Return of Reckoning

I would be very very disappointed if the server did not evolve and change, this is in my view the only way for it to remain fun. That said we all know changes are not always positive and there we have to take Azarael at his word that even if he aggressively defends his decisions he is prepared to retract them if shown conclusively that they were not in the right way. We also have to persuasively give arguments and reasoning as to why things that have changed may or may not be the best.

I actually applaud Aza and the other Devs, as they are not afraid to try things. Something as complex as RvR will also experience unintended consequences when you start changing things, but overall I feel very positive about the recent RvR changes.

Yes, artillery is a bit too strong in my eyes and nobody uses rams anymore, which in turn renders oil largely useless. BOs have become a bit meaningless if you greatly outnumber the enemy. And we are now limited to one zone, which nullifies the epic feel that a 3-pairing campaign gives.

On the other hand, taking a zone with more or less equal numbers has become much more tactical. People actually need to cooperate. Artillery has a function, and opens up a whole new domain of possibilities. And people actually come out of the keep, rather than just sit there and funnel.

Last night was 6 hours of non-stop roaming and fighting and was the most fun I had in some time. We didn't take a keep, we lost a few, but we took plenty of BOs and had a ridiculous amount of kills with our six-men.

People need to get it out of their head that not taking a keep or a zone does not equate to no progression or no fun. When things are pretty even, I actually quite like the slow build up to a R3 keep, then the slow starvation of resources for the opposing keep, the transport of artillery and their strategic positioning and then the inevitable keep attack which takes some time and has a lot more dimensions to it than the defending side sitting behind a funnel and the attacking side being body-blocked in the gate with little hope of breaking a well organised funnel.

Plus, like other said... things will evolve and get tweaked again. If there's one thing I've learned from the Devs, they're happy to take things and then follow up quickly with patches that tweak or evolve things.

As a person who played on live, an ironbreaker and an engineer, who always played second fiddle to the superior in every way Kotbs and shadow warriors/bright wizards, I applaud the attempts at balance. Play what you like is a motto in the game, but it sure isnt when it comes to what groups want/need in premades. Oh we need a knight. Our ranged dps spot is taken, we need 2 meelee to be competative.

If the continued class balance stirs up as much worry amongst min max purists who dont play what they would actually like but what they "need" to play, I think we are headed in the right direction.

In my opinion, the RoR team should not stop making changes to the game, Live had a lot of stupid and unbalanced stuff that could have been easily changed with small hotfixes, but Mythic took ages to fix and that was one of the reason the game died.

Right now, though, i think the RoR team should add city sieges (and all the related sets etc...) and then stop making big changes like the last ones and focus more on fixing what we already have in-game for some time. Fixing bugs (like BOs "Right in da Jibblies" skill, that doesn't make the target jump, Public Quests etc...) would attract more players and help the server grow faster.

That is of course, my opinion. I'm just happy to be able to play WAR again

I just wonder where the OP got his pink glassed goggles. Damn.

Nycta wrote:

Spoiler:

...more of ourselves could then be invested in frontiers that are the code and the progress of the reverse engineering, the number and involvement of the participants, the hours of work needed, the zillions of tasks down to trivialities, the minor or major dead ends, the ever present dangers that third parties may create and last but not least by far, the never ending struggle to kill before being killed and get dat rps - or bear the grudge(if only stunties ate more vegetables...)...

Holy smoke, Git ! That must be the greatest wall of text I've read on a forum in long time ! If I may... it was pretty poetic, nearly a sonnet ! :

More of ourselves could then be invested
in frontiers that are to be coded.
The progress of the reverse engineering,
the number and involvement of those participating !

The hours of work needed, the necessities :
them zillions of tasks, down to trivialities !
The minor or major dead ends,
where most would break, but we would bend.

The dangers, now and ever present,
that third party may represent !
And last but not least, with no frill,

the never ending struggle to kill
Before being killed. To battle !
Alas... if only stunties ate more vegetables...

Now stop killing maself !

Oi stuntie, Iron Breakers will never, ever, get detaunt! Even if the Knights of the Blazing Lolz do, you don't!

p.s: Stop healing yourself, take more pride and joy in your wounds, enjoy them longer - at least till I can finish you off and get dat rps!

So you are dissapointed, because the devs are trying to make the game better, instead of doing nothing? Look at it from a different angle; doing nothing is also an action, when things are broken doing nothing is the worst possible action in terms of a perception of someone's good intentions and effort. Even doing something that is wrong and experimenting and trying to change things for the better is better than doing nothing, because unlike doing nothing it increases the likelihood of a good solution in the future. Frankly I am amazed by how much work has gone into the project lately and if anything the devs have my gratitude for all the great events and changes. They have it even for the bad ones, because it shows they are making an effort and trying to improve things instead of maintaining a broken status quo. Conservatism for the sake of conservatism is something I could never understand. Try some adventure and open-mindedness to learning in your gaming life, it might make your experience more enjoyable.

