We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 260
  1. #51
    So many good ideas in here; problem is you guys don't represent the majority so, as Sapience said, you will be ignored.
    "the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best" - Henry VanDyke

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Delmore View Post
    Hmmm...interesting....

    I like where the idea is going. It has potential. Just throwing some devil's advocates in there for ya
    Yeah, certainly there would be things to work out and probably some safeguards vs unintended consequences or exploits.

    I like the idea of a trade-off and making choices. I like how it mirrors choices Creeps must now make with their corruptions, ie Dmg for Morale, Crit chance or Crit protection, etc, and mirrors the choices Freeps will hopefully need to make along the same lines after the class revamps.

  3. #53
    The single biggest problem with the moors is the audacity gate. Meaning you have very little chance of success, especially as a non-healing class, without hugging raid zergs or grinding quests.

    There's a reason that out of all my toons the Hands of Healing captain has the highest rank, and the hunter hasn't been to the Moors for a year.
    105s: Aedfrith (HN), Aldnoth (CP), Brai (RK), Hrolfdan (MN), Aeldfryd (WD), Morriarty (CH), Aednoth (LM), Mishhar (BR), Hraldan (GR), Rummbold (BG). Tinies - Rumbelina (MN), Aenghus (CP)
    Rangers of Eriador (officer), ex-Snowbourn now Laurelin - A Noob for All Seasons

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,837
    Quote Originally Posted by Delmore View Post
    But keeps/EC/OC/OPs should not be soloable or able to be run off.
    It would be nice to have the npcs move at lets say +10% run speed so that a single defiler, wl, guardian, warden can't just train through the entire keep without the npcs doing any dmg to them besides the initial hit.

    Honestly, as much as i hate to say it, I don't see a huge problem with healing. One thing i've noticed is people tend to concentrate on 1 target and keep at it until its dead, even if its recieving massive heals, they still hammer away, learn to switch quickly once healers focus on your target it keeps them off balance. Unless of course they are target forward healing. Then depending on how big your raid is, splitting up the dps train or choosing a different RAT seems to work the majority of the time.
    Last edited by Daec; May 10 2013 at 04:38 AM.
    Rank 14 Minstrel, Rank 10 Rune-keeper, Rank 7 Champion
    Rank 11 Weaver, Rank 11 Blackarrow, Rank 10 Reaver, Rank 10 Stalker, Rank 9 Defiler, Rank 7 Warleader

  5. #55
    Hi everyone

    I'm not reaaly a new player in the moors, I have a r7 hunter who got to that rank when cap was lvl 65, so it was not easy stuff.

    Since Isengard I can count for my fingers the times I got to moors with the hunter, not because I don't like it, but cause I really have no time to play it as it must be played.

    I have 3 freep toons (hunter, champion and runekeeper) with moors rank and have one of each creep class also.

    So I think I have a very good idea off the problems of each side, both creeps and freeps.

    On the server I play, Evernight, the balance is way to the freep side, and I think that is the case on almost every server.

    Is that a bad thing? I don't really know, but it has some logic to be like that, since it is not viable (from my point of view) to play exclusively as a creep.

    On the other hand, if creeps only relly on stuff they get on the moors, freeps can get to moors with the best stuff there is.

    I remmenber very well going to moors at lvl 65, with BG set and 2 lvl 65 1st age weapons...

    Maybe one way to balance things was to make moors stuff only work there, and make that stuff more pvp oriented or, on the other hand, u coud open more areas to creeps.

    Now, in the moors I play only with creeps, mostly with my stalker, in a pack with other 3 kin mattes, and sometimes with the company of a reaver and a defiler, and, even with the unbalance to the freep side, I can say I still have fun enough to go there almost every night.

    As for my freeps, the only thing that will push me to moors is the r9 and r12 mounts, but I don't see myself getting that soon...

    One thig I can tell, every change as some kind of impact that no one could predict when working on that chage, I has been that way in the past and it will continue to be like that in the future.

    What I try to do is to work, as best as I can, to pass those changes in a way they have the slight impact on my play stile.

    One other thing, I only play till I have fun, if fun is gone, I am gone... since I am sill here...
    Last edited by Mycconos; May 10 2013 at 05:01 AM.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    139
    Quote Originally Posted by Delmore View Post
    IMO, NPCs need to be a fairly useful form of protection. On both sides. And not with annoying CC. random NPCs like the coldfell hunters and what not up around man camp areas by TR should be normal easy solo kills. But keeps/EC/OC/OPs should not be soloable or able to be run off.

    EC/OC NPCs should be able to take down a solo player and reset at the door. These places are for protection. They are a death trap. If you chase a freep into EC...those NPCs should make you regret your decision. Same with OC.

    outposts should not be able to be solo'd by ANYONE. And should require at least a small group of 4-6 with a healer to be able to be taken down. I would even say if the 10% buff stays that they need to have some form of immunity from insta-flip too.

    Keeps - no no no no no The removal of the flag actually makes the keep takes easier. Just due to the fact that NPCs hit like kittens (including the bosses), And once they die, it flips. I can't tell you how many flag fights I have had over the years defending or attacking TR or LUG and saving it after the tyrant resets.

    just some quick thoughts
    I agree it would be nice if the annoying cc was removed and NPCs in keeps/oc/ec/ops all got a significant boost to morale and damage. Your NPCs should get weaker with every keep/op you control and get significantly stronger with every keep/op that you lose. Basically it should be gradually harder and harder to flip the entire map while easier to say take back 1 or 2 keeps/ops. Also to solve the problem of kiting around NPCs they should add an enrage buff that stacks the longer you go without getting hit by the NPC. This enrage buff should give a speed and damage boost and also give the NPC random aggro.
    Last edited by Dntx09; May 10 2013 at 10:30 AM.
    [center][color=orange][b]High Chieftain Kamikazee Rank 13 Reaver [/b][/color][/center]
    [center][color=teal][b]Restinpepperonis Rank 9 Weaver [/b][/color][/center]
    [center][color=darkviolet][b]Third Marshal Karoc Rank 12 Champion [/b][/color][/center]

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Gramsfoot
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Dntx09 View Post
    I agree it would be nice if the annoying cc was removed and NPCs in keeps/oc/ec/ops all got a significant boost to morale and damage. Your NPCs should get weaker with every keep/op you control and get significantly stronger with every keep/op that you lose. Basically it should be gradually harder and harder to flip the entire map while easier to say take back 1 or 2 keeps/ops.
    I think this could be easily implemented by giving both freeps and creeps a fixed amount of NPCs to be distributed over all strongholds they have. Eg 100 NPCs per side, if creeps only own Lugazag, it is protected by 100 NPCs. If creeps own Lugazag, TA, LC and 2 outposts, only 20 NPCs defend a keep.
    [B]Azshakh[/B], R12 Warleader
    [B]Memento Mori[/B], Laurelin
    [i]Glob-hai! Azshakh thrakatul azurz grush, skai![/i]
    Fool-folk! Azshakh bring them killing blow, gah!

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    2,379
    Quote Originally Posted by Azshakh View Post
    I think this could be easily implemented by giving both freeps and creeps a fixed amount of NPCs to be distributed over all strongholds they have. Eg 100 NPCs per side, if creeps only own Lugazag, it is protected by 100 NPCs. If creeps own Lugazag, TA, LC and 2 outposts, only 20 NPCs defend a keep.
    That is an interesting idea. The discussion on Ettenmoors NPCs has veered back and forth over the years: some want NPCs completely gone; some want more NPCs, some want super strong NPCs and some want super weak NPCs.

    I think NPCs have their part to play in helping to maintain balance between numerically uneven sides and to be frank I think the current NPC system/distribution could definitely be improved upon. I like this idea of a set number of NPCs per side that are progressively thinned out the more that side controls to make it harder for that side to hold onto its possessions whilst being super concentrated to help protect the one or two possessions they may have when on the back foot.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,812
    Quote Originally Posted by MrWarg View Post
    That is an interesting idea. The discussion on Ettenmoors NPCs has veered back and forth over the years: some want NPCs completely gone; some want more NPCs, some want super strong NPCs and some want super weak NPCs.

    I think NPCs have their part to play in helping to maintain balance between numerically uneven sides and to be frank I think the current NPC system/distribution could definitely be improved upon. I like this idea of a set number of NPCs per side that are progressively thinned out the more that side controls to make it harder for that side to hold onto its possessions whilst being super concentrated to help protect the one or two possessions they may have when on the back foot.
    It's all moot until they fix the captain bubble bug, where any creep dealing any sort of damage to a freep with a captain bubble instantly aggros any creep NPCs in the area.


    Even my Signature is trolling!

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    NW Arkansas
    Posts
    260
    Could we maybe come up with some ways to help new Creeps out? Make them a little more sturdy instead of a current means to spoon feed renown to Free peoples?

    Oh, and find a way to not totally undermine what long term, high ranked Creeps have worked so hard to achieve.

    It is very disheartening to have 3 skills used on you and you die... instantly.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/072060000000c5598/signature.png]Tychicus[/charsig]

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    2,379
    Quote Originally Posted by 4u2nv View Post
    Could we maybe come up with some ways to help new Creeps out? Make them a little more sturdy instead of a current means to spoon feed renown to Free peoples?

    Oh, and find a way to not totally undermine what long term, high ranked Creeps have worked so hard to achieve.

    It is very disheartening to have 3 skills used on you and you die... instantly.
    There are two sides to the issue of helping out new creeps and I think you astutely touch on both. On the one you are quite right, it is not much fun to poke your toe out of Grams and ... BAM! You are dead. That is not exactly a great start, nor is it conducive to persuading people to stick around.

    On the other hand I would not like to see a situation that 'artificially' boosts brand new creeps up the level of more veteran players who have taken their punches to get where they are, so to speak.

    I do think there is room for a middle ground though. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that new creeps could do with a bit more help than they have at the moment, at least in the sense of allowing them to see some meaningful gameplay before they are mown down. The rest would be up to them to improve upon i.e. corruptions, skills, rank, experience, etc as the rest of us have done.

    I think the trick is to find that middle path; give new creeps enough help that they can play a meaningful role without taking away the need for them to learn and grow on their own.

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,812
    Quote Originally Posted by MrWarg View Post
    There are two sides to the issue of helping out new creeps and I think you astutely touch on both. On the one you are quite right, it is not much fun to poke your toe out of Grams and ... BAM! You are dead. That is not exactly a great start, nor is it conducive to persuading people to stick around.

    On the other hand I would not like to see a situation that 'artificially' boosts brand new creeps up the level of more veteran players who have taken their punches to get where they are, so to speak.

    I do think there is room for a middle ground though. I do not think it is unreasonable to say that new creeps could do with a bit more help than they have at the moment, at least in the sense of allowing them to see some meaningful gameplay before they are mown down. The rest would be up to them to improve upon i.e. corruptions, skills, rank, experience, etc as the rest of us have done.

    I think the trick is to find that middle path; give new creeps enough help that they can play a meaningful role without taking away the need for them to learn and grow on their own.
    I think new creeps should start with "noob-dacity", that is a buff that temporarily gives them the full benefits of audacity (which doesn't stack with audacity) until they reach a certain benchmark. They're still going to be fodder, they're going to get blown up due to low BFPs. But it won't be quite so rough.

    The tricky part is picking how long such a buff should last, etc. You could even tie it in to account status (slightly longer noobdacity access if you are VIP/premium... just to stick it to the F2P multibox creep accounts).


    Even my Signature is trolling!

  13. #63
    There are some great ideas in this thread. And some of them would have a real positive impact on pvp. My favorites so far are adressing the keeps/OPs, the NPCs, and the scaling outnumbered buff.


    The ideas put forth on keeps giving your side a buff but also giving your opponent a buff is a great idea. The risk/reward system has a lot of potential and can give an added strategic element to gameplay. However, I think that you should be able to have 3 keeps and 2 outposts without giving the other side a buff. Essentially, the buff to your opponent wouldn't kick in until you have 4+ keeps and/or 3+ outposts. And the buff that you give your opponent could have a lot of flexibility in terms of design. I think there are a lot of interesting choices and it could be mastery as previously suggested, or if the keep gives you infamy/renown, giving you more rewards for killing your opponent, your opponent could be harder to kill. So maybe they could get an incoming damage reduction buff. With outposts, since you get a mastery buff, your opponent could gain a critical protection buff. Regardless of what the reward to your opponent is, I like this idea, but I do think that these buffs to your opponent creating the risk/reward system shouldn't kick in until after you have 3 keeps and not kick in for outposts until you take the 3rd outpost (and would increase if you take the 4th).


    I agree with many of the posters that something needs to be done with NPCs. There is no way you should be able to run through a keep with over a dozen NPCs on you and survive without a scratch. Same with OC/EC. And I think there needs to be something in place to prevent drop-pulls on keeps. There have been some pretty interesting suggestions and I don't really have anything to add to them, but I do think something needs to be done.


    And I agree with many posters that the difficulty level on taking an outpost or a keep does need to be increased a bit.


    In regards to the lockout, I'm not a fan of it. If we had a well designed and functioning scaling outnumbered buff, as several people have already mentioned, that would take care of most of the issues associated with mass flipping from one side to the other. I don't want to accidentally leave my captain in GV then can't log onto him for a PVE raid because I was playing my Warleader. But, the scaling outnumbered buff needs to be designed well.


    I have a couple ideas regarding CC. First is, when you are stunned, you gain a short immunity to being stunned again for a very short amount of time. I think this system needs to be added to other types of CC as well (i.e. roots, silences, disarms, etc, etc). I really don't think you should be able to be locked down as easily by being chain-feared, chain-rooted, etc. It's really frustrating when you go from full health to dead without being able to fire any skills. So, you can still lock someone down by using different types of CC, but you have to be smart about it and would need to coordinate instead of just spamming the same CC skill over and over. Second, I would like to see the Warleader skill Snap Out of It! give the target a short immunity, say 10 seconds (the skill currently removes Dazes, Stuns, Fellowship Manoeuvre Stuns, Roots, and Knock Downs from an ally). The trait to use the skill should be removed and replaced with the ability to lower the cooldown and extend that immunity to 18 seconds. Essentially this gives something similar to LMs stun immunity skill, but is different enough so it is not a mirrored skill/ability (and based on an existing skill). With this change, the LM can be proactive with stun immunity and the Warleader can be reactive. And the Warleader has the added benefit of removing people from roots and giving a short immunity to them whereas the LM skill does not affect roots.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    3,454
    Quote Originally Posted by booksmcread View Post
    There are some great ideas in this thread. And some of them would have a real positive impact on pvp. My favorites so far are adressing the keeps/OPs, the NPCs, and the scaling outnumbered buff.


    The ideas put forth on keeps giving your side a buff but also giving your opponent a buff is a great idea. The risk/reward system has a lot of potential and can give an added strategic element to gameplay. However, I think that you should be able to have 3 keeps and 2 outposts without giving the other side a buff. Essentially, the buff to your opponent wouldn't kick in until you have 4+ keeps and/or 3+ outposts. And the buff that you give your opponent could have a lot of flexibility in terms of design. I think there are a lot of interesting choices and it could be mastery as previously suggested, or if the keep gives you infamy/renown, giving you more rewards for killing your opponent, your opponent could be harder to kill. So maybe they could get an incoming damage reduction buff. With outposts, since you get a mastery buff, your opponent could gain a critical protection buff. Regardless of what the reward to your opponent is, I like this idea, but I do think that these buffs to your opponent creating the risk/reward system shouldn't kick in until after you have 3 keeps and not kick in for outposts until you take the 3rd outpost (and would increase if you take the 4th).


    I agree with many of the posters that something needs to be done with NPCs. There is no way you should be able to run through a keep with over a dozen NPCs on you and survive without a scratch. Same with OC/EC. And I think there needs to be something in place to prevent drop-pulls on keeps. There have been some pretty interesting suggestions and I don't really have anything to add to them, but I do think something needs to be done.


    And I agree with many posters that the difficulty level on taking an outpost or a keep does need to be increased a bit.


    In regards to the lockout, I'm not a fan of it. If we had a well designed and functioning scaling outnumbered buff, as several people have already mentioned, that would take care of most of the issues associated with mass flipping from one side to the other. I don't want to accidentally leave my captain in GV then can't log onto him for a PVE raid because I was playing my Warleader. But, the scaling outnumbered buff needs to be designed well.


    I have a couple ideas regarding CC. First is, when you are stunned, you gain a short immunity to being stunned again for a very short amount of time. I think this system needs to be added to other types of CC as well (i.e. roots, silences, disarms, etc, etc). I really don't think you should be able to be locked down as easily by being chain-feared, chain-rooted, etc. It's really frustrating when you go from full health to dead without being able to fire any skills. So, you can still lock someone down by using different types of CC, but you have to be smart about it and would need to coordinate instead of just spamming the same CC skill over and over. Second, I would like to see the Warleader skill Snap Out of It! give the target a short immunity, say 10 seconds (the skill currently removes Dazes, Stuns, Fellowship Manoeuvre Stuns, Roots, and Knock Downs from an ally). The trait to use the skill should be removed and replaced with the ability to lower the cooldown and extend that immunity to 18 seconds. Essentially this gives something similar to LMs stun immunity skill, but is different enough so it is not a mirrored skill/ability (and based on an existing skill). With this change, the LM can be proactive with stun immunity and the Warleader can be reactive. And the Warleader has the added benefit of removing people from roots and giving a short immunity to them whereas the LM skill does not affect roots.

    CC has always been a topic that comes up from time to time. I would be hesitant to say that giving creeps a 10s-18s immunity skill is similar to a 1m 30s spammable skill. If you wan't something similar to SOP:R that creeps can use, I would think prob anywhere fom 20s immunity/cooldown to 45 second immunity on a 15s cooldown. Whether it can be used on self is another part of the discussion.

    One thing that has come up recently thanks to another recent MMO that deals in a galaxy far far away, is a stun break skill for classes that has a bit of a cooldown, but can break a form of CC. I don't think that is too bad of an idea. Burgs have that capability with FF. Would people think that would be a good idea?

    I know some people have said that removing CC would be best. However, when you think about it from class to class. Removing CC does a couple things. Takes away a lot of uses for Burgs/LMs/Weavers, Takes away the ability for the majority of creep classes from dismounting or stopping freeps, and turns healers into Gods because you can't stop them There are others, but these are some of the main issues that at least I can see with removing CC from pvp.

    Yicky(R13) Weaver - Now Arkenstone{LOTRO Player Council member 3 years}
    The Witch Kings Seventh Legion
    Bubblez - Defiler
    The Black Appendage of Sauron - Leader
    Orenia | Shaxell: Misadventurers Kinship - Arkenstone

  15. #65
    Sapience, since this thread has your attention, might I share a suggestion regarding population balance?

    I've noticed fewer of the casual freeps tend to play PvMP anymore. That means there are typically even more creeps out than freeps than there used to be, regardless of server. I believe one reason for this could be the VIP restrictions placed on freeps to enter the Ettenmoors.

    Is there any way that restriction could be removed? Perhaps non-VIP freeps can permanently unlock their character with Turbine Points to play PvMP, as creeps do? I can't even bring my own freep out. I have to be honest with you: As a very casual player who logs in maybe once or twice a month, I don't consider it worth a monthly sub to be able to enter the Ettenmoors on my freep. I'll just play my creep instead if I want to PvMP. I just can't justify the expense for how little I play.

    I think many freep players find themselves in this predicament. It's not that they aren't good players. Some are even long-time veteran players. They just aren't getting the bang for the buck for this one small feature. Not when they can just pay once to unlock a creep and get the same experience. Hence a key factor to population imbalance.

    Yes, there have always been more creeps than freeps due to the ease of creating a monster player. Nevertheless, I've never seen it so imbalanced as when creeps became unlockable with a one-time payment. Now all the Premium players and the VIP players are able to play creeps, but only VIPs can play creeps. The balance is severely skewed, and it's made it unenjoyable to even log in on a creep, because who as a VIP freep would want to spend time playing against such insurmountable odds? There's hardly anyone to play against.

    There's less of a need to rebalance the creep strength and apply timers as there is to simply allow more freeps into the zone. I think it would help keep the zone more active all around the clock, and keep the PvMP community strong, giving more revenue to the Turbine Store in the long run. After all, most VIP freep players were going to subscribe anyway for the PvE content. You would only be adding revenue by allowing Premium players to unlock their characters with a one-time payment.

    Thanks for reading.
    [IMG]http://i1011.photobucket.com/albums/af239/headlongflight/silversig_r9_snow_final_zps2657a3d4.png[/IMG]
    [B][COLOR=#ffff00]Silverbullets [/COLOR]- Rank 9 Warg, Landroval[/B]
    [B]<><[/B]

  16. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by vertigo07 View Post
    Bring back the timer for flipping to 30 minutes. For both sides. If you're in the moors on freep, 30 minutes to creepside and if you're on creep 30 minutes to go into the moors on freepside. This will prevent players from logging on their creep, see an all blue map and switch to freepside to get the easy points with the buffs.
    I see no need for a timer - since it's not forbidden, a lot of players do multi boxing. So it's easy to check the map quickly without getting a "timer debuff" - or you simply ask someone in your kinship. As someone said before: if there's a loophole/workaround, it'll be used.

    Update the Outnumbered Buff. A scaling buff would be great. Small buff for being slightly outnumbered and have the buff increase the more outnumbered you become. Currently i find the buff to be pretty weak when one side has all outposts and all keeps outnumbering the other side heavily. A scaled buff would GREATLY improve the equality of action when one side is heavily outnumbering the other. This also helps prevent any sort of urge to flip. Why flip if you have a buff that equals things out? (I know people who 1vs1 will be opposed to this, but I think, generally, when one side is heavily outnumbering the other they already have the OP buffs and therefore this might actually make 1vs1s in such cases more even...just my opinion).
    I always liked the idea of a big scaling buff. Of course 1v1 will suffer, but if Turbine really wants to support 1v1 - introduce an arena.

    The actual buff is a joke, really - you don't even notice it! Of course a mightier buff will be unfair for some players, but open pvp is never going to be fair for everyone. But you have to give each side enough power to drive the zerg off the stairs of their keep. If you split the (keep) zerg, lot's of problems will solve itself, because player groups can get out easier and bother the other side heavier. Otherways they simply keep camping both exits.

    2) Monster Damage vs Freep Damage

    I personally think this is the easiest of the 4 to fix or tweak. Freeps do consistently more damage than freeps. If you don't want to make any drastic changes (i.e. share audacity on all pieces of gear -rings, necklaces etc to force freeps to wear all aud gear in the moors and make that gear cheaper or even free to acquire) then simply buff creep damage. If a loremaster can crit for 10k+ ents then ba's and reavers should be on par.
    This wouldn't be such a big deal, if the recent changes wouldn't be such a mess.

    Ok, give the freeps frist age stuff, increase their DPS & HPS, so that they can do more damage than freeps. - Wait! Why not increase the damage even more with battlefield promotions? Instead of giving the freeps like 5 - 7 % more power, you simply boosted them 'bout 20+ %, since rank 7 - 8 are actually the new "low ranks".

    Other changes, same story: let's increase the freeps ICPR, so that the defiler flies aren't so op. - Wait! Let's nerf them too, so that they are nothing more than a nice pet, that no freep really bothers.

    .... and so on and so forth ...

    Why not simply make ONE step after another and see how it works? Or at least, like e.g. ICPR & flies, think about some changes and how they affect each other. Of course Turbine won't change this, because the damage is done and taking back any of this only will lead to more complaints, because people always moan if you take something away they are used to.

    I don't like the idea of separating audacity, because this will only lead to more gear you have to store and switch.

    3) Monster Healing vs Freep Healing

    Seeing as how I don't play healers consistently out in the moors this one is harder for me to articulate. However, i see that one freep healer can easily keep several freeps alive against high ranked creeps while being focused heavily and a wl/defiler seems to struggle heavily in those same circumstances. Part of me believes that this would be fixed simply by fixing #2 (DPS). Increase Creep dps and freep healing doesn't seem to be so bad. Just my thought.
    Or increase creep heals. Even a good defiler/warleader can never even reach the HPS of a blue minstrel, that easily can do 3k HPS (and more). + minstrel buffs (and the [self] heal abilities of other classes).

    4) Monster CC vs Freepside CC

    I think this is pretty close, but I think it's pretty well documented that Freeps have per class more CC than creeps. I think the bigger issue is CC prevention. With Stun Immunity on Lms it takes away a large percentage of creepside CC in many situations. A simple fix is to do one of two things. (1) Give warleaders a new aura that acts just like SI. This would force warleaders to make a choice and wouldn't be balance breaking in any way. (2) Buff Purge. Buff the duration and reduce the CD. Do that and I think most people would be satisfied.
    Like the aura idea. But I won't mind (strong) CCs if #2 and #3 weren't that messed up atm. Nerf freep damage and/or boost freep heal and leave strong CCs as a special freep ability, to counter those nerf's/boosts. I have seen a lot of (very good) yellow l/ms until the latest update, that already boosted some freep groups a lot with well used CCs, so that a 6 player group could easily fight a 9 - 14 zerg (and demonstrate, how mighty CCs are).

    Not Overpowering, but very needed to deal with stacks of dots. Along with DoT stacks would be the long duration non-pottable dots (see wardens and guards). I'm used to them now, but if a warg could but a 60 second dot on somebody how long would it take for freeps to ask for it to be scaled down?
    I think this will be op (if you coordinate it well in a group/raid), so that it would lead to CC immunity. CCs were and are annoying, but aren't such a *pita*, if you wouldn't get that amount of damage/counter heal on freep side.

    I like the idea what has been done with the keeps, fror and outpost buffs. Now it's worth to get and hold them and buffs that boost your infamy aren't a game changer. You simply earn more or less infamy and of course faster ranking is a game changer, but it doesn't affect the fights diretly.

    But: the outpost mastery buffs do. Even that wouldn't be that bad, if you would have a chance to defend them. Actual Situation for creeps: you switch an outpost, you walk away - and 3 minutes later it switches again! Because it's no real problem for 1 - 3 freeps to make 200k damage versus a pve mob.

    So: Instead of doing pvp, you always have to run around and keep switching outposts - instead of more and attractive pvp fights you do a lot of pve. Why not make it like the fror buffs: Allow the outposts to be switched after an hour - or give the mobs there a buff, that decreases the received damage (like -99% after 1 minute, -50 % after 30 minutes, so on), so that they can't be switched instantly.
    Last edited by Midgaardslang; May 10 2013 at 10:27 PM.

  17. #67
    This is exactly the same mechanic I posted here, a couple days ago:

    http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...-for-the-Moors.

    I added more, which would keep the raid v raid fighting moving around the map, as only two keeps would be attackable at any time... One by freeps, one by creeps.

    Quote Originally Posted by mad_ox1 View Post
    Basically, if the Freeps own TA, they get a buff to their Renown. However, this gives Creeps a Mastery buff.

    Same for the other keeps and the OP's. Any thing your side owns gives you an Inf/Ren buff, at the expense of buffing the Mastery ratings of the opposition.

    Generally, if one side is in control, they are in control of more/all of the keeps and OPs. This gives them buffs both in terms of gains from kills, and ability to kill. This leads to huge disincentives for the side at the disadvantage to even leave Grams/GV and fight.

    My thought is a system where the side with the upper hand (generally more more numbers/higher ranks) a reason to think about how to fight in the Moors. Rather than just claiming the whole map and being buff to the hilt, they might rather leave some of the map in the hands of the opposition. Sure their would still be huge INF/REN gain from kills, but if the other side has an enormous Mastery advantage over you, those kills will be much more difficult to come by.

    For "losing" side currently, they see the map flipped against them, see the huge INF/REN gain buffs on top of the huge Mastery buffs facing them (never mind being likely comfortably outnumbered) and will likely say, maybe I'll come back tomorrow. With a system like what I propose, if the map is flipped against you, you will hit harder and heal more than your enemy toon for toon, so you will be far more likely to be able to overcome the numbers disadvantage.

    Just some numbers to throw around:

    OPs = 10% INF/REN buff for the side which controls them
    2800 Mastery buff to the opposition

    Keeps = 20% INF/REN buff to the side which controls them
    3400 Mastery buff to the opposition

    TA = 30% INF/REN buff to the side which controls it
    4000 Mastery buff to the opposition

    The maximum possible INF/REN buff from OPs and Keeps would be 150%, up from 100% on live.

    Currently, the maximum possible Mastery buff is 13,600. Using the numbers here, the maximum would be a massive 28,800 Mastery difference, which is probably too much, but regardless, would be a huge disincentive for the "winning" side to flip the entire map, making it more plausible for the "losing" side to fight back. Or, if the "winners" did choose to flip the whole map, the enormous Mastery buff would be a strong incentive for the "losers" to fight back.



    I've been thinking about this basic idea for a while, but am only truly forming it as I write, so hopefully that has making some sort of sense to others.


  18. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    GW2.
    Posts
    178
    Hmm. Here are a few things I'd like to see:
    -A separate area with standardized characters. Same Ettenmoors map, same classes. But, upon entering, each character is given stats equivalent to all other players of that class. None of the inequality. No overpowered this, underpowered that. Every class is given stats. No gear. No buffs. All that matters is skill.
    I don't see this as being difficult to implement. Balance shifts would no longer be a problem; it would be set once, and then left forever.
    Perhaps you can still gain Renown/Infamy + Commendations, but in this layer of the Ettenmoors they serve no purpose. Rather, this is an area where players can build experience, rank, and gear before -if they choose- head to the other layer where those things do matter.
    Here, farming would be irrelevant. Here, there is no particular incentive to zerg.
    Why would I want this? Because anyone, at any time, could hop in and begin to PvP. Forgo all the grind and impotency of the newcomer. Here, everyone is welcome.

    - a separate area; a challenge Arena for 1v1s. Similar to the instance finder. Allow spectators.

    -several, much smaller maps; which might just be snippets of current locations in the Moors. For a series of examples: Lugz area, EC area, & TA area. These small maps would have a maximum number of players allowed. (e.g.: Area around GTA; 25 (creeps+freeps) total allowed; no difference greater than +30% pop difference allowed (as in, if 5 freeps, only 4-6 creeps allowed in; if 9 freeps, only 7-11 creeps allowed).

    If none of the above come to pass (alas!), then here are a few other improvements -in my opinion- that I can think of for the current Moors:
    -Current infamy/renown system. Currently rewards zerging. Lower the benefits drastically for raids, raise it for soloing, or some compromise between the two.
    -Creep/Freep equality. Oh boy. General adjustments to improve creepside. A question here is whether creeps should be buffed to imitate freepside - stronger healing, stronger damage, but less "toughness" - or whether it should be a further enhancement of the creep/freep disparities - i.e. more health/mit; "toughness". Of the two, stronger healing and strong damage for creeps would encourage grouping, and stronger toughness encourages soloing (from the creep perspective). I don't have a strong preference either way.
    -Population buff. I don't think these should be built into the sides, as I have seen argued elsewhere. Populations imbalance shifts from one side to another. To assume that there will be more freeps or creeps, and thus to build it in preemptively into creep/freep side, would make that side too powerful half the time and underpowered the other half. Rather, it should be a dynamic buff that takes into account the population at that moment. Yet, at the same time, this would seriously impair soloing on the part of the side with the greater population.
    And here follows what I feel is a very good idea: Population buffs should not be for the whole map; they should be localized. As in, if we have a zerg with 100 creeps in a 50 meter radius, and in that same 50 meter radius we have 10 freeps, then those 100 creeps will be debuffed, and the freeps buffed. Thus, one can solo without being affected by the buff, and yet if one tries to form a massive group in order to outnumber freeps everywhere, that group will be weakened. Notably, this would also lower the incentive to form these massive zergs, which I think is a large +.
    So, there you go. Food for thought, at the least.

    edit: Perhaps aptly titled a "Chaos" debuff. In effect, it is like a stacking aura. Also note: this will make it more difficult for creeps/freeps to take keeps; as when both sides gather closely together to defend/attack an area, both sides will be debuffed - effectively making the NPCs more potent. If this aspect is disagreeable, simply adjust the stats of NPCs accordingly
    Last edited by Beast_of_War; May 11 2013 at 03:03 AM.
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0220400000025661a/01008/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]
    Happy LotROing!

  19. #69
    Great post Neuro!

    Concerning the timer; well, I agree with the others that say that the outnumber buff you propose is enough.

    About the standardisation of freep equipment in the moors and rewards; in various threads I've read that many were not content with the rank depended stuff on freepside.

    So, is it an idea to, indeed, give freeps a standard set (yes give not sell with comms) and then when they rank (or every second or third rank) they can buy an upgraded version of a piece with different (better) stats on it (what and how much is to the devs, ofcourse).
    That way its, besides bfp, meaning full to have rank and get good rewards for ranking.

    For what I've seen, a step towards this has already been made by Turine, by implementing the audacity gear.

    Its just an idea I've gotten while reading this thread, so I admit it isnt that well thoughed through. I thoughed it might help getting balance back too
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/0b20c01000026211d/signature.png]Struuner[/charsig]

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Waterford, Ireland
    Posts
    3,401
    Some nice ideas in here.

    Too bad Turbine aren't in the business of taking suggestions.

  21. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by Mystarr View Post
    MY TWO CENTS WORTH

    I would suggest that there are 3 main issues in the moors. (Rewards, Healing, & Cheating)

    1.) INCENTIVES (REWARDS)
    The current incentives/rewards completely favor the winning side.
    - The winning side can take keeps at will so they get more renown/infamy per kill.
    - The winning side can take outpost at will (so its easier for the to kill the other side and get renown/infamy)

    Why would anyone want to be on the losing side? If your side isn't getting kills then the current incentive structure leads you to do things like:

    - Hug NPCs
    - Hug one shotters
    - Switch to the other side
    - Leave the moors and try again later


    SUGGESTIONS
    Keep bonuses
    - These should be changed to follow risk vs reward. Something more like:
    When your side controls a keep they gain +20% renown/infamy/commendations BUT it enrages the other side and they get a damage bonus (like the current outpost buffs. )

    Now you are getting better rewards (+20%) but you are taking bigger risks (This will hopefully help the loosing side get some kills which gives them a reason to keep playing)

    Auto flips - It is very frustrating when you take a keep and it auto flips in a short period of time. It makes your effort seem wasted. I would argue for removing auto flips or making auto flips turn a keep neutral (instead of giving it to the opposing faction)

    Outpost buffs - These currently give too big a damage boost with no downside. Even if both sides are trying to keep the outpost buffs even (trying to get more balanced fights) its way too easy/common for one person to solo flip an outpost which results in unbalanced fights for everyone out in the moors. I would prefer to see these changed to some sort of local area buff. Maybe give a defensive boost to the side that controls the outpost if they are within a 100m radius of the outpost. This way if a solo player flips an outpost it wouldnt unbalance fights that are happening across the entire map and it might lead to a weaker side trying to move the fight to an outpost so they could benefit from its local defensive boost.


    2.) HEALING
    This is the single biggest problem in the moors.
    - Players get rewards in the moors when enemies die.
    - Healing can lead to... people not dying.
    - If people aren't dying then players aren't getting rewards
    - If players aren't getting rewards they don't want to keep PvPing (They flip sides or leave the moors etc)

    Healing has a HUGE effect on the incentive structure in the moors

    SOLO/SMALL GROUP - In solo play, self healing classes (rks, warden, LMs, minis) can out heal the damage of any single creep. It often takes several ranked creeps to kill a single healer and a small group of healers can be practically un-killable unless you have a raid. This means that experienced players just avoid these fights. ("Oh look... a warden... don't bother")

    LARGER GROUPS - Healing is the single biggest factor in winning group vs group fights. In fact, ITS TOO BIG A FACTOR. If one group has clearly superior healing they can often completely wipe an opposing group with little to no losses. In my, experience if both sides are getting kills then both sides are getting rewards and both sides are happy. If only one side is getting kills then the other side is going to start hugging npcs, or start hugging the one shotters, or lose numbers, or just disband and leave.

    POSSIBLE SUGGESTIONS

    Weaken self healing - This would do wonders to help the balance of 1 v 1 fights. In group gihhts it would also make it easier to kill the healker, which would then make it easier to kill everyone else, which would then mean both sides are getting more rewards.

    Give both sides more abilities to counter healing - Skills like defiler blight can be used to counter healing and allow a side to get kills even if they are being out healed. However, blight is easily avoided and there arent many skills like this in the game. If bothy sides could easily counter healing then number imbalance wouldnt be quite as bad. "Hmmm... We have 6 and they have 12... They will wipe us BUT we should be able to get some kills before we die... Its better than doing nothing while we wait for more peeps to login..."

    3.) CHEATING
    This is a an IMPORTANT mind set/culture issue. The tone for this ultimately comes from the gaming company. If players feel that the game creators take cheating seriously then the players tend to take cheating seriously. If the players see that the game creators dont take cheating seriously (Dont enforce rules against cheating or even worse... dont even have rules against cheating... "Its unsportsmanlike") then players dont take cheating seriously. This can lead to a culture where cheating is the norm (farming, multi boxing, running hacks, etc) and you cant compete in PvP unless you cheat. Once your PvP culture gets to that point players tend to stop caring about your pvp or quit playing your pvp. Your PvP community is then just left with the exploiters. Upshot: Its important to crack down on cheating in PvP if you want to have a healthy thriving PvP community

    SUGGESTION - Change the official code of conduct to make farming and multi-boxing IN THE MOORS a violation of the code of conduct. This would help establsih that you (turbine) take the integrity of your PvP seriously. (If you dont take it seriously then the players arent going to take it seriously.)
    ^This.......is............frea ken...........AMAZING AND PERFECT HOLY &&&& DEVS READ THIS AND APPLY IT. no really this is great....hope they use some of these ideas and love the op suggestion and how the keep taking should be changed...love it.
    [IMG]http://i835.photobucket.com/albums/zz274/williamwegertjr/signigture_zps382aa4d5.jpg[/IMG]

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eriador
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by TheStormKing View Post
    This is exactly the same mechanic I posted here, a couple days ago:

    http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...-for-the-Moors.

    I added more, which would keep the raid v raid fighting moving around the map, as only two keeps would be attackable at any time... One by freeps, one by creeps.
    No, it's not exactly what you proposed. What you proposed was to make having Keep X a prerequisite for taking Keep Y, so the entire battlefield would be linear. As discussed in that thread, your suggestion would have the exact opposite effect: it would concentrate the raids at one of two locations, as there would be no other valid places to attack. It would not, in fact, spread the fighting across the map.

    There have been some other great suggestions in this thread that more closely address the issues at the heart of the Moors. Having too many targets to attack isn't, however, one of them.
    Hobbits . . .
    Now them's good eatin'!

  23. #73
    My biggest worry is the inf/ren system. It encourages zerging. I really would like to see some more soloers around. Soloing requires some sort of skill, so I think it should be rewarded with more than 1.5x the points you get in a zerg.
    Feailuve - Akabath
    [EN]Evernight

    The important thing about life is the struggle, not the triumph... Said no winner ever.

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Waterford, Ireland
    Posts
    3,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Giliodor View Post
    My biggest worry is the inf/ren system. It encourages zerging. I really would like to see some more soloers around. Soloing requires some sort of skill, so I think it should be rewarded with more than 1.5x the points you get in a zerg.
    This is a major issue I think. However, I seriously doubt it will be changed as it is part of the path of casualisation that Turbine have taken.
    Last edited by Squelcher; May 12 2013 at 05:09 PM.

  25. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by l4j View Post
    No, it's not exactly what you proposed. What you proposed was to make having Keep X a prerequisite for taking Keep Y, so the entire battlefield would be linear. As discussed in that thread, your suggestion would have the exact opposite effect: it would concentrate the raids at one of two locations, as there would be no other valid places to attack. It would not, in fact, spread the fighting across the map.

    There have been some other great suggestions in this thread that more closely address the issues at the heart of the Moors. Having too many targets to attack isn't, however, one of them.
    "Comm/Renown Bonus vs. Damage Bonus

    The thought was good, but it could have been implemented differently. I think they should BOTH be tied to the keeps. And thus, truly dynamic.

    Look at the Chain of Locations above again. Each Keep your side controls nets you 20% more renown. Each Keep you don't control nets your side 10% more damage (desperate times for the outnumbered side). Now, the further you are "from home", you get more renown, but your opponents fight with more desperation!

    There are things that could be done to the outposts, faction towns, Quest Hubs, Fror, Ranger/Trolls, and the Relics to support this. But, I wanted to get some feedback on the crux of my idea before expanding further."

    How did you miss that from my thread? It's straight from the thread I started.

    "Having too many targets to attack" causes the raids to miss each other. It will concentrate the raid on raid fighting. The two ideas go hand in hand. Otherwise, raids waste too much time going for keeps to avoid the other raid, just so they can get an extra buff before taking on the other side. Raid on raid gets a lot more violent when you know where they are.
    Last edited by TheStormKing; May 12 2013 at 04:52 PM.


 

 
Page 3 of 11 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload