[Feedback & Suggestions] Game Design Feedback

[Jevanko]

When I heard this game was rebooted I was quite excited, it was one of the first games I really got into.
When I started playing, I was very positive with most of the changes and think the guys working on this project have done a great job. In particular I really like the introduction of a PUG scenario queue and the overal class balance, which anyone can agree to, is much better now. Overall I am very positive towards this project and really appreciate the effort that is going into it.

I do have some suggestions/feedback though on the current state of the game and some of the changes made. I have been working in game development for a while now and although I am no game designer, as a producer I am very much involved with game design and hope my suggestions/insights could be helpful.

-First, the most impactful and imo bad things that has happened: The changes to avoidance.
This has been extremely frustrating to play with, the RNG based avoidance always was questionable, but at least with high damage stats it wasn't very noticeable. I think the 'bug' with it was never fixed as it simply was much worse with it fixed.
Why is this bad? Right now first of all, across the board players have a high rng based chance to avoid your actions. The reason this is bad is can be demonstrated by a simple example. Let's say I am a SW, I am in a 1v1 situation with a marauder, he pulls me (high chance to disrupt), I use my self kb, he uses charge to close the gap, I use vengeance and takedown (can be dodged). The game functions in a way where a lot of classes rely on specific classes rely on their important abilities to fight. If this SW's takedown got dodged he just lost his only cc/snare and can do w/e he wants, he won't beat a marauder in melee. The SW might be a superior player in every way, but if he just gets bad RNG on his takedown he cannot to beat this marauder. The same the other way around, if the marauders pull gets disrupted he loses one of his abilities to close the gap and the SW will still have two tools to disengage. The marauder could be 10x better a player than the SW but if he has bad luck with the RNG there is nothing he can do.
In general the RNG avoidances are only frustrating and don't enhance gameplay or make it more fun. They make defensive tanks unkillable and healing too powerful. And above all, they make the outcome of fights often rely on RNG, which is the most frustrating thing, to lose a fight because of bad luck rather than making a mistake or being outplayed.
What I propose as a fix is remove avoidances completely.
Keep 100% avoidances, like shieldwall, repel blasphemy, confusing movements, etc. But make all % based avoidance damage reductions instead. So give shields a x% damage block on everything. Give classes or renown abilities (Although the avoidance renown abilities are ridiculous atm) that can increase their parry by x%, a x% damage reduction against melee attacks from the front and so forth with all avoidances. This keeps the effectiveness of those abilities, but removes the RNG. Abilities that require a certain avoidance to be available could get another trigger to be available, or this requirement could be removed and the ability slightly nerfed.

-Secondly, higher gear sets should not have increased armor values. Atm the balance between physical damage dealers and magic damage dealers is fairly good. While at the higher gear levels on live this was completely off-balance. Sorcs/BW would be extremely OP and most physical damage dealers (some exceptions) would be less powerful. I think at the current state this is a lot more balanced.
The issue was that mdps and even cloth users could get tank level armor values with the highest gear sets. These higher gear sets already gave far superior stats, there is no need to also give them additional armor values.
This solves 2 issues. One, the balance between physical and magical damage will remain more stable. Two, it is less hard for new players coming into t4 to get into the game.

This leads us on to another issue, the difficulty for new players who reach t4 to get competitive. New players might be turned of once they reach tier 4 and get obliterated by highly experienced players with high renown ranks and gear. They have 3 things holding them back: RR, Gear and Experience (playing).
The experience factor is challenging and the skill factor, this is what drives players to improve and stay. However, the gear and renown ranks might form too large an obstacle for them to overcome and they can lose motivation. Losing playerbase.
I think the game would profit from making gear a little less impactful, keep it rewarding to gain new gear, but not too rewarding to make it unfair. Right now and in the past especially it used to be balanced more towards the unfair part. I think the suggestion for armor values would be a first step in the right direction. This will also be a indirect buff for tanks as they will be the only ones capping armor.

-Thirdly, to expand on the experience/skill part of the game. This is a driving factor behind many games, players want to improve their skills and get better. The general design philosophy should be to increase the skill cap, as the game is relatively low demanding. I am not suggesting to completely change the game, but just add little tweaks.
An example, remove the gcd from abilities such as the kisses or bullets from WE/WH so they are stimulated to change them based on situation.
Another one, give marauders and SW short duration buffs when changing mutation/stance to stimulate stance dancing.
There are many other small things that can be done to improve the skill cap and give players something to improve on in their playstyles.

-Fourth, the reduced range of tab targeting. I don't see why tab targeting range was reduced. I can imagine two reasons, one it allowed to 'look' behind walls or two it was meant as a nerf to ranged characters. In case of the first, it did not fix anything, that is still possible, the range is just shorter. This change makes players have to click targets, which is just very annoying in this game. I can see why you would want a low development time fix to the seeing through walls thing, but this didn't fix it and just made the quality of life poorer especially for ranged characters. A second possibility would be that it was done as a way to nerf ranged characters. If this is the case, I think this is a very poor way of balancing as it reduces quality of life to achieve a nerf. Then just nerf the rdps rather than reduce their quality of life. Also with all the melee trains I don't think ranged characters necessarily need a nerf.


This is basically my feedback on progress made and the explanation for why I view things this way.
I think the general direction the game has been taken is definitely for the best! However, I think the suggestions I propose in this post are low development time (because the devs are volunteers after all) changes that would improve the overal experience in the game.

[dansari]

I played live but did not really achieve any high rr characters. What I've heard is that the balance is much, much better than it was on live. Yes, conq > Anni, but not by much. You can be pretty comparable in beastlord/Merc which doesn't take long to obtain as a fresh 40. The main thing you miss is RR, but honestly the most deciding factor is how well you play the game. There's already a high skill cap on most classes (even on sorcs - there are good sorcs and bad sorcs).

The devs will not balance around a 1v1 scenario. As a SW, is it hard to beat a Marauder? Maybe, depending on RNG, but that doesn't make it a good reason to get rid of RNG. Get rid of RNG and you might get something like a Fester bomb turn from a gimmick to a viable spec (if you're never going to have the chance to dodge or block my 100% dmg increase, negate resistance, 3s cast time shot, maybe I do run it as an option).

I agree on your last two points: we should have incentives for new players to learn their classes and I would love to have tab targeting at 100ft (but I'm betting the devs have those low on a priority list, and I'm not sure they even want/can change the range of tab targeting).

[Jevanko]

I played live but did not really achieve any high rr characters. What I've heard is that the balance is much, much better than it was on live. Yes, conq > Anni, but not by much. You can be pretty comparable in beastlord/Merc which doesn't take long to obtain as a fresh 40. The main thing you miss is RR, but honestly the most deciding factor is how well you play the game. There's already a high skill cap on most classes (even on sorcs - there are good sorcs and bad sorcs).

Yes, as I said I think the balance is good now. The feedback I gave was intended at sustaining this balance with also a longer term vision in mind.

The devs will not balance around a 1v1 scenario. As a SW, is it hard to beat a Marauder? Maybe, depending on RNG, but that doesn't make it a good reason to get rid of RNG. Get rid of RNG and you might get something like a Fester bomb turn from a gimmick to a viable spec (if you're never going to have the chance to dodge or block my 100% dmg increase, negate resistance, 3s cast time shot, maybe I do run it as an option).

I did not suggest to balance around 1v1 scenarios anywhere in my post.
I think you misunderstood the point I tried to make and suggestion I offered.

I agree on your last two points: we should have incentives for new players to learn their classes and I would love to have tab targeting at 100ft (but I'm betting the devs have those low on a priority list, and I'm not sure they even want/can change the range of tab targeting).

As I wrote in my post, it has been reduced. It used to be 100 ft, or possibly a little further even?

[dansari]

Spoiler:

I played live but did not really achieve any high rr characters. What I've heard is that the balance is much, much better than it was on live. Yes, conq > Anni, but not by much. You can be pretty comparable in beastlord/Merc which doesn't take long to obtain as a fresh 40. The main thing you miss is RR, but honestly the most deciding factor is how well you play the game. There's already a high skill cap on most classes (even on sorcs - there are good sorcs and bad sorcs).

Yes, as I said I think the balance is good now. The feedback I gave was intended at sustaining this balance with also a longer term vision in mind.

Got it. Yes, I agree.

Spoiler:

The devs will not balance around a 1v1 scenario. As a SW, is it hard to beat a Marauder? Maybe, depending on RNG, but that doesn't make it a good reason to get rid of RNG. Get rid of RNG and you might get something like a Fester bomb turn from a gimmick to a viable spec (if you're never going to have the chance to dodge or block my 100% dmg increase, negate resistance, 3s cast time shot, maybe I do run it as an option).

I did not suggest to balance around 1v1 scenarios anywhere in my post.
I think you misunderstood the point I tried to make and suggestion I offered.

Well, you mentioned a 1v1 fight against a marauder potentially impacting your skill level or who wins the fight because of avoidance -- something that is less impactful in a wb v wb scenario or 6v6 scenario. Your inherent weaknesses as a class are covered by the strengths of other classes.

[th3gatekeeper]

-First, the most impactful and imo bad things that has happened: The changes to avoidance.
What I propose as a fix is remove avoidances completely.
Keep 100% avoidances, like shieldwall, repel blasphemy, confusing movements, etc. But make all % based avoidance damage reductions instead. So give shields a x% damage block on everything. Give classes or renown abilities (Although the avoidance renown abilities are ridiculous atm) that can increase their parry by x%, a x% damage reduction against melee attacks from the front and so forth with all avoidances. This keeps the effectiveness of those abilities, but removes the RNG. Abilities that require a certain avoidance to be available could get another trigger to be available, or this requirement could be removed and the ability slightly nerfed.

My issue with this is that this game is already VERY heavily leaned towards RDPS meta. Many melee classes or tanks rely heavily on dodge/disrupt to even stand a chance. Frankly its not that hard to kite. Removing avoidance, only furthers this gap since there really are only a handful of melee abilities that would benefit from being unable to be avoided (like Mara pull) but there are countless ranged abilities that can be used to kite.

Also another major issue with this is guard damage. Tanks stack very high parry and block to mitigate (aka avoid) guard damage. Now, here your proposal MIGHT work, however I would need to see it tested. Rather than blocking 7 out of 10 hits and having those 3 hit you for 80 each (just an example) you would take 80*10 hits but 70% of that is mitigated. More "constant" less "burst". So I can see this working.

The only way I see this "removal of RNG" thing working would be if you increased melee range, gave all melee "Sprint" and/or increased run speed because all I see this doing is making an already "kite meta" even more of a RDPS kite meta... So thats my concern.

-Secondly, higher gear sets should not have increased armor values. Atm the balance between physical damage dealers and magic damage dealers is fairly good.
The issue was that mdps and even cloth users could get tank level armor values with the highest gear sets. These higher gear sets already gave far superior stats, there is no need to also give them additional armor values.

I agree with you here. I even think we have already CROSSED the point where armor should be and IMO it should be put back to the Merc/Anni level of armor... I took a break after getting full Merc set and my SC weapon... when I came back I felt I was hitting like a wet noodle... My damage had gone down considerably from the new armor sets (such as BL, Domi, etc.)

To add, we ALREADY have MDPS that get "tank level armor" heck a DOK buddy of mine using armor talis and armor pots has more armor than my tank without armor talis... So he is able to basically become a "tank" without being a tank... Its rather silly IMO.

This leads us on to another issue, the difficulty for new players who reach t4 to get competitive. New players might be turned of once they reach tier 4 and get obliterated by highly experienced players with high renown ranks and gear. They have 3 things holding them back: RR, Gear and Experience (playing).

I think the game would profit from making gear a little less impactful, keep it rewarding to gain new gear, but not too rewarding to make it unfair. Right now and in the past especially it used to be balanced more towards the unfair part. I think the suggestion for armor values would be a first step in the right direction. This will also be a indirect buff for tanks as they will be the only ones capping armor.

I would tend to agree. Rather than power creep, id rather focus on cosmetics. People go BANANAS for cosmetics. Heck, I have been roaming around doing ALL the low tier influence rewards just on the off chance I find a new weapon skin I like. People ALMOST care more about the stigma attached to a "rare cosmetic" than they do about the power of that item itself...

The other option here is a lateral gear move that also combined cosmetics... So it has all the same stat allocation, maybe a few things swapped around a bit to give more "options". Both work. But creating a larger and larger "power gap" isnt good - I agree. If it were up to me, we would completely remove "sets" and they would introduce each piece of gear with distinct significant bonuses. So you "break up" set piece bonuses in favor of each piece having its own unique benefits. What I think of when I say this are the Lair Boss items. These items come with all sorts of fun stuff that are normally reserved for set bonuses. Another good example is the current Dominator Sets. You have "reduce chance to be blocked" and "AA haste" etc. I would remove all set bonuses, increase these bonuses and then let players mix n match sets. They might like 3 pieces from an RVR set and 2 pieces from SCs and 2 pieces they currently own etc - all WITHOUT set bonuses. It gives players more choice and doesnt make them feel like "well I really cant use XXX until I have 3 pieces for the set bonuses"

Then you can much more easily create "lateral options" rather than power creep... Because you might (in the end) just end up with having like 5 or 6 "sets" of gear that represent ALL options of stats and bonuses on each individual piece... meaning.... You might grab Dominator Shoulders (AA haste) and (insert new set) Helm that also has AA haste and... (insert new set B) boots with AA haste and you end up stacking super high AA haste becuse thats your "build" you want.... You got AA haste from like 5 different sets - and didnt need to worry about "set bonuses". Which now allows NEW players to not be as far behind the curve when they get Ruin for the first time in T4.

THAT SAID... The current "power gap" isnt HUGE... Getting Ruin is doable which lands you in the "T4 is doable" camp IMO. Especially for non gear centric classes like healers and maybe SnB tanks.

-Thirdly, to expand on the experience/skill part of the game. This is a driving factor behind many games, players want to improve their skills and get better. The general design philosophy should be to increase the skill cap, as the game is relatively low demanding. I am not suggesting to completely change the game, but just add little tweaks.
An example, remove the gcd from abilities such as the kisses or bullets from WE/WH so they are stimulated to change them based on situation.
Another one, give marauders and SW short duration buffs when changing mutation/stance to stimulate stance dancing.
There are many other small things that can be done to improve the skill cap and give players something to improve on in their playstyles.

See I think the skill "floor" should be raised while at the same time raising the skill ceiling. I wont go into my "Guard is obsolete mechanic" rant now.. but I can see several ways to improve several mechanics to make it more fun, easier for a newer player to use, but to "master" them it takes more skill to know how to use them. Id say this is FAR down the priority list IMO and Id rather them do many number of things.

-Fourth, the reduced range of tab targeting. I don't see why tab targeting range was reduced.

Actually this was discussed before. I forget the reason why, but there IS a legit reason for this and it has something to do with limitations. I wouldnt bark up this tree too much because there is some legit rationale here from what I remember.

[flintboth]

I played live but did not really achieve any high rr characters. What I've heard is that the balance is much, much better than it was on live. Yes, conq > Anni, but not by much. You can be pretty comparable in beastlord/Merc which doesn't take long to obtain as a fresh 40. The main thing you miss is RR, but honestly the most deciding factor is how well you play the game. There's already a high skill cap on most classes (even on sorcs - there are good sorcs and bad sorcs).

The problem is the sum of differents parameters.
The T4 is not a PvP area, when you speak about player, group, warband balance in a designated Tier you can't compare a set to another set without taking into account all the parameters; Most of the time players are grouped and they are grouped to be the more powerfull as possible.
If you have a group level 40 rr 40/60 high geared fighting a group of some differents level characters (40 + 37+ 32 + 38 + 35 + 33) all those little differences you take one by one become too powerfull to give a nice battle balance.
There is a difference between an entire group of high characters who have 70/80 renown points to spend + some skills regardless of different level characters accepted on the T4 than a group of characters who have 30 or 40 renown points to spend and less skills, less gear (and I don't speak about the pots levels and the talismins level).
In sum of result, the battles are less interesant for everyone because there is too much differences between characters players on a designated Tier.
New comers on a Tier stay at the Warcamp because no one want them because they are not optimised/competitiv, they finaly do scenario or disconnect or if it's possible they joins the first Open WarBand running the RvR lake, that mean it's a full WarBand of low rr/xp geared characters, that mean they are easy food for high rr/xp geared characters grouped together.
There is no game here, only a designated Tier for high characters, easy to win.
New comers must have a good chance when they are grouped against old characters when they are grouped together, most of the time players with high characters are grouped together to be competitiv to be the more powerfull as possible and simply because they are friends and they have level up their characters togethers, we all know that.
The battle is lost in advance, this is for those reasons players with low characters stay at the War Camp or leave the game if there is no open warband, because they can't group together, this is suicid; They just waiting for a nice open WB compromise, but most of the time the Open WarBand are not competitiv because of that, too much low characters level inside.

The T4 RvR live server was horible about this but the T4 RvR of the private server is not better about this
The T4 on live was for level 39/40 only and it was easy to up rr 70/80 on T3 RvR, most of players was informed about the importance of take the much rr they can on the T3 before to go on the T4 and it was possible to win this double RR on the low Tiers, because they was active and the gain of rr was more interesant than the xp gain; Here on the private server the low Tiers are not active most of the time.
This is not possible on private server because the rr gain win is less important than your xp gain, than it was on live server, here your renown rank are always less or equal as your experience rank.
In summary, new players can't level up their characters decently to come and play on the Tier 4.

[dansari]

Ok. You're comparing a high rr60 group to a group of comparable classes in their mid 30s. Of course the mid 30s group is not going to stand a chance. They're probably all in ruin gear. Can they even use a 60% mount at that level? There are so many variables that occur when you talk about balance and it's completely thrown off when the class isn't even 40 yet. Most of them are probably missing great tactics or abilities that you don't get until 40, and they're going to be missing out on maybe one renown ability or some decent passive stats.

Are you arguing that a mid 30s group should be competitive against a high rr60 group? Where do you draw the line in regard to balance? In my opinion you shouldn't expect to see good results until you are at least 40/40 in T4, so until you hit that point: get your entry level pve sets, debolster into T3 for the renown, etc.

[Tesq]

in live was pretty easy arrive to rr 50, i done that in 2 days ..... lock payed a lot and you could just join and get one with out any contribution sytem so while yes that was leeching that also help close fast the gap.
At least that worked good till rr 50 more or less.

The renown gap there is between 1 set higer and 20-30 renown point more is abysall. MY conqueror is so many times better than my ruin with same renown point think about with many more...

also lower rank mean 1 tactic less and no moral 4.

-morales
-and tactic

should be given when you enter that tier or very immidiatly after it.

also the discrepancy between base skill stat and renown skill is the last and worst of all problem

10 renown points give you 36 tough or resolute defense

this is stupid as low level struggle to get ok stats while bigger level spend chep to get renown skills and alredy have better stats via itiems.....

Do really resolute defense is = 36 toughness? not at all...

[dansari]

There are alternatives to this "hit 40 or die" mentality as well. We had a rag tag guild group last night that included a 33WL and later a 34 engi. Was the WL "competitive?" Not very, because as Tesq said he's missing a fourth tactic, doesn't have key abilities like Fetch, etc. Did that matter? I mean a little, but not to the point where we didn't have fun and win most of our scenarios. Do I think the game can be more solo player friendly? Yes. Do I think a lvl 35 SH should beat me 1v1 on my SW? If he plays well enough he might, but simply by being higher level and having more experience and RR to show for it on my class, he's going to have a hard time of it.

Edit: do I think a 40/40 SH has a better chance of beating me 1v1? Yes, and that's how it should be.

[Tesq]

there are no alternaty you always play with a disadvanatge as new player that's a firm point , whatever this disadvanatge is big or few enough to allow in most majority of situation to have fun is the question. Ask that for yourself but my ansewer is that a lot of ppl from live always felt frustration due what i wrote above.