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
gurtuk
Game Master
Posts: 89

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#71 » Thu May 21, 2020 3:22 am

sovereign gear is meant to take a long time to get, everyone's at the same disadvantage
gorbane - choppa

Ads
Sathum
Posts: 8

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#72 » Thu May 21, 2020 3:41 am

gurtuk wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:22 am
sovereign gear is meant to take a long time to get, everyone's at the same disadvantage
I disagree with dropping end he currency from player in RvR but....
Having weekly quest is just a additional help for players who not able get or have time for city and or log in specific time.
Read my This is suggestion please... Post.
On 7th page I touched on it in this post too.

Ackiul
Posts: 1

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#73 » Thu May 21, 2020 4:18 am

gurtuk wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 3:22 am
sovereign gear is meant to take a long time to get, everyone's at the same disadvantage
Are you sure? Playing classes like SW, where you are 100% useless in that content, but you are forced to do it along many months just to get gear isnt a bit unfair? Like its right now, if you arent meta you wont get spot on any organised wb. If you arent meta but can play the content, well, its up to you if you get fun or not failing with pugs, but for the classes who are full useless is just a pain of wastefull hours, and they are forced to play that if they want to be at any point on the same spot that are the people who already have that gear.
Everyone's at the same disadvantage? how about the people who play the cities on the early weeks and got entire pieces of gear from the bags? That was a nice carrot for your friends i guess =). It would be really nice to understand how unfairly contribution its working on fort / cities rn. On fort its again if your class isnt good for that content, enjoy never getting bags. On city the random component is extreme and unfair once again.
About the game in general, its feel like the staff is only worried about their own sense of right way for the game, and only let some "veterans" / "friends" influence on that ideal, just ignoring a good bunch of players and not evaluating objectively some proposals. The point here is not just to do whatever some players want, but at least read them, get the feedback and just comunicate with arguments

User avatar
hammerhead
Posts: 100

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#74 » Thu May 21, 2020 8:14 am

It is called equality of opportunity and equality of results. We all come into the game with a clear conviction that a sharp mind and 12 fingers will elevate us above all rivals. However, we are not coming from a vacuum. Someone can spend 8-14 hours of playing time, make a bunch of twins, be at the right time in the right place, the right class. And someone is not able to allocate 3-4 hours and swallows dust for the top players. This can not be fixed in any way with any reward. You will not please everyone.
The only thing I add is the option of flat rewards for the company. After the reset of each company, something should come to the mail in the form of compensation, based on the individual contribution and rr level. Just to strengthen the feeling that you have invested in a common cause.
All this without regard to the class imbalance and the power curve growth.
(\|)o0(|/)

Vilard
Posts: 8

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#75 » Thu May 21, 2020 8:37 am

I disagree with the OP. The reward "for killing" is not the way to go. It will stop the campaign in its tracks. People will just start farming others in big RvR blobs. It is already happening in game sometimes when there is a stalemate. I think everyone has been to Reikland next to the Order/Destro war camp when the other side stays on the ridge next to the keep and a fight is just a renown farm. With the change suggested the whole game will become like that. And that is terrible.

My solution is a lot simpler. Just give invaders to rr60+, and royals to rr 70+ for wining and locking zones. But not every zone. For every let’s say 10 (15-20 whatever) zones locked with your character getting the contribution in that zone. This way whenever you log in you may go to RvR lake and you will know that there will be a reward for that. You do not have to hunt forts/cities. You do not have to farm players, you do not have to be "city logger". All you have to do is what you are doing already: go to RvR zone and try to win. This system works for bag rolls. It might be implemented for end game rewards only at slower pace. Someone will shout "but the T2/T3 zones are easier to capture so people who play in those will progress faster, as they will lock zones faster. So what? The "city loggers" will start logging in their mains for lower level zones. That is bad? How? To get to those "faster zones" you have to progress the whole campaign to the city, and then you can "farm zones". And that is bad how exactly? Everyone is doing it for the bag rolls already. And with this system If you do not get into the city you can go and push those T2 zones that will bring you closer to another crest.

The only thing that will change is: you will not have to rely on cities/forts to progress.

First you will get rewarded for playing the game in a way you want to play. And second of all you will not be forced to organize your life around the game. Every casual player when he logs in will participate and get the reward for playing and the reward will not be based on some "random" chance of getting to a city in a specific time of the day (as I understand it everyone is upset because the city always happens in other time zones then their own). Those who will get to the city/fort will be rewarded normally but it is a reward for their "sacrifice" in real life. If you play a lot you will progress faster and the chance you will get to city/fort is higher so you will progress even faster. And that is ok. Games should not require of you to "sacrifice" your "real life" to progress. That should be your choice. If you want to spent time in game go for it, and progress faster. If you can't or do not want to you will progress in your own pace. And thanks to this “10 locked zones” system no matter when you will log in there is still some progress to be made.

(And for all those people who “play for fun not for rewards and progression” I would add option to “opt out” of this reward.)

User avatar
EsthelielSunfury
Posts: 92

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#76 » Thu May 21, 2020 8:49 am

Ackiul wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 4:18 am
Are you sure? Playing classes like SW, where you are 100% useless in that content, but you are forced to do it along many months just to get gear isnt a bit unfair? Like its right now, if you arent meta you wont get spot on any organised wb. If you arent meta but can play the content, well, its up to you if you get fun or not failing with pugs, but for the classes who are full useless is just a pain of wastefull hours, and they are forced to play that if they want to be at any point on the same spot that are the people who already have that gear.
I will tell you one thing since you mentioned SW. There's very very few, I mean a handful on Order who are able to fill a full WB when City is coming and this only happens usually if City is Altdorf 8pm-10pm. If you think there's full 24man WBs running around getting ready with full BWs, SLs, WLs and WPs, I'm going on a limp here and will say that's just not feasible. You aren't useless, afaik your melee spec has good single target burst which means they're very good on a working assist train. Last two Cities I've gone with a 6man (KotBS,SM, x2WL, WP and my AM) and a 12 man where our guildie invited whoever was online for a 2/2/2 WB, disregarding composition entirely. We won both because we stumbled upon Destro PuGs, not the mythical 2/2/2 godly WBs Destro mains keep blabbering about.

So I will tell you this - Make your own group. Most simply don't wanna do it, or maybe don't have the confidence to. Do it in /5 for a simple 6man. There's plenty of stragglers on Order side and they'll be happy to join.
Ackiul wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 4:18 am
It would be really nice to understand how unfairly contribution its working on fort / cities rn. On fort its again if your class isnt good for that content, enjoy never getting bags. On city the random component is extreme and unfair once again.
Worth a thought that it's extremely unfair and random for everyone, not just you. Believe me, I've heard our top damage slayer complaining why he's 23rd and me getting a gold bag on the other hand doing nothing but morale pump. It's a hassle for everyone and the devs know it and have probably read the complaints a million times by now.

I'm not too sure about Forts, but it's probably related to the actual roll itself because I haven't really seen anyone end up higher than 1700, which means they probably rolled a 999 or 1000 with medium contribution to get that gold bag. So really, seems to be down to luck and I'd rather it was that way than making it clear that "This and this gives the most contri", because then a lot of people would miss out on whatever the reward was because now they're against organized WBs going for the same reward. I reckon the complaints would be unreal, but then again, I'm only assuming things here.
Last edited by EsthelielSunfury on Thu May 21, 2020 8:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Alfa1986
Posts: 359

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#77 » Thu May 21, 2020 8:51 am

Yaliskah wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 9:19 pm
Telen wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 8:41 pm
Yaliskah wrote:
Wed May 20, 2020 6:51 pm
But you couldn't whine in this case ;).
Other games learnt this lesson and I think Mythic did too but too late.
Let start to compare what is comparable. Size of the team, abilities of the team, finished project vs work in progress (cause, again, no, all this thing is not based on original server sources, not a single line).

I'm gonna be very clear. Things come when they come. When this data will be well anchored in all minds, we will have taken a big step forward. Ofc, it wont happen. Never (however it should be a fairly simple update ...)

Not i/we/the team don't care about players concerns on the contrary, just it seems you are looking for an immediate solution to your instant concern. It doesn't work like this. It can't. For the record, we are all players. But maybe you consider our player experience as inconsistent.

You see the weekly patchnote? Each line is hours of work of someone, where someone can , how someone can. Point is they are working on their own agenda, it is the least they deserve according the fortune they are not paid for. (the same old song you deliberately prefer to ignore, because your instant matter is the only one who should be considered as the priority).

You feel "stressed"? Take a break, or join us roll up your sleeves and work, and see what "stressed" means, when you will read how the hours you wasted to make a baby move are instantly ignored and forgotten, because it is not YOUR CONCERN.

If you cant wait, if your patience and your frustration has reached his short limits, if you missed all the progress and the CRAZY amount of work who have been done all those last years, if you want something engraved and polished there are plenty of other commercial free games, not in beta, not in alpha, not made by a bunch of stupids full of bad faith who haven't "understood" the "essence" of your concerns.

So no; your are not "stressed". You are frustrated. As we all are.
About six months ago, you collected ideas for new scenarios, a lot of ideas were given from the players, let's see what came of it. first came the pve sc, which completely failed. but tell me who and why intended to create a barrier between Order and Destro? Naturally, nobody is interested in just killing mobs without the ability to kill a player. that is, this sc could have worked if that idiotic barrier had not been introduced. Then the sc with dragons was introduced; it turned out to be relatively successful. Well, it’s not at all clear why we chose a long winded way in the ranked scenarios? again "elitits" lobby?)

I became interested in who plays them at all and even created a survey on the forum, it turned out that only 30% of community are interested in this type of content, while 15% are ready to play often, and 15% with some frequency (about 100 votes).

why am I writing this? oh yes, if I keep moving bricks from one place to another all the time, the work will be done tremendously but the house will not be built. if I make the same mistakes all the time, the result will be the same.

Regards.

User avatar
Yaliskah
King of Nothing
Posts: 1902

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#78 » Thu May 21, 2020 10:04 am

Alfa1986 wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 8:51 am
About six months ago, you collected ideas for new scenarios, a lot of ideas were given from the players, let's see what came of it. first came the pve sc, which completely failed. but tell me who and why intended to create a barrier between Order and Destro? Naturally, nobody is interested in just killing mobs without the ability to kill a player. that is, this sc could have worked if that idiotic barrier had not been introduced. Then the sc with dragons was introduced; it turned out to be relatively successful. Well, it’s not at all clear why we chose a long winded way in the ranked scenarios? again "elitits" lobby?)

I became interested in who plays them at all and even created a survey on the forum, it turned out that only 30% of community are interested in this type of content, while 15% are ready to play often, and 15% with some frequency (about 100 votes).

why am I writing this? oh yes, if I keep moving bricks from one place to another all the time, the work will be done tremendously but the house will not be built. if I make the same mistakes all the time, the result will be the same.

Regards.
So you are quoting me.

What have been done?

-Rework of Logrin Forge. Submitted to community, more or less validated by comminity (it was not a NOOOOOOO). Now it is a more complex scenario. I don't know if it is better than it was or not, but its sure it is more difficult to understand what to do (but thats not the subject).

-An april fool PvE scenario. Starting pointing this very particular event and transform it as an exemple to make your point really ? I guess 99% of community have understood it was a joke, i think Max posted (for this 1% remaining) it was a joke. So what exactly are you trying to achieve pointing the skaven sc ?

Ranked.A project who was in the air for long time has been deployed. Some like, some don't. It is buggy? yes, yes and yes like anything new, and for a long time i fear. So what? Some never do a single step in PvE too, or a single ToK unlock, and if we were looking closely, i'm pretty sure we will find someone ppl who never do SC. Is it supposed to be revelant ?

-The Week End Warfront as been deployed, giving to dev the opportunity to focus on a specific SC, making changes based on players feedbacks for new sc, and adjustments on those already existing ( Battle at the Cairn, Reikland factory...).

So i don't understand the point you are trying to raise, quoting me,speaking about scenarios, unless you try to confirm my words.
Things come when they come
6 months is too long? For you it is. For someone who have few hours a week to work on it is not.
You see the weekly patchnote? Each line is hours of work of someone, where someone can , how someone can. Point is they are working on their own agenda, it is the least they deserve according the fortune they are not paid for.
There are litteraly hundreds of propositions. What do you expects exactly? That each of them will be done following precisely each word of the proposition? Ofc, it is not possible. Plus a proposition is not a plan, even some are more detailled than some other. A proposition is a proposition. Some are very interesting and doable, some are not. Some are time consuming in term of realisation, and some are just irreallistic.

The direction this project takes is not about what I want. It is not based on what Wargrimnir wants, or Max, or Dalen, or Secrets. Each step -for the most important- are the consequency of a discussion, based on feedbacks, on personnal feelings, on reasonnings, and on feasibility. Even in the team we have very opposed visions on this or on that, and the answer is in compromises/status quo.

For exemple, i campaign in favor of meds upconversion, in the gear degradation over time, in the loss of token when you die. Unfortunately for you or luckily, many in the team disagree. The history of RoR show to anyone, that things are moving slowly, but they find their place at a moment or another. It is all about patience and time.

Now to come back in the subject, and to conclude.

> I would be 100% ok to drop all token of the world with a 100% drop rate chance in all parts of the game, if those tokens are yours (it is always a different story when it is your wallet). It respects the OP proposition, and it justify the presence of such kind of currency in alt place, and imo it would be fair. Of course, those who are carrying such highly coveted currencies would have some hesitation to come in the lake, unless they like chalenge.

Maybe the Strawman could force fate and abuse its position.

Ads
Hypernia
Posts: 97

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#79 » Thu May 21, 2020 10:08 am

Did someone just suggest all currencies being full loot pvp? Yes please

anarchypark
Posts: 1498

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#80 » Thu May 21, 2020 10:39 am

Hypernia wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 10:08 am
Did someone just suggest all currencies being full loot pvp? Yes please

he suggested with currency loss when you die.
are you still on it ?
SM8, SW8, AM7, WL4, KoBS4, BW4, WP7, WH4, IB4, EG3, SL5, RP3
BG7, Sorc6, DoK7, WE7, Cs7, Mg7, Ze6, Mara6, BO4, SH4, Shm5, Chop3
SC summary - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=20415
( last update : 2018.10.26)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Rapzel, therisol, wargrimnir and 16 guests