Ch.22 Hard PQs, Leeching behavior & Reward fairness

[leftayparxoun]

''What is the problem?'': People are ''leeching'' ch.22 Hard PQ runs. With ''leeching'' here I will refer to the behavior of joining in a ch.22 Hard PQ as a solo player, while a full warband is doing it, with the hopes of taking rewards.

From the wiki:

Public Quests or PQs are area-specific, ongoing quests that are automatically assigned to each player that enters the area. All players work toward completing that same quest, if they choose to participate.

Under that definition, leeching is not an issue. However, what that fails to take into account is that the game doesn't award PQ bags in a fair manner, judging from each player's actual contribution. Similar to instanced content like dungeons, the ch.22 Hard PQs cannot be completed without organization. If people wanted to individually solo the content, then we would need a crazy amount of people in the PQs, similar to what happens in the Overworld Boss PQs that are tied to events like Wild Hunt, Sigmartag and the Halloween one.
Since those numbers are not achievable (for many reasons), what remains is organizing fewer numbers to tackle the PQs more efficiently. And here lies the issue; while being PQs this content is effectively meant to be played as an instance. So how do we fix this?

Here are some statements that seem logical to me, and therefore I will be basing my proposals on. If you disagree with them, feel free to discuss why in the comments.

• Tackling those PQs in an organized manner (warbands) is the preferred way of completing them; this seems self explanatory because we wouldn't want more people to compete for the same rewards. The more people there are, the less percentage of the total participants get rewarded (e.g. 18 bags for 24 people vs 18 bags for 50). Requiring less people also allows for the other parts of the game (scs, orvr, etc.) to function better due to higher available population for them. Finally, it minimizes player tensions and frustrations by having everything properly communicated in advance.

• Individual performance (according to class role) should be the main deciding factor in determining rewards; we don't want to encourage people to slack off while the other 23 do their job for them. Conversely, we should reward everyone for their effort, regardless of their role/class.

• Warbands should function as separate entity compared to individual players and be treated favourably at PQ completion. This is a bit harder to prove, but here is a thought experiment:
  If people have equal chances in a warband and outside it (by performing their role), then most people will decide to ''leech'' since that would grant the same rewards but with putting in less effort outside the game (joining discord, listening to leader commands in coms, etc.). Consequently, as per the first statement, this would gradually motivate people to avoid warbands and thus result in a suboptimal (for the community and the game) way of tackling this content.

• The number of rewards shouldn't scale with the number of participants; the boss mechanics are too complicated to scale with player numbers, so increasing the number of bags proportionately to the number of PQ participants would only result in trivializing the challenge and into escalating the requirements for attempting it (e.g. people refusing to do the content because ''it's too hard unless there are 50+ people there''. The latter also ties into statement 1 and should be avoided.

• The number of rewards should be exactly 24. Here is the reasoning:
  • If it's less than 24 then people some people will always be disappointed by effectively ''wasting their time''. While this might be fine in the case of guild/wb leaders passing rewards in favour of other people, this shouldn't be the assumption for any (pug) wb attempting the challenge.
  • If it's more than 24 then it would incentivize people to form overflow warbands/parties to attempt the PQs. While this could alleviate the leeching issue, it would also be quite awkward since all healers would prefer to be in the main warband so as to be able to cross heal better (and therefore get better rewards). Promoting organizational drama should be avoided at all costs.
  so since it should be neither less nor more than 24, we are led to the conclusion that the number of rewards should be exactly 24

• Whatever solution is reached for this issue, it should require little dev-time; a lot more aspects of the game need immediate attention and thus valuable dev-time should be used efficiently

The final point is extremely important in that it prohibits extreme solutions such as copying and pasting the entire PQs in instanced areas. For that reason, I will only be examining feasible solutions that require minimal fixes.


Taking now all the above statements for granted, I will be examining 2 independent solutions to this problem, considering what they aim to achieve and what their pros and cons are (as per my personal judgement). Criticism and potential alternative solutions/improvements are more than welcome in the comments.

• Ensuring that dps, tanks and healers receive equal contribution if they expend the same effort
  The method for it is to apply correct weights in the damage/kill damage, protection and healing performed in the PQ. As it stands, from personal experience (I can expand on it if requested) I'm fairly certain that protection isn't contributing anything to the PQ roll. While getting the right balance is tricky, you could get the correct weight ratio down by looking into BIS players' scores for organized ch.22 runs:
  
  Get some wb scoreboard screencaps for successful ch.22 Hard PQ runs. Average the damage (x), protection (y) and healing (z) done by all BIS geared players. Then assume that each of these 3 categories has a correct contribution multiplier; a, b, c.
  In a fair system it would hold true that the contribution, D, for all 3 roles would be the same on average:
  a*x1 + b*y1 + c*z1 = D
  a*x2 + b*y2 + c*z2 = D
  a*x3 + b*y3 + c*z3 = D
  here, xi, yi, zi are the average dmg, protection and healing of role i, where i = 1 corresponds to dps, i = 2 to tanks and i = 3 to healers.
  This is a system with 3 equations and 4 unknown variables; a, b, c, D. To solve it, simply assume a = 1 and solve for b, c, D. Then adjust the protection and healing contribution multipliers to be the same as damage, multiplied by b and c respectively (e.g. a = 1, b =2.3, c = 1.4)
  
  Pros:
  • Ensures fairness in rewards across all roles --> Easier to fill warbands and to get what you need out of the content regardless of the class you play
  • Requires just number adjustments (or adding a different metric in contribution count at worst) and can always be easily adjusted --> Little dev-time cost.
  Cons:
  • No readily available data --> Might be tricky to find the correct ratio in one go, unless the community decides to cooperate with providing said data

• Ensuring that warbands are treated favourably compared to ''leeches'' in rolls
  This is a bit harder to achieve. Assuming that the system rewards each role equally (see above) a dps-leech will get more contribution than a tank-leech or a heal-leech, due to how the role mechanics function. In a world where individual dps was equally affected by being in a group as heals/protection, then there would be no need to implement any changes (i.e. leech-healers could only* ST heal, leech-tanks wouldn't be able to guard someone and leech-dps would deal less damage than wb dps). Since that is not the case, we have to come up with a solution.
  Due to establishing that 1.Warbands should function as separate entity compared to individual players and be treated favourably at PQ completion, and 2. The number of rewards should be exactly 24 then the logical conclusion is to ensure that by being part of a warband participating at the ch.22 Hard PQ you are immediately rolling higher than anyone outside the warband (leeching). If the warband has less than 24 players, then the remaining bags will go to the leeches rolling fairly between them for their contribution.
  
  That should be done by giving a bonus on roll to all members of the warband upon PQ completion that is higher than the maximum possible contribution + luck roll for any of the leeches (e.g. + 3000). That bonus should be equal for all members of the warband and without any possibility of ''cheese'':
  • Must have a minimum member requirement for the warband (e.g.12+), otherwise 2+ leeches could form their own leech wb to circumvent it.
  • Must work for the correct warbands (otherwise leeches will join random open warbands in other zones to get the same bonus) --> bonus granted only if there are e.g.12+ members of the warband within the PQ area (or some arbitrarily larger area around them). If distance requirements are hard to code, zone requirements could work but could be cheesed in case the PQ is in an active RvR zone.
  • Awarded upon PQ completion --> people can't pretend to want to join the warband (e.g. 22/24 wanting to reach 24) and then leave as soon as they get
    the bonus to put them above the other leeches
  Pros:
  • Ensures that warband members are treated favourably for their extra effort --> Easier to fill warbands and complete the content efficiently
  • Avoids issues where people pre-farm Phase 1 mobs of the PQs to steal bags while not even being there when the runs happen
  • Still leaves room for leeches to contribute and be rewarded for their efforts when assisting not-full warbands (when they are actually needed)
  • Ensures that anyone can get the quest requirement for their cloak quest easily (unlike what would happen in an instanced PQ versions)
  Cons:
  • Potentially hard to code (please correct me on this statement if you know more)
  • Potentially hard to code separately from other PQs (but since nobody runs other PQs with a warband, even if using the same system it should be ok; everyone treated as a ''leech'' in normal PQs)
  • Unfair for people who disconnect right before the PQ ends (they roll in the same ''pool'' as leeches)

There are more possible solutions for this point, but they aren't as elegant/have a lot more loopholes/are harder to code.
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this topic, especially since the devs asked for forum feedback on this specific issue through the official discord.
As always, thanks for reading

[reyaloran]

I think its a great wright up of what we were discussing yesterday in the discord. The one thing I would want to look deeper at is the contribution for tanks and heals. Speaking bluntly there isn't a ton of aoe damage going out during these PQs and most of the tanking is done by 2-3 tanks in the wb due to there usualy being 1 main target to tank, 1 major add and small adds that need picked up. I blelive that actively tanking a mob currently grants contribution but that would still leave 3-5 tanks not getting major contribution on 2/3 PQs. On the healing side unless they are healing the main tank there isnt a ton to heal which in turn hurts their contribution.

[Rubius]

Glad to read feedback on this and curious to see what other players think, too. Thanks for the write ups so far!

We have some optimization (balance/bug fix) changes coming up soon for Ch. 22, and may have some time in the future to explore contribution adjustments, provided the players would like to see that implemented.

[what63]

This along with the other complaints just reads as "the PQ is actually worth doing, so it needs to be gate kept, and I want guaranteed rewards to run them or I'm gonna throw a tantrum". It's an ages old system that was conceptually very nice, but ultimately fell short. The spirit of PQs very much should be front and center, as such making them MORE accessible should be the goal, not whatever this is trying to do.

This is one of the best PvE improvements from live. Imagine actually making Mythics somewhat failed PQ system work to the point where people are not only running them, but enjoying them! Why take a dump in that salad, when increasing the amount of rewards is a much better way of making it a truly community driven event, as they conceptually were meant to be... Yes, you would eventually reach a point where the content is trivialized by numbers. But even in this scenario, the objective of making a bunch of people come together to run a PQ has been achieved. This is more than enough.

This is absolutely not the time nor the place to be creating content that discriminates. Ch. 22 should be as any other PQ, just bigger, harder and more rewarding, to attract as many participants as possible. Not everyone needs to be get a bag every time they complete a PQ. They really shouldn't, even. But everyone present should have a chance at one, this is simply a fundamental part of PQs.

Contribution absolutely needs to be minor. There are way too many discrepancies in classes to use an average measurement per role as a metric for it. No matter what you do in this regard, it will be unfair.

Some healers have massive out of party heals. Others have next to none, with minimal additional throughput in party. ST and groupwide throughput varies as well. Some parties have a main tank and two melee DPS that eat AoEs and the likes, leading to far more healing for those in group. Others have off-tanks with two RDPS that mostly just stay back, leading to below average healing in party.

Tanks are no better off, with some DPS classes simply being far more likely to eat damage leading to contribution. Some tanks have far better tools to farm both in-party and out of party protection.

And lastly, for DPS, there are wild discrepancies in throughput. It simply isn't fair to measure rewards by a number that will be a result of someone simply being on the right class or in the right group.

There is no solution that can accomodate for the differences in party compositions leading to wildly varying healing/prot numbers. Even DPS get affected slightly by this by means of buffs like WW/CF, Dirty tricks, procs and a few others. Even ignoring this, the only way to make this in any way fairer than a close to pure random roll is to grab the averages per CLASS, not role.

The one thing I see as a clear cut problem, is people just killing a stage 1 mob or two and hoping someone does the PQ before the servers next restart. This should be prevented. Could simply have a timer on stage 1 that kicks off whenever a mob dies.

[arturziomas]

My 5 cents from snb tank perspective: it seems like snb tank contribution is way too low. I did elf and dwarf ch22s on destro, main tanked main bosses both times, got top protection in wb and about 50% more than next tank and only ended up with +150 roll which i think was like 9th place?
Looks bad especially considering that onslaught seems to be the only good PVE snb tank set, to be honest I think you should make either sentinel or vale set snb for tanks.

[leftayparxoun]

First of all, thank you for the reply.
Let me begin by examining our biggest disagreements.

This along with the other complaints just reads as "the PQ is actually worth doing, so it needs to be gate kept, and I want guaranteed rewards to run them or I'm gonna throw a tantrum"...
Why take a dump in that salad, when increasing the amount of rewards is a much better way of making it a truly community driven event, as they conceptually were meant to be...
Yes, you would eventually reach a point where the content is trivialized by numbers. But even in this scenario, the objective of making a bunch of people come together to run a PQ has been achieved. This is more than enough...
This is absolutely not the time nor the place to be creating content that discriminates. Ch. 22 should be as any other PQ, just bigger, harder and more rewarding, to attract as many participants as possible. Not everyone needs to be get a bag every time they complete a PQ. They really shouldn't, even. But everyone present should have a chance at one, this is simply a fundamental part of PQs.

From my understanding of what you wrote, you are proposing 3 things here:

• Point 1: Zerging the content is a valid approach if it results in an overall fun experience

• Point 2: Increase the number of rewards, scaling with the number of participants (e.g. City) to accommodate the above

• Point 3: No differentiation between warband players and others(leeches) when it comes to rolls

Here is my rebuttal to each of them, being as concise as I can:

• Point 1: The new versions of the PQs were designed with traditional MMO raids in mind. This can be easily inferred from the mechanics present, the amount of coordination required to clear them and the developers' own words:
  
  
  They were designed to be tackled by 24 people and by warbands. Disagreeing with this decision on a personal level, on the virtue of the content having existed as a PQ until now is fine. However, as long as these new raid versions of the content are well received by the community (Which so far they are, both from personal experience running and leading them, and from what I see over on various RoR discords) we need to accept them. I also point you towards the guidelines of this server:
  
  I also agree that instanced versions of the PQs would have been ideal. But that would expend valuable dev-time at the moment that is better off used in other places. The problem lies in how to preserve the current vision without wasting too much effort from the devs.
  
  If you dislike the absence of more zergy, open-PVE content, I would perhaps recommend writing a forum post for in favor of expanding on the roaming overworld bosses, than have been so far tied to specific Events, and making them more of a permanent feature.
  
  Finally, for the first point, you raise the following concern:

  This is absolutely not the time nor the place to be creating content that discriminates.

  And in principle you are correct; the content should not discriminate. And it won't. It will just work as designed; for up to 24 people. What can potentially discriminate are the people organizing and leading groups for the content. Over on Destro we have had several non-discriminatory pug-ch.22 wbs happening in the last week or so. And from a personal standpoint while leading, I plan on taking in anyone as long as there is a spot open for them (and we can sufficiently clear the content). I hope Order ch.22 isn't exclusively being ran by full guild/alliance warbands, but even if so, it's up to the rest of the players to organize themselves for it. The guides on the wiki are more than sufficient to tackle the raids for any warband.

• Point 2: Referring back to my original argument regarding why the rewards should be exactly 24:

  • The number of rewards should be exactly 24. Here is the reasoning:
    • If it's less than 24 then people some people will always be disappointed by effectively ''wasting their time''. While this might be fine in the case of guild/wb leaders passing rewards in favour of other people, this shouldn't be the assumption for any (pug) wb attempting the challenge.
    • If it's more than 24 then it would incentivize people to form overflow warbands/parties to attempt the PQs. While this could alleviate the leeching issue, it would also be quite awkward since all healers would prefer to be in the main warband so as to be able to cross heal better (and therefore get better rewards). Promoting organizational drama should be avoided at all costs.

  Arguing in favour of less than 24 rewards has some merit, but it just feels bad to be that way in my opinion. Even if it's just white bags with some war tokens, rewards should be there for the few bottom spots.
  Arguing in favour of more than 24 rewards makes no sense because the content is designed for 24 and due to the organizational drama it promotes.

• Point 3: What I wrote on my original post regarding warbands having to be treated advantageously still stands.

  If people have equal chances in a warband and outside it (by performing their role), then most people will decide to ''leech'' since that would grant the same rewards but with putting in less effort outside the game (joining discord, listening to leader commands in coms, etc.). Consequently, as per the first statement, this would gradually motivate people to avoid warbands and thus result in a suboptimal (for the community and the game) way of tackling this content.

  If a system to differentiate wb members from leech isn't implemented then it would naturally incentivize leeching (especially on dps classes). Judging from personal experience before the PQs were removed at the Ability Rework patch, leeching isn't tolerated. The system where a warband competes with a couple leechers for rolls makes the whole experience quite negative and is an extra source of drama that in the past we always strove to avoid.
  Wb + leeches is not a stable state for running the PQs.
  If the situation goes on without intervention, you'll find out soon that either leeches will become extinct naturally (by people in warbands flaming them or flat-out refusing to complete the PQs out of spite), or in the end it will become what you propose; someone calls for ch.22 in /5 and then 50+ talisman starved leeches pop up there and try to zerg it down (because all the warbands gave up and this is the only way to do the PQ left for them). Or the content just dies. Do we really want any of this negativity?

For the rest of the points you raise regarding contribution and the reward system, I will be posting in a separate reply (to make thing less cluttered). See below.

[leftayparxoun]

Contribution absolutely needs to be minor. There are way too many discrepancies in classes to use an average measurement per role as a metric for it. No matter what you do in this regard, it will be unfair.

Some healers have massive out of party heals. Others have next to none, with minimal additional throughput in party. ST and groupwide throughput varies as well. Some parties have a main tank and two melee DPS that eat AoEs and the likes, leading to far more healing for those in group. Others have off-tanks with two RDPS that mostly just stay back, leading to below average healing in party.

Tanks are no better off, with some DPS classes simply being far more likely to eat damage leading to contribution. Some tanks have far better tools to farm both in-party and out of party protection.

And lastly, for DPS, there are wild discrepancies in throughput. It simply isn't fair to measure rewards by a number that will be a result of someone simply being on the right class or in the right group.

There is no solution that can accommodate for the differences in party compositions leading to wildly varying healing/prot numbers. Even DPS get affected slightly by this by means of buffs like WW/CF, Dirty tricks, procs and a few others. Even ignoring this, the only way to make this in any way fairer than a close to pure random roll is to grab the averages per CLASS, not role.

While there are class specific differences, I'd say the proposed role system is a lot better than what we currently have. The only outliers would be:

• AOE dps vs ST dps: WE/WH come to mind here. Perhaps in the future dps balancing phase they will receive a proper AOE dps spec. In which case it doesn't make sense to make an exception for a temporary problem. Most warbands pass their gold bags for the classes that really need it anyway.

• Main tank and 2nd main tank vs the rest of the tanks: While true that there are protection differences there, from what I could tell it isn't a huge difference. The tanks that are not on the Boss(es) usually have good protection scores due to challenging other mobs and guarding.

Healers are more or less in the same boat due to DOK/WP having AOP heals and some damage but not many shields to give, Shamans/AMs have great heals and some damage due to FoDG/EoV and finally Zealots/RPs have good heals and a lot more protection that the others. So I'd say overall it could balance out contribution-wise.

Maybe it would make sense to adjust individual modifiers tailored to each class as you say but it would still leave the issue of the main tanks vs the rest of the tanks intact. Another approach would be to set a contribution cap and reduce how big the random roll will be (e.g. to 0 - 20% of that cap). That way, if the contribution modifiers are based on the worse performing classes/wb roles (e.g. WEs/WHs, non-main tanks) then everyone could reach that cap and then roll fairly. The issue with that is that certain classes could reach it much easier (e.g. full AOE rdps on adds) and then slack off. But if the raids are to be performed in a coordinated manner in warbands, that would be a near non-issue.

The one thing I see as a clear cut problem, is people just killing a stage 1 mob or two and hoping someone does the PQ before the servers next restart. This should be prevented. Could simply have a timer on stage 1 that kicks off whenever a mob dies.

Correct. That is necessary.
This would be a non-issue if warbands are given priority in rolls but, if not, it could also be solved by a PQ reset if nothing happens for a few minutes. Probably harder to code, however.

Thanks once again for the reply.

[jafh123]

One more thing to take into account that devs should consider when making the changes: there are quests (yes, some of us actually do quests) that require you to kill mobs that are located in the ch22 pq's area, and to make your way to those mobs you need to kill pq mobs.

[what63]

Spoiler:

First of all, thank you for the reply.
Let me begin by examining our biggest disagreements.

This along with the other complaints just reads as "the PQ is actually worth doing, so it needs to be gate kept, and I want guaranteed rewards to run them or I'm gonna throw a tantrum"...
Why take a dump in that salad, when increasing the amount of rewards is a much better way of making it a truly community driven event, as they conceptually were meant to be...
Yes, you would eventually reach a point where the content is trivialized by numbers. But even in this scenario, the objective of making a bunch of people come together to run a PQ has been achieved. This is more than enough...
This is absolutely not the time nor the place to be creating content that discriminates. Ch. 22 should be as any other PQ, just bigger, harder and more rewarding, to attract as many participants as possible. Not everyone needs to be get a bag every time they complete a PQ. They really shouldn't, even. But everyone present should have a chance at one, this is simply a fundamental part of PQs.

