Thread: PvP - The Problem is Rating

My contention is that much of the dissatisfaction/frustration with the Ettenmoors originates from the ratings system. When PvP is slow, it's because one side (or both) is too hesitant to die. Players turtle and only attack when someone (or a small few) overextends and is an easy target for a gank. The opposing side rushes, kills, and then retreats because people are trying to protect or increase their current rating. They go for easy kills. You make a kill with your group, get some renown, and then get out of danger. The mere existence of a rating system has created an insidious influence on gameplay - comparing our rating versus other players is a way to validate the fact (or desire to believe) that we are good players, better than many or most others. It is easy for people to search the leaderboard not only for their own rating, but other players' as well. Do you know yours? Do you know anyone else's, and/or have you heard someone else mention another player's rating? This is what drives current PvP. It is only natural for folks to be concerned with rating, since (presumably) Turbine created it as a barometer of competitive skill. The problem is that it is NOT a measure of skill. It's a measure of someone's ability to get a few pals and quickly crush someone who has no chance due to overwhelming odds and opportunism. There are rare exceptions, but 90% of the time, PvP is a game of ganging up and killing some poor separated player. All too often it is not a battle, but an assasination. This may be a radical idea, but I think that ratings should be eliminated, or changed so that they are not calculated based on how often you kill other players compared to how many times you were killed. Eliminating ratings will make it so that we play for renown, for the competition of battle, and to have fun; not to turtle and protect standing or bragging rights within the PvP leaderboard. If we must have a rating system, perhaps it could be tied it to outposts taken, keeps taken and/or time defended, but not based on how many times a player can gank another. What do you think?

Originally Posted by Thularil

My contention is that much of the dissatisfaction/frustration with the Ettenmoors originates from the ratings system. When PvP is slow, it's because one side (or both) is too hesitant to die. Players turtle and only attack when someone (or a small few) overextends and is an easy target for a gank. The opposing side rushes, kills, and then retreats because people are trying to protect or increase their current rating. They go for easy kills. You make a kill with your group, get some renown, and then get out of danger. The mere existence of a rating system has created an insidious influence on gameplay - comparing our rating versus other players is a way to validate the fact (or desire to believe) that we are good players, better than many or most others. It is easy for people to search the leaderboard not only for their own rating, but other players' as well. Do you know yours? Do you know anyone else's, and/or have you heard someone else mention another player's rating? This is what drives current PvP. It is only natural for folks to be concerned with rating, since (presumably) Turbine created it as a barometer of competitive skill. The problem is that it is NOT a measure of skill. It's a measure of someone's ability to get a few pals and quickly crush someone who has no chance due to overwhelming odds and opportunism. There are rare exceptions, but 90% of the time, PvP is a game of ganging up and killing some poor separated player. All too often it is not a battle, but an assasination. This may be a radical idea, but I think that ratings should be eliminated, or changed so that they are not calculated based on how often you kill other players compared to how many times you were killed. Eliminating ratings will make it so that we play for renown, for the competition of battle, and to have fun; not to turtle and protect standing or bragging rights within the PvP leaderboard. If we must have a rating system, perhaps it could be tied it to outposts taken, keeps taken and/or time defended, but not based on how many times a player can gank another. What do you think?

There's a reason for ratings in all things

For example




They are the #1, The Best at what they do, recognized by all peers, Not the most talented but used their skills in conjunction with teamwork

Just one reason why there are Ratings,

These guys earned 5 Stars

Oh, Hey Dav!!!

Originally Posted by Thularil

It is only natural for folks to be concerned with rating, since (presumably) Turbine created it as a barometer of competitive skill. The problem is that it is NOT a measure of skill. It's a measure of someone's ability to get a few pals and quickly crush someone who has no chance due to overwhelming odds and opportunism.

actually, i believe its both.

ratings are there to measure one's success rate in battle. its intended to scale urself, but at the same time, used to show off ur accomplishments.

its sad to see people turtle up and create stale battles most times in the moors; but without ratings, im pretty sure there will be no one at the moors.

why do u want to work on something that doesn't even have a "scoreboard"?



ps: here's something to check people's ratings:
http://dailystats.theblackappendage....today/Nimrodel

I think rating should be based on ones ability to create paragraphs.

Whats with that big B, Geal, Baltimore win something again?

WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftextWalloftext WalloftextWalloftext...

Sorry, were you saying something? o.o

Rating is an irrelevant number, remove it...people won't play any differently.

Too long, did not listen.

Originally Posted by Ceifwien

Sorry, were you saying something? o.o

This and

Rating is an irrelevant number, remove it...people won't play any differently.

This.

Originally Posted by Thorandril

Rating is an irrelevant number, remove it...people won't play any differently.

I understand what you're saying and I agree, but what if it had never been part of the game? and even more importantly than rating, no record of deaths or KB's? No wartabs at all.

I can only compare 2 games in my limited PvP experience, Rift and LOTRO. Only thing you gain in Rift is favor, at the end of a war front you do see dmg done, dmg taken, KB's etc., but no wartab of any sort to stroke epeens with and I don't see the fear of dying in Rift. People are people and I doubt the PvPers in Rift are fundementally different from PvPers in LOTRO.

To clarify, I think the concept of rating is great. The current system just doesn't measure skill, it rewards ganks. I am pretty sure that the way things are working is not what turbine intends, nor what we as players would prefer. It's simply that players have figured out that ganging up on someone is the best way to improve rating. And because of human nature and that fact that ratings are public, people want to generate a number that makes them look good. It sounds like most of the comments are in line with this. I am not a programmer or game designer, so perhaps there is no way to improve the system and we just have to deal with it. But something tells me it is possible to make it closer to what people want and not an assasination zone. Maybe base rating on OPs or keeps taken and/or defended, quests completed, etc. Or maybe adjust the system so that every player who hits an opposing player after the first does progressively less damage. So, the second player would do 50% less, the third 75% less, etc. Groups could still gank, but it would be a lot harder and players being ganged up on would have a better chance to fight back. In a big battle, there would still be incentive to coordinate and focus fire, but it would encourage folks to maybe hit the same target once and then move on to another or find a target that they could go after themselves.
I'm not saying that these ideas are the only ones, but I have to think that there is some way to minimize the gank effect. Complaining about turtling or EC/STAB/TA fights goes on all the time because people do it all the time. We can complain, but based on the current system, things will NEVER change because people are going to do what they are incented to do.

Originally Posted by Thularil

To clarify, I think the concept of rating is great. The current system just doesn't measure skill, it rewards ganks. I am pretty sure that the way things are working is not what turbine intends, nor what we as players would prefer. It's simply that players have figured out that ganging up on someone is the best way to improve rating. And because of human nature and that fact that ratings are public, people want to generate a number that makes them look good. It sounds like most of the comments are in line with this.

I am not a programmer or game designer, so perhaps there is no way to improve the system and we just have to deal with it. But something tells me it is possible to make it closer to what people want and not an assasination zone. Maybe base rating on OPs or keeps taken and/or defended, quests completed, etc.

Or maybe adjust the system so that every player who hits an opposing player after the first does progressively less damage. So, the second player would do 50% less, the third 75% less, etc. Groups could still gank, but it would be a lot harder and players being ganged up on would have a better chance to fight back. In a big battle, there would still be incentive to coordinate and focus fire, but it would encourage folks to maybe hit the same target once and then move on to another or find a target that they could go after themselves.

I'm not saying that these ideas are the only ones, but I have to think that there is some way to minimize the gank effect. Complaining about turtling or EC/STAB/TA fights goes on all the time because people do it all the time. We can complain, but based on the current system, things will NEVER change because people are going to do what they are incented to do.

Richard Nordquist writes, "Just as there's no limit to the number of paragraphs that may appear in an essay, no rule exists regarding the number of sentences that make up a paragraph. If you check out the works by professional writers in our Essay Samplers, you'll find paragraphs as short as a single word and as long as two or three pages." (source)

However, the convention in forums writing is to be succinct.

It would certainly be easier to be succinct and simply complain. In this case, I was hoping to not only name a problem, but also a possible cause, and more important, suggest a potential solution(s). Perhaps a bit complex, but that was my goal.
Thanks for reading!

The problem isn't rating. The problem is and always has been ego. This server's history is completely dominated by numerous digital egos. First there was a massive ego-driven group on one side, then a massive ego driven person with lemmings in tow on the other, each of which, in turn, created even more egos where there likely would have been no ego driven play at all.

At this point, way too many people have way too many grudges and people they would never give an inch to. It's not going to change. The only thing that would change it is if another server invaded Nimrodel and we all band together in the face of a common enemy. Failing that, I think a few people (on both sides) need to flip for a while to get some perspective.

Originally Posted by 22Acacia

I think a few people (on both sides) need to flip for a while to get some perspective.

I've tried. Freeps frustrate me.

On a side note, the thing to blame is 1 spider, and 1 spider alone.

I can't lie, I like a somewhat decent rating, but its also never stopped me from running through a raid to WtE and to cause confusion. Ratings come, ratings go, just kill ????

5 stars or get out.

Sometimes I dont really know who Im quoting here but... Your wrong :P Players dont really play games to have fun anymore. Heck, I dont even know why I play, but we lost most of the fun back at... 65? whenever we finished PvE, I think.

My theory is that the competition went from against computers to against real people. Am I right?

Ediot: nvm, im wrong. Was thinking of another game /facepalm

Originally Posted by 22Acacia

At this point, way too many people have way too many grudges and people they would never give an inch to. It's not going to change.

Agreed, and because of this grudge many on either side won't flip.

Originally Posted by myforumacc

Sometimes I dont really know who Im quoting here but... Your wrong :P Players dont really play games to have fun anymore. Heck, I dont even know why I play, but we lost most of the fun back at... 65? whenever we finished PvE, I think.

My theory is that the competition went from against computers to against real people. Am I right?

Wut?

Originally Posted by Emerus

Wut?

Oh oops, was thinking of runescape... dont know how i confused the 2 places... I was REALLY tired... at 8pm... Long day, I think. Moving on

The ego/grudge problems would be solved if we all supported Oaffah lol.

Too late now lol.

@OP: The issue is perspective. You have none. It sounds like you've never had a high rating, or played at a high skill level. Most (not all) people that have high ratings, ultimately don't care what their rating is -- they simply do not want to let their opponent kill them, for reasons that may/may not include personal grudges, a sense of accomplishment, ratings, to deny their opponent a satisfaction, game mechanics (creeps become more powerful when they get infamy), strategy, etc. All of these come into play in some form or fashion, but a player like you doesn't seem to understand this. You try to simplify the issue, and inaccurately believe that the lack of action in the 'moors revolves solely around rating.

Ultimately, renown means absolutely nothing for Freeps, so they truly have no reason to 'push' into Creeps unless they become bored or careless. Creeps, however, control their own progression. They gain infamy, they gain rank, they gain skills/strength. They have every incentive to be the 'pushers' of the 'moors. If you're expecting Freeps to start the action, you're looking at the game mechanics of PvMP wrong.

My advice -- try some different perspective. Play the game as skillfully as you can, rather than as carelessly as you can. Ignore the 'farm' mentality that most people come to the 'moors with, and view the objective of PvMP differently - in a strategic manner. Play to win, don't play to farm. To some people it's boring. To other people it's exhilarating. Once you gain an appreciation for other peoples playstyles, and their objectives for playing that playstyle, you'll have a better understanding as to why certain players do the things they do.

Originally Posted by Gladgilrian

I understand what you're saying and I agree, but what if it had never been part of the game? and even more importantly than rating, no record of deaths or KB's? No wartabs at all.

I can only compare 2 games in my limited PvP experience, Rift and LOTRO. Only thing you gain in Rift is favor, at the end of a war front you do see dmg done, dmg taken, KB's etc., but no wartab of any sort to stroke epeens with and I don't see the fear of dying in Rift. People are people and I doubt the PvPers in Rift are fundementally different from PvPers in LOTRO.

From a personal standpoint, I take pride in killing without being killed -- in any PvP environment. Stats or no stats, it's the playstyle I enjoy, and I'm sure i'm not the only one. Stats are just a bonus, in LOTRO.

Originally Posted by olagaton3434

@OP: The issue is perspective. You have none. It sounds like you've never had a high rating, or played at a high skill level. Most (not all) people that have high ratings, ultimately don't care what their rating is -- they simply do not want to let their opponent kill them, for reasons that may/may not include personal grudges, a sense of accomplishment, ratings, to deny their opponent a satisfaction, game mechanics (creeps become more powerful when they get infamy), strategy, etc. All of these come into play in some form or fashion, but a player like you doesn't seem to understand this. You try to simplify the issue, and inaccurately believe that the lack of action in the 'moors revolves solely around rating.

Ultimately, renown means absolutely nothing for Freeps, so they truly have no reason to 'push' into Creeps unless they become bored or careless. Creeps, however, control their own progression. They gain infamy, they gain rank, they gain skills/strength. They have every incentive to be the 'pushers' of the 'moors. If you're expecting Freeps to start the action, you're looking at the game mechanics of PvMP wrong.

