1. We have a QA initiative where we work with the community more closely than ever to get your bug reports into the hands of the developers. Please use this forum for LIVE Server bug reporting. Do follow the format below, because it will help us out greatly in responding. If you do not, it's possible your bug report will be misinterpreted, or worse, lost!

    Read BEFORE submitting your first bug: Reporting Bugs… QA 101 Document
    • Search for your bug before posting in order to avoid duplicate reports.
    • Only reply to an existing thread if you have additional information for the reported bug. ALL extraneous commentary will be deleted to avoid cluttering the reports.
    • Keep your bug report short and factual.
    • There is no need to submit crash logs. Crash data we require is automatically logged.
    Bug Report Template
    1. Title:
    2. Reproduction Rate:
    3. Blocker?
    4. Details:
    5. Steps to Reproduce:
    6. User Specs:
    To get started, use /bug in-game (/devbug if on QA) to auto-create this template. It will even auto-fill some of the required information and open the browser for you. Then take the information that was just saved to your system's clipboard and paste it into a new QA forum post. Thank you bug hunters!
Dismiss Notice
This Section is READ ONLY - All Posts Are Archived

Sieges and matchmaking

Discussion in 'Release 63 QA Feedback' started by Lord Subtleton, Feb 25, 2019.

  1. Weins201

    Weins201 Avatar

    Messages:
    7,130
    Likes Received:
    10,989
    Trophy Points:
    153
    I have been in and out of sieges for a while and not once did I see it Hijacked or taken over. I actually completed about 6 over the past month or two and never saw a sole. I Take my time in them also. Hell I had a few where the engineers reset a few times.

    NOW if there was even ONE time that player had a Siege "ambushed" or taken over by any other player, then all that did was show how antisocial some players are and those are the exact players that some want to get away from.

    There are so many locations that anyone could gone into without treading on other players actions that it is not necessary, and if you did it and you did it repeatedly then you are the problem NOT the game or the players who wanted the change to be able to keep it private.

    The change to remove players option to be alone was a mistake, and as a result you see players complain about situations like this.

    Look people if there are players out there that enjoy treading on the work and game play of others, Chris is one of them, and some of the players want nothing to do with them, never did.. Now the game adjusts to funnel them into their own world so be it, but not one person can complain. If you want to be a jerk you can, but your way of playing should NOT interfere with anyone else's.

    We had to option of SPO and Friends Only for ever and the change was proven to produce the exact type of game play players wanted t avoid, now fixed

    Live
    Learn
    Adapt
    Overcome
    or sit by and be ran over.


    Now sieges have been a farce since implemented since they actually have zero to do with the actual town. The entire mechanic can just be moved and made an encounter ANYWHERE and it would be the exact same. "sieges" should have been integrated into the actual towns, the time taken to do so and the creativeness required should have been spent on actually making it a Siege, not just another encounter. If you want to complain about sieges complain bout that.
     
  2. Alley Oop

    Alley Oop Bug Brigade – Bug Hunter

    Messages:
    8,254
    Likes Received:
    13,376
    Trophy Points:
    153
    agreed. there's a difference between not forcing multi and not allowing multi. i don't see why people that want to enter multi can't, like an adventure scene. i don't want it myself, but if some people were having fun that way, and other people can sidestep it if it's not their kind of fun, that seems like the best of both worlds
     
    Sway, Elwyn, kaeshiva and 3 others like this.
  3. Asbury Baker

    Asbury Baker Bug Brigade – Bug Hunter

    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    No multiplayer-mode sieges means:
    * We will not run into new players in sieges, assist them and show them the ropes. I have done this several times in the past few weeks. I am sure I am not the only one.
    * The game may feel a bit more empty.
    * The top DPS player or group will not have a monopoly on Dolus Hoods. Since someone posted a new cabclock, I've been out-dpsed by a latecomer twice (out of 30 siege clearings). I also have avoided ~10 siege clearings.
    * I have had to either join or fend off new players interested in farming a zone I am in.

    Current mitigating factors:
    * Players can go to a POT siege to farm hoods (does someone need towrite a POT siege clock?)
    * Low population makes competition over hoods a surmountable problem.

    Suggestions @atos:
    * I would suggest enforcing or encouraging multiplayer sieges, to encourage player interaction. Negative interaction will only occur with higher level players, and those players should be able to suck it up and cope.
    * Someone could write a POT cabclock.

    Possible fix for people who want to farm sieges solo, whilst encouraging player interaction:

    Write a few lines of code and a new popup window when entering a siege zone, optionally only if the player is in private or party with no teammates.

