[DISCUSSION] RVR - likes/dislikes/possible improvement?

[Asherdoom]

4) Yeah, I think we all agree that DOTs are worthless. Its a fine balance though. Im less concerned about "class balance" as I am with the larger RVR question. Just because Magus and Engi are not "balanced" doesnt impact the larger RVR question for me. So this is a sub-issue IMO. I would LOVE to see Magus get some buffs BTW.

magus and engi are just an example. if you keep some class spcs undertuned for open rvr (due to ack of damage/sustain or utility) many player would just get abohorred by the fact that a class has only one way to be played to be competititve. how many times ppl got bored by "Play2htank? lolnubz ure a guard bot" pholosophy?

5) I agree, there shouldnt be any of this. Once you cap, it should be capped. Period. The reason you have these "downtimes" is because of lock timers. If a BO locks you have to give the enemy a window to "cap it back". Remove the "dead period" and its not necessarily fair because you can zerg, then cap and they cant re-cap for a period of time. This (btw) is why lock timers are a dumb idea IMO and I would rather see "soft lock" timers via stronger NPCs that are a much more formidable opponent (like a Hero) than they are now.

you can reduce a little cap times and make NPC carrying rations (like patrol of 5++npcs) toward keep by default and priodically. this would allow players to escort em or assault other Bo without the need of sacrifice warband members into carrying rations or camping spawn timers.

6) You will never completely remove the zerg. I think the only time I see the zerg being "OK" is during a keep take/defense. What I would prefer for these, are multiple entries in which to both defend and attack. The postern doors have "some" of this. Right now too much of the "focus" is on one narrow space in the larger keep. There should be "areas of focus" in atleast 3 places around the keep. Anyways, you cannot change the dichotomy of zergs = mash 4 buttons. Thats just how it is... Aoe will always be better..

to be honest postern doors for me were the first step ona good direction that suddenly was interrupted.
Together with these doors you can add 2 tings:
1)ladders: so players can climb the walls and attacking instead of afk while waiting ram doing his job
2) ropes: same as before,, but with limitation 1 per player group

7) War Engines would be cool, though I see this as a major change. There was talk at one point about siege towers being able to be towed over to a keep and create a "way in" aside from the main keep door. I thought that was brilliant. Though, frankly, I can think of many ways to improve RVR without having to necessarily add a bunch of new stuff...

well warhammer is not warhammer without siege engines and towers. A mayor change? yes, but what i learned is that if there is the will to make it it will happen. Imagine what a siege could become or open field battle would be: cannons, mortars and similar stuff will make you feel like tabletop game!


I would also add one thing: Why dont give class specific competency?
Like for example something like this:
ALL TANKS (BG/BO/SM/IB, etc...) when using ram they give to it (if full manned by tanks) 20% more life and resistance to oil equal to 15% of dmg for his manners. if they use siege weapons (cannons etc..) they give it 10% life more
ALL MELEE DPS: give ram 20% more damage each swing. Siege weapons cause 20% more damage
ALL HEALERS: if manning ram it will have 1%health regen. damage from oil is reduced by 10%
if manning siege weapon (cannons etc...) they get 30% more bullets
ALL RANGED DPS: if manning ram (lol?) his swing bar will go 10% slower and cause ram to deal 10% more damage
if manning ranged siege weaponry they deal 40% more damage

[Collateral]

I would agree that this thread is to pave the road ahead, not to suggest massive changes that we all know can't happen perhaps even in a year. Thegatekeeper has some really nice ideas, and pretty much what I was thinking about but just never put it to words. It's great to see people taking initiative. I totally agree that changing BOs would be a step in a right direction at this point, as I already said, and making a point based system.

I could be completely and totally wrong, so please don't feel offended or mocked, but I feel like the devs don't really have a clear vision of what they want to do with the game, at least when it comes to RvR, pretty much the most important aspect of the game. We all love this game. No one would play a dead game on a private server that isn't even finished if we didn't love it like madmen. So please devs don't be discuraged, it's an alpha as you always say.

Aza I'm sure you will come back to the game with fresh ideas. Once you fall in love with warhammer, you can't un-love it

[th3gatekeeper]

I would agree that this thread is to pave the road ahead, not to suggest massive changes that we all know can't happen perhaps even in a year. Thegatekeeper has some really nice ideas, and pretty much what I was thinking about but just never put it to words. It's great to see people taking initiative. I totally agree that changing BOs would be a step in a right direction at this point, as I already said, and making a point based system.

I could be completely and totally wrong, so please don't feel offended or mocked, but I feel like the devs don't really have a clear vision of what they want to do with the game, at least when it comes to RvR, pretty much the most important aspect of the game. We all love this game. No one would play a dead game on a private server that isn't even finished if we didn't love it like madmen. So please devs don't be discuraged, it's an alpha as you always say.

Aza I'm sure you will come back to the game with fresh ideas. Once you fall in love with warhammer, you can't un-love it

Yeah this is the goal: Discussion. This is why its not pasted or created in the "suggestions" thread. Because as I said in my initial post, I have come to realize that 1 person cannot possibly come up with an all encompassing solution that fixes it. It "takes a village" typically to work together.

My "wishlist" would include:

1) A "time" function where RVR progresses over time, making the conditions to win more attainable. This could be a "points" system or a progression system. Really ANYTHING that creates a type of game where you can reliably sit down at your computer for a few hours and know you get to "finish the fight".

2) A multi-objective function where there are more than 1 way to lock a zone. This creates multiple ways to win and multiple things you must focus on at once.

3) A better progressive loot system - more like the PQ Ruin Gear system. (This is more a secondary wish list item, if #1 and #2 were in place, I can handle a RNG grind.)


What this does is make a more reliable and FUN RVR experience. Something you can log in, partake in, and know not only you can finish the fight in a reasonable time, but also have a more "methodological" way (notice I didnt say easier) of obtaining RVR gear you desire. Having multiple objectives leads to the fun and tension during RVR so that Order might be focused on 1 "avenue" while Destro is focused on another "avenue" and it is a race against eachother as well as a question of "how can we stop them from accomplishing X".


The BEST way I see to accomplish this is a "point" accumulation where there are multiple avenues of earning said points. Obviously Keep takes(Lord Kills) and holding BOs, and kills along with some" other" objectives should be a major function of the points system. Accumulation of points leads to a lock of the zone. Heck you could even go "Old School" and add points for the PQs and SCs in that area...

The alternative method of doing this would be something like passive supply accumulation via merely holding BOs (as well as turning them in) to create almost a definitive "end" to RVR in the sense that your Keep will level up faster and more reliably. Then creating two "avenues" to lock the zone. So... If you removed lock timers on BOs, but then adding different lock functions as a "reward" function. To spitball... If capping all 4 BOs at once put a 20 min lock timer on all BOs, that creates a "window" to attack the keep and lock the zone definitely. The other side needs to "defend for 20 min" and then try to capture a BO or two. The other "lock reward" could be "if you ever DO kill an enemy Lord any BO your realm takes now gets a 5 min lock timer".

So the two avenues to win now are:
A) Cap BOs to gain supplies, Kill the Lord, then finish capping BOs (with a lock timer as an advantage).
B) Cap all four BOs (with lock timers to GAIN a 20 min lock timer on all BOs) then Kill the Lord while they remain "locked".

This creates a "tug of war" where if Destro is busy killing the Keep Lord... If they dont hold atleast 1 BO they risk having ALL the BOs lock on them for 20 minutes (which BOs + Keep Lord could be THE requirement for the zone being locked). Or if they have locked 4 BOs, they have a finite window (20 minutes) in which Order need to defend the Keep. Both avenues have Risks/Rewards and "reset" ability for the zone however in the background, the BOs generating supplies continues the progression of the zone so that eventually you will have a max leveled Keep in which that side SHOULD have a massive advantage when trying to assault the opponents keep - which is the "passive progression" that RVR needs IMO to prevent it from taking too long to lock a zone.

The goal would be to target "play sessions" for players so that
< 10 minutes is more "AH management/pot making etc"
10-30 minutes = SCs can easily be done in that time
30 min + RVR becomes a "viable option" for a play session.

None of these should last or "target" longer than 2-3 hours... SO RVR shouldnt take 6 hours (unless an extreme example/tug of war is going on)... The players who WANT to play ROR for 6+ hours im sure are GLAD to move onto another zone after seeing the same thing for the past 2-3 hours. Meanwhile the players who have RL to attend to can get off and feel good about the zone they just locked.

(Bonus: A bonus feature I would love to see added as a penalty for losing a zone... disabled flight paths in any lost zone which gives heavy incentive to fight and NOT lose)

[Asherdoom]

2) A multi-objective function where there are more than 1 way to lock a zone. This creates multiple ways to win and multiple things you must focus on at once.

they could make lairs being part of a zone to lock (10% contribution to zone lock)

[th3gatekeeper]

2) A multi-objective function where there are more than 1 way to lock a zone. This creates multiple ways to win and multiple things you must focus on at once.

they could make lairs being part of a zone to lock (10% contribution to zone lock)

Yeah, starting to dip back into the old WAR mechanics with SCs/PQs, etc all being part of RVR lakes. IDK if thats the best idea. Its definitely not the worst. What I was more thinking of... would be multiple objectives in the same RVR Lake. Or atleast "multiple paths to win". So the entire lake isnt 100% focused on "BOs" for example but provide multiple avenues.

I think the design I described above accomplishes some of that. You make the "requirements" to lock a zone dependent upon killing the Lord and capturing all 4 BOs.

You remove lock timers on any BO and create a "soft lock" system via Champions (and maybe even a Hero?)

You then provide two avenues to win.

1) Kill the Lord, then cap the BOs
2) Cap the BOs, then kill the Lord.

The ONLY way I see this working is if the BOs are not a pre-req to killing the Lord (via supplies) which they KINDA arent atm... And then you add severe lock timers to whichever side accomplishes either of those paths first.

If someone caps all four BOs at the same time and holds them for X minutes (could be based on population in the lake), it locks all BOs for 20-30 minutes, providing for a window to attack the Keep.
If someone kills the Lord, it now "grants" a lock mechanic (dependent upon population) for capping any BO making it easier to cap all 4 to hold them.

The only trick is "starting" the RVR zone... If a zone opens up and a warband is all ready to cap the BOs, the opposing side would have a very short window to rush to the defense. So you might need to adjust those "hold" timers based on population. If low pop = high "hold" timers. If high pop = low "hold" timers. So on a FRESH zone, if Destro gets all 4 BOs, maybe order gets 15 minutes to respond.

When its "high population" maybe the requirement to hold the BOs is lessend to 5 minutes. IDK. Just brainstorming here.

The idea though is 2 paths.

1) BO
2) Keep/Lord

You could alternatively add other "things" in the RVR lakes such as "bombs" and "flags" and what not but im not sure how that would evolve.... So that your "2 paths" could be:

1) BOs to generate supplies to generate siege equip to attack enemy keep.
2) Bomb Runs to weaken doors (postern?) to gain access into the Keep to attack enemy keep.

Then you have two avenues that way. Bomb run would need to be balanced so that it isnt any faster than the BO route. But I think you get the idea.... an alternate way to lock the zone.... So that both forces COULD be working on two different "win tactics" and thus requires a defensive and offensive force. Offensive to accomplish the objective (like BO capping) and Defensive to stop THEM from doing their objective (IN illustration #1 it would be keep defense, in illustration #2 it would be stopping their bomb runs). Just EXAMPLES - not exactly "recommendations" here.... but its an illustration.

[Paragod]

Just an idea; the victory point pool shift speed should increase as the number of kills in the zone increase. Conversely the pool should move slower for each person currently in or around the war camp. If you want a faster zone lock then go out and fight and kill or be killed. If everyone goes afk waiting for lock then it takes longer (not longer than now but no speed boost).

As I result you would hope that rather than avoiding fights and running back to war camp, that warbands would clash and fight it out knowing that win or loose they sped up the timer on the zone and get closer to the bag roll.

Also very active zones typically take a long time to lock, this would speed things up a bit because more people in zone would equal more kills and therefore more pool shifts. An off peak zone I imagine would still lock quicker but this might bring the time to lock down to a sensible few hours rather than a marathon.

You could take it to extreme and say the shifts speed up as the total zone kill count goes up. That would mean that after a certain amount of time a zone was active a lock would come quite quickly after a keep take as the victory point speed would be higher.

Just a thought!

[Yaliskah]

Ok. Here we go.

Before going further some notes about "RVR" improvement ( this will reflect my personnal opinion, and ABSOLUTELY NOT the whole team vision).

Before talking about RvR there are 3 things we must clearly dissociate :
1- The RvR Mecanics
2- The Rewards (loots, INF, renown, bags, ...)
3- The factions/Classes

2 is easily editable in his content, but much harder in his amount. We must think beyond the simple state of the game and try to avoid all cases of abuse, trade, hijacking... ( remember oil? remember trade keep? ). If we forget this last part, we could also set a shop with free stuff and let players create 40/80 characters and kill the game. On each suggestions you do about rewards, keep in mind this : Can it be hijacked? Is there a risk to be abused? If you ask it to your self, this will greatly reduce the field of suggestions you could do.

