Recent Topics

Ads

no fort limit + xrealming + 24 aoe cap = disaster

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
OndeTv
Posts: 81

Re: no fort limit + xrealming + 24 aoe cap = disaster

Post#101 » Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:16 am

That's the thing though bombling: You generally think in specific wb setups and their effectiveness. While all larger guilds do this if they have the manpower online, we are still just a fraction of the overall playerbase. And while that is natural for guilds to do, the pugs which are the majority of the players suffer for it. It is hecka fun when it is guild warbands slugging it out against eachother, but lets face it: Most of the time these guild warbands (both factions) are just stampeding the poor pugs.

And while - in organized play - a few more classes have become slightly more viable than before with the higher cap, i would argue it is the opposite for the pug warbands since this viability takes proper leadership.

On destro side you see more marauders in general simply as a direct response to the bw bombing warbands as a means of being able to compete. But again, this is mostly in organized play rather than the pug wbs which is the majority.

I would even go as far as to postulate that the reason the 24 cap "test" ended up in this change staying (aka having more positive feedback than negative feedback) is that the most vocal players on these forums are also the most organized players - aka not the players that suffer the most from this change.

This is ofcourse, as always, just my opinion rather than facts. Like most players ;)
~~~~~~~~ OndeTv, Sorceress, <The Art of War> ~~~~~~~~
~~ Onds, choppa ~~ Ondarm, marauder ~~ Helligonden, zealot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~ and many more destro characters ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~ Proud member of Nagarythe Corps in the old days ~~~~~

Ads
User avatar
Aurandilaz
Posts: 1828

Re: no fort limit + xrealming + 24 aoe cap = disaster

Post#102 » Fri Dec 06, 2019 11:55 am

and then there is a certain percentage of players who never even read patch notes, and probably don't even realize the larger AoE cap, or barely notice it as getting hits on +9 targets requires enemy to stand well packed together, or are too busy to count their combat log to see whether their 200 aoe dmg attack hit 7 or 17 people.
funnels being the eternal shitshow they have always been, and will be

best thing IMO is however that individual positioning matters more, and hiding in a blob should be punished if you want to win by hiding in a megazerg. obviously certain guilds still do their best to build blobpiles, but majority of other guilds realize how poor this kind of gameplay is.

Hypernia
Posts: 102

Re: no fort limit + xrealming + 24 aoe cap = disaster

Post#103 » Fri Dec 06, 2019 4:59 pm

You cannot balance the game for pugs because they don't have the required class distribution to make effective groups. Trying to balance a 4 engineer, 2h IB and dps AM group against a shaman, 2 doks a zealot and 2 choppas just isn't possible.

And that's fine, people have the option to play whatever they want, and can find ways to enjoy the game by contributing to their realm.

But groups with sensible compositions should beat pugs with too many dps classes where there are equal numbers, and it ought to be possible for enough pugs to kill off organised groups through sheer numbers.

I think the particular issue at hand is that forts compress the player base to such a degree that the critical mass of bomb damage is hit super easily which is why funnels are the worst part of the game, theres little active decision making or input from the defenders - just throw aoe on the door on CD.

Hopefully the postern changes split the players out from funnels somewhat and avoid the main issue with forts, which is the doors are much too narrow.

User avatar
Alsayr
Posts: 218
Contact:

Re: no fort limit + xrealming + 24 aoe cap = disaster

Post#104 » Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:50 am

1. Player < 40 Level cant go to fort.
2. Player has no contrib, sorry also cant go to fort.
3. Renown rank important for rewards (no rr 60, no invader)
5. Fort Limit to 200ppl.
4. And bonus - destro - order relog cd ·8 hours
Image Ashghul | Image Cziczikaka | Image Kyrathrin / Karak Azgal

User avatar
Gracely
Posts: 106

Re: no fort limit + xrealming + 24 aoe cap = disaster

Post#105 » Mon Dec 23, 2019 3:29 pm

I still think a portal should be in place for those who have contributed the most and a limit on the numbers. Everyone piling in and xrealming all at the same time makes it unstable and many crash out.

User avatar
CountTalabecland
Posts: 606

Re: no fort limit + xrealming + 24 aoe cap = disaster

Post#106 » Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:36 pm

Devs almost had it right, but, imo:
1) Pop cap is needed
2) open it up to all renown ranks
3) gear reward related to renown and only invader bags for 55 +
4) Posterns are a good change
5) Keep portals as they are
6) bring back 10 min + pre fort waiting period so people can actually organize the pugs.
Last edited by CountTalabecland on Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Brynnoth Goldenbeard (40/74) (IB) -- Rundin Fireheart (40/50) (RP) -- Ungrinn (40/35) (Engi)-- Bramm Bloodaxe (40/81) (Slayer) and a few Empire characters here or there, maybe even an elf.

User avatar
Kwatchi
Suspended
Posts: 118

Re: no fort limit + xrealming + 24 aoe cap = disaster

Post#107 » Mon Dec 23, 2019 4:42 pm

Alsayr wrote:
Mon Dec 23, 2019 11:50 am
1. Player < 40 Level cant go to fort.
2. Player has no contrib, sorry also cant go to fort.
3. Renown rank important for rewards (no rr 60, no invader)
5. Fort Limit to 200ppl.
4. And bonus - destro - order relog cd ·8 hours
Jiminy cricket! Are you trying to drive new players off the server?

My opinion as a relatively casual sub40 RoR:

1. What happen to NA time fort numbers when you take those sub 40s away? There will be tumbleweeds.

2. Contribution system is already suspect at times. Not worth the potential complaint headache.

3. See most recent patch notes again.

5. A hard population cap for Forts would be useful, because my experience with 250v200 was auto defence due to slide show conditions. But rather than simply exclude, give the overflow something to do.

Radical solution idea: If Fort max pop cap is reached, open up opposing Fort to ‘counter attack’ so overflow has something to do. BUT. Counter Attack ends when prime Fort ends - no separate timer AND number of potential bags reduced. (Big assumption that server can handle load ofc)

4. I agree here but I think the issue is exaggerated.
Slayer - 40/7x
Archmage - 40/7x

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests