We have detected that cookies are not enabled on your browser. Please enable cookies to ensure the proper experience.
Results 1 to 20 of 20
  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    924

    Unhappy OPs Buffs a Bad Idea?

    hello peeps I just wanna say that I think those Ops buffs were a bad idea to add because it puts too much pve in the word pvp. and half the time freeps and creeps are auto flipping ops right after creeps flip one freeps come right behind em and flip it..just becomes a pain and because of the whole f2p creep side most of the time all creeps wanna do is turn all the ops red. it becomes a pve battle.

    Any Thoughts on the big pve added to pvp?
    Do Not Meddle in the Affairs of Wizards, For They Are subtle and Quick To Anger.

    Arkenstone ~ R9 RiseAgainst Reaver ~ R9 PowerWolf Warleader ~ R11 Armdyl LoreMaster

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Waterford, Ireland
    Posts
    3,401
    They're not a bad idea. But, as usual, Turbine took a decent idea and implemented it poorly.

  3. #3
    They are a bad idea for one reason only. The dominant side is better placed to keep them, so be it freep or creep, the side with the advantage is more generally able to keep them on its side an further skew the balance in their favour.
    "Romper: You have the power to make EM less boring for yourself and everyone else. "
    "Look for your lore. But do not trust to lore, it has forsaken these lands." - Eolore prince of Lorehan

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Squelcher View Post
    They're not a bad idea. But, as usual, Turbine took a decent idea and implemented it poorly.
    +1.

    Is a good idea, but, if the 4 op were near around TA, for example... it would be pvp using the pve elements, and focused in the middle of the map.

  5. #5
    If Turbine wants to keep OP buffs then there is a simple solution that I offered many moons ago in a different thread.


    Tie in OP`s to the 4 outer keeps, If a keep belongs to 1 faction, then the OP belongs to the other, thus the dominant side does not also get the mastery buff, it is instead given to the weaker side.

    eg,

    TR, ID and LC are blue, so 3 Op`s are red, Lug is red leaving the 1 remaining OP blue, OP`s automatically change factions as keeps flip, they cannot be turned by players, you lose 1 quest, but gain a slightly better balanced situation.

    TA of course would have no effect on any OP.

    Whilst we are at it, make all keep npc`s min Lvl 85, with Tyrants and Cg`s min Lvl 87, stop the run through a keep zerg.
    I dont hug, I keep my distance, about 40m.

  6. #6
    Bad idea for several reasons imo: hotspots provided more action, OPs cause fluctuating buffs that make one side weaker than the other (and depending on what side is OP or not, this can have drastic effects), effects 1v1s negatively, and you have to constantly PVE in a PVP zone to make use of them, which negatively effects pvp as a whole.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    I'm too drunk to taste this chicken
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Oldwiley View Post
    The dominant side is better placed to keep them...
    I'd say it's the side with maps that's has an easier time of maintaining them.

  8. #8
    If there was side where every toon can solo an OP; I'd say they will have an easier time maintaining them.
    "the woods would be very silent if no birds sang except those that sang best" - Henry VanDyke

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by ksjock View Post
    If there was side where every toon can solo an OP; I'd say they will have an easier time maintaining them.
    What about no npcs inside the OP, only the flag? That could create a lot of situations defending the possition at different places.

    Example: Group 1, stay in ROP, group 2 in HOP, some wargs on Arador...

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Waterford, Ireland
    Posts
    3,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Tumbak7 View Post
    What about no npcs inside the OP, only the flag? That could create a lot of situations defending the possition at different places.

    Example: Group 1, stay in ROP, group 2 in HOP, some wargs on Arador...
    That would result in endless OP ninjaing and a hell of a lot of bored wargs.

    The NPC's need to stay there, but update after update Turbine have proven completely incapable of producing Nemesis and higher tier NPC's that are actually capable. They need new abilities that counter the new skills players have, not another 100-200k morale.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Narnia
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Tumbak7 View Post
    What about no npcs inside the OP, only the flag? That could create a lot of situations defending the possition at different places.

    Example: Group 1, stay in ROP, group 2 in HOP, some wargs on Arador...
    Quite honestly in my opinion, this would make it far too easy and quick flipping OP's
    Creeps:Lugezer r11
    Freeps: Athelious r5

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    I'm too drunk to taste this chicken
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by ksjock View Post
    If there was side where every toon can solo an OP; I'd say they will have an easier time maintaining them.
    You're right. Hunters can struggle to flip it solo.

    All jokes aside, it doesn't matter if freeps have an easier time flipping an OP solo. In the time it takes to do so, they either get mapped in on and stopped or, after it's been flipped, creeps map in and flip it right back.

    The idea of outposts giving buffs was a good one but, it all boils down to the potency of maps. remove them and disable mounts in the moors and add a 5 minute lock on outposts from being flipped.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    275
    Quote Originally Posted by Squelcher View Post
    They're not a bad idea. But, as usual, Turbine took a decent idea and implemented it poorly.
    It was and remains a terrible idea, pve objective dramatically effecting damage when the last thing pvp needed was more damage being tossed around. It damages whatever slow-down effect audacity has granted.
    "death is nothing to us, for when we are.. death has not come. And when death has finally come, we are not"
    R7 Spider/R11 Reaver - R13/R11 Champion

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    I'm too drunk to taste this chicken
    Posts
    1,485
    Quote Originally Posted by Isindar View Post
    It was and remains a terrible idea, pve objective dramatically effecting damage when the last thing pvp needed was more damage being tossed around. It damages whatever slow-down effect audacity has granted.
    I get why it was done. To help spread the pvp around the map more. I've had more fights in outposts so far than I've ever had in previous books. But you're right, the bonus from controlling them is just too much. Maybe tone down the effects by half or more or make each OP give a different bonus. One being mitigation, one +crit, one mastery etc.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Waterford, Ireland
    Posts
    3,401
    Quote Originally Posted by Isindar View Post
    It was and remains a terrible idea, pve objective dramatically effecting damage when the last thing pvp needed was more damage being tossed around. It damages whatever slow-down effect audacity has granted.
    There's where we get to implementation. The theory of spreading action around and making OPs useful was sound. But they made their bonuses too great and too quick to change sides.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Phoenix
    Posts
    149
    I think OPs would be better if the tyrant/cg called for help when it got in combat. That way when your group gets on him, the other side knows and will come running. More morale on the tyrant/cg would be good too to slow down their capture to give more time to stop the flip.
    Mellichae - R12 Champion
    [charsig=http://lotrosigs.level3.turbine.com/13213000000044ff6/01002/signature.png]undefined[/charsig]

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Middle-earth
    Posts
    1,700
    Quote Originally Posted by eskla View Post
    I think OPs would be better if the tyrant/cg called for help when it got in combat. That way when your group gets on him, the other side knows and will come running. More morale on the tyrant/cg would be good too to slow down their capture to give more time to stop the flip.
    That wouldn't be a good idea imo, then the side who already owns 4 OPs (the stronger side) can keep them without the effort of patrolling or using spies.
    [I]In the sea without lees standeth the Bird of Hermes.
    [/I][I]When all his feathers be from him gone, He standeth still here as a stone.
    Here is now both white and red, And all so the stone to quicken the dead[/I][I].
    The Bird of Hermes is my name, Eating my wings to make me tame.[/I]

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Morgantown, WV
    Posts
    13,379
    OPs are so easy to flip they barely count as PVE. I actually like them but rather than straight mastery buffs I wouldhave rather seen maybe some buffs but also additional spawn points or maybe mustering horns. I would rather have more ways to get back into the fight than all mastery buffs.
    Jeffaman-Guarding Hobbit Jeffro-Burgling Hobbit Tinulaurien-Elf Lore Master Cephus-Champion of Men Lilnooblet-Hunting Hobbit Jeffrandir-Snooty Elf Rune-keeper- All of Brandywine
    Long live the halflings! Praise them with great praise!
    RIP Nidor - Brandywine's bravest warrior


  19. #19
    I'd like both OPs and keeps to have diminishing returns on bonuses and NPCs both. The more your side takes the less bonus each gives and the less NPCs it has. With just one OP held, it has some strong NPCs that would make it actually feasable to defend and with 4 OPs it would be like it is currently or worse.
    Edited due to violations of the community guidelines.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Ettenmoors
    Posts
    2,324
    Personally I think they're a bad idea.

    Let me explain why: Outpost buffs were originally designed to get players to visit the spots because they weren't being visited often enough. Rather than just remove the unnecessary components, Turbine decides to do this. What Outposts actually do is cause players to fight over Outposts and rarely actually engage each-other in combat. They also reward the side with the largest forces. Supposedly they were suppose to help the underdog, but that's just not the case. The side with the larger forces will camp the outposts or flip them 30 seconds after the underdog flips them, making people logout in frustration.

    Turbine needs to change the buffs from Outposts into a lesser version of the ones you get from Keeps or just get rid of the buff altogether.
    Last edited by Graycient; Jun 07 2013 at 01:31 PM.

 

 

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