Issues with current gameplay/grind system and proposed changes
Posted: Fri Feb 21, 2020 7:59 pm
Issues:
I thought the game was at its best with the conqueror/vanquisher grind. Meaning you could contribute regardless of which game mode you played, but also that you got currency from player kills which incentivized player vs player combat. You could also log in whenever you wanted, play for a short or long period of time, and be rewarded depending on your time investment.
Current "endgame" grind design, since forts, have made player vs player combat (which is what the game is all about) more or less insignifact. The possibility of logging on for your choice of time period is also gone, for city sieges (with last zone to take) you need 3 hours minimum. It makes progress on your endgame character during weekdays nearly impossible and it's not even sure you will get anything done on weekends (you could fight the zones, forts for hours withouth really progressing your character in any way). City sieges also encourages zone throws which is well...not fun
Solutions:
Revamp the "endgame grind system" (invader/sovereign) to drops from zones and player kills. Forts and city sieges would still be giving the majority of these tokens, but there would also be a purpose to play the game outside of these scripted events.
Shorten the duration of forts, they are not fun. Also shorten the duration of city siege stages ; "balanced" 24v24 fights are a minority, and the majority is either stomps or snowballs. If you didnt like to be farmed in scenarios by 6 mans, well here you can be farmed by 24 man warbands for an hour.
The core gameplay of the game (the way i see it aleast) should be spontaneous player vs player combat wherever it happens. The scripted events such as forts and city sieges can be decent additions to enrich the gameplay, but they should not be the sole purpose of either logging in or out.
Incentivize lake and fort defenses. That can only be done through reasonable rewards. Where is the fun if there is no challenge?
Radical solutions that will make the devs rage (spaghetti yolognese edition):
Remove forts. They are dogshit. They are neither pvp or pve. Just a mishmash blobzergfest which nonone enjoys. There is a reason they were removed on live (not like live was the role model game in any way, but you get the point). This isnt aimed negatively at the devs or aimed to disrespect their work put into forts, just a realisation that they have not worked out very well and do not provide a decent enjoyment.
Change city sieges back to the "original idea of 36v36 instances". Will this reduce instance pop? Not necessarily, just make the queqing system better for differnt sized groups ; 6 mans, 12 mans, 18 mans and so on. I also believe the possibility of having both warbands and 6 mans in city sieges will make for a) greater game mode variety, b) make more classes viable for city sieges. I think it's unjust that for example order classes that are not warband viable (wl, sw, wh) should have a lesser chance of getting into decent warbands, and as a result of this, lesser chance to obtain sovereign.
Regarding solo ranked : if the idea is to still put MMR requirements behind weapons and/or jewellry, i'd recommend strongly to re-evaluate this. Ranked solo isn't WoW arenas where you pick your teammates, or League of Legends where you can hard carry with certain classes. In fact it is totally random, and you are left to count on your luck regarding your teammates. MMR also encourages people to team up (guilds, alliances or friends) to grind that MMR and kills the idea of 6 solo players vs 6 solo players. I'd like to suggest to you to change the requirement of weapons/jewellries to WINS REQUIRED. You can make it grindy if you want. The way i see it, it will change two things : remove excessive salt from the game mode( if you loose nonthing bad happens) while still encourage to do your best to win (need those wins yo). A more causal approach i believe will also make people less encouraged to team up for solo ranked, which shouldnt be an idea to begin with.
TLDR/Summary
Make the "endgame" grind matter in all areas of the game. I can understand that the idea of this very long grind is to incentivize people to keep playing and stay with the server, but the grind should also be enjoyable. Doesn't mean it have to take less time to get gear, just that it's spread evenly across different aspects of the game.
Change future weapons/jewellry from MMR requirements to WINS REQUIRED. Solo ranked is neither WoW arena where you pick your teammates, or League of Legends where you can hard carry. It's too random for MMR. MMR also encourages people to gather in grps and solo quque "together" (it's solo ranked or not???) and makes the game mode extremly unfriendly and toxic (if i loose the game i go down in MMR). A more casual approach in WINS REQUIRED will aim at everyone doing their best in order to progress, remove unnesseray toxicity and group tryharding (which shouldnt be part of solo), while not necessarily being any less grindy.
I thought the game was at its best with the conqueror/vanquisher grind. Meaning you could contribute regardless of which game mode you played, but also that you got currency from player kills which incentivized player vs player combat. You could also log in whenever you wanted, play for a short or long period of time, and be rewarded depending on your time investment.
Current "endgame" grind design, since forts, have made player vs player combat (which is what the game is all about) more or less insignifact. The possibility of logging on for your choice of time period is also gone, for city sieges (with last zone to take) you need 3 hours minimum. It makes progress on your endgame character during weekdays nearly impossible and it's not even sure you will get anything done on weekends (you could fight the zones, forts for hours withouth really progressing your character in any way). City sieges also encourages zone throws which is well...not fun
Solutions:
Revamp the "endgame grind system" (invader/sovereign) to drops from zones and player kills. Forts and city sieges would still be giving the majority of these tokens, but there would also be a purpose to play the game outside of these scripted events.
Shorten the duration of forts, they are not fun. Also shorten the duration of city siege stages ; "balanced" 24v24 fights are a minority, and the majority is either stomps or snowballs. If you didnt like to be farmed in scenarios by 6 mans, well here you can be farmed by 24 man warbands for an hour.
The core gameplay of the game (the way i see it aleast) should be spontaneous player vs player combat wherever it happens. The scripted events such as forts and city sieges can be decent additions to enrich the gameplay, but they should not be the sole purpose of either logging in or out.
Incentivize lake and fort defenses. That can only be done through reasonable rewards. Where is the fun if there is no challenge?
Radical solutions that will make the devs rage (spaghetti yolognese edition):
Remove forts. They are dogshit. They are neither pvp or pve. Just a mishmash blobzergfest which nonone enjoys. There is a reason they were removed on live (not like live was the role model game in any way, but you get the point). This isnt aimed negatively at the devs or aimed to disrespect their work put into forts, just a realisation that they have not worked out very well and do not provide a decent enjoyment.
Change city sieges back to the "original idea of 36v36 instances". Will this reduce instance pop? Not necessarily, just make the queqing system better for differnt sized groups ; 6 mans, 12 mans, 18 mans and so on. I also believe the possibility of having both warbands and 6 mans in city sieges will make for a) greater game mode variety, b) make more classes viable for city sieges. I think it's unjust that for example order classes that are not warband viable (wl, sw, wh) should have a lesser chance of getting into decent warbands, and as a result of this, lesser chance to obtain sovereign.
Regarding solo ranked : if the idea is to still put MMR requirements behind weapons and/or jewellry, i'd recommend strongly to re-evaluate this. Ranked solo isn't WoW arenas where you pick your teammates, or League of Legends where you can hard carry with certain classes. In fact it is totally random, and you are left to count on your luck regarding your teammates. MMR also encourages people to team up (guilds, alliances or friends) to grind that MMR and kills the idea of 6 solo players vs 6 solo players. I'd like to suggest to you to change the requirement of weapons/jewellries to WINS REQUIRED. You can make it grindy if you want. The way i see it, it will change two things : remove excessive salt from the game mode( if you loose nonthing bad happens) while still encourage to do your best to win (need those wins yo). A more causal approach i believe will also make people less encouraged to team up for solo ranked, which shouldnt be an idea to begin with.
TLDR/Summary
Make the "endgame" grind matter in all areas of the game. I can understand that the idea of this very long grind is to incentivize people to keep playing and stay with the server, but the grind should also be enjoyable. Doesn't mean it have to take less time to get gear, just that it's spread evenly across different aspects of the game.
Change future weapons/jewellry from MMR requirements to WINS REQUIRED. Solo ranked is neither WoW arena where you pick your teammates, or League of Legends where you can hard carry. It's too random for MMR. MMR also encourages people to gather in grps and solo quque "together" (it's solo ranked or not???) and makes the game mode extremly unfriendly and toxic (if i loose the game i go down in MMR). A more casual approach in WINS REQUIRED will aim at everyone doing their best in order to progress, remove unnesseray toxicity and group tryharding (which shouldnt be part of solo), while not necessarily being any less grindy.