We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... LastLast
Results 126 to 150 of 260
  1. #126
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    GW2.
    Posts
    178
    Quote Originally Posted by l4j View Post
    One of the core problems that's always been hard to address is the massive range of power between individual Freeps. There is a huge difference between a fully geared, all raid weapons/jewelry, 1st agers, and moors armor, and a "moderately equipped" or even "only marginally equipped" Freep. We see it in PvE land all the time.

    The devs have to balance the moors Creeps against some baseline, which means that if they're balanced to high end Freeps, they slaughter moderate to low equipment ones. If they are balanced to the middle of the range, the high end Freep slaughter them. That's inherent in the game design, and a fix isn't going to be easy.
    So very true, and I believe the greatest problem with balance. The two solutions that I see are:
    1) Give creeps an equal amount of depth.
    2) Standardize freep stats/gear; to the level of creep standardization.

    1) would be incredibly labor intensive, yet would not impinge upon the specialization of freeps.
    2) would only require more audacity gear for freeps (such as rings, bracelets, capes), with the same amount of variance as creep customization (corruptions).

    Either method would create PvMP balance. Method 2 would be more welcoming to noobs (provided audacity costs remained low); whereas method 1 would reward a greater amount of experience - which is equivalent to allowing godmode for the longtime players, which some may approve of and some may not. Without either, however, true balance is impossible. Which do you all prefer?
    Last edited by Beast_of_War; May 16 2013 at 08:38 PM.

  2. #127
    Quote Originally Posted by l4j View Post
    This.

    The scaled outnumbered "buff" is about the only suggestion I've seen (or made) that addresses the numbers imbalance issue directly.
    While I personally don't mind the idea of a scaled ON Buff, it is easily exploitable. In fact I have a SS somewhere of 8 reavers standing just outside the one shots at the DG secret path. They miraculously appeared after a group I was in managed to put up a good fight against a much larger Group of Freeps. Thanks, in part, to us having the ON Buff.

    I don't know to what level "troll players" will seek to exploit a scaled ON Buff but I'm sure some will.
    "the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best" - Henry VanDyke

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by Sezneg View Post
    I would not expect the moors to be empty, but I would expect gradually lower player activity due to stagnancy.

    And while I would agree that LOTRO has fewer players who are "gamers", I would argue that the single digit percentage of players most active in the moors are the onese most likely to be "gamers".
    Except your arguments aren't based on anything tangible. What I suspect is basically your entire belief that the moors are better today than ever is due in no small part to the simple fact that when you burrow you get a full heal. And the rest of your logic is you just trying to shoehorn justifications into it.

    Ah... nostalgia.
    Ah.... the arrogance of the internet poster who believes they are the only ones who can critically evaluate something.

    Look, this is perhaps your first MMO? I'm not asking to insult or demean you. I've been playing MMOs since 1997
    Perhaps not, but you are trying to once again make the discussion about my qualifications to hold it. You're losing ground.

    The fact is so far all I've been able to discern is that you believe the moors currently are the best they've ever been, that the players leaving leave because that is the nature of the players, and that your belief in your own expertise is based on the fact that you have spent more time indoors than me.

    I'm not finding this that compelling tbh.

  4. #129
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    891
    Oh, and btw,

    Population buffs and debuffs are not the answer. They are too easily exploited, and lend themselves too easily to impacting fights they don't need to make an impact on. You guys are either too new or not thinking this stuff through, or not considering how game changes affect multiple servers. You're playing with fire here, Jinjah is taking notes. Ya'll will have to deal with the consequences.

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eriador
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by ksjock View Post
    While I personally don't mind the idea of a scaled ON Buff, it is easily exploitable. In fact I have a SS somewhere of 8 reavers standing just outside the one shots at the DG secret path. They miraculously appeared after a group I was in managed to put up a good fight against a much larger Group of Freeps. Thanks, in part, to us having the ON Buff.

    I don't know to what level "troll players" will seek to exploit a scaled ON Buff but I'm sure some will.
    It's actually fairly easy to counter this kind of thing within the game engine. Essentially, if you're "inside" you don't count for numbers for your side. Extending that to the edge of the one-shotter line would render that particular tactic moot.

    The more complex ON solution, that I'd proposed, even realizing it is probably more development work than it would be worth, is to have it very localized. There might be a whole-map population count, but there would also be a "combat ranged" one (maybe 80 meter radius - would have to test it out) that would come into play with localized fights. Thus it would be possible for one side to "have numbers" overall, but the pair of characters from that side who gets caught in the open by an opposing raid would actually have an ON buff during that encounter.

    I suspect the server load to implement something like that might be too high, but having it localized vs area wide would probably mitigate some of the other possible complaints about it hurting 1v1's and the like. If it's two people are small groups out away from the main battle, the ON buff wouldn't affect them.

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eriador
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    Oh, and btw,

    Population buffs and debuffs are not the answer. They are too easily exploited, and lend themselves too easily to impacting fights they don't need to make an impact on. You guys are either too new or not thinking this stuff through, or not considering how game changes affect multiple servers. You're playing with fire here, Jinjah is taking notes. Ya'll will have to deal with the consequences.
    Too new, or not thinking things through . . . huh. You have read the rest of the Dynamic ON discussions, right? Were some of us who're proposing them detail various ways to handle exploitation, localization, how it handles server populations, solutions to 1v1 and small group v small group fights, and why it's better than a blanket buff or nerf to one side or the other?

    No?

    Didn't think so.

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by l4j View Post
    Too new, or not thinking things through . . . huh. You have read the rest of the Dynamic ON discussions, right? Were some of us who're proposing them detail various ways to handle exploitation, localization, how it handles server populations, solutions to 1v1 and small group v small group fights, and why it's better than a blanket buff or nerf to one side or the other?

    No?

    Didn't think so.
    Sorry to offend, but where in the discourse did you address having the ON buff when fighting even numbers?

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,756
    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    Except your arguments aren't based on anything tangible. What I suspect is basically your entire belief that the moors are better today than ever is due in no small part to the simple fact that when you burrow you get a full heal. And the rest of your logic is you just trying to shoehorn justifications into it.
    You obviously are not at this point attempting to have a discussion in good faith, as you are no longer on topic and are instead trying to question my motives. I will uphold the intent of this thread by simply ignoring any further sections of your posts which stray in this fashion from the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    Perhaps not, but you are trying to once again make the discussion about my qualifications to hold it. You're losing ground.
    I offer my qualifications, without intent to lessen yours. I've been playing MMOs since 1997. Posts talking about how much better things were at patch number X, and daydreams of "oldschool rules" servers are an MMO community cliche at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    The fact is so far all I've been able to discern is that you believe the moors currently are the best they've ever been
    Do I think the moors is the best now it has ever been? Where did I say that? Clearly you putting words into my mouth. This is especially funny given my responses to your previous posts in this very thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    that the players leaving leave because that is the nature of the players, and that your belief in your own expertise is based on the fact that you have spent more time indoors than me.

    I'm not finding this that compelling tbh.
    I think you vastly oversimplify the decision players make to leave a game.

    You are basically starting at a point of people who have left the game, and pinning this entirely on changes made to the game over time. I am not saying that this is not the case for some people who have left over time, as it most certainly is. But the issue is more complex than you are allowing for in your arguments. There are social factors in play (ties to community, perceptions about the game, perceptions about the game's competition aka "the grass is greener"), which have as much if not more to do with people's decisions than mechanics changes to a game.

    There have been numerous scholarly papers written on the subject of players quitting MMOs (mostly from the unfortunate standpoint of treating interest in playing an MMO as an addiction), I think you might find some of these works interesting; as they point to social factors and real life considerations for being MUCH more likely reasons for walking away from an MMO than singular changes in gameplay.
    Last edited by Sezneg; May 17 2013 at 02:02 PM.
    [img]http://imageshack.us/a/img41/4553/73i4.jpg[/img]

    Even my Signature is trolling!

  9. #134
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by Sezneg View Post
    You obviously are not at this point attempting to have a discussion in good faith, as you are no longer on topic and are instead trying to question my motives. I will uphold the intent of this thread by simply ignoring any further sections of your posts which stray in this fashion from the topic.
    I find it interesting that you're accusing me of doing something I think you're doing in a frantic attempt to get this thread locked, thereby extricating yourself from the mess you've made of this.

    I've never gotten off topic. This thread title should be "The State of Creeps" because except for one colossally bad suggestion that they further increase the ON buff, which ironically would basically be a perma-buff for freeps on many servers, there has been no talk of actually improving the moors. I was asked how I would improve the moors and I responded with basically reverting to late term SOA because that seems to be the time most people prefer that have played consistently throughout. Including you. I argued that all changes since then have done nothing to improve the moors and have that borne out by Sapience himself who agreed that population numbers haven't changed.

