Recent Topics

Ads

Quick bandaid for ORvR

Chat about everything else - ask questions, share stories, or just hang out.
Tiggo
Former Staff
Posts: 1948

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#21 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:21 pm

Morf wrote:
Tiggo wrote:i dont get it, population is 50:50 or near that. why is it not possible to fight the "order zerg" where are all the destro players and why dont they fight?
Its not impossible but only a few groups have the mindset of running a double sorc bomb group, most dont enjoy it becasue its boring. also destro simply have a better mentality and prefer skilled pvp encounters not taking down a single player or keep guard with 60 players.
Spoiler:
Just kidding.
Pop numbers dont show where players are, so you may see 100 order players in t2 RvR and the 100 destro players are split up

i dont believe population structure is different destru or order side. both have the same history, why should there suddenly be more t2 order players/chars then destru. it makes absolutly no sense other then i write above, destruction fullfills its own prophecy willingly. and it MAKES NO SENSE.
- Martock - Tiggo - Antigonos - Mago - Hamilkar - Melquart
- Smooshie (Destro)

Ads
skutrug
Posts: 131

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#22 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:25 pm

I am ok with it if 1/ It affects people that are RvR flag + and in the zone RvR lakes and 2/ have been involved in at least a PvP fight in the last 10 min.
That would limit the reward to those who have at least tried to fight something instead of being AFK in the warcamp.
This should not be that difficult to implement code-wise.
Frielda
“You go to WAR with the Pugs you have, not the Premades you might want or wish you had”

User avatar
boog
Posts: 343

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#23 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:30 pm

I can say having played both sides in T1 and T2 (as I am sure many of you have), for T2 the Order zerg, at least during times I typically play (6pm-11pm EST) severely out numbers T2 Destro. Adversely, from my experience playing at the previously mentioned times, Destro T1 zerg usually out numbers Order T1 zerg.

To look at the server population statistics and blanket those numbers for T2 only is gross misuse of statistical analysis.

I agree with you Azuzu, AAO would help tremendously and I anxiously await its arrival. However, I believe the actual coding behind AAO will be something that takes time to implement and have it implemented properly. I agree AAO needs to, and as AZ stated will return.

I am all for implementing a means to make it so that we just don't have mailbox guardians riding pity ticks. However, once again this will add more coding (I assume) for the devs to use for a quick Band-Aid until a more permanent solution is installed.

Tiggo, the reason why we are seeing an influx of Order zergers is because, as it stands right now, there is no incentive for the losing realm. The losing realm does not get to progress where as the victorious realm reaps all the benefits, which is how it should be. However, if the losing realm is unable to progress their character or unable to play the game how they wish (in other words they prefer ORvR over SC) it only makes sense for them to abandon ship to play the game they love in a way that allows them to progress at a tolerable rate.

It is equally frustrating for the losing realm to fight for multiple hours for minimal renown only to feed the zerg so in the end they can gain even MORE renown for capturing the zone.

I agree it is a self fulfilling prophecy. Destro doesn't want to get farmed so Destro doesn't do ORvR and then since no Destro is doing ORvR the Order zerg is only larger by comparison. the Destro zerg needs an incentive to take part in ORvR and as it stands right now there is no need for a minority realm to take part in ORvR once the opposing zerg gets to large. Obviously AAO, once it is implemented, would be a great way to encourage the minority realm to get back into ORvR but the coding for AAO (I assume) is going to be more arduous than implementing a pity tick.

As I have stated before this is not to be considered the end all be all solution to ORvR but as a means to encourage ORvR until AAO or a new ORvR system can be put in place. Implementing a new ORvR system or waiting for AAO will take sometime for the devs to produce with their already hectic schedules both with RL and the time they commit to making this game great.

I read people asking for drastic changes for a problem they want solved immediately but not offering any real time practical solutions. This is time practical (I assume, once again) and can be removed once the new system is in place if people so choose. I agree AAO would be make a significant difference but as devs have eluded to, the AAO system will take time.

The idea is being shot down because you guys aren't applying it to the spectrum it is being used in and are creating extraneous variables for how it could or could not work. There is not a solution that will end all evils and leave everyone happy.

The constant rebuttal to this, "blame the zerg" ORvR issue is just the opposing realm just needs to play. Considering that the current state of the ORvR system has made it so they don't want to play is creating a standstill in which nothing is accomplished.
CHSN Wafulz | KBOB Wafuls | IB Waffulz | BG Waffelz | BO Waaaghfulz | SM Waffels

User avatar
Bignusty
Posts: 454

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#24 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 3:52 pm

dkabib wrote:No. People will be like, "let them take it, we get more from the pity tick than defending".

Just no.
All peeps arn't like this.

Tiggo
Former Staff
Posts: 1948

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#25 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:05 pm

boog wrote: Tiggo, the reason why we are seeing an influx of Order zergers is because, as it stands right now, there is no incentive for the losing realm. The losing realm does not get to progress where as the victorious realm reaps all the benefits, which is how it should be. However, if the losing realm is unable to progress their character or unable to play the game how they wish (in other words they prefer ORvR over SC) it only makes sense for them to abandon ship to play the game they love in a way that allows them to progress at a tolerable rate.
again this would only count if there would be actually less players on one side, and that is just not true.

why is it no incenctive to actually WIN the fight, rather then abandon it by just not playing und then suggest the losing side should get something, too?

the 80:20% in favor of destruction CLEARLY shows there arent less destruction players. Perhaps less logging in and Xrealming but how can those SAME persons ask for aao or pitty tick, when exactly the same people are the reason for the problems and imbalance in the first hand? It just doesnt make any sense.
- Martock - Tiggo - Antigonos - Mago - Hamilkar - Melquart
- Smooshie (Destro)

User avatar
boog
Posts: 343

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#26 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:07 pm

Bignusty wrote:
dkabib wrote:No. People will be like, "let them take it, we get more from the pity tick than defending".

Just no.
All peeps arn't like this.
Thank you for pointing this out.

The issue as my previous post stated is now instead of critiques and constructivism people are applying sweeping generalizations and creating bold assumptions and finding extreme circumstances to dismiss the idea. Obviously there will be people who do exactly what these people are pointing out but they are ignoring the idea that this could not happen.

I will be the first to say that if I have spent 3 hours fighting for a zone against a zerg that I know we can't win against, I will give in and say let them have it so we can at least get some actual renown and try again in the next zone. But anyways :\
CHSN Wafulz | KBOB Wafuls | IB Waffulz | BG Waffelz | BO Waaaghfulz | SM Waffels

User avatar
boog
Posts: 343

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#27 » Fri Oct 02, 2015 4:26 pm

Tiggo wrote:
boog wrote: Tiggo, the reason why we are seeing an influx of Order zergers is because, as it stands right now, there is no incentive for the losing realm. The losing realm does not get to progress where as the victorious realm reaps all the benefits, which is how it should be. However, if the losing realm is unable to progress their character or unable to play the game how they wish (in other words they prefer ORvR over SC) it only makes sense for them to abandon ship to play the game they love in a way that allows them to progress at a tolerable rate.
again this would only count if there would be actually less players on one side, and that is just not true.

why is it no incenctive to actually WIN the fight, rather then abandon it by just not playing und then suggest the losing side should get something, too?

the 80:20% in favor of destruction CLEARLY shows there arent less destruction players. Perhaps less logging in and Xrealming but how can those SAME persons ask for aao or pitty tick, when exactly the same people arethe reason for the problems and imbalance in the first hand? It just doesnt make any sense.
Once again you are applying a statistic that is not representative of just the T2 populations but the entire server.

It isn't that there isn't any incentive to win the fight. Clearly that is the entire purpose of ORvR, to win fights. The issue comes when the other team does not/ can not win the fights because they are simply out numbered. Granted they may win the occasional skirmish opposed the majority the zerging realm gains. It is as simple as cutting your losses. Why feed the zerg so they can get renown from you AND capturing the zone? You can for the love of playing the game. But it is just human nature to want to win at something or at least be acknowledge for your efforts. It is because the minority realm gets nothing from it that people are deterred from ORvR.

You are suggesting that you just magically make people play against the zerg but you, and the current ORvR system, are not giving them a reason.

And this isn't just for Destro. This is also for when Order is victim of the zerg.

You already answered part of your own complaint when you said perhaps less xrealming. If less people xrealm then the minority realm gets larger. As the minority realm gets larger actual ORvR can happen rather than just zerging. If they are the reason for the imbalance giving them a reason not to imbalance it restores balance. You know kind of like a scale.

I don't see where you are getting this 80:20% statistic from if you could please provide a source it would be greatly appreciated, as I have never seen the server statistics show that drastic of a slide for either realms population.
CHSN Wafulz | KBOB Wafuls | IB Waffulz | BG Waffelz | BO Waaaghfulz | SM Waffels

Wraithedge
Posts: 135

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#28 » Sat Oct 03, 2015 5:24 am

Speaking for myself, I want to advance my character. And I can't do that if I am being utterly dominated and killed instantly. If there is no possible way for me to advance my character then I will not play that character. I will not stand around and play the farm for whoever is zerging opposite me. If you think I should then please have your character out when my side is on top and just stand there quietly while we kill you over and over, at least until that doesn't make sense anymore.

But if there WAS a way to advance my character even if there is no possible way to win. Well that would make the decision to do something else much more nuanced.

And just for some fun research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

Ads
navis
Posts: 784

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#29 » Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:06 am

satori wrote:it would not be an incentive to actually fight the zerg so it is useless

what we need is a system that splits up the zerg (like removing lock timers on BOs and only making keep door take damage as long as attacking side holds 3+ BOs)
Not quite a good idea as the defense against this is that the defenders have to split up to recapture the BO's = BAD IDEA to create a opposition with a meaningful resistance if outnumbered. For that task it's good to bring some NPC's to the assistance.
So in order to help out the defenders why not add auto spawning NPC's at the BO which will retake the objective, after not being killed by opposition during when a Keep take is underway for at least 2 minutes?
Image

User avatar
satori
Posts: 233
Contact:

Re: Quick bandaid for ORvR

Post#30 » Sat Oct 03, 2015 6:58 am

navis wrote:
satori wrote:it would not be an incentive to actually fight the zerg so it is useless

what we need is a system that splits up the zerg (like removing lock timers on BOs and only making keep door take damage as long as attacking side holds 3+ BOs)
Not quite a good idea as the defense against this is that the defenders have to split up to recapture the BO's = BAD IDEA to create a opposition with a meaningful resistance if outnumbered. For that task it's good to bring some NPC's to the assistance.
So in order to help out the defenders why not add auto spawning NPC's at the BO which will retake the objective, after not being killed by opposition during when a Keep take is underway for at least 2 minutes?
i really don't see how splitting up the zergs can be a bad thing, small fights in WAR have always been way more fun than spamming AoE in a group of 50+ players like a braindead zombie
and when the zerg is plit up the defending force can try to group up to fight one part of the attackers, keep in mind that attackers in my described model above have to split up on the keep and 3 BOs to have a chance to damage the keep door, so defenders should have a really good chance to win vs only 1/4 of the attackers AND you could remove all NPCs

i would like to see not a single NPC in the PvP areas at all, make it simply a flag in the keeps and BOs that takes some time to capture (like it was on live at some point i believe) so the actual fighting is never PvE and always PvP
imagine peace

chars:
Tathagatagarba - Idleprotest - Pinkpanther
Satori - Satoritv - Cookiemonstaaa - Arthurconandok - Gobdylan - Marychoppinz - Hugehackman

shameless plug:
livestream - youtube - facebook - twitter

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Vodrak and 35 guests