[Scenario] Emblem reward system

[Ghostweed]

Coming up next week: 'I demand to have Sovereign gear made accessible to me via T1 lair bosses, as I can't realistically farm the currency for them and don't have a group'

Be more dramatic, u are getting old.

"i wanna have my reward for doing nothing".
OY VEY

Do u even read bro, or u just posting random ****?

If you feel that getting roflstomped in a scenario is a waste of your precious time, maybe there are other games that are more your style? To just hand things out freely to make things a bit more 'fair', isn't that called Socialism? Also, if you can't take the time to prepare a proper group before you enter the competition that is a scenario, then I do not believe you deserve free handouts. Hey you clicked a button, here's a freebie.

Really? Like really? I didnt started this topic, I just posted my opinion in mature way and now everyone is attacking me, telling me that I picked the wrong game. Is this some kind of intelectual blackout or what? Do ppl actually ready the posts before commenting on it?

For the last time: I have everything what can be bought by emblems, got 600+ of em, I dont have army of chars for leveling.

Also u dont get stuff for free in Socialism, get yourself educated git!

Geez this community is toxic as hell, full of smacktards and elitists.

[DefinitelyNotWingz]

Or maybe it is just you ghostweed who has unrealistic expectations towards RoR.

[Ghostweed]

Or maybe it is just you ghostweed who has unrealistic expectations towards RoR.

lol wot? did u read what I posted or u just jumped on the smacktard bandwagon? But u are right, enabling escape portal from sc with Quitter debuff (as in live) is highly unrealictic

[zabis]

So it wasn't Thomas Paine that wanted to tax property owners to pay for the needs of the poor?

[Genisaurus]

Not going to happen, for the same reason most people don't want to see pity-ticks from losing a zone brought back. Now, RvR is a different beast, but in short: rewards are for winners. We'd rather help a weaker side by trying to even the odds for them, than to reward their failure outright.

I hope that there's enough evidence now to show the community that our direction with scenarios is to make them as even a fight as we can, within the constraints of reality that we're given (e.g. population). It will never be a perfectly even match-up but we're trying to cut down on how far that pendulum swings in either direction. You meet us halfway, take the fairest fight we can give you, and take that last step to close the deal. In return, we reward you for trying.

I would be more inclined to give an emblem to a team that couldn't manage to get 100 points, if we weren't also working to give them a more even fight. If we roll back all attempts to add more balance to scenarios entirely, you can have your 1 emblem for losing that badly. As-is, the current system can already be viewed as a concession to the losing team, compared to what we had maybe 4 months ago: 2 emblems for winning, 0 for losing.

[mursie]

I hope that there's enough evidence now to show the community that our direction with scenarios is to make them as even a fight as we can

I have not seen that evidence. I play premades nightly and I also solo que. I have seen nothing of balance on either side of the pendulum.

Please create the following:

1. An SC that only allows premade groups to que. Let them flex their peens
2. An SC that only allows solo pugs to que.
3. ALL other SC's open to any and ALL combinations of que'ers.

I do not want to be rude, but the matchmaking system, in my exposure to it, has been a complete failure. I do not see balanced groups now in ques... far from it. I can't even count anymore the # of sc's that have zero healers etc... under a supposed matchmaking rule. Now I do understand that this could be a population constraint... and so be it. But please, hear me out on this point:

If #1 and #2 are implemented above, I do not think you even need match making role based que's. #1 already balances itself as parties bring what they think they need to win. #2 is nothing but solo que randoms... balanced comps will likewise be random...and honestly... 12 dps vs 6dps and 6healers in a completely solo que random pug sc can still be completely viable. It is only when you introduce coordination and organization via groups that the imbalance of composition becomes exacerbated and displayed to full degree.

If the above is implemented I believe you will see the following:

#1 will give serious hardcore players the opportunity to flex their epeen. We all know this particular scenario que will likely stay empty most of the time since the majority of players are not hardcore and the few that think they are will likely dodge one another. None the less... they still should be given the opportunity to feign like they have an epeen.

#2 will be a widely popular scenario with alot of pops. individuals from all comps will participate in group play scenarios and you will largely have the kind of reckless fun you see in T1 scenarios that don't have twink guilds abusing poor newbies.

#3 will also be a popping avenue of ALL other sc's as duos/trios/quads and even solo'ers that want to branch out more..will que for.

Finally - to appease those who want to hold those poor salty trash pugs down... go ahead and implement the following reward system for scenario #2. 1/2 the emblems that would have been received in the scenario in #1 or #3. (i.e. if you win at 500 points in a pug sc... you get 3 emblems instead of 6). I still wager that many many people will que for option #2 at 1/2 the emblem rate because that is the majority of the playerbase.

Thanks for your time.

[Scrilian]

There is a big post on why you should not do that, please respond to it in the Scenario Balancing thread.

[DefinitelyNotWingz]

1. An SC that only allows premade groups to que. Let them flex their peens
2. An SC that only allows solo pugs to que.
3. ALL other SC's open to any and ALL combinations of que'ers.

People queueing for those scenarios:

1. exactly one premade
2. pugs-only
3. premades-only

I put a reality filter over your blabla, hope you dont mind.

[Genisaurus]

I hope that there's enough evidence now to show the community that our direction with scenarios is to make them as even a fight as we can

I have not seen that evidence. I play premades nightly and I also solo que. I have seen nothing of balance on either side of the pendulum.

Please create the following:

1. An SC that only allows premade groups to que. Let them flex their peens
2. An SC that only allows solo pugs to que.
3. ALL other SC's open to any and ALL combinations of que'ers.

I do not want to be rude, but the matchmaking system, in my exposure to it, has been a complete failure. I do not see balanced groups now in ques... far from it. I can't even count anymore the # of sc's that have zero healers etc... under a supposed matchmaking rule. Now I do understand that this could be a population constraint... and so be it. But please, hear me out on this point:

If #1 and #2 are implemented above, I do not think you even need match making role based que's. #1 already balances itself as parties bring what they think they need to win. #2 is nothing but solo que randoms... balanced comps will likewise be random...and honestly... 12 dps vs 6dps and 6healers in a completely solo que random pug sc can still be completely viable. It is only when you introduce coordination and organization via groups that the imbalance of composition becomes exacerbated and displayed to full degree.

If the above is implemented I believe you will see the following:

#1 will give serious hardcore players the opportunity to flex their epeen. We all know this particular scenario que will likely stay empty most of the time since the majority of players are not hardcore and the few that think they are will likely dodge one another. None the less... they still should be given the opportunity to feign like they have an epeen.

#2 will be a widely popular scenario with alot of pops. individuals from all comps will participate in group play scenarios and you will largely have the kind of reckless fun you see in T1 scenarios that don't have twink guilds abusing poor newbies.

#3 will also be a popping avenue of ALL other sc's as duos/trios/quads and even solo'ers that want to branch out more..will que for.

Finally - to appease those who want to hold those poor salty trash pugs down... go ahead and implement the following reward system for scenario #2. 1/2 the emblems that would have been received in the scenario in #1 or #3. (i.e. if you win at 500 points in a pug sc... you get 3 emblems instead of 6). I still wager that many many people will que for option #2 at 1/2 the emblem rate because that is the majority of the playerbase.

Thanks for your time.

I know that you know that this is something we're working toward. I've publicly said as much in the past, and we've been internally discussing the feedback we received over EC as the 6v6 scenario over CW. These scenarios will be showing up very soon. And like everything else, if this addresses the group composition problems more than the archetype-matchmaking, or the latter somehow interferes with the former, we'll roll it back.

[mursie]

People queueing for those scenarios:

1. exactly one premade
2. pugs-only
3. premades-only

I put a reality filter over your blabla, hope you dont mind.

Considering you said the same thing I did in a cliff notes version - no i don't mind. But it does prove you bring to the table nothing as far as solutions or compromise or even the decency to read the proposal at all.

Still - that you agree with what I am saying yet oppose it makes me laugh. You recognize that the majority of players are the salty trash pugs you detest... but you would rather farm them in spawn camps than be subjected to longer que times against the very very small minority that wish to que as you do.

I know you are very afraid of even having just ONE sc be pug only because you understand the wild popularity it will bring to the game... and the potential discomfort it might bring to your minority few. As someone that also plays premades... it may suck to have fewer 6 man premade pops (although i think #3 will pop because people do enjoy grouping together be it duos/trios/quads/etc...) but to offer no compromise is laughable. Then again, you've already made it clear that you would rather farm pugs then offer compromise...so it is to be expected.