Recent Topics

Ads

oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas.
Forum rules
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use

Structured class balance suggestions belong in the Balance Proposal subforum. Class-related discussion in this section are considered as ongoing debates and ARE NOT reviewed for balance changes.
User avatar
space44
Posts: 480

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#71 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:10 pm

Hey guys remember when spawning a ram use to require holding 2 - 3 Battle Objectives, or reclaiming a keep that has already been destroyed requiring all the Battle Objectives in the zone including the keep itself under the occupation of the defending realm, or how tagging the enemies door stops the keep from leveling up creating more warband/small party patrol patterns to avoid this from happening.

Want to know why all that stuff was taken away? In the devs own words they did it because they felt Orvr should have been a side show, and make city siege more common in a everyday basis. In the Patch notes relating to those interactive Orvr experiences, they have mention them wanting city siege to be 90% of the games experience one way or another.
Chosen: Roten Plaguelord rr86 | Knight of the Blazing Sun: Lyntyz Jesterknight rr63

I'm not a clown, I'm the whole circus.

Ads
User avatar
Kaelang
Posts: 1275

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#72 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:23 pm

space44 wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:10 pm Want to know why all that stuff was taken away? In the devs own words they did it because they felt Orvr should have been a side show, and make city siege more common in a everyday basis. In the Patch notes relating to those interactive Orvr experiences, they have mention them wanting city siege to be 90% of the games experience one way or another.

At the same time this was happening, the community were complaining that cities were too rare and that oRvR was just zones being pushed back to the mid zone over and over again - meaning cities would only pop at NA time when the majority of the population went to sleep.

So, it's a double edged sword - but it's ironic that the post only seems to focus on the reaction as opposed to the problem that was being raised during the time these changes were made.
DiscordFacebookTwitterInstagram

I play around with Social Media, troll our players on Discord and officially hate anyone who plays a dwarf.

User avatar
space44
Posts: 480

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#73 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:56 pm

Kaelang wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:23 pm
space44 wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:10 pm Want to know why all that stuff was taken away? In the devs own words they did it because they felt Orvr should have been a side show, and make city siege more common in a everyday basis. In the Patch notes relating to those interactive Orvr experiences, they have mention them wanting city siege to be 90% of the games experience one way or another.

At the same time this was happening, the community were complaining that cities were too rare and that oRvR was just zones being pushed back to the mid zone over and over again - meaning cities would only pop at NA time when the majority of the population went to sleep.

So, it's a double edged sword - but it's ironic that the post only seems to focus on the reaction as opposed to the problem that was being raised during the time these changes were made.
Those changes were made durring the LazyPeon flood, all those players left and very few stayed. Lots of months passed and now those orvr aspects are much needed. Maybe the lesion here is to not make such major changes for short term population boosts.
Chosen: Roten Plaguelord rr86 | Knight of the Blazing Sun: Lyntyz Jesterknight rr63

I'm not a clown, I'm the whole circus.

User avatar
Deviance01
Posts: 10

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#74 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:06 pm

Kaelang wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:23 pm
space44 wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:10 pm Want to know why all that stuff was taken away? In the devs own words they did it because they felt Orvr should have been a side show, and make city siege more common in a everyday basis. In the Patch notes relating to those interactive Orvr experiences, they have mention them wanting city siege to be 90% of the games experience one way or another.

At the same time this was happening, the community were complaining that cities were too rare and that oRvR was just zones being pushed back to the mid zone over and over again - meaning cities would only pop at NA time when the majority of the population went to sleep.