From my understanding of what you wrote, you are proposing 3 things here:

• Point 1: Zerging the content is a valid approach if it results in an overall fun experience

• Point 2: Increase the number of rewards, scaling with the number of participants (e.g. City) to accommodate the above

• Point 3: No differentiation between warband players and others(leeches) when it comes to rolls

Here is my rebuttal to each of them, being as concise as I can:

• Point 1: The new versions of the PQs were designed with traditional MMO raids in mind. This can be easily inferred from the mechanics present, the amount of coordination required to clear them and the developers' own words:
  
  
  They were designed to be tackled by 24 people and by warbands. Disagreeing with this decision on a personal level, on the virtue of the content having existed as a PQ until now is fine. However, as long as these new raid versions of the content are well received by the community (Which so far they are, both from personal experience running and leading them, and from what I see over on various RoR discords) we need to accept them. I also point you towards the guidelines of this server:
  
  I also agree that instanced versions of the PQs would have been ideal. But that would expend valuable dev-time at the moment that is better off used in other places. The problem lies in how to preserve the current vision without wasting too much effort from the devs.
  
  If you dislike the absence of more zergy, open-PVE content, I would perhaps recommend writing a forum post for in favor of expanding on the roaming overworld bosses, than have been so far tied to specific Events, and making them more of a permanent feature.
  
  Finally, for the first point, you raise the following concern:

  This is absolutely not the time nor the place to be creating content that discriminates.

  And in principle you are correct; the content should not discriminate. And it won't. It will just work as designed; for up to 24 people. What can potentially discriminate are the people organizing and leading groups for the content. Over on Destro we have had several non-discriminatory pug-ch.22 wbs happening in the last week or so. And from a personal standpoint while leading, I plan on taking in anyone as long as there is a spot open for them (and we can sufficiently clear the content). I hope Order ch.22 isn't exclusively being ran by full guild/alliance warbands, but even if so, it's up to the rest of the players to organize themselves for it. The guides on the wiki are more than sufficient to tackle the raids for any warband.

• Point 2: Referring back to my original argument regarding why the rewards should be exactly 24:

  • The number of rewards should be exactly 24. Here is the reasoning:
    • If it's less than 24 then people some people will always be disappointed by effectively ''wasting their time''. While this might be fine in the case of guild/wb leaders passing rewards in favour of other people, this shouldn't be the assumption for any (pug) wb attempting the challenge.
    • If it's more than 24 then it would incentivize people to form overflow warbands/parties to attempt the PQs. While this could alleviate the leeching issue, it would also be quite awkward since all healers would prefer to be in the main warband so as to be able to cross heal better (and therefore get better rewards). Promoting organizational drama should be avoided at all costs.

  Arguing in favour of less than 24 rewards has some merit, but it just feels bad to be that way in my opinion. Even if it's just white bags with some war tokens, rewards should be there for the few bottom spots.
  Arguing in favour of more than 24 rewards makes no sense because the content is designed for 24 and due to the organizational drama it promotes.

• Point 3: What I wrote on my original post regarding warbands having to be treated advantageously still stands.

  If people have equal chances in a warband and outside it (by performing their role), then most people will decide to ''leech'' since that would grant the same rewards but with putting in less effort outside the game (joining discord, listening to leader commands in coms, etc.). Consequently, as per the first statement, this would gradually motivate people to avoid warbands and thus result in a suboptimal (for the community and the game) way of tackling this content.

  If a system to differentiate wb members from leech isn't implemented then it would naturally incentivize leeching (especially on dps classes). Judging from personal experience before the PQs were removed at the Ability Rework patch, leeching isn't tolerated. The system where a warband competes with a couple leechers for rolls makes the whole experience quite negative and is an extra source of drama that in the past we always strove to avoid.
  Wb + leeches is not a stable state for running the PQs.
  If the situation goes on without intervention, you'll find out soon that either leeches will become extinct naturally (by people in warbands flaming them or flat-out refusing to complete the PQs out of spite), or in the end it will become what you propose; someone calls for ch.22 in /5 and then 50+ talisman starved leeches pop up there and try to zerg it down (because all the warbands gave up and this is the only way to do the PQ left for them). Or the content just dies. Do we really want any of this negativity?

For the rest of the points you raise regarding contribution and the reward system, I will be posting in a separate reply (to make thing less cluttered). See below.

All of this still hinges on the notion that they are no longer PQs; While the clear goal is to make the content a warband activity, and it being "marketed" as such outside of the game, this is entirely moot on the whole and for all practical purposes only indicates that the content needs at least a warband present to function, given the more important in-game factors. The only thing that truly matters is the in-game implementation. As of right now, the PQs do not state that they are designed for exactly 24 people. They do not state that they are designed for 18-24 players. Or any other variation that lets the 95% of people that typically do not invest in the meta surrounding a game know that they are not welcome. The PQ tag reads "Designed for 24+ players". The PQs are advertised on the war report. And of course, are called PQs and function as PQs.

Part of my point is that running the PQ with a warband+leeches should be seen as the norm. This is in fact one of the few factors that can truly make them not instantly be clearable with a 100% success rate by said warbands. Any additional people outside the warbands still have to learn the mechanics for things to go smoothly, just like in open PvP. And yes, sometimes they will cause wipes. The solution? Teach them the mechanic. It's a public quest in an MMO. It's not supposed to be a sterile environment. Eventually these guys will nail it aswell and feel more inclined to join the warbands instead, or at the very least, be able to participate in a more meaningful manner. This is the kind of stuff that makes the game feel more alive, more like an actual MMO. Far, far more so than trying to make every system into sterile gear farms for the people already inclined to organize and in the know.

And well, if this all seems like some kind of outlandish notion, I honestly don't even know what to think. It really just sucks to see this kind of mindset applied even to overworld PvE activities of all things. It's on the same level as if a warband started threatening not to play and flaming some new guy playing a level 34 solo engi because he's "leeching" tokens and doing some bad punts/staggers here and there causing frustration. Meanwhile the correct approach would be to accept that he's entitled to some of the loot, and to attempt explaining the importance of CC including immunity timers. PQs are the PvE equivalent of RvR.

[georgehabadasher]

Spoiler:

First of all, thank you for the reply.
Let me begin by examining our biggest disagreements.

This along with the other complaints just reads as "the PQ is actually worth doing, so it needs to be gate kept, and I want guaranteed rewards to run them or I'm gonna throw a tantrum"...
Why take a dump in that salad, when increasing the amount of rewards is a much better way of making it a truly community driven event, as they conceptually were meant to be...
Yes, you would eventually reach a point where the content is trivialized by numbers. But even in this scenario, the objective of making a bunch of people come together to run a PQ has been achieved. This is more than enough...
This is absolutely not the time nor the place to be creating content that discriminates. Ch. 22 should be as any other PQ, just bigger, harder and more rewarding, to attract as many participants as possible. Not everyone needs to be get a bag every time they complete a PQ. They really shouldn't, even. But everyone present should have a chance at one, this is simply a fundamental part of PQs.

From my understanding of what you wrote, you are proposing 3 things here:

• Point 1: Zerging the content is a valid approach if it results in an overall fun experience

• Point 2: Increase the number of rewards, scaling with the number of participants (e.g. City) to accommodate the above

• Point 3: No differentiation between warband players and others(leeches) when it comes to rolls

Here is my rebuttal to each of them, being as concise as I can:

• Point 1: The new versions of the PQs were designed with traditional MMO raids in mind. This can be easily inferred from the mechanics present, the amount of coordination required to clear them and the developers' own words:
  
  
  They were designed to be tackled by 24 people and by warbands. Disagreeing with this decision on a personal level, on the virtue of the content having existed as a PQ until now is fine. However, as long as these new raid versions of the content are well received by the community (Which so far they are, both from personal experience running and leading them, and from what I see over on various RoR discords) we need to accept them. I also point you towards the guidelines of this server:
  
  I also agree that instanced versions of the PQs would have been ideal. But that would expend valuable dev-time at the moment that is better off used in other places. The problem lies in how to preserve the current vision without wasting too much effort from the devs.
  
  If you dislike the absence of more zergy, open-PVE content, I would perhaps recommend writing a forum post for in favor of expanding on the roaming overworld bosses, than have been so far tied to specific Events, and making them more of a permanent feature.
  
  Finally, for the first point, you raise the following concern:

  This is absolutely not the time nor the place to be creating content that discriminates.

  And in principle you are correct; the content should not discriminate. And it won't. It will just work as designed; for up to 24 people. What can potentially discriminate are the people organizing and leading groups for the content. Over on Destro we have had several non-discriminatory pug-ch.22 wbs happening in the last week or so. And from a personal standpoint while leading, I plan on taking in anyone as long as there is a spot open for them (and we can sufficiently clear the content). I hope Order ch.22 isn't exclusively being ran by full guild/alliance warbands, but even if so, it's up to the rest of the players to organize themselves for it. The guides on the wiki are more than sufficient to tackle the raids for any warband.