My advice -- try some different perspective. Play the game as skillfully as you can, rather than as carelessly as you can. Ignore the 'farm' mentality that most people come to the 'moors with, and view the objective of PvMP differently - in a strategic manner. Play to win, don't play to farm. To some people it's boring. To other people it's exhilarating. Once you gain an appreciation for other peoples playstyles, and their objectives for playing that playstyle, you'll have a better understanding as to why certain players do the things they do.



From a personal standpoint, I take pride in killing without being killed -- in any PvP environment. Stats or no stats, it's the playstyle I enjoy, and I'm sure i'm not the only one. Stats are just a bonus, in LOTRO.

OK, I'm calling this thoughtful and well written. That said, I disagree with one thing and always have: unless they have numbers, creeps can't be expected to push. In most situations, freeps have to be the initiator due to the advantage in CC, stealth classes and most importantly, "oh shiz" skills.

Failing that, leech it off of raids. I know literally 2 people on this server out of all the 5 stars there've been that haven't, since...oldboy in book 12, not sure if there were ones before him.

Originally Posted by olagaton3434

@OP: The issue is perspective. You have none. It sounds like you've never had a high rating, or played at a high skill level. Most (not all) people that have high ratings, ultimately don't care what their rating is -- they simply do not want to let their opponent kill them, for reasons that may/may not include personal grudges, a sense of accomplishment, ratings, to deny their opponent a satisfaction, game mechanics (creeps become more powerful when they get infamy), strategy, etc. All of these come into play in some form or fashion, but a player like you doesn't seem to understand this. You try to simplify the issue, and inaccurately believe that the lack of action in the 'moors revolves solely around rating.

Ultimately, renown means absolutely nothing for Freeps, so they truly have no reason to 'push' into Creeps unless they become bored or careless. Creeps, however, control their own progression. They gain infamy, they gain rank, they gain skills/strength. They have every incentive to be the 'pushers' of the 'moors. If you're expecting Freeps to start the action, you're looking at the game mechanics of PvMP wrong.

My advice -- try some different perspective. Play the game as skillfully as you can, rather than as carelessly as you can. Ignore the 'farm' mentality that most people come to the 'moors with, and view the objective of PvMP differently - in a strategic manner. Play to win, don't play to farm. To some people it's boring. To other people it's exhilarating. Once you gain an appreciation for other peoples playstyles, and their objectives for playing that playstyle, you'll have a better understanding as to why certain players do the things they do.

oh wow, thats actually some good points, dude.

Originally Posted by Thularil

What do you think?

you are right. problem is, it will not change. the devs wont do (they had 4 years to do so, and even when they took away those silly stars, rating and stars on e-peen-boards remained), and most of the peopl who play the bad game are too accustomed to it to adopt to a change.

The problem isnt rating. Lack of confidence and skill is a problem. Lack of new players is a problem. No one wants to die to the same ###-hat over n over for nothing in return, and that has nothing to do with rating.

Originally Posted by Thorandril

Failing that, leech it off of raids. I know literally 2 people on this server out of all the 5 stars there've been that haven't, since...oldboy in book 12, not sure if there were ones before him.

I can think of a few more than two... and surviving is an easier thing to do off in "nowhere nowhere land" farming greenies that happen to stroll by.

Surviving around a raid of people who's only goal is to kill you and track you to no end is another thing entirely. Warg packs and VT spam are quite a bit tougher to deal with than a greenie coming back from the rez. Playing in the midst of focus fire thats searching for you is more difficult. 1v1 is predictable and easy. 1v24 is less so.

Originally Posted by 22Acacia
At this point, way too many people have way too many grudges and people they would never give an inch to. It's not going to change.

Yup.

Originally Posted by ellestone

I can think of a few more than two... and surviving is an easier thing to do off in "nowhere nowhere land" farming greenies that happen to stroll by.

Surviving around a raid of people who's only goal is to kill you and track you to no end is another thing entirely. Warg packs and VT spam are quite a bit tougher to deal with than a greenie coming back from the rez. Playing in the midst of focus fire thats searching for you is more impressive. 1v1 is predictable and easy. 1v24 is less so.

Absolutely! This is the main reason PvP remains fun for me. IMO, there is no greater thrill than holding your own, killing, and surviving amid such odds, which I find myself doing regularly. It is one of the most flattering actions your opponent can make, in PvP -- making it a priority to try to take you down. It's fun/flattering to see what lengths your opponent will go to in order to kill you.

