Incentives

[ragafury]

I see the comments about how casuals don't have time to "get good" but here's my counter to that. Spoiler: this suggestion *will* require you to interact with at least one other player:

If you're a casual but you spend any time at all in rvr or scs you likely know who the "good" players are for your given class, right? Even if you don't, a quick ask in advice channel will get you more opinions on the matter than you'd ever care to hear. Now, equipped with some names of "good" players, you can start attempting to reach out to those players. Some might be dicks, some might ignore you, some might not be online. Eventually you WILL find someone who loves the game and wants you to love it too and they will be more than happy to give you some pointers. Ask about spec, ask about playstyle tips, ask about gear and what to slot in it. You'd be surprised how easy it can be to learn your class when you socialize with the folks that have already done the leg work for you.

You can also do this here in the forums but honestly, a lot of folks don't haunt the forums and chatting someone up in game will likely be faster. You might even make a new friend.

I don't think that anybody who is replying to this topic has a get gud problem or is whining (perhabs on the first few pages?). I am always in the lakes, AAO or not, I don't give a duck about it. The most ppl who are awnsering in this thread are at least RR 50+ or higher with multiple chars, sharing a same or similar attitude towards AAO and being the underdog and play kinda organized or had played organized in the past and have there reasons for not doing so anymore, and are active in the forums.

Abbd.3: Given the game now only exists in form of this private server and absolute nichegame, one cannot and should not try to cater to everyone, much rather embrace and build upon its nature.
You much rather want to have a small but healthy community with the means to further the development with proper feedback, than a big, unhealthy community that is constantly up in arms with each other and the devs by proxy and virtue of perception derived by unsocial play in a multiplayer with a framework like WAR's.

Amen.


BTT:
I don't think incentives are needed. I don't think "crutches" are needed for the losing side or anything. (As I have already mentioned on p3)
The game is best balanced by a balanced population, and I truly believe that this will shift at somepoint because ppl get tired of winning (or the game itself).

[Darosh]

I don't think that anybody who is replying to this topic has a get gud problem or is whining (perhabs on the first few pages?). I am always in the lakes, AAO or not, I don't give a duck about it. The most ppl who are awnsering in this thread are at least RR 50+ or higher with multiple chars, sharing a same or similar attitude towards AAO and being the underdog and play kinda organized or had played organized in the past and have there reasons for not doing so anymore, and are active in the forums.

As to the first marked thing in the quote:
The issue is with those that start these kinds of threads and those that engage in extreme fairweather play.

As to the second marked thing in the quote:
Yes. And you have almost everyone repeat the same thing over and over again - the solution being as simple as obvious; organized play. But it does, for the most part, fall on deaf ears, most of the time being deflected via "But I die in a videogame!", "Classes are broken! I've lost 1vX, pugVpug against xyz! The other side has fancier grass on their side, BIAS!" or my personal alltime favourite "But I cannot sport the perfect 6man, why should I bother grouping at all?!"/ "I'm playing in offpeak hours, barely anyone to group with - might aswell not even try it.", directly followed by "I just jump ship and PvDoor! See, if I cannot have fun, you might aswell don't have fun either!" with a subsequent "I have to compete with a million people in lootrolls - the rng is bad, gear is hard to come by, change it!"/ "How dare the devs make me wait for a zone to flip that was absolutely effortlessly won.".
TLDR: Incentivise if not outright force grouping.

It is as if people only enjoy the game if it is no more than an effortless roflstomp... I guess some things never change.

E: Words and stuff.

[ragafury]

It is as if people only enjoy the game if it is no more than an effortless roflstomp... I guess some things never change.

The thing is, most of the time, when people with an effortless attitude have aquired there stuff, they just leave or get bored before it and leave because they weren't lucky enough, they played carrot on the stick online: return of reckoning instead of enjoying the game with there trusty m8s. So my hopes are high that there will be a natural balance.

[Darosh]

It is as if people only enjoy the game if it is no more than an effortless roflstomp... I guess some things never change.

The thing is, most of the time, when people with an effortless attitude have aquired there stuff, they just leave or get bored before it and leave because they weren't lucky enough, they played carrot on the stick online: return of reckoning instead of enjoying the game with there trusty m8s. So my hopes are high that there will be a natural balance.

If they aquired their stuff they will try and solo roam, looking to 1vX just to realize that gear and rr does not even scratch the potential you can unlock via group composition and either start the circlejerk on the forums anew and complain about how they have spent all their time for nothing, or indeed leave the game for good.

Chances are we'll go through several episodes of chat and forum littering - given the time <they> have spent getting all the stuff - that is absolutely useless if not utilized within a group and that, therefore, does not grant any benefit over the easy accessible stuff -, at times even sucessfully forcing changes, before <they> finally bugger off into the distance, never to be seen again.

E: Words and stuff.

[Grolar]

Abbd.1: It should be obvious to everyone, that balancing around temporary shifts of population is not a good idea,

Yup. When I say balance I am mainly talking about classes and open RvR. IMO Keeps and BO's are currently off kilter in their importance to the zone.

