Weekend Scenario Events

[ShadowWar]

I think this recent event has highlighted a lot of things for us here. Like most systems, when one mechanism is pushed to an extreme, it can cause cracks to show in related places. One of them that stands out pre-eminently to me is the way the weekend Scenario events are handled. The extreme population imbalance made queuing for the scenario a near futile endeavor for Order. I will use both my personal experience, and a review of the scenario win / lose as examples, and put my proposals at the end after detailing my observations.

You can follow this link (https://killboard.returnofreckoning.com ... e=standard) to see the scenarios played. Last I counted the ratios, it was about 75% destruction wins. That is an extreme imbalance. To use other games as a reference, in DotA2, when a particular hero has over a 60% win-rate, it's considered overpowered. Obviously, this isn't a 1:1 translation, but that is a very strong sniff test failure.

I don't queue for anything other than discordant if I'm solo (which is almost always), except for the weekend Scenarios. I understand that I'm solo, and don't want to run against premades constantly. That's totally fine and okay, but the weekend scenario events force me into there if I want to get the weekly rewards. Typically, of feel, this means I have to run the weekend scenario about 10-15 times to get the 500 point wins, which is not an all-together bad ratio. My suspicion, is that the reason why there are 5 wins and 10 plays required each week is because there is an expectation of a 50% win rate.

This weekend blew that expectation out of the water. I easily ran over 20, and I suspect closer to 30 instances of the Serpent's Passage scenario this weekend. It was routinely being crushed by Destruction premades, causing order to almost always just lead to surrenders. Past experiences this happens a lot at the start of the weekend, and by the end of the weekend pop rates go down because Destruction isn't queuing for it anymore as premades, so it's easier to solo queue into it and get wins, but not this time.

This extreme population imbalance, caused by the big event, highlights an issue of expected number of played scenarios to finish the weekend event. Another "feels-bad" moment was around a Fortress battle occurring. I got into an instance of Serpent's Passage, and it closed down due to imbalance because the destruction side of the match did not join. The scenario ended with order early, and the side that showed up, got 125 points. It felt punitive given the framework of the event.

So, I believe there are a couple ways to improve this overall. I believe the most straightforward and best solution is to change it from "Win the scenario 5 times with 500 points" to "Earn 2500 points in the scenario over the weekend". The objection that I see about this solution is a perspective that players aren't "earning it" or that it somehow is unfair to guarantee progression. I feel neither are valid and is counter to the design philosophy we've seen everywhere else in the game. I can see some knock-on effects that are for the good though.

• Players would surrender less.
  • Much like the voting systems in the United States, it's winner-takes all, discouraging participation.

• More active player engagement in the scenario
  • Knowing that all points would lead towards the weekend scenario goal would push to compete

• Less need to change scenarios that close down prematurely due to imbalances
  • Players can run the objective while waiting for the other side to show up, and bank points

• More granular control for future changes.
  • If it feels like the balance of desired total matches played doesn't work, the points can be easily adjusted in whatever increments desired (i.e. 100, 250, 500,...)
  • Possibility for other rewards down the line like, "Use this item to give you a free 500 points towards your weekend scenario" (or whatever)

The other solution is multi-faceted requiring changes to a few other systems.

• Add a solo-only queue for the weekend scenario (similar to the discordant), or at least, add it to the list of discordant scenarios.

• Make wins that happen because of imbalances in scenarios give the side that showed up 500 points, like a surrender.

• Rework the matchmaking to more aggressively try to match solo-queuers against solo-queuers
  • I like this the least as it's probably a lot of work, and it would reduce frequency significantly

[Archimediss]

people dont join specially order unlkess they get the perfect grp together if they dont they give up so many surrenders on both sides maybe remove the button

[CyunUnderis]

• Players would surrender less.
  • Much like the voting systems in the United States, it's winner-takes all, discouraging participation.

• More active player engagement in the scenario
  • Knowing that all points would lead towards the weekend scenario goal would push to compete

I'm pretty sure it will change nothing. If people are getting farmed because they are not organized and/or they are facing one or two premades, they will surrender, no matter how many points they can have during a SC. At the moment this is the case : if one side can not fight (a balance one) or farm the other faction, this faction will surrender.

The other solution is multi-faceted requiring changes to a few other systems.

• Add a solo-only queue for the weekend scenario (similar to the discordant), or at least, add it to the list of discordant scenarios.

To me, this solution is pretty sad. This is a game where teamplay is really important, when you can have really good fight if both faction try to be organised, finding good synergies between classes and players, or when players are communicating with each others. And by queuing alone, the game looks a lot like a clown fiesta where the side with a natural 2/2/2 will win. So if there is a solo-queue, it should be enforced into a 2/2/2, otherwise we will see more post about how unfair the SC system is (no heal vs 4 heal, etc ...). And we already see that the community didn't like that really much because of the long time in queue.

Also, by doing a solo-queue for this event, you'll have the same problem with Discordant. How do you know that people are really solo and not stacking on a Discord ? Real solo will also get farmed.

[ShadowWar]

I'm pretty sure it will change nothing. If people are getting farmed because they are not organized and/or they are facing one or two premades, they will surrender, no matter how many points they can have during a SC. At the moment this is the case : if one side can not fight (a balance one) or farm the other faction, this faction will surrender.

I completely disagree. Giving players the option to make SOME progress as opposed to a near certainty of NO progress is good motivator. The winner-takes-all situation discourages competition. Winner-takes-all situations causes participation to drop as soon as a critical point is reached. Incremental progress does the opposite.