Heck, if all the people who go after me were to stop trying to kill me, I might end up quitting the game entirely, because it wouldn't pose a challenge.

The distinction between winning and farming is the underlying issue in this thread. The OP expresses the belief that rating encourages players to conflate farming with winning.

Originally Posted by olagaton3434

@OP: The issue is perspective. You have none. It sounds like you've never had a high rating, or played at a high skill level. Most (not all) people that have high ratings, ultimately don't care what their rating is -- they simply do not want to let their opponent kill them, for reasons that may/may not include personal grudges, a sense of accomplishment, ratings, to deny their opponent a satisfaction, game mechanics (creeps become more powerful when they get infamy), strategy, etc. All of these come into play in some form or fashion, but a player like you doesn't seem to understand this. You try to simplify the issue, and inaccurately believe that the lack of action in the 'moors revolves solely around rating.

Ultimately, renown means absolutely nothing for Freeps, so they truly have no reason to 'push' into Creeps unless they become bored or careless. Creeps, however, control their own progression. They gain infamy, they gain rank, they gain skills/strength. They have every incentive to be the 'pushers' of the 'moors. If you're expecting Freeps to start the action, you're looking at the game mechanics of PvMP wrong.

My advice -- try some different perspective. Play the game as skillfully as you can, rather than as carelessly as you can. Ignore the 'farm' mentality that most people come to the 'moors with, and view the objective of PvMP differently - in a strategic manner. Play to win, don't play to farm. To some people it's boring. To other people it's exhilarating. Once you gain an appreciation for other peoples playstyles, and their objectives for playing that playstyle, you'll have a better understanding as to why certain players do the things they do.

From a personal standpoint, I take pride in killing without being killed -- in any PvP environment. Stats or no stats, it's the playstyle I enjoy, and I'm sure i'm not the only one. Stats are just a bonus, in LOTRO.

This long-held rationale of Slither's has always been entirely freep-centric, contending that freeps are winning strategically as long as creeps aren't killing anything. The implication is that freeps are winning from stealth, or from behind 1-shots, or Thorin's Hall for that matter, provided they aren't conceding anything. He mentions killing, but ultimately, he argues that killing creeps is unimportant--infamy denial is the ultimate goal. As long its freeps who are farming (without dying) they're winning, and all's well.

He does a fine job of showing that rating itself is not the problem, and eloquently portrays the mindset of this particular variety of player. But the distinction he draws between "farming" and "winning" is a hollow one. Both refer to fighting only when there is minimal risk to oneself. And ultimately, the solution he proposes is that the OP redefine fun to match his personal perspective.

The OP's goal was stated:

Originally Posted by Thularil

to make it so that we play for renown, for the competition of battle, and to have fun; not to turtle and protect standing or bragging rights within the PvP leaderboard.

We've established that eliminating rating wouldn't achieve this effect. But clearly, neither does the approach of fighting from a persistent position of advantage or not fighting at all. In fact, that approach is the problem.

Originally Posted by 22Acacia

OK, I'm calling this thoughtful and well written. That said, I disagree with one thing and always have: unless they have numbers, creeps can't be expected to push. In most situations, freeps have to be the initiator due to the advantage in CC, stealth classes and most importantly, "oh shiz" skills.

This gets to the root of it. Broad, sweeping, and shifting imbalances. When the pendulum swings, so does the population looking to "win" in Slither's terms--to a side, or a class/group of classes. People flock to where they perceive an advantage that they can exploit. When they do, the imbalance is magnified, turtling ensues, and PvMP's slow death quickens.

Originally Posted by ellestone

I can think of a few more than two... and surviving is an easier thing to do off in "nowhere nowhere land" farming greenies that happen to stroll by.

Surviving around a raid of people who's only goal is to kill you and track you to no end is another thing entirely. Warg packs and VT spam are quite a bit tougher to deal with than a greenie coming back from the rez. Playing in the midst of focus fire thats searching for you is more impressive. 1v1 is predictable and easy.
Yup.

In a population based game, that just sounds silly. Especially from a class like the burglar who can escape *just as well* from a raid then from a few people. But mmkay then, I'm equally impressed by the cooldown use .

Gwen? Leeched. Slither? Leeched. (humorous thing about that is the picture post in the burglar 2k rating thread where the image is cropped to show just the rating, not k/kb) mawgrim? Lollll. Don't be naive, people don't target the most survivable classes in raid fights first, they target light armours with low base morale.

