PvP mindset

[wonshot]

Hello,

With the latest set of changes in last week's patchnotes I've started to wonder about the game direction. And how this have affected the server over all.
When I first started out, progression was reached via afking on BOs to get afk-ticks and killing probably not the option most of the T1 players would go for as their main source of renown gain.

If we take a look towards scenarios, the same trend is to be spotted there.
Cap the flags, run the bomb, capture the flag etc. You have to play the SCENARIO (not battleground or teamdeathmatch) and get your medal and bonus rewards via objective focused gameplay.

And this confuses me, to be frankly. Why must it be objective focused in a game that has some of the coolest pvp abilities, mechanics, animations and whatever else reason we are all playing RoR?

Is the majority of the scenario players queuing up with the mindset "omg let me just get one more Stonetroll in, before I logout for the day because I simply just love that flagrunning mechanic"
or will they go something like "okay ill queue for all scenarios on my current favorit class, because I like fighting on it"?

I can only speak for myself, and the few times I find myself queuing for scenarios I do it for pvping, killing and well knowing that I might face people with better gear, skill, setup, or cordination than me. And I am willingly clicking "join now" if i am happy with the scenario I get offered.
Should I be faced against premades, more balanced groups or what have you. I do a judgementcall and desite if I will continue my scenario or leave, based on what is better for my time. "getting farmed for potentially 10 mins or taking that quitter debuff"

I started playing Warhammer back when we had Victory points campaign system. I was raised to play this game with killing to matter more. But right now, I can play Forts and only focus on Flags during stage2 in a fortress for contribution, I can play scenarios but it is expected of me to focus on the objectives, or I can do orvr and kinda do as I please but for bags I need to focus on resources, siegeweapons, and pveing a lord.

Where did the pvp focus go, I ask?

There are systems on RoR which encourage pvp, such as AAO. There are moments where you get to enjoy all that time you spent on gearing, ranking and learning your classes. But then reality hits and you need to focus on running a bomb shortly after in your scenario, or focus on the nearby flag in a fortress fight.

If I am watching Thezarbix or any other RoR streamer, and see their action I get motivated to log on and join the fighting. I do not however sit and think "oh let me just queusnipe "X" streamer to steal the BO-flag in front of him" no! I want to fight along side these people, or fight agaist them!

PvP should be more of a focus on here, and yes that will mean there will be a losing side. I truely understand how catering to the masses and keeping a healthy population is in every one's best interest. But right now too much focus is on objectives, that I honestly feel only a minority truely cares for over clashing.

[TiberiusD]

This thread is interesting. Please Devs do not close this thread. We will have interesting discussions here from now on.

Ok. So you asked why must it be objective focused. Because this things generates the fights. You cannot have fights without them. You cannot claim keeps without BOs (to generate supplies for siege). You cannot win SCs without BOs. Capping flags grants you way more points than killing and instead of having a 12-13 minutes dull an boring fights (because 1 kill grants you with 3 points only).

I am speaking from my point of view. Flags can build the best tactics in this game,like ambushes, deviations, flanking attacks and a lot of traps.
I am a PvE guy and everytime in a SC i am playing the objective. Because if you are reading the loading screen message for each Scenario, there is explaining you what to do in order to win and not only that. Even in the Official Warhammer Online: Return of Reckoning guide and atlas you will see that all the Scenarios have the arrows drawn for tactics.

I've seen WAR and now RoR as a tactical game. If you play tactic you can win way easier than adopting other ways to play.

Removing the BOs from RvR and flags from SCs will make a lot of people quit the game and the flavour of the old WAR will be gone forever

[peterthepan3]

It's entirely possible to have scenarios that incorporate both objectives and PvP harmoniously to make for an enjoyable game: maps such as Gates of Ekrund, Nordenwatch, Black Fire Basin & even Battle for Praag do this very well, as they encourage PvPing in/around the objectives, i.e. you have no choice but to PvP. The scenarios mentioned are of a decent size, too: not Lord of the Rings scale, like Thunder Valley, yet large enough to allow for skirmishes and flanking manoeuvres.

The issue a lot of people have as of late isn't with the need to do objectives, per se; rather, their discontent is down to having an abundance of maps with boring objectives that allow you to win with minimal PvP. If you look at maps like Thunder Valley, Blood of the Black Cairn, or Stonetroll Crossing, you can literally just Dora the Explorer the f outta the maps, not seek out PvP whatsoever, and still win.

There are some really good scenarios out there that incorporate both objective-based play and PvP to a good degree. I would suggest incorporating these scenarios into the rotation more often (the least disliked maps tend to be the ones with the better objectives), while removing the crappier maps so that they can be polished up.

Having a plethora of bad 'PvE' scenarios in the rotation simultaneously, all of which can be 'won' with minimal PvP, just adds fuel to the fire: PvP in the scenarios should be just as important (I'd argue more important, but that's just me) as the flag game. Just as people frown upon those of us who 'only want to kill', we should be permitted to frown upon those who have no intention whatsoever of engaging in PvP in a PvP game, seeking only to take objectives, rinse-repeat.

Even small things, such as increasing the points per capture in scenarios like Talabec Dam, Khaine's Embrace, and Logrin's Forge, or adding more points from kills while keeping the boring maps as they are, would probably go a long way in alleviating the sentiment many seem to have as of late.

In regards to OP's question re PvP as a whole, I think the dire state of PvP in all areas is down to the game having become increasingly puggified as time has went by. Whereas several years ago, you had a lot of min-max WBs going at it against one another, and several competent PUG WB leads at any given time, this doesn't seem to be the case as much now (though I can't say for sure as I don't do largescale). I think one of the biggest mistakes was removing the kill contribution (if not removing, then reducing influence of kills exponentially) for rewards in RvR: whereas before, when people who put in the work for their kills (aka actually did PvP) they were often rewarded for it, I am now given a piece of gear simply via accumulation, i.e. my actual input is not incredibly important, as I will eventually net enough 'accumulated contribution' and get myself a Gold or Purple. I therefore ask: what need is there for me to bother with the PvP game? I've had instances where I've entered a zone, derped around for a few minutes, and been awarded a piece of Vanquisher...it feels silly as one should not be entitled to a piece of (in many cases) BIS gear simply for gracing the game with their presence.

By OP's own words, Forts are now encouraging a flag game which, again, removes the need to PvP. Scenarios having a PUG SC (not necessarily a bad thing per se, but it can't be denied that it promotes a more casual approach to PvP), mediocre rewards (when compared to other areas of game), an abundance of dull objective-driven maps, and no noticeable difference between queuing for PUG SC vs queuing as a full group, have resulted in a sharp decline in the calibre of PvP we are seeing. This is a huge shame.

[fourhundred]

Some of the most enjoyable scenarios I've been in were Serpent's Passages on live, when no one even touched the part, and everything was just about fighting one another. Now, if you do that in most scenarios, you just get penalized. It's pretty disappointing to have the pvp taken out of what I've always thought of as a pvp game.

[Twohandernoob]

This thread sings off my same hymn sheet.

Played since day 1 of live. Never cared in the slightest what's happening with flags, castles, zones, realms. Just the fighting. Used to run with a guild on live (Evil Inc) where literally nobody gave a monkeys about the realm mechanics. Just point us in the direction of the enemy. Good times.

So much these days is anti-pvp.

The malus. Nerfs the reward for killing.
The gear in the pve dungoens and the ward system to mandate doing all pve to get the couple of bits you're interested in.
Recent Sc changes, lulz. Again punish the side doing the killing.
I see people running boxes alone to level the realm. This one i like because it's great for solo WH ganking. Still a sorry site.

[wonshot]

Looking forward for upcoming content and towards possible solutions, I just really hope that City sieges will not be overly objective focused.

If we are to belive the teasers being droped once in a while on discord and Twitch. It does seem like we will get the city version with 2 big lord npcs for each realm who need to reach point X, and both realms have to decite if they defend their lords or go attack enemy lords and then potentially clash.

This is a ballanced example of how Objectives lead to pvp if you feel supperior, but if you feel outguned you can try to outsmart you enemy and mindgame them. But at the same time I think Nordenwatch BO's provide the better objectives that encourage pvp. Win the fight on the flag, and the pvping on the objective will reward you in terms of objective control and therefor medals.

I dont do scenarios often, and I dont do 6v6 at all. But having a catchup mechanic via the pugSC-only for new players to catch up in a pug enviroment and then a cosmetic cool looking set rewarded via caledor woods tokens for the organized premade boys would be a cool system with a carrot for everyone,I would think. But then again this is me on deep water.

For the record, I dont mind objectives when they serve the purpose of promoting pvp. But when they overshadow it, I think the hammer missed the nail.

Fortresses without a healerNPC to clear you wounds debuff is straight up killing PvP in many cases, and its harming potential clashes since defenders who are already outnumberd have to ride a full 3min debuff afkbreak to be fully functional again.
Same as for how players rush to cap a nearby flag in stage2 instead of killing the group of red names beating on their reamlmates, who could maybe had been helped if everyone was not contribution-focused.

