[scenarios] barriers

[Bozzax]

In short sc direction and development has been spearheaded by people not playing scenarios for 10 years

[Bozzax]

Adding 6v6, 12v12 ,24v24 faction scenarios (example orcs v stunts, dark elf vs light, chaos vs elf ….empire vs orc …) queues (add relics factin v faction) this is where you actually could have lifted ror to be more the warhammer ever was riding on strong ip and the force of those who love themes

That would have been epic and created so much free buzz and lured in the table top ppl

[lemao]

Scenarios as a game mode always was good enough to stand on it own. WOH even was created bc of how well it worked

Adding groups priority and sc barriers killed it entirely. This is where the sc backbone (regulars) left

The so called organised scenarios are crazy bad failures. The cross faction is a the worst idea ever in a warhammer setting

Simple as that lots of effort that made scs less

Ps quitter should be taken out as well as it actually increases the frequency of **** lineups and gives strong sides to high crest earnings. Let scs end by playing the objectives instead of teaching players objectives are secondary

Cross faction for solo ranked was the best thing they changed. Neutralised stacking on one site and therefore made the matchmaking better.
They should make the same for premades queueing normal scs so one site is not overstacked.

[Bozzax]

Yes one season then it bc **** bc of the bullying and trashing of players. Also mostly only good if you s-tier classes

Failed

[lemao]

Cross faction is not the reason it failed. It was alway a niche gamemode to begin with and not popular.

[saupreusse]

Don't get me wrong, I definitely agree with removing barriers from SCs. That was a disastrous change that's contributed to the destruction of scenarios and consequently player skill and small-scale RvR play.

However, ranged groups are able to dominate the middle of those two maps while easily kiting back to WC to punt people into guards.

And why shouldn't there be SCs where ranged dominate?

They were called "scenarios" for a reason. They were originally intended to force people to play in different ways to win. And the current devs took them and made just about every single one of them into "fight on the point or lose" with no chance of a comeback if you were even slightly outmatched i.e. murder box simulators.

Agree that devs have severely misunderstood the purpose of scenario objectives. However, you can have scenarios that favor range without having guards within 150ft of the area of play. Scenarios like Serpent's Passage or Blood of the Black Cairn are examples of scenarios where ranged comps have an advantage. Lots of open space and room to kite.

But this can easily be fixed by simply moving guards back a bit.

[agemennon675]

In short sc direction and development has been spearheaded by people not playing scenarios for 10 years

Quite the opposite, it was made by/with suggestions from the people who spammed scenarios mostly with a 6 man party at the time

[georgehabadasher]

And why shouldn't there be SCs where ranged dominate?

They were called "scenarios" for a reason. They were originally intended to force people to play in different ways to win. And the current devs took them and made just about every single one of them into "fight on the point or lose" with no chance of a comeback if you were even slightly outmatched i.e. murder box simulators.

Agree that devs have severely misunderstood the purpose of scenario objectives. However, you can have scenarios that favor range without having guards within 150ft of the area of play. Scenarios like Serpent's Passage or Blood of the Black Cairn are examples of scenarios where ranged comps have an advantage. Lots of open space and room to kite.

But this can easily be fixed by simply moving guards back a bit.

100% agree