Originally Posted by morpheme

This long-held rationale of Slither's has always been entirely freep-centric, contending that freeps are winning strategically as long as creeps aren't killing anything. The implication is that freeps are winning from stealth, or from behind 1-shots, or Thorin's Hall for that matter, provided they aren't conceding anything. He mentions killing, but ultimately, he argues that killing creeps is unimportant--infamy denial is the ultimate goal. As long its freeps who are farming (without dying) they're winning, and all's well.

This is the mistake you make. This long-held rationale of mine isn't Freep-centric -- it's game mechanic-centric. From a personal standpoint, I couldn't care less whether Freeps are in that position, or Creeps are. If ranking benefited Freeps more than Creeps, I would notice the mechanic, and adjust my rationale accordingly. It has absolutely nothing to do with Freep/Creep-centric rationale.

Ultimately, you said it right, though. Freeps in stealth, behind 1-shots, or in Thorin's hall are doing their job by denying Creeps infamy. In any game or contest, in real life or fantasy, a player/team will typically succeed by taking advantage of their opponents weaknesses, or by denying their opponent their advantages. LOTRO is no different. Players choose to engage in PvP, and that is their choice; which I'm fine with. However, Freeps should also understand that their choice does not change the mechanics of the game -- Creeps WILL get stronger, gain more of an advantage by getting kills on Freeps. If Creeps gain the advantages their team have been built around, Freeps will begin to lose more and more, which is the trend that has happened for around 4 years, and will continue.

He does a fine job of showing that rating itself is not the problem, and eloquently portrays the mindset of this particular variety of player. But the distinction he draws between "farming" and "winning" is a hollow one. Both refer to fighting only when there is minimal risk to oneself. And ultimately, the solution he proposes is that the OP redefine fun to match his personal perspective.

I think you misread my post. My post actually separated "farming" from "winning," entirely. In fact, I believe I discuss them as though they are complete opposites, or at the very least, completely different topics entirely. To re-clarify, for you: Farming is not winning. Winning is not farming. Winning is the opposite of losing. Farming is the opposite of remaining stagnant.

Furthermore, I did not propose that the OP redefine his idea of fun. I simply recommended that he broaden his horizons, and gain an alternate perspective from the one he's used to, or was nurtured into. His evaluation of the playstyles of people with high rating is obviously inaccurate, which shows that he doesn't have an accurate perspective of the playstyles of people with high ratings. This leads to his very hollow assessment of the situation of the 'moors.

to make it so that we play [sic], for the competition of battle, and to have fun; not to turtle and protect standing or bragging rights within the PvP leaderboard.

We've established that eliminating rating wouldn't achieve this effect. But clearly, neither does the approach of fighting from a persistent position of advantage or not fighting at all. In fact, that approach is the problem.

I disagree. In fact, I believe the OP contradicted himself. He wants the 'moors to be played for renown, but he also wants the 'moors to be played for the competition of battle (which innately hails strategic play), to have fun (which, for some hails strategic play), but he does not want strategic play to be part of the ingredients for his vision. That simply cannot happen. You can't have a competition of battle without some form of strategic attack, and many people can't have fun if the mere goal is to gain renown.

This gets to the root of it. Broad, sweeping, and shifting imbalances. When the pendulum swings, so does the population looking to "win" in Slither's terms--to a side, or a class/group of classes. People flock to where they perceive an advantage that they can exploit. When they do, the imbalance is magnified, turtling ensues, and PvMP's slow death quickens.

I think a common misconception of this whole topic is that when turtling ensues, and when very little action occurs, that PvP is dead. Here is a little realized fact: PvP is scaled. 1v1 is PvP. 500v500 is PvP. Just because you aren't PvPing by sitting at EC, watching your opponent(s) sit in TA doesn't mean PvP is dead, or isn't happening. It simply isn't happening for YOU, because you refuse to explore other areas. Other people are moving around, taking advantage of other areas of the map, killing other opponents. People seem to believe that EC is the only place that PvP can happen, and that is simply limiting themselves.

Originally Posted by Thorandril

Gwen? Leeched. Slither? Leeched. (humorous thing about that is the picture post in the burglar 2k rating thread where the image is cropped to show just the rating, not k/kb) mawgrim? Lollll. Don't be naive, people don't target the most survivable classes in raid fights first, they target light armours with low base morale.