    All of your responses have either been contradictory personal preferences/beliefs or veiled attacks at me experience level.

    We've debated in the past quite civil-like. I'm not sure why we're going down this road this time, so if you'd like to veer back into the realm of reasonable I'm game cause I think you're one of the few people left on the forums to talk to that have any substance.

  10. #135
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,756
    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    I find it interesting that you're accusing me of doing something I think you're doing in a frantic attempt to get this thread locked, thereby extricating yourself from the mess you've made of this.

    I've never gotten off topic. This thread title should be "The State of Creeps" because except for one colossally bad suggestion that they further increase the ON buff, which ironically would basically be a perma-buff for freeps on many servers, there has been no talk of actually improving the moors. I was asked how I would improve the moors and I responded with basically reverting to late term SOA because that seems to be the time most people prefer that have played consistently throughout. Including you. I argued that all changes since then have done nothing to improve the moors and have that borne out by Sapience himself who agreed that population numbers haven't changed.

    All of your responses have either been contradictory personal preferences/beliefs or veiled attacks at me experience level.

    We've debated in the past quite civil-like. I'm not sure why we're going down this road this time, so if you'd like to veer back into the realm of reasonable I'm game cause I think you're one of the few people left on the forums to talk to that have any substance.
    Your post, where you made that long list of changes, was quite odd if you were intending it to be taken as a reversion to SOA; many things you listed for removal were important to the relative balance of late SOA (Diminishing returns was released originally in book 12, and refined at least once more before Moria launch).

    This is what prompted me to ask if you had played during SoA; your post seemed contradictory.

    At any rate, the rank genie is out of the bottle... and reverting to SOA style would be a disaster. Being rank 9 back in late SOA meant literally being stronger than most freep classes, and having access to extremely potent consumables (3k healing potions on a 2 minute cooldown). What made it work was that ranked creeps were extremely rare... this was always a balancing function that time would defeat.

    Further, the special place most older players have for the SOA era moors is certainly tinted by nostalgia; the forums were as full of complaints, recriminations of the development team and suggestions as they are today.

    The entirety of this argument seems to boil down to the simple fact that given the same mathematical evidence (stable player populations), we arrive at opposite conclusions.
    [img]http://imageshack.us/a/img41/4553/73i4.jpg[/img]

    Even my Signature is trolling!

  11. #136
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eriador
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    Sorry to offend, but where in the discourse did you address having the ON buff when fighting even numbers?
    This thread is but one example where it came up. But if you look in this very thread you will notice the "localized" version of said ON buff, which, while more resource intensive from a development and server load standpoint, directly addresses that very issue - even numbers fighting in one location, while there is an overall numbers imbalance.

    It's a suggestion I've raised before. In threads you've participated in before. And if the numbers are even, the ON buff isn't even in play.

    The problem was that in RoR the sides were reasonably evenly matched, but people were complaining that Creeps had numbers, which unbalanced the fights. A dynamic ON buff would have solved the numbers issue, wihtout requiring mechanical changes to the classes. However, as seems to be par for the course, Freeps got buffed U10 and again in U11, so the Creeps are back, roughly, where they were in RoI.

    But, honestly, mate. If you are "sorry to offend," you might refrain from suggesting people are new, or haven't thought things though, so as not to offend in the first place.

  12. #137
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by l4j View Post
    But if you look in this very thread you will notice the "localized" version of said ON buff,
    Yeah, I know. But I said what addresses when the ON buff comes up. All of the ideas I've read seem to believe turbine can prevent this uber-ON buff from happening. That's why I asked what I did because you should all know players will find a way to put that buff on themselves whether turbine wants them to or not. Or, the game will find a way to put the buff on players whether the players want it or not.

    If you're playing this game, you already know this, which makes the entire discussion about buffing that buff a non-starter.

    But, honestly, mate. If you are "sorry to offend," you might refrain from suggesting people are new, or haven't thought things though, so as not to offend in the first place.
    Well, I said I'm sorry to offend, not sorry for asking the question.

  13. #138
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,023
    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    The OP is exactly why sometimes I think its best the community is not taken into consideration when the devs seek to balance PVP.

    All this is is a list of creep buffs that don't take into consideration at all what it will do to overall balance. And then it's lauded by the "community team" because its a well written wishlist.

    Where is the critical thinking on Turbines part in judging this? On the player council's part? The farmer says its great. Oh boy, that just screams legit to me, especially as he pats his kinsman on the back. The truth of it is quite a bit different.

    1) Population - Creeps outnumber freeps because of F2P. So the only way to fix this issue is to allow freeps to f2p pvp. Of course that a) won't fix the issue at all as creeps will just be the outnumbered side and b) create all kinds of performance issues because the server can't handle the population as it is.

    A 30 minute lock out will do nothing.

    The only way to manage the population is to disincentivise it from gathering in one spot. Maps, tagging, that sort of stuff lends to zergs. Remove those things and you spread out the fighting so overall populations don't matter as much.

    2) Creep damage vs Freep damage. The problem with this issue is that all classes are different. If you increase creep damage then yes you'll be able to maybe kill that minstrel that is bothering you so much. But you will be absolutely crushing hunters and burgs and LM's and those classes without the benefits that some of the other classes have. You're also built to take alot of damage. So if you increase your damage you have to become squishier. Do you want that? Because you already know you cannot just increase your damage and keep your survivability the same... You had that when RoR launched and it didn't improve the moors one iota.

    3) Monster heals vs freep heals. If freeps are healing too much or creeps are healing too little, then you have to bring both factions in line with one another: Either you nerf WL's and Defilers to the survivability of Minstrels or buff Minstrels to the survivability of WL's and Defilers. You don't give what is essentially a guardian the healing capability of a fully spec'd and geared out minstrel. Sorry, no.

    4) CC. Same thing here. If you don't like the imbalance in CC then you have to adjust survivablity as you slide the scale. If you are going to decrease CC capabilities, then you have to increase survivablity. If you are going to increase CC immunity, then you decrease survivablity.

    In every case you mentioned all you did was adjust things so creeps, who already have the numbers and the abilities to very quickly bring those numbers to bear, can more easily kill freeps. You didn't talk of balance at all, as far as I could see. Only buffs for creeps.

    And the farmer and the Turbine employee thought them good suggestions. /sigh.
    I don't know Colospecs in game and I don't necessarily approve of her/his tone. But there's a ton of wisdom in his/her post. The words above contain lots of insight and imo reflect a long history and experience in LOTRO PvMP. You creep-centric players can complain as much as you want to about Colorspecs logic (and I don't approve of his cutting tone), but his/her logic is spot-on and is going to be reflected by experienced PvP devs in any game, any genre.

    Having said all that, I really appreciate the OP, their politeness, and their attempt to bring some logic and calmness to this discussion. I realize there are a lot of well meaning creeps out there, and there are a lot of players who play both sides and want things to be as fair and balanced as possible.

    I've been in the moors since 2008 on my LM and hunter. I've never felt that month after month, the freep groups I've teamed up with have dominated creep side. I've felt that group-wise, it's been a decent amount of give and take over the years. If I was able to start a raid on my sever freep side, and night after night consistently own the craids that faced me, I'd come to the forums and say that creeps need a buff. But that's never been the case. Some nights the groups I'm with tend to win more than not. Other nights, like last night, we seem to wipe a lot. Many nights, it's a decent split. And this has been the pattern I've observed (massive pop buffs notwithstanding) over the years.

    I've tried to solo over the years and sometimes have had a few weeks when it seemed to come together and I could at least consistently beat wargs, but as a hunter I have to tell ya, it's very tough to solo out there in the Moors. In this most recent update when freeps are supposedly OP, I have a tougher time than ever soloing. So when I read the creep cries to "balance" things in their favor, forgive me if I don't believe it.

    I also like to play SC2. The only way that Bliz can even have a hope to balance SC2 is to segregate everyone according to their "skill rating." In the Moors, there is no skill rating so right there that throws most balance discussions out the window. Without doubt, a highly skilled craid or fraid could wipe twice their number on the opposite sides, especially if other battlefield conditions are in the skilled-player's favor. And the losing side will cry that things aren't balanced even though they need to l2p (note I say this goes for both sides).

    Also, even in a very balanced game like SC2, it's only really balanced for 1 v 1, Even a 2 v 2 SC2 game has wildly inconsistent balance. So my point is it's infinitely impossible imo to fully balance a PvMP environment that regularly sees 24 v 24 players and often 48 v 48 on busy nights/special events.

    Now does this mean to say to give up on balance? No. I'd like to see 24 of the highest-rank creeps and freeps be invited to a public showcase by Turbine. There, over several war sessions that would go over several weeks, the players, community and devs could comment on their battles and what is working and not working. Also, 3 v 3, 1 v 1 and some other group sizes could be recorded/streamed to take smaller group battles into consideration. That'd be my suggestion as a starting-point to see if the moors are balanced or not.

    Other than that, get rid of outpost buffs, I hate it even when the buff favors my side.

    And I'd pay tons of money to have PvMP skirmishes over control points. You'd use an "instance-finder" like UI to get groups (and they could be cross-server) in sizes of 1,2,3,6,12, and 24. For 15 - 30 minutes, both sides would compete to see who could hold the most control points the longest. At the end, both teams would receive infamy/reknown with the winning team of course receiving much more.
    [COLOR=Lime][SIZE=1]other favorite middle-earth related games: The One Ring RPG, published by Cubicle 7; LotR: The Card Game, published by FFG[/SIZE][/COLOR]

  14. #139
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by Sezneg View Post
    At any rate, the rank genie is out of the bottle... and reverting to SOA style would be a disaster.
    I dunno. U11 and the changes to kb titles kinda proved there are no genies or bottles. I mean, they've been asking creeps to pay real money for skills and then changes them after they pay for them. In that light nothing seems sacred to me.

    Basically, you can boil all of this down a couple general principles:

    1) Slow down fighting. Audacity was supposed to accomplish this, but didn't.
    2) Give freeps the ability to handle larger numbers. There are multiple ways to accomplish this, and yes some of those ways will create new/different inequalities. I'm okay with that if the overall gameplay improves from the map-in/zerg fests that exist every time creeps get buffed.
    3) Give either side places to retreat to that don't involve one-shots when outnumbered or outclassed.
    4) Give both sides the chance to apply skill to retreating. For some reason Turbine thinks its not okay to flee if you don't have a sprint or stealth available. That's dumb.
    5) Nerf rezzes. Most fights are determined by who outlasts the other by rezzing. Lets determine fights instead by skill and determination.

    Now, I use SOA as a general principle because fights were longer, freeps could hold up against greater numbers with CC and AOE, keeps and hotspots and they could fight greater numbers (and flee from them) more effectively.

  15. #140
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eriador
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    Yeah, I know. But I said what addresses when the ON buff comes up. All of the ideas I've read seem to believe turbine can prevent this uber-ON buff from happening. That's why I asked what I did because you should all know players will find a way to put that buff on themselves whether turbine wants them to or not. Or, the game will find a way to put the buff on players whether the players want it or not.

    If you're playing this game, you already know this, which makes the entire discussion about buffing that buff a non-starter.
    Fair question.

    There are two implementations of the ON "buff" that come to mind, both of which would be dynamic and be calculated often. They are not mutually exclusive.

    The first is "region" based, and based on the total populations both sides that are 'in play' in some form, and not at GV/Grams, nestled in the one-shotters (If you're not a target, you don't count towards the population.) etc. The population count is expressly to keep people from logging in a bunch of characters on one side so the other gets the buff.

    This buff could be made more granular by leveraging the different "areas" of the map. Coldfells, Steps of Gram, Hoarhollow, etc., so different population densities in different areas would have different buffs.

    The usual discussion will say "log in Freavers so the Freeps get it" but my intention on this suggestion has always been for it to be a balanced effect for both sides. Thus I am not making that suggestion or distinction.

    The second is considerably more resource intensive from both a development and server load perspective, but has the advantage of not interfering with 1v1 or small group fights, regardless of the overall populations, and that is the Localized implementation.

    In this, calculations are done per character or small area (100 m or so grid square - which is similar to the 'granular version above, but much smaller areas, and I have no idea whether it would be practical to implement. It's here simply as a possibility.) and applies to the characters separately. This implementation probably requires a threshhold calculation as well, so it doesn't come into play when there are only a handful of people affected. E.G. a 1v2 or 2v3 wouldn't trigger it.

    The actual scale on the populations would be probably at the 20% to 25% increments, with the buff itself fairly small per step. Perhaps 5% with a maximum boost of perhaps 30%. Think of it as "for every 25% we're outnumbered, we get a temporary point of Audacity."

    Not actually proposing they add more Audacity here, but you see the kind of magnitude I'm looking for. For the sake of this example, it would give you +6 Audacity if you were outnumbered 2.5 to 1.

    One of the advantages of this concept is that if the numbers are off (too large or small an increment, too large or small a buff) it would be very easy to alter either without requiring any additional changes.

    Further, though again more work and more load, the two versions - area and local - could be implemented together with different magnitudes.

    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    Well, I said I'm sorry to offend, not sorry for asking the question.
    Apology accepted on giving offense. We often don't agree, but I think we both, ultimately, want to have a reasonable discussion and both want the same thing: A fun experience in PvMP for both sides.

  16. #141
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Blighty
    Posts
    2,376
    Whilst we are on the subject of population imbalance I want to throw an extreme idea out there and see what you chaps think.

    In terms of controlling the population of each side what about the following?

    • Server Faction Locking - On a given server you must choose one faction and you may only join PvMP as a member of that faction.
    • Partial Server Faction Locking - On a given server you must choose one faction and you may only join PvMP as a member of that faction. The faction choice may be altered once per month.



    Note: I am not necessarily advocating either of the above ideas, I simply want to know what my fellow PvMPers think of more far reaching solutions to controlling population.
    Last edited by MrWarg; May 18 2013 at 12:53 AM.
    [URL="http://theartofwarg.com/"]@theartofwarg[/URL]

  17. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    I dunno. U11 and the changes to kb titles kinda proved there are no genies or bottles. I mean, they've been asking creeps to pay real money for skills and then changes them after they pay for them. In that light nothing seems sacred to me.

    Basically, you can boil all of this down a couple general principles:

    1) Slow down fighting. Audacity was supposed to accomplish this, but didn't.
    2) Give freeps the ability to handle larger numbers. There are multiple ways to accomplish this, and yes some of those ways will create new/different inequalities. I'm okay with that if the overall gameplay improves from the map-in/zerg fests that exist every time creeps get buffed.
    3) Give either side places to retreat to that don't involve one-shots when outnumbered or outclassed.
    4) Give both sides the chance to apply skill to retreating. For some reason Turbine thinks its not okay to flee if you don't have a sprint or stealth available. That's dumb.
    5) Nerf rezzes. Most fights are determined by who outlasts the other by rezzing. Lets determine fights instead by skill and determination.

    Now, I use SOA as a general principle because fights were longer, freeps could hold up against greater numbers with CC and AOE, keeps and hotspots and they could fight greater numbers (and flee from them) more effectively.
    I can definitely see where you are coming from, but at the same time perhaps you are overlooking a few things as well.

    MMOS will naturally progress and be updated and need to in order to survive and compete with newer MMOs, this happens with every single MMO that has ever been released and will continue to be the trend. There is great appeal in moving things back and I can fully understand why you would be motivated to feel this would be best for the game, in SOA book 14 the fights were longer and more balanced so it would normally only make sense to say "Hey lets just put it back like that and things will be fun forever!", the answer is not to leave things the same forever, that would only lead to players getting ultimately bored having no new content to play and you would be left would a player base of Only PvPers which is not conducive to keeping an MMO alive and thriving. While alot of hardcore gamers are mainly into PvP you have to realize this is not what makes up the majority of the player base, its the PvE players that make up the majority and drive the demand for the evolution of the game, this however does not mean that pvpers are not an important and necessary part of keeping the game going, its the combination of the two and the challenge of the Devs to find the balance between satisfying both types of players. As far as pvp goes, what needs to be done is to analyze why the PvP was more balanced During the "Golden Age" of pvp, example, how the CC worked and how much was available to both sides, what types of heals/utility skills were available to both sides, the Mitigations that each class had on both sides, the DPS etc, then keep those factors in mind as new skills and class updates are made, and since freeps are updated first based on the fact that they are getting new content to push the game forward, any new utility skills/ heals that side gets should be taken into consideration vs what creeps have, if you are adding 3 new heals on top of the heals already available to freeps, then 3 new heals need to be added to creeps or they need to be disabled via the MP buff in order to maintain the ratio of freep heals vs creep heals. Another one of the reasons why SOA book 14 did so well is because the defiler was now a factor for creeps, now creeps had 2 healing classes vs two healing classes on freepside, Minis and Captains were a comparable duo to Wls and Defilers, and such ratios should be maintained in order for balance to exist in PvP.
    Last edited by TurinDreadHelm; May 18 2013 at 01:21 AM.

  18. #143
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eriador
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by MrWarg View Post
    Whilst we are on the subject of population imbalance I want to throw an extreme idea out there and see what you chaps think.

    In terms of controlling the population of each side what about the following?

    • Server Faction Locking - On a given server you must choose one faction and you may only join PvMP as a member of that faction.
    • Partial Server Faction Locking - On a given server you must choose one faction and you may only join PvMP as a member of that faction. The faction choice may be altered once per month.



    Note: I am not necessarily advocating either of the above ideas, I simply want to know what my fellow PvMPers think of more far reaching solutions to controlling population.
    I think that for those of us who play both sides, this would be a game killer. I love playing on my Warg. It really is my Moors identity. But I also have fun on my Burg and Hunter, and being stuck with one side or the other would pretty much lock the moors permanently from my view. Once a month would be way too long to wait to change. Even once a day would be a bit much, since I (and many of my kin/tribe mates) will switch to the outnumbered side, rather than participate in the attacking side of a Grams/GV camp. If the map is Red, I go out on my Freep. If it's Blue I go out on my Creep. If it's mixed, I go with what I feel like or what the rest of my mates are up to.

    Interesting suggestion, for sure. But I don't think it's really viable.

  19. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by l4j View Post
    It's actually fairly easy to counter this kind of thing within the game engine. Essentially, if you're "inside" you don't count for numbers for your side. Extending that to the edge of the one-shotter line would render that particular tactic moot.
    How would this work? Recall the Freeps that log in these Creeps are doing it to artificially effect the ON Buff. Having them outside the one shots will do nothing. Why would they kill their own toons? It defeats the purpose of having them there to start with.

    Anyway it's not currently a big issue, I was simply saying that it has certainly happened in the past and I've no doubt it will happen again if Freeps think that they can gain even the slightest advantage.

    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post

    2) Give freeps the ability to handle larger numbers. There are multiple ways to accomplish this, and yes some of those ways will create new/different inequalities. I'm okay with that if the overall gameplay improves from the map-in/zerg fests that exist every time creeps get buffed.
    .
    You're kidding right, freeps already have the ability to handle large numbers. This is one of the problems OP mentions that needs to be addressed. Why should one Freep healer be able to out heal 4 Creep DPSers while one Creep healer can't out heal one Freep DPS? Creeps groups need to stack healers while Freeps can stack DPS. Then of course Freeps have plenty of classes that can swap to heals, throw an occasional heal or rez and bubble their friends if they need to.

    The other points I don't disagree with but what you're proposing, adding more sturdiness to already sturdy Freeps, will make fighting worse, much worse. As it stands in any even fight, against properly played Freeps that know how to do something simple like target forward heal, the Creeps have zero chance of a kill.

    I also think you're placing way too much stock in this idea that Freeps are always outnumbered. On Elendilmir Creeps control the map during off peak times, however, peak times (USA and Ausi) Creeps are usually fighting on a blue map with the ON Buff.

    This isn't surprising; Creeps will come out to work on their maps during off peak times, leaving them to actually PvP in the peak times. If a few Freeps decide to come out, most likely looking for low ranked Creeps questing, and they get "zerged" I say too bad. I mean it's not like they were looking for a fair fight either epically with the 1v1 balance being so heavily skewed to the Freeps.
    Last edited by ksjock; May 18 2013 at 06:52 AM. Reason: affect - effect
    "the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best" - Henry VanDyke

  20. #145
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eriador
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by ksjock View Post
    How would this work? Recall the Freeps that log in these Creeps are doing it to artificially effect the ON Buff. Having them outside the one shots will do nothing. Why would they kill their own toons? It defeats the purpose of having them there to start with.

    Anyway it's not currently a big issue, I was simply saying that it has certainly happened in the past and I've no doubt it will happen again if Freeps think that they can gain even the slightest advantage.
    <snip>
    Having them outside the One-Shotter range makes them a viable target for opposing side. Note that the proposal is intended to affect both sides equally. The people gaming the system won't kill their own toons, but I'm fairly sure there are people on the server who despise the practice and will make a point of sending these idle targets to the rez circle - which should probably be counted as a "base" and toons within the ring won't be counted for the numbers.

    This (Characters in the circle don't count towards numbers) would also serve to help break up rez camps, though I know some folks actually enjoy them.

    But yes, people will try to game the system, but at least this moves them outside the bases where they become valid targets and not just counting to break the existing population buff.

    Also, the localized version would negate that technique. Move the fight away from the idle Freavers and they no longer swing the balance.

  21. #146
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ettenmoors
    Posts
    2,324
    It's working just like Turbine intended I think. Trying to be honest here without cracking up.

  22. #147
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    5,756
    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    I dunno. U11 and the changes to kb titles kinda proved there are no genies or bottles. I mean, they've been asking creeps to pay real money for skills and then changes them after they pay for them. In that light nothing seems sacred to me.

    Basically, you can boil all of this down a couple general principles:

    1) Slow down fighting. Audacity was supposed to accomplish this, but didn't.
    2) Give freeps the ability to handle larger numbers. There are multiple ways to accomplish this, and yes some of those ways will create new/different inequalities. I'm okay with that if the overall gameplay improves from the map-in/zerg fests that exist every time creeps get buffed.
    3) Give either side places to retreat to that don't involve one-shots when outnumbered or outclassed.
    4) Give both sides the chance to apply skill to retreating. For some reason Turbine thinks its not okay to flee if you don't have a sprint or stealth available. That's dumb.
    5) Nerf rezzes. Most fights are determined by who outlasts the other by rezzing. Lets determine fights instead by skill and determination.

    Now, I use SOA as a general principle because fights were longer, freeps could hold up against greater numbers with CC and AOE, keeps and hotspots and they could fight greater numbers (and flee from them) more effectively.
    Useful exercise: How many creeps do you think the average freep should be able to fight at once?

    Also; I play a class that has no sprint. I am able to pull some pretty ninja stuff on the retreat. It's certainly not a 100% chance, especially against large numbers. But I've survived some pretty hard pressed situations with my skill set which did not include heal burrow (which I only slot in actual raid fights, because it's a wasted trait slot for solo play).
    [img]http://imageshack.us/a/img41/4553/73i4.jpg[/img]

    Even my Signature is trolling!

  23. #148
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    891
    Quote Originally Posted by Sezneg View Post
    Useful exercise: How many creeps do you think the average freep should be able to fight at once?
    One.

    Ask me however how many creeps 6 freeps should be able to fight at once and you'll get a different answer. One of the beauties of LOTRO was always in the interlocking way the classes worked together. Skills supported one another. Too much of that, not all, but too much has been eroded in PVP.

    Also; I play a class that has no sprint.
    No, but a burrow really is just a stealth. I said sprint or stealth, iirc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ksjock
    You're kidding right, freeps already have the ability to handle large numbers.
    Hyperbole. You can make turbine believe that nonsense, but don't try it on me.


    Quote Originally Posted by TurinDreadHelm
    MMOS will naturally progress and be updated and need to in order to survive and compete with newer MMOs
    Says who? UO, AC, EQ are all going. They get updates, but they're they're not game changers. You are taking a widely held belief at face value as divine unbreakable rules. To me, constant change like we've seen in LOTRO is akin to rapid expansion in a business. Expansion is good, right? Ever heard of Krispy Kreme?

    Quote Originally Posted by l4j
    There are two implementations of the ON "buff" that come to mind, both of which would be dynamic and be calculated often. They are not mutually exclusive.
    Still doesn't address the point. My point isn't how best to implement it, my point is how game breaking will it be when players have it on them that don't need it.

  24. #149
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Eriador
    Posts
    763
    Quote Originally Posted by ColorSpecs View Post
    <snip>
    Still doesn't address the point. My point isn't how best to implement it, my point is how game breaking will it be when players have it on them that don't need it.
    That don't need it . . . You mean like, say, buffing Freeps?

    And how, precisely, does a localized ON buff that only comes into play when a threshold is passed, only affects a local area, and is tuned to improve the odds for the heavily outnumbered side, break things?

    Seriously. Inquisitive minds want to know. How can this possibly be any worse than giving buffs to only one side that are not scaled to numbers, don't change dynamically, and don't take population curves into account?

  25. #150
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    285
    Quote Originally Posted by l4j View Post
    The more complex ON solution, that I'd proposed, even realizing it is probably more development work than it would be worth, is to have it very localized
    The only problem with this is having a warg stroll in and two/three-shot someone in the middle of a freep raid with his massive scaled ON buff, or converselely a burg or a sprinting champ or charging reaver for that matter. I for one don't want to be griefed in this way.

    There is no simple answer to the numbers game because the desire for easymode of most players is not something the developers can control. Take away zergs and easymode and I promise you half the moors population will simply not come out anymore.

 

 
Page 6 of 11 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 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