Feedback on city matchmaking

[Brickson]

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

So "unwanted" people can play too.

...and can be told that what they are doing is wrong and that they deserve to be stomped

I'm just hoping for a more elegant solution for the long term.

by the time that happens they will have either quit or got enough pity crests for sovereign anyways

it would also have some way to abuse it even if it came to pass. at that point if creating a 2/2/2 meant you would face a 2/2/2 why would you do it? i would 100% take the 5 engineer **** show over a guild wb that would lose by 300 kills to try to win by pveing or getting farmed because you made a /5 wb and got matched against an alliance wb.


i would much rather see the game become completed than worry about matchmaking for the worst part of the game

By elegant solution I didn't mean matchmaking. More like making all classes similar viable for cities or creating alternatives for getting crests at a reliable and reasonable rate.
But I know that multiple variations of both solutions have already been rejected in the past or are at least not high on the priority list at the moment.

I'm still hoping though

[M0rw47h]

...but you get lots of royals in oRvR bags.

[Tharlin]

It's even worse when you solo queue. You usually play without a healer against a full premade warband then.

Don't know, why solo-queues just get matched against other solos.

[wargrimnir]

It's even worse when you solo queue. You usually play without a healer against a full premade warband then.

Don't know, why solo-queues just get matched against other solos.

Don't know why? Or just haven't read the thread?
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=40928&start=50#p436505

[Vandoles]

It's even worse when you solo queue. You usually play without a healer against a full premade warband then.

Don't know, why solo-queues just get matched against other solos.

Don't know why? Or just haven't read the thread?
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=40928&start=50#p436505

I'm curious, every time I try to talk about the fun of content I'm hit with "appropriate rewards" and "appropriate effort" and "gear" and what-not.

Has there ever been a single person on your side of the fence, that one being the tryhards + devs (since devs are largely core audience as well) that has ever considered the issue of, well, fun? Or is it hardcoded that gear and virtual success = fun?

Not being ironic or a ****, I'm actually asking, I have been trying to bring up fun and hit a brick wall every time.

[wargrimnir]

It's even worse when you solo queue. You usually play without a healer against a full premade warband then.

Don't know, why solo-queues just get matched against other solos.

Don't know why? Or just haven't read the thread?
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=40928&start=50#p436505

I'm curious, every time I try to talk about the fun of content I'm hit with "appropriate rewards" and "appropriate effort" and "gear" and what-not.

Has there ever been a single person on your side of the fence, that one being the tryhards + devs (since devs are largely core audience as well) that has ever considered the issue of, well, fun? Or is it hardcoded that gear and virtual success = fun?

Not being ironic or a ****, I'm actually asking, I have been trying to bring up fun and hit a brick wall every time.

Fun in this context is opposed by effort. Low-effort inclusion can be fun in the same way that slot machines at a casino can be fun. Easy to get into (pug queue), easy to play (generally low effort players), easy to win although with unreliable results (if your group comp rolls well, otherwise you'll go on losing streaks). Anyone can walk up to a slot machine and put in a coin and eventually win without having to invest a lot of effort. This mode largely exists with the pug queue for scenarios, and to some degree with RvR when you're overpopulated and able to follow a blob without having to think much about your objectives.

High-effort inclusion is more like high-stakes poker. Difficult to get into at a high level (manually forming a functional warband), difficult to play at a high level (playing against others who are actively trying to win), difficult to win at a high level but the effort you put into it will drastically improve your end results. Ideally people get frustrated and put in the effort which increases the difficulty of the game mode as more people get organized and more competitive matches are reliably found. In the meantime you have the sharks circling the unorganized fish. 6v6 scenarios, Forts, and City Sieges are where you're expected to pull your pants up and get it done properly. That's why these game modes reward higher tier gear.

Dungeons are somewhere in-between, easier than organized PvP, but still requiring coordination with your group and comps that are functional.

What you're asking for is a low-effort game mode with top-tier rewards when you ask to include solo queueing with balanced matchmaking.
What we're providing is a high-effort game mode with top-tier rewards, that requires players to coordinate if they want to consistently be rewarded.

Both styles of play are fun in different ways, but they are distinctly different styles of play and intentionally so. There is very much FUN to be had in playing to the peak of your personal ability and organizational effort, particularly when you get into a situation where the other team is playing to their peak as well. This isn't the sort of push-button-get-stuff kind of fun that you can slog your way through solo queue to get, but rather the sort of fun where you're challenged and overcome adversity to actually feel like you've won something and have beaten your opponent in the process.

[Vandoles]

Spoiler:

Don't know why? Or just haven't read the thread?
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=40928&start=50#p436505

I'm curious, every time I try to talk about the fun of content I'm hit with "appropriate rewards" and "appropriate effort" and "gear" and what-not.

Has there ever been a single person on your side of the fence, that one being the tryhards + devs (since devs are largely core audience as well) that has ever considered the issue of, well, fun? Or is it hardcoded that gear and virtual success = fun?

Not being ironic or a ****, I'm actually asking, I have been trying to bring up fun and hit a brick wall every time.

Fun in this context is opposed by effort. Low-effort inclusion can be fun in the same way that slot machines at a casino can be fun. Easy to get into (pug queue), easy to play (generally low effort players), easy to win although with unreliable results (if your group comp rolls well, otherwise you'll go on losing streaks). Anyone can walk up to a slot machine and put in a coin and eventually win without having to invest a lot of effort. This mode largely exists with the pug queue for scenarios, and to some degree with RvR when you're overpopulated and able to follow a blob without having to think much about your objectives.

High-effort inclusion is more like high-stakes poker. Difficult to get into at a high level (manually forming a functional warband), difficult to play at a high level (playing against others who are actively trying to win), difficult to win at a high level but the effort you put into it will drastically improve your end results. Ideally people get frustrated and put in the effort which increases the difficulty of the game mode as more people get organized and more competitive matches are reliably found. In the meantime you have the sharks circling the unorganized fish. 6v6 scenarios, Forts, and City Sieges are where you're expected to pull your pants up and get it done properly. That's why these game modes reward higher tier gear.

Dungeons are somewhere in-between, easier than organized PvP, but still requiring coordination with your group and comps that are functional.

What you're asking for is a low-effort game mode with top-tier rewards when you ask to include solo queueing with balanced matchmaking.
What we're providing is a high-effort game mode with top-tier rewards, that requires players to coordinate if they want to consistently be rewarded.

Both styles of play are fun in different ways, but they are distinctly different styles of play and intentionally so. There is very much FUN to be had in playing to the peak of your personal ability and organizational effort, particularly when you get into a situation where the other team is playing to their peak as well. This isn't the sort of push-button-get-stuff kind of fun that you can slog your way through solo queue to get, but rather the sort of fun where you're challenged and overcome adversity to actually feel like you've won something and have beaten your opponent in the process.

You uh kinda took my question about fun and are talking to me about winning, rewards, appropriate gear, appropriate effort and how that's what I'm asking about.

So actually a pretty good answer. I will withdraw talking about fun and stick to gear, rewards and adversity and all that stuff. Thanks for taking the time.

[hallomoin]

hehe, that was my takeaway from wargrimnirs answer aswell , kinda not answering your question


edit says : personally i think its a matter of players expectations with pc games these days. everything has to be bound to some kind of reward or has to be ''worth it' so to say, or ppl jsut dont do it or play that certain mode.

[emiliorv]

Spoiler:

I'm curious, every time I try to talk about the fun of content I'm hit with "appropriate rewards" and "appropriate effort" and "gear" and what-not.

Has there ever been a single person on your side of the fence, that one being the tryhards + devs (since devs are largely core audience as well) that has ever considered the issue of, well, fun? Or is it hardcoded that gear and virtual success = fun?

Not being ironic or a ****, I'm actually asking, I have been trying to bring up fun and hit a brick wall every time.

Fun in this context is opposed by effort. Low-effort inclusion can be fun in the same way that slot machines at a casino can be fun. Easy to get into (pug queue), easy to play (generally low effort players), easy to win although with unreliable results (if your group comp rolls well, otherwise you'll go on losing streaks). Anyone can walk up to a slot machine and put in a coin and eventually win without having to invest a lot of effort. This mode largely exists with the pug queue for scenarios, and to some degree with RvR when you're overpopulated and able to follow a blob without having to think much about your objectives.

High-effort inclusion is more like high-stakes poker. Difficult to get into at a high level (manually forming a functional warband), difficult to play at a high level (playing against others who are actively trying to win), difficult to win at a high level but the effort you put into it will drastically improve your end results. Ideally people get frustrated and put in the effort which increases the difficulty of the game mode as more people get organized and more competitive matches are reliably found. In the meantime you have the sharks circling the unorganized fish. 6v6 scenarios, Forts, and City Sieges are where you're expected to pull your pants up and get it done properly. That's why these game modes reward higher tier gear.

Dungeons are somewhere in-between, easier than organized PvP, but still requiring coordination with your group and comps that are functional.

What you're asking for is a low-effort game mode with top-tier rewards when you ask to include solo queueing with balanced matchmaking.
What we're providing is a high-effort game mode with top-tier rewards, that requires players to coordinate if they want to consistently be rewarded.

Both styles of play are fun in different ways, but they are distinctly different styles of play and intentionally so. There is very much FUN to be had in playing to the peak of your personal ability and organizational effort, particularly when you get into a situation where the other team is playing to their peak as well. This isn't the sort of push-button-get-stuff kind of fun that you can slog your way through solo queue to get, but rather the sort of fun where you're challenged and overcome adversity to actually feel like you've won something and have beaten your opponent in the process.

You uh kinda took my question about fun and are talking to me about winning, rewards, appropriate gear, appropriate effort and how that's what I'm asking about.

So actually a pretty good answer. I will withdraw talking about fun and stick to gear, rewards and adversity and all that stuff. Thanks for taking the time.

If your concept of fun is different to the points explained by wargimmir probably you need to explain what means fun for you, what you expect to have fun playing ror...maybe you could get a answer more "accurate"??

[RuffRyder]

I somewhat understand both PoVs and if they differ too much it might just not be the game some people are looking for. Not meant to be harsh here, but it’s about expectations and reality.

For me a part of the fun comes from playing (varied classes, specs, content), progress (sometimes I just want to do the next step of my checklist for char X) and challenge (when playing competitive, solo or with 6).

It also depends on how much time you can afford to play, and while it’s much time I spend in RoR it’s still a casual level due to irl occupation, where the first City set after half a year is a great and thus even more enjoyable achievement to work towards.

Back to City topic: While it encourages organizing warbands and effort, you still get a bunch of rewards for losing, be it a few Crests from lost stages up to several bags, which is fine when you just put effort into it by fighting apart from the mass and don’t just wait at spawn after the first wipe. There seems to be not determination of who is doing nothing or being afk, they still get random rolls and sometimes weird roll boni that are far from any contribution, so there’s no reason why solo queuers (which I do on a regular basis, too) can complain at all imho.