Yeah, nobody asked for any other stats. The OP (i think) just said to post your 2k ratings, so I did. And yes, I'm a leech. I suck the renown right out of Creeps, and I suck the infamy right out of Freeps. Same goes for rating, though neither are the intent of my actions; just a perk.

Originally Posted by ellestone

Surviving around a raid of people who's only goal is to kill you and track you to no end is another thing entirely. Burg packs and EC spam are quite a bit tougher to deal with. Playing in the midst of focus fire thats searching for you is more impressive.

^^^^^This would be my version. Try doing it with the limited escape skills of a Spider. Escaping sure death is as good as a KB to me.

I'm finding myself agree with almost all of what Slither is saying....weird.

Yeah, nobody asked for any other stats. The OP (i think) just said to post your 2k ratings, so I did. And yes, I'm a leech. I suck the renown right out of Creeps, and I suck the infamy right out of Freeps. Same goes for rating, though neither are the intent of my actions; just a perk.

Originally Posted by Thorandril

In a population based game, that just sounds silly

Suggesting fighting more people is more difficult than fighting less people just sounds silly? Really?

Especially from a class like the burglar who can escape *just as well* from a raid then from a few people.

No...a burglar cant escape *just as well* from more people than he can from less.

Don't be naive, people don't target the most survivable classes in raid fights first, they target light armours with low base morale.

I beg to differ. People on Nimrodel, even when you played regularly here, have always played little side-games and focused on players with high rating.

People will bypass the squishy rk for the burg with 2k rating. It does happen. A lot.

Originally Posted by ellestone

Suggesting fighting more people is more difficult than fighting less people just sounds silly? Really?

No...a burglar cant escape *just as well* from more people than he can from less.


Don't be naive, people don't target the most survivable classes in raid fights first, they target light armours with low base morale.

I beg to differ. People on Nimrodel, even when you played regularly here, have always played little side-games and focused on players with high rating.

People will bypass the squishy rk for the burg with 2k rating. It does happen. A lot.

And burgs don't have it nearly as easily as they used to. Tracking talismans cut down on the success of escape for Burgs, even in small groups. Most teams just don't have the discipline to coordinate them well.

Originally Posted by olagaton3434

And burgs don't have it nearly as easily as they used to. Tracking talismans cut down on the success of escape for Burgs, even in small groups. Most teams just don't have the discipline to coordinate them well.

Burgs are still the best single class in the moors in my opinion.

All in favor of challenging ones self say I. If you find that you can quite regularly and easily maintain a high rating, then maybe than the challenge is diminished. That'd be a good time to get a new, and fresh perspective on things. If you do, i can promise you one of two things. You'll either enjoy the game more, or youll end up like that german kid on youtube. You might even make a friend or two, who knows. Some of you take this game way too seriously.

Just make sure to take your marbles outta the sock drawer to the moors with you. Nobody like a sissy.

Bye bye

Originally Posted by ellestone

Suggesting fighting more people is more difficult than fighting less people just sounds silly? Really?

A little bit, especially since more usually = ~15-20, and no... you aren't fighting them "solo"

Originally Posted by ellestone

No...a burglar cant escape *just as well* from more people than he can from less.

If he has a clue, sure he can. Expected to survive when you HiPs'd at 10% morale or when you got hit with 5 DoT's below 50%? surprise.
Between safe fall, HiPs and the combination of TnG and KO you almost have to put in effort to die.

Originally Posted by ellestone

I beg to differ. People on Nimrodel, even when you played regularly here, have always played little side-games and focused on players with high rating.

People will bypass the squishy rk for the burg with 2k rating. It does happen. A lot.

Remember Preposterones typical rating and the sheer amount of infamy his raids got from people focussing on....just him? Same goes, it's their own prerogative but it won't end well, typically. And it's just a little funny that someone would go after the most survivable class in the game instead of...a 4-5k runekeeper, or such.

They might as well bypass the squishy RK, but it's the burgs choice if he wants to die or not between all of his skills. People make dumb choices all the time.

Originally Posted by olagaton3434

And burgs don't have it nearly as easily as they used to. Tracking talismans cut down on the success of escape for Burgs, even in small groups. Most teams just don't have the discipline to coordinate them well.

You're right, they have it easier. Since safe fall is an even more infallible get out of jail card and it's only got a 1m cooldown. The only kind of burg that usually has issues with tracking are hobbits because of the sheer number of wargs out, since Uruks seem to spend most of their money on CC pots and the like.

