Fort Tracker One Week In

[wargrimnir]

Just out of curiosity, why was it that Order players' continued kvetching about city win ratios was a legitimate balance issue and this tacker does not demonstrate fundamental problems with the games. Why were Order complaints legitimate and Destro complaints simply a reflection of failure "to do the needful"? Just curious.

Please note this comment intends no denigration of any of the staff members of RoR. I just have a legitimate question that I know they will be able to provide an answer for. I know that no GM would want to appear as though they were mocking players on either side. After all, every member of this community is respected and treated as much more than just a collective of "tolerated undesirables".

Tolerated undesirables is a new way to put it.

TL;DR Devs don't bother trying to shift RvR outcomes and your assumption why it shifted from Destro to Order is flawed if you feel Devs are responsible or complicit in changing the course/tactics/attitudes of several hundred players.

Class balance is generally done with significant and intentional disregard for the ongoing state of the realms. Overall realm population is a far larger factor for winning in both RvR and Forts. Cities are more meta oriented, but the realm with higher levels of coordination (more organized warbands of high tier players) generally win out regardless of strategy. If your realm is fielding 10 coordinated warbands and 2 pug warbands, vs 2 coordinated warbands and 10 pug warbands, it doesn't matter how good those 2 coordinated warbands are on the losing side. That's just an exaggerated example of course, but think about it whenever you see someone post a screenshot with a bunch of off-meta classes losing a city stage 500-0. The discussion over the summer was the imbalance between Order and Destro in the city, which went through several iterations and metas as balance slowly shuffled along. The wins/losses have mostly evened out last time someone bothered tracking it. Then the noise about Forts came up. Public opinions revolved around the following; Order has ranged dominance, Destro forgot how to melee rush and doesn't have their own ranged classes (they do ofc), Slayers are OP, Choppas are OP, and why aren't the Devs doing anything about it? Well, it's a player problem to react to. Winning for your realm starts in RvR. 2:1 ratios aren't a winning proposition no matter how many roadblocks are in the way.

If you can point at some specific balance changes that were allegedly adjusted to give Order some direct advantage, please do. I've heard nothing of the sort around that motivation from the handful of staff members that work on balance directly.

Don't get it wrong though, some staff members get very concerned, and I'm sure their own bias gets involved, and how they express that interpersonally might not translate over to their official position or duties. Regardless, the answers to "why are we losing so bad" comes down to the same factors that Order faced over the summer. What we've noticed during the shift from Destro to Order dominance was not a result of class balance, but rather a migration of organized players from Destro to Order. As well as an uptick in population from the Twitch events, which included some old players returning. Population was trending upward despite Destro losing, which tells us the state of the realm doesn't matter as much as constant live events to keep things fresh. Players are responsible to pull their realm out of the gutter. If you need inspiration from a balance change to do so, that's great. We're going to keep slowly rolling them out, but it's unlikely going to be in response to RvR win/loss records. Balance isn't a tool that strongly affects realm-wide outcomes, and using it as such a tool is unlikely to have desired results.

There is a skill that needs to be learned when it comes to large scale PvP games. You need to learn how to lose as a realm, and find ways to enjoy it. There's a great lot of small success you can have while losing in the grand scheme of things. AAO is very generous with the extra RR/XP. Losing as a realm is a great time to level up new classes if you can't find small battlefield wins. Real-world morale about losing is infectious, and it will drag down people around you if you can't get a grip on it. If you really expect to start winning, as a realm, you need to be supportive and inspiring at the very start. Tell the negativity to bugger off, kick the persistent whiners from your warbands, find the small victories to get your morale pumped up. Leading warbands is work, but if you're that concerned about winning as a realm then it's a job for you.

[lifeson]

There is a skill that needs to be learned when it comes to large scale PvP games. You need to learn how to lose as a realm, and find ways to enjoy it.

Truth.
Was getting steamrolled during early summer on order day after day (EU) - the little victories were very sweet though.
Destro were cutting through forts no fuss and 2 Altdorfs a day.
Now order got the upper hand most days.
The pendulum will swing the other way though at some point, just the way it goes.

[Manastacious]

Just out of curiosity, why was it that Order players' continued kvetching about city win ratios was a legitimate balance issue and this tacker does not demonstrate fundamental problems with the games. Why were Order complaints legitimate and Destro complaints simply a reflection of failure "to do the needful"? Just curious.

Please note this comment intends no denigration of any of the staff members of RoR. I just have a legitimate question that I know they will be able to provide an answer for. I know that no GM would want to appear as though they were mocking players on either side. After all, every member of this community is respected and treated as much more than just a collective of "tolerated undesirables".

Tolerated undesirables is a new way to put it.

Not exactly new parlance for the community. Just an old one, perhaps forgotten.

[wargrimnir]

Just out of curiosity, why was it that Order players' continued kvetching about city win ratios was a legitimate balance issue and this tacker does not demonstrate fundamental problems with the games. Why were Order complaints legitimate and Destro complaints simply a reflection of failure "to do the needful"? Just curious.

Please note this comment intends no denigration of any of the staff members of RoR. I just have a legitimate question that I know they will be able to provide an answer for. I know that no GM would want to appear as though they were mocking players on either side. After all, every member of this community is respected and treated as much more than just a collective of "tolerated undesirables".

Tolerated undesirables is a new way to put it.

Not exactly new parlance for the community. Just an old one, perhaps forgotten.

Shame, went through all that effort to give you a detailed response. Suppose my months old snark was the real honeypot. Alas, here we are. Tolerating each other like a good community.

[Manastacious]

Tolerated undesirables is a new way to put it.

Not exactly new parlance for the community. Just an old one, perhaps forgotten.

Shame, went through all that effort to give you a detailed response. Suppose my months old snark was the real honeypot. Alas, here we are. Tolerating each other like a good community.

I apologize for not providing a detailed rebuttal. Unfortunately, I answered many of your arguments in a previous post I made on these forums. Unfortunately, it was spoilered, the account suspended, and a disclaimer noted above my well-reasoned arguments stating that they were not reflective of the community's views. Forgive me for not providing another detailed response, but I just don't feel it is worth the effort when those responses that do so are deemed to be troll fodder. I think the conversation that has already occurred in this forum and in the game itself has made it very clear that, despite the obvious, systemic issues with balance in this game, which have been exacerbated in recent months are not going to be resolved. Destro players have tried and at every turn, we are gaslighted, ignored, and told to improve at the game. At a certain point, when it requires a military organization a la the KGB to beat Graham Chapman's Knights of the Round Table, it simply is not worth it anymore.

Again, I want to reiterate, I am not complaining, denigrating, or bashing the people who run this game at all. I am deeply thankful to have the opportunity to play this game again. I am simply saying that there are clear issues that will not be resolved given the current attitudes towards those players who disagree with the dominant narratives. Narratives, I might add, which are being written by the victors.

But at a certain point, when it becomes nigh impossible to taste any success in the game or the quest for that fun becomes "finding the small fights you can win", the simple fact that we can play this game again will not be enough. That's not a positive attitude. That's Stockholm syndrome. And while I do not claim that you or any other person who is responsible for this game have any obligation to me, the friends with whom I play this game, or really anyone, it does seem to me that you have an obligation to the game itself. And while I would never seek to deny that those who have created the RoR server have the power to do whatever the hell they want, it does seem to me that they may have an obligation to do right by the game; to do right by the eternal conflict between the Inevitable City and Altdorf. People are leaving; guilds are leaving. And I think it is clear that as much as new content is exciting, the possibilities of returning to the Lost Vale and the Land of the Dead are exciting, the lack of those things is not what killed the original game. Balance problems did. And if we truly believe that War Never Ends, something has to change to ensure that remains the case. Otherwise this server will have the same fate as those before it. And that would be the worst result possible. For everyone.

[wargrimnir]

Being banned from the forums doesn't mean making a new account (or in this case, posting from an old account) is a safe option. Maybe it's the stockholm syndrome that keeps you coming back to the forums when you're clearly not wanted?

You know what, to be fair. I did tell you during your ban appeal that you were welcome to post on the forums using your real account. Still, your rhetoric is very inflammatory. If you want to engage in discussion that leads to positive results I would strongly suggest you dial it way back. This is just a videogame.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41469&p=440680#p440680

[Manastacious]

I really appreciate your unbanning of my account. I do apologize if my rhetoric is inflammatory. I just simply try to bring a bit of humor in my responses.

Nonetheless, I do humbly thank you for unbanning me.

[Schweedy]

Spoiler:

I apologize for not providing a detailed rebuttal. Unfortunately, I answered many of your arguments in a previous post I made on these forums. Unfortunately, it was spoilered, the account suspended, and a disclaimer noted above my well-reasoned arguments stating that they were not reflective of the community's views. Forgive me for not providing another detailed response, but I just don't feel it is worth the effort when those responses that do so are deemed to be troll fodder. I think the conversation that has already occurred in this forum and in the game itself has made it very clear that, despite the obvious, systemic issues with balance in this game, which have been exacerbated in recent months are not going to be resolved. Destro players have tried and at every turn, we are gaslighted, ignored, and told to improve at the game. At a certain point, when it requires a military organization a la the KGB to beat Graham Chapman's Knights of the Round Table, it simply is not worth it anymore.

Again, I want to reiterate, I am not complaining, denigrating, or bashing the people who run this game at all. I am deeply thankful to have the opportunity to play this game again. I am simply saying that there are clear issues that will not be resolved given the current attitudes towards those players who disagree with the dominant narratives. Narratives, I might add, which are being written by the victors.

But at a certain point, when it becomes nigh impossible to taste any success in the game or the quest for that fun becomes "finding the small fights you can win", the simple fact that we can play this game again will not be enough. That's not a positive attitude. That's Stockholm syndrome. And while I do not claim that you or any other person who is responsible for this game have any obligation to me, the friends with whom I play this game, or really anyone, it does seem to me that you have an obligation to the game itself. And while I would never seek to deny that those who have created the RoR server have the power to do whatever the hell they want, it does seem to me that they may have an obligation to do right by the game; to do right by the eternal conflict between the Inevitable City and Altdorf. People are leaving; guilds are leaving. And I think it is clear that as much as new content is exciting, the possibilities of returning to the Lost Vale and the Land of the Dead are exciting, the lack of those things is not what killed the original game. Balance problems did. And if we truly believe that War Never Ends, something has to change to ensure that remains the case. Otherwise this server will have the same fate as those before it. And that would be the worst result possible. For everyone.

If it is any consolation. Your statements are not short on passion and the long rebuttal above was surprisingly well written in comparison to the standard forum fare. The ideas exposed I do think echo the sentiments of many voices clamoring for some sort of perceived change. Though MMO people can get extremely passionate about this stuff considering the relationships fostered and memories cultivated; without even delving into the emergent(?) real life psychology of people attached to virtual personas (I think many fall into this category).

Maybe this Fort Tracker (however unofficial or skewed it may be) could serve as a catalyst for further testing among the new and old crowds? This thread has the most views in the General Discussion out of all the threads created within it for the month of October (I went back like 3-4 pages).

Nice post. I enjoyed your writing.

[hammerhead]

It seems to me that many have become hostages of the euphoria of easy victories. I know this from myself because I am a jogger and sometimes when you cannot reach the already mastered results you plunge into despondency and despair. In general, there are two extremes, one is when there are two very confrontation between two identical groups that can last an hour until your fingers ache. And the second is when you either have a numerical superiority or you are organized and simply by coordinating in your voice you can easily wipe the crowd. And thankfully, RoR has all kinds of content to suit every playstyle. You can run solo with a zerg, you can be a semi-organized pug and can coordinate via chat. You can be an elite guild group or be part of a group of 6 shamans who like to pull my IB's beard on the way to the keep.
This topic (may the author forgive me) doesn't seem to make sense to me because the Fort itself is not the goal. And in many ways they are made in such a way as to prevent players from progressing very quickly and overheating. But if you aim to take exactly the Fort, it seems to me that there is nothing artificially created against it. You have a talent calculator, there are classes to make the correct composition, there is room for theory and practice. And this is just in the spirit of RoR. Because the War never ends. Waaagh!

[Naelar]

The fort is not the goal. The fort is the gateway to the goal.
Try defending against 168 with 100 (if you're lucky).