Return of Reckoning

freshour wrote:Is it safe to say that most people saying no to this don't do SC's very often OR don't play NA hours more specifically on order side of the NA hours?

If not - You must be very special to your family or you are just trolling.

Because if you do a lot of SC's, or play during NA hours you would without a doubt agree with this post... I'm still not entirely sure how people aren't actually.. Lotta special people I guess.

I started playing my knight again about a week ago; i managed to get from about RR22 to RR30 during that week virtually just with semi-succesful SC pugging and i didn't even play him excessively.

Luth wrote: I started playing my knight again about a week ago; i managed to get from about RR22 to RR30 during that week virtually just with semi-succesful SC pugging and i didn't even play him excessively.

As I said, this is more apparent with higher RR than 40. What you did in one week is ~174k Renown. One or two good evenings of oRvR. 1-30 is slightly less Renown than 30-40

Shadowgurke wrote:

magicthighs wrote:
No idea what's planned for that, I wouldn't oppose it.

So you are actually in favor of what I said? Bringing renown gain in line?

I would say yes, but by lowering the renown in RvR rather than increasing it in scenarios.

The overall rate of progression is something that will need to be looked at in the future, but that's a soft question of what "feels right," so measuring and tuning it has a lower importance than hard fixes, like content. Moreover, I don't think we'd be able to tone it down without putting a system in place to handle the inevitable outcry from altoholics. We have some ideas there, but again, less important than getting enough content in that we can reasonably sit back and let things stay stable for a while.

Torquemadra wrote:Scenarios are small pitched battles with locked numbers and an objective. The renown gain is fine, the carrot in scens is weapons and off spec armour.

If you want to play a melee specced dok/wp then the gear is mandatory and hardly considered off spec considering that's the spec they were designed around . Dps shams / am also need duelist to be fully effective due to the itemization. But putting that aside i think it's perfectly fine how the renown stands, and its already been said that orvr should always yield the most rewards.

@topic:

You people do realise that with the enemy climbing higher and higher in renown ranks it will give you more and more renown too when killing them?
At the start of the original server, the renown gain was very low too because, among other things, the players had generally low renown ranks.
As the ranks increased, the renown gain grew bigger and bigger (and chars leveled faster and faster). On top of that we had an additional renown inflation due to serverwide bonuses.

The system is already a perpetual motion machine, which even gets faster and faster over the time and you guys want to shovel additional coal into the engine...

Shadowgurke wrote:

Luth wrote: I started playing my knight again about a week ago; i managed to get from about RR22 to RR30 during that week virtually just with semi-succesful SC pugging and i didn't even play him excessively.

As I said, this is more apparent with higher RR than 40. What you did in one week is ~174k Renown. One or two good evenings of oRvR. 1-30 is slightly less Renown than 30-40

Yes, but it should take a decent amount of time and as i wrote i think the renown gain in RvR is too high.
Atm many people play low RR alts, but when the renown cap is raised everyone logs their main again and this will alone mean a general increase of renown.

Shadowgurke wrote: So you are actually in favor of what I said? Bringing renown gain in line?

I personally think renown gain in orvr could be taken down a notch, yes. I don't think renown gain in scs should be raised, and I think renown gain in scs should be lower than in orvr.

Let me rephrase that. It's an entirely optional set with little to no endgame viability.

Yes, a t3 set will be useless in endgame. Are you surprised? Are you surprised that, with these artificial rank caps for the tiers at the moment, the sets aren't that great? Do you think something should be done about it now, only to have to revert it again once T4 is released and the rank caps go back to normal?

If you can either grind Scenarios for ~8 hours or make a quest that takes 30-60 minutes for the exact same outcome, why would anyone in their right mind do Scenarios?

I dunno. Because they think it's fun?

That's generally why people play games, I heard.

Since we are talking about weapons, I don't think that applies.

You were talking about boundless gear, didn't say you just meant the weapons. And if you're only talking about the weapons, again, what do you expect? A purple r35 weapon is better than a r29 one. The current situation with changed rank caps for T3 is not normal, and won't be the case in the future, so it shouldn't be grounds for any changes.

And if they were made more expensive people would complain it's a grind.

The people who complain are the ones who loathe Scenarios. Now that we have the quest weapons, there is no reason to do Scens so no reason to complain. Increasing the price would not fix anything because, again, there are similar weapons available for less effort. If you really want to make weapons the reward for Scenarios then there is one simple solution. Make the best weapons by far available only through Scenarios, preferably upgradeable ones. Since this won't happen I suggest thinking about a better "reward" for Scenarios. Like... Renown.

I think you're so focused on carrots you forget that games are supposed to be something you play for fun.

Ah yes the "You are supposed to play for fun" argument.

That pretty much means you lost the argument.

bloodi wrote:Ah yes the "You are supposed to play for fun" argument.

That pretty much means you lost the argument.

Great, I'll continue to play because I enjoy playing then, while you chase after carrots you don't like.

bloodi wrote:Ah yes the "You are supposed to play for fun" argument.

That pretty much means you lost the argument.

What do you play games for if not for fun?