Also this:

People need to get it out of their head that not taking a keep or a zone does not equate to no progression or no fun.

warkaiser wrote:While you are right that it WAS designed to be that way, that does not mean it was the best way to design it, or even a good way at all. What Aza and team are trying to prevent, is exactly what people were doing on Live: Fleeing and going to hit empty zones anytime there was an actual fight to be had. Sure, that didn't ALWAYS happen, but come on let's be realistic here. The majority of players will take the path of least resistance and, sadly, would rather avoid a fight for an easy win.

If the object of the game is to sack the enemy city, then why would you not use 1 or 2 wb's to tie down the enemy in one zone, while you used a couple of 6 man grps to take another?

I never considered it as "running to take an empty zone", none of us did that back in the old days on Magnus. As a matter of fact, at one time the destro zerg was so strong on Magnus, that at US Prime the only way we had to block their city push was to lock zones they were not in, delaying them till Asian and Russian prime when more order would log into the game. (BTW, this was back in the days before the 1st ever nerf to sorc bomb groups. believe me, those were tough days indeed:)

Now I know it is frustrating, as an attacker, to suffer through this, but you do not call the people who did it to you chickens, or cowards, you call them SMART players.

It is also frustrating when you are using all your troops to defend a zone, but the enemy has more troops than you and locks the others, thus reaching your city. But again, you do not condemn the stronger side for doing this. it is SMART game play!

To me, the entire "One Zone" only fight, is a punishment to people who play smart in defending their realm, or attacking and reaching the city (or in this case for now, locking pairings), by keeping your troops tied down in one zone. This is just plain smart and should be congratulated.

Also, AZA calls the artillery as zerg busters. This is not true! If the enemy has 3 WB's and you have a 12 man, or even 1 wb, you will lose to the zerg. They can cover more objectives than you can. It doesn't matter how much artillery you use. (For the record I like what is going on with artillery becoming a part of the RvR game).

LAstly; Look at how long it takes for a realm, even when zerging, to lock pairings. Forever! Now, I am guessing here, but this is meant to create an environment where you do not get 7 city sieges per day. I understand that. BUT, on AoR the game mechanics relied on players to do that, by using all three zones as the battlefront. Now, Aza and the devs are saying players are not smart enough to do that, and have created game mechanics that slow down the campaign for all.

drmordread wrote:

Spoiler:

warkaiser wrote:While you are right that it WAS designed to be that way, that does not mean it was the best way to design it, or even a good way at all. What Aza and team are trying to prevent, is exactly what people were doing on Live: Fleeing and going to hit empty zones anytime there was an actual fight to be had. Sure, that didn't ALWAYS happen, but come on let's be realistic here. The majority of players will take the path of least resistance and, sadly, would rather avoid a fight for an easy win.

If the object of the game is to sack the enemy city, then why would you not use 1 or 2 wb's to tie down the enemy in one zone, while you used a couple of 6 man grps to take another?

I never considered it as "running to take an empty zone", none of us did that back in the old days on Magnus. As a matter of fact, at one time the destro zerg was so strong on Magnus, that at US Prime the only way we had to block their city push was to lock zones they were not in, delaying them till Asian and Russian prime when more order would log into the game. (BTW, this was back in the days before the 1st ever nerf to sorc bomb groups. believe me, those were tough days indeed:)

Now I know it is frustrating, as an attacker, to suffer through this, but you do not call the people who did it to you chickens, or cowards, you call them SMART players.

It is also frustrating when you are using all your troops to defend a zone, but the enemy has more troops than you and locks the others, thus reaching your city. But again, you do not condemn the stronger side for doing this. it is SMART game play!

To me, the entire "One Zone" only fight, is a punishment to people who play smart in defending their realm, or attacking and reaching the city (or in this case for now, locking pairings), by keeping your troops tied down in one zone. This is just plain smart and should be congratulated.

Also, AZA calls the artillery as zerg busters. This is not true! If the enemy has 3 WB's and you have a 12 man, or even 1 wb, you will lose to the zerg. They can cover more objectives than you can. It doesn't matter how much artillery you use. (For the record I like what is going on with artillery becoming a part of the RvR game).

LAstly; Look at how long it takes for a realm, even when zerging, to lock pairings. Forever! Now, I am guessing here, but this is meant to create an environment where you do not get 7 city sieges per day. I understand that. BUT, on AoR the game mechanics relied on players to do that, by using all three zones as the battlefront. Now, Aza and the devs are saying players are not smart enough to do that, and have created game mechanics that slow down the campaign for all.

You would be right, if there WOULD BE A CITY TO SACK. But there isnt, so this tactic is pretty pointless right now. I am sure it will be change aggain once the city is implemented. then it makes at least sense to swap zones.