Questions and Answers: Drop yours here!

[VindicoAtrum]

SH's leap feels awful since you removed the damage. Chasing a mounted while mounted is now borderline impossible - you leap, they don't get dismounted, you do. They're out of range before you even land. The removal of damage just feels awful, that change had to have been too heavy-handed.

Revisiting changes that don't hit the mark has to be sensible, rather than leaving SHs with a seriously ineffective gap closer for months/years. Can this nerf please be revisited, I don't think anyone really felt mSH needed nerfing.

[Dwarni]

Do developers really think fresh level 40 experience is great? Aren't they going to change anything about this horrible experience?

[Kalt]

First of all, thanks for the Q & A , this can be a great tool to communicate with the community about the game.

Only 2 question here.

Do you have any plan to bring the Marauder Brutality more in line with what other mdps can do. At the moment the brutality marauder fail to do what it was designed for , Single target burst. A savagery marauder can pull more burst and more sustain , while providing great group utility , thanks to all the debuff it bring to the table.

Brutality need some redesign , especially the last tactic (unstable convulsion) , this tactic is not used at all , and considering this is the last tactic in the tree and the investment in terms of mastery point this tactic should be much more powerful. Same for the mutated agressor buff. This is the exact same buff the shadow warrior has with vengeance of nagarythe (25% damage for 10s), but with a 1 min cd and is a 5 point buyable ability in brut tree , where the SW has a 30s cd and is baseline.

Any plan to look at this ?

2nd question :

Any plan to release mounts who are in the game files and were teased by Elven a long time ago in this thread:

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2790&start=10

Thanks in advance.

[MagMarius]

Can we get rework on RP and zealot for their dps skills? Other healers have better damage mechanics and don't have such AP's issues (AP drain, soul essence). Zealot has the lowest frequency of single and aoe attacks (only 1 single DOT), and offensive skills for both od them are scattered over 3 different trees.

[gglanouille]

Who are "the RoR team" ?
i mean, how many are you, and what's your jobs ?
And in the team, some members are playing to the game ?

[M0rw47h]

I wonder if there are any plans of making Battlefield Objectives more important than just supply generators, so people would actualy care about them, especially when they would matter even during sieges? After all, oRvR has much more to offer than just sieges and funnels.

[arinum]

Hello there,

Will there be a reset in the future?

[arknesio]

Do u have any plan about to stop destro zerg 24/7?

[CountTalabecland]

I know that top floor attackers were just implemented for forts and we're in testing, but, what else are you planning to do work with around Lord's room door pushes in forts? As it is right now these engagements decide whether or not cities happen and are causing quite a bit of frustration.

Are you happy with them generally, do you plan to keep working on it, increasing numbers of flyers?

[Cadien]

First, thank you very much for all of the volunteer work that you do for the game. Keeping this game alive is a miracle.

My question is the type of question that might have been asked already. If it has, please disregard.

Question: Are there any ideas on changing the triggering mechanism for cities?

Basis for Question: Cities represent the ultimate "endgame" of the game in the same respect as a raid in WoW; yeah, there's other things to do, but this is the main event. As it is now, one side has to successfully conquer two pairings. If there is organized opposition on the other side then this is likely not going to happen; forts are hard to assault (and they should be, they're god dang fortresses and represent the last desperate holdout in the pairing). This, in turn, leads to surprise cities at surprise hours (usually ass-end-o'clock). It can be frustrating to play all day, hoping for a city, only for it to fire off when you're asleep and exhausted. It's like a WoW raid firing off in the middle of the night and you've got 10 minutes to scatter and get your raid organized (I know the simile isn't perfect, but I think it mostly fits).

On the flip side, if you're on the defending realm you have a perverse incentive once you reach a certain gear threshold. Because city sieges are, by far, the most efficient way to get royal crests, certain defenders have incentive to not give it 100% of their effort if not completely throw a defense. Conversely, it can feel bad to successfully defend a push - even against all odds - only to realize that your reward for doing so is very low compared to what could have been. While the "sense of pride and accomplishment" from such a defense can be great, it still stings a little bit to realize that you've shot yourself in the foot by succeeding.

On the other end, if you do something like making cities fire off a a regular interval, you risk killing ORvR as players have less incentive to push RvR lakes. If you remove the place of fortresses from the game you remove the one barrier between the zerg faction du jure and complete and total dominance. I write the above question without a particular answer in-mind as there are positives and negatives to any change I can think of; my hope is that the development team has more developed thoughts than I do on this issue and can expand on the weighing of the positives and negatives for the relevant choices.