Recent Topics

Ads

Throwing Forts

Let's talk about... everything else

Moderators: Developer, Management, Web Developer

User avatar
Alfa1986
Posts: 330

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#31 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:00 pm

Yaliskah wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 10:54 am
Alfa1986 wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 7:06 am
Yaliskah wrote:
Wed Feb 12, 2020 11:02 pm
Point is, we can't "punish" losers, cause (just quoting some feedbacks i had in the past):

1-They will move to the winning faction, because it is all about "being paid" for the time wasted. IMO i'm not sure having a single faction vs no one in the end would be a better design.

2-They stop playing if they have the feeling they will waste their time for 'nothing'.

The hardcore gamer i am would like to see winners rewarded with the blood of losers (good's loser properties), insrtead of "magic" stuff falling from the sky, but i fear, no one would like to experience something who would have some sense and would solve lot of "bad design".

This said, I'm all for testing a month without any roll or reward for losing side in ORVR/Fort/SC and cities. Are players ready for this?
i allow myself a little remark. only those who actually fought and were defeated by a stronger rival can be considered losers. here it is not about losing, but about refusing to fight, these are two completely different situations. but people are not to blame for the fact that they see no reason to defend the forts, or to fight, in reality there is a need to just peering honestly and understand the reasons why this happens.
Nananna, by "losers" i nominate the faction who lose in general, whatever the reason; voluntarily or not (cause unless monitoring H24 logs and players behaviour i don't how server is supposed to adapt its behaviour).
When you say that people are not to blame for the fact they see no reason to defend the forts, or to fight, well, i must disagree (at some level), unless you consider that the purpose of the game is nothing but gearing your own character, for no reason. (Could be interesting to give max lvl+top gear to a brand new player and see how many time he plays before quitting the game. I say less than a week).

Again, the actual system let you win even if you lose, on a personnal base, and the system allows player to follow the path of least resistance for an average result. Because (and there is 0 repproach in this sentence), we are aware there is 0 realm proud (or we wouldn't talk about XRealm), there is 0 will to be punished because your faction don't "play the game" because "you" don't wanna be punished because of others in your own realm. Point is no one wants to lose, and when it happens, the national sport is to find a culprit : Balance, XRealm, Design, PU, Devs.

Actually, there are no consequencies to lose, and this is precisely the detail who breaks the system itself, and even if we were able to modify this, i'm ready to bet, that in time, we would see only 1 faction ingame because winning is more important than playing in the end.

Now to conclude, i'm not saying the actual RvR system is perfect, according it is mostly based on original one, and I would say "fortunately" for the video game industry. If we were able to make things better than professionnals in general (i fear you always forget we aren't), with a smaller team, with 0 tools, and a limited time, maybe should we start to forget this project and focus on something more "commercial" :p.

Now, and again, nothing is in the stone, and with time i'm convinced we will find solutions to enhance all this stuff.
I completely agree with you, but I will add that the players not only have nothing to lose in case of loss, they also have nothing to get in case of winning.)) anyway, even in case of loss, they will get the city siege and will take their carrots, and it does not matter how the faction fought before. let's take football as an example, there is a competition, a team can lose one match but win another, and at the end in the pivot table all losses and victories will be recorded, and as a result, each match matters to the team (total score). here you win or lose the zone t2, t3, t4 (match) is not important, anyway the outcome of the battle (and the receipt of equipment) will be decided in the very last match (city siege). I don’t think that teams in football would be very worried about losing in a regular match if the winner were decided only in the last game.
I just wanted to say this when I said that people are not to blame for the fact that they see no reason to protect zones and forts.

Ads
User avatar
Yaliskah
King of Nothing
Posts: 1812

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#32 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:34 pm

Alfa1986 wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:00 pm
I completely agree with you, but I will add that the players not only have nothing to lose in case of loss, they also have nothing to get in case of winning.)) anyway, even in case of loss, they will get the city siege and will take their carrots, and it does not matter how the faction fought before. let's take football as an example, there is a competition, a team can lose one match but win another, and at the end in the pivot table all losses and victories will be recorded, and as a result, each match matters to the team (total score). here you win or lose the zone t2, t3, t4 (match) is not important, anyway the outcome of the battle (and the receipt of equipment) will be decided in the very last match (city siege). I don’t think that teams in football would be very worried about losing in a regular match if the winner were decided only in the last game.
I just wanted to say this when I said that people are not to blame for the fact that they see no reason to protect zones and forts.
Ok, more clear for me (sorry, my english understanding is meeehhh). What i call the "rushing ahead" symdrom. Because i have all what i need (at a personnal level) in Ruin farming, i don't do it anymore. Because i got all i need in Gunbad, i don't do it anymore, because got everything i need in ORvR, i don't do it anymore. On this we agree together, there is a lack of reason to involve in but the fight itself (which would be a good reason so far).

Now, solving this issue is not as simple as some would think. If we put even at as a minor part fort and city content in ORvR, why cities and fort would be interesting ? They wouldn't. In an extreme perspective, we could only let nordland and praag area open and forget all the rest (cause a single football field is enough for 2 football teams). Obvioulsy such solution is a no go. No need to say that having gear who doesn't need any maintenance doesn't help to maintain interest of all parts of the game.

User avatar
Ytendra
Posts: 69

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#33 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:06 pm

Wam wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:56 am
...
Look at ORVR now post city siege with 12 hour lockout it kills the campaign... there is no incentives for people to fight or push zones as before... because loot and gear progression is all tied into it and very convoluted. I know Dev's are against killing rewarding... but since you added new tiers of gear... Maybe throw Warlord into Forts, and Invader into kills to try stimulate activity as a potential suggestion. Or make warlord its own currency and high amount needed but bound to kills(to encourage fighting) so people feel like they are getting something when they are pushing dead zones which otherwise give them nothing for doing it, and nothing after it as the campaign/city is on lockdown.
...
I very much promote this. I currently found myself in an edge case, where I can only progress through Forts to equip BiS items that drop in the City. I was quite unlucky with acquiring Invader set and with my limited play time, I have only 1 piece drop to one of my 3 characters in the past 9 months.
What is your stance on currency conversion 5 Vanq > 1 Invader or even 25 Vanq > 1 Invader?

flintboth
Posts: 439

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#34 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:13 pm

Why have made the AOE so important that encourage all of this behaviours ???
Make the AOE less important, encourage the technic for the campaign progression with the game mechanics to reach RvR gear.
Currently RvR design is well but the Campaign Progression don't require any real strategy, that just encourage zerg and AOE, warcamp farm...
Why encourage unbrain side of players ?

There are no real cogs between zones, all is straight line.

Give a score to reach for Forts and for the City seige; Every map locked in campaign give one or some points... Or an other system...

Make a relic buff in place of the Lord, Lord who encourage unbrain playing...

All is designed to drive players to play with two key and follow a line.

This game have big possibility but today it look little.

(scoring viewtopic.php?f=15&t=34268&p=382576&hil ... ts#p382576 )
Last edited by flintboth on Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:23 pm, edited 3 times in total.
test monkey 076 (test failure)

User avatar
Musica
Posts: 71

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#35 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:34 pm

Hi, i would like to propose two small ideas to promote gameplay and it's new additions.

- Once a faction pushes to 2 forts, no matter the outcome of the forts, City Siege will happen with the attackers being the side that was attacking the forts.

- Remove lock on City Siege, implement locks on bags for 12h after winning a bag.

Reasoning:
The first covers the issue of the forts being thrown. Gear progression or not, City Siege is fun and mostly lagless, let us participate in it because it's fun. If once a faction has pushed to two forts City Siege happens anyway, there is no need to throw the fort as it is already assured and the collective efforts of both the faction are rewarded.

The second one covers the most widespread issue that can be "taken out" the "feedbacks" that players are giving right now. It's hard to participate in a City Siege that has a 12 hours lockdown and a huge collective effort to happen. If the cd is removed and it's placed on bags, people will push to city at any times, incentivized by the fact that City Siege may happen and they can participate in it, bag or not. The lockdown of 12h on a bag, once won, assures that the original purpose to not let people acquire all the gear in a matter of 2 days will still be preserved.
Image

User avatar
Alfa1986
Posts: 330

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#36 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 1:36 pm

Yaliskah wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:34 pm
Alfa1986 wrote:
Thu Feb 13, 2020 12:00 pm
I completely agree with you, but I will add that the players not only have nothing to lose in case of loss, they also have nothing to get in case of winning.)) anyway, even in case of loss, they will get the city siege and will take their carrots, and it does not matter how the faction fought before. let's take football as an example, there is a competition, a team can lose one match but win another, and at the end in the pivot table all losses and victories will be recorded, and as a result, each match matters to the team (total score). here you win or lose the zone t2, t3, t4 (match) is not important, anyway the outcome of the battle (and the receipt of equipment) will be decided in the very last match (city siege). I don’t think that teams in football would be very worried about losing in a regular match if the winner were decided only in the last game.
I just wanted to say this when I said that people are not to blame for the fact that they see no reason to protect zones and forts.
Ok, more clear for me (sorry, my english understanding is meeehhh). What i call the "rushing ahead" symdrom. Because i have all what i need (at a personnal level) in Ruin farming, i don't do it anymore. Because i got all i need in Gunbad, i don't do it anymore, because got everything i need in ORvR, i don't do it anymore. On this we agree together, there is a lack of reason to involve in but the fight itself (which would be a good reason so far).

Now, solving this issue is not as simple as some would think. If we put even at as a minor part fort and city content in ORvR, why cities and fort would be interesting ? They wouldn't. In an extreme perspective, we could only let nordland and praag area open and forget all the rest (cause a single football field is enough for 2 football teams). Obvioulsy such solution is a no go. No need to say that having gear who doesn't need any maintenance doesn't help to maintain interest of all parts of the game.

I try my best to write correctly, I apologize in advance if I make mistakes.)


1. Why can’t you transfer part of the equipment to orvr? You can. the first obvious decision is to do quests to get royal crests (as an example
-1000 (10000) kills in the RVR;
- 3 participation in the capture of the fort;
- 10 zones won.). or something like that. in any case, people will seek to participate in forts and sieges, because from quests will have to be collected by the set for several years)).
2. to create the situation that the capture of each zone, and each fort would affect the overall victory. I proposed the idea of ​​scoring points, someone does not like this idea, well, let them suggest another. main message it is the capture each zone must be important.
3. the losing side (fraction) must lose something in the event of a loss, or at least not gain. for example, in city sieges, giving her is not sovereign but a warlord, or an invader. the idea is that only the winning side of all campaign from t2 to SS could receive the best equipment (or weapons), so that all factions would have an incentive not just to wait until the city sieges happen, but that the city siege of the enemy city would happen. someone may say that then no one will come to defend the city, but it seems to me that they will come. because the warlord is also a good set, and secondly for a while participation in city sieges can be done on x2 to getting a renown.

User avatar
wargrimnir
Head Game Master
Posts: 5740
Contact:

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#37 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 2:47 pm

The only concern I have with loot distribution is that it may be too fast as we are aiming for 1 city siege per day, or less. But that's what we get with a playerbase so desperate for gear they're literally setting alarm clocks for the cooldowns. That's dedication, and just because people who put in the EXTRA time and effort and go out of their way to get something you aren't willing to get, doesn't mean we're changing how fast everyone else can get it.

We're not adding crests or invader to kills, or kill quests, or anything else aside from the content those currencies are earned from. That's why the prices are as low as they are.

I get that people just want to play the smashy smashy game because that's about as complex as they can handle in 30 minute bursts as their million other responsibilities prevent them from playing any longer than that. That's rough, I feel bad for you truly. Play something that rewards your spastic desires.

We have for a very long time been standing behind doing the work to get the gear. I don't intend to back away from that with the final top tier sets of the game.

Whether or not people still want to play the RvR campaign for the sake of it being a fun/enteraining gameplay loop is up to you.
Image
[email protected]nofreckoning.com for exploits and cheaters.
grimnir.me Some old WAR blog

User avatar
Tiamath
Posts: 32

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#38 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:21 pm

If the gear progression is most powerful carrot on a stick then I think puting some gear towards regular T4 is suitable. Or at least fraction of already implemented?
Maybe some long grind currency? I wish to stand close to people that cant invest that much time to the game, yesterday I participated in a fort then waited in a city queue (without pop sadly, i was among that few people that queued solo- **** happened).
How to encourage the fight in zones? Someone mentioned rvr quests, great idea - (those might me mutual one side must X, second must prevent it so attention of both realms are focused towards some goal)
Another idea to wide up the horizon, regular T4 sieges might offer some feature of better loot if they are at higher star. 4 Star keep should offer greater rewards that might encourage more supplies control, this can be connected with quests too. I think that winning a siege against 4 star keep is an achievement greater than City instance.
If both keeps are high stars then loot might be close to City/Fort equal since both realm worked their ass off, total amount of supplies brought might be promoted too somehow that breaking the stalemate is a feat too.
Max star keep that locks the zone could also get the City loot at some degree.

EDIT that post was written before Wargrimnir response appeared
Next stop? The frontline ...

Ads
flintboth
Posts: 439

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#39 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:42 pm

That look a good thing to increase reward in connection with keep rank.
For defender and attacker.

Other good thing I have read, loser have to lose something.

This morning, for Eataine defence, no one (ecxept a little number) have spend any supplies to rank our keep and this happen many times on the battlefield.
Who defending ? Who attacking ? When the role have been chosen, defensers don't work for supplies (not all but many) and we all know reach rank 3 close all posterns and make the defense more easy.
test monkey 076 (test failure)

User avatar
Collateral
Posts: 1494

Re: Throwing Forts

Post#40 » Thu Feb 13, 2020 3:43 pm

So no-lifers who will get the gear in 2 weeks or less is what the server rewards, cuz that's 'putting in effort'. And those who play normally can forget about getting end game gear eventually by being consistent and putting in effort in a different way over a longer period of time (and I'm not talking about '30 minute bursts'), because reasons. That's just brilliant design innit.

And lets make this clear. Me not wanting to get up in 3-4 in the morning means I'm not 'willing' to get new gear? Gotcha.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Tayl0r, zak68 and 32 guests