Why close the scenario thread...

[Hargrim]

I dont know if its been said, there are 13 pages to this thread and I really don't wanna read though it all - props to those that do.

Remember on Live they had it for a while where SCs were a vital part of zone flips and campaigns?

VPs were calculated based on:
-Scenario victories for the related pairing (ie. Battle for Praag would contribute to Chaos/Emp pairing campaign),
-Battle Field Objectives,
-PVP kills & deaths,
-PVE (PQs completed),
-Previous Tier campaign status,

Spoiler:

Flip Chaos/Emp T1 to contribute to VP for Chaos/Emp T2 campaign,
Flip Chaos/Emp T2 to contribute to VP for Chaos/Emp T3 campaign,
Flip Chaos/Emp T3 to contribute to VP for Chaos/Emp T4 campaign.

I wanted to suggest: maybe we can take a page out of their book and look to integrate SCs as part of the campaign to potentially break up the blobs a bit, encourage smaller group play, and allow those 6man groups to have some sort of contribution towards realm campaign progression.

We love WAR and I really hate to see how dead its gotten lately. Its really sad to see that server was upped to 1500 capacity but we can barely even maintain 300 in NA prime.


Edit: VP = Victory Points, I failed to define it, sorry! Also should have said that there was a threshold of (whatever #) of VPs to be able to flip a zone and it couldn't be flipped with simply keep takes and BFOs alone.

Do you know why this was removed from live?

[Alfa1986]

Sc have always been a special separate part of the game content, along with rvr, and pve. I know people who downoad the game just to play a couple of quick scs and go about their business, they don’t play sieges, don’t go to dungeons, they play only in scs. So I think the opinion of some players that everything will die and this great exaggeration perishes. The weapon that is given for the emblems on the scripts is one of the best in the game, here I also do not understand what people are talking about.

Sc is the only thing in the game that works fine. It may be worthwhile for developers to think further about linking victories on sieges with sieges, for example, the faction that has more victories on scripts has some advantages in rvr, but this is not the first necessity. In my opinion, there are far more problems with the process than sieges and fortress.

Scs will always have their own fans, even if they don’t give any awards at all, because only there you can fight with an equal number of opponents and win thanks to the skill and not because of the number (zerg). Also, only here you can see and compare statistics, and correct your skills, builds, stats, and so on.

[Alfa1986]

Remember on Live they had it for a while where SCs were a vital part of zone flips and campaigns?

VPs were calculated based on:
-Scenario victories for the related pairing (ie. Battle for Praag would contribute to Chaos/Emp pairing campaign),
-Battle Field Objectives,
-PVP kills & deaths,
-PVE (PQs completed),
-Previous Tier campaign status,
[

+100500

Yes, the very first siege system was the most interesting, but time and the most difficult. and complex systems require very careful handling and often break. thinking now to developers it is simply not within the power of doing such a huge amount of work. Imagine how many future bugs will be possible at every stage of the siege, if now the usual ram causes so many problems. and a bug in which PQ will not allow to block the zone after taking the keep, and it will come every 3 hours to reboot the server.

[Ototo]

Remember on Live they had it for a while where SCs were a vital part of zone flips and campaigns?

VPs were calculated based on:
-Scenario victories for the related pairing (ie. Battle for Praag would contribute to Chaos/Emp pairing campaign),
-Battle Field Objectives,
-PVP kills & deaths,
-PVE (PQs completed),
-Previous Tier campaign status,
[

+100500

Yes, the very first siege system was the most interesting, but time and the most difficult. and complex systems require very careful handling and often break. thinking now to developers it is simply not within the power of doing such a huge amount of work. Imagine how many future bugs will be possible at every stage of the siege, if now the usual ram causes so many problems. and a bug in which PQ will not allow to block the zone after taking the keep, and it will come every 3 hours to reboot the server.

Interesting my balls. You had, in example, 24 players in a zone. You needed to coordinate them so: 12 patrol the RvR lake, 6 joined a scenario, and 6 more moved to PvE to do Public Quests. Now lets imagine that you are in the opposite realm and you don't want the zone to lock. What did you do? Easy. Just noone join scenario queues till the opposite realm get bored, we work in our own PQs to counter-balance, or the zone Victory Points naturally reset. Guess what happened all the time? Yeah. No zone locks. Cause the enemy realm was the one that decided if you can lock it or no.

[Alfa1986]

Remember on Live they had it for a while where SCs were a vital part of zone flips and campaigns?

VPs were calculated based on:
-Scenario victories for the related pairing (ie. Battle for Praag would contribute to Chaos/Emp pairing campaign),
-Battle Field Objectives,
-PVP kills & deaths,
-PVE (PQs completed),
-Previous Tier campaign status,
[

+100500

Yes, the very first siege system was the most interesting, but time and the most difficult. and complex systems require very careful handling and often break. thinking now to developers it is simply not within the power of doing such a huge amount of work. Imagine how many future bugs will be possible at every stage of the siege, if now the usual ram causes so many problems. and a bug in which PQ will not allow to block the zone after taking the keep, and it will come every 3 hours to reboot the server.

Interesting my balls. You had, in example, 24 players in a zone. You needed to coordinate them so: 12 patrol the RvR lake, 6 joined a scenario, and 6 more moved to PvE to do Public Quests. Now lets imagine that you are in the opposite realm and you don't want the zone to lock. What did you do? Easy. Just noone join scenario queues till the opposite realm get bored, we work in our own PQs to counter-balance, or the zone Victory Points naturally reset. Guess what happened all the time? Yeah. No zone locks. Cause the enemy realm was the one that decided if you can lock it or no.

your balls are not interesting to anyone here, so hide them away. Why argue if in any case now it can not be done? But if the server population is quite large, how can you prevent all (500 people) from joining the sc queue? but even if the scripts do not spend, we simply do not consider them all. another thing is that on the one hand (defenders) they can play premeydes, and with the other (attacking) pugs, and then the result will be bad for the attacking ones. I'm not saying that that system was simple and correct, I say that it was interesting and complex, at least it was more interesting to play than today.

[Ototo]

+100500

Yes, the very first siege system was the most interesting, but time and the most difficult. and complex systems require very careful handling and often break. thinking now to developers it is simply not within the power of doing such a huge amount of work. Imagine how many future bugs will be possible at every stage of the siege, if now the usual ram causes so many problems. and a bug in which PQ will not allow to block the zone after taking the keep, and it will come every 3 hours to reboot the server.

Interesting my balls. You had, in example, 24 players in a zone. You needed to coordinate them so: 12 patrol the RvR lake, 6 joined a scenario, and 6 more moved to PvE to do Public Quests. Now lets imagine that you are in the opposite realm and you don't want the zone to lock. What did you do? Easy. Just noone join scenario queues till the opposite realm get bored, we work in our own PQs to counter-balance, or the zone Victory Points naturally reset. Guess what happened all the time? Yeah. No zone locks. Cause the enemy realm was the one that decided if you can lock it or no.

your balls are not interesting to anyone here, so hide them away. Why argue if in any case now it can not be done? But if the server population is quite large, how can you prevent all (500 people) from joining the sc queue? but even if the scripts do not spend, we simply do not consider them all. another thing is that on the one hand (defenders) they can play premeydes, and with the other (attacking) pugs, and then the result will be bad for the attacking ones. I'm not saying that that system was simple and correct, I say that it was interesting and complex, at least it was more interesting to play than today.

You obviously have never played in live server with this system, or your memory of it is over-romsntic

[Alfa1986]

Interesting my balls. You had, in example, 24 players in a zone. You needed to coordinate them so: 12 patrol the RvR lake, 6 joined a scenario, and 6 more moved to PvE to do Public Quests. Now lets imagine that you are in the opposite realm and you don't want the zone to lock. What did you do? Easy. Just noone join scenario queues till the opposite realm get bored, we work in our own PQs to counter-balance, or the zone Victory Points naturally reset. Guess what happened all the time? Yeah. No zone locks. Cause the enemy realm was the one that decided if you can lock it or no.

your balls are not interesting to anyone here, so hide them away. Why argue if in any case now it can not be done? But if the server population is quite large, how can you prevent all (500 people) from joining the sc queue? but even if the scripts do not spend, we simply do not consider them all. another thing is that on the one hand (defenders) they can play premeydes, and with the other (attacking) pugs, and then the result will be bad for the attacking ones. I'm not saying that that system was simple and correct, I say that it was interesting and complex, at least it was more interesting to play than today.

You obviously have never played in live server with this system, or your memory of it is over-romsntic

I played, moreover I remember well that many people did not like it. but there are always dissatisfied, there are always those who don't care, there are always those who like it. “interesting” does not mean correct, balanced or ideal, the idea itself was interesting, the practical implementation of this idea was bad. Now if you turn your attention to the PQs, who is doing it now? Who needs it now? no one, and yet this is a huge work of developers, it was necessary to make up various PQs of varying degrees of complexity across all 22 chapters each side. and such a huge content turned out to be unnecessary to anyone and was not included in the siege strategy, I think it is not very pleasant for devs that such work turned out to be essentially incremental.

[Ototo]

your balls are not interesting to anyone here, so hide them away. Why argue if in any case now it can not be done? But if the server population is quite large, how can you prevent all (500 people) from joining the sc queue? but even if the scripts do not spend, we simply do not consider them all. another thing is that on the one hand (defenders) they can play premeydes, and with the other (attacking) pugs, and then the result will be bad for the attacking ones. I'm not saying that that system was simple and correct, I say that it was interesting and complex, at least it was more interesting to play than today.

You obviously have never played in live server with this system, or your memory of it is over-romsntic

I played, moreover I remember well that many people did not like it. but there are always dissatisfied, there are always those who don't care, there are always those who like it. “interesting” does not mean correct, balanced or ideal, the idea itself was interesting, the practical implementation of this idea was bad. Now if you turn your attention to the PQs, who is doing it now? Who needs it now? no one, and yet this is a huge work of developers, it was necessary to make up various PQs of varying degrees of complexity across all 22 chapters each side. and such a huge content turned out to be unnecessary to anyone and was not included in the siege strategy, I think it is not very pleasant for devs that such work turned out to be essentially incremental.

Whatever, dude. Your memory has made was basically was a huge explotaible mess into a romantic idea.

[Zod24]

You obviously have never played in live server with this system, or your memory of it is over-romsntic

I played, moreover I remember well that many people did not like it. but there are always dissatisfied, there are always those who don't care, there are always those who like it. “interesting” does not mean correct, balanced or ideal, the idea itself was interesting, the practical implementation of this idea was bad. Now if you turn your attention to the PQs, who is doing it now? Who needs it now? no one, and yet this is a huge work of developers, it was necessary to make up various PQs of varying degrees of complexity across all 22 chapters each side. and such a huge content turned out to be unnecessary to anyone and was not included in the siege strategy, I think it is not very pleasant for devs that such work turned out to be essentially incremental.

Whatever, dude. Your memory has made was basically was a huge explotaible mess into a romantic idea.

you are my favourite banga banga!

[Luth]

Spoiler:

That makes no sense.
The average player is a living being, capable of learning, evolving and adapting to a different environment.
Players in a scenario are active participants. The players are not the liquids, they are the ones who use the liquids and maybe pour them together if the see fit; this or every other tool that can be operated by them.
You just degraded players to abiotic objects.
Same goes for "luring players into that area"; that happens maybe one time for a group of newbies and then they decide to stay away or get better.

i see those ppl everyday.
afk in fort, afk in sc, let's lose to get fort, let's do nothing to farm them etc.
you'll get those ppl inside no-objective kill trade SC farming.
to farm whatever reward in there.
not much different from current SC,
more easy to farm kills or afk after 1 wipe.
hope u get challenge and competition in there, i really do.
so i don't see nobrains in objective strategy game.

When players do that, they act within the borders of the game mechanic; it's symptomatic, but not the cause.
If low effort leads to success, it is no surprise if some people don't evolve; you reap what you sow, i guess.

I don't think it has anything to do with the mental capabilities of the playerbase; but as you mentioned it: normally distributed, e.g. intelligence

Spoiler: