+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 226
Like Tree141Likes

Thread: Improving CQ and premades balance in PvP. (constructive suggestion)

  1. #16
    Sword of Telara Tohrid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ianto Jones View Post
    No, your analogy was actually terrible, like most of your arguments on this topic. You can hardly construct a sentence without incorporating a logical fallacy. It's aggravating.
    Thanks for your insight. Where did you get your PhD and how does this help grow the topic at hand?


    #onlineprofessors

  2. #17
    Prophet of Telara
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyhawke View Post
    Horrible idea. All this would do is kill all of the small guilds. If you aren't a member of a big name guild you would receive no CQ power and be relegated to the "get farmed" teams that get 100 kills per CQ. To simply complete the 2k weekly kills quest would require a dozen or more CQs per week, all while getting farmed mercilessly. No thanks.

    Please explain to me why the big CQ guilds need more perks. It's not like you don't already commandeer all three factions and use CQ as your own personal chess game with the rest of us voiceless cannon fodder.

    We don't need to encourage PUG stomping, we need to control it.
    Why would it kill small guilds? everybody have 33% chance to end on a winning team and getting CQ power with recent changes to Steeps is super easy. Reaching max points shouldnt take long even for small guilds. The biggest change is that each guild need at least one active player who can do one CQ from the begining to the end once every 2 days to prevent delay.

    When you encourage guild mates to join that CQ once every 2 days for full duration it may improve their cooperation in PvP or even encourage them to create / join premade with other friendly guilds.

    From my point of view it doesnt encourage PUG stomping but rather encourage PUGs to improve. The more premades there is the more chance PUGs get for balanced CQ.

    If anything encourage to PUG stomping it is the current version of CQ, because:

    1. there's not enough premades who take it seriously (which makes it easier to stomp)
    2. there's not enough benfit from playing full CQ for PvE guilds (so most players join only after the timer)
    3. there's no penalty for losing or leaving the CQ, so losing side get's weaker with every wipe which indirectly lead to even more stomping.

    If you dc for more than 5min you get account bound penalty which prevent you from getting loot until this specific CQ ends. No more leaving and joining with alts for free rewards. System should encourage players to play and try their best until the end if they want these rewards.


    Just to make it more interesting for Trion, i would add patron vials which increase Guild Power gain. (which could affect patron sales when done properly)

    Another interesting idea is to add some kind of "daily CQ win" as bonus Guild Quest, which offer some Guild Power and "x" dimension items / relic critical vials based on how many players guild had in the winning team. (these vials are great but kinda expensive, though useful for pvp and pve)
    Quote Originally Posted by elfaraon View Post
    you really need to play more pyro . I bet you are a warrior or rogue so your opinion is not accurate at all. By the way pyro is not even close to have the highest burst in the game tell that to a sin or warlord

  3. #18
    Ascendant Ianto Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tohrid View Post
    Thanks for your insight. Where did you get your PhD and how does this help grow the topic at hand?


    #onlineprofessors
    I got my BA and MAE at UCF. And there is nothing to grow on this topic, it has been discussed to death. People do not want to be forced to do CQ, implicitly or otherwise.

  4. #19
    Rift Master Nasacrim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    658

    Default

    To improve CQ you actually need to IMPROVE CQ. If you improve the rewards and not CQ, CQ still remains being a crappy pvp gameplay concept.

  5. #20
    Sword of Telara Tohrid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ianto Jones View Post
    I got my BA and MAE at UCF. And there is nothing to grow on this topic, it has been discussed to death. People do not want to be forced to do CQ, implicitly or otherwise.
    Then with that Master's I'd suggest looking at the fresh idea, look at the goal of improving play with more premades and then figuring out a way that that could be done without forced played. Otherwise, you're not contributing but only brushing it all off.

  6. #21
    Ascendant Ianto Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    6,018

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tohrid View Post
    Then with that Master's I'd suggest looking at the fresh idea, look at the goal of improving play with more premades and then figuring out a way that that could be done without forced played. Otherwise, you're not contributing but only brushing it all off.
    More premades are not going to make CQ less horrible. I was in a match the other night with a premade on every side; these matches happen fairly often. I still hated it. I've done premades with my PvE guilds in the past, and guess what? I still hated it. It's a laggy zergfest, and I don't want to do it. Conquest literally gives me a headache. The game engine cannot handle it. All the OP has done is alter the substantial rewards that CQ gives, which are the entire reason that everyone resents Conquest.

    So you can stop with the lofty rhetoric and the implications that all opinions are inherently valid because freedom or something. They're not. This does nothing to address why people despise Conquest, and sticking your fingers in your ears while singing "lalalalala" ad infinitum will not change that.

  7. #22
    Sword of Telara Tohrid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    878

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ianto Jones View Post
    More premades are not going to make CQ less horrible. I was in a match the other night with a premade on every side; these matches happen fairly often. I still hated it. I've done premades with my PvE guilds in the past, and guess what? I still hated it. It's a laggy zergfest, and I don't want to do it. Conquest literally gives me a headache. The game engine cannot handle it. All the OP has done is alter the substantial rewards that CQ gives, which are the entire reason that everyone resents Conquest.

    So you can stop with the lofty rhetoric and the implications that all opinions are inherently valid because freedom or something. They're not. This does nothing to address why people despise Conquest, and sticking your fingers in your ears while singing "lalalalala" ad infinitum will not change that.
    You're missing the entire point. This thread isn't about how bad CQ is and thus a fly off the handle series of posts. We get it, you don't like CQ in what ever form it comes in. And your right this isn't some lofty rhetoric of freedom of speech. So just to make it absolutely clear for you. Shut up and stop posting unless it's something positive towards the subject, otherwise your opinion means nothing.

    #iarelogicalthusiwinwithoutlogic

  8. #23
    Ascendant dday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    6,727

    Default

    i dont know why people argue with cq premade players/guilds...its spelled out right in my sig why they like it so much
    Last edited by dday; 07-13-2014 at 04:31 PM.

  9. #24
    Plane Walker Kittyhawke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    445

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Otts View Post
    Why would it kill small guilds? everybody have 33% chance to end on a winning team and getting CQ power with recent changes to Steeps is super easy. Reaching max points shouldnt take long even for small guilds. The biggest change is that each guild need at least one active player who can do one CQ from the begining to the end once every 2 days to prevent delay.
    I'd estimate that the chance to end up on the winning team are a lot less than 33% since much of the winning team is occupied by the PMs. Solo players are relegated to the less populated "loser" teams, making their odds much, much worse.

    When you encourage guild mates to join that CQ once every 2 days for full duration it may improve their cooperation in PvP or even encourage them to create / join premade with other friendly guilds.From my point of view it doesnt encourage PUG stomping but rather encourage PUGs to improve. The more premades there is the more chance PUGs get for balanced CQ.

    If anything encourage to PUG stomping it is the current version of CQ, because:

    1. there's not enough premades who take it seriously (which makes it easier to stomp)
    2. there's not enough benfit from playing full CQ for PvE guilds (so most players join only after the timer)
    3. there's no penalty for losing or leaving the CQ, so losing side get's weaker with every wipe which indirectly lead to even more stomping.
    Let's face reality: outside of better rewards/chance of rewards, (i.e. catering to their greed) nothing is going to get the PVE players to actively participate in CQ. Most of them are scared ****less of entering a warfront, and CQ has done near nothing to change that. As things currently stand, those that do "try" to PVP are grossly undergeared, have no concept on how to fight effectively, are rank 0, and thus fail to meet the often stringent "requirements" that PMs have. Hell, the one time I asked to join a PM I was rejected because I was only R84 at the time. I may not queue for PMs, but I absolutely watch the PM forming chat channels to remain informed on what's going on. Guilds that run PMs are very selective, and if you're not playing the specific role they want, you're relegated to the CQ faction lottery, with Trion sized odds of winning.

    If you dc for more than 5min you get account bound penalty which prevent you from getting loot until this specific CQ ends. No more leaving and joining with alts for free rewards. System should encourage players to play and try their best until the end if they want these rewards.
    Again, I can't really see how penalizing players will help to increase active CQ participation. It would only foster more resentment. You write about "no free rewards" for players who join with alts, but such is often the only reasonable way for many of us to have a chance of winning. Do you know how frustrating is is to be mercilessly farmed for an hour and end up with nothing because you lost the CQ lottery, while some slacker who did other things the entire match gets put on the winning team in the closing seconds and gets more loot?

