Recent Topics

Ads

[citysiege] Feedback

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
wonshot
Posts: 596

[citysiege] Feedback

Post#1 » Wed May 27, 2020 12:55 am

A little background behind this post and the experiences. I was probably one of the players who were the most excited for a city-siege release on RoR. Now almost 3/3 royal sets later (just for measurement)
I feel like I've gathered enough information to share a blunt and honest pile of feedback for this endgame content. Most of the changes that has been done already by the devs have been solid and in good time, some things still need finetuneing and in general the city-sieges are functioning just fine.

Noteworthy issues that has already been changed & corrected:

- Morale imballance from NPCs and exploits
- Some map/world imballance issues (IC mainly)
- Gear being obtained too quickly
- Early fix to contribution
- Objective control (stage2 lord speed + capping)
- Stage3 Champion selection
- Overall City-rank system

Still pending issues worth highlighting:

- Gates at the palace-gate stage1 and palace gates stage3 being bugged and pbaoe not hitting in the doorways giving the defending Order players an advantage in Altdorf.
- Destro players able to jump and ninja cap Emperors circle BO flag from beneath
- All pull abilities still goes through spawn barriers

Whenever there was a big issue with cities in general the changes came in fast and effectively to give us a good and solid product that is well functioning atm. The concept of the three stages is not really an issue to most players, the objectives work and the gameplay is rather easy to understand and follow for firsttimers.

So how does the citysieges actually play out currently and since release.

We started with a periode of Destro dominance and a permanent burning Altdorf, as a result we saw changes to the city stars and gear-goldbags to stop how fast players were progressing. Good changes!
A few weeks later too much "throwing" was happening and a small carrot for royal crest rewards was added to defending fortresses to stop the massive winrate of fortress attackers and as a result we saw a big increase in fortress defence winrate.
The effective "city loggers" and endgame farmers now understood to play the system and while its not completly back and forth both cities are burning and bouncing between 1-5 stars in a pretty healthy city-per-week rate. The biggest looser of these system are the players who have restrictions on their playtime and the added invader/royal crests were added to help players out who cant play when City-siege is happening, at a very slow rate.

Getting into a city instance:
Going with a system of no empty(pve only) instances for players to farm loot without pvping IS a good idea. But having players sitting in queue fully ready to fight, and not getting a fight is also a big issue. And we probably have already lost a fair ammount of frustrated players on this alone. A perfect system is probably never going to get implimented for fixing this.
A showerthourght idea of a clearly loosing realm inside an instance could do a surrender vote and forfit their bags, at a cost of getting reinforcements inside their instance while the "winning side" are now outnumbered they get more reward bags/ or crests in case they continue winning after being outnumbered when the stages conclude. Just a random idea to try and get more players inside if both sides inside the instance agrees on the fight being unballanced and the forfit + accept vote goes through on both sides. :roll:

Citysiege queuing:
Having a "ready check" tool command just like a modified surrender vote to see who is ready to queue would be a very welcome addition for warbandleaders!
Being on the outnumbered realm is a big advantage, no news in that. On Order you can queue whenever and pretty much always get a pop. You can even target who you want to face to some extend and queue dodging IS a thing. Search what guilds from destro are inside an instance already and volla you know if you want to queue or not. Where as destro dont always get inside an instance so they are forced to queue early and just face what they get (yet still win most of their instance).
The debate of if the instances should be premade vs premade, pug vs pug, or how the matchmaking should be is still a hot topic. If we look towards ranked 6v6 pug, we saw how a private server with too many restrictions will mean less matches and people waiting for pops. Once again, hardly any system I can think of or heard suggested so far solves any of the current issues.

Altdorf vs IC:
Order being the funnel-lords and Destro having the displacements are pretty apparent in the layout of the two defending maps. Destro having a last stand in stage1 on a narrow bridge, where as Order get a gateway is pretty typical for the two realms and their strengths. However the bugged gates in Altdorf leading to no pbaoe or frontale abilities hitting through the gate makes this gatehouse a real pain in the ass for destro to push. And where as IC had the punting changed from being a garenteed death into a bungee jump advantage, these doors in altdorf really need to be fixxed to even out the playing field. Same for the double doors in Altdorf stage3 when Order have lost stage2. Same issue since week1.

Order vs Destro winrate:
Ohhhh boy! I was currious and been asking around, some players have been tracking winrates, some class representation, some guilds have played both sides, and some conclusions the community agreed on, and others they didnt... I hope the devs are just aware of this MIGHT be an imballance issue and I hope no idea how you would attempt to fix it, as there for SURE is a playerskill related to this topic. Speaking from personal experience some order players, and crossrealmers, have found ways to win over good destro players. Where as others have failed in the same comp vs comp situations. However the shear volume of onesides total victories for one realm raises the question if dev involvement is needed, and where?

Contribution:

At first I thourght contribution for sure was bugged. If I would do an instance with a 24man premade and everyone doing their assigned roles I would often find myself at the bottom of the contribution roll, simply because of my assignment of sharing my damage on the kills with the other AOE dps-ers. However in instances where I join as a 6man group ish I can out contribute the rest of my pugging realmmates and then the contribution system works. So for one bracket the contribution system works, and for the other it doesnt really. In the end of the day, if the contribution system was completely removed and only the 1-999 RNG roll was kept I fear the will go go out and continue fighting from some lost first-engagement teams would not stay and they would just afk and hope for a good role, where as the persistant players will go out and fight for their contribution atleast despite facing utter defeat. So rewards for those who try, I can support that!
If Royal Weapons are introduced and contribution will be related to obtaining these, I do hope the contribution system will be more "fair" to both brackets though. both the full premade scale bracket but also the pure pug scale.

Stage3 champions:
Champions selected based on performance is probably fair. Giving the leader of an instance a chance to correct them, would be nice. (assign apprentice function from the live game, but modified so warband leader can nominate his players to become champion in stage3? just an idea)
Just because someone is doing AOE DPS doesnt make them more valueable over a singletarget MDPS who is murdering healers one by one. Having the casters champ being selected based on their dmgdone ratio. And mdps based on killing blow would maybe make it more fair for the singletarget careers to enjoy being a Champion instead of only AOE careers.
In some premade vs premade instances the tank champ is unkillable and despite having 4/4 alive vs a 1/4 champ situation a tank tunneling in a corner can mean a wincondition for the losing realm at the 15minut mark when champ roles drop. If this is intented gameplay or not ill leave up to the devs, but it is happening. Quite a lot actually. (Stacking damagetaken buffs/debuffs on champs the longer the stage maybe?)
The early weeks of pure RNG picking between top3 highet renown lead to a series of defeat from my own guild simply because defensive speced engineers would get champ and not be able to carry, so controlling some of the RNG for such powerful tools as stage3 champs is a welcome addition!

Availability and replayability for city:
Players wanting to play, and missing out of city either due to citysieges happening while they are unable to play or unable to get into an instance is probably the biggest issue right now with cities! Suggestions of weekend primetime cities just with Renown rewards and no crests, reinforcements, or whatever else. I hope the community and devs come up with ideas to fix this issue. I can understand from a developer's perspective how they dont want the players to get the gear too fast and lose motivation as theres no further gear to progress towards, but at the same time having players missing out on this endgame content cant be satisfying either? To have made this amazing product and having consumers wanting to enjoy it, but unavailable.

City-balance:
Alot of different players are attending city. Casual, smallman, 6man, warbandplayers, guildies, hardcore, puggies and whatever else. City is for everyone, where I previously was worried for the gamebalance and direction when devs were stuborn in terms of not giving all classes aoe and largescale viability, city meta have proven that everything can pretty much work in city instances. Singletarget classes have a role in the current meta, aoe dps, dps tanks and maybe even a dps healer if you have the right friends to go along with you. The meta is shifting back and forth but also following closely the Live City-siege meta shift from heavy AOE stacking to more of a 50/50 aoe+st situation. Overall I think cities are honestly alright in terms of balance. I have been spawncamped by more organized players, I have been stomping pugs(and reverse), I have had even and super long matches down to the wire with lord-races. Last minut mistakes and painful throws. Four second left ninjacaps. Some fights and stages I've seen lost due to mistakes or misplays, maybe individual, maybe from a bad call. And then the next stage is turned around for a comeback rush! Only to get shattered again in stage3. Citysieges are a rollercoster, at times you lose so badly you never want to go again and other times you are laughing and rolling in shinies. I have kept on coming back time and time again, for the chance of those good close fights and probably will continue doing so for the next long while! The balance of this content is not perfect both realms have clear advantages and disadvantages, some of the issues are playerbased and some could use a slight helping hand from the devs.

So to end this massive wall of text, thanks to the devs for making this content. If you can make something on a private server so good that people are waking up for it in the middle of the night, you are doing something right ;)
Bombling BW RR 89 [Line by Line]
1.100 Invader crests on one char. 3/3 Royal gearsets. 600.000+ oRvR kills
Alts: Gombling[invader] | Chopling[invader] | Magnetling[invader] | Orderling[onslaught]

Ads
User avatar
wargrimnir
Head Game Master
Posts: 6445
Contact:

Re: [citysiege] Feedback

Post#2 » Wed May 27, 2020 3:43 am

Do you attempt to Nostradaumus the patch notes before they come out? Curious.
Image
[email protected] for exploits and cheaters.
grimnir.me Some old WAR blog

nat3s
Posts: 250

Re: [citysiege] Feedback

Post#3 » Wed May 27, 2020 7:28 am

wonshot wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 12:55 am
Getting into a city instance:
Going with a system of no empty(pve only) instances for players to farm loot without pvping IS a good idea. But having players sitting in queue fully ready to fight, and not getting a fight is also a big issue. And we probably have already lost a fair ammount of frustrated players on this alone. A perfect system is probably never going to get implimented for fixing this.
A showerthourght idea of a clearly loosing realm inside an instance could do a surrender vote and forfit their bags, at a cost of getting reinforcements inside their instance while the "winning side" are now outnumbered they get more reward bags/ or crests in case they continue winning after being outnumbered when the stages conclude. Just a random idea to try and get more players inside if both sides inside the instance agrees on the fight being unballanced and the forfit + accept vote goes through on both sides. :roll:

Citysiege queuing:
Having a "ready check" tool command just like a modified surrender vote to see who is ready to queue would be a very welcome addition for warbandleaders!
Being on the outnumbered realm is a big advantage, no news in that. On Order you can queue whenever and pretty much always get a pop. You can even target who you want to face to some extend and queue dodging IS a thing. Search what guilds from destro are inside an instance already and volla you know if you want to queue or not. Where as destro dont always get inside an instance so they are forced to queue early and just face what they get (yet still win most of their instance).
The debate of if the instances should be premade vs premade, pug vs pug, or how the matchmaking should be is still a hot topic. If we look towards ranked 6v6 pug, we saw how a private server with too many restrictions will mean less matches and people waiting for pops. Once again, hardly any system I can think of or heard suggested so far solves any of the current issues.

These 2 for me have lost us a significant number of players. Nothing more infuriating than spending x hours pushing to city only to not get a city pop. I had a really bad RNG experience with this missing numerous queues becoming stuck at 32 medals for 2 months. I know people that quit long before me because RNG stopped any form of progression. When I'm lucky enough to get a pop, I LOVE cities... That's the infuriating thing with the current design, it's such good content that the devs should WANT people to experience, but there has been no desire to expose the content to EU prime players. Wargrimnir do you recall our debate on Discord about this the other day? Has your opinion changed at all? Do you still consider this strictly a player problem? Any chance you can share some info on the changes planned behind the scenes please? :)

How do we get that city content to EU prime players? For me that means systems that provides a helping hand as defensive pop increases. We all know that 60vs30 off peak zones are super easy to lock, hence why we have the daily 5am cities. Whereas your 400vs300 zones in EU prime are virtually impossible. Here are my suggestions to help address that so EU prime gets to see daily cities like your West Coast US TZ:

• Attackers are given a helping hand as pop increases. For instance a second postern to outer/keep is created which only unlocks when defenders go above a certain threshold.
• Collision reduces as defensive size increases. For instance say collision currently allows 5 players/second through a keep/fort main door, as defenders go above 150 it might allow 10/second, over 200 maybe 15/second, 300 20/second etc
• Widen doors but maybe make it so the door itself remains partially closed dependant on number of defenders, say <100 defenders it's 50% shut, whereas >300 defenders it's 100% open... Effectively dynamic door width to give attackers a helping hand. Similar to the collision suggestion... This would be particularly good if linked to dynamic Fort pop (fort access being an equally pressing issue).

Just to add, if daily cities raises concerns that gear is acquired too quickly then increase the cost of the gear! I think players would much rather have guaranteed daily cities, but a higher cost so their net acquisition time is unchanged as they at least get that feeling each day that they are progressing and hopefully that that progression isn't RNG based too by fixing queues!
Destruction - Pain and Pleasure Guild
Defrack rr73 Mara
Defraz rr81 Magus

User avatar
kmark101
Posts: 326

Re: [citysiege] Feedback

Post#4 » Wed May 27, 2020 8:25 am

wonshot wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 12:55 am

Players wanting to play, and missing out of city either due to citysieges happening while they are unable to play or unable to get into an instance is probably the biggest issue right now with cities! Suggestions of weekend primetime cities just with Renown rewards and no crests, reinforcements, or whatever else. I hope the community and devs come up with ideas to fix this issue. I can understand from a developer's perspective how they dont want the players to get the gear too fast and lose motivation as theres no further gear to progress towards, but at the same time having players missing out on this endgame content cant be satisfying either? To have made this amazing product and having consumers wanting to enjoy it, but unavailable.

I have a suggestion for this, which is a realistically doable solution.

I think the following solution is certainly doable as every elements of it are already in the game:
  • People would receive a special "city token" upon participating in the campaign for the week. Participation can be measured in several ways, for the simplicity let's say how many times they have been to fort or how many times they have pushed/defended an end zone. Every part of this system is already in game: participation calculation, weekly token distribution (for rankeds). Every "city token" would be valid for a week, again, this is also in game as part of the weekend warfront rewards only valid for 7 days now.
  • People could use their city tokens for 7 days at anytime, the city queue would be available for them when they have a city token in their inventory. They could queue the exact same way, as either solo or wb/group. This is how people queue for cities now, zero change. When a city is finished, one city token is used and gone. This would also happen if people play the city in a "normal way", so there would be no additional city sieges than intended for a player (ie. you could decide to either go when the actual siege happens or later with your friends, see last line of this post!)
  • With these you would be able to play the city sieges anytime, but still gated behind the progression content, but without changing any part of the basic design (ie. no royal drops from orvr, etc..) and the progression with royal crests. Since city sieges would be more accessible on a weekly basis for everyone who contributed to the campaign, I'd lower the amount of crests in bags from cities, but that's just fine tuning the system.

Advantage: doable, fair, all parts are already in the game for different reasons
Disadvantage: any?

Additional bonus: we could see a pretty cool competitive schene as top guilds who want to fight each other could field their best 24vs24 men to a scheduled time, which means there would be less pug farming and more elite level play to watch! Achieving this goal again without big changes.
Gryyw - Ironbreaker

Caduceus
Posts: 56

Re: [citysiege] Feedback

Post#5 » Wed May 27, 2020 8:38 am

wonshot wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 12:55 am

Order vs Destro winrate:
Ohhhh boy! I was currious and been asking around, some players have been tracking winrates, some class representation, some guilds have played both sides, and some conclusions the community agreed on, and others they didnt... I hope the devs are just aware of this MIGHT be an imballance issue and I hope no idea how you would attempt to fix it, as there for SURE is a playerskill related to this topic. Speaking from personal experience some order players, and crossrealmers, have found ways to win over good destro players. Where as others have failed in the same comp vs comp situations. However the shear volume of onesides total victories for one realm raises the question if dev involvement is needed, and where?

