General idea's about Sc's

[Flavorburst]

Despite bad rewards and long grind to get them, people play scenarios anyway and avoid RvR which has much better rewards and it's easier to get. Scenarios don't need the help, time, or attention. You're going to play then anyway because the time commitment is that much lower and RvR has its moments that aren't nearly as efficient in time:fun ratio.

Admittance of the bad rewards and the ridiculously long grind to get them is irrelevant, and unhelpful to the topic at hand, Wargrimnir. I mean this with complete respect, this has been something brought up MANY times by multitudes of players, the reason to queue for SC is, yes, for the gear sets. But, tbh, i find SC's much more fun (when its actually even fights) and saying what you said makes no sense. I mean, people play in ORVR regardless but its nowhere near as hard to get that set. Lowering the costs / increasing SC rewards definitely aren't hard to do compared to some of the things the server team has done (much thanks for this) and is really a sore subject for TONS of players. Like i said, with complete respect, answering inquiries like this is seriously hindering feedback or rather the willingness to provide it when it is swept aside without consideration.

It's not a new topic. It's not a new answer.

RvR is encouraged. It's the aspect of the game that NEEDS a strong population to be successful. Scenarios do not. We're not going to sacrifice the players in RvR to make scenarios even more appealing than they already are.

Outside of the people who feel that small skirmishes are fun, I would imagine a large percentage of people that participate in SCs do so with the intention of ending up more comfortable in oRvR. Comfort in this context can mean anything from having the gear to play a spec they like (DPS healer/tank, more defensive gear for larger scale fights, etc) or just straight up having a BiS weapon. I don't think that large swaths of people participate in scenarios just so that they can scenario harder in the future.

Alternately, Why not just allow conversion of medallions to emblems at a rate that the team is comfortable with?

I know this is an old horse, but the 2-5k emblem grind for offspec gear is daunting to say the least. Especially when even the Dom set has the same token requirements (and it's not even BiS). At the very least I think having the 40 weapon cost Opp emblems and allowing Opp emblems to be converted to 5 Dom emblems is a reasonable request to abate the feelings of slowed down progression that most players experience as far as SC gear is concerned.

[Nefarian78]

RvR is encouraged. It's the aspect of the game that NEEDS a strong population to be successful. Scenarios do not. We're not going to sacrifice the players in RvR to make scenarios even more appealing than they already are.

I've (And many others) said this many times already. Encouraging RvR is understendable, and i doubt anyone has a problem with that. Encouraging something via actively discouraging something else is not and that is what you're doing.

How else can you explain the insanity that is the 1:1 conversion? I already know that the the Scs weapon will be used as an "argument". Move them to Oppressor emblems then, problem solved.

Or the time requirement to get Oppressor or even Dominator, a non BiS set, (Hundreds of hours of playtime) compared to Vanquisher (At most 2 weeks of playing 2hrs/day)? Inb4 "People would play scenarios even without rewards" How did that go for RvR when Annhilator took months to farm and the zones had at most 110 players/side with 800-850 online? Then personal loot happened, Conq/Domi was released and scenario item prices were increased to discourage participation in scenarios in order to encourage RvR. I remember winning 40 Reikland factory (Was pug scenario, late in EU night) in a row in the span of 2hrs during Merc times, now i consider myself lucky if i can play 15scs in 3hrs. I wonder why

There's no excuse as to why scenarios are treated like they have the plague. None.
We all know that most players favor doing RvR, even with limited playtime. Even if rewards were to be greatly increased and prices greatly lowered, hell even if Vanquisher were to be purchaseable with Oppressor emblems, people would still favor RvR and we all know it. Why? Because it's the path of least resistance.

[virgile28]

Spoiler:

It's always nice to get middle fingered after sharing thoughts and ideas.
Wargrimnir ur presenting urself as game master in charge of "exploits and cheaters" does it means that ur opinion on these topic is as relevent as ur obvious politeness and kindness (or maybe ur just a dwarf making lots of noise to compensate for his size ?)
This is joke, don't look at that ban button

"RvR is encouraged"
Encouraging something doesnt mean not giving a **** about other stuff ...
And u showed that u cared about what the community wanted with the PvE, and people are happy about it. Why not giving some love to the Sc's ?

"It's the aspect of the game that NEEDS a strong population to be successful"
True but not only ! To make RvR enjoyable u need to find a way to not have 200% AAO and more on prime time, uve got the player base. Wanna know why u still haven't found the solution for the RvR ? Maybe u should try to give people other good alternatives when their side is overpopulating an area ... because when people get online if they wanna smash other players (and not mobs, PvE ain't a solution ...) well they go in RvR cause why not ? the dev's r so desperate to make it interesting they :
-Reward u when afk on bo's that's GG
-Gear you super quickly regardless of how useful ur (as long as ur golden roll is above 130/150 ur pretty sure to get a gold bag very soon and that number increase no matter what).

"Scenarios don't need the help, time, or attention."
And then you are sayin that those topics are coming back all the time...
Wait does it mean's that Scenarios need help, time, and attention ? and maybe, just maybe, if u were payin attention u could find a solution ?

"Scenarios do not" (need a large population to be fun): have u ever Q sc ? do u think its "fun" to Q always against/with the same dudes ?

"We're not going to sacrifice the players in RvR to make scenarios even more appealing than they already are" : maybe u can be fair and offer them fair choice to allow them to chose in between RvR and Sc's. Then u'll see where ur comunity is at ...


Here r just my thoughts, on that specific topic.
I'm still thanks-full for the job u've done so far and the one that's to come, just wanted to share my opinion about what I like in this game and how to maybe improve it.
If u don't wanna hear it, think about it, do anything about it, to bad for me (and every other players that took the time to wrote here, and the one who didnt but still think the same).
We'll keep Qin Sc ur right no matter what, but all we asked for was some attention and respect, and apparently we cant get any.

Warning applied. Saying "it's just a joke" doesn't absolve you from being offensive.

[GodlessCrom]

Agreed with Nefarian. Why make spite players by making scs suck? Why support afk blob zerging gameplay over fun fights? What is even the point?

[Goldenbow100]

It would honestly be nice to hear from the Balance Moderators / Developers in regards to their position on this topic. No offense to Wargrimnir, you aren't the person who would have to take the time / effort to implement this sort of idea. @ Dansari / peterthepan3 & MaxHayman / Natherul

[Luuca]

My primary play time is in NA prime and NA Late night, as such, please filter my comments through that experience.

The development team here is doing an excellent job of promoting large scale ORvR. With everything from the balancing changes to Crit, Morales, and specific class abilities all the way through the current Bolster/Doomsday T2-T4 combined, they have facilitated the grown and fun of ORvR. I think we can all agree with that.

Based upon understanding their focus and perspective, I believe we can all at least understand the perspective with which the team is dealing with Scenarios currently. Anything that detracts from active participation in ORvR or from the "fun" of ORvR is considered counter to the team goals and dealt with through either discouraging the action (i.e. Malus) or by encouraging the activity (personal bag rolls) - both of these things did not exist. Doomsday combined the player base into an All-for-One realm activity in RvR, and is possibly the best example of trying to change player actions to promote ORvR.

If the development team sees Scenarios as a possible drain on the population in the RvR lakes as Wargrimnir has stated, I advise them to reconsider a few things and try to understand the player perspective.

1. Players want non-stop, fair, challenging, fights with clearly defined objectives and rewards. AKA Scenarios. ORvR is similar, just at a slower pace, and it’s definitely not non-stop action. If you understand what players want at their core, you can understand why scenarios have not gone away even though you have made ORvR rewards easier to get, ORvR Objectives “pay” more renown, available zones more plentiful, and increased the number of players in the Lakes by Doomsday combining. In our eyes, Scenarios are the Lobster and ORvR is the steak. The steak will be there after we take a bite of lobster, there’s more of it, but we really love our lobster tail too.

2. In my opinion, Players view Scenarios as a chance to have an equal fight with known objectives. They see these as a break from the drawn out BO sitting and roaming a zone looking for action. That said, when the ORvR action is hot and heavy, i.e. lots of fights and challenging, my groups have passed on scenarios to stay in ORvR and fight, taking the Quitter debuff as a tradeoff for being where the action is. We see it as a means to get action, popping out of a lake for 10-15 minutes, and then popping back in. Not as “leaving ORvR” it’s a means to stay entertained and challenged when ORvR is not challenging. When we can’t find the action, it “pops” up in the form of SCs.

3. Players see the disparity between the cost and ease of obtaining ORvR gear and the SC gear as unfair. Remember when I defined what players want? A fair fight. Making ORvR gear easier to get, objectives like soaking RR at a BO, and T2 keeps with T4 warbands only serves to highlight the discrepancies between the two playstyles and thumbs your noses at the sense of fair play most people have. Coming onto the official forums and stating that you are doing it because you are afraid of losing players in ORvR doesn’t help. It just exaggerates the discrepancies and tweaks the noses of player who just want action – SC action is better than NO action. For what it’s worth, the majority of ORvR groups I’ve been in over the past 18 months has been “6-man Roam and SC” That means out in the RvR Lake and taking SC Pops if NOTHING IS GOING ON IN ORvR. Taking objectives. Picking fights. Helping at the keep.

In summary, what the development team has done to promote ORvR is working. What players want is action; fair fights, equal rewards for success. By dismissing the changes asked for from the players;

1. Quest turn in/take inside the SC
2. Better than 1:1 ratio buy down
3. SCs with better segmentation by Level and/or Renown Rank

You may be driving more players out of the ORvR lakes and the Game itself than would be leaving if the SC quests and gear were on similar level in obtainability as the ORvR gear, and if the disparity between the biases towards promoting ORvR over Scenarios weren’t so clear, imposed, and from the player’s perspective; unfair.

[Goldenbow100]

Spoiler:

My primary play time is in NA prime and NA Late night, as such, please filter my comments through that experience.

The development team here is doing an excellent job of promoting large scale ORvR. With everything from the balancing changes to Crit, Morales, and specific class abilities all the way through the current Bolster/Doomsday T2-T4 combined, they have facilitated the grown and fun of ORvR. I think we can all agree with that.

Based upon understanding their focus and perspective, I believe we can all at least understand the perspective with which the team is dealing with Scenarios currently. Anything that detracts from active participation in ORvR or from the "fun" of ORvR is considered counter to the team goals and dealt with through either discouraging the action (i.e. Malus) or by encouraging the activity (personal bag rolls) - both of these things did not exist. Doomsday combined the player base into an All-for-One realm activity in RvR, and is possibly the best example of trying to change player actions to promote ORvR.

If the development team sees Scenarios as a possible drain on the population in the RvR lakes as Wargrimnir has stated, I advise them to reconsider a few things and try to understand the player perspective.

1. Players want non-stop, fair, challenging, fights with clearly defined objectives and rewards. AKA Scenarios. ORvR is similar, just at a slower pace, and it’s definitely not non-stop action. If you understand what players want at their core, you can understand why scenarios have not gone away even though you have made ORvR rewards easier to get, ORvR Objectives “pay” more renown, available zones more plentiful, and increased the number of players in the Lakes by Doomsday combining. In our eyes, Scenarios are the Lobster and ORvR is the steak. The steak will be there after we take a bite of lobster, there’s more of it, but we really love our lobster tail too.

2. In my opinion, Players view Scenarios as a chance to have an equal fight with known objectives. They see these as a break from the drawn out BO sitting and roaming a zone looking for action. That said, when the ORvR action is hot and heavy, i.e. lots of fights and challenging, my groups have passed on scenarios to stay in ORvR and fight, taking the Quitter debuff as a tradeoff for being where the action is. We see it as a means to get action, popping out of a lake for 10-15 minutes, and then popping back in. Not as “leaving ORvR” it’s a means to stay entertained and challenged when ORvR is not challenging. When we can’t find the action, it “pops” up in the form of SCs.

3. Players see the disparity between the cost and ease of obtaining ORvR gear and the SC gear as unfair. Remember when I defined what players want? A fair fight. Making ORvR gear easier to get, objectives like soaking RR at a BO, and T2 keeps with T4 warbands only serves to highlight the discrepancies between the two playstyles and thumbs your noses at the sense of fair play most people have. Coming onto the official forums and stating that you are doing it because you are afraid of losing players in ORvR doesn’t help. It just exaggerates the discrepancies and tweaks the noses of player who just want action – SC action is better than NO action. For what it’s worth, the majority of ORvR groups I’ve been in over the past 18 months has been “6-man Roam and SC” That means out in the RvR Lake and taking SC Pops if NOTHING IS GOING ON IN ORvR. Taking objectives. Picking fights. Helping at the keep.

In summary, what the development team has done to promote ORvR is working. What players want is action; fair fights, equal rewards for success. By dismissing the changes asked for from the players;

1. Quest turn in/take inside the SC
2. Better than 1:1 ratio buy down
3. SCs with better segmentation by Level and/or Renown Rank

You may be driving more players out of the ORvR lakes and the Game itself than would be leaving if the SC quests and gear were on similar level in obtainability as the ORvR gear, and if the disparity between the biases towards promoting ORvR over Scenarios weren’t so clear, imposed, and from the player’s perspective; unfair.

Very impressive and appreciative of your time and effor into making that post, and i agree completely with what is said. Bottom line is that what we are asking for isn't even that big of a change and can honestly make a hugely satisfactory change for big pool of players that really enjoy SC's and feel like they are actually progressing from winning, instead of feeling cheated and annoyed at the incredibly limited and low reward pool. Though i must say, the XP rewards need no change!

[Luuca]

Thank you for your kind words.

[navis]

It's not going to change. The devs have treated scenarios like trash since forever, calling them "minigames" and actively discourage participating in them.

Inb4 "B-but that's not true!...1:1 Oppressor to Dominator, removal of scenario titles, gear taking ages to farm compared to RvR, no set for healers/tanks. The list is long.

I don't think it's trash that they might have very tight control of high tier gear. Only the highest tiered gear is actually pricey. They do a good job of scenarios even better than mythic maintained them. Treating like trash it just have a few same scenarios and never change them or fix bugs.
Now here, always rotates and provides voting for pug scenario and events, even new scenario!

[navis]

-Having fresh lvl 31 with long terms 40 (RR80+) don't make any sense.

I agree and think they will eventually need to address this as the playerbase is still slowly levelling up. I like the idea of T4 only scenarios something like R40+ (similar to last days on live), then next tier under than is r39 rr70 (or similar numbers)..
Only problem is that you end up with 4 scenario brackets which is 1 too many for amount of population right now so...
Another idea would be to limit high RR players into their own specific scenario... Maybe then have 2 pug scenario in T2-4 which is split by renown ranks??

Pretty happy with how it is now, though.