So, it's a double edged sword - but it's ironic that the post only seems to focus on the reaction as opposed to the problem that was being raised during the time these changes were made.
There is no other game, MMO or any type, that the "endgame" content doesn't have a "cooldown" and its available so often.
There is a long way in between getting too few cities to the point of getting 1 Star IC ,3 times per day...
The changes, when they been made, was to create a somehow faster city pushes. Correctly and rightfully so if you ask me.
But now the problem is not the lake/zone mechanics, its the balance. If the game was balanced there wouldn't be one sided locks so fast and so often.
It takes what, few hours to get from maps reset to IC again. Every single day for weeks (or months now).
" As long as a single one of us stands, we are legion. "

Unholy - Chaos Marauder

User avatar
Sinisterror
Posts: 838

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#75 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:10 pm

madrocks wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 5:02 pm
Kaelang wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 12:13 pm
Spoiler:
So, I respect the time and effort you put into the post. But I can't help but think you're overlooking how deep the problem is. Yes - balance changes do effect the meta. Your three examples are all directly linked to balance changes. Were they perfect? Probably not. Did they change the meta? Definitely, it changes consistently - a meta is essentially a byproduct of active development.

Now, I'm not going to talk to the changes in the examples you made - not out of ignorance - but because I don't think that this is necessarily the problem here. But I can agree to a point that it is a problem.

You suggested that the changes to balance and meta ruined oRvR. Are you suggesting then that the core gameplay of oRvR, keeps / forts / cities etc is fine - it's balance that is causing it to stagnate?

I'm not being condescending here - my role as a CM is to start conversations and gather feedback. I don't want to be seen as ignorant to anyone's points either - it's pretty hard to strike controversial conversations on the forum with a coloured name without people seeing it for more than what it is.

Also - to address the final comment. We've never said we're not hiring anymore developers - we welcome applications on the forum.

To 'grow the game' we do not need to 'face legal issues' and 'stand our ground'. We are operating fine as it stands all additional developers would do is provide quicker development. There's absolutely no need for us to start rocking the boat and risk legal problems because a handful of people are angry at a patch.
Thank you for the answer Kael, I am aware of your role and you are doing a great job.
I am also well aware of how deep rooted the problem is by now.
My guild and me have actively tried to change player mentatily in the past, day by day. We consumed so much time into it, not even funny. I've grown and thrown my reputation for this as well.
The frustration is not coming from nowhere, I get misunderstood on a daily basis since I've no filter what so ever, don't tollerate useless button smashing, lack of situational awareness and most of all easy mode playstyle meaning crossrealming to the more organized realm of the day.

On to your questions and, oh boy! Good luck reading this.
You suggested that the changes to balance and meta ruined oRvR. Are you suggesting then that the core gameplay of oRvR, keeps / forts / cities etc is fine - it's balance that is causing it to stagnate?

The balance changes are inevitably connected to the core gameplay and how it plays out but of course they are not the only problem why orvr is in this state.
The core of the gameplay is fine to a certain extend, there is some serious tweaking neceserry. Down below in the "ordered" list is more of about those mechanic tweakings.
Orvr participation like the good old conquerer times - as Detangler points out is not there anymore (outside of player events), because obviously everyone wants BiS as fast as possible. That's only through many orvr bags + city.
The one way or the other they will get their city. By either throwing or riding the bandwagon on the overpopulated realm.
Orvr is losing it's taste because there is no reward for just "priding" around as a realm.
As example: the killquestst are not giving Royals, they provide that questionable currecy, seals of the paragon, that gives us access to gear that will not be used and weapons that can't be traded to better versions or a RR % increase potion that is legit pointless after rr 80. Am I wrong?
There is also this royal shards, 5 to 1 trade is ridiculosly high. Ja, ja, it's BiS slot gear but this is to high.
Trust me, I've extensively tested this and the progress is way to slow. Like meaningless slow unless you solo play. And you know what I do, I log in and run an organized warband to provide content and I try to go for kills more then for a siege for later on explained reasons.
It's so meaningless slow that it makes more sense for a gear oriented player to flip on the overpopulated side, just tag along in an open warband and get a roll, fort and then city, wich they might lose but still have a chance of a bag. In the end it was winning all the way before, right?
It's not that complicated to understand the root of this mindset.

If you aren't bored to death by the obvious yet. I will point more feedback down below, you can chose to keep reading that textwall or not. I am at a point where I don't care if someone listens, like an old veteran giving you an endless storytime.


1. Fashion of the month is a thing, meaning: when one realm gets nerfed and the other gets buffed, the weak minded go and play the stronger one. In the end they want to win, and since zerg surfing is rewarding, gg ez. This changes staff did to destro can't be done in a moment like this, not to mention that they were in part wrong and in part way to strong.

2. Removing tools that help smaller groups to overcome the bigger groups hurts the orvr and makes parts of the core gameplay obsolete/unplayable.
I understand that it would not make a difference when oraganized warbands clash on each other in 3vs1 ratio.
But that is not the reality, warbands are in all kind of states most of the time.
Some of the once so called "Pug Killer" abilities/tactics/classes in a state they were, were also the bread and butter to carry the pugs or offer an alternate gameplay.
I mean, the way orvr is played now is not pug killing?

3. Warband management, there is no working Warband Assistant fuction. I really don't understand how this is not been the first thing to be fixed, hacked, whatever you do there.
I mean a healthy warband - a well composed warband, is the absolute basic of orvr.
There is no way balance will ever work out when warbands are kept unchecked and open.
There is no way to get good new leaders when there is nobody fuctioning as an assistant.
You can remove and enable all kind of abilities/mechanics, it will never matter with half assed warbands attempting a siege or go to fort.
A warband leader can't do everything, they burn out, unless they just feed the opposing realm day by day with open nonsense.
The avarage organized pug leader lasts 3 month they told me when I started leading.
Kicking people to compose a better class synergy leads to hate tells of all kinds. I mean I have a red pepper over my screen by now to counter all the malocchios this people have given me. There is a reason why I use autoband when leading the pugs, it is slightly flawed because it doesn't check what tank/dps/heal type it should keep or kick, but it's a big improvement neverless, at least it send an automatic tell to people why they got kicked. Imagine they still send a **** tell..
I also don't understand why a private warband is not displayed to everyone as private so they have to send a tell to enter but are still aware that there is a warband in range.
There is also no way to remove the pugs from this game, some people just don't want to run with discord and join a dedicated guild.


On to the keeps..


5. The postern door
I can have a good warband on a postern door with good aoe DPS and I will gank 100+ people swarming it.
Why is that? Because of how the poster door works, right?
You know it, you click it and everyone else that clicks lands on the same spot. Your stacking with bodyblock leads to disaster.
Solution to that would be to remove the door once the outer/inner has fallen and with a keep not being 4/3 stars.
You know, open postern like in fort, but AFTER the main gate is broken OR add a couple more random spawn points around that postern would keep the postern mechanic unique to campaign keeps.


6. The critical mass on a funnel
That brings us back to the balance changes I pointed out. The critical mass is to strong because of the increased aoe cap on specific abilities.
Some abilities and their procs are just overperforming and can't be countered properly as certain classes are in a safe space, almost unreachable.


7. The random oil and overall siege spawn
A good oil spawn is part of the defense. I've witnessed one to many times some random gobbo runnin up and dropping oil at 5% of the door just to screw over the entire realm.
Obvious sabotage by a stunty in disguise.
Overhelming forces can be tamed with coordinated artillery, but when every schmock just spawns an aoe cannon and then abbandons it or just shoots on the masses uncoordinated it's a waste of ammo and a waste of time to the ones trying to coordinate a proper defense.
Its also a waste of time fo those running boxes to repair the door and supply ammunition.
Solution could be if a keep is claimed by a guild ONLY the owners should be able to spawn siege. That would force interaction of the guild with the realm. It's an mmo, it's all about interaction with the other player that shouldn't involve breaking their legs because they are throwing the keep indirectly due to their nonsense or directly because they want to force a fort/city by sabotage.


8. Keep Ruins
There is the rare case of a ruin to be retaken and the opposing realm kept out, obviously because the defending realm got their **** together.
There must be a way to reward this efford and repair the keep, like all 4 BOs and keep ruin flag for 2 minutes as an example.


9. The value of the BOs during an active siege
With the respawn changes, keeps got more interesting, a defender has to be more dedicated and aware of possible decoy sieges.
The introduction of the flight master connected with the keep is great, too.
It does actually give the BOs during the siege an important meaning: you can still get troops in whith the box-flightmaster mechanic while the enemy is covering the postern.
Small scale teams should cover the BOs during a siege to enable/stop troops to get in.
So with a bit of creativity there is still room for small scale parties to be meaningful in the orvr lakes and find content.
A slight increase of the repair amount of the door per box would force atackers also to focus more on the BOs and therefore split the zerg.
But this mechanic is still being tricked or simply skipped on certain maps, there are some keeps in the campaign that need some invisible walls on the pve borderzones because players can still enter an outer postern without being flagged. I see this as an exploit, I can point them out to you if necessary.


10. Ram
The ram. I am really happy you made that healing ability work. Not that I supported this ram jump suicide manouvers because they were legit mechanic abuse, but the ram HP must be lowered just a bit, so the attacker is forced to heal it if the defender decides to bring high risk on attacking it.



Still awake? On to forts shall we?



11. 5 minutes preparetion time
This is really bad. I mean REALLY bad.. it used to be 15mins and the warbands that participated in the fort were SPOTLESS. Proper 8/8/8. Not some half assed open trash with 2 heals and 3 tanks that dares to complain in /1 after the inevitable loss.
People were well aware and present, they had their bio break and could explain their wives/husbands why they have to waste another 50 minutes in the game before dinner.
Tactics could be explained in region chat etc. I mean it's a fort, not some random keep in Barak Varr.


12. The manticores/wyvern/gyrocopters for upper flor push
A m a z i n g. Pair this with the skaven globe and its ggwp. There needs to be tweaking though.
First of all, bringing a warband on the upper level in the fort means removing that warband from the main force. Thats already a huge risk/push delay.
Having the manticores dropping one randomly all over the upper levels is bad too, they should either drop the attackers only on the 4th floor or there should be more manticores, like 9.



Cities.. yeah. Well I never liked this concept because it's this fake rng Q and fastest progress to BiS only supports the actual trashy state of the orvr campaign.
You either meet some solo q pugs/random open wb stuff or you meet a hard counter with stacked classes to what you fielded. So it's stomp or get stomped, or if you have a proper guild like FMJ you meet a good counter. Thats super rare.
I rather enjoy ostland and have a unnecessary slower BiS progress or I would rather play deathroll vs Mrmoneybagz.
See city how you rolled it out is basically a scenario with 3 stages, if it would have been 6m Q only that then gets formed into a warband, then you would have true rng and give the randoms also more of a chance and probably really good fights or chat drama. Both great.
It would most likely also encourage people to play more scenarios outside of the event just to be prepared for endgame content.

Anyway, if you truly want to balance out the classes and then the game you need to get at least 48 people on a separate testserver and test things out under optimal and suboptimal conditions.
This cityscore/sc score/streamer opinion nonsense can't be you measuring bar, you are better then this.
Give this guy a spot on the team and follow his idea's/vision. Full support Praise Hail
"To clarify, me asking to developers to go test their own changes is not sign of toxicity or anger, but a sign of hope that the people punching in the numbers remain aware of potential consequences and test their own changes"-Teefz

User avatar
wonshot
Posts: 1101

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#76 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 10:50 pm

Kaelang wrote: Thu Jun 17, 2021 6:23 pm At the same time this was happening, the community were complaining that cities were too rare and that oRvR was just zones being pushed back to the mid zone over and over again - meaning cities would only pop at NA time when the majority of the population went to sleep.

So, it's a double edged sword - but it's ironic that the post only seems to focus on the reaction as opposed to the problem that was being raised during the time these changes were made.
Doesnt this boil down to a very gear-driven playerbase, either because of the average agegroup on RoR, or because the systems on here are casual friendly to make the population stay to keep any MMO feel alive and bring the "multiplayer" aspect into the game.
But maybe at a cost of having a product where pvp is just not promoted for the main-game / replay loop.

Breading more pvp focus, but also leaving room for new players to stand a chance to progress and catch up, is a hard line to find for sure. But making it too much of a reroll-loop as we have right now, where gearing for the sake of gearing, will eventually just make the endproduct feel pointless and im not sure ror can sustain enough new blood to have the veterans start questioning why they should gear their toons if the game itself dont promote them useing their gear.

Im not hoping or asking we get a massive overhaul right away, but little tweaks should be able to promote even the slightest of changes to zones so there are more clashes over BOs, the last periode of a zone-duration last just a little longer, or whatever it might be to make all of these players who want to fight eachother, have a reason or objective to fight over, apart from the sake of wanting to fight then we might all just go offzone daily, but then whats the point of orvr as a game model.
Bombling 92BW - Bombthebuilder 82Engi - Bombing 82SL - Bling 81Kobs - Orderling 80WP - Jackinabox 67WH
Gombling 85mSH- Chopling 83Chop - Notbombling 82Sorc - Powerhouse 81Zeal - Goldbag 80Mara - Smurfling 75Sham -Blobling 66BO

User avatar
agemennon675
Posts: 504

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#77 » Thu Jun 17, 2021 11:13 pm

Just take a look at the last City siege we had, it was a 2 star IC order pushed zones had massive population advantage in rvr, had more organised warbands in fort and won the zones took the forts and city happened. Than suddenly population changed its somehow %53destro/%47order, lots of leaders started recruiting, its the gear and royals that made everyone to log in/swap realm etc. and what happened ?Destro won the city 6-5 some destro who tried to defend keeps forts probably didnt even get in city because population changed. Clearly destro doesnt want to play forts or rvr atm but they play city because gear comes mainly from city. Solution ? If you think RvR is the main part of the game for you and want to inject some life boost into it, make it the main source of gearing. Destro players are demoralised, long history of not winning forts resulted less players in forts, now long history of losing RvR creating the same effect.
Destruction: 40-BG / 40-DoK / 40-Chosen / 37-Mara / 37/Sorc / 36-SH / 36-Choppa / 24-Shaman / 16-WE
Order: 40-SW / 40-SM / 40-WP / 40-WL / 39-Kotbs / 38-BW / 33-AM / 22-WH / 16-RP / 12-Slayer

Garamore
Posts: 397

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#78 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 7:33 am

Please don't use city stats like that. I was in a destro pug vs 11 WH and 4 engineers and therefore a super easy win. You cannot base anything on who wins city scores overall because of clear mismatches like this.
Garamore - Chosen Garamar - Marauder Garachop - Choppa Garamor - Slayer

Warband leader for Hand of Blood

https://www.twitch.tv/therealgaramore

Ads
User avatar
Nekkma
Posts: 722

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#79 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:21 am

Imo, the main issue with this server is that it is 100 percent pug server and there is no realm vs realm.

Now, live servers ended up this way but they where somewhat "hardmode" from the start. Locking zones with victory points required you to take keep, hold BOs, win on kills in zone, doing PQs in the zone and winning the scenarios connected to the zone. This forced players to join guilds, guilds to join alliances, alliances to communicate and pugs to form wbs and follow realm leaders.

Forts required multiple simultainious zone pushes to allow the attacker to get in with the good premade warbands.

Sov required your realm to win the city. After that you needed a decent wb to be able to finish the king pve instance to get sov.

All of the above made players of all skill levels join guilds who formed premades for scenarios and orvr. This server started with the "pug mode" live servers ended up in. This server, however, never had a "hardmode" to force players into guilds, guilds into alliances and so on which leads to the unorganized and boring zerg we have here.

If I will get rewarded regardless of my performance, regardless of my realm's performance, then I will likely not give a **** about my performance and realm.
Nekkma / Hjortron
Zatakk
Smultron

Elvicof
Posts: 142

Re: oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

Post#80 » Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:43 am

Everyone thinks because the login to the game that everything should be handed to them. The biggest problem I see is that developers usually bulks for this mentality and hands these players want they want and makes everything easy.

What is the problem in something being hard to get or you need to spent some time to get it. Best example was ToVL boss 7 not many could handle that encounter, so ppl cried about it. It got nerfed to the point where you could pug it.

Effort and gain arent matched, you can gain the best with no effort at all.... Why is that
Moonlapse and VII

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zulnam and 25 guests