    Tonight I joined a Steppes match that was won by dom. The entire match I played as a member of one of the opposing factions, but when the timer hit I ditched the sinking ship and switched to my alt on dom. (and subsequently looted a RIC) IMO I earned that RIC as a player who actively participated in the entire match. If not me, someone who did nothing but enter at the timer would have pulled it instead. Was I wrong? It's about the only way a non-PM player can accumulate a decent amount of loot for active participation. (Across my 60's I'm at 20 CQ wins so far this week, with only 1 RIC looted)

    Just to make it more interesting for Trion, i would add patron vials which increase Guild Power gain. (which could affect patron sales when done properly)

    Another interesting idea is to add some kind of "daily CQ win" as bonus Guild Quest, which offer some Guild Power and "x" dimension items / relic critical vials based on how many players guild had in the winning team. (these vials are great but kinda expensive, though useful for pvp and pve)
    Please don't encourage Trion to add any more vials to the game. Also, distributing them based on number of players on the winning team would give great advantage to the large CQ guilds, while granting minimal rewards to smaller guilds like mine. There's no reason why our guild (2 members, both age 55+ women with a total of six rank 80+ characters) shouldn't be entitled to equal incentives.
    Level 60/Rank 90 Guardian Mage * Level 60/Rank 62 Defiant Rogue * Level 60/Rank 86 Guardian Cleric
    Level 60/Rank 82 Defiant Warrior
    * Level 60/Rank 86 Guardian Rogue
    * Level 60/Rank 53 Defiant Mage
    Level 60/Rank 24 Guardian Warrior
    * Level 60/Rank 15 Defiant Cleric
    * Wolfsbane/Zaviel

  10. #25
    Plane Walker
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    434

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyhawke View Post
    Hell, the one time I asked to join a PM I was rejected because I was only R84 at the time. I may not queue for PMs, but I absolutely watch the PM forming chat channels to remain informed on what's going on. Guilds that run PMs are very selective, and if you're not playing the specific role they want, you're relegated to the CQ faction lottery, with Trion sized odds of winning.
    Just a quick comment on this part. About the only time I try to get on PM's are when Dachro's on and he's let me into like every PM I've asked to join and I started asking back when I was around P80. He also takes along a guildy of mine that barely hit P70. He doesn't seem to be quite so discriminant.

  11. #26
    Shield of Telara Talzoor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    787

    Default

    You guys are promptly stomping this one down so i'll just add to this part.

    Quote Originally Posted by Otts View Post
    Add penalty for leaving CQ (- points for the Guild Power) to discourage players from leaving when their side is not doing well.
    This type of thinking is antiquated game design. Instead of thinking of new ways to punish people for not wanting to say in an unfun WF or CQ. How about thinking of ways to reward game play instead.

    For instance. Implement, the longer you stay in CQ the larger the *insert here* retained reward. Hell, maybe even offer a starting queue bonus for the members of the losing team(s) that joined early and stayed till the end.

    This has 2 added benefits.

    1. Will encourage CQ to fill up early.
    2. With more people joining early, it will more likely end faster.

    In rift (and most other games) there is too much forcing participation and not enough encouraging. People forget this is supposed to be an enjoyable experience not a freaken tax audit.

    Why did Warhammer have to lose its licence? It already had so many of these issues worked out.

    Contribution bonuses (albeit I never understood who they worked).
    AAO bonus

    FFS its like rift is regressing to the dark ages of gaming.
    Last edited by Talzoor; 07-13-2014 at 08:08 PM.

  12. #27
    Plane Touched Moirg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    254

    Default

    @ The OP

    Maybe if Ensoy (FL geared paragon) wasn't so OP Techfall might have been able to kill him in that 1v1 encounter the two had. He two shotted Techfall before he could even use Slip to get away.

    http://i.imgur.com/RSzs8z7.jpg

  13. #28
    Plane Touched Xgame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    258

    Default <3

    Solo ftw <3

  14. #29
    Prophet of Telara
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nasacrim View Post
    To improve CQ you actually need to IMPROVE CQ. If you improve the rewards and not CQ, CQ still remains being a crappy pvp gameplay concept.
    CQ is mostly fine, except the daily extractor quest which encourage PUG's to attack random extractors and ruin the tactics. Daily extractor quest should be removed from Stillmoor or changed in to get "x" kills or upgrade "x" extractors instead.

    People who think CQ is bad are often the same who believe in "Elo Hell" in moba games. The match gets bad only when it's played by bad players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ianto Jones View Post
    More premades are not going to make CQ less horrible. I was in a match the other night with a premade on every side; these matches happen fairly often. I still hated it. I've done premades with my PvE guilds in the past, and guess what? I still hated it. It's a laggy zergfest, and I don't want to do it. Conquest literally gives me a headache. The game engine cannot handle it. All the OP has done is alter the substantial rewards that CQ gives, which are the entire reason that everyone resents Conquest.

    So you can stop with the lofty rhetoric and the implications that all opinions are inherently valid because freedom or something. They're not. This does nothing to address why people despise Conquest, and sticking your fingers in your ears while singing "lalalalala" ad infinitum will not change that.
    When you claim that you were in a premade and still run mostly as zerg it shows how bad your premade was. Zerg is inferior tactic among good premades, because it will lose to small groups which can cap away from the main zerg.

    Typical pugs or low skilled premades will often move from one extractor to another, kill it and try to cap it, while enemy premade might try to reach this place and wipe them before they can finish capping it.

    Good premade would send the scouts to get from which side and how big (+/-) inc zerg is. Instead of killing the extractor they would only dmg it, so when enemy zerg comes near and waits for you to kill the extractor and then recap it they would only lose time as extractor wouldnt get destroyed in the first place. In the same time away from this location several small groups could easily cap few extractors without any risk.

    Another trick is made by sending small / average group (8-15 players) to attack extractor while keeping another 20 or 40 far behind. When your typical zerg leader opens the map and see ~15 players hitting some extractors they are like "oh look free favor", but when they already go there they will get attacked by exactly the same amount of players or even higher and from many different directions.

    The benefit from not creating the zerg is a lot higher than from playing in one, but current system can be exploited (with leaving and joining on alts) so there's no incentive to create non-zerg tactics for PUGs as it requires more effort than reloging. Not to mention lack of the punishment for leaving.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyhawke View Post
    I'd estimate that the chance to end up on the winning team are a lot less than 33% since much of the winning team is occupied by the PMs. Solo players are relegated to the less populated "loser" teams, making their odds much, much worse.
    This is true only when you try to enter CQ in the middle or at the end. Current system doesnt punish those who abandon losing sides. When you have players leaving on one side system will obviously try to balance amount of players between each side, hence new players will mostly be moved to losing side where those lazy players left to try their luck on their alts.

    However, when you join at the begining as solo queue or small premade you have 33% chance, because premades have only up to 20 players, so when several full premades try to join CQ at the begining they will be split among all 3 factions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyhawke View Post
    Let's face reality: outside of better rewards/chance of rewards, (i.e. catering to their greed) nothing is going to get the PVE players to actively participate in CQ. Most of them are scared ****less of entering a warfront, and CQ has done near nothing to change that. As things currently stand, those that do "try" to PVP are grossly undergeared, have no concept on how to fight effectively, are rank 0, and thus fail to meet the often stringent "requirements" that PMs have. Hell, the one time I asked to join a PM I was rejected because I was only R84 at the time. I may not queue for PMs, but I absolutely watch the PM forming chat channels to remain informed on what's going on. Guilds that run PMs are very selective, and if you're not playing the specific role they want, you're relegated to the CQ faction lottery, with Trion sized odds of winning.
    Players who are scared of CQ often lack experience with mass PvP or simply have very bad experience with the mindless zerg following from one point to another for the most part. As it is, CQ power is something personal which affect only your character, but when you change it in to Guild Power it will create incentive to take it more seriously and encourage players even from small guilds to learn new specs which will indirectly improve raid setup and cooperation of players in CQ. If amount of premades will inrease there will be more spots in it even for the PUG's. It's not like everybody get's r90 by default.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kittyhawke View Post
    Again, I can't really see how penalizing players will help to increase active CQ participation. It would only foster more resentment. You write about "no free rewards" for players who join with alts, but such is often the only reasonable way for many of us to have a chance of winning. Do you know how frustrating is is to be mercilessly farmed for an hour and end up with nothing because you lost the CQ lottery, while some slacker who did other things the entire match gets put on the winning team in the closing seconds and gets more loot?

    Tonight I joined a Steppes match that was won by dom. The entire match I played as a member of one of the opposing factions, but when the timer hit I ditched the sinking ship and switched to my alt on dom. (and subsequently looted a RIC) IMO I earned that RIC as a player who actively participated in the entire match. If not me, someone who did nothing but enter at the timer would have pulled it instead. Was I wrong? It's about the only way a non-PM player can accumulate a decent amount of loot for active participation. (Across my 60's I'm at 20 CQ wins so far this week, with only 1 RIC looted)


    Please don't encourage Trion to add any more vials to the game. Also, distributing them based on number of players on the winning team would give great advantage to the large CQ guilds, while granting minimal rewards to smaller guilds like mine. There's no reason why our guild (2 members, both age 55+ women with a total of six rank 80+ characters) shouldn't be entitled to equal incentives.
    Without penalty for leaving there's no reason to improve, because reloging to alt is easier than fighting till the end and trying your best.

    Vials are actually something semi-balanced so i wouldn't mind seeing more of it instead of RNG lock boxes. Rewarding guilds based on the number of their memebers in winning team will encourage people to play together and invite more players to their small guilds. Though, i can see potential abuse from it so maybe the bonus reward should scale to up to ~30 random guild memebers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Talzoor View Post
    You guys are promptly stomping this one down so i'll just add to this part.



    This type of thinking is antiquated game design. Instead of thinking of new ways to punish people for not wanting to say in an unfun WF or CQ. How about thinking of ways to reward game play instead.

    For instance. Implement, the longer you stay in CQ the larger the *insert here* retained reward. Hell, maybe even offer a starting queue bonus for the members of the losing team(s) that joined early and stayed till the end.

    This has 2 added benefits.

    1. Will encourage CQ to fill up early.
    2. With more people joining early, it will more likely end faster.

    In rift (and most other games) there is too much forcing participation and not enough encouraging. People forget this is supposed to be an enjoyable experience not a freaken tax audit.

    Why did Warhammer have to lose its licence? It already had so many of these issues worked out.

    Contribution bonuses (albeit I never understood who they worked).
    AAO bonus

    FFS its like rift is regressing to the dark ages of gaming.
    I already suggested in OP to scale the rewards based on how long player was in the winning team, but punishment for leaving needs to be greater than staying and playing full CQ. If reloging to alt gives potentially better rewards than staying on losing side why would players bother to fight till the end and try their best?
    Last edited by Otts; 07-14-2014 at 02:10 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by elfaraon View Post
    you really need to play more pyro . I bet you are a warrior or rogue so your opinion is not accurate at all. By the way pyro is not even close to have the highest burst in the game tell that to a sin or warlord

  15. #30
    Ascendant Lords0fpain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,827

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Otts View Post
    Change CQ power in to Guild Power, adjust the numbers and add more benefits from it. Reduce the decay to 2 days.

    The good thing is that it will affect every character in guild so you wont have to get Guild Power on every alt. More premades who try to win will greatly improve CQ balance and make fights more interesting instead of brainless zerg running from point A to B.

    This will encourage even pve guilds to take CQ more seriously for the perks which works in PvE raids. Increased max point cap will require to actually play CQ more instead of getting in only for the timer. Add bonus points for winning and take away points for losing (at least a bit). Scale the benefits based on how long player was in winning team, so joining at the end will not give as much as playing from the begining.

    Add penalty for leaving CQ (- points for the Guild Power) to discourage players from leaving when their side is not doing well.
    So the goal here, is not only make everyone join a guild, but the large ones at that?
    Last edited by Lords0fpain; 07-14-2014 at 02:52 AM.
    "There are other aspects of the game that we want you to engage in."

    ~Daglar

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 12 ... 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