So of the original WAR, PvE PQs are out, PvP scenarios are out. What will remain, zerging?dkabib wrote: IMO keep SCs contribution OUT.
I only enjoy ORvR, and would hate to need SCs contributing.
Poll: RvR System Proposal
Forum rules
Before posting in this forum, please read the Terms of Use.
This section is for providing feedback and sharing your opinions on what could be improved or changed for the Return of Reckoning project.
To ensure your feedback is as helpful as possible, please review the Rules and Posting Guidelines before posting.
Before posting in this forum, please read the Terms of Use.
This section is for providing feedback and sharing your opinions on what could be improved or changed for the Return of Reckoning project.
To ensure your feedback is as helpful as possible, please review the Rules and Posting Guidelines before posting.
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
magicthighs wrote:Finding bugs is what players are for. The RoR team itself doesn't have the people nor the time to do that.
Ads
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
You want to go do SCs, go do it...OldPlayer wrote:So of the original WAR, PvE PQs are out, PvP scenarios are out. What will remain, zerging?dkabib wrote: IMO keep SCs contribution OUT.
I only enjoy ORvR, and would hate to need SCs contributing.
You wanna do some PvE, wrong game...?
Zerging? No thanks.
Vanhorts
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
I am afraid I've played different WAR. We had groups making PQs, groups pwning scenarios, groups taking care of BOs and warbands storming keeps, everyone ensuing zone locks.dkabib wrote:You want to go do SCs, go do it...OldPlayer wrote:So of the original WAR, PvE PQs are out, PvP scenarios are out. What will remain, zerging?dkabib wrote: IMO keep SCs contribution OUT.
I only enjoy ORvR, and would hate to need SCs contributing.
You wanna do some PvE, wrong game...?
Zerging? No thanks.
And considering PQs it was changing everyday, cause most people wanted to patrol RvR zone, therefore it was based on calendar.
Current version of RvR is not about zerging? May I join your server?
magicthighs wrote:Finding bugs is what players are for. The RoR team itself doesn't have the people nor the time to do that.
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
How about you actually read the suggestion, before making assumptions?OldPlayer wrote:So of the original WAR, PvE PQs are out, PvP scenarios are out. What will remain, zerging?dkabib wrote: IMO keep SCs contribution OUT.
I only enjoy ORvR, and would hate to need SCs contributing.
-
- Posts: 71
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
And i dont see rewards for loser side (rp medal)... because fight during 1 hour lose the lake and get anything ? So peeps are gonna to do same things like now.
Fighting and win its always fun
Fighting and lose isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun !!!!!!!! O **** win nothing for all our effort it's boring i stop Orvr.
Why destro and order (sometimes) stop to do Orvr t2 because they are zerged and they win nothing for keep them motivated to def other lake.
Fighting and win its always fun
Fighting and lose isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun !!!!!!!! O **** win nothing for all our effort it's boring i stop Orvr.
Why destro and order (sometimes) stop to do Orvr t2 because they are zerged and they win nothing for keep them motivated to def other lake.
Last edited by Blorckever on Thu Sep 24, 2015 7:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
AAO would also fix this. If you lose repeatedly with a AAO system implemented, it is in fact your own fault then. You are playing badly (As a faction).Blorckever wrote:And i dont see rewards for loser side (rp medal)... because fight during 1 hour lose the lake and get anything ? So peeps are gonna to do same things like now.
Fighting and win its always fun
Fighting and lose isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun !!!!!!!! O **** win nothing for all our effort it's boring i stop Orvr.
Why destro and order (sometimes) stop to do Orvr t2 because they are zerged and they win nothing for keep them motivated to def other lake.
But having said that, I'm not a fan of losers getting nothing, because it's never your own fault (as a single individual) that you lost. Therefore it makes no sense that you should be punished for it. Rewards should however be bigger for the winner by a large margin. Something like 3:1.
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
Do not make assumptions so fast, dear friend. My response was to dkabib, not to OP.Razid1987 wrote:How about you actually read the suggestion, before making assumptions?OldPlayer wrote:So of the original WAR, PvE PQs are out, PvP scenarios are out. What will remain, zerging?dkabib wrote: IMO keep SCs contribution OUT.
I only enjoy ORvR, and would hate to need SCs contributing.
magicthighs wrote:Finding bugs is what players are for. The RoR team itself doesn't have the people nor the time to do that.
-
- Posts: 71
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
Sure sure just peeps on RvR lake and peeps on loser side can be rewarded for all effort adn agree to whit reward marginRazid1987 wrote:AAO would also fix this. If you lose repeatedly with a AAO system implemented, it is in fact your own fault then. You are playing badly (As a faction).Blorckever wrote:And i dont see rewards for loser side (rp medal)... because fight during 1 hour lose the lake and get anything ? So peeps are gonna to do same things like now.
Fighting and win its always fun
Fighting and lose isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun !!!!!!!! O **** win nothing for all our effort it's boring i stop Orvr.
Why destro and order (sometimes) stop to do Orvr t2 because they are zerged and they win nothing for keep them motivated to def other lake.
But having said that, I'm not a fan of losers getting nothing, because it's never your own fault (as a single individual) that you lost. Therefore it makes no sense that you should be punished for it. Rewards should however be bigger for the winner by a large margin. Something like 3:1.
1 medal for looser 5 for winner / or exemple 1200 rp for winner 400 or 600 for loser whit this add content loser side can see their chars forward a bit ...
Ads
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
I always found that the attractive part of war was cooperative play, and I like a system that poses challenges to players requiring cooperation. By this I do not mean forcing players to join a WB, but rather requiring a variety of tasks to be completed simultaneously to lock a zone: Taking keep, holding objectives, winning scenarios... Not all has or can be done by the same players, but everyone should have a role to play in locking the zone. In the early days of WAR, the lower tiers zones counted for lock also, so that players in the higher zones would be "encouraging" lower tiers players to secure objectives. I remember cheering for the premades going into scenarios be ause we needed their victory to lock. Artificially locking objectives and creating a linear zone locking path is promoting zerging: The mass go from BO 1 to BO 2 to keep without concern because the BOs are lock for 15 min... what's the point of that artificial lock: If players want/need to hold them, let them post guards!
“You go to WAR with the Pugs you have, not the Premades you might want or wish you had”
Re: Poll: RvR System Proposal
That's a really fine idea (Except for the SC part), but there's just one problem: The same 4 classes excel at all those tasks, because... AoE!skutrug wrote:I always found that the attractive part of war was cooperative play, and I like a system that poses challenges to players requiring cooperation. By this I do not mean forcing players to join a WB, but rather requiring a variety of tasks to be completed simultaneously to lock a zone: Taking keep, holding objectives, winning scenarios... Not all has or can be done by the same players, but everyone should have a role to play in locking the zone. In the early days of WAR, the lower tiers zones counted for lock also, so that players in the higher zones would be "encouraging" lower tiers players to secure objectives. I remember cheering for the premades going into scenarios be ause we needed their victory to lock. Artificially locking objectives and creating a linear zone locking path is promoting zerging: The mass go from BO 1 to BO 2 to keep without concern because the BOs are lock for 15 min... what's the point of that artificial lock: If players want/need to hold them, let them post guards!
The 4 classes are of course: Knight/Chosen, BW/Sorc, Slayer/Chopper, and WP/DoK.
They take keeps the best, defend them best, hold BOs best, take BOs best, and win SCs best. Just get a group going with 2 of each role and you're golden.
Also, the problem with the lower tiers counting was in the early days that people logged OFF thier Rank 40 mains, and onto alts to flip zones. It destroyed the activity in the T4 zones. I don't want that to happen here, too.
There is no artificial lock in the suggestion. You should reread it.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests