Recent Topics

Ads

[Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas.

Moderators: Developer, Management, Web Developer

Forum rules
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use
User avatar
abodam
Posts: 127

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#11 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:54 pm

For past week there were two states of RvR - Stalemate and People taking different zones to avoid the other side. Also noticed severe lack of groups smaller than 12 players in the zones past week compare to before malus.

Saying people need to change mentality about zerging, zerging is not good. Sure, great idea. But not everybody wants to have "hard" fights or even fights. Casual players want casual gaming style, which zerging is.

Also 2X renown weekend cant really be taken into real consideration due to people mostly playing other characters to speed level.

As I said before, there should be rewards for killing people in PvP focused game ( if someone starts the whole RvR thing, please just dont). If malus could be done locally -> you get rekt by WB when solo, they get nothing = great, doubt its technically viable. But even numbers or greater not depending on AAO should be rewarded even if your side has more people overall in the zone.
Magus / BG

Ads
ajnin420
Suspended
Posts: 74

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#12 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 2:46 pm

I think we should look at this new system with forts/city in mind. The latter of which will have a fixed player count anyway. None the less these 2 goals are the entire carrot on the proverbial stick that is the zone lock portion of the campaign and where a majority of RR and gear will come from, rendering this whole malus issue a nul point imho.

User avatar
Wam
Legacy RR80
Posts: 658

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#13 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:25 pm

Luuca wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:05 am
Title says it all. Any proof that players are moving out of a successful warband to go to opposition and try to get renown?
I think they need more time and a bigger test pool and less crying from zergers that want their casual gameplay... because in a 2 realm system you need both realms and not one to get stomped, or ultimately the one who gets stomped stops playing, then the dominant faction has no enemies rvdoor to eternity gears up but eventually one day will get bored and also stop playing due to lack of you know PVP which is the core part of the game. Its why we have swapped to order multiple times in the past when they got stomped and lacked people.

Ever since gear changes, lag fixes, order get alot more players back, the issue though was not so much primetime as both sides usually relatively more even number wise, as prime time you expect most numbers from each side... its off peak coverage, now this will still happen no doubt, but it will be less encouraged.

You also add into the fact xmas time and "holidays"... guilds on breaks, multiple timezones and its not always clear cut.

Multiple 6 man groups coming together and zerg riding and using it to farm frags on order will be discouraged by this change and maybe they will swap sides to whoever has AAO so they get better rewarded instead of take the easy option for less reward.

I think the change is unfairly punishing at times but i can understand the reasoning behind it because the community and players are irresponsible and cannot be trusted (or more would of made a effort already to swap sides to even things out and not a small minority). Dev's have to step in and babysit everyone. There is alot of entitlement to "do not touch my casual zergplay ways" and screw the people on the other side... but if roles was reversed these people would be crying the loudest no doubt.

Dev's just trying to make a fair system, is it perfect no 1) its new 2) no system is perfect. So it needs more time to gather better Data and responsible feedback. I think it hits extreme zerging, the main issue is the middle ground (the grey area in between) where to set the malus (AAO wise) its hard to say because the numbers are not always "real numbers" inflated by passive players afk on bo flags and keeps.
Wamizzle Guild Leader [TUP]
Wamizzle Guild Leader [The Unlikely Plan]

User avatar
kauyon1
Posts: 95

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#14 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:50 pm

Was the intention for people to log on to the opposing realm, or was the intention for the Zerg to split up and go to different realms?

I think the problem here is if you are going to apply Malus for being the larger numbers, you need benefits to incentivize players to switch zones if that's the intention.

User avatar
Luuca
Posts: 1219

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#15 » Thu Jan 10, 2019 8:55 pm

kauyon1 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:50 pm
Was the intention for people to log on to the opposing realm, or was the intention for the Zerg to split up and go to different realms?

I think the problem here is if you are going to apply Malus for being the larger numbers, you need benefits to incentivize players to switch zones if that's the intention.
I suppose that all depends upon server population and number of open zones. I can only speak for NA times and say that we only have one zone open at a time usually. So maybe the intention was to split forces in the open zones in EU times, but it could not have been considered an intended consequence of Malus implementation during less populated NA times.
Image

User avatar
Manatikik
Posts: 1134

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#16 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:39 am

So once the devs realize (in a few months probably) that this Malus thing is a horrible mechanic and idea it will only take us another year to fix the damage done to NA population. Malus will kill NA time and any off time from primetime EU.

Do no punish players for playing their realm of choice! Reward people who play on the underdog instead. Do not use the stick part on players for playing their toons, just use a carrot.
<Montague><Capulet>

User avatar
Mythrendir
Posts: 69

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#17 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:12 am

Zerging has existed, does exist and will always exist.

Malus is slowly killing RVR by removing the rewarding incentives such as RR gain from kills and Bags rolls from players. Malus is not good for maintaining a healthy ingame population. A lot of people just log off and go play another MMO when they see their efforts amounted or will amount to no reward. While we appreciate the efforts of the team to eliminate xrealming and reduce zerging, Malus has proven to be an ineffective method. An at minimum, the Renown punishment and the AAO threshold need to be tweaked/fixed.

Also, to the ladies and gents complaining about order zerg, may I remind you that Destro was zerging and owning RVR for past 6 months last year. As devs have validly asserted, the zerg is in a state of flux, every few months switching from destro domination to order.

