agemennon675 wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 11:32 pmLots 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 gameOmegus wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 10:33 pm 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.
Truth.