Return of Reckoning

Panzerkasper wrote:

Darosh wrote:... ~ a Slayer with WW bot can keep up ID on the entire opposing group and apply ridiculous amounts of Lag. ...

Let me correct that

Tactical lag.

Aurandilaz wrote:Oh yeah, the Slayer "meta" from live... enemy WB might have have 5-10 slayers in it, all spamming ID... you could feel the lag moving towards you.
That "meta" being countered by mara "meta" where they would fish a midget after another from the pond of ID spamming midgets. And everyone ofc having a personal chosen/kotb and dok/wp to guard/heal them.
Back when the playerbase was still big enough to have a "meta".

Btw, when did the word "meta" even enter the discussions? Because I remember only discussions about FOTM and OP classes on WHA and Bioware forums, "meta" this and that seems relatively new.

Preventive measures, meta is being flung around on a daily basis for w/e reason.

Darosh wrote:In regards to the basis of balance:

It should be abundantly obvious as to why 6v6 is the basis of balance: extrapolation.

A group consists of six members - the implementation of mechanics and especially their limitations revolves around groups; buffing (targetcaps, [...]), cleansing and alike, (...).
With the latter being the case everything related to the purely statiscal side of things (averages [hps,dps,...], itemization, stat conversions, [...]) is invetiably dependent on a single-group based balance.
In other words, the only way to properly gauge/prevent/tune the extremes is to look at a group in a controlled environment first and then add additional factors (AoE [targetcaps, potency,...], morales [accessibility, traits, ...]) relevant to the situation to the equation, after the fact.

A warband consists of four groups; any other coordinated format consists of a set amount of groups after all - I'd argue that one could think about splitting balance according to said mechanical limitations; target caps and potency, but the majority of things (= everything but morales and AoE) would still have to be balanced around 6v6, one way or another.

One could save alot of time in regards to this debate and hint at combinatorial logic and basic probability theory otherwise...

For as long the mechanical limitations are not being changed - and even if that happens - balancing around any other format is mathematically speaking utter nonsense.

Abbd.: Not to mention the non-standardized set of variables. 'Perfect' balance as most envision it is simply not possible with the game design at hand.

So does that mean , you always have to be in a group of SIX for group ply to be effective ? does that mean , me wanting to group with my brother (army of 2) is useless ? So , will we always have to be SIX for our class to function "CORRECTLY" ?

Did you even read his post?

How many of these threads do we have? And it's ALWAYS the same people. At this point, probably the best thing to do would be having a dev say "Ok footpatrol, you are right... WAR was intended to be played in racial warbands, but we are simply NOT INTERESTED in doing that in RoR".

Maybe that will make him stop. Because it is quite clear by now that no one will ever be able to convince him that he is wrong (does anyone even try anymore?).

Darosh wrote: Thats why meta-shifts in competitive games only occur based on changes made to the core of a game if a game is being played long enough for the playerbase to grasp it.

Aaaaand mythic started changing things before the competitive players were fully able to grasp the entirety of what the game could provide.

Example:

footpatrol2 wrote:

Darosh wrote: Thats why meta-shifts in competitive games only occur based on changes made to the core of a game if a game is being played long enough for the playerbase to grasp it.

Aaaaand mythic started changing things before the competitive players were fully able to grasp the entirety of what the game could provide.

Example:

Spoiler:

Large damage small scale (6man) morale bombs that destroy defensive morale cycle's such as double sprout carapace. It don't matter how much armor/resists/absorbs you have to instant large damage small scale morale bombs.

Making group compositions that take into account Morale bomb's is what made sov gear value's OK to have in the game. Although the competitive small scale scene never really picked it up which drives a lot of the 6 man builds which spills into the mindset of larger group comps.

The mentality of 6 man play is dominated by play not to lose, wait for a mistake and be fast enough to capitalize. 100% valid way to play.

A alternative way which is seen much less which in my opinion is how the game is balanced is Play to Win and make use of morale bombs accept weaknesses in your group composition for faster morale gain rates and exaggerate your strengths. Mitigate your weaknesses through smart play. Time favors your group comp not theirs. Its just a more offensive approach compared to a defensive one.

6 man play doesn't really see a ton of competition even on AoR for the majority so playing not to lose against scrubs is valid and has reduced risk. Take two decent groups playing not to lose and you'll have fights go on forever without a death. Run into a group that is playing to win as opposed to playing not to lose and the strategy of stacking defensive morale's won't work against a group that is playing to win (using large damage small scale instant morale damage).

As we all know: Mythic did a piss poor job in general - some of it due to the gremlins from hell (EA) stabbing them in the back at each and every opportunity they got.

I do for the most part agree with you - however, as should be readily apparent to you: The first issue to tackle would be player mindset before anything else, if you were to try and change what you have described in the spoiler. People play for K/D because ~ well, I suppose dying in a videogame hurts or something.

But tackling this issue is - generally - not possible. And tailoring the remains of a game to ducttape player mindset will just lead to an even worse state; people will always find ways to break the game to sustain their ridiculous ladder-esque mindset.
We aren't looking at a well-estabilished community, nor at a well-established game.

To approach a sustainable state or a worthwhile change alot - in terms of tech and community - has to be changed/enabled in the first place, by proper dedication and commitment (from the community).

Just look at the backlash the RoR staff received for the changes they rolled out in the past - such a nasty environment will ultimately doom each and every approach to the issues at hand, if not only for the community being up in arms with each other 24/7 debating the pro/cons of the realms without taking into consideration the game design or skewing the test environment (= this server) by being all fairweatherish, instead of directing proper feedback (without emotional investment) towards the devs.
It should be abundantly obvious to everyone that the realms excel in diffrent environments and departments, yet people still try to standardize (the classes) and idolize/demonize (the devs) or startup one-to-one comparisons; would/should/could-bes (without even offering any math/sophisticated breakdowns [that acknowledge the resources at hand] to back up claims, whatsoever), to try and force changes instead of contributing to it in a productive manner... [Abbd.: Its a common sense issue, for all I am concerned...]

