Scenario Rework

[nocturnalguest]

we already have perfectly balanced scs, its called group ranked, i wonder why the pros dont q for it.

Oh wait https://killboard.returnofreckoning.com ... olo_ranked

[Cyrinael]

Thanks for bringing up the discussion. However, I think there are mainly 2 fallacies in your suggestion:

• To balance out factions groups, a 2/2/2 setup or close to it should be aimed at.
• People can win their SC, they just need to try harder, fight more and not surrender.

1. Matchmaking - similar to how it already works in ranked games. System will attempt to create equally balanced group setups for both factions, 2/2/2 parties if possible, 3/2/1 and eventually 4/1/1 as the final resort if balanced archetype setup cannot be achieved, the 4 being overload of dps classes ofc. System will withhold port to scenario untill enough tanks and healers on both sides confirms joining.

As you correctly say, the problem is about balancing the order and destro teams against each other, but having only 2/2/2 setups or close to is not needed and only increases time between SCs pop. Having off-meta groups and scrappy fights can be sometimes much more fun than having 2/2/2 all the time. Problem is, when you have 12 DPS vs 4/4/4 or something similar similar.

2. Remove option to choose scenarios - i know this one will be contentious to many, but its a necessary sacrifice to be able to add actual matchmaking. With option for players to q into 5-7 different sc at the same time getting enough players of correct archetypes to create working matchmaking wont be possible. That's the reason previous attempt to add tank and healer requirement to sc tested few years ago failed.

Some SCs are atrocious to play, but this suggestion is one I can fully agree on. It especially counters certain players only queuing for range-favored or melee-favored SCs.

3. Add barriers to all scenarios - unreasonable safety net of running back to warcamp causes bad mentality effect on the playerbase of always playing with less commitment than they could, always one leg turned towards warcamp ready to run to preserve precious kd while not maximum effort into actual fight. Real kiting skills were replaced with flee to warcamp and getting npcs to resolve supposed pvp combat while players underperform. That should have no place in pvp game mode ever. Players stepping into scenario should put their full effort into playing best to their abilities for their team to win, not look out for opportunity to run back and give a wc guard a warm hug.
Additionally, players leaving warcamp could receive 10s Immaculate Defence effect, to allow them rejoin fight without being instantly killed if winning side is camping them.
Players overstaying in wc safety behind the barrier receive warning after 1 min to get out and fight. After 90s total in spawn they get booted out with quitter.

Barriers are whatever - who tf cares. People will adapt to having or not having barriers. It's not a big deal. On the other hand, bullying players to run into a meatgrinder just to avoid having quitter does not seem sound to me - having a 10 secs M4 buff or not.

4. Remove discordant scenario - with how its currently abused by premades stacks sneaking up in as bunch of duos with timed q it no longer serves its purpose and with functioning matchmaking it doesnt have any reason to exist anymore either. Standard balanced scenarios for all will suffice.

Leave Discordant and remove possibility to q as duo - simple as that. Discordant is currently the most stacked SC outside of Weekend-SC and it is getting worse. Solo-players get very little pops, while duos have instant pops.

5. Replace weekly weekend event specific sc with just general play X sc, kill X players in sc, etc. Theres no point to go tru 10-20 or more same sc spam fatigue for the weekend event.
If there is ongoing bigger event specifically demanding certain scenario to be played it can have increased pop chance in the system, to 25% or 50% pop chance anytime new sc pop happens.

Good suggestion, especially if you play Weekend-SC on multiple characters. Playing 50+ Khaines Embrace in a weekend gets boring very fast.

6. Delay surrender vote option - current 4 mins of ongoing sc is way too premature and with functioning matchmaking that option should rarely ever be needed. 7 or more mins into sc would be more appropriate to determine if it truly was so one sided and give players time to give it a fair try.

To be fair it does not matter if you open it up at minute 11 or minute 8. The main timer you want to look at, is when players are surrendering internally and waiting in the spawn. In my opinion, that is often earlier or around minute 12. Most of the time, when SCs are surrendered, people are already waiting in the spawn at minute 12 counting seconds until the timer shifts to 11:00.
Yes, there are SCs that are currently surrendered too early, but there are very, very few of them. Having to waste peoples time, just to not have a seldom inconvenience sounds like you are over-analyze a problem, that very rarely comes up.

[Gravord]

Personally, I think guards are great in the majority of cases! The game teaches you from the very beginning that pushing an enemy camp = your death. This lesson holds true from RvR to Fortresses to Chapter camps and into most Scenarios.

Only thing taught to ppl by having guard is that you dont need to count on yourself and your team inside the scenario because you can always run to safety to preserve precious kd without ever need to learn actual kiting skills around the map.

Many people in this thread already pointed this out, but if you're spawn camping an enemy team, it means you already control the map, which means you've likely won the scenario. All you're doing at this point is farming kills for more renown - which is fine, but the losing team has no obligation to waltz into your arms and feed you.

Many times one team is spawn camped before singular kill happens in sc, because they run and hug safety not once actually trying to fight.

