Recent Topics

Ads

Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

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
Banjomissen
Posts: 66

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#111 » Sat May 23, 2020 8:54 am

The increase from Vanq --> Sove is more than just a flat 9%.

For every set inbetween it's 3% increase of those sets stats so the difference between Vanq and Sove should be noticeable.

Ads
Starx
Posts: 242

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#112 » Sat May 23, 2020 9:08 am

Just based off of Crit multi gained by magus from anni > Sov already makes up nearly 15% increase raw damage.

Crit mulitplier is the most powerful stat in the entire game.

you get 27% w/ the boost proc at 7pc sov, which makes every single point of crit on magus worth .27% more, you can get around 45% crit base with a 15% tactic... meaning those 2 set bonuses are what 11%? or so increased dmg overall. Not to mention you also get 9% crit on proc which would be another 2%. Ya I know its a proc that isnt up all the time but still...

The reason crit is the most valuable stat in the game is that CC patch made TTK 2-3 longer and burst damage becomes king.

Omegus
Posts: 264

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#113 » Sat May 23, 2020 12:27 pm

Telen wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 8:43 am
Omegus wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 7:02 am
I just did the difference between Vanq and Sov on the Zealot: https://i.imgur.com/riljqok.png. Funny looking 9%. This is just using the same 6pc items - the gem and cloak can be used in conjunction with either set, although it provides 2 extra set bonuses for Sov or lets you min/max for better stats, and then we're comparing someone with partial Sov to Full Sov which is a whole other thing.

I have no idea how the stats are weighed against each other (no doubt locked away in a hidden sheet for nobody to check and thus make it impossible to audit and submit bug reports if needed) so somehow this could all add up to a 9% increase.
Careful you'll get called a whiner
idgaf I just completed 2nd sov and am now working on warlord just to complete the set :P. This thread has been a trainwreck for devposts though - I just wanted to add a bit of evidence to show it off.
Banjomissen wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 8:54 am
The increase from Vanq --> Sove is more than just a flat 9%.

For every set inbetween it's 3% increase of those sets stats so the difference between Vanq and Sove should be noticeable.
Yes, it should be 9.27% instead of 9%.
Zomega: RR8x Zealot

User avatar
VonEpic
Suspended
Posts: 160
Contact:

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#114 » Sat May 23, 2020 1:18 pm

Player:
[Suggests reasonable mechanics change]

RoR Dev:
Image
Image

User avatar
Italic
Posts: 4

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#115 » Sat May 23, 2020 7:38 pm

Posting in full support of the OPs suggestion.

Regardless of certain developers feelings about gear level and math... perverting the incentives for players to not participate in large scale RvR efforts cannot be intended.

If "rewards are tied to completion of content" then the content for the highest rank and most committed players is a door and a PvE boss creature. Does that really seem right to anyone? Does anyone enjoy player vs door combat? No... nobody does - but that is the "content" that allows high level players to advance themselves. So let's all go dodge each other and trade keeps because the flip is what gives us the reward... not the combat. Such things make no sense. Actually rewarding players for beating other players is the "completed content" of a PvP game.
--------

On an adjacent note, high level 24 v 24 combat is THE BEST PvP I have experienced in an MMO in 20 years. It is incredibly fun, tactical, and engaging. Right now there is one place to do that... City. As it stands, that content is locked behind a clock that prefers low pop server times and high level competent defenders to stay the heck out of Forts.

Even the creation of incentive for high ranked players to engage in ORvR with the OPs excellent suggestion does not solve the problem that zerg on zerg combat is crap. As much as the incentives HAVE to change to keep players playing, the proposed change in incentive still hides the best this game has to offer. A 24v24 warband queue option for a scenario would be a really great content change with nearly zero added development. This would be really fun especially in scenarios like Battle for Praag. I would personally love if there was a "win 15 scenarios" for a RC repeatable but that would be icing on the cake for the opportunity to actually play this game and have fun.

User avatar
wargrimnir
Head Game Master
Posts: 6315
Contact:

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#116 » Sat May 23, 2020 10:34 pm

Omegus wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 7:02 am
mickeye wrote:
Sat May 23, 2020 1:49 am
Yaliskah wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 6:23 pm
According -afaik- there is around 3% stats progression between a set and the next one, according being vanquisher is doable by anyone
In conclusion, "triggered" content is not a mandatory to be efficient in any aspect of the game.
Just catching a breath here... So it's like Anni>Conq>Vanq>Inv>Warlord>Sov, right?
Do you feel like theres 15% stats difference between Anni geared char against Sov geared char?
O'rly?
I just did the difference between Vanq and Sov on the Zealot: https://i.imgur.com/riljqok.png. Funny looking 9%. This is just using the same 6pc items - the gem and cloak can be used in conjunction with either set, although it provides 2 extra set bonuses for Sov or lets you min/max for better stats, and then we're comparing someone with partial Sov to Full Sov which is a whole other thing.

I have no idea how the stats are weighed against each other (no doubt locked away in a hidden sheet for nobody to check and thus make it impossible to audit and submit bug reports if needed) so somehow this could all add up to a 9% increase.
I provided Yali approximate information. 15% is probably correct, and considering there's 20 item levels in difference, not that big of a deal is it?
Image
[email protected] for exploits and cheaters.
grimnir.me Some old WAR blog

Spellbound
Posts: 12

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#117 » Mon May 25, 2020 8:34 am

You see a reply couple posts above that the Zealot just completed his 2nd full sov set.

That’s exactly the balance problem. The guild/alliance is nearly dead now compared to a month ago after getting tired of the city on Order. I shared with Max in PMs the chart of one month of Destro vs Order in cities and overall Destro wins 2/3 of the instances and we had 45m exchange in stuff and was good debate as always him.

