Hotfix 21/08/16

[Jail]

Maybe just make RR cap 60?

[Nekkma]

Maybe just make RR cap 60?

Cap it 50 tbh, I want to play some alts as well

[Danielle]

-Roll back/delete individual characters who abused known exploit.

Do you have divine powers to identify these people?

-Roll back everyone to a certain time-stamp because exploit was possible and we can't detect who used it.

That hurts everyone instead of the top 30, who are extremely likely to have used siege for a major part of their RR. As you yourself held the top spot and were well known for this, I don't believe you have much room to complain.

-Roll back character's RR to a date before no renown siege was introduced.

Same problem as above. This is an alpha server and we can only take backups manually when the server is down, so the reocrd is actually quite patchy.

I certainly didn't use siege to gain renown after it was renown-nerfed. It was not stated anywhere that it was an exploit or an abuse before that. In fact a dev somewhere (I think it was you, I am not sure), stated that renown from siege worked based on the system of damage dealt to achieve a kill and that it was not possible to change that, unless the damage dealt system was changed. A full-on solution was used later on and now siege gives no renown on the basis of it being siege, and that's fair enough and a good solution, since people were able to get too much renown by using siege (I do NOT dispute that). I still think that siege should give like 10% or 20% renown to encourage people to use it at all but that's sidetracking ourselves, the current solution is better than what it was at the release of t4.

So, it comes down to: Are you calling siege usage in general from the relase of t4 an abuse, or are you calling siege usage post-renown removal an abuse? I asked this question in my very first post and it still remains unanswered, though you have now implied it had been an abuse from the start by taking a shot at me, where I would say it was simply use at that time.

Renown removal happened after the server came back up from being dead due to ddos, so I am pretty sure you have a backup there (since as you say you take backups manually when the server is down) and you could roll back renown to that date if you so desired.

It comes down to this: the only thing everyone in the top 30 had in common was a lot of playtime. Where is your proof that siege usage was somehow endemic to the top 30? It's just speculation on the basis of the fact that siege gives a lot of renown therefore those who have lots of renown must have used siege. That logic is fallacious. You could get the same amount of renown by using Rain of Fire with a Bright Wizard on the oil spot even now. The two players that used a lot of siege before the renown-nerf were me and Vaping. And that's pretty much that. I won't name the people who I think abused it post-renown nerf (no naming and shaming) but it was just one person from the old top 30 specifically I think?

Therefore please be honest. What are we really getting at here? Are people too high renown rank and you don't like that? Ok, then the solution makes sense. If the siege is the issue and abusing it is, then a fairer solution should be used.

That hurts everyone instead of the top 30, who are extremely likely to have used siege for a major part of their RR. As you yourself held the top spot and were well known for this, I don't believe you have much room to complain.

This is simply not true for the majority of the top 30. My last 600k renown from 60 to 63 and 75% was purely from solo roaming. I was able to achieve that since the server came back up. If I am able to gain 600k renown in that time period just from solo roaming clearly it's possible to gain lots of renown without using siege. Again the only thing everyone in top 30 had in common was lots of playtime and that's that. I don't even think the majority of my renown came from siege in the end, after having solo-roamed in the last two weeks I reconsider and say that a lot more came from solo roaming. But what am I supposed to tell people who ask me how to get renown? Use siege was a lot easier advice to give than explaining how to get it through solo roaming. Either roll back everyone or actually justify your rollback properly when you target it. Otherwise it's just unnecesarily unfair.

[peterthepan3]

tldr someone exploited siege weapons knowingly for as long as they possibly could and is now upset that the renown they wrongfully received for doing so has been reverted. not the case for everyone (i'd wager Teefz and Svarz are exempt), but for the vast majority

[Ravai]

Renown to me atleast is a small bonus( having played sorc on live at rank 100 for years) so the fact I can see purple numbers in the first place is refreshing, even if it was made legit without siege I get it we are "testers".

That said, again, I hope we dont loose players from this decision. It wont deter myself but others may not be so forgiving feeling their time was wasted. If you punish a large portion of the community everytime some ass abuses something we will have nobody left (30 players from the t4 community is huge), only reason I'm posting in this thread is my main concern with ror is population, its the most important aspect to any mmo, right now giving people an excuse not to play this game wont help.

Maybe only 1 person decides to quit from this or play more casually, but that snowballs into the people they play with who may also decide to do the same as they loose a very active player (anyone who is 50+ is very active), so then from that 1 person leaving/slacking we have potentially lost an entire group of active players to battle with.

A more positive approach to this, as you've already mentioned you cant identify specific players would be make the cap 60 as mentioned above, this should alleviate any huge leads in renown as 60 is achievable with active play by most, its a good carrot to aim for and there wont be a game breaking powercreep with 1 extra skillpoint and 10 renown points.

just a few thoughts

[sanii]

Any particular reason why it wasn't a rollback to rr40?

Especially knowing that this holds true

it was known by pretty much everyone when siege and t4 was out that they gave abnormal amounts of rr.

Putting it to 50 means that you are punishing the top 30 for the existence of an exploit, without even being able to identify if they used it.It is also contrary to the whole "server development first" as if that were true then there would be rollback to the point where siege didn't inflate rr which is in this case rr40 and not 50.

[Natherul]

Any particular reason why it wasn't a rollback to rr40?

Especially knowing that this holds true

it was known by pretty much everyone when siege and t4 was out that they gave abnormal amounts of rr.

Putting it to 50 means that you are punishing the top 30 for the existence of an exploit, without even being able to identify if they used it.It is also contrary to the whole "server development first" as if that were true then there would be rollback to the point where siege didn't inflate rr which is in this case rr40 and not 50.

SImply because a lot a players would have been able to get to 50 without exploiting the siege. I hope I did not put frogs in azas mouth here but I think thats his reasoning on this.

[Pahebe]

I might be wrong, but anyway, as a person unaffected by this, I think it's completely unjustified towards these 30 people as much as proposed rollback to the enitre playerbase. Imo, nothing really should have been done but fixing the exploit if you can't identify exploiters. Renown doesn't give you that much advantage but just a few points after rr40. I can totally live with few exploiters that gained 2 extra RR points rather than having some longterm players hurt in the process.

[Danielle]

Any particular reason why it wasn't a rollback to rr40?

Especially knowing that this holds true

it was known by pretty much everyone when siege and t4 was out that they gave abnormal amounts of rr.

Putting it to 50 means that you are punishing the top 30 for the existence of an exploit, without even being able to identify if they used it.It is also contrary to the whole "server development first" as if that were true then there would be rollback to the point where siege didn't inflate rr which is in this case rr40 and not 50.

SImply because a lot a players would have been able to get to 50 without exploiting the siege. I hope I did not put frogs in azas mouth here but I think thats his reasoning on this.

Allow me to contradict you with some mathematics and logic since we can't have direct empirical proof of exploiting, and your removal of renown from the top 30 is largely based on rumours/reputation of those players using siege (including myself). This isn't wrong it's just disproportional representation, because those players have more time, you seee them on siege more often, just as you see the everywhere else more often. So you will remember those players used siege.

For the sake of the argument let's assume my WH (Daniellita) is the fastest gaining renown character on the server now (that is probably not true atm, faster rates may be possible because of destruction AAO, and group play being more viable). I have gained renown from 60 to 63 and 75%, which is equal to 600 000 renown points from the point of the renown nerf. I haven't used siege to gain this renown, it is purely from solo roaming. The same rumourmongers can confirm they have not felt my oil since 08.08.2016. So I have gained on average 50 000 renown per day without using siege to gain renown in this time period. The renown cap was lifted 11.06.2016. That means there were 20 days before the server went down where I would have gained 50 000 renown per day without using siege. That's 1 600 000 renown since RR40 possible without using siege. Now I don't have the exact numbers available to me, you maybe have them and can check these calculations. But assuming an average renown rank from 40-50 is 60 000 and from 50-60 is 100 000 that puts me exactly at RR60. If we consider that I was playing with AAO in that 20 day period and had higher renown gain than now when Order is dominant. It's not impossible to imagine that it could be largely possible to achieve a RR similar to 63 purely off solo roaming.

Now I do NOT dispute that I have used siege before renown was removed from it and that I have gained renown using it. I am simply disputing the argument that the top 30 ALL somehow HAD TO USE siege to get to the renown they had. That is simply not true. It is likely their proportion of renown from siege is about the same as the rest of the general RoR population. If not less, because some in the top 30 are hardcore PvP'ers who would flat out refuse to use siege, well because it's siege . Therefore my suggestion is to rollback everyone's renown to a timestamp after renown was removed from siege - or sort through the top 30 and decide who abused siege after renown was removed. But specific player targeted penalization without proof, just based on rumours is just bad that's all I have to say about that. Inversely punishing 30 players who happened to be at the top simply makes no sense and has no evidence to back it up.

[Akalukz]

why not rolled back those top 30 to their renown rank they were at when renown was supposed to stop coming from siege.