Recent Topics

Ads

Feedback: City Siege

Let's talk about... everything else

Moderators: Developer, Management, Web Developer

User avatar
Wam
Legacy RR80
Posts: 503

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#71 » Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:26 pm

adapter wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:32 pm
Wam wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:36 am
play both sides... swap to underdog, don't zerg

it was 220 D vs 100 O at 3 am EU time... almost record numbers for destro at alarm o clock

Keeps got zerged, forts got zerged...

so should zerging be rewarded more than it already is? Maybe people should swap and play the underdog more and this would be less of a problem?

Its harsh for people to fight constantly outnumbered... and yes its harsh for you also when numbers was more even to draw the short straw and miss out on this occasion ... but you need to see it from both sides of the coin and see the one solution is playing the underdog side instead of people overstacking one realm... and it will swing back and forth as population does.

But maybe it deters a little bit of the alarm clock raiding which is soon to be a ever present like it was on live

sorry for your bad luck and better luck next time.

You wasn't playing yesterday i see. At EU Prime time Order had more players, they pushed to Caledor, they wanted to push fort and eventually get to The Inevitable City and guess what? We as Destruction defended Caledor, stopped 2 or 3 siege attempts from Order, we broke their morale. After hours fighting over Caledor Desutrction won the war and started pushing Zones towards Altdorf.

Don't come with lies trying to shove your xRealmer ideology to everyone. Keep your traitor mindset to yourself and don't spread it to the server.

you take roleplaying too seriously

Traitor mindset is spreading your toxicity mate over a video game lal... its because of zerg heroes like yourself that i would prefer to play the opposite side instead of easy mode it via numbers and farm the new shiny gear because thats boring.

I think ive contributed alot to destro... but i am also not blind and believe in some fairplay. Where is the fun in winning by default because you have more numbers? tell me who can enjoy such things? It's like joining a scenario and you have 50 people and enemy has 5 and no healers... you really like spamming one ability and feel like you really beat them right? lol such gameplay.

Everytime order has needed help in the past, we helped our enemy because i put money where my mouth is and keep my word. Destro are in a symbiotic relationship with order and vice versa... but your roleplay issues blind you to this but go on its funny.

I saw what happen, it was late after order eu went to sleep, destro numbers are almost reaching record levels at historically low population times... and you see the same again today with destro having over a hundred more players and just trying to force cities and gear up... then get salty because you are bad at math and don't care about other players gaming experience and the community as a whole.

One of the first definition of x realmer from live is from time when it was used in a derogatory manner for someone who chases the winning side / bigger numbers when the going gets tough... not someone who does the opposite and chases the AAO and helps the underdog. Its funny you think its a bad thing, i get to enjoy twice the content you do... more classes, more action and meeting nice people on either side. Rather x realm than zerg for zerg sake...
Wamizzle Guild Leader [TUP]
Wamizzle Guild Leader [The Unlikely Plan]

Ads
Omegus
Posts: 118

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#72 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:56 am

Disclaimer 1: I'm not going to get into the who-did-what-during-what-timezone-and-zerg-vs-coordination crap as it's just toxic.
Disclaimer 2: this will be from the destro POV so replace Reikwald with The Maw when appropriate. Please try not to troll this thread based on faction as while destro are having these issues at the moment one day it'll be order so we might as well work to make it fairer for the people within the larger faction now, regardless of which faction that is.

If the devs are saying that there will be no empty sieges then that's fine, but I'd just like to point out some of the behaviour the current system encourages, who it unfairly punishes, and what can be done to make it a bit fairer for the realm with more numbers.

The currently system seems to be first come first served, e.g. the first warband to get queued is the first one that gets in. This is already promoting a number of poor behaviours such as ensuring your warband is full of 40/40s for the second fort siege as there's no time to organise afterwards meaning lower people get kicked out of WBs that up until 2 days ago there was no problem with them being in. Secondly, people/warbands are abandoning the second fort early so they can get their warband into Reikwald first and queue up leaving the people actually pushing the zone at a disadvantage of getting a scenario queue. And fianlly, the way to guarantee your spot in the city siege is to just skip the second fort entirely and have everyone sit in Reikwald. Other people do the work of capturing the fortress so your warband gets to do the city siege.

An actual real situation that has happened since live: during both of the sieges that have happened so far my alliance's warband has been unable to get into the city siege. In addition we weren't even able to get into the test that happened due to the lack of order numbers. We have worked hard in all zones, helped push keeps to 3 stars, had our invader-equipped people deliberately avoid the first fort so their reservations could be taken by other people who need the gear, and during that time they went to Kadrin Valley to help push it ready for the second fortress which we then all participated in as a warband. But because we stayed to the end, because we were downstairs killing the keg and trying to fight off order who were flooding in when the lord was on 10%, etc, we got to Reikwald later than most (by seconds) and didn't get into the city as for some people it's now 3 times in a row where we've missed out due to not being greedy or abusing the system.

Developers, please can you look at implementing something similar to the following to make it better for all:

1) Once the second fort fails, please implement a 10 minute grace period to allow warbands full of 40/40 to be formed before any siege instances launch. This will prevent sub-RR40 people from having issues at forts getting into semi-organised WBs. It gives time for smaller alliances to merge together to get the numbers up, etc. The fortress already has 5 minutes to get there and the city siege involves changing zones and forming new WBs so 10 minutes should be enough. Some people might want to switch to their higher RR characters as well and this will let them do so.

2) During this 10 minutes the warbands from either side can queue up. After the 10 minutes the siege instances begin and the queued warbands from either side are chosen based on something much fairer than first in, first out. Examples for ranking the warbands (and parties) could be:

a) just picked randomly
b) sum of each person's fortress contribution for the 2-3 forts, thus prioritising groups of people who contributed more
c) sum of all the renown ranks, thus prioritising people who are closer to needing the gear offered in the siege
d) anything else but first in, first out.

3) The moment a city siege is triggered all realm lockout timers on all accounts are removed so those people on the overpopulated side who are willing to switch can easily do so.

A grace period and a fairer priority system will cut down on most if not all of the negative behavior being shown and will help prevent the people who didn't get in from feeling quite so ****. Next time we're tempted to try just sitting in Reikwald during fortress 2 to try and get into the siege as the warband's members are very annoyed about contributing to every stage and missing out on the siege as a result of it. Removing lock-out timers will help people switch sides to balance the numbers if they are willing and able.

4) Assuming there is no cap to the number of instances that can be launched, when the message comes up saying "no more queues" please can you kick everyone who is currently queued so we know there is zero chance. Currently people remain in the queue unsure if there will ever be a siege instance spawned for them after this message appears. Kicking people out of the queue will make it obvious that no more instances will be created.

edit: 5) please look at updating the SoR addon with information about the city siege as well, such as grace period (if introduced), time left to queue and how long until the campaign resets.
Last edited by Omegus on Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:32 am, edited 2 times in total.
Zomega: RR8x Zealot

User avatar
adapter
Posts: 151

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#73 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:58 am

Wam wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:26 pm


... not someone who does the opposite and chases the AAO and helps the underdog.

There's too much to unpack on your reply, just a wall of text full of lies...the hate you hold against me is huge and i don't even know you, i dislike you just because you are a xrealm guild leader, but clearly you dislike me for many other things haha, that just show's your true character, no need to defend myself against your claims against me, a wall of text full of biased lies.

You don't chase AAO, you chase PUGs to kill them with your "organized warbands", perfect composition to kill enemy the easiest way possible.

Get out of here, chasing AAO? hahaha you are desperately to farm PUGs, tell the truth once in your life Wam. You want the easy kills, you log in "loosing" side because you want to kill unorganized warbands.

Ya all welcome for the City Sieges that have been happening yesterday and today, we made those 2 city sieges possible but guess what, we who worked hard didn't get the chance to join either one of them. So yeah, be welcome!

User avatar
Wam
Legacy RR80
Posts: 503

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#74 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:16 am

adapter wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:58 am
Wam wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 11:26 pm


... not someone who does the opposite and chases the AAO and helps the underdog.

There's too much to unpack on your reply, just a wall of text full of lies...

You don't chase AAO, you chase PUGs to kill them with your "organized warbands", perfect composition to kill enemy the easiest way possible.

Get out of here, chasing AAO? hahaha you are desperately to farm PUGs, tell the truth once in your life Wam. You want the easy kills, you log in "loosing" side because you want to kill unorganized warbands.

Ya all welcome for the City Sieges that have been happening yesterday and today, we made those 2 city sieges possible but guess what, we who worked hard didn't get the chance to join either one of them. So yeah, be welcome!
If you call Phalanx, NRM, FMJ, PNP, PF, Beavers, CNTK, BItterstones, LNM, VII, TC, and whoever else i missed off the list pugs or unorganized wb's then you seriously have some deep rooted issues mate and good luck with that and all the salt :lol:

Joined the underdog, got zerged... and got 2 cities so far because I use some common sense something you might find difficult to comprehend... if you want to be zerger have fun putting in all that "effort" and sitting on the sidelines getting what you deserve ;)
Wamizzle Guild Leader [TUP]
Wamizzle Guild Leader [The Unlikely Plan]

havartii
Posts: 102

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#75 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:19 am

@Omegus Very we thought out post with some very valuable suggestions, the only thing I would disagree with is the lock out. It should stay, why? Because you get a free one, if you unlock it, it just becomes to wishy washy. If you are on one side and have been pushing for city and realize your chances are much better to get in are to switch and help the other side. You can with no lock out, but the 90 needs to stay so you can't just switch back if you feel it is not going as you may have planed.

User avatar
adapter
Posts: 151

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#76 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:25 am

Quite enough of this bickering. Thanks.

User avatar
Ototo
Posts: 1015

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#77 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 1:54 am

Omegus wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 12:56 am
Spoiler:
Disclaimer 1: I'm not going to get into the who-did-what-during-what-timezone-and-zerg-vs-coordination crap as it's just toxic.
Disclaimer 2: this will be from the destro POV so replace Reikwald with The Maw when appropriate. Please try not to troll this thread based on faction as while destro are having these issues at the moment one day it'll be order so we might as well work to make it fairer for the people within the larger faction now, regardless of which faction that is.

If the devs are saying that there will be no empty sieges then that's fine, but I'd just like to point out some of the behaviour the current system encourages, who it unfairly punishes, and what can be done to make it a bit fairer for the realm with more numbers.

The currently system seems to be first come first served, e.g. the first warband to get queued is the first one that gets in. This is already promoting a number of poor behaviours such as ensuring your warband is full of 40/40s for the second fort siege as there's no time to organise afterwards meaning lower people get kicked out of WBs that up until 2 days ago there was no problem with them being in. Secondly, people/warbands are abandoning the second fort early so they can get their warband into Reikwald first and queue up leaving the people actually pushing the zone at a disadvantage of getting a scenario queue. And fianlly, the way to guarantee your spot in the city siege is to just skip the second fort entirely and have everyone sit in Reikwald. Other people do the work of capturing the fortress so your warband gets to do the city siege.

An actual real situation that has happened since live: during both of the sieges that have happened so far my alliance's warband has been unable to get into the city siege. In addition we weren't even able to get into the test that happened due to the lack of order numbers. We have worked hard in all zones, helped push keeps to 3 stars, had our invader-equipped people deliberately avoid the first fort so their reservations could be taken by other people who need the gear, and during that time they went to Kadrin Valley to help push it ready for the second fortress which we then all participated in as a warband. But because we stayed to the end, because we were downstairs killing the keg and trying to fight off order who were flooding in when the lord was on 10%, etc, we got to Reikwald later than most (by seconds) and didn't get into the city as for some people it's now 3 times in a row where we've missed out due to not being greedy or abusing the system.

Developers, please can you look at implementing something similar to the following to make it better for all:

1) Once the second fort fails, please implement a 10 minute grace period to allow warbands full of 40/40 to be formed before any siege instances launch. This will prevent sub-RR40 people from having issues at forts getting into semi-organised WBs. It gives time for smaller alliances to merge together to get the numbers up, etc. The fortress already has 5 minutes to get there and the city siege involves changing zones and forming new WBs so 10 minutes should be enough. Some people might want to switch to their higher RR characters as well and this will let them do so.

2) During this 10 minutes the warbands from either side can queue up. After the 10 minutes the siege instances begin and the queued warbands from either side are chosen based on something much fairer than first in, first out. Examples for ranking the warbands (and parties) could be:

a) just picked randomly
b) sum of each person's fortress contribution for the 2-3 forts, thus prioritising groups of people who contributed more
c) sum of all the renown ranks, thus prioritising people who are closer to needing the gear offered in the siege
d) anything else but first in, first out.

3) The moment a city siege is triggered all realm lockout timers on all accounts are removed so those people on the overpopulated side who are willing to switch can easily do so.

A grace period and a fairer priority system will cut down on most if not all of the negative behavior being shown and will help prevent the people who didn't get in from feeling quite so ****. Next time we're tempted to try just sitting in Reikwald during fortress 2 to try and get into the siege as the warband's members are very annoyed about contributing to every stage and missing out on the siege as a result of it. Removing lock-out timers will help people switch sides to balance the numbers if they are willing and able.

4) Assuming there is no cap to the number of instances that can be launched, when the message comes up saying "no more queues" please can you kick everyone who is currently queued so we know there is zero chance. Currently people remain in the queue unsure if there will ever be a siege instance spawned for them after this message appears. Kicking people out of the queue will make it obvious that no more instances will be created.

edit: 5) please look at updating the SoR addon with information about the city siege as well, such as grace period (if introduced), time left to queue and how long until the campaign resets.
Amazing post. Thing is that all these troubles are not for the dev team to deal with, but are inherently present in your realm guild leaders. Dev team can't solve a personality flaw. How to encourage a change of behaviour at least is to be seen. Probably you have to voice your concerns to the actual people doing all this. You know who they, I know who they are, we all know. Instead of tolerating this constant selfishness, we could at least make a shame of them. Cause it's obviously that applauding their behaviour in the past has brought this moment to the present. And make no mistake; if you don't stay until the end of a Fort so they can take advantage, they will blame it on you, and will never ever care about anyone else.
Spoiler:

snackeyboy
Posts: 21

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#78 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:49 am

Guys, you need to calm down lol. Many mechanics are still new and being tested out by a small dev team and player base.

I get where the frustration is coming from, but let's be real.. Things change, and get fixed all the time on RoR, so if you cannot deal with testing phases of mechanics and instead start a flame war on the forums... Well, you are basically wasting time that could be used for actual positve feedback, and dev time.

Just my 2 cents of it, nice seeing WBs like TUP at least having a go at it, despite its state, and people actually looking forward to have some mechanics fixed while staying positive.

Cheers.

Ads
User avatar
Xergon
Posts: 522

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#79 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 7:22 am

nolofinwe1991 wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:49 pm
Wam u say that we shouldnt zerg. I agree on that 100% but how many times did TUP came to our clashes vs 7th riping their effort? The day u were in order & p&p had event i wasnt there to see how u reacted tbh but i ve been told that nvr p&p had a clash with u in a fair fight (both sides intercepted there). So same counts for TUP. U shouldnt leech others or destroy other guild vs guild fights too cause this is a form of zerging.
Spoiler:
Also lately im playing vs pugs at NA hours. when i log on sorc which is a game changer class im having party over pugs. Then a dozen & more order switch to destro. Following then this politics of low population side i switch to bw so i can have fun. Wipping destro pugs now again suddenly destro drop population and and order grow up. Try it sometime i know u have a sorc and reconsider who destroys the game the toxic xrealmers maybe who choose the winning side? As for guild i fully RESPECT when u switch to order, cause i know that this side is weaker for ur members than ur destro one yet u do that sacrifice for a better rvr experience. But again u need to respect that many guilds prefer one side.

Also tbh i dont even care if order guilds are more than their population & i dont even care if most order guilds cant even gather their pieces and run proper wbs. I wont be weak bcs enemies tend to be weak this is wrong policy..

And being out of the topic rn all guilds how do u think will react to the new city siege? I believe zerg pushes will be the meta just to push siege. Since the last 2 patches tragic nerfs who push destro to run only sorc/mara compositions (who are way behind than BW in damage matters) the picture will be like this: order having stronger dpses and lower numbers will farm destro zerg while defending & destro zerg being more and more organized will win the zones in the end..

Wrong me here but i see nothing else for the future just org zerg pushes & massive zone giving and "tanking" for city sieges.
And how many times we did ignore ur fights (u can check some of our stream and see urself)... besides its RvR, everything whats in game is allowed, famous words i see enemy i kill enemy is a normal thing to do in this game... Also when we getting zerged no one says word about that but moment we do that, shaming starts... double standards is fragile idea...

adapter wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:01 pm
Spoiler:
Natherul wrote:
Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:42 am
this was already discussed way before the release. We said we wont allow empty instances to be made so you cant get free loot.

This means that zerging on one side will mean some people wont be able to enter as there wont be any opposition for them.
Natherul, what does this actually means? My interpretation is to don't play the game if we are winning. Both realms have Zergs at EU Prime time, one zerg wins, one looses, the winning Zerg continues to play and taking zones. That's WAR in a nutshell.

What is a Zerg, how do one side gets a zerg running? I'll tell you how but you know how it works already. One side wipes the enemy side and by doing that the winning side gets their Morale UP and the loosing side gets ther Morale DOWN and quits playing, by QUITTING you are giving up the zones, you are letting the winning side continue to take over keeps and forts, this is how WARs work. Now, is that a Zerg? or is that just a bunch of players not having anyone to fight against and thus taking zones quick to reach enemy city. All of this possible because the winning side WON all the fights and broke enemy's morale. Are we getting punished for winning wars?

