Return of Reckoning

Jaycub wrote:>A good player can easily control 2-3 people, especially a tank

I had to stop reading there tbh my man.

don't worry mate, i usually have to stop reading once you link a spreadsheet. thanks god you didn't do it this time.

add rewards for group v group scenarios, decrease the rewards pug scenario gives - temporary solution?

Dragaz wrote: don't worry mate, i usually have to stop reading once you link a spreadsheet. thanks god you didn't do it this time.

Nice ban evasion?

peterthepan3 wrote:add rewards for group v group scenarios, decrease the rewards pug scenario gives - temporary solution?

Groupin up already gives the best reward ratio you will ever get. Its a free win in any scenario you are against pugs and gives you a chance against any other organized group.

Why would giving you more solve anything?

The problem here is the same problem you find in most areas of the game, there isnt enough people playing.

bloodi wrote:

The problem here is the same problem you find in most areas of the game, there isnt enough people who like so socialize and group up playing.

fixed that for you

and you forgot that premades cant play against solo pugs anymore.

Tiggo wrote:fixed that for you

and you forgot that premades cant play against solo pugs anymore.

The existence of one sc where there is no premades doesnt equal to premades being unable to play against pugs anymore, most people still queue all, most people still play most scenarios.

And again, i play quite a bit of solo scs and i group up with my guildies when they are on, playing solo i can tell you that i will play against the same premade as a pug for 5 scs in a row, often with the same teammates cycling in and out, the amount of people playing and actively queing is not big at all, thats why you get imbalanced group comps and scs that start with less people than the other team.

There isnt enough people, that is all.

bloodi wrote:
There isnt enough people, that is all.

the uneven starting numbers where a sc problem in the live version even shortly after start though.

Every modern game with structured PvP uses a "ready check". Maybe one is possible for WAR with client control?

Every other morden pvp game tells me when the queue popped so i dont lose it by either flashing the game icon on the task bar or a sound, often both.

If we are going for things that should be implemented asap when we have client control, make it that.

Dragaz wrote:To err is human, but not unavoidable.

To be honest - and please don't get me wrong i don't want to descredit anyone -, don't you think this has to do with the way the RoR team took?
i mean: in the days of T3 (which are widely considered as the finest hour of RoR) you mentioned the goal of development is based around group play. the intention was to create a PTS with a core team with outstanding people who spent a lot of time within groups and theorycrafting to fix the (rather few real) balance issues the game in fact has.

That was the intention, originally. The problem was, and to an extent is, that ego gets in the way. I saw what happened before when large egos were brought into the balancing process in another game. They fought, denigrated the game and its staff and treated them like lesser beings. I'm very wary of the same happening here.

The second part is that everyone's got their own agenda, and that makes it difficult to trust people who might stand to gain significantly from manipulating the balance process, or who might be so conservative as to block the resolution of larger issues. You comment upon DoK/WP (which I had not expected you to agree on) in one of your previous posts, and that's an example; despite the errors I made in the implementation, both classes are still problems that should be solved, and I don't trust competitives to handle it.

The last part is agency. I'm not willing to sacrifice control over what I can do to people who are not on the project. The agency I have is the recompense for the effort expended. This is why I lean towards people who are more level-headed and are unlikely to cause major issues if their advice is not taken.

Dragaz wrote:at some point certain people joined the team who played nothing but solo/duo. since it is common to bring in your opinion combined with effort, don't you think these people turned the ship slightly into the wrong direction?

Nope. A colored name implies nothing about activity in internal decision-making.

Dragaz wrote:i mean we all credit the team for their effort and daily work but don't you think it would have been better to follow your original intention? i know that everyone of the team tries his best to fix the "problems" from his own PoV but in all honesty i think you might have become a bit too obsessed with fixing everything and the ship went off course. you do a great work, honestly and a few months back you stated that you don't want to fck up with certain people of the community as you need them like they need you. You even admit that you lack some knowledge and experience, hence the team and the pts. Due to the hype RoR has experienced some things might have gone to fast, others into the wrong direction.

My original intention... as you said, to err is human. I made a decision based on a realistic concern (appealing to the lowest common denominator) only to later realize that it was the wrong direction to move into. That's a mistake I would always have made. I don't think that could have been changed. As I saw it, competitive players understandably wanted more of a group focus, whereas casual players wanted freedom from being rekt. I don't think it would have worked if I had immediately decided to push more of a focus on group play, as my past experiences tell me that horses led to water can't be made to drink.

Regarding needing members of the community... yes. I'm irritated with what happened, but I'm not responsible for how you may choose to act. You knew that you had a line into the staff, one which had been used successfully before to argue against bad decisions. That that line was squandered as a result of events is a shame, but we have to proceed. A group has been formed, and it will handle the vast majority of issues that I trust the better players to handle. The only issue that I don't trust them with is WP and DoK, because making them play as they should means upheaval.

Dragaz wrote:After all this is a social project as you stated yourself above. Don't you think the team might have done the same mistake certain elitists did when becoming a bit overbearing? I mean especially within a small private server you need the people as much as they need you, without descrediting anyone. But you simply can't balance/create a game if you don't see the max. potential certain changes will have or lead the community into the wrong direction, like this one: playing as pug over grouping up in an mmorpg.

I wouldn't shift the blame onto the team. I think people know that I make decisions. I chose to agree to cater to the pugs, and that's my mistake. It's been made, part of a learning process, and that's about as far as I'm going to consider it.