Guards offer a counter-play mechanic that punishes the winning team for getting too greedy. Push too hard and your frontline might wipe, and if that happens, the losing team might have a chance to push and recover points.

They are most certainly not that. With current map design "push too hard" can literally mean stay on the flag (Nordenwatch BO near order wc prime example), and you can still be shot at from safe warcamp without ever chance to pursue because of proximity of the guards ready to end the pvp part of the scenario.
Inevitably guards end up as undeserved free kills for players who dont want earn those kills by their pvp gameplay and that should never be rewarded like that.

At the end of the day, Scenarios are about playing the objective, not about seal clubbing players at their spawn.

Reworking objectives would be a separate thing going in the background as many current mechanics dont belong in pvp gamemodes. Passively standing afk on the flag for 5-10 mins shouldnt be required of players to "play the objective". They should be dynamic and pvp oriented additional tasks, not avoidance of pvp.

Having off-meta groups and scrappy fights can be sometimes much more fun than having 2/2/2 all the time. Problem is, when you have 12 DPS vs 4/4/4 or something similar similar.

As in first post, 4 dps, 1 tank and 1 healer per party would be considered "minimum viable setup" to allow sc start.

Some SCs are atrocious to play

I agree, but for me it means those scenarios need to be improved upon, rebalanced and tweaked, so they become fun to play or at least not terribly annoying to play.

Barriers are whatever - who tf cares. People will adapt to having or not having barriers. It's not a big deal. On the other hand, bullying players to run into a meatgrinder just to avoid having quitter does not seem sound to me - having a 10 secs M4 buff or not.

Perfect. Adaption to barriers and players improving their kiting and fighting is exactly what im counting on, to replace run to wc guard at the first sight of not a freebie win mentality players currently adapted all too well.

Leave Discordant and remove possibility to q as duo - simple as that. Discordant is currently the most stacked SC outside of Weekend-SC and it is getting worse. Solo-players get very little pops, while duos have instant pops.

It would split the q and made it too slow for everyone, sabotaging entire rework results in the process.

To be fair it does not matter if you open it up at minute 11 or minute 8. The main timer you want to look at, is when players are surrendering internally and waiting in the spawn. In my opinion, that is often earlier or around minute 12. Most of the time, when SCs are surrendered, people are already waiting in the spawn at minute 12 counting seconds until the timer shifts to 11:00.
Yes, there are SCs that are currently surrendered too early, but there are very, very few of them. Having to waste peoples time, just to not have a seldom inconvenience sounds like you are over-analyze a problem, that very rarely comes up.

Indeed, because wc hug and fast surrender meta for years made players too much adapt to being losers who arent even trying to fight. They look on sc summary player list and already decide if they gonna even make slightest attempt or just play it safe ready to run back and wait for surrender vote. Some dont even leave wc to begin with and that cant stay in supposed pvp game.

[eerytraveler]

Removing disordant would be the same thing as forcing people to play ranked only. Yeah duos ruin it sometimes, just make it solo queue only.

You're not 'splitting the queue' as the people queueing discordant have zero desire to fight 6man discord premades anyways. Those premades can sit there and wait for another to fight (ala ranked). Have fun with that.

[Gravord]

Removing disordant would be the same thing as forcing people to play ranked only. Yeah duos ruin it sometimes, just make it solo queue only.

You're not 'splitting the queue' as the people queueing discordant have zero desire to fight 6man discord premades anyways. Those premades can sit there and wait for another to fight (ala ranked). Have fun with that.

Whoah, daemonizing players daring to group in multiplayer game much?

[malmar]

Give people choice then - 3 separate queues - 1 for solo only, 1 for solo/duo and 1 for 6 or 3 man groups only.
I think i already know which one will most played one.

[Gravord]

Give people choice then - 3 separate queues - 1 for solo only, 1 for solo/duo and 1 for 6 or 3 man groups only.
I think i already know which one will most played one.

The one they need to put least effort but can always blame something or someone else for the result?

[rejndjer]

just remove solo queue from game to appease the multiplayers. make all sc only queueable by 6man parties.

then nobody will play sc and we can finally have peace.

[Gravord]

just remove solo queue from game to appease the multiplayers. make all sc only queueable by 6man parties.

then nobody will play sc and we can finally have peace.

Do you have a quota of nonsense posts you have to make a day?

[Nekkma]

The game and the player base is what it is at this point. I disliked most of "qol" features that got introduced to make life easier on solo players when they got introduced but now we have them and they are not going away. As time goes on you get used to those features and as it is comfortable for a very casual gamer to just run the pug scenario that is what i mostly do.

I typically play daytime eu and you see the same players scenario after scenario. Removing pug scenarios and one premade would just stop scenarios during low pop hours. I often have fun scenarios completely without healers. These suggestions would just increase que times to an unreasonable time without increasing quality (pus are pugs after all).

The only thing i agree with is removing the surrender vote as that is just terrible. I would, however, prefer the old systems with guards.