Here's the reason:

Four out of the twelve Order classes are considered bad for city (whether they really are is unclear, and not the topic of discussion). Shadow Warrior, Witch Hunter, Engineer and Archmage. Some would add Ironbreaker to this list.

These classes have a hard time finding organized warbands and will usually end up pugging. So what do Order pugs look like? Filled with these classes, which are supposedly bad at city. These pugs are a free win for any premade and all but the worst of Destruction pugs.

Ever wondered why Destruction always seems to win ~five city instances very quickly before Order starts catching up? It's because these early instances are filled with the classes no one wants to take into an organized warband. A lot of these players will be afk from the start, both because they believe they don't stand a chance even if they tried, and because a lot of these classes will not be able to fight for contribution even if they tried their hardest.

There you go. During every city siege there's multiple instances filled with demoralized Order players who play classes that few organized warbands want to bring into city with them. These are basically free wins for Destruction and probably constitute the larger part of the differences in winrate between Order and Destruction.

DoomedDragon
Posts: 28

Re: [citysiege] Feedback

Post#6 » Wed May 27, 2020 8:47 am

Caduceus wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 8:38 am
Here's the reason:

Four out of the twelve Order classes are considered bad for city (whether they really are is unclear, and not the topic of discussion). Shadow Warrior, Witch Hunter, Engineer and Archmage. Some would add Ironbreaker to this list.

These classes have a hard time finding organized warbands and will usually end up pugging. So what do Order pugs look like? Filled with these classes, which are supposedly bad at city. These pugs are a free win for any premade and all but the worst of Destruction pugs.

Ever wondered why Destruction always seems to win ~five city instances very quickly before Order starts catching up? It's because these early instances are filled with the classes no one wants to take into an organized warband. A lot of these players will be afk from the start, both because they believe they don't stand a chance even if they tried, and because a lot of these classes will not be able to fight for contribution even if they tried their hardest.

There you go. During every city siege there's multiple instances filled with demoralized Order players who play classes that few organized warbands want to bring into city with them. These are basically free wins for Destruction and probably constitute the larger part of the differences in winrate between Order and Destruction.
This guy is onto something here, I believe this is one of the core problems with the current end game.

User avatar
wonshot
Posts: 596

Re: [citysiege] Feedback

Post#7 » Wed May 27, 2020 11:29 am

wargrimnir wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 3:43 am
Do you attempt to Nostradaumus the patch notes before they come out? Curious.
Hahah No :D
But instead of giving feedback from just playing premade all the time, I actually ventured out there and tried queueing at different formats to get a broader experience, heck even queued so late once I missed the city on order simply to see if that was a thing. And instead of giving my feedback right after a loss ive slowly built it up over time and "slept on it". I think if you look at my feedback and engagement from the testing phase of city sieges, my intention of just wanting Citysieges to be fun and available for most of the community should be appearent.
Bombling BW RR 89 [Line by Line]
1.100 Invader crests on one char. 3/3 Royal gearsets. 600.000+ oRvR kills
Alts: Gombling[invader] | Chopling[invader] | Magnetling[invader] | Orderling[onslaught]

ChicagoJoe
Posts: 116

Re: [citysiege] Feedback

Post#8 » Wed May 27, 2020 12:33 pm

DoomedDragon wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 8:47 am
Caduceus wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 8:38 am
Here's the reason:

Four out of the twelve Order classes are considered bad for city (whether they really are is unclear, and not the topic of discussion). Shadow Warrior, Witch Hunter, Engineer and Archmage. Some would add Ironbreaker to this list.

These classes have a hard time finding organized warbands and will usually end up pugging. So what do Order pugs look like? Filled with these classes, which are supposedly bad at city. These pugs are a free win for any premade and all but the worst of Destruction pugs.

Ever wondered why Destruction always seems to win ~five city instances very quickly before Order starts catching up? It's because these early instances are filled with the classes no one wants to take into an organized warband. A lot of these players will be afk from the start, both because they believe they don't stand a chance even if they tried, and because a lot of these classes will not be able to fight for contribution even if they tried their hardest.

