[Feedback & Suggestions] Game Design Feedback

[flintboth]

@Dansari, I m not asking anything, as a player I give my feedback, to the game comunity and for the staffs to have as many points of view as possible in order to refine their works if they think it need it, one day.
My feeling is, if you have too much differences between characters players on a designated Tier, this result a disbalance, this result to have less action in the game and less players to play and less interesting battle (regardles of what I speak in my post above and what Jevanko is speaking).

There is a sum of parameters who disbalance the battle and drive some or many players out of the game, in my point of view.
Do you think a battlefield game must be well balanced between the players or not ?
In that way, do you think it is normal to see on a designated Tier, the more high level characters grouped together fighting against the low level characters gouped together ?
Do you think, in that way, the future of the game is compromised ?
Do you think some players on a dedicated Tier in a battlefield game must dominate it totaly by the opportunity of the gears combined with their rr/xp rank ?
Do you think a game and a battle is interesting and fairlyness on a designated Tier with this style of domination, for a battle game like Warhammer ?
Do you think that the biggest differences between the characters of the players must be between the different Tiers or must be in each Tier ?
Do you think a players accepted in a game, on a Tier, can have a chance to have some fun, some descents battles or his destinity is to be rolled back every time he try to play with his group of friends because they are new comers on a Tier ?
Do you want a conviviality game or a game for those who have the most time to play, for those who have an high characters group ?
Do you think the sum of too much differences between high and low characters on a designated Tier encourage some or many players to up highest group only and exploit this differences for their own benefits, and this can make a game, a battle less interesting than it should be ? Can disbalance a battlefield game ? And finaly kill a good game ?

I don't speak to have no differences, some little in stat but not a sum who drive players with high characters to stay closed and grouped together against new comers.
Difference in gears specificity ok but nothing serious that turn out the skill, the style and the game play secondary.
This is my approach of Warhammer Online, you have a different approach, I don't try and want to convince anyone, all going fine for me in game, I know where is my place in RoR.
Maybe I'm exaggerating and if that's the case what I'm saying has no real impact.

(@Dansari, I agree with you some little difference for new comer but not too much power differences in one Tier, for a battlfield game or it is broken battle, think for balance PvP, think for the groups balance, think for the warband balance; The sum of too much power differences can become really high if some players exploited them, the battle become biased and the battlefield empty, for me this would be really sad)

I just want to write what I think, because one day the game design can change to give more intensity in battle, more competitiveness on the battlefield about the gameplay and the stategy (than more competitiveness for the gears farm and for the rr grind who are currently and tend to become too much important) and some points of view will be necessary for that, no one know...

[dansari]

Got it. I think we all agree that we want a balanced game. I guess my points are more centered around a few key elements:

1. Live was apparently **** for balance, and it is much, much better here in many respects.
2. The devs/GMs are very careful about any changes they make because they are mindful of balance. This is a good thing. Ultimately they set the rules for how balance is achieved.
3. From what I've seen/read/estimate, balance will never be centered around pug (solo queue) play. So, the most advantageous thing you can do to increase your chances of winning in PvP centers around forming a competent group of players that are in voice communication with each other. If you don't want to group up with people to play, that's completely fine, but it's not a balance issue if you get beat by people that are.

[KikkL]

I get flamed for my suggestion of raising Health pool cap by 3/4x its current standing.

The things you talk about are true. Its very harsh for new players, its harsh in general. Fights go so fast. Its promoted as a group game yet 1 player can have the ability to take you down in moments which is contradictive.

If you dont get off xyz ability in most cases you are screwed and even if you do get off xyz ability the fight can be over in moments. A dps player wants you dead as soon as possible, most dps players use a 3/4 button combination for burst, if theyre AP is drained and your not dead it leaves them vulnerable, there is little thought in what happens. Half the time you cannot think during a battle its simple reaction.

A higher base level in health points would allow for mistakes, it would allow for abilities to 'miss', it would allow you to escape people who waste their AP on you. Its getting difficult to play this wondering how much higher hp would help. Dps players would hate it, it would make everyone have to work together, you wouldnt be able to gank as easy, fights would take longer. Defensive abilities would have more impact, the list goes on.

Its my pet peeve about most pvp games today, fights are over in seconds, with a huge emphasis in dps over defensive(unless you are purely tank/def). Im talking about the average player. Im sick of getting beat by people who only need to use a few abilities on you to pull off a win, when its a group game.. Ive made classes just to survive dps players, but thats no fun. I think everyone would enjoy a higher health pool, i think it would make players have to work together more. You could even beat a bad dps player if all theyre doing is wasting AP on you in 5seconds. But no one else seems to understand this or care.
Its disappointing because it would change the whole mechanic of the game. And i believe it would be a better more 'playable' 'group' game.

[Darosh]

Got it. I think we all agree that we want a balanced game. I guess my points are more centered around a few key elements:

1. Live was apparently **** for balance, and it is much, much better here in many respects.
2. The devs/GMs are very careful about any changes they make because they are mindful of balance. This is a good thing. Ultimately they set the rules for how balance is achieved.
3. From what I've seen/read/estimate, balance will never be centered around pug (solo queue) play. So, the most advantageous thing you can do to increase your chances of winning in PvP centers around forming a competent group of players that are in voice communication with each other. If you don't want to group up with people to play, that's completely fine, but it's not a balance issue if you get beat by people that are.

OP lost me at "producer", then again with rng avoidance and the rest of his elaboration - no offense intended and not dismissing <all> of his feedback either, its kind of interesting all things considered...

To clear up 1): Yes, live was an absolute shitshow, I'd end up writing books if I were to break it all down - just listing stuff without explanation would probably have me starve at my desk. RoR is like heaven compared to it, and even on its own (with its approaches) sound for the most part.
To 2): They luckily don't have a shittier buisness model and the gremlins from hell (EA) at their throats forcing them to run their game into the ground by not only rushing stuff out, but giving in to people that can't comprehend the most basic of math (among other things; the proposals/complaints back then were equally as hilarious as frustrating) - you should have seen live's forums and Mythics handling of it...
To 3): Besides DAoC there is (currently) no other MMO centered around PvP that emphasises groupplay as much as WAR (i.e. no other MMO that embraces <actual> social interaction; especially since new games deal in swiss knives, instanced nonsense and mutism via automated lfg-tools). Every inch of it revolves around it (I could break it down and would write - again - books in the process). If you, for whatever reason, play WAR on your own you basiclly play and experience at most 5% of it [Abbd.: and like 1% - if even - of your class].


Abbd.:

The things you talk about are true. Its very harsh for new players, its harsh in general. Fights go so fast. Its promoted as a group game yet 1 player can have the ability to take you down in moments which is contradictive.

No <proper> group will allow anyone to 2gcd you, theres nothing besides of coordinated morale bombs/bursts or focus issued by entire (coordinated) warbands that a <proper> group cannot completely nullify.
[Abbd.: Note:
Nullify as in you will not die in 2gcds through fluff bursts in a <proper> group, not as in you cannot die in general. Even the most <proper> of groups have to pick fights according to their composition/will eventually succumb to pressure.

Aside from that:
Dying is an integral part of the game - in which's regards players that experienced live have a major edge on you; never since I've played WAR I cared aboug dying in a videogame, WAR is the Dark Souls of MMOs.
Abbd.: I see where you are coming from, though the pugshepherd in me is foaming at the mouth trying to escape his cage.

TLDR: Your TTD increases pretty much exponentially through composition/coordination - your (group's) TTK decreases in the same manner.