Return of Reckoning

Hello.

I would like to suggest something that could be healthy for ROR.

Current end-game is City Sieges, but not every class is good/desirable for that kind of content since its own nature. This fact makes hard for a good amount of people to play with some kind of coordination or colaboration, making "to lose" becomes a "rule" at the end.

If you win, you deserve more reward, its a fact, i totally agree, and if you lose, you deserve a lesser reward.

Current gap in rewards between winning and losing is not helping in terms of longevity for RoR, that why i suggest that the amount of City's stars should affect the amount of Royal Crests whether you win or lose.

Or, and I know this might be a shocking concept to some, just balance the classes.

Telen wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:26 am Or, and I know this might be a shocking concept to some, just balance the classes.

I assume that Devs don't want to make bad AoE classes like WH, WE, SW...as good as classes like BW, Choppa, MSH, SL...etc. They'll have good reasons for that.

Since this assumption looks more like a fact, we have to think how to help disadvantaged people.

What gap are you talking about? If you are lucky with rolls as a loser you will get equal/more royals than a bagless winner. The typical 1-2 royals difference between winning and losing a stage (before bags) is hardly a large gap, the opposite actually.

Greywolfamakir wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:43 am

Telen wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:26 am Or, and I know this might be a shocking concept to some, just balance the classes.

I assume that Devs don't want to make bad AoE classes like WH, WE, SW...as good as classes like BW, Choppa, MSH, SL...etc. They'll have good reasons for that.

Since this assumption looks more like a fact, we have to think how to help disadvantaged people.

It's funny you mention that, because MSH was'nt good pre-rework. I think rSW will be reworked soon.

If anything the system is too generous to losers but it needs to be otherwise ppl wouldn't even try if they were pugs which is 80% of order rn.

Starx wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:55 am If anything the system is too generous to losers but it needs to be otherwise ppl wouldn't even try if they were pugs which is 80% of order rn.

But they want free stuff for being afk

Nekkma wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:53 am What gap are you talking about? If you are lucky with rolls as a loser you will get equal/more royals than a bagless winner. The typical 1-2 royals difference between winning and losing a stage (before bags) is hardly a large gap, the opposite actually.

I dont like that "If you are lucky with rolls".

I dont take "luck" in consideration.

Acidic wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:58 am

Starx wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:55 am If anything the system is too generous to losers but it needs to be otherwise ppl wouldn't even try if they were pugs which is 80% of order rn.

But they want free stuff for being afk

I didn't say something about AFK players, Im talking about current end-game is City Sieges, and the only real way to get best gear, but certain classes are rejected in WB, and you get forced to pug at the end because no one invites you.

Greywolfamakir wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:07 pm

Nekkma wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:53 am What gap are you talking about? If you are lucky with rolls as a loser you will get equal/more royals than a bagless winner. The typical 1-2 royals difference between winning and losing a stage (before bags) is hardly a large gap, the opposite actually.

I dont like that "If you are lucky with rolls".

I dont take "luck" in consideration.

Acidic wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:58 am

Starx wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 11:55 am If anything the system is too generous to losers but it needs to be otherwise ppl wouldn't even try if they were pugs which is 80% of order rn.

But they want free stuff for being afk

I didn't say something about AFK players, Im talking about current end-game is City Sieges, and the only real way to get best gear, but certain classes are rejected in WB, and you get forced to pug at the end because no one invites you.

Players afk when they start to lose , cities, keeps, sc ... this is a fact and by increasing the reward you encourage players to enter with no hope of victory. This is clear when you look as some of the pug warbands where they have 1 healer and 1 tank. They are there to get the loser reward and have no ambition to win.
A lot of the warbands going city should not even be able to queue , this is where the problem is

Greywolfamakir wrote: Mon May 18, 2020 12:07 pm
I dont like that "If you are lucky with rolls".

I dont take "luck" in consideration.

Well, you need to take in the total amount of royals awarded to each side and then you leave luck out of it.

So you propose to remove/reduce bags for losers? Otherwise your proposal makes no sense as you state: "If you win, you deserve more reward, its a fact, i totally agree, and if you lose, you deserve a lesser reward." Or is you suggestion that losers get one less royal than winners and keep all bagrolls? Is that really a whorty reward for winning?