One should think, again, about working top-to-bottom, not bottom-to-top - change and stardardize the things that cover the biggest parts of the game before trying to tamper with the classes/compositions in an attempt to make each viable in every format.
Little changes to even the odds a <little>, disable outright gamebreaking stuff or improve QoL/feel of classes (= superficial changes) are not necessarily part of that equation - but can be, if any of the below is touched on.

My take on it:
community development >= tech development > dynamic damage introduction >= rework of mechanical limitations (targetcaps, stacking, immunities, ...) > stats in general (conversions, itemization, ...) > rework of morales (accessibility, traits, ...) > realm specifics* (ST/bomb focus, morale focus, bubble focus, avoidance focus, static stat focus, ...) [> race specifics (racial traits, racial synergies, focus [as above for the realms] ...)] > class specifics

*Who paid attention will long since have seen the 'intented' focus' of the realms, which got screwed with and rendered obsolete by mythic later down the road with horrible math, bad itemization and overly reactionary, buisness model-driven changes.

TLDR: Consider the magnitude of the backlash and the work it'd require to re-establish racial warbands (by virtue of altering the game to suit the purpose) and alike; big changes in general - keep in mind the resources 'you' are working with.


Abbd.: I am generally speaking in certain passages, so don't get your jimmnies rustled, dear reader - you might be among the people that pours in dedication, effort and all that, you might be not. W/e. For those of you that have read my posts before: Yes, I am a broken record.

E: Words and stuff.

footpatrol2 wrote:Ok so I know I differ from a lot of player's viewpoint but I would just like the community to make a observation with me.

Player's complain that the combo of two chosen's/knights/Dok's/WP/Slayer's/shamans/AM's... blah blah are a powerful combo and you need to downplay/change the class in order for other classes to fit into a 6 man. Because different tank classes need to be taken in the same group as opposed to repeat same tank classes. Because the ENTIRE GAME is fighting to get into a single 6 man and nothing exists outside of that.

The player's making those comments/arguments are actually supporting my arguments but I reach a different conclusion... being... Yes those combo's are very powerful... because this game isn't made for the classes to compete for slots... Because this games original design was based on same race groups being uniquely powerful. In addition, this game is not purely about 6v6. This game is a RvR game not a 6v6 game/arena game despite how desperately player's want it to be. You can make groups that compliment each other by stacking/overlapping outgoing effects over multiple groups.

Lets take a look at the chosen class.

Spoiler:

Currently the community thinks chosen's have a dull mechanic. Well if your only taking one chosen in your group you are correct it does have a dull mechanic because you force your chosen to only run 3 stat aura's, resists, toughness, strength and ignore the other 6 supporting aura's. You then straight up forget about their aura mechanic. In addition, RoR has made the aura mechanic static buff's that he doesn't even need to cycle through to maintain. Since player's favor hybrid spec's the three aura's that chosen's/knights can provide are not even at full value. You can't have 3 max value resists, toughness, strength's aura's up at full value. It is not possible given how the spec tree's are orientated.

If you had a 2nd chosen in the group their mechanic gets a hell of a lot more complicated. You don't want two identically spec'd chosen's due to overlap. Ideally both chosen's would heavily spec in alternating complimenting spec lines dependant if your group comp is magic based or melee based. You don't want to run repeat aura's due to the more powerful aura overwrites the weaker aura. By taking two chosen's in your group comp you are freeing up a aura slot that a single chosen would HAVE to run in a single chosen group comp. With 2 chosen's in a group you have access to 6 aura's instead of only 3. The holy 3 can still be maintained and additional 3 supporting aura's now have room to be maintained also. You can swap mid fight to different supporting aura's as is needed all while maintaining the 3 holy aura's. The class is designed to be played with itself. You could rotate as a team to the damage aura and you could rotate off the damage aura so you can conduct CC like quake. The mechanic is not dull what so ever...it is extremely complicated but you need a 2nd chosen in the group to increase its complexity. By taking two chosen's in your group comp you got a 1/3rd racial group.

This is just one example.
The game has a mountain of same race/class combo's where if you combo it with itself is very powerful. There is a TON of abilities which suggest rotating if you want the 100% upkeep on the desired effect. Such as shatter limbs/Bad Gas has a 10 sec duration but 20 sec cooldown. You take two slayer's/SH to maintain the effect for 100% upkeep. This is also done with morale's such as Sprout Carapace/(old) mountain spirit 30 sec duration. All morale's have a hard set 60 sec cooldown. Which mean's if you want 100% upkeep on the desired effect you take two chosen's/runepriests.

Penril wrote:How many of these threads do we have? And it's ALWAYS the same people. At this point, probably the best thing to do would be having a dev say "Ok footpatrol, you are right... WAR was intended to be played in racial warbands, but we are simply NOT INTERESTED in doing that in RoR".

Maybe that will make him stop. Because it is quite clear by now that no one will ever be able to convince him that he is wrong (does anyone even try anymore?).

Actually i find that kind of discussions interesting, you know, thinking outside of the box is sometimes good. But however @footpatrol:

-The game is in ALPHA state aka UNFINISHED
-This is a DEAD game which resurrected by volunteers
-This is a PRIVATE server which designed by same volunteers who resurrected a zombie [Their server, their rules]
-Is it realistic to change the game radicaly ? IMPOSSIBLE
-Racial morale gain/buff fixing going to help fix the games CHRONIC problems ? NO.
-If the ORIGINAL game designed by racial perspective, the game would be more interesting ? Probably YES