Even then with a properly geared stealth bag and stealth speed at 100% they're easy to avoid.

Originally Posted by Kurtdg21

All in favor of challenging ones self say I. If you find that you can quite regularly and easily maintain a high rating, then maybe than the challenge is diminished. That'd be a good time to get a new, and fresh perspective on things. If you do, i can promise you one of two things. You'll either enjoy the game more, or youll end up like that german kid on youtube. You might even make a friend or two, who knows. Some of you take this game way too seriously.

Just make sure to take your marbles outta the sock drawer to the moors with you. Nobody like a sissy.

Bye bye

all in favor of challenging one self AND having a lot of fun (without or without dying), say I.

*I*

/SHINGSHING

Originally Posted by ellestone

People will bypass the squishy rk for the burg with 2k rating. It does happen. A lot.

Just certain Burgs with 2k ratings

Originally Posted by olagaton3434

This is the mistake you make. This long-held rationale of mine isn't Freep-centric -- it's game mechanic-centric. From a personal standpoint, I couldn't care less whether Freeps are in that position, or Creeps are. If ranking benefited Freeps more than Creeps, I would notice the mechanic, and adjust my rationale accordingly. It has absolutely nothing to do with Freep/Creep-centric rationale.

Ultimately, you said it right, though. Freeps in stealth, behind 1-shots, or in Thorin's hall are doing their job by denying Creeps infamy. In any game or contest, in real life or fantasy, a player/team will typically succeed by taking advantage of their opponents weaknesses, or by denying their opponent their advantages. LOTRO is no different. Players choose to engage in PvP, and that is their choice; which I'm fine with. However, Freeps should also understand that their choice does not change the mechanics of the game -- Creeps WILL get stronger, gain more of an advantage by getting kills on Freeps. If Creeps gain the advantages their team have been built around, Freeps will begin to lose more and more, which is the trend that has happened for around 4 years, and will continue.

You interpret "freep-centric" as "freep-biased." I meant that it's centered exclusively around Freeps and Freep behavior. It's a poor perspective to hold precisely because its game mechanic-centric, not player-centric. PvM, rather than PvMP.

Furthermore, you conflate advancement with advantage. In fact, the degree to which creeps advance through rank has diminished. It doesn't measure up to the avenues of advancement that freeps have available, and whether it leads to "advantage" is questionable.

I think you misread my post. My post actually separated "farming" from "winning," entirely. In fact, I believe I discuss them as though they are complete opposites, or at the very least, completely different topics entirely. To re-clarify, for you: Farming is not winning. Winning is not farming. Winning is the opposite of losing. Farming is the opposite of remaining stagnant.

Bunk. You defined "winning" as fighting only from a position of advantage, with minimal risk of defeat, and achieving that predictable result. "Farming" is just the pattern of doing that repeatedly. Not different topics at all.

Furthermore, I did not propose that the OP redefine his idea of fun. I simply recommended that he broaden his horizons, and gain an alternate perspective from the one he's used to, or was nurtured into. His evaluation of the playstyles of people with high rating is obviously inaccurate, which shows that he doesn't have an accurate perspective of the playstyles of people with high ratings. This leads to his very hollow assessment of the situation of the 'moors.

OP's evaluation of their playstyles was never shown to be inaccurate--just his interpretation of their motivations.

I disagree. In fact, I believe the OP contradicted himself. He wants the 'moors to be played for renown, but he also wants the 'moors to be played for the competition of battle (which innately hails strategic play), to have fun (which, for some hails strategic play), but he does not want strategic play to be part of the ingredients for his vision. That simply cannot happen. You can't have a competition of battle without some form of strategic attack, and many people can't have fun if the mere goal is to gain renown.

The OP wants the moors to be played for renown which comes as the result of active, risky competition, which s/he feels is more fun. At no point does OP reject strategy or strategic attack. Strategy can be applied just as easily toward the goal of maintaining action, risk, and fun.

Edit-- Anyway, Chief says it best:

Originally Posted by Kurtdg21

All in favor of challenging ones self say I. If you find that you can quite regularly and easily maintain a high rating, then maybe than the challenge is diminished. That'd be a good time to get a new, and fresh perspective on things. If you do, i can promise you one of two things. You'll either enjoy the game more, or youll end up like that german kid on youtube. You might even make a friend or two, who knows. Some of you take this game way too seriously.

Just make sure to take your marbles outta the sock drawer to the moors with you. Nobody like a sissy.

Bye bye