time at the CC quest npc's it also means people MAY simply not join certain scenarios when they could have otherwise or just even refuse to join scenarios they haven't already redeemed scenario quests for which also cuts into the standing scenario population as well.


Solution:

1. Remake it so you can redeem scenario quests at the npc's IN the scenarios AS WELL as the CC npc.
2. Reduce scenario quest silver amounts to dynamically appropriate amounts.


If you intend to keep it the way it is (i hope not, i hope this is just a stage in a larger scheme) then my belief is that you should have left the scenario quests as they were because NOW they are, for ME at least, in a worse state and not worth bothering with anymore.

If THIS can't change then i think my days of trying to be helpful by making suggestions and discussing problems are DEFINITELY at an end, i fully appreciate the effort, i do, but all i'm feeling here is just more despair over scenarios and i just don't have the energy for it anymore.

I shouldn't even be writing this, i've been warned several times about even mentioning scenarios, we all know where this leads.

Apologies in advance for any offense.

p.s. Some scenarios don't have quests, they should ALL have quests IE Mourkain Temple, can something be done about that? i would have played Mourkain Temple all the time (pre recent change) if it had had a scenario quest.

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2017 11:57 pm
by shaggyboomboom
Anyone know if Energy of Vaul/SH counterpart have been affected by the AOE change?

Re: Patch Notes 31/1/2017

Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 12:08 am
by BreezeKicker
shaggyboomboom wrote:
Anyone know if Energy of Vaul/SH counterpart have been affected by the AOE change?

All of the AoE are effected by the debuff portion, only str based abis are benefiting from increase tho.

peterthepan3 wrote:To be fair, if warbands are now forced to rely more on ST, i.e. actually targeting opponents, assisting, proper rotations and not 1 key, then that isn't necessarily a bad thing.
roadkillrobin wrote:
Luth wrote: Something like
Spoiler:
Image
Playing together doesn't mean that you have to hold the hand of every single warband member. Any army IRL would be destroyed in virtually every situation, if led by RoR RvR tacticians.
Thats asuming that the defending warband arn't moving.
Luth wrote: The groups in a warband can't adapt to a moving target?
That's actually assuming that the warband members are mindless zombies, who need every step to be controlled by an overmind with simple commands, because they can't adapt to new situations in a dynamic combat environment.
Zanilos wrote:
peterthepan3 wrote:
CommissarG wrote:
That's a dank meme.

It's about effort vs reward as you said, but not just in current game-play.

Altering to a 6-man combat system is far too difficult/time consuming for joe average.
So let's just dumb down the potential of this game, so as to appease joe average who doesn't have rez/guard on his action bars because 'he's a DPS!'
Can we please don't do this? Repeating over and over again than WB play is nothing but mindlessly pushing buttons on random and only doing things that are directly said to you?

Yes, leading a WB, involves short, to the points commands, mainly focused on the direction the WB has to move, where to concentrate DPS, when to go a bit more defensive. Yet you still need the personal input of each player involved - tanks need to know where to stand to cover the most allies, when to challenge, when to swap guard to heals [yes they do guard] / Heals need to know where it is safe to initiate res chain, when to cleanse [yes even in WB scale, healers are and should cleanse], when to advance with main force and when to hang back and maintain a safe position[around corner/inside building/on hill] / DPS need to know when it is safe to goo balls deep and when they need to be more conservative, all that while paying attention to WB lead AND own party position to not get separated and surrounded by enemies, double so if you fight with superior numbers.

YOU CANNOT expect leader to verbally, on voice comms or via chat, relay all of this and direct everything that needs to be done in WB. You need the player in the WB to actually work together with predisposed roles inside said WB. Everyone has a job to do, and if they screw it off badly enough you can, and will be punished for it [ in extreme cases of screw up, you can get wiped out completely.

Are there completely disorganized WB which don't do any of the above, hell yes. Do all of the WBs end up like that, No they dont.
Pure pugs are the former, while organized WBs do put in the time, focus, and effort to make em work. And the Wb leaders I know and talked to [by no means i claim them to be majority, nor all of em] DON'T want to run in handheld 2/3/X WB blobs and zerg down any opposition that dares to stand in their way.

We at CNTK for example thrive and want to actually be the SMALLER force in a fight, we want to stand as 24 man against more than 24 and still have A CHANCE of competing, be it semi-organized zerg or guild WBs, all is good for us. We get bored of roflstomping unorganized pugs as there is no challenge in it unless they can overwhelm you with pure numbers, and even that can be dealt with some terrain usage. We still do SCs, we still do small scale roam and supply deliver without constantly trying to making it to be mindless follow & assist spam fest [because it is NOT LIKE THAT, and we know it] . We just use different builds and different comps for it.

So can we do at least one thing for organized WB players and stop down playing the effort the put into their preferred play style to the point of calling them mindless zombies? Can we at least acknowledged than someone may enjoy 24VS+24 combat without claiming that all they want to do is handheld and zerg around? Can we extend at least that much courtesy to fellow players?

Or is that simply to much to ask at the moment?