There you go. During every city siege there's multiple instances filled with demoralized Order players who play classes that few organized warbands want to bring into city with them. These are basically free wins for Destruction and probably constitute the larger part of the differences in winrate between Order and Destruction.
This guy is onto something here, I believe this is one of the core problems with the current end game.


++
Last edited by ChicagoJoe on Wed May 27, 2020 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ads
nuadarstark
Posts: 51

Re: [citysiege] Feedback

Post#9 » Wed May 27, 2020 12:35 pm

DoomedDragon wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 8:47 am
Caduceus wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 8:38 am
Here's the reason:

Four out of the twelve Order classes are considered bad for city (whether they really are is unclear, and not the topic of discussion). Shadow Warrior, Witch Hunter, Engineer and Archmage. Some would add Ironbreaker to this list.

These classes have a hard time finding organized warbands and will usually end up pugging. So what do Order pugs look like? Filled with these classes, which are supposedly bad at city. These pugs are a free win for any premade and all but the worst of Destruction pugs.

Ever wondered why Destruction always seems to win ~five city instances very quickly before Order starts catching up? It's because these early instances are filled with the classes no one wants to take into an organized warband. A lot of these players will be afk from the start, both because they believe they don't stand a chance even if they tried, and because a lot of these classes will not be able to fight for contribution even if they tried their hardest.

There you go. During every city siege there's multiple instances filled with demoralized Order players who play classes that few organized warbands want to bring into city with them. These are basically free wins for Destruction and probably constitute the larger part of the differences in winrate between Order and Destruction.
This guy is onto something here, I believe this is one of the core problems with the current end game.
I'm having the same experience - Order, small young guild born through the virus situation, so we have to pug to get to cities even at the best of times, either as a 6-man or 12-man (not to mention the early EU morning cities that you just don't get into and that have barely 14 instances at times).

Given the amount of classes that just don't get picked up (or become "one off") by organized groups or even /5 "organized" pugs and the fact that destro usually outnumbers us in city times so nearly any order player gets a pop, you get some absurd compositions like 6 WHs getting added to you when you queue as a 12-man. It just becomes a bit ridiculous.

ChicagoJoe
Posts: 116

Re: [citysiege] Feedback

Post#10 » Wed May 27, 2020 3:01 pm

As highlighted above I don't think it should be disputed that Order has more of an issue with "unwanted" classes in cities flooding PUGS.

Its not just solos but semi-organized pugs. I've tried to build/lead/co lead 5 pug city warbands in the last 2 weeks and won 1 of 5 and only about 4 or 5 of 15 stages overall. Against premades it is not a contest (ugly loss) and against other pugs with leftover order classes it is painful even with near 2/2/2 composition. Yeah, maybe the leadership is bad but there are structural issues as well.

Developer help is probably necessary to either nerf certain over performing classes (or boost some under performing (unwanted classes) for order and destro.

Maybe allowing true PUGS groups to respec after seeing the group would help. (Single que or 6/12 man)

For example, If many AOE engi are in a group and only one napalm out of 5 hits it is a huge waste of an ability as melee dps big damage abilities stack in close quarters better than certain RDPS abilities. Pets are nearly instantly gone after contact. A loner tactic or reduction of AOE damage to pets could help Engi/Magus be less gimped in cities. I don’t want to speak for suggest changes to other classes but nerfs and buffs should be made.

Choppa is an example of a buffed class that is overwhelming right now in cities. Multiple GTDC Choppa pulls can pull with no post pull immunity most wbs get roughed up and interrupted quickly with just a few choppas against them. Adding a pull immunity post pull is long overdue.

Stage 1 could be more of a contest if the middle bo flag wasn't the choke point. A pug can knock out the cannons but it is near impossible to take that flag against melee focused group. Stages 2 and 3 end with similar issues. RDPS don't have as many places to position and are easy targets.

I realize that balance is nuanced and often secondary but some classes are consistently tweaked and optimized and others are untouched.
Last edited by ChicagoJoe on Wed May 27, 2020 4:50 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests