Recent Topics

Ads

[Gear] State Stabilization

These proposals have passed an internal review and are implemented in some way on the server. Review for specific implementation details.

Moderators: Balance Forum Mod, Developer, Management, Game Master, Community Manager, Moderator, Web Developer

User avatar
peterthepan3
Posts: 6509

Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.

Post#221 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:26 pm

Tbh the only people who would advocate having such gear gaps are those who, ultimately, prove to be entirely reliant on said gaps, so as to stay relevant. Lost count of the amount of people who would dominate lowbies at rr98+, but crumble against equal players.
Image

Ads
User avatar
Tesq
Suspended
Posts: 5346

Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.

Post#222 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:39 pm

peterthepan3 wrote:Some sort of ranking/ladder system for PvP in general (not limited to smallscale) would probably serve to alleviate some concerns regarding stagnant endgame, imo. As stated many times before, nothing rouses interest more easily than appealing to the ego! My 2 c
well in live guilds had a renown counter which show the total renown gained with no cap.
Image

-"Loop warned into oblivion" --> smell like chaosy enought :D
-Nazgul--> ambitious but rubbish, cit Blast :D
-GMs --> dosent matter what they say not, they get offend by colors so watch out plebs! :D

User avatar
peterthepan3
Posts: 6509

Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.

Post#223 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 2:43 pm

Renown gain doesn't really say who the top guilds/groups are, though. Some sort of k/d or scenarios/zones locked/won by X guild counter. Food4thought.
Image

sotora
Posts: 320

Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.

Post#224 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 3:13 pm

peterthepan3 wrote:Renown gain doesn't really say who the top guilds/groups are, though. Some sort of k/d or scenarios/zones locked/won by X guild counter. Food4thought.
Problem with k/d ratio is that it rewards 'playing safe' (not getting out unless you're in good premade), perfect meta setups, non-gameplay avoidance of getting killed (alt+f4, scenario popup, running into guards, etc). Locked zones / non 6v6 sc counter won't tell much as counter will simply tick when pug-stomp scenario or come to zone everytime it locks.

6v6 scenario ladder would be best/good measure, but I don't think there is enough population for this to work well and that would exclude propablly a majority of population from ladder anyway.

Generally imho ladder systems are useless unless game is both popular and highly structured. Then you can have ladder system based on results of isolated fights through whole population of multiplayer in such game. Like i.e. Starcraft or Dota ladders.



Agree about gear gaps though. I dont see any reason as to why power gaps between gear tiers should be big or even medium. Never understood this huge inflation of power between content patches/expansions in MMORPGs.

Azarael wrote:I'm not willing to perform any kind of balance if I'm going to have to repeatedly tweak lots of variables just to keep things stable because people want and need their extra stats and customisation. I've no interest in that at all.
I understand lack of interest to do that 'never ending work'.

Said that - I always thought that balancing was a continuous process that is basically never ending one (ending when game closes or is stopped being developed) rather than a task that was 'achieved' at some point in game. Anyway - I never saw pvp multiplayer game that was done with balancing and still receiving content patches. Good examples are Blizzard instanced competetive pvp games - Warcraft 3 and Starcraft 1&2. Each content patch (usually in form of expansion) required multiple balancing patches after landing.

User avatar
blaqwar
Posts: 471

Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.

Post#225 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 4:15 pm

Normally balancing is done in patches because of the nature of game development and how it's subject to the need for retaining/growing a playerbase to create revenue (paying costumers aren't happy with sudden major underlying changes, all they want is new content). In addition games usually aren't released balanced because of the pressure from investors/publishers who set restrictive deadlines.

RoR isn't subject to those forces (to my knowledge) but at the same time doesn't have the resources of a game developer. Applying logic that works for standard game development doesn't make sense when considering this project.

I believe that the aim of creating a stabilized base for further balancing and developing of RoR was to reduce the load on the development team and to be able to push out changes in a reasonable timeframe. If the team has to take time to objectively rebalance most of the careers after every content push they won't have time for much else, even if they completely ignore the playerbase and the balance forums (as that would speed up the process). It either results in painfully slow development or completely imbalanced game, both of which threaten the life of the project.

Not to mention that there's very few people up for the kind of endless rebalancing (and the associated energy drain) that mainstream games go through on a free project of a small dev team.

User avatar
Nycta
Posts: 95

Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.

Post#226 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 6:52 pm

peterthepan3 wrote:Tbh the only people who would advocate having such gear gaps are those who, ultimately, prove to be entirely reliant on said gaps, so as to stay relevant. Lost count of the amount of people who would dominate lowbies at rr98+, but crumble against equal players.
Still, such an experience can only come this way. Whether or not it is preferred is another discussion. World doesn't end at the limits of one's conscience, most likely.
Yipikaye - "It doesn't taste like chicken!.."
Play - "Winds of Insanity trololol, omnomnom!"
Nycta - "Not again!.."
Jumaru - "Tenderness beats harshness!"
Oblivion - *Beckons..*

KnockedDown N :x :D bz

User avatar
Eathisword
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 804

Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.

Post#227 » Wed Feb 08, 2017 10:22 pm

Nycta wrote:
Spoiler:
Eathisword wrote:
Nycta wrote: (some philosophical metaphysics about game theory)...
If interest towards this game, as well as joy, can only be replenished by new content for most of the players involved then this project becomes limited...
In a profoundly simple sense, every game is limited. So is pretty much every aspect of our human life. But such considerations must not prevent us to give our best shot to any particular enterprise that we hold dear. Be it a video game, a career, a sport...

<<New>> need not be something that is digitally created in the game. It can be pretty much anything. Yaliska photo-op contest was new and kept a bunch of us involved and exploring for awhile. Live events get every one going. And the such. The potential for <<new>> in a finite environment is not contained within finite boundaries, but only by what we can imagine inside them, which is, by all definition of the human mind, infinite :shock:
By "limited" I was referring to the addition of new content(shinies and maps basically) which is in fact limited unless you think we can turn this into a WoW. We can't, and that was the point I made - class and pvp development is what we are left with basically. What I actually said, and you misunderstood, is that if the seemingly perpetual addition of content is what one needs to keep one's interest replenished, this is not the game one should pick.

Also, as one can find seemingly infinite things to do in a game, so can one find seemingly infinite things to do in other games, not to mention in life itself. Your point is empty, loss of interest doesn't necessarily come from the exhaustion of all permitted ways within a game, it could also mean "meh, screw this, I 'll go back to collecting nails!". Profoundly simple as well, isn't it?
Well ty good sir for explaining courteously, in 2 sentences, in response to my feeble satirical caricature attempt to be as vacuous in my style as you were (as it is courteous to express simple ideas simply, on a server where lots of people aren't English natives), what you originally wrote using a gibberish and opaque language.
:mrgreen:
Last edited by Eathisword on Wed Feb 08, 2017 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Farfadet, RR72 shaman
Volgograd, RR80 IB
Video thread here.

User avatar
Azarael
Posts: 5343

Re: [Pending Final Review] State stabilization.

Post#228 » Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:18 pm

The truth here is that I don't know which path to take, and I'm unwilling to perform any balance changes with the uncertainty present, so I'm going to be honest and take the option I outlined in the OP.

The balance forums will be locked until further notice.

Ads

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest