Changelog 29/11/16

[NectaneboII]

Thank you for the implemetation of FAIRNESS .
No more /taunt from the zergling with the retinue of healing slaves/pets.
Salt AND Vinegar upon the arrogant zerglings.
Now lets hunt gobbos !

[Haojin]

Well, a couple of things:

1) Complaining that a side with AAO will be ruined by the debuff isn't a problem for me. I told you guys already: the optimal solution is a hard lock. In the absence of any ability to create hard population locks in the RvR lake, the next best thing is to progressively ruin the game for the faction with 2 or 3 times the numbers, or do you think I should just let people roll around with 300% AAO without any penalty?

This patch executed just after Saturday's RvR event. What a coincidence. I'm repeating myself again and again, RvR problems related community issues and xrealm.

I was leading 2 warbands on teamspeak [ our personal record ] and coordinating with all pug warband leaders [ 5 or more warbands ]. We create a monster saturday and we should suffer from it because order can't be organized like us. Well, we'll accept our fate.

and yes "progressively ruin the game" will definetly work, sadly.

[blaqwar]

As much as I like the change and hate SHs, reading what the sensible SH players have to say I can't help but feel that this change was too big of a nerf. I agree with Aza's assesment of Spiked Squig being a skirmishing tool, tied to the appropriate stance, having appropriate range. But is a wounds debuff really needed when accompanied with the range/damage change?

If the counter-play of killing the squig is here to stay (in the form of a wounds nerf), could perhaps the squig being killed be less punishing? Would mirroring the summoning to the WL lion summoning be too much (15 sec cd on a squig getting killed and being able to do it while moving)? I never understood why SHs have the most punishing pet resummon spell in the whole game.

[bloodi]

I was leading 2 warbands on teamspeak [ our personal record ] and coordinating with all pug warband leaders [ 5 or more warbands ]. We create a monster saturday and we should suffer from it because order can't be organized like us. Well, we'll accept our fate..

Its so hilarious that you think you achieved that thanks to "organizing"

There hasnt been 5+ warbands on order, in like, ever.

[Grugnir]

As much as I like the change and hate SHs, reading what the sensible SH players have to say I can't help but feel that this change was too big of a nerf. I agree with Aza's assesment of Spiked Squig being a skirmishing tool, tied to the appropriate stance, having appropriate range. But is a wounds debuff really needed when accompanied with the range/damage change?

If the counter-play of killing the squig is here to stay (in the form of a wounds nerf), could perhaps the squig being killed be less punishing? Would mirroring the summoning to the WL lion summoning be too much (15 sec cd on a squig getting killed and being able to do it while moving)? I never understood why SHs have the most punishing pet resummon spell in the whole game.

Again voice of reason AND NOT from a SH player. Thank you for noticing the problem and acknowledging this change as a massive nerf. I dont mind dmg nerf or the range one (it WAS needed). But 2k hp on a pet + 30s cooldown will kill this class (and for sure the quick shooting path).

[roadkillrobin]

I was leading 2 warbands on teamspeak [ our personal record ] and coordinating with all pug warband leaders [ 5 or more warbands ]. We create a monster saturday and we should suffer from it because order can't be organized like us. Well, we'll accept our fate..

Its so hilarious that you think you achieved that thanks to "organizing"

There hasnt been 5+ warbands on order, in like, ever.

We ran into 5 warbands of Order in KV a week ago.

[dur3al]

Well, a couple of things:

1) Complaining that a side with AAO will be ruined by the debuff isn't a problem for me. I told you guys already: the optimal solution is a hard lock. In the absence of any ability to create hard population locks in the RvR lake, the next best thing is to progressively ruin the game for the faction with 2 or 3 times the numbers, or do you think I should just let people roll around with 300% AAO without any penalty?

So you've clearly stated that while you cannot fix something (absence of ability to create a hard population lock) you want to make the game less enjoyable for the high population side? What? What kind of logic is running here - considering that population fluctuates around time-zones to both sides you're basically lowering the "fun" bar for this game just because you want to punish the "zerg"? Meaning every single player in this game then right? Because every single one of us have found ourselves in a position of being "zerging" or "blobing", when the fight only happens at one spot, in one place, at the keep.

What if you had a hard-lock, but you had nothing but premades in one faction and nothing but pugs in the other side, meaning the premades would just stroll across farming zone locks and kills left and right, what would you do then? Create an another tool for non-premades to have a fighting chance? Create a queue tool based if you're in a premade or not to even out the sides?

The only thing you've to give to the outnumbered side is an incentive to go in the lakes anyway, in a form of AAO (for higher rewards), and a fighting chance (preventing the lock), but in no way shape of form you've to make the game completely non-fun for the high population side, hell they should be able to use their high population to their advantage, but instead you're punishing them for something they cannot control at all.
You should create mechanics to spread out the high populated side to create equal fight opportunities - I'm tired of suggesting this everywhere I can - But having the oRvR funnel around the Keeps as the last bastion won't do it, because there is no possible any other way for anywhere to go but the keep, which equals zergs and blobs.

I'm not sure what you guys expect me to do here. There has to be some actual incentive to reroll to the opposite faction or there is no point having DR and we might as well just sit back and accept that crossrealming will ruin the RvR system. This'll only get worse when it actually matters. What we've got here is a cute sideshow. T2 and Devastator have already shown that if you let people crossrealm their way to victory, EVERYONE will do it.

No there shouldn't be, if you add incentive to the people in the high populated side to reroll, you are promoting x-realming.

You have to add incentive for the outnumbered side to keep fighting offering them fairer chances of engagement and higher rewards, and in ways that they're also discouraged to blob themselves. The removal of AoE caps would've done that over time as soon as people realize to not everyone go to the same spot and spread out.

You should not be making them OP (in this case with DR), but by creating chances of equal engagements across the zone. Which will not be possible if you base the zone lock (higher reward) at the keep, because at some point the whole fight will end there (blobs for both sides). And if this is the case where you want to have a final fight at the keep, then the high populated side have to win (generally speaking), because its the natural order of things, and you already have tools in place to help the underpopulated side to prevail in these final engagements, such as keep lord and the defense that the keep provides for the defending side.

2) You wouldn't believe the pushback over the AoE proposals. At a certain point it just gets tiresome reading the contradictions on the forum. People say they're tired of zerging and the battlefield is hostile to small groups, tired of crossrealming, etc, etc, but they complain endlessly about every measure that's introduced to deal with any of these problems, with anything they can muster, be it muh nostalgia or muh bomb warbands or muh separate small scale fights despite having three times as many men as the enemy.

The general gist I'm getting is "Solve the problems... but you'd better not do it in a way that inconveniences me, personally, or I'm going to pour out enough salt to fill a mine."

I get that it must be tiresome to just hear complains at everything you do and at everything if you do not. But i'm fairly certain the majority of the player population would be happier if they can influence the game, not some added mechanic or buff that is making or breaking the game for them - while they've no control at all of the server population spread. That's the issue.

Regarding the AoE proposals I wouldn't go with the friendly fire thing at all, i'd just lift the AoE cap and reduce damage from AoE/Cone abilities, this alone will break the entire funnel and blobbing in one spot effect we have now. This, in return, will be an issue when the enemy is forced throughout a certain terrain (such as doors from the keep), but I think you've found a nice solution with the postern being able to be used by the attacking side if the keep is deranked. Only issue for keeps atm is keep lord 1-2 shooting left and right and mass dc's.

[Marsares]

As much as I like the change and hate SHs, reading what the sensible SH players have to say I can't help but feel that this change was too big of a nerf. I agree with Aza's assesment of Spiked Squig being a skirmishing tool, tied to the appropriate stance, having appropriate range. But is a wounds debuff really needed when accompanied with the range/damage change?

If the counter-play of killing the squig is here to stay (in the form of a wounds nerf), could perhaps the squig being killed be less punishing? Would mirroring the summoning to the WL lion summoning be too much (15 sec cd on a squig getting killed and being able to do it while moving)? I never understood why SHs have the most punishing pet resummon spell in the whole game.

Because they are ranged pets and thus more difficult to kill then a WL pet, which has to go in melee range and thus the danger zone? Also, you got multiple squigs and can swap between them. A WL has only one pet, and can't summon anything else when his pet is killed.

It's interesting to see how none of the SHs every spoke out for the WL pet, which suffers the same issues as a SH pet but where it is significantly exacerbated because they have to be in melee range (i.e. suffer much more from pet pathing, unresponsiveness to commands, CC, etc).

Having a more significant CD is fair, and a degree of nerfing the SH was long overdue.

[bloodi]

We ran into 5 warbands of Order in KV a week ago.

Of pugs? no you did not.

[blaqwar]

As much as I like the change and hate SHs, reading what the sensible SH players have to say I can't help but feel that this change was too big of a nerf. I agree with Aza's assesment of Spiked Squig being a skirmishing tool, tied to the appropriate stance, having appropriate range. But is a wounds debuff really needed when accompanied with the range/damage change?

If the counter-play of killing the squig is here to stay (in the form of a wounds nerf), could perhaps the squig being killed be less punishing? Would mirroring the summoning to the WL lion summoning be too much (15 sec cd on a squig getting killed and being able to do it while moving)? I never understood why SHs have the most punishing pet resummon spell in the whole game.

Because they are ranged pets and thus more difficult to kill then a WL pet, which has to go in melee range and thus the danger zone?

It's interesting to see how none of the SHs every spoke out for the WL pet, which suffers the same issues as a SH pet but where it is significantly exacerbated because they have to be in melee range (i.e. suffer much more from pet pathing, unresponsiveness to commands, CC, etc).

True, I'd never argue for such a change before this patch. But with the current HP on the squigs a WL pouncing on one can kill it in 1, maybe 2 abilities along with an AA. Especially with the range decrease, which will probably move them closer to the frontlines.

Meanwhile, if I'm not mistaken lions got a slight buff to survivability this patch?