|
|
|
|
|
Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning - Forums :
The Developer Roundtable :
Future Features - Suggestion Box :
One way to implement a viable token system
|
|
|
Snafzg
Contributor

40
44
|

Snafzg
Enmity
Phoenix Throne
|
|
1.
One way to implement a viable token system
03-04-2009 01:08 PM
|
|
|

|
|
RvR This system will allow people to be rewarded eventually for their hard work in oRvR. A broken contribution system and random chance will no longer be their only option to gear up. Even if contribution were fixed, there is still the element of chance, which is an old system this genre moved past years ago (or so we'd hoped). Chance should augment a token system, not be the primary determinant. - Add tokens to player kills in oRvR only (do not award tokens from scenario kills)
- Tokens gained in oRvR can be used to buy gear up to the Conqueror level (or higher)
- Killing players in normal T4 oRvR zones yield Annihilator tokens (or T1-T3 RvR set items)
- Killing players in fortress raids yield Conqueror tokens
- Each player killed will drop 1-3 tokens
- Tokens are looted through normal group loot rules
- You do the math on a fair system but Conqueror gear should cost fewer tokens than Annihilator gear simply because fortress raids are much less common
- People can pass on gold loot bags from keeps and fortresses
- Gold loot bags no longer drop random set pieces - You can choose what set piece you need
PvE Again, this system rewards people for hard work and dedication. Currently, the only way you can get set gear in PvE dungeons is to luck out. Sometimes this works in your favour. For those people who have participated in over 15 city dungeon raids and still do not have their full set, this system works against you. Again, chance should augment this system, not be the primary determinant for gear. - Add tokens to mini-bosses and instance bosses found in Bastion Stair, city dungeons and Lost Vale.
- Each person who participates gets X tokens per boss.
- These tokens can be used to purchase set gear found in these dungeons.
- The bosses still have a chance to drop the gear as they currently do.
- You do the math, but no person should have to do these dungeons more than 6 times to get their complete set.
Personally, I believe all these tokens should be tradable. There are two main reasons for this. First, it will enhance the currently lacklustre economy and trade system. Second, it will let you play whatever character is necessary to balance out your group while still letting you help out your alt. If I have a Shaman and a Marauder, obviously the Shaman will be in higher demand most of the time. Tradeable tokens will allow me to keep my Marauder competitive so he is viable when needed some other time.
The biggest argument about this is "twinking" lowbie alts, however, I don't see this as a huge issue. Giving T4 tokens to your alts in T1-T3 will not give them any gear they can use. Worst case scenario you can give your extra tokens to a lowbie T4 alt, but how much of an impact will that really have on the game when most of your enemies are already rank 40 and at a much higher renown rank than you? Chances are, the rank 40s will be in equal or better gear anyway. Please think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Torre
Forum Regular

40
73
|

Indasoth
Death Dealers of War
Badlands
|
|
2.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-04-2009 01:15 PM
|
|
|

|
|
/sign EXCELLENT post.
Indasoth | Witch Elf | Badlands
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Codpeace
Member

40
46
|

Codpeace
Master Caledorian Armory
Volkmar
|
|
4.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-04-2009 03:15 PM
|
|
|

|
|
I agree completely. Both City Dungeons and RVR Set pieces should have the system in place. As a tank, I am lucky if I win a gold bag. However, to this date, my dice seem to be rigged always on the losing side (average roll for me seems to be about 100), so I find that after obtaining my Annihilator Shoulders and Helm I have won 7 extra shoulders and 4 extra helms, but never received my Chest Piece. Whenever I go to Sigmar's Crypts or Warpblade Tunnels, it always seems to be gear for a class that ISN'T in our group, so everyone leaves empty handed (other than Talisman's made from "Trash" Sentinel loot). A token system would allow people to do what they are currently doing AND work towards a goal of getting their sets, even if they don't actually win the randomised rolls.
tradable tokes as well are an issue I don't have problems with. If people want to spend their hard earned money on them, so be it. Annihilator Gear and warded gear will not make you a better player. This system needs to be put into place to prevent rage quits (which I've seen happen) after yet ANOTHER lootless dungeon run.
Good idea Snafzg, hope those who can put this into place feel its a good idea as well!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Belladawna
Contributor

40
61
|

Belladawna
ARGO
Gorfang
|
|
5.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-04-2009 04:36 PM
|
|
|

|
|
I agree. I like the idea of tokens. I've been though Blood/Bile enough that I will run while eating. I'm only 2/5. Last night we had Choppa and Blackguard boots drop in Blood.....it was fun. Sure it made for a funny screenshot. Black Orc and Chosen looking at Blackguard boots. Witch Elf and Marurader looking at Choppa Boots. (*NOTE* this post made _BEFORE_ choppa's are released if seen in the future).
GL of ARGO, Gorfang. 40 Zealot 40 Squig Herder 40 Black Guard 40 DoK 40 Sorc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ArdentPurple
Member


|
|
6.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-04-2009 07:04 PM
|
|
|

|
|
Your basic concept seems more than sound, and I agree with your statement that completely random looting is an archaic system than should be replaced with more effective, rewarding mechanisms. Kudos.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tamasan
Contributor

40
52
|

Mnemosyne
Kindred of Hate
Phoenix Throne
|
|
8.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-04-2009 09:55 PM
|
|
|

|
|
I absolutely support this. As far as ideas go, for fixing an (obviously) broken/outdated loot system, this is the best I've seen. I've been through 3 Bloodwraught/Bilerot runs where not a single piece drops that anyone in the party can use. I'm at 1/5 Sentinel (+belt purchased from AuctionHouse) after 6 runs. Almost anything is better than what we have now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vanskapt
Member

40
44
|

Arantra
Granata
Iron Rock
|
|
9.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
[ Edited ]
03-04-2009 11:54 PM
|
|
|

|
|
A-effing-men. At least 80+ T4 keep sieges on my sorceress (where i'm consistently active, either killing defenders or providing non-stop DPS to doors, NPCs, and Lords), and only one piece of Annihilator gear. Though I always enjoy (almost) every siege i participate in, it can still become rather disenheartening when I receive no real remuneration for my efforts. I enjoy the "Vegas Loot System" in principle, but in practice, it cultivates apathy. The only point that i disagree with is the "tradeable" aspect that snaffy mentiones in the latter part of his post. I don't feel that players should be eligable to reap the benefits of events that they did not directly participate in. A purely solo player who grinds NPC mobs all day to fatten his or her wallet should not be able to simply buy gear that was earned from killing players in a fortress siege, for example. The in-game economy is somewhat lackluster, but providing such accessibility to high level items comes back to my point on apathy; why actually go out and fight, when you can just grind for gold and buy your gear off the AH? My thinking may be flawed in this aspect, but it's how I feel. Message Edited by Vanskapt on 03-05-2009 12:02 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Skalf
Member


|
|
11.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-05-2009 02:42 AM
|
|
|

|
|
/sign. As a player who now has his first 40, I am about to embark on this horror trip of lootless dungeons. A token system should be implemented. Granted, make it tough to get the tokens, but not impossible. Do banner scraps. Thats one way to give the "tokens" a story and character. That big thing pops up after a keep take, if you participated, loot the banner and take a banner scrap. Be able to take a token off the bosses at the end. Let everyone be able to loot him for a scrap of something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arsebandit
Contributor

4
0
|

Arsemaster
Dexteram Tzeentch
Ironclaw
|
|
13.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-05-2009 07:55 AM
|
|
|

|
|
Fully agree we need a better way to get our gears, sooner rather than later. Implementing any or all of the suggestions by Snafzg would be a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Zhaunil
Contributor

40
63
|

Zhaunil
The Crimson Guard
Iron Rock
|
|
14.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-05-2009 09:02 AM
|
|
|

|
|
|
|
|
|
Krosuss
Contributor

40
62
|

Krosuss
The Inquisition
Iron Rock
|
|
15.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
[ Edited ]
03-05-2009 01:57 PM
|
|
|

|
|
YES YES YES!!!! For those of us bitten by the Bad-Luck Rolls of PQs and Keep Takes ... like me ... having a system like this will give hope to us unfortunates longing for a complete set of wards. I've been stuck on 3 pieces of Annihilator for months now. I can only usually play during primetime hours, so it's not like you can just sweep through and take keeps. We have some nice, epic keep battles on my server so you could have 2 warbands on each side. So the odds of winning a coveted gold bag are few and far between up against so many others. Last time I won a goldbag in a keep siege I got the same item I already had. It's very deflating. I don't have to have a complete Annihilator set and would settle for some Bloodlord to help finish out my wards. So umpteen runs through Bastion and I've only ever gotten a purple bag twice ... and in that I've gotten the same BW staff that is not as good as a staff I already use. Hope Mythic considers this as I'm willing to work for it ... but the current system is depressing and no matter how hard you try there is no guarantee you'll get what you need. P.S. Love your blog Snafzg! Message Edited by Krosuss on 03-05-2009 02:03 PM
____________________________________
... Krosuss says burn ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gornir
Member


|
|
16.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-09-2009 04:27 PM
|
|
|

|
|
I agree with this completely, /sign.
The only comfort I need is my Axe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Falconer
Forum Regular

40
36
|

Deathsiphon
Bloodthirsty
Badlands
|
|
17.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-09-2009 04:33 PM
|
|
|

|
Snafzg wrote:
- Each player killed will drop 1-3 tokens
one problem i see: welcome to the world of "I won't party with you because i want tokens" from all careers that can solo moderatly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Toxyn
Member


|
|
18.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-10-2009 12:19 PM
|
|
|

|
|
I think this is a great idea. The cont system has been screwed up since day one and has yet to be fixed. And now that they offered transfers to my server a few weeks ago and with todays patch the rest of those servers are being forced on my server the number on keep takes is ridicuous. Many times I've placed over 150 on the pq loot and when there are only 3 gold bags it is horrible. There is no reasonable way to expect to ever see the rest of my anniilator gear with over 200 people at a keep take. Also another suggestion is make pq bags not bound only the item when it is opened so if someone gets a bag they dont need they can pass it off. It kills me to see someone open a gold bag and pull out a crafting item.I
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bean
Contributor

34
31
|

Glinnda
Retaliation
Volkmar
|
|
19.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
[ Edited ]
03-10-2009 12:37 PM
|
|
|

|
|
First, let me say that I like the idea of removing some of the randomness to keep loot. I know that since I've started doing ORvR all the time, I win gold bags about every other keep fight. There are some players that are playing classes that just don't ever do as well in keep battles and thus keep loot is very difficult for them to get. However, I have one problem with the proposed system: Why give tokens for PvP loot through PvE and ORvR (that is 50% PvE) but not for scenarios that are 100% PvP? That makes zero sense to me. I don't like how people want to reward ORvR, but not scenarios. How does that make sense? In scenarios, you have teams with the same number of players who are at least in the same level bracket, so kills and the win are usually the result of skilled play (there are times when you are randomly put into teams that are very low level verses a team that is very high level or that you have no healers or 80% healers, etc. but for the most part scenario results reflect skill). Open RVR on the other hand gives good rewards even if you have 50 players that are playing in the tier below them (on Hardcore servers), and the best rewards are not even the result of PvP but the result of PvE versus raid bosses in keeps. Yet they continuously raise the xp from kills in ORvR and now they are even giving out purple loot for people who play a ton of it. On the Hardcore servers, it is not unusual to see a high level guild "gearing up" their tier 3 players by having 5 level 40s form a warband with them and then easily take on keep lords as if they were normal battlefield objectives. If you are a normal player, the trick is to defend keeps as this can result in thousands of points of infamy if you are able to stop an invading force, and if you do not have too many leeches in your warband, it can also result in excellent xp and reknown. ORvR is already by far the best rewarded activity in Warhammer with the best access to PvP loot. Does it really need any additional incentives? It is so well rewarded now that even I --someone who finds PvE raid bosses very boring and is thus only mildly interested in ORvR because it adds variety-- find myself playing ORvR frequently. They've already made it so enticing that those of us who are not that interested do it a lot so that those of you who ARE interested have people to play against, so why keep adding stuff to it? Do you want to make it so beneficial that scenarios and PQ look like a complete waste of time in comparison to ORvR because right now they aren't as beneficial but they are still fun and rewarding enough to not feel like a waste of time. Edit: Grammar Message Edited by bean on 03-10-2009 12:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thistle
Member

27
24
|

Aodhanna
House Sarkonath
Phoenix Throne
|
|
20.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-10-2009 01:07 PM
|
|
|

|
|
I too agree that a token system, implemented as described above (or very similarly), would reduce a LOT of the randomness of loot and make everyone feel they did receive something for their efforts. Would also help reward those willing to play a "needed" class rather than the one they actually prefer themselves, which in a game where healers are at a premium, would truly be a nice touch. About scen tokens: I think I agree that you should also get token drops from scen player kills. However, having said that - with Zone Domination as currently structured, giving tokens from scenario player kills might reduce player numbers in ORvR (kills being more likely in scens than ORvR on any given night), which probably isn't what Mythic wants. But the ZD discussion is on a diff thread, I didn't mean to hijack... just saying... Thanks, excellent suggestion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beazy
Contributor