To me, this solution is pretty sad. This is a game where teamplay is really important, when you can have really good fight if both faction try to be organised, finding good synergies between classes and players, or when players are communicating with each others. And by queuing alone, the game looks a lot like a clown fiesta where the side with a natural 2/2/2 will win. So if there is a solo-queue, it should be enforced into a 2/2/2, otherwise we will see more post about how unfair the SC system is (no heal vs 4 heal, etc ...). And we already see that the community didn't like that really much because of the long time in queue.

You can also have really good fights where it's PUG vs PUG. Your opening premise is that people shouldn't play solo, and that is not reality. Your entire counter-argument is based on, "You're fun is wrong" which I find unconvincing.

Also, by doing a solo-queue for this event, you'll have the same problem with Discordant. How do you know that people are really solo and not stacking on a Discord ? Real solo will also get farmed.

Discordant SC's are the most balanced SC's I ever play in. Your personal experience does not match mine at all. So, again, I find your counter argument unconvincing. Furthermore, not doing something because of the possibility of abuse feels like a poor reason to not do it, especially considering the current state is definitively not healthy.

[ShadowWar]

people dont join specially order unlkess they get the perfect grp together if they dont they give up so many surrenders on both sides maybe remove the button

Surrendering is symptomatic, not causal.

[Everdin]

simple fix for surrender, add to killboard how often someone start a surrender vote and how often he votes yes

[sioding]

Heya,

the exact problem is this:

...That's totally fine and okay, but the weekend scenario events force me into there if I want to get the weekly rewards. ...

when you want to have the weekly rewards you have to bring in a bit more commitment than a simple click on the queue button.
Be part of a group or create one. Make sure you have everything that helps to keep the group alive and if you are able to, then
choose some dps characters who benefit from each other.

Weekend Warfront events are not mandatory - nor are they planned for PUGs. Join a nice guild - create groups - don't play alone.

[ShadowWar]

Heya,

the exact problem is this:

...That's totally fine and okay, but the weekend scenario events force me into there if I want to get the weekly rewards. ...

when you want to have the weekly rewards you have to bring in a bit more commitment than a simple click on the queue button.
Be part of a group or create one. Make sure you have everything that helps to keep the group alive and if you are able to, then
choose some dps characters who benefit from each other.

Weekend Warfront events are not mandatory - nor are they planned for PUGs. Join a nice guild - create groups - don't play alone.

Nothing in the game is mandatory. It's a game. My entire point is that this is not fun. There is a ranked scenario for competitive group play. Nothing presented indicates that these weekend SC's are meant to be a group endeavor. It's easy to argue that the "queue as solo" would even tell you otherwise. Sometimes I play in groups, sometimes I don't. Rarely are the groups for scenarios, but that's besides the point. If the intent is for these things to be done by groups, then the communication and direction of that has been wholly absent, and the mechanisms in game should support that intent if so.

Does the team look at the win/loss ratios as a KPI for the health of the system? Or is it more hands-off and let whatever be, be?

[CyunUnderis]

I completely disagree. Giving players the option to make SOME progress as opposed to a near certainty of NO progress is good motivator. The winner-takes-all situation discourages competition. Winner-takes-all situations causes participation to drop as soon as a critical point is reached. Incremental progress does the opposite.

Why do people surrender then ? Because if they tried a bit more, they can get a few crests more, isn't it ? So you expect players who surrender/afk in SC to try more to get the last influence reward, when they are not even trying, from the beginning, to go in SC with a proper spec or a proper team/duo/setup.
Let's say it helps (and I'm skeptical) and players can have their last reward a bit earlier. It will not really change the way they will get the reward : from defeat to defeat. It will not address the real problem that is PUG vs Premade, when PUG does not want to step-up and organize.

You can also have really good fights where it's PUG vs PUG. Your opening premise is that people shouldn't play solo, and that is not reality. Your entire counter-argument is based on, "You're fun is wrong" which I find unconvincing.

When ? When PUG vs PUG is a good fight ? For how many bad/not balanced Discordants/SoloQ do you have a good fights SC ? When I queue in Discordant, this is a clown fiesta. And that's why I tried to avoid them.
Also, I didn't say that players should not play solo. I'll precise my words : this game is build around groups and WB, not solo. You can solo, but you will not be as performant as a team. It does not mean you can not be successful as a solo player.
Just look the skills of each classes, and you'll see that they complet each other. This is the way I like to play this game. But you can have fun the way you want, this is a game.

For me, this post is more like "I don't have fun doing the SC event solo, let me have fun". So technically, you have the same logic.

Discordant SC's are the most balanced SC's I ever play in. Your personal experience does not match mine at all. So, again, I find your counter argument unconvincing. Furthermore, not doing something because of the possibility of abuse feels like a poor reason to not do it, especially considering the current state is definitively not healthy.

If you have the opportunity to play in 6v6 ranked, with a good team or people that wants to improve/challenge themself, try it. Or just build a 6-men for SC Event, on vocal. I can assure you it is more enjoyable/balanced than soloQ.
Also, I'm not talking about abuse. I'm talking about being in a guild, queuing for a SC, and be in the same team as one of my guildmate, assisting him and getting reported for no reason, just because I have the same guild tag and assisting (thing that PUG doesn't do).

[Belanoite]

people dont join specially order unlkess they get the perfect grp together if they dont they give up so many surrenders on both sides maybe remove the button

REALLY!? Problem solved! GENIUS!