[adamthelc]

I think it's important to define terms and use them correctly to have a really good debate. Whatever term you want to use for the lamer objectives is still PvP. People are actually referring to combat. I too agree that combat should the most important part of PvP, but saying non combat objectives are not PvP is incorrect.

I agree that non combat objectives are being highlighted too much as of late. The essence of the game is the combat. You could take away the non combat objectives and people would still play this game, some would prefer it. You take away the combat and no one is going to keep playing. It is the more important aspect.

I feel like people are pushing to hard to make everything about combat though. New features meant to enforce non combat objective seem like an overreaction to the people that only want combat based objectives.

Domination is a good example of the overreaction. I understand that the new feature is supposed to be in the process of being tuned, but it should really just be removed all together. It was a nice idea to try and save everyone's time for a scenario that was never in doubt. But now it has become a tool to enforce some arbitrary decision of how scenarios should be played. That is a bad design decision.

I think non combat objectives are fine and should have a place in the game. But they never were nor should they ever be more important than combat.

[Natherul]

Before I respond to peter (because I feel there is a misconception there), I wanted to address the direction. In no way do we want to remove PvP, in fact as clearly stated we feel the same way that its a major part of the game. HOWEVER, we do feel that when there is an objective around it should be fought about, and ignoring it is simply not acceptable. Domination has been tweaked so that its much harder to trigger with the latest change.

Ill add that personally I dont really care if domination works like it does now or if removed but it HAD to change as in the previous system it only served to encourage people to ignore objective and farm kills as they would get max point regardless if they could pop domination. Couple this with kills giving rewards (which ofc it should) means that there is 0 point in going for objective if you can win by kills alone.

That said domination´s purpose is to end games which are probably not fun for anyone prematurely, Im pretty sure nobody likes to get stomped and not even able to leave their spawn, and if dominating its not that fun to just wait for nothing to happen as the people killed at spawn wont leave in those circumstances.

I think one of the biggest mistakes was removing the kill contribution (if not removing, then reducing influence of kills exponentially) for rewards in RvR: whereas before, when people who put in the work for their kills (aka actually did PvP) they were often rewarded for it, I am now given a piece of gear simply via accumulation, i.e. my actual input is not incredibly important, as I will eventually net enough 'accumulated contribution' and get myself a Gold or Purple. I therefore ask: what need is there for me to bother with the PvP game? I've had instances where I've entered a zone, derped around for a few minutes, and been awarded a piece of Vanquisher...it feels silly as one should not be entitled to a piece of (in many cases) BIS gear simply for gracing the game with their presence.

I wanted to chime in on this. Kill rewards has no been diminished in RvR we simply added more things that contributes (before it was ONLY kill contrib that counted). The biggest issue you seem to have with this however is not the contribution itself but the personal roll system as you no longer roll vs the rest with only a set amount of bags that everyone fights over. Instead you simply only have to beat a personal level where your history of not getting bags increases that chance. Before this the problem was that the same people got the bags all the time and the rest was left without as they could not compete and win a bag vs the premades who formed groups to maximize kills.

[flintboth]

what is the most harmful to the PvP are not the Objectives but the race (grind) for the gear (Op set, weapons, jewels...).

The gear (set, weapons, jewels) is currently the most important thing in this game, more important than the game play or the strategy to win a PvP or RvR fight so it is normal for a player to focus his play time for the search for medallions and gear, to the detriment of PvP and RvR (abandonment of zone for a fortress >>> invader ...).

There are many mechanics in scenario and RvR who encourage players to avoid certain fights in order to win medallions and equipment.
Some people often pass to the status of "player" to the status of "farmer" via these mechanics.

However, this phenomenon is minor and the player's mind on many occasions annihilates the farmer's mind and the scenario or the RvR fights are often full of interest, velocity and fiercely that make this game a great game.
At many occasions I have read on the chat /2 or /t4 players flamed against "player farmer" whho was asking to lose a zone.

Attention to the phenomenon of "followers" on stream and twitch which encourages the : "exacerbation of feelings" or " exaggerated loyalty".

Many players stop queuing for scenarios because of the "gear domination" who make certain characters more over powered than they are (via balance) and more again if for one side all characters are full geared.
Thinking scenario are less played because of objectives is an error.

Certain scenarios have too many Objectives, right.

[Yaliskah]

I started an answer yesterday. Never had the time to finish it, and Pc rebooted without asking since..., but will post my opinion asap.

I agree TiberiusD, this post is interesting and some clarifications (maybe larger than the subject itself) and general pov could find some place here.

Waiting my answer (asap) want to thank wonshot for his clear, quiet and animosity free post .