3 is tricky. Everybody has is own vision of classes and factions. Crossrealming, for good or bad reason and how to make it responsible/or simply avoid it is another path of reflexion. In the first case i could argue that some classes on both side are on the top of the basket, and name those class. It would result a long post to defend this or this class and each of you would give his opinion, different than another player. About crossrealming, avoiding it completely won't be a solution cause it would sometime forbid any chance of ratio balance. Limite it in time too. Maybe invite to swicth in the right direction could be the good solution ( from the dominating faction to the dominated one only without timer). Note in any way, we haven't atm any tech solution to deploy anything. About classes too, we have some technicalle lacks (LoS of pets for exemple) and some honnest changes to provide. Comparing 1 classe vs another won't produce any viable approach. Consider a class vs all other would be probably better. Now it is hard to have an unbiased view of each classe unless to play all perfectly. I'm favorable to proceed with SMALL adjustments step by step to "nerf" ( thats probably not the good word) top classes to set them at the level of the other. For this part i think you will have to trust us blindly. Our purpose isn't to kill this game we are working on since 3 years....

Now 1. Aza has made an incredible work. Believe it or not. Thats not perfect and it can be improved in many ways. We have 2 choices. Try things with puzzle pieces we actually have or wait for new tech discoveries ( have already explained what is the RoR project in a past dev diary). Like for classes we may have an infinite number of propositions and be assured that behind the curtains, we have a lot on the table doable or not. For exemple, i asked unilaterally to put roll on lock for both faction and i assume this choice, cause in my soul and conscience thats fair. Some may probably disagree. This request was designed with a different roll system (player contrib vs global average contrib = all players who contributed in the lake were able to have a bag, cause this roll was designed to be more personnal and not limited in reward number), but it seems to be too hard to deploy right now. I could add i suggested to add a secondary lock condition ( the first faction who reach Rank 5 for exemple), but in the actual state of RvR this wouldn't be applicable.

I say this to assure you we read your suggestion/concerns and if they seems interesting, we are trying to see in which way we can integrate it in a biggest patern with all constraints you probably don't care or consider. If you have suggestions to do with RvR mecanic, try to think in "modules" and keep in mind they must be linked ( for exemple : ressource system / keep atk/def/ Bo control, lock system...).

But since the begining, our purpose is to make things good and right. Sometime awkwardly maybe.

So, i could post here my suggestions/pov to improve RvR and tell you what i like/dislike, but sadly it wouldn't give you the assurance of anything.

Time, trust are keys. We have some lack of Aces to move on on this part and so many technical limits. But be assured we want to give you the best playfield we can, in the limit of our abilities.

Please, never forget this.

Yali.

[th3gatekeeper]

Ok. Here we go.

Before talking about RvR there are 3 things we must clearly dissociate :
1- The RvR Mecanics
2- The Rewards (loots, INF, renown, bags, ...)
3- The factions/Classes

I say this to assure you we read your suggestion/concerns and if they seems interesting, we are trying to see in which way we can integrate it in a biggest patern with all constraints you probably don't care or consider. If you have suggestions to do with RvR mecanic, try to think in "modules" and keep in mind they must be linked ( for example : resource system / keep atk/def/ Bo control, lock system...).

be assured we want to give you the best playfield we can, in the limit of our abilities.

Yali.

Yali,

Greatly appreciate the post and your time mate. As with all the ROR staff/team and ESPECIALLY Az. This discussion thread, I have tried to put aside #2 and #3. Class Balance - we share the same opinion. I could list the classes that are the "best" and the ones that are not as good, but its pointless to do that here.

Same with rewards. I frankly care much LESS about rewards than I do about the most enojyable FUN RVR system.


So to me, the only area I care about making better is #1. RVR Mechanics. This is where I have tried to focus in on the areas your described because I know what you can do is very limiting. (resource system / keep atk/def/ Bo control, lock system)

I could add i suggested to add a secondary lock condition

This, I think is what RVR needs THE MOST. No offense, but I dislike your "Keep Rank 5" option. I DO think "the path" to locking a zone should be focused around BOs and the Keep.

This is where I wonder what options could be created in which "alternative" methods to locking could be created.... I proposed 1 "option" above, where the 2 "paths" to locking the zone could be created via lock timers.

A) Capture all 4 BOs at the same time, hold them for X minutes (based on zone population) and then it locks the BOs for a LONG period of time (like 20-30 minutes) to allow for a Keep Attack and if successful in that time, it immediately locks the zone.

B) Kill the Keep Lord which then grants your faction lock timers on the BOs - giving them an advantage in trying to lock the zone (via needing to cap and hold all 4 BOs)

Just as an EXAMPLE.

[Asherdoom]

we could also leave keeps with basic defense even if rank 0. for example, leave some siege weapon no matter what rank it is so you will allow defender to do something (especially melee) instead of afking on the front door awaiting it to be destroyed lol

[warhammer1995]

Ofc atm impossible clean out this awful system,when people want something fast, thats usually happens,now we in t4 and ? we fck up.