Feedback of AoE Changes / Future Suggestions

[Buran]

Azarael has published the news that says that the AOE experimental mechanics reverted. But the news does not say whether this is a maneuver or a strategic decision.
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=20068&p=220508#p220508

[Tamarlan]

Azarael has published the news that says that the AOE experimental mechanics reverted. But the news does not say whether this is a maneuver or a strategic decision.
viewtopic.php?f=42&t=20068&p=220508#p220508

Bring your boys back

[peterthepan3]

My advice to you, robin, is to not queue scens as a level 32 in greens. Comparing sc premades with zerging lmfao.

Feel for aza/devs as it seems nothing ever appeases this salty community for rvr.

[roadkillrobin]

My advice to you, robin, is to not queue scens as a level 32 in greens. Comparing sc premades with zerging lmfao.

Feel for aza/devs as it seems nothing ever appeases this salty community for rvr.

Im not. But without those players you don't get SC pops and without those players theres no RVR. In ORVR those players got a chance due to equalize with numbers. In SC's theres no chance what so ever. You're sugestion is that all lowbies in t4 should stop playing or what? The zerg is the answear to premades. Im not comparing em. Im comparing blobbing with SC premades coz they're are effectivly trying to do the same thing wich is focusing as much power as possible on one spot while keeping defenses up. We've allready beaten and got beaten by your 6mans. How about you now form a warband and learn the playstyle and mechanics of it and bring yourself to meet our standards in ORVR. I know what you're answear gonna be. "I don't like to play in zergs" or "large scale is boring and skillless", something among those lines. Yeah. We're the ones unwilling to adapt. (sarcasm)

[Glorian]

I also feel for Aza.

But there was done stuff in the past that helped imo.
Like increased bo assault time for big WBs or acces through posterns at lvl 0 keep.

All that was gold compared to the 150 people Zerg riding from bo to bo and in the other zone the other Zerg was doing the same. Or playing doorhammer.

When some of this stuff was brought in people were against. But the majority found it great. Imo.

[roadkillrobin]

I also feel for Aza.

But there was done stuff in the past that helped imo.
Like increased bo assault time for big WBs or acces through posterns at lvl 0 keep.

All that was gold compared to the 150 people Zerg riding from bo to bo and in the other zone the other Zerg was doing the same. Or playing doorhammer.

When some of this stuff was brought in people were against. But the majority found it great. Imo.

The problem with the BO changes aswell as the cannons is that they were designed to simply punish and they didn't only just punished a blobbing organized zerg. They also punished PuGs who trying to use numbers to to equalize the fights aswell as punishing the organized healthy sized guild warbands. 90% of the population in RVR got punished. Punishing people for playing is just a pefect recepie for fierce crituiqe. Punishing people for leaving or not showing up is the healthy way of doing it and giving em carrots to show up against the odds is even better. (AAO does this without messing with combat ballance)

As for the BO timers scaling it didn't really acomplish much in term of spreading out. You win the game by taking the keeps. The timers just slows down the linear ORVR progression. This means that everyone will gather at the keep sooner or later nomather what. And in case the population is to small, they get WAY to easy to defend and zones will never flip. This means that there needs to be multiple win conditions spread across the maps to minimize the effectivness of a zerging blobb aswell as making the game playeble even durning non primetime hours.

[Marsares]

I feel for Aza too, I don't always agree with his views but by and large his interventions in the oRvR system have been well thought out and positive, and he has been courageous as well to apply test-and-learn principles when needed. That's what an alpha server is about in my eyes.

In this instance I'm happy that the experimental AOE changes have been reverted, they didn't work in my eyes as they didn't achieve the stated objectives. Nevertheless, I do think we need some interventions around AOE-bombing... having it revolve around building up morale and dropping undefendable morale at first sight, isn't what I think it should be. It's rather cheesy.

I can't remember who proposed it, but swapping offensive and defensive morales so that the defensive ones are M2/3 and offensive ones are M3/4 would be a relatively simple change, which would make morale-play more about cycling defensive ones, which creates more of a drawn out game-play. This, in turn, could allow different compositions where you have half the WB apply AOE pressure, coupled with the other half creating spike ST damage on low-health targets.

Zergs can AOE bomb if they want, WBs probably end up with more of a hybrid game style and six-mens most likely end up being pure ST. Whether it breaks up the zerg or not, unlikely, but then I doubt anything really will do that.

[Tesq]

@Marsares
and preserve the same problem but only delay it? ista kill ppl around when you have m3/4? what this will change in rvr sorc/bw meta?

[Marsares]

@Marsares
and preserve the same problem but only delay it? ista kill ppl around when you have m3/4? what this will change in rvr sorc/bw meta?

Indeed, it won't prevent it like I stated. It will draw it out but during that additional drawn out period, the combination of AOE pressure + ST spike + cycling defensive Morales may become a better combination than waiting for morale dropping offensive M3/4s.

If a WB is not under terminal pressure, they can choose to build up to M3/4 and see if they can wipe out the enemy with an offensive morale bomb, if they are under pressure they may choose to go into cycling defensive ones. The cheesy offensive morale dump still exists, it just will take longer to get there, therefore it will be less frequent and thus it may open alternative game-play styles for a WB.

Of course it won't solve all issues, but it's a relatively easy fix which at least is possible within the constraints that the Devs face with no client control, no ability to radically overhaul the design of the RvR lakes, etc. We have to be realistic what's feasible.

[Theseus]

Not exactly. What I wanted was a situation in which a warband would have some incentive to fight another warband as 4 units of 6, rather than 1 unit of 24, with the aim being to introduce some kind of tactical movement to the game rather than this mass and charge gameplay.

Hm, I understand what you try to do, and wether I agree or not put aside, I think you have one problem. You cant do it,without changing the map. Spreading out between the bos for example is just not going to work, as the other side still can get together masses and smash the spread out group. Actually I would just use such a strategy if I saw such a spread out. Everyone would. You answered to that with the AoE changes. But those posed more Problems than they solved. I believe thats because its only a bandaid.
You would have to change the maps so that the warband had to perform several tasks in a small area around bo, so that they can spread out around the bo and come back together fast if needed. For example killing 4 Heroes within a short amount of time, so that beating them one after another wont be possible. If you fail, the bo would be locked for 30 sec or a minute. So you could get more tactical groupfighting without the danger that a superior force comes around and wastes you. Another possible way would be to introduce more Siege equipment like Palisades, which give defending forces an advantage by sealing off and defending narrow positions, so that the other side has to split up and to circle around. Only as examples. I wouldnt even really know if it is possible to do so.^^