36
33
|

Beazyfasho
Black Blood
Badlands
|
|
21.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-10-2009 02:11 PM
|
|
|

|
|
/signed ! Needs to happen soon
I r luv cheeze
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
bean
Contributor

34
31
|

Glinnda
Retaliation
Volkmar
|
|
22.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-10-2009 02:17 PM
|
|
|

|
|
Thistle - I understand that rewards for kills in scenarios are lower as scenarios are better structured than ORvR and thus lead to more direct conflict than ORvR (where often the best you can do is run away in order to prevent an overwhelming force from harvesting points from your inevitable defeat). Why not work out the token system to have the same ratio for xp/kill as token/kill in order to continue rewarding ORvR so extravagantly that people will endure it (and provide enough of a playerbase for those who are interested in it as their primary focus to continue to enjoy it)? I'm one of the players who would rather be doing other things than ORvR but who does them because ORvR is rewarded so extravagantly, so it is obviously working. My only problem is the suggestion that a token system should cut scenario players out of the reward loop completely; not that both activities be rewarded equally. Obviously ORvR needs to be propped up by extravagant rewards in order to interest enough people to make it viable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Livewire
Contributor

40
68
|

Livewire
The Forsaken
Vortex
|
|
23.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
[ Edited ]
03-10-2009 02:29 PM
|
|
|

|
|
Ok so lets take a step back and look at the situation. - Mythic had a token system when the game first launched and they chose against it.
- People want a token system because they believe that it would make gearing up faster, this is not the case.
- Both a token system and the current system would be made so that you would average the same time to get a full set of gear - so both systems would be a grind and neither one would save you any time.
- The difference between the two grinds is that one involves a certain level of surprise and excitement when you finally hit that one piece of gear you had been missing.
- They are, from my knowledge, already using a token system for king fights and perhaps the new dungeon. This is good as these fights are supposed to be the hardest of the hard and only giving a certain amount of gold bags would make these epic battles, which you should want to do just for the battle not the loot, seem somewhat meaningless for the loot centric players. So taking away something, anything, to show your hard work is needed as these only happen in the rarest of cases. However, keeps/forts and lower level dungeons should not be given a token system as they happen often enough where you don't need to be rewarded every single time. This is shown by:
- Dungeons giving loot as they are the easiest to access. - Keeps, forts, city siege, etc. giving bags. - King fights giving tokens. The rarer the case the more incentive people need to do them even if it would take the same amount of time to get the loot via bag or drop people people just want something to show for it. In the end, it doesn't matter. What you people want is loot and neither method would get you that loot any faster so please stop asking for it. Message Edited by Livewire on 03-10-2009 02:32 PM
Livewire - Runepriest RR68 Peacepipe - Whitelion RR55 Icarus - KotBS RR47
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fallensbane
Contributor

40
70
|

Rayveness
The Descendants
Gorfang
|
|
24.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
03-10-2009 02:37 PM
|
|
|

|
|
I posted something similiar to the OP's suggestion in the past and I concur, a system like this needs to be added.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SaijaRii
Contributor

40
63
|

Schurge
Purgatory
Gorfang
|
|
25.
Re: One way to implement a viable token system
[ Edited ]
03-10-2009 02:47 PM
|
|
|

|
|
Eh, something needs to be done, but your token system is not what we need. That makes it way to easy. I feel for the people who have been at forty for months and still don't have at the least full Anihilator Gear, but this is not the answer. What they need to do is make a Pass system for keep seiges and PQs (Master Loot isn't viable in big keep raids) and make it so dungeon runs always yield something that someone in the group needs. No looting slayer boots before the class is in the game or four pairs of rune priest shoulders when there is only one rune priest in the group. Tokens are nice in theory, but the way you suggest they be implemented is to liberal. Then again we don't know how much tokens you feel need to be had to trade in the gear... so it might not be as easy as you make it sound. Edit: And you shouldn't be able to buy or sell tokens if such a system is implemented. There are other ways to stimulate the in-game economy. IMO this wouldn't help the economy at all, but encourage gold buying. Message Edited by SaijaRii on 03-10-2009 01:50 PM
Schurge - Maurader - Gorfang - (Active)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|