Recent Topics

Ads

Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas.
Forum rules
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use

Structured class balance suggestions belong in the Balance Proposal subforum. Class-related discussion in this section are considered as ongoing debates and ARE NOT reviewed for balance changes.
meowngolianwarlord
Posts: 3

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#41 » Wed May 20, 2020 6:31 pm

Thought I'd chip in with my two pence, since it seems like a lot of the posters in this thread are longer-time players. I joined a few weeks after the big zerg that the video attention and the start of quarantine brought RoR and hit 40 on my first character several weeks ago. I've sunk several hundred hours into this server since joining which, while maybe not impressive comparatively, is a rather serious time investment for me as someone who works full time and has outside responsibilities.

My playtimes have been flagging lately as my motivation to play has dropped considerably due to how City currently functions. I'm Pacific-Coast US time, which means the majority of the Cities that have popped in the past 3 weeks have been between 1 am and 7 am my time, and of the 5 or so Cities that have popped before midnight (to my knowledge), I only got in to 3 due to Destro/Order population mismatches. It's very disheartening to invest so much time pushing zones only to have the "only" gearing path blocked off by Euros who log in and slam it home (nothing against the euros, just bad luck for the PST-EST timezone folks). All of these were pugged, since no group wants a fresh 40 in a mix of Beastlord and Genesis.

Sure I've been steadily improving my gear with vanquishers medallions from oRVR and the occasional bag from zones, and I've been able to (almost) afford a single Invader's piece with the few cities I've managed to get in to and Forts, but it definitely really sucks to have the primary progression path intended (per the GMs own statements here) dead end into content that my timezone doesn't seem to get to engage with very often.

As much fun as I've been having with RoR, I don't feel like the game respects the time investment I've put in to it as much as it should.

Ads
User avatar
Telen
Suspended
Posts: 2542
Contact:

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#42 » Wed May 20, 2020 6:44 pm

Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:23 pm According -afaik- there is around 3% stats progression between a set and the next one, according being vanquisher is doable by anyone without any condition of triggering (and it is a pretty good set), i think it is almost the case.
Unless this 6% gap between vanq and sov transform an average player in a terrifying monster -which is not the case- the difference is pretty low.

Aparthe, we are light years away from the doomflyer and warpforged sets and how it made the game absolutely unbalanced and ridiculous (made by professionnal).

In conclusion, "triggered" content is not a mandatory to be efficient in any aspect of the game.
Again if it didnt matter there would be no need for gear at all.
Image

User avatar
Aurandilaz
Posts: 1896

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#43 » Wed May 20, 2020 6:48 pm

you have easy access to 95% of game gear
Sovereign is just cherry on top of the cake
play for fun, gear while having fun - whether its orvr, scs, pve, or cities.
The gap between Sov and Inv/Bloodlord is abysmal apart from few classes where something like 5pc or 7pc Sov even makes sense, half of the city gear is non-BIS for various classes who still rely in 2-3pc mixing of stats. (or you can always blame as Inv/Bld gear losing to enemy having +3% more stat from Sov...)
I keep doing pve because I enjoy it, I avoid orvr keep fights because I really hate standing AFK as a mdps trying to throw axes at oil on a 3min schedule between dying to oil, and I like cities because that's where having a high RR BIS geared mdps gets to shine and faceroll over those engis/BWs who make every keep siege a shitty game experience.
Having finished Choppa Sovereign, I dumped it into my bank because it was not well suited for my ORVR spec needs - but I still enjoy cities due to occasionally good 24v24 fights they might provide.

User avatar
Yaliskah
Former Staff
Posts: 1974

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#44 » Wed May 20, 2020 6:51 pm

Telen wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:44 pm
Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:23 pm According -afaik- there is around 3% stats progression between a set and the next one, according being vanquisher is doable by anyone without any condition of triggering (and it is a pretty good set), i think it is almost the case.
Unless this 6% gap between vanq and sov transform an average player in a terrifying monster -which is not the case- the difference is pretty low.

Aparthe, we are light years away from the doomflyer and warpforged sets and how it made the game absolutely unbalanced and ridiculous (made by professionnal).

In conclusion, "triggered" content is not a mandatory to be efficient in any aspect of the game.
Again if it didnt matter there would be no need for gear at all.
But you couldn't whine in this case ;).

User avatar
Ekundu01
Posts: 306

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#45 » Wed May 20, 2020 7:11 pm

Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:23 pm
Telen wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 5:35 pm
Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 4:34 pm VERY PERSONNAL 2 CTS (and no troll or taunt):

i think, if all you see in this game is "progression", meaning, "because i have nothing to win on ORvR (for exemple) i see no reason to involve, and i wait for city to make my character "progressing"; there is a problem.

Ask yourself in first place why you are looking for "progression". If answer is just "to progress" without any other goal like "shining in ORvR where i have nothing to win" maybe lot of time would be saved doing something else, like playing Pokemon Go (no offense, Pokemon Go is a great collecting game).

All this game is about fighting each other, and not about gathering best **** for no reason. Gear is a means not an end. Cause in the end of the day, no one will give a **** how your character is if you don't play it, but you. And thats not a solo game.
Then you could remove all gear from the game and have base stats. If this is true there would be no problem.
According -afaik- there is around 3% stats progression between a set and the next one, according being vanquisher is doable by anyone without any condition of triggering (and it is a pretty good set), i think it is almost the case.
Unless this 6% gap between vanq and sov transform an average player in a terrifying monster -which is not the case- the difference is pretty low.

Aparthe, we are light years away from the doomflyer and warpforged sets and how it made the game absolutely unbalanced and ridiculous (made by professionnal).

In conclusion, "triggered" content is not a mandatory to be efficient in any aspect of the game.
The gear gap might be small but we also don't have 3 sets to choose from at every medal level either. Not every class is created equal. For Dps Vanq might be not that bad but for tanks/heals unless you plan to play Straight tank or Straight heals vanq is not the gear you want to be wearing. In the case of Dok/WP if you want to play shield spec you really only have 3 choices, Beastlord, Sentinel, and Sov if you don't want an abysmal block rating.
Trismack

User avatar
kmark101
Posts: 482

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#46 » Wed May 20, 2020 7:14 pm

I think a good solution for the city logger problems listed here would be to offer 2 queues at city siege:

- Queue 1: people who contributed to the campaign can join a queue for same rewards as of now
- Queue 2: people who has no contribution can join to a different queue which only provides half the rewards as of now.

Additionally, maybe Queue 2 would be a completely pug queue and you could only join with a team of 2, like the current pug scenario.
Gryyw - Ironbreaker

Mordd
Posts: 260

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#47 » Wed May 20, 2020 7:17 pm

Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:23 pm
Telen wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 5:35 pm
Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 4:34 pm VERY PERSONNAL 2 CTS (and no troll or taunt):

i think, if all you see in this game is "progression", meaning, "because i have nothing to win on ORvR (for exemple) i see no reason to involve, and i wait for city to make my character "progressing"; there is a problem.

Ask yourself in first place why you are looking for "progression". If answer is just "to progress" without any other goal like "shining in ORvR where i have nothing to win" maybe lot of time would be saved doing something else, like playing Pokemon Go (no offense, Pokemon Go is a great collecting game).

All this game is about fighting each other, and not about gathering best **** for no reason. Gear is a means not an end. Cause in the end of the day, no one will give a **** how your character is if you don't play it, but you. And thats not a solo game.
Then you could remove all gear from the game and have base stats. If this is true there would be no problem.
According -afaik- there is around 3% stats progression between a set and the next one, according being vanquisher is doable by anyone without any condition of triggering (and it is a pretty good set), i think it is almost the case.
Unless this 6% gap between vanq and sov transform an average player in a terrifying monster -which is not the case- the difference is pretty low.

Aparthe, we are light years away from the doomflyer and warpforged sets and how it made the game absolutely unbalanced and ridiculous (made by professionnal).

In conclusion, "triggered" content is not a mandatory to be efficient in any aspect of the game.
I dont know about the 3%, I can tell you from experience soloing. Im now in invader and Vanq on my toon. I make pretty quick work of newer 40s in conq gear. At the same time when i run into someone in warlord/sov gear its hardly ever much of a fight. That same class that i took apart and maybe got down to 1/2-1/3 health, kills me just as easily when they have the gear set advantage. 3% in stats makes out to a big gap in combat if the sets are only 3% different. Same with suitability in zerg fights. I am far more than 3% more survivable.

I would be good with there was nothing better than conq and just play and rvr for the fun of it.

Mordd
Posts: 260

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#48 » Wed May 20, 2020 7:19 pm

double post
Last edited by Mordd on Wed May 20, 2020 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ads
User avatar
Fiaryn
Posts: 5

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#49 » Wed May 20, 2020 7:19 pm

Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 6:23 pm
Telen wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 5:35 pm
Yaliskah wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 4:34 pm VERY PERSONNAL 2 CTS (and no troll or taunt):

i think, if all you see in this game is "progression", meaning, "because i have nothing to win on ORvR (for exemple) i see no reason to involve, and i wait for city to make my character "progressing"; there is a problem.

Ask yourself in first place why you are looking for "progression". If answer is just "to progress" without any other goal like "shining in ORvR where i have nothing to win" maybe lot of time would be saved doing something else, like playing Pokemon Go (no offense, Pokemon Go is a great collecting game).

All this game is about fighting each other, and not about gathering best **** for no reason. Gear is a means not an end. Cause in the end of the day, no one will give a **** how your character is if you don't play it, but you. And thats not a solo game.
Then you could remove all gear from the game and have base stats. If this is true there would be no problem.
According -afaik- there is around 3% stats progression between a set and the next one, according being vanquisher is doable by anyone without any condition of triggering (and it is a pretty good set), i think it is almost the case.
Unless this 6% gap between vanq and sov transform an average player in a terrifying monster -which is not the case- the difference is pretty low.

Aparthe, we are light years away from the doomflyer and warpforged sets and how it made the game absolutely unbalanced and ridiculous (made by professionnal).

In conclusion, "triggered" content is not a mandatory to be efficient in any aspect of the game.
You're kind of deflecting from the main point here. Whether the gear is monumentally better or simply better does not change the fact that people flag in motivation and interest when progression is either unavailable or does not respect their time accordingly. If city logging starts to feel like the only worthwhile way to progress, that's exactly what they're going to do. Which then comes at the expense of ORvR engagement and other areas of the game.

No amount of navel gazing "aha but perhaps you should be like the Gaming Buddha and let go of material attachments and play just for the sake of playing" nonsense is going to change that. The year is not 1999, Everquest is not the hot new thing and MMO player behavior is not a fresh new field. Stop posting like a Wildstar dev.

User avatar
Spellbound
Posts: 329
Contact:

Re: Corrections to PvP in a PvP game

Post#50 » Wed May 20, 2020 7:49 pm

Starx wrote: Wed May 20, 2020 5:15 pm If this is the same BW class lead she was universally hated by everyone in that group and responsible for getting BW overbuffed into the stratosphere early on. Might as well shitpost since this threads already in the gutter.
Not a she, so not the person you speak of. Thanks to everyone for sharing their opinions.
Last edited by Spellbound on Wed May 20, 2020 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 84 guests