Part of the problem with PvP in LOTRO is that there are too many playstyles.
There are those that want to raid, there are those that want to solo, there are those that only want to run in small groups, there are those who want to PvE and there are those who could care less about PvP. The latter aside, that's the problem with the Ettenmoors. Too many people trying to do too many different playstyles, and those playstyles are interfering with each other causing animosity and in-fighting on both sides.
Of course, Turbine going from a "We'll work on it eventually, when we get around to it, if we feel like it" attitude in the 'Moors to a sudden "Lets cash in on the 'Moors!" attitude didn't help much either.
P.S. Turbine: LOTRO is not "There", stop trying to turn it into a bad copy of Second Life (that ultimately failed).
Without a doubt you need different playstyles to make things enjoyable. One of the issues is that many players want an I Win button. I was burrowed all over yesterday US primtime and it was depressing to look at one of the freep groups running around (by running around I mean standing in front of ec). As I moused and tabbed through them...Mins, Mins, Mins, Capt, Champ, RK, Capt, Capt, Mins, Mins, HUNTER!... I mean really? I didn't see any of the fights that group got in, but geeze in a somewhat stationary fight that really would suck for creeps.
I argue with a gaming friend of mine about PVP and how progression works. He loves the warfront concept. Easy, Fasttrack method of gaining rank/points/levels. I myself prefer open PVP and don't want it to be easy. I don't want it to be impossible either, but I do prefer a challenge. We played Rift together and he fast tracked to Rank8 pvp while i continued to grind mine out in open pvp (eventually hit R7).
I personally like to feel like I earned my points. Running around with a raid and destroying solo and small groups isn't my thing. Not to say that we don't run over solos with our Triad, but it is a slightly different thing from a magnitude standpoint. I mean in days past, i've been attacked by 3-4 people and gotten a kill or 2 before I went down...I've watched Gii and Neck rampage through a group and get a few kills before dying...so magnitude is important.
What's my point? I'm not sure exactly, but the fact always remains that varying playstyles make things interesting and not static. Unfortunately some playstyles contribute extensively to no challenge pvp (one side steamroles, the other explodes). (bleh the days of the US morning burg groups at STAB just came to mind).
Disagree. All the different playstyles are what make the Moors pretty awesome to play around in.
I agree 100%.
The different playstyles is what elevates PvMP from EVERY other PvP game on the market. If I want one playstyle I'll jump over to SWTOR and queue all day long.
Second Marshal Luc Brandenbuck ~Battlemaster~
Stalker's Enemy*Reaver's Enemy*Blackarrow's Enemy*Warleader-Foe*Weaver's Enemy*Defiler-Foe Champion:'The only thing our opponents can do that we care about is die.'-Graalx2
The different playstyles is what elevates PvMP from EVERY other PvP game on the market. If I want one playstyle I'll jump over to SWTOR and queue all day long.
That sounds about as fun as a one-handed circle jerk.... Wait, I'll queue with you!
Gut Out!
Creep Main = Gutlard of The White Hand
Freep Main = Snarehelm of Legionnaires
What's my point? I'm not sure exactly, but the fact always remains that varying playstyles make things interesting and not static. Unfortunately some playstyles contribute extensively to no challenge pvp (one side steamroles, the other explodes). (bleh the days of the US morning burg groups at STAB just came to mind).
I think you're touching on a very important (and likely sensitive) point.
There are playstyles, then there are "playstyles".
I think the latter is a category I'd broadly label metagaming, but more specifically I'd describe it as playing in a way that elimintes or at least dramatically alters the overall risk/reward profile of the game. I.e. zerging when the opponents have no numbers, callouts and map-ins vs small/solo forces, and fight clubbing are 3 such examples.
When that risk/reward profile is dramatically altered it's my opinion that the playstyle isn't any longer just playing smart. It becomes something damaging to the game, to the community, and to the culture of the game overall.
Note: Turbine didn't help things by messing up the math to start with, with the way renown/infamy is calculated, then compiling the issue by not fixing the distance bug, then REALLY magnifying the issue with the V1B12 raid renown bonus.
But those things aside, I think there are players who adopt "modes of play" that I wouldn't classify as a real playstyle. Because they break the game's fundamental design and intent.
Second Marshal Luc Brandenbuck ~Battlemaster~
Stalker's Enemy*Reaver's Enemy*Blackarrow's Enemy*Warleader-Foe*Weaver's Enemy*Defiler-Foe Champion:'The only thing our opponents can do that we care about is die.'-Graalx2
Disagree. All the different playstyles are what make the Moors pretty awesome to play around in.
Then why is it that the people who only like to solo complain about the people who like to raid (or vice-verse)?
But those things aside, I think there are players who adopt "modes of play" that I wouldn't classify as a real playstyle. Because they break the game's fundamental design and intent.
What is that "fundamental design and intent"? We have a PvP zone that was, originally, built for raids. Then other parts were added for small groups. All the while, there's quests all over the place, so there are PvE options as well. Then we have another zone (The Delving of Fror) that currently has no use to either side. And why is it the players fault when Turbine is the one that created this environment? Because they won't stick to some standard that others are trying to force out there? See...that's where the animosity comes in.
I play both solo and in raids, depending on what character I am on, so I like both situations. I never do quests out there unless they are, say, part of taking a keep or something along those lines. So, where do I fall?
The different playstyles is what elevates PvMP from EVERY other PvP game on the market. If I want one playstyle I'll jump over to SWTOR and queue all day long.
You're wrong. DAoC has every possible style of pvp LotRO does in just the level 20-24 battleground.
Plus you get three warring sides instead of two. There's a reason GW2 took a lot of it's pvp ideas from
daoc.
"People keep comparing Lemmy to God... He's cool and all but he's no Lemmy." - Unknown
The different playstyles is what elevates PvMP from EVERY other PvP game on the market. If I want one playstyle I'll jump over to SWTOR and queue all day long.
I saw nothing in WvW to indicate that solo and small group play wouldn't be as rewarding, or likely much more so, than PvMP.
Originally Posted by Elderban
What is that "fundamental design and intent"? We have a PvP zone that was, originally, built for raids. Then other parts were added for small groups. All the while, there's quests all over the place, so there are PvE options as well.
We have objectives that are targeted at certain groups sizes. There's nothing restricting PvP engagements away from those specific locations to a certain playstyle.
"I've brushed with death so often, I should start giving him high-fives when I pass..."
"Take that lorebreaker! Behold the wrath of Tolkien!" ~Harumph
We have objectives that are targeted at certain groups sizes. There's nothing restricting PvP engagements away from those specific locations to a certain playstyle.
That still doesn't answer the question of what the "fundamental design and intent" of the Ettenmoors is that Luc referred to and why groups will complain when other groups partake in those "objectives".
Then why is it that the people who only like to solo complain about the people who like to raid (or vice-verse)?
People who solo don't complain about people who like to raid. People who solo complain about raids forming when there's no raid level opposition AND when the raiders start the ooc wars about if you're not with the raid then you're somehow fail or bad, or not helping your side, or causing them to lose.
Originally Posted by Elderban
What is that "fundamental design and intent"?
Open PvMP, with non-mirrored classes, and a rank power progression for the non-PvE side.
Originally Posted by Elderban
We have a PvP zone that was, originally, built for raids.
What????!?!?!?! There is absolutely no indication at all supporting this idea whatsoever.
Originally Posted by Elderban
Then other parts were added for small groups. All the while, there's quests all over the place, so there are PvE options as well. Then we have another zone (The Delving of Fror) that currently has no use to either side. And why is it the players fault when Turbine is the one that created this environment? Because they won't stick to some standard that others are trying to force out there? See...that's where the animosity comes in.
I play both solo and in raids, depending on what character I am on, so I like both situations. I never do quests out there unless they are, say, part of taking a keep or something along those lines. So, where do I fall?
I never said solo or raiding is better (I too would love to raid more and generally prefer a hybrid approach to playing, but the way raids are run these days just aren't that fun for me), I hardly commented on the PvE aspects of the moors, which frankly are pretty new (in terms of providing PvMP rewards that is)
What I DID say however is that there's a difference between raid, solo, small group PvMP--Group1, and metagaming ways of playing such as callouts, map-ins, zerging, and fightclubbing--Group2.
I apologize if I didn't make the difference clear enough, but it should be apparent this has NOTHING to do with solo v raid. It's about HOW soloing and HOW raiding is done more than which is chosen.
Second Marshal Luc Brandenbuck ~Battlemaster~
Stalker's Enemy*Reaver's Enemy*Blackarrow's Enemy*Warleader-Foe*Weaver's Enemy*Defiler-Foe Champion:'The only thing our opponents can do that we care about is die.'-Graalx2
That still doesn't answer the question of what the "fundamental design and intent" of the Ettenmoors is that Luc referred to and why groups will complain when other groups partake in those "objectives".
The fundamental design and intent is:
1> Open PvMP...the game was not designed for fightclubbing...this should be crystal clear, but to some people it's not.
2> Non-mirrored classes...again pretty clear stuff, but a lot of people believe 1:1 balance is necessary...there are other games that do this well...not LotRO.
3> Rank based progression for the non-PvE side...I think this one is the most arguable...because Turbine has done a 180 on this approach over the last few updates. But the original design was pretty clear in that creeps would get stronger as they ranked.
So things that run counter to these base assumptions, as I outlined in my last post are hard to swallow as "playstyles" to me. They instead seem to be best classified as metagaming or in some extreme cases just cheating.
When players choose to play a way that supercedes the design and intent of the game to optimize their returns it's metagaming. It's not really a "playstyle" at that point because playstyle implies that it's a choice based on opinion and desire not by returns and min/maxing them.
---
Maybe I'm not understanding your confusion about what I wrote. Can you clarify with a specific example as to what people are "complaining about?"
Second Marshal Luc Brandenbuck ~Battlemaster~
Stalker's Enemy*Reaver's Enemy*Blackarrow's Enemy*Warleader-Foe*Weaver's Enemy*Defiler-Foe Champion:'The only thing our opponents can do that we care about is die.'-Graalx2
That still doesn't answer the question of what the "fundamental design and intent" of the Ettenmoors is that Luc referred to...
It's a sandbox with some minor capture-the-flag elements. At its core that's about all the design there is outside class balance and the inf/ren mechanic. I don't think Turbine ever had an "intent" for PvMP. They included it because it seemed necessary on some level, then squandered the potential of the blank slate they'd created.
"I've brushed with death so often, I should start giving him high-fives when I pass..."
"Take that lorebreaker! Behold the wrath of Tolkien!" ~Harumph
You're wrong. DAoC has every possible style of pvp LotRO does in just the level 20-24 battleground.
Plus you get three warring sides instead of two. There's a reason GW2 took a lot of it's pvp ideas from
daoc.
DAoC is dead. (although it's arguable that even with it's 3 sides the class structure was roughly mirrored...more than PvMP anyhow.)
GW2 isn't out. (and admittedly I know little about it as I already am at my limit on the MMO meter with LotRO and SWTOR)
/shrug
Second Marshal Luc Brandenbuck ~Battlemaster~
Stalker's Enemy*Reaver's Enemy*Blackarrow's Enemy*Warleader-Foe*Weaver's Enemy*Defiler-Foe Champion:'The only thing our opponents can do that we care about is die.'-Graalx2
It's a sandbox with some minor capture-the-flag elements. .
I'd restate sandbox to Open PvMP...
My other 2 points are more about the mechanics of the power structures.
The capture the flag elements however have never implied solely "raid" intent though. Far from it given the initial implementation of HotSpots.
Second Marshal Luc Brandenbuck ~Battlemaster~
Stalker's Enemy*Reaver's Enemy*Blackarrow's Enemy*Warleader-Foe*Weaver's Enemy*Defiler-Foe Champion:'The only thing our opponents can do that we care about is die.'-Graalx2
I'd rather have all my friends playing GW2 than SWTOR, I'll say that much...but naa...there's enough going on in my life right now that I'm happy to be settled in with LotRO for the long haul.
I hope you don't make yourself too much of a stranger to the moors. It'd be a great loss.
Second Marshal Luc Brandenbuck ~Battlemaster~
Stalker's Enemy*Reaver's Enemy*Blackarrow's Enemy*Warleader-Foe*Weaver's Enemy*Defiler-Foe Champion:'The only thing our opponents can do that we care about is die.'-Graalx2
I'd rather have all my friends playing GW2 than SWTOR, I'll say that much...but naa...there's enough going on in my life right now that I'm happy to be settled in with LotRO for the long haul.
I hope you don't make yourself too much of a stranger to the moors. It'd be a great loss.
I'll poke my nose in now and again. Judging from the taste I got during those three days of beta though, it will be quite a while after launch before I visit.
*shrug*
Five years was a long haul. I feel like I've gotten most of what I can out of the 'Moors as it stands. Close fights are still fun, but... I'm ready to change things up after several thousand of them.
"I've brushed with death so often, I should start giving him high-fives when I pass..."
"Take that lorebreaker! Behold the wrath of Tolkien!" ~Harumph
The capture the flag elements however have never implied solely "raid" intent though. Far from it given the initial implementation of HotSpots.
Take away the fact that NPC's wont follow you to the top or aggro when the Tyrant/CG is attacked (a design flaw, IMHO), you would need at least 12 players to take down a keep and a Tyrant/CG, back in 2007 and now.
I really don't think keeps were designed to be "ninja'd".
How is the arugment on playstyles still being brought up?
You would think it was three years ago.
When raids start taking care of each other, I'm sure small groups/solo'ers will be even smaller in numbers, but as it stands, you don't get SI, you don't get poison removal, and your melee isn't charging. So what would I join a raid for? I rather rely on myself or help out those who know how to actually play.
p.s Arctic, the game isn't optimtized yet, and it didn't matter if you had a beast of a graphic card, you were going to experience lag. Which thankfully, that beta weekend helped them learn more about.
Last edited by Obsidian-moth; May 02 2012 at 05:54 PM.
My UI causes people to make vomit noises. I murder people's well thought out names. I always master loot. I go into robot voice, a lot. So much so that now my Kinship and raiding team call me Navbot, the robot overlord. I love rp. I pvp to techno.
DAoC is dead. (although it's arguable that even with it's 3 sides the class structure was roughly mirrored...more than PvMP anyhow.)
GW2 isn't out. (and admittedly I know little about it as I already am at my limit on the MMO meter with LotRO and SWTOR)
/shrug
Dead... Roughly mirrored... It's unfortunate you're missing out on a great pvp game that puts
lotro to shame. Oh well.
After skimming over a hour long frapsed video of GW2 footage from some
daoc players, I'm convinced GW2 is already better than anything LotRO offers and it's only
in beta. Three manning all over the map, getting into even fights, wilsoning from zergs etc...
good stuff.
"People keep comparing Lemmy to God... He's cool and all but he's no Lemmy." - Unknown
p.s Arctic, the game isn't optimtized yet, and it didn't matter if you had a beast of a graphic card, you were going to experience lag. Which thankfully, that beta weekend helped them learn more about.
I hardly lagged at all during the heaviest fighting (especially compared to LoTRO). This specific kind of crash required a hard restart of my system to get things unfrozen. Apparently underclocking fixed the issue for some, but I didn't see the suggestion until after the beta. Mostly seemed to be effecting folks using Nvidia cards.
Suffice to say, my guildmates had to deal with me popping in and out of TS all weekend...
I've taken keeps with 2 people...full clears, no ninja. Years ago and recently.
Then of course there are wardens who have solo'd them - years ago and recently.
I've been a part of a 3-man Burg group that took a keep, but it takes a while and you have to do it when there are no creeps/freeps to fend off. But that would never happen during prime time, which is when most players play and when most of the action happens.
Maybe I'm not understanding your confusion about what I wrote. Can you clarify with a specific example as to what people are "complaining about?"
Been a lot of comlpaining as of late about there being raids out, the map getting turned blue, lack of communication from the solo players all the way up to the raids, people not communicating period, etc. And the complaints are coming from all sides.
I think you and I are thinking along the same lines, but I'm more open to all playstyles, and if someone wants to be part of some "fight club", then so be it, just don't complain if the raid I am in mows you down if you happen to be out in the middle of a field somewhere.
Granted, I wouldn't go looking for the "fight club" groups, and I do respect 1v1 fights, but - as the saying goes - if you're in a PvP zone, expect to get attacked whether you're one player, a group or an entire raid.
I've been a part of a 3-man Burg group that took a keep, but it takes a while and you have to do it when there are no creeps/freeps to fend off. But that would never happen during prime time, which is when most players play and when most of the action happens.
