Patch Notes 04/09/2024

[3Form]

I honestly dont care. No issue at all. Let the pug leaches and empower solo players. There are more important issues to be dealt with in my opinion.

Since its apparently different Devs that handle pve, we have Dungeons that are pretty much tharsh mobs and easy bosses. Bring Lost Vale to reward Onslaught on the same model.

I know that this is called a public quest, but before AR, GMs could take action against leechers.

This is content intended for 24 players, as specified by the team, so having solo players who come and try to steal loot or even prevent players from succeeding in the PQ could be considered harassment (see the Code of Conduct) if the 24 players ask players outside the WB to leave.

It is not normal that players who take the time to organize themselves to do this content are punished by selfish players (especially if they come to brag afterwards on Discord about having had a gold bag). I understand that we have every type of players but again, and this is totally the same with the Weekly SC rent about premade, if you want to participate in content that is aimed at a certain group/format of players, that's up to you to adapt, not the game.

A solution that could delight everyone, failing to have the PQ 22 instanced, would be to give a currency for each participant in the last phase. This currency could then be exchanged with a vendor to have a piece of Onslaught's armor, a box of talismans, ...

In this way, everyone could participate and be rewarded, from the moment the public quest is completed.

https://wiki.returnofreckoning.com/Public_Quests

Are you not constantly complaining in region chat about people interfering with your 1v1 fights and denying you solo kills in Open RvR?

Myself I have tended to leave you to it if I can see you don't need any help. But maybe I should just toss an axe as I run past - I mean, the game allows me to, right?

[CyunUnderis]

https://wiki.returnofreckoning.com/Public_Quests

Again, I know what is a public quest. My argument is that if there are more leechers, like you, who come to take advantage of the PQ 22, while punishing the people who take the time to organize this kind of content, there will be fewer people who want to organize and therefore ... no more interest for solos (who will never be able to do it solo).

So rather than being smart and once again trying to "defend the famous rights of solo players", maybe it would be smart to propose an alternative solution (like the token per participant that I suggested above).


@what63 : Sure, we can treat it like any open-world content, like Fort/Keep, with scaling reward/difficulty, why not. I just want players who participate in this kind of content to be rewarded and for the team to communicate effectively about it by deciding once and for all. I feel like the team sometimes forgets to communicate certain things because they don't think about (or have forgotten) all the possible scenarios that can happen. And that's a shame because it creates additional frustration that isn't necessary.

[Brizio]

https://wiki.returnofreckoning.com/Public_Quests

Again, I know what is a public quest. My argument is that if there are more leechers, like you, who come to take advantage of the PQ 22, while punishing the people who take the time to organize this kind of content, there will be fewer people who want to organize and therefore ... no more interest for solos (who will never be able to do it solo).

So rather than being smart and once again trying to "defend the famous rights of solo players", maybe it would be smart to propose an alternative solution (like the token per participant that I suggested above).


@what63 : Sure, we can treat it like any open-world content, like Fort/Keep, with scaling reward/difficulty, why not. I just want players who participate in this kind of content to be rewarded and for the team to communicate effectively about it by deciding once and for all. I feel like the team sometimes forgets to communicate certain things because they don't think about (or have forgotten) all the possible scenarios that can happen. And that's a shame because it creates additional frustration that isn't necessary.

You know the rules before forming the warband. If you accept the risk of leechers, then go for it. Once again, its a public quest. If you want to minimize the leechers, form a group pn discord and go for it. Dont announce in 5.

To be honest, im not worried about leechers and public quest. Im worried devs will see this and try to create a mechanic to change contribution... and break other stuff. That RoR history. Please, dont ask em to chabge it because of appearence or a mid tier set.

[reyaloran]

Just add 2k contribution to anyone who has 20+ players in a WB in a PQ. The max a person can naturally get is 1749 with a perfect roll and max contribution so adding a flat amount protects against someone trying to leech. I would say make it 24 in the WB but as Rhyshara pointed out yesterday that could have issues with DCs or crashing players. The other nice thing about this change is that it would still let the players who only want the cape appearance and don't care about the bags still get their credit without screwing others over.

[CyunUnderis]

https://wiki.returnofreckoning.com/Public_Quests

Again, I know what is a public quest. My argument is that if there are more leechers, like you, who come to take advantage of the PQ 22, while punishing the people who take the time to organize this kind of content, there will be fewer people who want to organize and therefore ... no more interest for solos (who will never be able to do it solo).

So rather than being smart and once again trying to "defend the famous rights of solo players", maybe it would be smart to propose an alternative solution (like the token per participant that I suggested above).


@what63 : Sure, we can treat it like any open-world content, like Fort/Keep, with scaling reward/difficulty, why not. I just want players who participate in this kind of content to be rewarded and for the team to communicate effectively about it by deciding once and for all. I feel like the team sometimes forgets to communicate certain things because they don't think about (or have forgotten) all the possible scenarios that can happen. And that's a shame because it creates additional frustration that isn't necessary.

You know the rules before forming the warband. If you accept the risk of leechers, then go for it. Once again, its a public quest. If you want to minimize the leechers, form a group pn discord and go for it. Dont announce in 5.

To be honest, im not worried about leechers and public quest. Im worried devs will see this and try to create a mechanic to change contribution... and break other stuff. That RoR history. Please, dont ask em to chabge it because of appearence or a mid tier set.

Participation in PQs is indicated in the War Report. So even if the raid creation is not public or only via Discord, the game will still notify players that a PQ is in progress (without specifying which one, but at least with the name of the zone).

In addition, in the past, and I speak from experience, having done it several times with my guild, GMs punished players who came to leech when a guild was doing the PQ.

I am simply asking for a return to normal for PQ 22 (pre-AR) or to find an alternative that would be beneficial to everyone.

Finally, the risks of regression have always existed. Not asking for a change on the contribution to avoid a bug would be like asking to avoid a change on the RvR or the SC at the risk of breaking the Lords/BO/Matchmaking.

[Brizio]

Again, I know what is a public quest. My argument is that if there are more leechers, like you, who come to take advantage of the PQ 22, while punishing the people who take the time to organize this kind of content, there will be fewer people who want to organize and therefore ... no more interest for solos (who will never be able to do it solo).

So rather than being smart and once again trying to "defend the famous rights of solo players", maybe it would be smart to propose an alternative solution (like the token per participant that I suggested above).


@what63 : Sure, we can treat it like any open-world content, like Fort/Keep, with scaling reward/difficulty, why not. I just want players who participate in this kind of content to be rewarded and for the team to communicate effectively about it by deciding once and for all. I feel like the team sometimes forgets to communicate certain things because they don't think about (or have forgotten) all the possible scenarios that can happen. And that's a shame because it creates additional frustration that isn't necessary.

You know the rules before forming the warband. If you accept the risk of leechers, then go for it. Once again, its a public quest. If you want to minimize the leechers, form a group pn discord and go for it. Dont announce in 5.

To be honest, im not worried about leechers and public quest. Im worried devs will see this and try to create a mechanic to change contribution... and break other stuff. That RoR history. Please, dont ask em to chabge it because of appearence or a mid tier set.

Participation in PQs is indicated in the War Report. So even if the raid creation is not public or only via Discord, the game will still notify players that a PQ is in progress (without specifying which one, but at least with the name of the zone).

In addition, in the past, and I speak from experience, having done it several times with my guild, GMs punished players who came to leech when a guild was doing the PQ.

I am simply asking for a return to normal for PQ 22 (pre-AR) or to find an alternative that would be beneficial to everyone.

Finally, the risks of regression have always existed. Not asking for a change on the contribution to avoid a bug would be like asking to avoid a change on the RvR or the SC at the risk of breaking the Lords/BO/Matchmaking.

Wait, players got punished for contributing in a Public Quest? Thats messed up. Complete abuse to be honest. Once again, its a Public Quest. If you dont want leechers, make a dingeon.

[normanis]

T2 PvE Rework Conclusion

The Tier 2 Hidden Quests have been (re)implemented (quest progress on these has been reset). The Dwarf and Greenskin storylines have 14 hidden quests each; the Empire and Chaos storylines have 15 hidden quests each; and Elven superiority once again sees the High Elf and Dark Elf storylines with 16 hidden quests each. In every storyline there are 5 quests which are specific to that race. The Dwarf, Greenskin, Empire, and Chaos storylines have 8 faction specific quests, while the Elves have 9 faction specific quests. The remaining quest(s) per storyline are universal for both realms. Can you find them all?
did somone found those quests and pocket item ugreades?

[NSKaneda]

did somone found those quests and pocket item ugreades?

A few, haven't really looked for chaos or elves yet.

Spoiler:

Plus a bunch of hidden quests with fluff items used as currency with merchants or hidden dyes but I didn't bother screenshotting them

[normanis]

did somone found those quests and pocket item ugreades?

A few, haven't really looked for chaos or elves yet.

Spoiler:

Plus a bunch of hidden quests with fluff items used as currency with merchants or hidden dyes but I didn't bother screenshotting them

thx