Return of Reckoning

Uchoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 5:01 am Losing Morale DR is not a good idea. Just a recap to before we had it. We ran 12 to 14,000 hp on tanks and would get 1 shot walking into a door. Press Immac D, instantly die.

With the current test going on, try to focus on getting your dps players all pushing buttons on the same spot and hitting good targets!

I think this argument is much weaker if you zoom out for a second.

Basically your view is, if I understand it:

1. TTK was too fast, making warband clashes end too quickly and in an unfun way
Solution: 9 target cap to require more positional play and add ST viability

2. Sieges are unpushable against morale bomb
Solution: Cap morales

3. Zerging is now heavily rewarded
Solution: play better

I agree that your solutions for sieges and bursty 24v24ish fights are good ones

However, there is no clear solution to zerging here which is a more serious problem than bad sieges and probably equally serious with TTK being too fast (maybe a bit less, since TTK impacts city play too)

previously you have argued that sieges are generally lousy mechanically and should be improved by ladders or other mechanical adjustments. Fundamentally pushing a door is not that fun a mechanic and would benefit from some major overhauls.

The above issue you laid out: Morale uncapping can help address zerging, but would break siege pushes, is solved by a rethinking of sieges which few people like - while keeping the very enjoyable drawn out 24v24s and discincentivizing zerging.

A fourth point in your model of what this does is the role of ranged groups in ORVR - they are not relevant when the front line melts, but they become useful in drawn out fights. I think if you keep 9 AOE cap, enable more morale bombing to break the zerg - you will still have longer fights and the ranged comps will have a role to play.

The core tension is that: enabling efficient zerg breaking also enables efficient keep push breaking. Ideally you enable zerg breaking and adjust keep mechanics to generate non blob push ways of taking a keep.

Furthermore, in a siege situation where the walls need to be actually defended against ladders etc - ranged comps will play an increased role as well

Zxul wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 8:56 pm

trh382 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 4:16 pm Another would be to uncap morales for the side with AAO in something like the following manner:

20% AAO - 16 morale targets
40% AAO - 24 morale targets
60% AAO - uncapped

2 wbs meet in the zone, equal numbers, equal skills. Except that one side has more people somewhere far away in the zone. Despite equal everything this side wb dies without being able to fight back, since obviously they are responsible for people being somewhere in the zone.

trh382 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 4:16 pm I think another solution would be to change incentives around blobbing. Make an LOTD style buff/debuff that nerfs rewards/renown when lots of people are near you.

2 wbs fight, 1 wb starts to win, and then more of the same side add. No more rewards for you, since the winning wb is obviously responsible for more people joining.

This is a low effort and sarcastic post that fails to engage with the meat of what I said

Your first argument is an argument against all AAO since equal numbers will meet in zones with unequal numbers

Your second argument applies to the currently existing state as a new group entering to clean up a fight will take some of the rewards by nabbing some of the kill credit

As far as uncapping morale goes, I will never agree with it. As a tank/mdps, you Immaculate Defense on the push, which Morale damage ignores, then spam pots and hope your healers can outheal 20+ people all pushing morale on the push. It's not good gameplay.

As far as zergbreaking goes or allowing smaller teams to have a larger impact against a zerg, there has never been a point in time in which there was a balanced way to address this. On live we had Odjira kiting with insane damage ST; or previous to that, massively overpowered AoE so a 6 man with Bright Wizards could easily wipe warbands; We had the extreme power gap with RR100; etc. On RoR they did the Land of the Dead debuff, which is effective, but everyone hates it. The 9 man change is a step in the right direction imo, but it's not the entire solution.

The idea of introducing mechanics in the campaign that force zergs to split up or basically lose if they choose to blob seems to me like the best possible idea.

Smaller groups can have an impact. RIght now when we do 12 mans, we tend to run Single Target groups with some hybrid AoE. We look to eliminate key targets then aoe, or go aoe a weak point, just enough to push the enemy clump over the edge and break it. There's a lot of ways to do it with Tank punts, Ranged ST, etc.

Finally, a good warband can absolutely hold against multiple warbands who are not at the same level of experience but you do have to choose where and when you fight as well as other forms of good decision making.

Uchoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:35 pm As far as uncapping morale goes, I will never agree with it. As a tank/mdps, you Immaculate Defense on the push, which Morale damage ignores, then spam pots and hope your healers can outheal 20+ people all pushing morale on the push. It's not good gameplay.

As far as zergbreaking goes or allowing smaller teams to have a larger impact against a zerg, there has never been a point in time in which there was a balanced way to address this. On live we had Odjira kiting with insane damage ST; or previous to that, massively overpowered AoE so a 6 man with Bright Wizards could easily wipe warbands; We had the extreme power gap with RR100; etc. On RoR they did the Land of the Dead debuff, which is effective, but everyone hates it. The 9 man change is a step in the right direction imo, but it's not the entire solution.

The idea of introducing mechanics in the campaign that force zergs to split up or basically lose if they choose to blob seems to me like the best possible idea.

Smaller groups can have an impact. RIght now when we do 12 mans, we tend to run Single Target groups with some hybrid AoE. We look to eliminate key targets then aoe, or go aoe a weak point, just enough to push the enemy clump over the edge and break it. There's a lot of ways to do it with Tank punts, Ranged ST, etc.

Finally, a good warband can absolutely hold against multiple warbands who are not at the same level of experience but you do have to choose where and when you fight as well as other forms of good decision making.

- you could just change immaculate defense to impact morales as well?

- I agree that campaign mechanics incenting zerg splitting is a really good way to go - I am a bit concerned that this major change has been introduced with no timeline or view of when that will actually happen

- definitely agree that smaller groups can have a big impact, which is a good thing

- I think holding and winning are two different thing, Im not sure how you can ever wipe 48 people with 24 now. You should be able to kite out, get kills, and do some damage - but you will eventually have to retreat into a WC or keep.

Good luck guessing when to hit ID so a 6 man of Squigs and Shamans doesn't 1 shot your warband lol.

No idea on any timeline, that's a question for Staff. An RvR rework was hinted at but I have no idea of the direction they are planning.

Uchoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:35 pm ...The idea of introducing mechanics in the campaign that force zergs to split up or basically lose if they choose to blob seems to me like the best possible idea...

Bingo
Zerging will happen from time to time, either by chance or by need (outmatched/numbere/campaign push). But bringing more incentive and reason for players to spread out, outside of punishment (see lotd attempt) must be the way forward, instead of tackling blobbing for the 10th time now with morale damage mitigation per second and other attempts surely it must be time, finally, to adress the main question;

WHY are warbands running so close together, and how do we make them spread out. Debuffing in lotd didnt help the issue, fighting got kinda slower but behavior didnt change. My prediction is that being outnumbered will not change either, all this will do is push the safety line of tail-tagging dps up closer to the front as they will not be Challenge debuffed nor pressured now with tanks soaking closest nine targets. So if the target of aoe cap was to give smaller organized groups more tools, I dont see how slowing down the action and lowering amount of targets you can debuff, heal and damage will help the smaller force. Slowing down the fight will surely benefit the outnumbering side more as they have more time to recover their extra line and numbers advantage, just on a very principle level it seems backwards. And gameplay shows the same so far.

So unless someone is running a kitey 12 or 24man and just sending in tanks to fish for a kite-overextend-turn&burn gameplay loop, then I honestly dont see any frontal clashes with both sides pushing into eachother where 9targetcap is not just a numbers advantage for the bigger force. But maybe thats my mistake, to think zergbusting was the target of this change based on patchnote reasoning

I can probably count on one hand how many times in the last month ive hit 24targets in orvr as a damagedealer, but Challenges not hitting a bigger force. Syphons not fully healing the group, Energy of Vaul only hitting 9targets now. Like so much seem to be not thought through with reducing aoe cap, when you barely ever hit 24people anyways from the natural targetcap of Collision + 25ft aoe killzone limmitation (anything wider than 25ft is mostly fluf and not criticalmass)

Maybe don't expect a game that is designed for single or multiple warband fights to have to change for those wanting 1-6 man fights. There are only a handful of people working on this game as it is.

Uchoo wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 10:35 pm ...The 9 man change is a step in the right direction imo, but it's not the entire solution...

Finally, a good warband can absolutely hold against multiple warbands who are not at the same level of experience but you do have to choose where and when you fight as well as other forms of good decision making.

Yeah i want to see the rest of the solution too.

Cuz I don't want my only options to be either "stick to another WB", "sit behind a funnel" or "play somewhere where we can kite out to PvE/WC/Postern then turn to catch stragglers". I don't think that the only viable way for Org WBs to play should be a KDA Warband style, i think the game can easily allow multiple play styles to exist.

Some Warbands have to blob or they can't function. Some warbands/12s like to play ranged and do kite games. Some warbands want to have combat calls that generates meaningful impact.

trh382 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 9:26 pm

Zxul wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 8:56 pm

trh382 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 4:16 pm Another would be to uncap morales for the side with AAO in something like the following manner:

20% AAO - 16 morale targets
40% AAO - 24 morale targets
60% AAO - uncapped

2 wbs meet in the zone, equal numbers, equal skills. Except that one side has more people somewhere far away in the zone. Despite equal everything this side wb dies without being able to fight back, since obviously they are responsible for people being somewhere in the zone.

trh382 wrote: ↑Tue Jul 30, 2024 4:16 pm I think another solution would be to change incentives around blobbing. Make an LOTD style buff/debuff that nerfs rewards/renown when lots of people are near you.

2 wbs fight, 1 wb starts to win, and then more of the same side add. No more rewards for you, since the winning wb is obviously responsible for more people joining.

This is a low effort and sarcastic post that fails to engage with the meat of what I said

Your first argument is an argument against all AAO since equal numbers will meet in zones with unequal numbers

Your second argument applies to the currently existing state as a new group entering to clean up a fight will take some of the rewards by nabbing some of the kill credit

You not liking being pointed out about your suggestions being very clearly a bad suggestions doesn't makes the post low effort and sarcastic, it just means you should have thought about it more before posting.

AAO currently doesn't puts one side in a significant disadvantage, it just increases or decreases rewards- unlike your suggestion.

And rewards being shared between more people, or realistically most still going to original wb which did the most dmg, doesn't means rewards suddenly vanishing just because someone else decided to pop up into the area- once again, unlike your suggestion.

Dominations rvr system with bo lockout timers spreads the zerg or it fails to cap zones

Always wss the solution since it is designed with guerilla warfare as an integral part of the core