One can't use the argument of Zerging should not be awarded, in fact, that should be awarded because they WON all the fights and they have the RIGHT to claim rewards. We stopped Order from pushing our keeps, we wiped them over and over again, then we moved foward towards City Siege, it's what this game wants us to do. Or should we think by your proposal Nath: "Let's not continue winning because we won't have rewards".

There's a reason of why we don't have OPPOSITION, we killed them over and over again to the point of Order quitting and giving up the zones. So...which side should be PUNISHED?...

The side that GIVES UP? or the side that worked hard for winning? Ain't it logical? Why rewarding the side that gives up and punish the side that won all the fights to reach City Siege?

See the logic in this? The SYSTEM we are playing by right now wants us to GIVE UP so we can get to play in City Scenario. Is this what Devs want?
And as im reading the replies to this post im noticing a lot of "INFAMOUS XREALMER PLAYERS" encouraging everyone to Xrealm. What is this nonsense? The self proclaimed Guild Leader Wam is advicing us to xRealm, the ultimate xrealmer player that leads guilds in both realms and switches side to his own convenience. The "Most Characters in BOTH realms, Xergon" wants us to make character in both sides?....HA HA HA!

This behaviour should be punished with BANS, encouraging the server to xRealm? Ain't this what Devs are against? What is going on? really, why do we have to deal with xRealm guilds?

What happened to REALM PRIDE? What happened to the way this game should be played? What happened to HONOR, DIGNITY, ALLIANCES, FRIENDSHIPS, LOYALTY? Where are this values at? All lost for some rewards?
It died together with live servers...

Xrealming is keeping this server alive by keeping population in some reasonable balance. Imagine situation when u can only play one faction per IP adress, u would force ppl to chose one side, and what happens if 300 ppl pick destro 100 pick order, do u really think it would be healthy for server ?

I'm Order main but i dont mind playing destro toons, thanks that i love and admire game even more, i understand how different classes works, and game is not getting boring for me. About Xrealming, if u have brain, u will Xrealm into AAO to get most of benefits, therefore u will likely to be part of balancing population. Obviously there will be always some ppl who look for easy reward and easy lock zones, but thats nothing u can do about it...

U can shame all u want, maybe u jealous maybe u looking someone to blame, thats alright, if u need that, keep blaming and shaming others, hope it will make u feel better about urself...



Ok, enough of derail from topic.
About City Sieges, my biggest issue atm is Contribution system needs some big changes, it favours DPS highly and that Contribution doesnt seems to spread on party members accordingly... Also DPS should not be main factor for contribution.

Another thing is, when PUG/Solos getting matches with premades. I think either there should be instance only for Solos on both sides (atleast fair game) or force ppl to make min. 6mans who will be able to queue for city, thats def something needs to be discussed.
Image
The Unlikely Plan
YouTube

flintboth
Posts: 439

Re: Feedback: City Siege, a failure?

Post#80 » Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:22 am

Currently, the best leaders cohesion is on Destro side, as it was said above this can change for the Order side.
More leaders communication and players communication about the RvR events will give more interest and efficiency for a realm.

Currently for what I have seen on Order side, most of the warband play closed, in guild or not, without any communication on chat.
I don't know what is going on on the discord vocal (for Order) but when I was playing on Destruction side, leaders (or their assistant) was always writing on chat the direction to go and what to do together.

There is a competitivity inside the Order realm; The goal is : my warband is running the event; Chassing PnP instead of playing any battle objectives; My war band have destroyed PnP or any others Destruction warband guilds... + some bad competitiv behaviours against friendly warband.

Destruction is playing a RvR game and Order is more playing a GvG game; need just a litle more communication on chat and more and more intelligent exchange between warband (friendship ?).

You need a guys in your guild WB or in the open WB especialy dedicated to communicate info on chat.
Because the leader can't do all thing or burn out.

Players who join a warband have to give informations too on the appropriated chat : /2, /T4.

There are some good leaders on Order side and where they are good, is to refuse to zerg most of the time.
Zerg is not all bad is necessary at certain time, it's a battlefield...
Destro zerg easily because they organize their domination on every points of a map. That give them more chance to close a map and this is why many players switch to the Destro side to have a fast reward or to move forward the campaign.
If Order fail at a seige, many players log off or switch side.
If Destro fail at a seige, they organize the domination of the Battle Objectives and wait for a new ram.


All of this depend about which leaders are online.
Last edited by flintboth on Mon Feb 10, 2020 10:19 am, edited 4 times in total.
test monkey 076 (test failure)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eodis, Whandall and 19 guests