Thank you.
Image

User avatar
Mistweaver
Posts: 43

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#18 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:33 am

Wam wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:25 pm
Luuca wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:05 am
Title says it all. Any proof that players are moving out of a successful warband to go to opposition and try to get renown?
I think they need more time and a bigger test pool and less crying from zergers that want their casual gameplay... because in a 2 realm system you need both realms and not one to get stomped, or ultimately the one who gets stomped stops playing, then the dominant faction has no enemies rvdoor to eternity gears up but eventually one day will get bored and also stop playing due to lack of you know PVP which is the core part of the game. Its why we have swapped to order multiple times in the past when they got stomped and lacked people.

Ever since gear changes, lag fixes, order get alot more players back, the issue though was not so much primetime as both sides usually relatively more even number wise, as prime time you expect most numbers from each side... its off peak coverage, now this will still happen no doubt, but it will be less encouraged.

You also add into the fact xmas time and "holidays"... guilds on breaks, multiple timezones and its not always clear cut.

Multiple 6 man groups coming together and zerg riding and using it to farm frags on order will be discouraged by this change and maybe they will swap sides to whoever has AAO so they get better rewarded instead of take the easy option for less reward.

I think the change is unfairly punishing at times but i can understand the reasoning behind it because the community and players are irresponsible and cannot be trusted (or more would of made a effort already to swap sides to even things out and not a small minority). Dev's have to step in and babysit everyone. There is alot of entitlement to "do not touch my casual zergplay ways" and screw the people on the other side... but if roles was reversed these people would be crying the loudest no doubt.

Dev's just trying to make a fair system, is it perfect no 1) its new 2) no system is perfect. So it needs more time to gather better Data and responsible feedback. I think it hits extreme zerging, the main issue is the middle ground (the grey area in between) where to set the malus (AAO wise) its hard to say because the numbers are not always "real numbers" inflated by passive players afk on bo flags and keeps.
I couldn't have said it better myself
KOTBS - Tariann
RP - Thoromir
WH - Parity
SHAM - Fitbit
DOK - Lanlorien

Ads
Zanilos
Posts: 442

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#19 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 10:03 am

Spoiler:
Mistweaver wrote:
Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:33 am
Wam wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:25 pm
Luuca wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 7:05 am
Title says it all. Any proof that players are moving out of a successful warband to go to opposition and try to get renown?
I think they need more time and a bigger test pool and less crying from zergers that want their casual gameplay... because in a 2 realm system you need both realms and not one to get stomped, or ultimately the one who gets stomped stops playing, then the dominant faction has no enemies rvdoor to eternity gears up but eventually one day will get bored and also stop playing due to lack of you know PVP which is the core part of the game. Its why we have swapped to order multiple times in the past when they got stomped and lacked people.

Ever since gear changes, lag fixes, order get alot more players back, the issue though was not so much primetime as both sides usually relatively more even number wise, as prime time you expect most numbers from each side... its off peak coverage, now this will still happen no doubt, but it will be less encouraged.

You also add into the fact xmas time and "holidays"... guilds on breaks, multiple timezones and its not always clear cut.

Multiple 6 man groups coming together and zerg riding and using it to farm frags on order will be discouraged by this change and maybe they will swap sides to whoever has AAO so they get better rewarded instead of take the easy option for less reward.

I think the change is unfairly punishing at times but i can understand the reasoning behind it because the community and players are irresponsible and cannot be trusted (or more would of made a effort already to swap sides to even things out and not a small minority). Dev's have to step in and babysit everyone. There is alot of entitlement to "do not touch my casual zergplay ways" and screw the people on the other side... but if roles was reversed these people would be crying the loudest no doubt.

Dev's just trying to make a fair system, is it perfect no 1) its new 2) no system is perfect. So it needs more time to gather better Data and responsible feedback. I think it hits extreme zerging, the main issue is the middle ground (the grey area in between) where to set the malus (AAO wise) its hard to say because the numbers are not always "real numbers" inflated by passive players afk on bo flags and keeps.
I couldn't have said it better myself
I thought people said the same about Chap 22 PQs?
Image

User avatar
CountTalabecland
Posts: 566

Re: [Malus] Any evidence it is actually doing what you intended it to do?

Post#20 » Fri Jan 11, 2019 3:33 pm

kauyon1 wrote:
Thu Jan 10, 2019 4:50 pm
Was the intention for people to log on to the opposing realm, or was the intention for the Zerg to split up and go to different realms?

I think the problem here is if you are going to apply Malus for being the larger numbers, you need benefits to incentivize players to switch zones if that's the intention.
This is the question I would like to have an answer for too. Its not feasible to switch when doing so erases contribution, making ones time spent on the zerging side pointless. If the intention is to stop me from playing populated zone then yeah I might go try the other open zone but that just usually means playing a zone with max 10 ppl in it which is fun for no one except solo roamers, and is unlikely to result in a siege or lock while I am logged on, which means I won’t get max contribution. My point is that this was tried on live to get ppl to other open zones and ppl don’t break up from “main” zone.
Brynnoth Goldenbeard (40/74) (IB) -- Rundin Fireheart (40/50) (RP) -- Ungrinn (40/35) (Engi)-- Bramm Bloodaxe (40/77) (Slayer) and a few Empire characters here or there, maybe even an elf.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Panso and 35 guests