Winning all 3 stages everyone getting minimum 9+ royals without loot bags while losing side gets 3. Destro winning a lot that’s getting them full sov way too quick and it’s almost a little too late for Order pugs to complete against Sov geared/morale pump enemies when long time Order players dropping like crazy. Our guild leader announcing quitting cities and some guildies just playing Destro now this month. So I’m in limbo playing with a few Order players when they’re around. Order is fragmented and “puggy” while today PnP and FMJ ran full WB around.

Order excels in forts and open just fine. It’s the 24v24 Order can get slaughtered easy so I don’t think I’d promote that in Order favor. You’ll have 24 man DROW, FMJ, PnP, etc killing it still or their premades in full sov doing RP event making it unenjoyable.

Can someone name an Order guild that can do a full 24 man like Destro can? I’ll patiently wait.

I loved playing Destro on live and fights were more balanced. Something is def off in balance besides my OP. I’m only talking about it a bit now due to all this Sov gear talk.

Secrets told me Order needs to “stop playing **** rdps” a while back. Well why are they playing that? I agree community is to blame on some but Order doesn’t have the same synergy between classes like Destro has w their tanks.

I don’t have best suggestions or expect the changes but will voice my opinion on what should be done to help. Some offered good suggestions and nice to hear civil feedback from players of either side.

You need to balance something so the city sieges ending in like 14-14 or rotating which realm wins more. Internal discussions need to be done what to do. It’s been over a month of slaughter for one side and killing the pop. Data like this has always been used in MMOs when we balanced.

I hope this thread falls into the right ears and gets some discussion internally.

Spell

User avatar
Telen
Suspended
Posts: 2545
Contact:

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#118 » Mon May 25, 2020 8:47 am

I do wonder what is off between here and live. Ranged never struggled as much on live particularly bw that could just melt over extending tanks. Here people seem to be able to just overextend into backlines pretty much at will. I dont know how avoidance and stats work differently but something has always felt different.
Image

Ads
Omegus
Posts: 264

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#119 » Mon May 25, 2020 8:53 am

Spellbound wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:34 am
You see a reply couple posts above that the Zealot just completed his 2nd full sov set.

That’s exactly the balance problem. The guild/alliance is nearly dead now compared to a month ago after getting tired of the city on Order. I shared with Max in PMs the chart of one month of Destro vs Order in cities and overall Destro wins 2/3 of the instances and we had 45m exchange in stuff and was good debate as always him.
I have been in probably 80%+ of all city sieges (closer to 90%?), including staying up until stupid o'clock in the morning to help push, waking up in the middle of the night to discord notifications (city loggers represent), and at one point basically changed my sleeping pattern from EU to NA as cities were happening so often on NA time. When cities were introduced I was off work due to illness, then stuck at home on covid lockdown, and then working from home where I have some flexibility managing my time so I was able to participate in most sieges. I am very much the exception rather than the rule :). We still have loads of people in the alliance trying to complete their first set (we also have a Black Orc with all 3 sets but that's because he's a gold bag stealing *****).

Also, I hate to say this, but almost all of my city results were running with a competitive premade. Whether or not destro pugs have an easier time against order pugs or not wouldn't have made much if any difference to the amount of Royal Crests I have, as for me it's always been either destro premade vs order premade or destro premade vs order pugs.

The gap between the city results seems to be getting narrower and narrower, and I've also noticed a lot more order bringing MDPS into cities, so perhaps people are finally learning that the main advantage in cities is "melee" rather than "destro". Even the 12 DPS order pugs seem to be packed with melee now rather than engineers.

edit: if you haven't read it then this thread has a lot of insight into how the mindset has been different for order and destro with cities: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=38063. It's 49 pages and a lot is hot garbage but there is also a lot of useful insight there. The main thing is that due to the population difference destro had to form 24-mans from day 1 in order to have a chance at getting into the city (the queue prioritises 24-mans first) as if you solo queued then you didn't get in. Compare this to order where a huge majority of people still just solo queue straight away as they are guaranteed an instance due to being the smaller side. Those 24-man WBs very quickly became 2-2-2 WBs as there was enough surplus players for the WB leader to be picky, and then people got used to playing with each other and coordinating. Meanwhile order continued to queue solo and ended up with screwry team comps.

Something that might actually help out order is for the matchmaker to try and create 2-2-2 using the solo queuers to fill the missing classes rather than seemingly just putting in the first 24 people or whatever it does. This is what ranked scens does for solo queues and it would at least help give pug warbands a chance by having a tried and tested class distribution. Anyone left at the end of the 30 minues queue just gets thrown in together in whatever comp happens to be formed.

Actually, I like this idea so much I'm going to put it in the suggestions forum.
Telen wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:47 am
I do wonder what is off between here and live. Ranged never struggled as much on live particularly bw that could just melt over extending tanks. Here people seem to be able to just overextend into backlines pretty much at will. I dont know how avoidance and stats work differently but something has always felt different.
3 main things:

1) The gear gap on ROR is smaller than on Live so the overall damage is lower, making it harder to pick off targets before they get onto you.
2) Unshakable Focus - thr ranged M2 morale that increased damage by 100% - got removed as it was OP (it was OP on live as well).
3) The netcode is far better so melee can actually stay on a target.
Zomega: RR8x Zealot

Spellbound
Posts: 12

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#120 » Mon May 25, 2020 9:24 am

Telen wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 8:47 am
I do wonder what is off between here and live. Ranged never struggled as much on live particularly bw that could just melt over extending tanks. Here people seem to be able to just overextend into backlines pretty much at will. I dont know how avoidance and stats work differently but something has always felt different.
Ya currently a friend of mine is doing solo ranked and if he sees a BW join, he leaves it because it’s a loss.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 13 guests