Scenario Matchmaking Rework Megathread

[Dackjanielz]

I don't have comments, just questions.

1) What composition will you be forcing onto scenarios, and why?

2) Why are you compensating for bad players who choose not to organise themselves?

3) What work are you putting into fixing the issues for people who want to group up but cannot get invited?

4) Have you considered putting more work into making it easier to form groups and coordinate instead, rather than resorting to spamming the LFG channel? No, I do not mean auto-groups.

5) How does this fit into the overall design ethos (at least under Mythic) that this is a realm war between order and destruction and is not supposed to be a fair and friendly fight?

6) In relation to #4, part of the original design goals was that all content fed into the campaign, including scenarios. The list of open scenarios was linked to what ORvR zones were open, and winning in scenarios contributed towards the campaign and progress to locking their respective zones. This game far more context to why they were more "unfair" and you were encouraged to find a way of winning as it not only benefitted you but the whole realm. Have you taken this into account when thinking about the new system?

7) How well do you feel cross-realm 6v6 team death-match fits into the design for scenarios (which were based on achieving objectives first and kills as a means of doing so), and do you think cross-realm 6v6 team death-match would ever have been signed off by Games Workshop? Yes, I know this is a very toxic question, but the entire existence of that mode and how it functions is to me at least a huge red flag regarding how the devs perceive what the soul of WAR is.

8) And the big question: in general, what is your vision for how player progression is supposed to function in this game? Originally (on Mythic) it was very much a case of rewarding team work, coordination and skill to progress at a much faster pace. With auto-grouping and MMR you seem to be encouraging success and progression without challenge. There is already progression to Invader level though PVE only, and match-made scenarios with MMR would now add another way progressing (this time all the way to BIS) while avoiding the sandbox.

9) Is this being prioritised over ORvR fixes/improvements and if so, why? RvR has devolved into kill farming (killboard has a big part to do with this) and the campaign is meaningless. Why focus on scenarios first?

--------

I know other games take a "me-first" attitude towards progression, but that is not what Mythic did with WAR and IMO was a big part of what made the game unique. Differences in player success, whether it was skill or gear or renown or whatever, typically were not compensated for. Did Mythic go too far with the differences? Absolutely. But this seems like too far the other way. Things like this just make progression and the overall design philosophy of the game - the realm war - feel more and more meaningless.

It's Realm vs Realm for glory and conquest, not Realm vs Realm in a fair sporting competition.

And before I get the "omg u just wan 2 smash n00bs" replies: on WAR I was terrible and at the bottom of the barrel and still loved the game, knowing full well that a lot of my issues were entirely of my own making. And on ROR I play a healer so "smashing n00bs" is something other people do. I just sit back and try to heal, whether I'm grouped or solo.

In before "you are terrible on ROR too". I see you typing it. Stop

--------

TLDR: encourage player organisation, embrace the sandbox nature of WAR rather than trying to fight it, **** PUGs.

Lots of points on what you want this game to be like but I think most of these design choices are big contributing factors to games downfall and population bleed happening in this game

Truth.

[normanis]

ranked already have system about que(u can se eit when open ranked at minimap), no need make nothing new. solo que and grp que. problem is ppl whant easy matched not to sweat for weekly sc. that why ppl stopped ranked (and ppl need make special event for it with coockies and milk).

[BelligerentBob]

At this point in my life I want to be able to log on and play 2-3 scenarios an hour. Would having a larger pool of PUG only scenarios alleviate that? I know on weekends the events can be a PITA because of how many premades run. In the past I would have been one of the try hards running in those groups but would like a more casual approach this time around.

[vladerethro]

My humble personal feedback, as a solo casual player, most often playing support classes.

I would like to see more balanced groups with at least 1 healer and 1 tank.
The most fun scs to play are the ones with objectives, that's why I don't like ranked so much (that and the absence of normalized gear).

And obviously, weekends are a nightmare, knowing that discordand sc rarely pops, solo player who want to do sc are forced to Q event sc, it would be up to me I would remove the weekend event and slightly increase the base rewards.

The idea of dps only scenarios can be nice, without the healer dps specs for obvious reasons.

Finally, if you could find a solution to prevent the scenario from starting when players are missing, that would be great.

Thanks for your time and for trying to improve the game experience.

[mekal]

discordant should be cross faction to alleviate que times and since people dont want to group they wont care about class synergy anyways

normal sc should remain the same

since a lot of people want a ranked like system to see what careers are in que sure though i dont really see that helping because people like to play hybrids

never never implement a mmr system this server simply doesnt have the pop for it that is why rank failed

[Nekkma]

discordant should be cross faction to alleviate que times and since people dont want to group they wont care about class synergy anyways

normal sc should remain the same

since a lot of people want a ranked like system to see what careers are in que sure though i dont really see that helping because people like to play hybrids

never never implement a mmr system this server simply doesnt have the pop for it that is why rank failed

I'm pretty sure alot of casual players are more into lore than the typical ranked crowd. Personally, I have zero interest in participating in any cross faction content.

[mekal]

discordant should be cross faction to alleviate que times and since people dont want to group they wont care about class synergy anyways

normal sc should remain the same

since a lot of people want a ranked like system to see what careers are in que sure though i dont really see that helping because people like to play hybrids

never never implement a mmr system this server simply doesnt have the pop for it that is why rank failed

I'm pretty sure alot of casual players are more into lore than the typical ranked crowd. Personally, I have zero interest in participating in any cross faction content.

you may be right but i personally cant see another way to manage this rage vs premades when discordant already exists
people complain it never pops but maybe because people dont want/que for it

cross faction would hopefully get them a little more sc pops

[Frankie]

I read through the entire topic since yesterday, tried to sift through the BS to come away with some reasonable takeaways to sum everything up I've seen and thought. I've just started playing again recently, so my recent experience in this game is not as thick as some others', but I've seen enough examples elsewhere to suggest some things that RoR is well-equipped for.


Separate premades from pugs (with an asterisk).

Spoiler:

Every game I played, I played it with team-first mindset. I like being on an organized team, but there are times when I just want to jump into the game without having to wait for a party to be organized. Both are very understandable notions. Mixing the two together however is what we call seal clubbing and even if I'm on the club-wielding side, I'm not entertained.
The only exception should be in 12-player scenarios, where each side may have exactly 1 premade each. It's not too hard to coordinate with your own team, the pugs would add a wildcard factor based on how good/receptive for teamplay they are and could be a good example how to play each different scenario tactics-wise.

Allow numerically imbalanced teams to play, based on player value.

Spoiler:

This has been mentioned and supported by many others, easy to comprehend and not much else to add... EXCEPT that it would really work well on smaller, less objectives-oriented scenarios that could be a nice setup for "king of the hill" type of rounds. So there's an emphasis that this model be applied only to certain maps.

Have scenarios separated based on style of play.

Spoiler:

Objectives vs. Brawl. The first one should always be set up with full 2x12 teams. The latter is either 2x6, 2x12 or MMR based. This brings up another important aspect:

Display player activity in scenarios, differentiate rewards.

Spoiler:

Do it on the website, assign color codes to to player population, add expected waiting time, whatever. It is quite useful to know where it isn't a good idea to sign up for due to long time to assemble the sides, however the less-popular scenarios should have BOTH basic and dynamic difference in either xp or tokens or other.

Implement "vanilla" mode.

Spoiler:

This has been mentioned, but haven't taken into serious consideration. I understand this is quite quirky due to several factors, the most obvious for me is the action bar. An idea to circumvent the issue this brings up is that a player can only use a premade character with the same class he signs up with, action bars should be fixed. I think this would be a cool feature if coding wouldn't be in the way, and meta-wise would be the polar opposite of the MMR system.

Add more preparation time, don't allow team build-up once underway, punish quitters.

Spoiler:

I cannot be alone when I say that scenarios start too early and makes it difficult to apply abilites and coordinate with the team. Give players more time to settle in, in the meantime scenario joining should be revised as well, disabling the 1 more minute option for certain types for example. Not accepting the queue should still warrant a 10-minute penalty timer, deliberately leaving a scenario should warrant 30 minutes (or beyond, don't want to get too strict though). The only excpetion where additional players could be added to an ongoing scenario would be with MMR and even that with some strings attached.

Do NOT disable Surrender option

Spoiler:

Though personally I've never used it, I've sometimes voted on it occasionally where my situation was hopeless. Winners take extra reward, losers get f*kall. People are getting back into the pool quicker which is good. This is still a better option (and a good example where democracy really shines) than plain quitting.

Apply barriers/guards to specific types of scenarios.

Spoiler:

Objective-oriented scenarios usually have more spawn points and even if they don't, there should be more added. There is an obvious reason for their presence, players have no place their and instead focus on the objective. Brawls however can be more fun with some extra NPC muscle added if one side goes an inch too far.

[trh382]

average forum posters will perform any amount of mental gymnastics required to avoid grouping up.
Surely satisfying their needs will improve the server
)

Make a 40/40 dps on for example order try to group up in /5 just for the testing see how long it takes to make a 2-2-2 t4 sc party, most of the times player who want to group up cannot do it even if they wanted to, that is why these players ask for devs for a solution because playerbase is elitist, and then the next answer comes find a guild, check the serious guild pages and you will see they are only recruiting tanks/healers SL/WL if you arent playing these classes tough luck you can only get in a pug/open warband casual group, after 2 hours of finding a group if you are lucky that is you queue and face double premade rr80+ 4-4-4 you get smashed and players leave journey begins from 0, anyway I dont want to derail the thread here sorry but this had to be posted because somehow certain players just lack empathy to understand the experience of a new player... I am sure devs will make a better system for the scs we tried having matchmaker in the past that resulted in long queue times for everyone and they reverted it, trial and error we will slowly have a better system for everyone as long as decision makers have good intentions and its proven they do.

2-2-2 beats 1-4-1 most of the time

But everyone wants to play dps

The game gives you a choice between:

Play support and win more
Find reliable support player friends and win more
Keep soloing as DPS and lose more

It may not be the choice you like, but adjusting that basically decision would completely change how RoR functions and make it a different game

If you are a new player, your best experience will be had starting off as a support class. I recommend either Zealot/Rune Priest or Knight / Chosen since those 4 classes are fairly easy to learn, high impact, and high demand.

[trh382]

--------

I know other games take a "me-first" attitude towards progression, but that is not what Mythic did with WAR and IMO was a big part of what made the game unique. Differences in player success, whether it was skill or gear or renown or whatever, typically were not compensated for. Did Mythic go too far with the differences? Absolutely. But this seems like too far the other way. Things like this just make progression and the overall design philosophy of the game - the realm war - feel more and more meaningless.

It's Realm vs Realm for glory and conquest, not Realm vs Realm in a fair sporting competition.

--------

TLDR: encourage player organisation, embrace the sandbox nature of WAR rather than trying to fight it, **** PUGs.

For understandable reasons this game allows cross realming. This eliminates the core of the realm vs realm ethos.

Combined with the vastly superior online organization tools through discord - Orvr as it existed in the 2000s - can no longer function the same way.

RoR is more like a community pick up basket ball league than a massive triple A MMO - I think the design norms have to accomodate that to maintain a healthy playerbase.

One thing that people want is to be able to log on in small time windows, hit queue SC, and play a bit of RoR that actually involves playing the game (not hiding in spawn)

This is a reasonable/healthy design goal to aim for and I think it can be achieved while still maintaining the intended and healthy advantage that organized groups get in Scenario queues.