• Point 2: Referring back to my original argument regarding why the rewards should be exactly 24:

  • The number of rewards should be exactly 24. Here is the reasoning:
    • If it's less than 24 then people some people will always be disappointed by effectively ''wasting their time''. While this might be fine in the case of guild/wb leaders passing rewards in favour of other people, this shouldn't be the assumption for any (pug) wb attempting the challenge.
    • If it's more than 24 then it would incentivize people to form overflow warbands/parties to attempt the PQs. While this could alleviate the leeching issue, it would also be quite awkward since all healers would prefer to be in the main warband so as to be able to cross heal better (and therefore get better rewards). Promoting organizational drama should be avoided at all costs.

  Arguing in favour of less than 24 rewards has some merit, but it just feels bad to be that way in my opinion. Even if it's just white bags with some war tokens, rewards should be there for the few bottom spots.
  Arguing in favour of more than 24 rewards makes no sense because the content is designed for 24 and due to the organizational drama it promotes.

• Point 3: What I wrote on my original post regarding warbands having to be treated advantageously still stands.

  If people have equal chances in a warband and outside it (by performing their role), then most people will decide to ''leech'' since that would grant the same rewards but with putting in less effort outside the game (joining discord, listening to leader commands in coms, etc.). Consequently, as per the first statement, this would gradually motivate people to avoid warbands and thus result in a suboptimal (for the community and the game) way of tackling this content.

  If a system to differentiate wb members from leech isn't implemented then it would naturally incentivize leeching (especially on dps classes). Judging from personal experience before the PQs were removed at the Ability Rework patch, leeching isn't tolerated. The system where a warband competes with a couple leechers for rolls makes the whole experience quite negative and is an extra source of drama that in the past we always strove to avoid.
  Wb + leeches is not a stable state for running the PQs.
  If the situation goes on without intervention, you'll find out soon that either leeches will become extinct naturally (by people in warbands flaming them or flat-out refusing to complete the PQs out of spite), or in the end it will become what you propose; someone calls for ch.22 in /5 and then 50+ talisman starved leeches pop up there and try to zerg it down (because all the warbands gave up and this is the only way to do the PQ left for them). Or the content just dies. Do we really want any of this negativity?

For the rest of the points you raise regarding contribution and the reward system, I will be posting in a separate reply (to make thing less cluttered). See below.

All of this still hinges on the notion that they are no longer PQs; While the clear goal is to make the content a warband activity, and it being "marketed" as such outside of the game, this is entirely moot on the whole and for all practical purposes only indicates that the content needs at least a warband present to function, given the more important in-game factors. The only thing that truly matters is the in-game implementation. As of right now, the PQs do not state that they are designed for exactly 24 people. They do not state that they are designed for 18-24 players. Or any other variation that lets the 95% of people that typically do not invest in the meta surrounding a game know that they are not welcome. The PQ tag reads "Designed for 24+ players". The PQs are advertised on the war report. And of course, are called PQs and function as PQs.

Part of my point is that running the PQ with a warband+leeches should be seen as the norm. This is in fact one of the few factors that can truly make them not instantly be clearable with a 100% success rate by said warbands. Any additional people outside the warbands still have to learn the mechanics for things to go smoothly, just like in open PvP. And yes, sometimes they will cause wipes. The solution? Teach them the mechanic. It's a public quest in an MMO. It's not supposed to be a sterile environment. Eventually these guys will nail it aswell and feel more inclined to join the warbands instead, or at the very least, be able to participate in a more meaningful manner. This is the kind of stuff that makes the game feel more alive, more like an actual MMO. Far, far more so than trying to make every system into sterile gear farms for the people already inclined to organize and in the know.

And well, if this all seems like some kind of outlandish notion, I honestly don't even know what to think. It really just sucks to see this kind of mindset applied even to overworld PvE activities of all things. It's on the same level as if a warband started threatening not to play and flaming some new guy playing a level 34 solo engi because he's "leeching" tokens and doing some bad punts/staggers here and there causing frustration. Meanwhile the correct approach would be to accept that he's entitled to some of the loot, and to attempt explaining the importance of CC including immunity timers. PQs are the PvE equivalent of RvR.

Exactly this.

If we want to have raid content that requires exactly 24 players, then it follows that the content should be instanced, not a public quest in the open world. Consistently implementing mechanics which gate casual players from content in an attempt to get them to join groups is the reason the game's population is in the state it is.

Honestly, it's a little surprising to see Only from E&C advocating such changes. I've always perceived your guild generally, and you specifically as very welcoming to and supporting of new and casual players. It's quite a comment on the state of the game's reward systems and community that even the most casual friendly guilds and players are suggesting changes like this.