Return of Reckoning

xtc1999 wrote:

dansari wrote:What about more equitable rewards for closer fights and substantially decreased rewards for one sided fights? Something like:

500v0 : 2 emblems for winner, 1 for loser
500v50: 4 emblems for winner, 2 for loser
500v100: 6 emblems for winner, 3 for loser
500v300: 8 emblems for winner, 5 for loser
500v400: 15 emblems for winner, 10 for loser

good idea, but would require the rework of points in EC/isha/CW

Yeah would be tough for something like Isha where once you get the point it can be incredibly hard to take it back.

szejoza wrote:The more I think about it the more I see the 'new potential pugs' as a cannon fodder for the already established ones

Around 80% of the server playtime is about pugging, people group up for events/smallscale for few hours a week, the rest is pugging as much as possible. I see no reason to promote low quality groups only to get more 'premade' action.
If people want to, they will group no matter the rewards, giving bigger rewards for creation of 'premade' will bring nothing but salt and dissapointment

All the people I play with today on a daily basis were once just Pugs to me.

peterthepan3 wrote:@wargrimnir

I understand that is the purpose the scenarios were originally designed for, but are the points I have made concerning group play incentives, motivating people to carry on trying - even if they lose - etc., not valid ones? One only need to take a look at the situation of group play atm (or lack, thereof). Lest it appear that I am tooting my own horn, I dare say other people could vouch for this. Would it not be beneficial to have more people engaging in group play?

I do not claim to have a definitive answer to alleviating the aforementioned, but 'what's the harm in trying?' is essentially what I'm getting at. The competitive scene is dead, there is very little reason to group (as I explained in OP)...etc.

Rewards are already set higher for the 6v6 scens anyway. They're set the same rate for drops/emblems as Battle for Praag and Gromril Crossing which are 18v18 scens. By sheer virtue of them being 6v6 instead of 12v12 or 18v18, more drops are distributed to your group as part of the scenario system (which is independent of player kill drops). Every 100 points or so you should notice 2 items pop up to roll on, that's the scen system.

18v18 is about 50% more drops than 12v12. So the maths there would mean 150% more drops in 6v6 over the 12v12 pug scens, and I think 3 extra emblems for winning.

dansari wrote:

xtc1999 wrote:

dansari wrote:What about more equitable rewards for closer fights and substantially decreased rewards for one sided fights? Something like:

500v0 : 2 emblems for winner, 1 for loser
500v50: 4 emblems for winner, 2 for loser
500v100: 6 emblems for winner, 3 for loser
500v300: 8 emblems for winner, 5 for loser
500v400: 15 emblems for winner, 10 for loser

good idea, but would require the rework of points in EC/isha/CW

Yeah would be tough for something like Isha where once you get the point it can be incredibly hard to take it back.

These scens were specifically chosen because the 6v6 meta at the time was to ignore the points and get your wins based on kills, not objectives.

szejoza wrote:The more I think about it the more I see the 'new potential pugs' as a cannon fodder for the already established ones

Around 80% of the server playtime is about pugging, people group up for events/smallscale for few hours a week, the rest is pugging as much as possible. I see no reason to promote low quality groups only to get more 'premade' action.
If people want to, they will group no matter the rewards, giving bigger rewards for creation of 'premade' will bring nothing but salt and dissapointment

rovided such changes wouldn't have an adverse effect on other people (some are more casual, that's cool), I don't understand why you would be opposed to promoting more groups fighting groups, and less pug farming.

Well, you would THINK that...but as it turns out, people don't feel the need to group as much in scenarios as they once did (I refer you to my pug sc comments).

Well, I have to disagree, and think that if you lead a horse to water (in this case, the water is disguised as a guaranteed amount of emblems for win or lose), people will feel inclined to drink from it.

In regards to Dansa's post: I echo the sentiment, but I feel that if premades were going to be leaving an Isha/EC with a mere 2 emblems - simply for outplaying their opposition - said premade would not be bothered to join back. This is why I feel a flat 15/5 will serve best as it is a decent amount of emblems for a loss, and a very good amount of emblems for a win - regardless of score.

@wargrim

No intention of coming across demanding, but I don't feel that the current reward gain is serving to incentivise people queuing for these scenarios - hence why I felt a need to post this. The 18v18 scenarios don't require grouping up for, and are usually 18 pugs v 18s - with the odd premade thrown in there. Aim of the OT is to promote group vs group and less pug farming.

wargrimnir wrote:These scens were specifically chosen because the 6v6 meta at the time was to ignore the points and get your wins based on kills, not objectives.

Fair point

peterthepan3 wrote:but I feel that if premades were going to be leaving an Isha/EC with a mere 2 emblems - simply for outplaying their opposition - said premade would not be bothered to join back.

Fair point. It's definitely tough to balance between discouraging afkers and encouraging premade scenarios.

peterthepan3 wrote:I'm not sure what there would be to bitch about...

"Omg you're leeching my emblems"

...is literally the only thing I could come up with.

You could say the same before, it was all about honor and how cool everyone involved was and turned out to be a pissing contest where you would accuse each other of hiding behind the guards. Doesnt take much to imagine people accusing each other of afking and leeching.

The reason to group up are still there, you know them, you already get increased rewards, everything you ask for is already there, so maybe its time for you to realize, after all this years, the real problem with it.

Peter, it may not be that fun for most people, all those folks you poached for your group and leaved you, why did they do so? Did they all really tell you, peter, i would play this more if they gave us 15 emblems when we win and 5 when we lose or did they tell you, peter, i am not having fun.

Let me put in other way, why there was a 500 man tournament in Japan for 3rd strike not even 15 days ago, there is one every year and its a game from 1999 if the prizepool was laughable? Is the reward or the fun what makes people play more?

And mind you, i just told Penril that them giving the offset for most classes in sc is a reason why scs are not populated, in games like this i truly believe filling bars and making numbers bigger hooks people but while i am at it, i also think that they need to be having fun while doing so and 6vs6 is for most, too rigid for that.

There is plenty of games that give you the team based competitive rush, the people who want that, are playing those games, not a private server that tries to revive a dead game.

So if you really want people playing it, try to make 6vs6 more fun instead of asking for more rewards every 2 months, the rewards are not the reason people are not bothering with them.

I do agree with what Bloodi said about the off-sets. There is, for example, zero reason for me to do SCs on my (backline heal) Dok.

Penril wrote:I do agree with what Bloodi said about the off-sets. There is, for example, zero reason for me to do SCs on my Dok.

Yet people still do them. I believe pretty strongly you could do away with all the special set gear/weapons, and people would still run scenarios just for the RP and drops and chance to kill someone right-this-second. Incentives don't make something interesting or FUN to play. They make it a requirement if the incentives are good enough, then people complain they have to do something they don't like for too long and just want it faster.

Penril wrote:I do agree with what Bloodi said about the off-sets. There is, for example, zero reason for me to do SCs on my (backline heal) Dok.

+1