Feedback: Smallscale PvP

[Jajcek12]

Now i will use shalow " power phraze"

Good class ballance that involved interaction of all archetype and abbilitie towards victorious game.
( no solo heros on f.o.m. class that can win sc all alone- and didnt bother about other archetypes to play with.)
More levels of matchmaking in scenarios
Renown rank/ gear/ build /hidden mmr ect.
Scenarios mechanics that teach players how to interact effectively with current meta/combat meta, as perimeter of won sc.
(No two worlds of gameplay in one sc instance pvp/pve)

[Baaldr]

what an odd post.

[Bozzax]

What part do you consider shallow?

[Jajcek12]

What part do you consider shallow?

It is writen in very general intention and generalization , that why i considered it as shallow.

[Florian90210]

Death of rankeds really showed that people don't want competitiveness, they just want to stomp those who don't have ability to form const group.

[Lion1986]

Death of rankeds really showed that people don't want competitiveness, they just want to stomp those who don't have ability to form const group.

death of ranked meant
1) devs are clueless on how balance classes efffectively because if you were not the FOTM class you were simply stomped
2) competitive did not give anything super worth the farm
3) most ppl are just braindead on life support and prefeer to zerg mindlessly. just look the guilds on the server. most are garbage alt parking guilds.
4) if you see now the game killed all aspects of the game except for zerg: cities are worthless, they give same stuff of rvr in tier 2 areas for example. Unifying the marks was biggest mistake of server.
5) classes were stripped bare each patch for smallscale because "game is balance in rvr" which is so stupid as statement which i wish not to even comment.

[FairWeather]

Players are part of the problem but ignoring the fact that the game is frustrating will not make people suddenly desire to be better. They will either keep doing what gives them a return on their time investment or make them leave altogether. Then there will be fewer scenarios for everybody.
A significant part of the scenario population is pug-based and there is simply no solution that will make scenarios better if it does not make it better for pugs too. Many people would rather not queue than being forced to group up and nothing is going to change that.
Nobody joins scenarios to be frustrated but the way scenarios are structured is inherently frustrating and fuels some of the negligence many are complaining about.

This is my experience based on pugging most days of the week throughout all day (about 40-50 scenarios per day on average on different chars both side).

• -The most obvious issue. Scenarios that become RvR.
  Most people learn RvR before scenarios, they pick bad habits and bring them along in scenarios. It is not possible to help these people drop these habits when a scenario becomes too crowded.
  Scenarios fall apart once more than 12v12 players join, as it immediately tells people to switch on their RvR brain and all the bad habits they have picked up come up. All the problems I mention below are compounded with each other by this.

Suggestion > A scenario is still salvageable in 6vs6 if there is one RvRbrain and there is a sweet spot between 6 and 12v12. Once 12 people per team have joined, nobody else should ever be allowed to join. I really don't see why there cannot be a second scenario instance running with the people still in the queue. I personally hate joining when the match is going to end within one minute and if I try to help, I am most likely going to end up dying for nothing just because the system is trying to squeeze as many people as possible into one match.

• - the maps are too big and the action gets diluted. They have a ton of empty space that is there just for you to be delayed, while most of the time is spent in the same few active spots.
  In some scenarios the flags are placed in spots that are difficult to reach because there are obstacles or the map is unclear. The end result is that instead of contributing to your team, you are spending time commuting to work.
  Talabec dam is a good example of this. Very often, once one team is on its way to deliver the bomb, you better sit in the middle for it to respawn. If the other team has about 300 points and they are on their way to deliver, once you die it is extremely likely they will win before you even get to them. Many maps are like that due to the commuting distance.

Suggestion > maps could be made smaller ( I understand it is hard to implement for most), spawn camps could be placed closer to the objectives or alternatively, a mount riding speed buff could be added just for scenarios to make riding around faster.

• - Most maps heavily favour ranged combat, with spots where you can shoot at will with impunity and obstacles that allow ranged classes to shoot through them. Playing ranged, irrespective of the class, increases your likelihood to win.
  In several maps trying to reach ranged players is extremely hard due to the lack of cover or very time consuming, often with bottlenecks that work in favour of ranged classes as even a few melee can block the passage, allowing ranged classes to fire at will. As a melee career, when you finally reach them, they have a plethora of tools to set you back and kill you. This advantage is clearly visible by the increasing number of ranged players that join scenarios compared to melee.

Suggestion > if maps cannot be revamped to reduce this issue, the weekly scenario rotation should try to balance the offering by picking maps where different combat styles can prevail so that everybody has a chance to play their career.

• - In most scenarios, time to kill is extremely fast, usually the first person dies within 20 seconds from the start of the first engagement (usually one of the few melee players going through the firing squad). I have had plenty of engagements were a good chunk of one team was wiped within a minute from the first engagement. In most scenarios, all these kills will give quite a lot of points that the team can then add to the objective they now own.
  Anyone that cannot be revived, will spend significant time to get back into the fight.
  On top of that, people that die at the same time may have different respawn times, meaning you end sitting there waiting for those 2 or 3 unlucky ones that have to wait longer. Many people use this time to flame and bring down the mood.
  You can try and regroup with others, but that rarely works. Even if you regroup, the clock is ticking so fast that by the time you re-engage, you are 150 points or more under.
  As a consequence, while all scenarios are supposed to have long runtimes, most scenarios end way before the time runs out with the players on the losing side having accomplished little. Sometimes even on the winning side the victory is hollow.
  When a certain score gap is reached, usually around 200 points, it becomes almost impossible to catch up. It may happen, but it is overwhelmingly more likely not to, so people simply phase out and let the game end.

Suggestion > there is no real point in making it so that a scenario drags when a team has mathematically lost or basically surrendered. A secondary winning condition where a certain score gap and kill difference is met would immediately assign the victory to the team that satisfies both conditions.

• - Capturing speed is tied to the number of people on the objective. A tank that would otherwise be able to hold a flag, is simply punted away or loses the flag just because two enemies are sitting there. If instead a couple of people were able to hold a flag so that their team can reinforce them, catching up would be more frequent.

Suggestion > flags should be captured by interacting with them as a 5 sec channelled action.
Capturing should be interruptible.
Once the channel has finished, the flag goes through a capturing phase of 20-30 seconds that can be interrupted by interacting with it before it starts giving out points.
Players would be forced to clear the enemy team before the flag can be captured, making combat the preferred way to win.
It would also help making it so that scenarios last the totality of the available time, instead of ending way early.

[pseudoman]

Personally I would prefer scenarios to max out at 6v6 perhaps some of the larger maps to be 12 v 12.

I much prefer the small scale fights even when they are a little lopsided. Some of the best fun I have had recently in scens has been 4v4 with no healer. Even if the team loses.

[Panzer80]

For SC's there seems to still be plenty of room for being competitive. Many of the SC's are still basically following the old "premade" moniker. Where most of one side has a discord group in the same SC. Yes, it's less than it used to be, but painting it as you have seems hyperbolic.

As for the RVR lakes I do agree a bit more. The blob lowers quality of play and there needs to be more implemented to break it up.

[Jajcek12]

I start playing ror when ranked starts to be almost not popular, class ballance probably was important factor why players didnt have interest in this format in play style they wish to play.( team effort of all archetypes)
- there is nothing wrong that in competative level exist meta/ fotm, but since this ballance exclude players interaction on both side there is no point to play instance where only one player/class matter.
- game ballance around rvr, its elegant phrase for " we didnt make ballance and combat good enaugh "
play rvr where possible imbalabces of class are hidden under inpredictible environment.
On being competative rvr/sc as a gool for competative ,ambitious players.
Imo being competative is being in control of verious aspects of gameplay , since there is less and less of it no one will decide to practice aspects of gameplay to be better then others. Moste of time bad rng and design kills players not othere players and their effort.
-