OK but then why say you need 12...you don't.
♦ R13 Minstrel ♦ Guardians of the Dagorlad ♦ Jaiyne ♦
DAoC worked for a lot of different reasons.. but pvp/rvr moreso because of the class mirroring, or better stated; different but same. In addition, with 3 realms.. there was a dynamic of "watch your back at all times". Add in keeps that you had to knock down doors to access, relics having a similar component of having to break into the relic keep, having to go to the realm's backyard to get to their keeps and some semblance of balance ... well, it was good pvp (except for the darned buff bots and mythic's refusal to add a distance check from the buffs to the buffer early-on, but I digress). Mythic was responsive to overpowering issues .. Infiltrators being able to 1-shot and stay stealthed (guilty!) ... and really committed to the pvp/rvr element of the game.
I hardly lagged at all during the heaviest fighting (especially compared to LoTRO). This specific kind of crash required a hard restart of my system to get things unfrozen. Apparently underclocking fixed the issue for some, but I didn't see the suggestion until after the beta. Mostly seemed to be effecting folks using Nvidia cards.
Suffice to say, my guildmates had to deal with me popping in and out of TS all weekend...
The only valid playstyle is the one directly to my left, whatever that is. Anyone who says any different is a knowitall, knownothing, trolling, noob keephugger. There, I said it....
Play how you like - how you enjoy, and what you find entertaining.
Other peeps commenting on how bad you play, how your skills suck, or how awful your playstyle is - well, until they pay for your playtime - who cares?
I am all for constructive comments, and people taking their time out to honestly show and help peeps to improve - that is great! I wish it happened more often, and for those who take the time to do so - you know who you are! you have my utmost gratitude.
The other peeps who complain, well, less said the better.
And for that select few who take complaints to a very personal level - please, don't even bother. Some of us are grown-up's - you know?
Love & Hugs
Fluffy Hithy
If I had a penny for every child I ran over - I could maybe afford car insurance
Guess I was lucky, I did not notice any lag at all. What I did experience was some of the best PvP ever.
I didn't notice much lag either until the finale event even on almost all max settings (AA off).
About playstyles. I wouldn't fully consider the moors to be a sandbox as there isn't much you can do to effect the world other than flipping which side controls the keeps and outposts, but I won't deny that there is a lot of freedom in what you can do. So I'd be in the boat with the others that say play how you see fit at the moment... solo, small group, raid it's all good. Just don't expect to always find others that choose to play the same way.
Play how you like - how you enjoy, and what you find entertaining.
Other peeps commenting on how bad you play, how your skills suck, or how awful your playstyle is - well, until they pay for your playtime - who cares?
I am all for constructive comments, and people taking their time out to honestly show and help peeps to improve - that is great! I wish it happened more often, and for those who take the time to do so - you know who you are! you have my utmost gratitude.
The other peeps who complain, well, less said the better.
And for that select few who take complaints to a very personal level - please, don't even bother. Some of us are grown-up's - you know?
Love & Hugs
Fluffy Hithy
We are a bunch of keyboard turning- Goat eaters and you know it Hithy. *grins*
Pouncival-Rank 13-Leader of the Pouncing Pwny
We Pounce Because We Care
We are a bunch of keyboard turning- Goat eaters and you know it Hithy. *grins*
I think I fought both you, pouncy, and you, Hithy, on separate, utter 1v1 situations the other (last?) night. That was a first. And a very nice change! <3
I think I fought both you, pouncy, and you, Hithy, on separate, utter 1v1 situations the other (last?) night. That was a first. And a very nice change! <3
Oh man, I was so bonked out last night. I think it was the Baileys that said, Pouncy, pounce him. Had fun fighting you Fell, and looking forward to our next encounter.
Pouncival-Rank 13-Leader of the Pouncing Pwny
We Pounce Because We Care
Take away the fact that NPC's wont follow you to the top or aggro when the Tyrant/CG is attacked (a design flaw, IMHO), you would need at least 12 players to take down a keep and a Tyrant/CG, back in 2007 and now.
I really don't think keeps were designed to be "ninja'd".
Your assumption in this entire statement is that the moors only exists to flip keeps.
AND, your comments are just not correct. In all stages of development over the past 5 years including right now today, you can full clear a keep with LESS than a fellowship sized group.
