Genisaurus wrote: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.
This is again a somewhat troubling viewpoint from someone titled "developer". And it shows that there's still some way to go before such a title can be fully embraced.
What you seem to be doing (in tune with a lot of others in this thread) is advocating a system that's divided between Winners and Loosers, the Haves and the Have Nots. Or the Donald Trump way of life, if you will.
What you seem to forget in that equation is that RoR is a society - a gaming society, yes, but a society nevertheless. And just as in real societies, where, if you divide your population into Winners and Loosers (where the winners take all and the loosers get nothing) you will have a society that will eventually collapse on itself. Or at the very least not be able to sustain itself.
A better way would be to adopt a more holistic approach, the Ying-Yang method. Or the Bernie Sanders way of life. This would require an acknowledgement of the RoR gaming society as functioning whole, where we are all equally winners and loosers and where everybody is cared for. Having a gaming society, where one side is dominating with no chance of reward/advancement for the opposing side will end up with the winning side the only side left in the game.
This is also why I actually think that zone looser and defence ticks were an excellent idea. Some will of course puff themselves up and yell that loosers shouldn't get ****, but as a consesquence the current system is now plagued by x-realming instead (and I suspect the majority of those are the ones with the "winners rock" attitude). At some point a certain amount of players start relogging to their toons on the winning side, when they sense how the tide of WAR is going, to get the spoils and rewards. Is that a better, more fair, system?
Looser ticks, affected by aao, helps to diminish this sort of behaviour. Defence ticks would do the same. And awarding at least a single emblem for the loosing side in a scenario, would also add to this - and give the loosing player/side a sense of advancement. The original developers saw and knew this. As it is now, the rewards for defending/being on the loosing side are very few - which of course leads to people relogging to the winning side.
It's been scientifically proven that the more fair and even a society is, the better it is - even for the winners. Look it up. It's on google.
Fortunately my inet is not fast enough.
