Return of Reckoning

Posting to confirm above. No one is handling mass reworks now, it's a waste of time.

I will promise to implement everything you suggested as soon as i know how to code :^)

NoRKaLKiLLa wrote:Again, you guys are spit-balling huge reworks of the entire system which, realistically, is not going to happen, while also posting in the wrong forum. Pick a small piece of the system to improve and take it to the suggestions/feedback forum. Exuberant hypotheticals posted in this thread aren't going to have an effect beyond further inducing your carpel tunnel.

Well this was initially posted to help formulate something TO suggest. I have learned over many games that generally speaking 1 person alone doesnt have enough perspective to make the best suggestions. So often through discussion you can arrive and some good conclusions.

I would like to know, why part of my recent suggestion is a huge rework? It seems like it largely is the same game, just very slightly modified... Rather than "conditional" locks, you have accumulation locks based on points earned over time. Maybe you see it as a huge rework, but it seems to me to be a slight modification to the current system...

Also, on the suggestion/feedback forum... We are told NOT to post there regarding this type of thing.. So I guess I am not sure what to do LOL.

Azarael wrote:Posting to confirm above. No one is handling mass reworks now, it's a waste of time.

This is sad news. I know you are inactive Az... Hopefully with time away it will rekindle you to come back and continue development of ROR. I know a large part of this is personal growth, in which you dont feel you get anything out of this game anymore... Hopefully either someone else can pick up the torch (where you left off) or... even better would be that distance makes the heart grow fonder... Many people really love what this game IS and still COULD be...

Hmm think that there is a misunderstanding of discussion before implementation or even change.
The discution is about what should could maybe helpful. This is in no way implying that it's to be developed as obviously the development is not controlled by forum threads,
The discution hopefuly helps to identify or focus where issues are and allow the view of how things could go. I believe the thread has still work to do to clarify the issues even if issues and solutions are sometimes blended.

Btw good to see you Az , look forward to a thread I can agree with you
Edit:ok yes still agree with your post about aggressive defense of a point of view.

Acidic wrote:Hmm think that there is a misunderstanding of discussion before implementation or even change.
The discution is about what should could maybe helpful. This is in no way implying that it's to be developed as obviously the development is not controlled by forum threads,
The discution hopefuly helps to identify or focus where issues are and allow the view of how things could go. I believe the thread has still work to do to clarify the issues even if issues and solutions are sometimes blended.

Btw good to see you Az , look forward to a thread I can agree with you
Edit:ok yes still agree with your post about aggressive defense of a point of view.

Very good post mate. I agree. I mentioned above the point here was to have discussion TO make a proposal, but what I didnt clarify was that in this 10 page discussion now, that we could come to a consensus on some of the current problems with RVR and then hopefully find a solution to said problems. Obviously unanimous consensus will never happen. This is evident in my in game discussion with our guild. I was stating that personally I hate zergs (like I know Az does) and I like SC-style fighting more because its more intimate and allows 1-2 players to make a larger difference versus when I play in a warband I can almost just put my guard-ee on follow and AFK... Im partially joking but you know what I mean... My point here is a few in the guild said they see nothing wrong with zerging and like it more. That its a "style of play" etc etc. So no matter how "good" anyone things a suggestion is, there will ALWAYS be the "nay-sayers" who disagree.

I think there IS general consensus on this thread that trying to "spread out" players across the zone would be beneficial. That currently there is still a very zerg-esq style of play in RVR. This is ONE of the problems that I am pretty sure many would agree on (and might be PART of Az's frustration and disdain for ROR atm).

So I think a "solution" for this problem would be:
1) removing lock timers on BOs.
2) Adding more BOs or "points of interest" in the RVR lakes.

A secondary problem (that maybe others dont see as a problem) is the way a zone is locked currently. This "hold all 4 BOs + kill Lord" thing is very frustrating and generally speaking... the way you lock a zone isnt because you outplay the other side but that the other side "gives up trying" to zerg a BO because they just want the defensive tick. This has been my experience anyways... You zerg the Lord, the play "wack a mole" on the BOs till you eventually get all four of them, then sit around fending off an enemy zerg at 1 BO until it feels like they "give up" and want the defensive tick.

So this, combined with removing lock timers on BOs, I think leads to needing a "solution" for locking a zone that is above BOs + Keep Lord.