But more importantly, keeps are NOT the only intent of the moors. In fact I'd say at best they're there to SUPPORT the key intent which is Open PvMP play. The assumption that creeps can and will fight freeps and freeps can and will fight creeps is the CORE of Open PvMP and what is the defining difference between playstyles and what I'd not really consider true playstyles.
Originally Posted by Elderban
Been a lot of comlpaining as of late about there being raids out, the map getting turned blue, lack of communication from the solo players all the way up to the raids, people not communicating period, etc. And the complaints are coming from all sides.
I think you and I are thinking along the same lines, but I'm more open to all playstyles, and if someone wants to be part of some "fight club", then so be it, just don't complain if the raid I am in mows you down if you happen to be out in the middle of a field somewhere.
Granted, I wouldn't go looking for the "fight club" groups, and I do respect 1v1 fights, but - as the saying goes - if you're in a PvP zone, expect to get attacked whether you're one player, a group or an entire raid.
Those complaints, on both sides, IMHO are not driven by playstyles...but the LACK of playstyles.
Example: When people complain about 40 players on one side rolling 10 on another to flip a map red or blue, they're (and I'll speak for those people now, please forgive me) NOT complaining about PvMP raiding as a playstyle. They're complaining about PvE raiding, which is NOT a PvMP playstyle. It's just zerging for points. Again I need to return to the base assumption and design intent of the zone. It's a competative PvMP zone. Not a faceroll non-competative kill NPCs for points zone. And I challenge ANY developer to come on here and tell me their design intent was to be uncompetative NPC killing in the Ettenmoors. If it is I'll likely delete my toon today.
Example2: When people in raids complain about soloers not joining them, they're not complaining about PvMP soloing as a playstyle, they're complaining about players who do not support their viewpoint of winning via overwhelming numbers. That's not a playstyle, it's just zerging and again, not the intent of the zone which is Competative Open PvMP. And again, I'd offer an invitation to any developer to come on here and suggest that their design intent from day one to day now has ever been for the moors to be a place of uncompetative facerolling via overwhelming numbers. I'd be the first to say they haven't done the absolute best job at achieving that intent. But I think it's a reasonable intent to suggest exists.
In summary, playstyles and multiple ones at that are GOOD for the game. It adds dynamic variance to the forms and methods of play and PvMP. But metagaming choices such as I've outlined above aren't playstyles in that way. They're player decisions, to be sure, but they're not a playstyle because a playstyle suggests playing the game in an intended way. Things (play decisions) that break the cost/benefit balance are game breaking not game supporting.
That's my opinion on the matter at least.
Would it be great if there was more respect for each other out there? Yes. Creeps for creeps, freeps for freeps, creeps for freeps and freeps for creeps. But I take issue with the idea that supporting and encouraging either actively or tacitly play choices that disrupt the game design and intent is showing anyone respect. In fact I think it's a disrespectful thing one can do because it hurts the game for everyone at a larger level. And when the integrity of the game (the core mechanics, mathematics and risk/reward profile) is disrupted people get frustrated at best, and leave at worst.
Doesn't anyone else remember V1 pre B12? It wasn't all roses and butterflies, but there was a lot more respect out there for those who FOUGHT. It was more about the fight, not the points. And I think about how terribly out classed in terms of raw power creeps were and it was actually BETTER fighting often than we see today.
I logged into a red map last night, there were creeps around and they seemed to respond really quickly to call outs at OPs and across the map. Then Freepside organized a raid. LC dropped out of the blue (I doubt there were many if any creeps there before it fell) and they moved to TR...there was SOME fighting at TR but by the time the Tyrant was pulled the # of creeps was already waning. LC flipped back before the freeps got to TA...in what I thought would be a pretty good move to put those extra guards up at TA...but then...ZERO creeps were seen at TA, Lugs, and I suspect Isen although after Lugs fell without a fight I realized it was pointless trying to get a big fight and left the raid.
Reports in ooc stated that the creep raid had disbanned and logged off.
The map was blue for about 10 minutes. The freep raid pretty much did their own thing...not sure if they officially disbanned or just thinned out.
Then LC turned red. And the cycle repeated itself. Apparently the creep raid was back and they were targeting the keeps that were unmanned and unwatched.
Is this an example of "raiding" as a playstyle? I'd say no.
I'd suggest it's an example of metagaming the system to flip keeps for rewards and bragging. I'm sure some % of the player base was flipping sides. I'm sure some % of the player base was joining up once the wins seemed apparent. I'm sure some % was HONESTLY looking for a real raid on raid fight (I was). I'm not saying anyone is villianous but I do believe that there's something beyond a difference in "playstyle" here.
I support the moors flexibility to support MANY different playstyles. I just disagree that some actions and trends are actually a playstyle and not just a play decision that is harmful to the game.
Second Marshal Luc Brandenbuck ~Battlemaster~
Stalker's Enemy*Reaver's Enemy*Blackarrow's Enemy*Warleader-Foe*Weaver's Enemy*Defiler-Foe Champion:'The only thing our opponents can do that we care about is die.'-Graalx2
Play how you like - how you enjoy, and what you find entertaining.
Other peeps commenting on how bad you play, how your skills suck, or how awful your playstyle is - well, until they pay for your playtime - who cares?
I may complain pretty vocally about actions people take in the moors and how I believe they affect the game as a whole.
But I'll never be one to talk about someone being "bad" or skills sucking, or anything of that sort. In fact, I think thats just about the most classless thing one can do in a competative game of any sort.
In fact, any player I encounter (more skilled or less) I applaud for coming out and trying to fight, because it's the only way to improve. Heck, by that standard I SHOULD be awesome, and I'm far from it...but I continually try to get better. Even if my attempts are often fruitless.
Second Marshal Luc Brandenbuck ~Battlemaster~
Stalker's Enemy*Reaver's Enemy*Blackarrow's Enemy*Warleader-Foe*Weaver's Enemy*Defiler-Foe Champion:'The only thing our opponents can do that we care about is die.'-Graalx2
I logged into a red map last night, there were creeps around and they seemed to respond really quickly to call outs at OPs and across the map. Then Freepside organized a raid. LC dropped out of the blue (I doubt there were many if any creeps there before it fell) and they moved to TR...there was SOME fighting at TR but by the time the Tyrant was pulled the # of creeps was already waning. LC flipped back before the freeps got to TA...in what I thought would be a pretty good move to put those extra guards up at TA...but then...ZERO creeps were seen at TA, Lugs, and I suspect Isen although after Lugs fell without a fight I realized it was pointless trying to get a big fight and left the raid.
Reports in ooc stated that the creep raid had disbanned and logged off.
The map was blue for about 10 minutes. The freep raid pretty much did their own thing...not sure if they officially disbanned or just thinned out.
Then LC turned red. And the cycle repeated itself. Apparently the creep raid was back and they were targeting the keeps that were unmanned and unwatched.
Is this an example of "raiding" as a playstyle? I'd say no.
I'd suggest it's an example of metagaming the system to flip keeps for rewards and bragging. I'm sure some % of the player base was flipping sides. I'm sure some % of the player base was joining up once the wins seemed apparent. I'm sure some % was HONESTLY looking for a real raid on raid fight (I was). I'm not saying anyone is villianous but I do believe that there's something beyond a difference in "playstyle" here.
I support the moors flexibility to support MANY different playstyles. I just disagree that some actions and trends are actually a playstyle and not just a play decision that is harmful to the game.
What I saw was the creep raid disbanded and was called back to grams because the # imbalance was a bit too severe. Once again probably enough creeps online to make a fight of it, but no global strategy driving everyone's actions.
The keep flips last night were all done by a 4man - 5man creep group, with some solos pulled in near the end sometimes. We had no chance of facing off with that giant pile of freeps, so we took what small fights we could and flipped the keeps and outposts to mix up the map. We got caught a few times in flip attempts and were simply steamrolled, so we chose to stay mobile and out of sight as much as possible. If it's not remotely what could be called a "fight", we're not doing it repeatedly. We will take our lumps, but matching up against impossible odds over and over voluntarily is not going to happen while I have anything to say about it.
Counter of Stairs Online status:
Reputation:
Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Originally Posted by Gillianrial
Senior Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Karathyn Thrace
Senior Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Counter of Stairs Online status:
♦ R13 Minstrel ♦ Guardians of the Dagorlad ♦ Jaiyne ♦
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Poster of Note Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
