+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19

Thread: How to Fix Black Garden

  1. #1
    Soulwalker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default How to Fix Black Garden

    If points are awarded only for being on the opposing side of the map (rather than on your own teams' side of the map), then it gives the other team the opportunity to spawn closer to the fang, thus making the games less one-sided.

    In the current form, the majority of games end in large favor of either defiant or guardian (with scores like 500-0). If this fix was implemented, it would take more coordination and skill to maintain the fang. As most of you probably realize, it is nearly impossible to get enough coordination in a PuG to kill the fang holder (since the defenders are constantly spawning proxy to the fang, allowing them to reinforce and maintain possession). The games would be more balanced, fun, and competitive.

  2. #2
    Ascendant Chase Payne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,434

    Default

    The Black Garden is Fine.


    The only problem is the idiots/afkers/farmers/bots that play it.

    All of that is fixed if they ever add rated warfronts in this game.
    Warriors listen to this while they play PvP:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kgjkth6BRRY

  3. #3
    Soulwalker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chase Payne View Post
    The Black Garden is Fine.


    The only problem is the idiots/afkers/farmers/bots that play it.

    All of that is fixed if they ever add rated warfronts in this game.
    It would be more logical though to give points based on the fang carrier being vulnerable. It doesn't make sense to give a team points for turtling on their side of the field, with reinforcements constantly spawning right next to them. If my proposal were implemented, it would require *FAR* more skill for the defenders to hold the flag and acquire points. If you have noticed, there are many threads on the board suggesting that people lose every warfront they join. It would take less coordination for offense (whether they have more AFK players or are outnumbered) to take the fang back and score at least some points.

  4. #4
    Soulwalker
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    3

    Default

    this is not the issue. the problem is that they changed the spawn timer so people dont spawn together anymore. now they spawn run back one at time and get killed. The spawn timer should change based on how far behind you are

  5. #5
    Soulwalker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ningato View Post
    this is not the issue. the problem is that they changed the spawn timer so people dont spawn together anymore. now they spawn run back one at time and get killed. The spawn timer should change based on how far behind you are
    This is a great idea as well; I think it can be agreed that there is a problem with the spawning / grouping that makes it impossible to hit the fang holder with any type of coordination.
    I still think that my idea would be the best solution to the problem, but yours would definitely be a step in the right direction.

  6. #6
    Sword of Telara
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King Krauser View Post
    If points are awarded only for being on the opposing side of the map (rather than on your own teams' side of the map), then it gives the other team the opportunity to spawn closer to the fang, thus making the games less one-sided.

    In the current form, the majority of games end in large favor of either defiant or guardian (with scores like 500-0). If this fix was implemented, it would take more coordination and skill to maintain the fang. As most of you probably realize, it is nearly impossible to get enough coordination in a PuG to kill the fang holder (since the defenders are constantly spawning proxy to the fang, allowing them to reinforce and maintain possession). The games would be more balanced, fun, and competitive.
    Black garden does not need fixing it works great.

    there is already an incentive to keep the fang in the middle, and any decent, or even mediocre team sould be able to take down the fang holder quickly with a massed attack, then its just a case of picking it up, shielded players esp cleric, do very well at this.

  7. #7
    Rift Chaser fervor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    My imagination
    Posts
    382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King Krauser View Post
    This is a great idea as well; I think it can be agreed that there is a problem with the spawning / grouping that makes it impossible to hit the fang holder with any type of coordination.
    I still think that my idea would be the best solution to the problem, but yours would definitely be a step in the right direction.
    Impossible? Spawn...then wait or meet up with some buddies, then attack. Don't kamikaze the moment you spawn.

  8. #8
    Soulwalker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    I am not saying that Black Garden is broken; I am simply saying that, if a small adjustment was made, the warfront would be significantly more balanced, especially for unorganized PuGs. If you really consider my proposal, you will see how it makes sense. It is too easy for the Fang Holder to maintain possession; it would simply make more sense for the defending team to be vulnerable, so possession can change. In most games with a similar concept, the flag carrier is made vulnerable after either A) a certain amount of time, B) they capture the flag, or C) they are forced to move in the open. Since we can't capture the fang, there should be something in place to give the opposing team a chance to get the fang.

    I understand that a "good" offense should be able to zerg the fang carrier to get it, but let's be real here; how often do you find organization in a PuG? You could also create a premade, but in a premade vs. premade of equal skill, the first team to get the fang with theoretically always win because of how the warfront is designed.

  9. #9
    Ascendant empyrean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,683

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chase Payne View Post
    The Black Garden is Fine.


    The only problem is the idiots/afkers/farmers/bots that play it.

    All of that is fixed if they ever add rated warfronts in this game.
    /thread

    I definitely hate it when teams turtle in their base, but tbh, your team has to be pretty special to not understand how to break up a turtle.

  10. #10
    Soulwalker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by empyrean View Post
    /thread

    I definitely hate it when teams turtle in their base, but tbh, your team has to be pretty special to not understand how to break up a turtle.
    Yeah those are problems, and they have been addressed in other threads. The point of this thread is to focus on the fundamental problems with the warfront itself. It is incredibly fun in its' current form, but there are issues with the core mechanics, such as giving the defending team a significant advantage while holding the fang. There needs to be a pro and a con associated with acquiring points. In the current form of Black Garden, the defending team both acquires points AND gains a positional advantage by spawning right next to the fang. It creates lopsided games. Please read my suggestion and try to understand how it would improve the warfront.

  11. #11
    Ascendant empyrean's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,683

    Default Not sure I understand you

    The intent of the WF is for you to stay midfield; or camp behind the trees. You get points faster that way, don't you?

    Personally, I was surprised that teams got points if they took the fang up to their base. But doing this goes against the intent of the game: which is to stay in the middle and get more points. Trade off is that you are open to attack from every side and really, you're in the thick of things.

    I'm not sure I get your point :/

  12. #12
    Champion of Telara
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,186

    Default

    team with fang is already on disadvantage of taking dmg from fang.
    you idea is too radical.
    they just need to reduce point gain from sitting behind the tree like they did with sitting on the spawn edge, 4 points is just too much.

  13. #13
    Soulwalker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by empyrean View Post
    The intent of the WF is for you to stay midfield; or camp behind the trees. You get points faster that way, don't you?

    Personally, I was surprised that teams got points if they took the fang up to their base. But doing this goes against the intent of the game: which is to stay in the middle and get more points. Trade off is that you are open to attack from every side and really, you're in the thick of things.

    I'm not sure I get your point :/
    I see what you are saying, and there is a small trade-off for bringing the flag back to your own base (you get less points than if you camp with it in the middle). The problem is that teams *only* camp with the flag at their own base. If the intent was to give incentive to keep the fang carrier at midfield, then the intent failed. I am just suggesting that the fang carrier be given 4 points / 2-3 seconds at midfield, and 7 points / 2-3 seconds at the opposing enemies base, instead of 7 points / 2-3 seconds at midfield and 4 points / 2-3 seconds at your own teams base. It is too easy to defend with the fang in this warfront, and I am sick of winning and losing by huge margins.

  14. #14
    Soulwalker
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pechkin View Post
    team with fang is already on disadvantage of taking dmg from fang.
    you idea is too radical.
    they just need to reduce point gain from sitting behind the tree like they did with sitting on the spawn edge, 4 points is just too much.
    I also completely agree with you. I just think *something* needs to be done with the warfront, because right now the score difference is too extreme in most matches.

  15. #15
    Ace
    Ace is offline
    Rift Disciple Ace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Rift X
    Posts
    151

    Default

    The garden typically ends up being lopsided in score when one faction controls the fang while the other trickles out the dead respawns a few at a time. They end up throwing themselves at the fang carrier alone or in tiny groups as they can't mass to attack. If you wait the enmey ends up camping you.

    Really, for the competitive player it isn't a good warfront by design. It does the job of casuals well enough though.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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