Recent Topics

Ads

Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Let's talk about... everything else

Moderators: Developer, Management, Community Management

User avatar
Rowanmantle
Posts: 191

Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#1 » Sat May 08, 2021 4:44 am

Firstly I want to take a moment to thank you and all those involved who managed to bring this old dead game back to life. I cannot imagine the amount of work it took or the resources you yourself had to invest into this game and running a successful private server.

I have been on this server for a long time since t2 was King and max lvl was 21. I regularly run warbands on both factions and have only recently started being active on destro and it has breathed some life back into the game for me.

Now to address the aforementioned elephant…

This new change you have made regarding the lockout timer in forts I feel is not working as you perhaps envisioned it to. Sure I can see the thought process behind it, stopping people who x-realm only to be on the more dominant sides. However this has now caused issues to those of us who have the option and the characters to play the lesser populated side.

True it was intended to stop x-realming. However if we (my warband) are pushing a city on destro for instance, we have to go into forts to secure the victory of said fort. Or to assist the realm in taking zones. Whereas before we could push the city on either side then swap over to the opposing side and queue for the city we cannot now.

Yes some would say this is the reason the xtended lockout was put in place, but it defeats the logic behind it. Because now we are locked on the more dominant side and cannot even have the option to switch over if it was in our power to do so. Causing there to be another city or even two. So then what is the solution? Do we simply make sign ups and gather our guild mates and friends and prohibit them from entering any fort on either side.

Just so we can have their lockouts saved for when we build our city warbands.

I do not have a great solution to this but perhaps one that if applicable can perhaps still keep the REAL xrealmers at bay.

If a person has been playing on one side for more than 2 hours and 30 minutes they will receive no lockout once entering the fort on either side.
Giving those people the option then to swap to either side of their own free will. Yet keeping the lockout-extender for those who have recently logged in to the more dominant or either less dominant side.

Honestly, there are guilds and discords on this server created solely so that people can be able to play both sides in an organized manner with friends/allies/guilds. However these discords/guilds can no longer do this, unless they prohibit their own members from joining either fort.


I am open to hear any feedback on this, I am also not ignorant and understand why this extender was put in place, yet feel that during NA times it serves little purpose for those who actually want to make a difference in the lakes.

Again thank you for the continued service you do for this server and the many hours of free time you give up to work on this game that we are all so invested in. Truly it is a marvel to still play Warhammer even after so many years since they closed the last few servers.
Rowanmantle /WP
Rowansrage /SL
Rowanbrowan /KOTBS
Rowanthrowan /BW
Rowandark Elf/Dok
Handyrowan /Mara

Image

Ads
Qtpiii
Posts: 24

Re: Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#2 » Sat May 08, 2021 6:43 am

RvR > Fort > City pushes are all won with larger numbers, the whole way a fort is designed specifically creates an imbalance of over 1 warband at player caps. This whole "imbalance" is the ONLY way a city siege is achieved.

A fort lockout timer;

a) Prevents players balancing realms post fort which in turn creates an overpopulated faction and less city instances. Less city instances mean 100s of players miss out on end game content and chance to gear up their toons. Whether you play in organised groups or pugs, you now all have a higher chance miss out on end game content and character progression. This hurts the underpop side as much as the overpop side.
How many players will keep playing when they sit in 30min queues and miss out on cities multiple times per week, when there are more than enough players online for them to have content and progression?

b) Prevents actual organised groups spreading out across the factions in the hopes of having competitive cities and not pure pug stomps. Wasn't this the whole point of the new city matchmaking system?
Competitive endgame keeps those who organise themselves for it interested in the game and playing longer. It also allows strong wbs to organise where to play to face each other and less chance vs'ing pugs, allowing more pug v pug instances and not complete stomp for those who play that way. Is keeping players interested and having higher levels of competition not healthy for the game?

Fort lockout timers, what current benefits outweigh the above?

scutarius
Posts: 7

Re: Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#3 » Sat May 08, 2021 7:47 am

Wouldn't the easiest solution be to just wipe lockout timers on city pop?
Ingbeert
84 WP, 67 Sham

kstyle
Posts: 10

Re: Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#4 » Sat May 08, 2021 7:48 am

Wont affect you guys then Rowan :D

User avatar
Rowanmantle
Posts: 191

Re: Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#5 » Sat May 08, 2021 7:54 am

kstyle wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 7:48 am
Wont affect you guys then Rowan :D
Yet it does, imagine having just spent 3 hours playing, pushing zones, fighting the enemy. Then gaining another lockout in the fort. Queuing for city and never getting a pop, before I use to check pop balance then swap to underdog side and make a city wb on that side and i'm sure many who logged on or who played during this time would do the same. Because in the end you want that end game experience.

Now however it cannot be done...
Rowanmantle /WP
Rowansrage /SL
Rowanbrowan /KOTBS
Rowanthrowan /BW
Rowandark Elf/Dok
Handyrowan /Mara

Image

User avatar
Rowanmantle
Posts: 191

Re: Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#6 » Sat May 08, 2021 7:55 am

scutarius wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 7:47 am
Wouldn't the easiest solution be to just wipe lockout timers on city pop?
This could also be a solution I suppose and perhaps easier then the one I suggested.
Rowanmantle /WP
Rowansrage /SL
Rowanbrowan /KOTBS
Rowanthrowan /BW
Rowandark Elf/Dok
Handyrowan /Mara

Image

User avatar
Ramlaen
Posts: 181

Re: Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#7 » Sat May 08, 2021 7:56 am

There was a very tangible NA pop swing once people couldn't push IC daily on Order then swap to their Destro mains to defend.
Ramlaen, Longhaul, Wolfnrock, Grashop, Popori, Ebichu, Tofurky

Lorsten
Posts: 50

Re: Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#8 » Sat May 08, 2021 7:57 am

Lockouts and ability of dodging and manipulating with queue system has to be removed.
Remove lockouts, make 20 min timer for queueing, then instances start popping. Xrealmers happy, dodgers are screwed, problem solved.
Spoil - 85 RR Sorceress
Liops - 83 RR DoK
Nicebeard - 82 RR Marauder

Ads
User avatar
wonshot
Posts: 818

Re: Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#9 » Sat May 08, 2021 8:01 am

This added restriction is honestly overly catering towards pugs.

The only situations I can think of, for this to even be implimented is if the devs want people to actually play with realmpride and not crossrealm with a campaign forcus. (sorry that is just a dream and outdated in 2021)
Or if there are situations of loweffort players (pugs) who are happily enjoying the zonelock train and renown + bags from tailing behind an organized force like Rowan, but then when it was city time they find themselves playing agaisnt the exact same players who have now swapped realm for city.

But should butthurt feelings from loweffort players matter more than motivation for leaders to actually push the campaign?
for those of us who read the Wargrimnir posts about "pugs" last week, the attitude seem pretty clear towards pugging is a stepping stone to get players more motivated to put in more effort, socialize and get better rewards. But is this change not going against this assumption of how those posts were worded?

I personally dont get affected by this 90min reset timer when participating in fortresses, but I think they are hurting more than they help.
Creating more instances should be the priority, and if one warband will log onto Realm-A and push into Realm-B's city so what. If they will then log over to the underdog realm and provide one more instance is that not a benefit to the game?

If this lockout reset timer has come to stay, maybe change it so it only affects people on the lower populated realm, so people who are on a 60/40 split can relog from 60 to 40 and even out the population to create more instances?
Bombling RR 91
Alts:
Brightwizard SH[BiS] Powerhouse Zealot [vanq] Chopling Choppa[invader] Notbombling Sorc [38twink]
Bombthebuilder Engi[invader/royal]Orderling WP[onslaught] TheBombMan Knight [invader] Bombing SL [invader]

User avatar
Arthem
Posts: 200

Re: Addressing the 90 min Elephant in the room.

Post#10 » Sat May 08, 2021 9:14 am

Imho if one realm has 60% server swing it should become locked anyway.

But anyway people still seriously use words like xrealmer and realm pride in 2021 without an ounce of sarcasm in them. That's the big problem here imho.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kaeldrick and 50 guests