Abbd.3: Given the game now only exists in form of this private server and absolute nichegame, one cannot and should not try to cater to everyone, much rather embrace and build upon its nature.
You much rather want to have a small but healthy community with the means to further the development with proper feedback, than a big, unhealthy community that is constantly up in arms with each other and the devs by proxy and virtue of perception derived by unsocial play in a multiplayer with a framework like WAR's.

Being a defeatist isn't in my nature. A year ago this server had 1400 players. Then change after change came and the players left. Now we have half of that number and they still leave or slowly stop playing as much. People complained then and will continue to complain. It's human nature and does mean the community is unhealthy, but quite the opposite. A healthy community talks and discusses things and takes all opinions into account. It sounds a little like you would rather the dev's create a mediocre game that caters to a select few ( 300 players ) than a great game that works for a lot more than that ( 1400 players ). That isn't a good thing no matter how you spin it.

[Darosh]

Being a defeatist isn't in my nature. A year ago this server had 1400 players. Then change after change came and the players left. Now we have half of that number and they still leave or slowly stop playing as much. People complained then and will continue to complain. It's human nature and does mean the community is unhealthy, but quite the opposite. A healthy community talks and discusses things and takes all opinions into account. It sounds a little like you would rather the dev's create a mediocre game that caters to a select few ( 300 players ) than a great game that works for a lot more than that ( 1400 players ). That isn't a good thing no matter how you spin it.

If by acknowlediging reality accounts to being a defeatist for you, meh ~ so be it.

We are talking about a game to which the current devs neither have full access to, nor the resources to even remotely approach a complete overhaul necessary to cater to everyone.
Look at the framework at hand, look at resources available - you can be as optimistic as you want, theres hardly a chance in hell you can turn this game into something it simply is not: a popular game that will have more than the very core population stick around for long.

What you propose is akin to reinventing the wheel, and your elaboration proves my point - considering that you do not even take into account that during the year alot of great, new and popular games have been released.
Games that do have the resources behind them to completly take a U-turn if the community demands it, games that have not burned out their playerbase before - games that the majority of players will invetiably flock to before long.
Go ahead and imagine what will happen to this server once CU drops... do you then still blame devs for the very nature of things and demand them to change things to compete with something they simply cannot compete with?

The initial iteration of the game died because it got tampered with in the manner you propose.
This game is a nichegame that's population will invetiably dwindle, the only thing that is yet undecided is whether in the very end there will atleast be some population left over to play with and to rely on as it comes to feedback, or whether the server will die in its entirety as the people's demands and complaints go unchecked - getting even the last few to leave, that arranged themselves with the game as is.

And no, I am not opposed to change - I am however opposed to people establishing the weirdest kind of unsocial attitude, and moreso to cementing it by changing the game to reflect it. Why would you even play a multiplayer if you are sooo opposed to grouping being what is emphasized the most?

Do you really consider a nichegame with a population of 1,4k in which everyone plays completly on its own, alongside each other rather than with another fun? In my book that'd be GW2/ESO all over again, see how their RvR based around snowflakes worked out for them - in their forums you, too, had complaints all over the place and just as in the initial iteration of WAR the devs fell for them, completly shattering the little integrity their systems had, turning the games into snoozefests and with that killing off the RvR community.
Reinventing the wheel doesn't work, repeating the mistakes - over and over again - in the hopes of getting it right this time around, doesn't work.

Abbd.: To GW2/ESO - once they noticed they **** up, they just dropped the entire thing and neglected it ever since.
Let alone their PvP community in general...
Why could they do it; or pull through with their nonsense in the first place? Because they are popular games with resources that can be pumped into other aspects of the game, and a playerbase big enough to sustain even the biggest hits while remaining relatively playable. This game, this project does not have those options.

E: Words and stuff.

[Grolar]

you can be as optimistic as you want, theres hardly a chance in hell you can turn this game into something it simply is not: a popular game that will have more than the very core population stick around for long.

I never said it would. It depends on what number you consider a core population. At least for this server. That number will differ from person to person. Personally I never thought this server could reach much more than 2000. Unless things change we'll never know.

What you propose is akin to reinventing the wheel, and your elaboration proves my point - considering that you do not even take into account that during the year alot of great, new and popular games have been released.
Games that do have the resources behind them to completly take a U-turn if the community demands it, games that have not burned out their playerbase before - games that the majority of players will invetiably flock to before long.

Huh? I haven't proposed anything. Just stated the facts about population. This game could never compete with newer games and the dev's here don't want to as far as I know. People come here for many reasons most I imagine. To play a game they love and reminisce fun times of a game they used to play. Players will come and go from those newer games too. Not sure how you think that matters to a private server. This game is unique even to CU.

Go ahead and imagine what will happen to this server once CU drops... do you then still blame devs for the very nature of things and demand them to change things to compete with something they simply cannot compete with?

Never blamed the dev's for anything nor do I demand anything from them. You're are reading into things if you think so. Again, this server isn't here to compete with mainstream games or up and coming games. If you want to go play CU go ahead. It sounds interesting and I may play it too. I'll still be here in the mean time.

The initial iteration of the game died because it got tampered with in the manner you propose.
This game is a nichegame that's population will invetiably dwindle, the only thing that is yet undecided is whether in the very end there will atleast be some population left over to play with and to rely on as it comes to feedback, or whether the server will die in its entirety as the people's demands and complaints go unchecked - getting even the last few to leave, that arranged themselves with the game as is.

Again, didn't propose anything ( haha ). The original Warhammer Online died for more than one reason and it had nothing to do with me. Hint: Crappy launch because of EA pushing it out too soon, lack of confidence in the product, licensing expiration, bad timing, etc, etc.. I like what this person has to say. I specially agree with the class mirroring comments.
Read it

http://www.alteredgamer.com/warhammer-o ... a-failure/

And no, I am not opposed to change - I am however opposed to people establishing the weirdest kind of unsocial attitude, and moreso to cementing it by changing the game to reflect it. Why would you even play a multiplayer if you are sooo opposed to grouping being what is emphasized the most?

aaaaaand you lost me. Back to the topic

[Darosh]

you can be as optimistic as you want, theres hardly a chance in hell you can turn this game into something it simply is not: a popular game that will have more than the very core population stick around for long.

I never said it would. It depends on what number you consider a core population. At least for this server. That number will differ from person to person. Personally I never thought this server could reach much more than 2000. Unless things change we'll never know.

It sounds a little like you would rather the dev's create a mediocre game that caters to a select few ( 300 players ) than a great game that works for a lot more than that ( 1400 players ). That isn't a good thing no matter how you spin it.

Soo... what exactly was your point? I guess, so much for that argument of ours.

Huh? I haven't proposed anything. Just stated the facts about population.

You might want to reread what you've written. Before that we had a little brawl that started with you mistaking what I've written for an attempt of shutting down your "suggestion" - in my book "suggestion" and "proposal", aswell the respective verbs are generally synonymous.

Never blamed the dev's for anything nor do I demand anything from them.

Guess I misread some of your factstating as such, my honest apologies if that is the case.

People come here for many reasons most I imagine. To play a game they love and reminisce fun times of a game they used to play.

Thats the spirit [Abbd.: Well, a part of it atleast.].

Players will come and go from those newer games too. Not sure how you think that matters to a private server.

Again, this server isn't here to compete with mainstream games or up and coming games. If you want to go play CU go ahead. It sounds interesting and I may play it too. I'll still be here in the mean time.

I have not brought up population myself [Abbd.: in this manner], see above. Things like other games, however, are a factor as it comes to population, private server or not.

The original Warhammer Online died for more than one reason and it had nothing to do with me. Hint: Crappy launch because of EA pushing it out too soon, lack of confidence in the product, licensing expiration, bad timing, etc, etc.. I like what this person has to say. I specially agree with the class mirroring comments.

TLDR: Buiness model. Your buisness model dictates the way you handle your product and your costumer base, if it yields you more revenue running your product into the ground, you'll do so [Abbd.: Subscription based milkage of costumers, more costumers being satisfied at all costs over a short period of time with invetiably dire prospects for the future of the product => more revenue if the product is deemed unsustainable.].
Sometimes things can be summarized, sometimes they are referred to but not elaborated in their entirety.
As to the marked part: Guess I am not the only narcissist on the forums thinking the world revolves around me - arguably the most useless remark I've yet read.

And no, I am not opposed to change - I am however opposed to people establishing the weirdest kind of unsocial attitude, and moreso to cementing it by changing the game to reflect it. Why would you even play a multiplayer if you are sooo opposed to grouping being what is emphasized the most?

aaaaaand you lost me. Back to the topic

My entire point revolves around incentivising groupplay (that should be abundantly obvious by now), rather than ducttaping symptoms of a significant lack of it and overall communication/social interaction.
Given that you consider a game that emphasizes that to be something only for "the select few" (see what you've written above), well... what else could I possibly make of it?
Further endeavours might be best dealt with via pm, but I doubt either of us is really interested in furthering this debate of ours.

Back to topic, yes.

E: Words and stuff.

[Daknallbomb]

If you Start to balance 160 vs 100 we are done here...

If you start to see Staff/Devs theorycrafting things along with this madness, start to worry. Most of the "we should do X" posts aren't even replied to.

100% agree how often i said that The whole balance "issue" is not existent because i think These game is very well balanced at The Moment. Not perfect But rly good. The biggest issue on the server is Player mentalitiy nothing Else

[Darosh]

If you Start to balance 160 vs 100 we are done here...

If you start to see Staff/Devs theorycrafting things along with this madness, start to worry. Most of the "we should do X" posts aren't even replied to.

100% agree how often i said that The whole balance "issue" is not existent because i think These game is very well balanced at The Moment. Not perfect But rly good. The biggest issue on the server is Player mentalitiy nothing Else

10/10, would quote again.