Then you have a tertiary "problem" of not having a "finite end" for some players. I, myself, dont normally get long period of 4-5 hours to play. Due to RL constraints I typically get 1-2 hours play sessions. I largly feel that RVR is out of my "capability" to play unless I get to join a warband when I log in at just the right time. I join too early and I have to log before locking the zone. I join too late and I have zero chance at any loot due to contribution being low (this is an assumption on my part yes). So this is where (IMO) I think a solution should be implemented to give RVR a definite goal that is not conditional in "Kill Keep Lord and hold all 4 BOs" but should be something else you accumulate TO over TIME. So regardless of what is going on in the zone, who logs or logs off or what zerg hits what BO when/where... EVENTUALLY the zone will lock and players can reliable sit down at their PC for 2 or 3 hours and know they will be able to see it to the end... Not just that, but I really think RVR will be much more populated if people can reliable get on and "finish fights" within a reasonable time... Expecting players to spend 4-5 hours in 1 sitting in 1 zone is not reasonable and restricts this "game-mode" too much IMO.


So to summarize. Here are the 3 problems I see:
1) zergs - generally brought about by limited objectives at any time + lock timers.
2) Locking the zone requirements are not fun but often frustrating
3) time constraints restrict RVR to too many players at too infrequent times.

I want to make it a point to point out I am NOT an advocate of "making things easier" I know that can easily be seen as that, but I am not trying to have easier access to gear or faster access to gear... I am trying to first and foremost make the game more FUN to play. I do have my own opinions about gear attainability but am leaving that aside in looking at these issues. If you think addressing the above WILL make it easier to get gear then that is an easy answer: give less bags for wins. Problem solved.

So to summarize. Here are the 3 problems I see:
1) zergs - generally brought about by limited objectives at any time + lock timers.
2) Locking the zone requirements are not fun but often frustrating
3) time constraints restrict RVR to too many players at too infrequent times.

4) DOT damage is worthless you cannot kill anybody with DOT specs (engi and magus) not even if they go afk naked lol
5) RVR objectives are very nice and stimulating indeed, yet wait 5 mins down a flag is just a way to abohor ppl. in open rvr areas i mostly am alt tabbing in facebook due to factions afking under a flag
6) Zergs may be good sometimes (this is warhammer, the zerg game by definition) but sometimes you feel very useless in a warband unable to do nothing as both dps or tank apart than mash 4 buttons always and hope some healer getbored to heal and allow to kill someone sometimes
7) you "could" implement war enginews in open rvr to add more spice (christ sake this is warhammer not pokemon online) and make ppl have fun driving steam tank or chaos hellcannon!

So I think a "solution" for this problem would be:
1) removing lock timers on BOs.

this is useless and worse. this would cause warbands roaming even more between BO zerging without attacking siege castles

Of course this is just my idea i dont mean to criticize anyone and i respect the view of everyone! i am just putting out my thoughts

Asherdoom wrote: 4) DOT damage is worthless you cannot kill anybody with DOT specs (engi and magus) not even if they go afk naked lol
5) RVR objectives are very nice and stimulating indeed, yet wait 5 mins down a flag is just a way to abohor ppl. in open rvr areas i mostly am alt tabbing in facebook due to factions afking under a flag
6) Zergs may be good sometimes (this is warhammer, the zerg game by definition) but sometimes you feel very useless in a warband unable to do nothing as both dps or tank apart than mash 4 buttons always and hope some healer getbored to heal and allow to kill someone sometimes
7) you "could" implement war enginews in open rvr to add more spice (christ sake this is warhammer not pokemon online) and make ppl have fun driving steam tank or chaos hellcannon!

4) Yeah, I think we all agree that DOTs are worthless. Its a fine balance though. Im less concerned about "class balance" as I am with the larger RVR question. Just because Magus and Engi are not "balanced" doesnt impact the larger RVR question for me. So this is a sub-issue IMO. I would LOVE to see Magus get some buffs BTW.

5) I agree, there shouldnt be any of this. Once you cap, it should be capped. Period. The reason you have these "downtimes" is because of lock timers. If a BO locks you have to give the enemy a window to "cap it back". Remove the "dead period" and its not necessarily fair because you can zerg, then cap and they cant re-cap for a period of time. This (btw) is why lock timers are a dumb idea IMO and I would rather see "soft lock" timers via stronger NPCs that are a much more formidable opponent (like a Hero) than they are now.

6) You will never completely remove the zerg. I think the only time I see the zerg being "OK" is during a keep take/defense. What I would prefer for these, are multiple entries in which to both defend and attack. The postern doors have "some" of this. Right now too much of the "focus" is on one narrow space in the larger keep. There should be "areas of focus" in atleast 3 places around the keep. Anyways, you cannot change the dichotomy of zergs = mash 4 buttons. Thats just how it is... Aoe will always be better...

7) War Engines would be cool, though I see this as a major change. There was talk at one point about siege towers being able to be towed over to a keep and create a "way in" aside from the main keep door. I thought that was brilliant. Though, frankly, I can think of many ways to improve RVR without having to necessarily add a bunch of new stuff...

Asherdoom wrote:

So I think a "solution" for this problem would be:
1) removing lock timers on BOs.

this is useless and worse. this would cause warbands roaming even more between BO zerging without attacking siege castles

Of course this is just my idea i dont mean to criticize anyone and i respect the view of everyone! i am just putting out my thoughts

Im not sure your solution. Lock timers lead to more zerging. If you can zerg a BO. Cap it. Then move on because you own it for X minutes, this is what leads to zergs... If there are NO lock timers on any BO, you cant just move in a big group because it doesnt nothing to stop people from coming in behind you to cap it the second your zerg leaves.

Again, I would like to see "soft lock" mechanics where you cap the BO and stronger NPCs spawn as part of the defense of that BO, but it always remains open.

The only OTHER option, is to put an exceedingly LONG lock timer on BOs, without a "contest" period, which would be overly punishing if you left a BO unattended and lost it.

The reason I dislike that, is then you feel anchored to that BO whether there is action there or not.

Lately I notice myself and others seem to get more interested in RvR during the post-Keep phase. Better rvr and Objective gameplay without the distaste of keep sieges that many dislike.
I think this is where we should focus attention for now. Improve RvR, make sustainable gameplay even when keeps are not being sieged (via smaller more frequent rewards).
I would suggest modify the 'end-zones' again to start with two keep takes in order to keep zone locking more dynamic in those zones.
Remove the need focus RvR in one zone only the reason being once any tier is locked down there is a natural focusing of RvR into 2 or 1 zones already.

navis wrote:Lately I notice myself and others seem to get more interested in RvR during the post-Keep phase. Better rvr and Objective gameplay without the distaste of keep sieges that many dislike.
I think this is where we should focus attention for now. Improve RvR, make sustainable gameplay even when keeps are not being sieged (via smaller more frequent rewards).
I would suggest modify the 'end-zones' again to start with two keep takes in order to keep zone locking more dynamic in those zones.

IMO this has to do more with seeing "the end in sight" than anything else.

Once the keep is done, all you really need to do is cap BOs, so once people know that (the keep) is over with, then more people are likely to log into that zone forRVR at a chance at bag drops... Thats how it is for me. If I ask what RVR is going on and its Pre-Keep, its a VERY unknown amount of time until the zone locks. If I know the Lord is down, I know that time is significantly reduced since I know there is already enough people in that zone TO kill the Lord, therefore there is likely enough to lock it.

I dont necessarily think that its because the content is more enjoyable. I am rather fond of the Keep sieges actually... Maybe not T4 which were huge RPDS cluster F***s but the old school T2/T3 Keep Sieges were VERY fun.

navis wrote: Remove the need focus RvR in one zone only

This is a bad idea. T4 zones are loo large and the server population is too low to do this.

RVR's #1 biggest issue atm (IMO) is the unknown time commitment. The other tiers never had this problem. They had other problems, but never the unknown time commitment.

We have SCs that are very short times. So if a player logs in and has 15-30 min to play, you can do an SC.
If you have <10 minutes you can do things like make pots, check the AH, that jazz.
If you have 2 hours to play... well RVR isnt always something you can do in 2 hours (unless you know the Keep Lord is down).

This is why I keep focusing on adding some sort of "time" function to these RVR locks... Either a timer countdown (which would be unfun IMO) or a "points" system in that everything in RVR ticked up to X points - so it put a "finite" amount of time in the zone. More people would be more inclined to play RVR. We cant expect everyone to have 2-6 hours to play. Thats largely what turns people off to RVR.

Right now RVR is played in 3 stages.

Stage 1) Cap BOs to generate supplies to level up your keep
Stage 2) Attack the enemy Keep and kill the Lord.
Stage 3) Capture BOs.

This is the problem. Stage 1 and 2 are an "unknown" amount of time. Even stage 3 can take a LONG time, but as I said before, if a force is big enough to kill the keep Lord, then its only a matter of time to lock the zone.

What we need are "multiple avenues" to win. So you have multiple "objectives" going on at once, whichever one meets said requirements first, wins. I dont know what this looks like but it could be a tug o war between capping and holding BOs vs Attacking the Keep.

Hmmm you dont need 4 bos to lock a zone