    Code:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    |    Warning!  You are about to enter a siege [alone]!   This is  |
    |    not recommended for lower level players.                     |
    |                                                                 |
    |    Do you wish to switch to multiplayer before proceeding?      |
    |                                                                 |
    |     [Switch to Multi]                   [Do not change modes]   |
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Code:
    boost::regex  siege_expr {"siege"};
    if ( boost::regex_match(zone_name, siege_expr) )  {
      err = popup_mode_chooser(void * current_mode, void * user_choice);
      if (  err )   {
        // cleanup popup window and abort zone entry
        return somevalue;
      }
      if ( DIFFERENT == mode.compare(current_mode, mode_choice) )  {
        set_mode(mode_choice);
      }
      enter_zone(zone_name);
    }
    
    void * popup_mode_chooser(void * current_mode, void *user_choice)
    {
      // paint mode chooser
      // If user choice is set, return success
      // If popup is aborted, return fail
    }
    
     
    Elwyn and Antrax Artek like this.
  4. Antrax Artek

    Antrax Artek Avatar

    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    1,753
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Viborg
  5. OzzyOsbourne

    OzzyOsbourne Avatar

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Very unwise. I can only assume there has been complaints of people getting their sieges "taken" from them..... Folding to every whine will only show your weak knees in these matters.

    First time I ever saw a Dolus hood was with a pick-up group in said sieges, helping some noobs get a kill on a cabalist which they could never have taken on their own.
     
  6. OzzyOsbourne

    OzzyOsbourne Avatar

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    43
  7. CatweazleX

    CatweazleX Avatar

    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    602
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Veritas Sanctuary
  8. Jason_M

    Jason_M Avatar

    Messages:
    733
    Likes Received:
    1,127
    Trophy Points:
    93
    I could be totally wrong and/or paranoid, but this seems like testing the water for character-scaling to scenes.

    Personally, I'm very much opposed to character-scaling. Scene-scaling is a different matter (though also very controversial).

    I'll also add my voice to: Vote against forced solo on sieges! Choice is the spirit of SotA.
     
  9. Elnoth

    Elnoth Avatar

    Messages:
    669
    Likes Received:
    1,441
    Trophy Points:
    93
    What was wrong with how sieges were a couple of months ago where people who play open would enter a multiplayer siege with any other randoms that want to play it in open, while people who play in party mode will only ever see people in their own party in the siege, and people who play solo will never see any other player in the siege?

    Portalarium is displaying a remarkable ability to take something not broke and then break it, and then break it some more when they mis-interpret feedback.......
     
    margaritte, Jaesun, Elwyn and 2 others like this.
  10. Steevodeevo

    Steevodeevo Avatar

    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Rather than go back and forth: I'm pleased / not pleased with this change back, I will take a more personal tack and say that I am disappointed with this reversion for several reasons -

    1. The knee jerk change (again) of Devs to a small, but clearly persuasive group of players that didn't like sieges being multiplayer. What the Devs need to appreciate, if they don't already, is that there is a 'silent majority' out here.
    2. What @Antrax Artek said actually happened to me several times. I rarely group play, not because I don't want to, but because of my timezone, availability and the population. Several times I have found myself forming a PUG in a siege and having fun.
    3. The justifications for the people who wanted this changed back were exactly what happens in any open-world set-scene in every MMO I have ever played; some people will be dicks. This is NOT a reason to lock ourselves back into our solo cocoons, are we that anti social and thin skinned?
    4. Multiplayer only Sieges were probably the only open-world group content that SOTA possessed which was accessible and available for low, intermediate and high level players alike to randomly get together and have fun..

    Instead of the knee jerk, a broader consensus and a long term view should have been taken and ideally a means to prevent 'siege ganking' (stealing Cabalist drops after other players have done the hard graft on the Engineers) sought, or else people should have just put up with it until refinements could be identified.
     
    Sway, Elwyn, Dhanas and 1 other person like this.
  11. Scoffer

    Scoffer Avatar

    Messages:
    767
    Likes Received:
    2,331
    Trophy Points:
    93
    One of the main selling points about Shroud and one that portalarium are always trying to reinforce is that there are different game modes available. With sieges this removed that option and was forced Multi so fixing it was needed to keep the vision of the game that was set out from day 1.

    However, I don't understand the level cap imposed or the reasons for it. I can understand it in PVP to level the field so people can compete with those of us who have been playing for years but to level cap a siege which you can now choose to enter solo? why?
     
    margaritte, devilcult and kaeshiva like this.
  12. kaeshiva

    kaeshiva Avatar

    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    8,755
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Female
    This is classic pendulum swing methodology.

    There was nothing wrong with sieges they way they were before:
    Multiplayer OR Friends Mode, just like all other adventure scenes - this was fine.
    Selective multiplayer: lets players have the benefit and appeal of a multiplayer world while choosing to go partymode/ private so that everyone isn't tripping over each other fighting over the same few mobs/resources.

    Honestly though, compared to "forced open"? I think I prefer them acting like other encounters. Means you can go in, and have the option to invite people to come help you. The only thing that wont happen is people wandering in/out of your scene or being in there when you enter (making entering a waste of your time.)

    Its rare that I've met someone in a siege that couldn't solo it or actually needed help. Especially since you're in enforced multiplayer on both ends - the world map and the town. There's local chat, and universe chat now, if people need help - not to mention forums, guildchat, there are plenty of opportunities to help the "lost lambs."

    We can't design the whole game around "what if we happen to see a new player wandering into a really high level scene and we need to be able to be there and help them!" Why not....they got their butt kicked, and asked for a group? We're not asking for forced multiplayer in every other scene where this could happen, just sieges? Makes no sense.

    Overall, I think this is an improvement in terms of matchmaking....

    ......but, there's always a caveat, isn't there? Fix one thing, and.....

    The more baffling bit is the new imposed level cap ...I think we all understand the motivations behind doing this in a PvP scene, but now for adventure scenes? Really? Then why level up your character higher if you're just going to be capped everywhere? This sets a dangerous precedent and basically stalls character development. If that's the case, my character's "done" about 100 times over, so...why am I still playing/levelling up skills?

    If this is meant to encourage grouping/limit soloing ...it wont, not really.

    The people who are soloing things can and will do it irrespective of level, due to gear and a good knowledge of mechanics (and buttonmashing dexterity!).

    They will keep soloing it. No problem. Caps just make it difficult for everyone else who perhaps don't have enough time to sit around and try to form a group.

    All this will do is encourage more minmaxing and more flavour of the month builds to retain self sufficiency and due to arbitrary limits, non-optimized builds will cease to be viable.

    So much for variety.

    This change is much like mending the fence but then shooting the cow anyway.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019
    Sway and margaritte like this.
  13. OzzyOsbourne

    OzzyOsbourne Avatar

    Messages:
    326
    Likes Received:
    304
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Sieges should be OPEN PVP, ITS A SIEGE. Not an antifa protest full of hippies..... these are CABALISTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wth
     
    Dhanas and Steevodeevo like this.
  14. oplek

    oplek Avatar

    Messages:
    809
    Likes Received:
    1,923
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm all for having sieges the way they were - selective multiplayer - which was a big draw for a lot of people to play. Enough with the personal assessments that someone is't playing "correctly" and must comply with one's own playstyle.
     
    Elnoth, Elwyn and kaeshiva like this.
  15. Ranger Hagge

    Ranger Hagge Avatar

    Messages:
    13
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    3
    I think all of your ideas suck, im gona be abit more extreme:
    Remove singel and party mode all together when you play multiplayer and then keep offline mode for the singelplayers.
    Then make all zones pvp and add a criminal system and then we are good to go!
     
    Dhanas likes this.
  16. kaeshiva

    kaeshiva Avatar

    Messages:
    2,297
    Likes Received:
    8,755
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Female
    Yeah, I'm not really sure if there's some technical limitation or problem with putting it back how it was before the forced multi change, but that seemed to satisfy most people.

    Not sure where the whole idea to start neutering/scaling PvE scenes came from, but its a really worrying precedent.
     
  17. Aartemis

    Aartemis Avatar

    Messages:
    1,329
    Likes Received:
    3,655
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    The REAL problem here is the scalability of the Scene.

    Sieges should not in any way, shape or form be solo-able, or win-able with a small group. If you give the players the ability to accomplish the task in a small group or solo then they will want exclusivity of it.

    At this point, they can do what they want with these maps, but PLEASE get back to working on the large Castle and Keep sieges that they began working on last year. THESE are the maps they need and you need many players to turn the balance. It should be something you need 15-20 people to complete. This should be the MP Siege scenes you can simply join into.
     
    margaritte, Dhanas and kaeshiva like this.
  18. Dhanas

    Dhanas Avatar

    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    797
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I want to let you know that igg flow and xp are much more in Upper Tears. Why do you Think sieges should be capped and upper tear no?

    Totaly agree on what you said about Castle sieges
     
  19. Aartemis

    Aartemis Avatar

    Messages:
    1,329
    Likes Received:
    3,655
    Trophy Points:
    125
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio
    I have no issues with capping or what people can gain in the zones. My statement is completely based upon the fact that a siege should be a multi-player event and the fact that you can solo, or small group this map makes people want exclusivity to it. If you are going to have a siege scene meant to be collaborated on, don't make it clearable by a single group or solo player.
     
    xadoor, Dhanas, Elwyn and 1 other person like this.
  20. Elwyn

    Elwyn Avatar

    Messages:
    3,394
    Likes Received:
    4,497
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    Don't "beginners" automatically bypass siege scenes anyhow? (or at least they did before the bypass prompt was implemented)

    I'd personally like to see it allow open mode as well as party and solo, but I think allowing solo is more important if the ONLY choices are solo/party vs forced-open.

    Even more reason to allow open-multi for impromptu collaboration.

    That had been talked about for lower-level areas to reduce "steamrolling". I'm fine with it as long as it's not "scaling", making an area equally hard no matter what your level/skill is, which is a problem because that's too dependent on player skill and class/build. Not everybody has the same amount of awesome juice for the arbitrary scaling level, nor the desire to be forced to party for non-raid content. But I'm a bit iffy about sieges being the first place we see it.

    I think they've specifically been talking about skill caps in some areas, not scaling, and caps like 80 or 100, which were intended normal "good" skill levels from the start. If it's basically just to nerf the 100+ folks in some areas, I won't have a problem with it. It's scaling by an arbitrary factor, or capping to very low levels that I have a problem with.
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2019