Saving Scenarios (the endangered species part of WAR)

[peterthepan3]

His tone is somewhat interesting but the core points he's making are points that I have made myself in other topics on RvR. The greater the numbers, the less the side effects of skills matter, the more laggy it gets, the more it boils down to greater numbers, cheese (like pull/KD to zerg) and AoE damage/heal spam. If this game didn't have scenarios I wouldn't even log in.

I'd also like to add to anyone who is going to denigrate one aspect of the game over the other (beyond pointing out flaws in that aspect) by making some statement like "WAR is about X, not Y": You're talking crap. You didn't write the game. You didn't design it. You don't get to say what WAR is about. WAR contains both scenarios and ORvR and it is about both.

Cmon Az be realistic. Its not an opinion...the sheer quantity of content that is designated to orvr (as oppose to the comparably simple scenario system) indicates that the game is about the orvr. Scs are the side show. It is obvious and simple common sense that this is how it was intended to be. Youre the one talking complete and utter crap here. Its like me saying Hearthstone isnt about Tavern Brawl and you responding saying I couldnt possibly know what the developers intended even though its perfectly obvious what their intentions were.

1) Noone is disputing that RvR is the overall draw factor to WAR: it is unique in the fact that it was one of maybe 2/3 pvp games that promoted large scale PvP with siege mechanics etc. I wouldn't dream of telling anyone that this game isn't about large-scale RvR, because it is: but you can't ignore other elements (PvE, scenarios, crafting - whatever, even roleplay) that motivate people to play. Similarly to Aza, if scenarios weren't implemented I wouldn't touch this game to be perfectly honest as I find RvR not that big a challenge after you've played several other competitive PvP mmos. But that's my opinion, and I respect other viewpoints.

2) Why did scenarios used to contribute to zone locks? Why was EC a 6v6 scenario?

3) On the contrary: the game is dead, and so the developers we have now - to whom we owe a great deal and ought to be grateful for - are in charge of which direction the game ought to go. Also, you should be happy that the devs here actually communicate with us and have implemented quite a lot of changes in their pursuit of overall balance.

4) You seem to disregard that a SIGNIFICANT amount of players in RoR want to focus on scenarios/smallscale - probably a greater percentage than on live as we only have the one server to cater to us all. Several of these such players have voiced their opinions in this very thread.

I see a great deal of people posting here and on other threads essentially demonising scenarios - while never participating in them/recycling the same ol' 'premade vs pug waa!!' material! If it doesn't concern you, appeals to a large percentage of the playerbase and devs - while also gaining their support - then why must you feel the need to shut down anyone who dare oppose the status zerg quo?

[catholicism198]

stuff

No one is "shutting them down." If you want to roll a premade- fine- it's your prerogative. Just don't expect other people to join SCs and waste their time getting steam rolled for hours and getting little to no renown and emblems. No thanks.

[peterthepan3]

stuff

No one is "shutting them down." If you want to roll a premade- fine- it's your prerogative. Just don't expect other people to join SCs and waste their time getting steam rolled for hours and getting little to no renown and emblems. No thanks.

Similarly don't expect people to be too eager to participate in RvR when its a case of 'who has the most numbers, wins' Let's not derail and use strawmanz, fam. People are just asking for some small medallion drops - even if it has to adhere to criteria such as that posited by Volgo, i.e only in a certain scenario and dependent on X amount of wins - to make up for the fact that the current rr/xp gain is meh. Again, I don't see why anyone who doesn't actually do scenarios would be bothered too much by this just as a horse racer in Scotland doesn't care how a croissant maker in France makes his money!

[bwdaWAR]

Spoiler:

stuff

No one is "shutting them down." If you want to roll a premade- fine- it's your prerogative. Just don't expect other people to join SCs and waste their time getting steam rolled for hours and getting little to no renown and emblems. No thanks.

Similarly don't expect people to be too eager to participate in RvR when its a case of 'who has the most numbers, wins' Let's not derail and use strawmanz, fam. People are just asking for some small medallion drops - even if it has to adhere to criteria such as that posited by Volgo, i.e only in a certain scenario and dependent on X amount of wins - to make up for the fact that the current rr/xp gain is meh. Again, I don't see why anyone who doesn't actually do scenarios would be bothered too much by this just as a horse racer in Scotland doesn't care how a croissant maker in France makes his money!

Please don't imply that scenario rewards are completely unrelated to ORvR. While it's true that there are players who prefer the small scale of SCs to the large scale of ORvR and vice versa, there are also lots and lots of players who will go where the easiest rewards are. So there is such a thing as too high rewards for scenarios which may very well threaten Open RvR, especially since SCs do have a few convenience factors over ORvR (they can be done anywhere, need less players to "start" and so on).
I'll also repost the question so enthusiastically ignored by SC lobbyists in here: do people who prefer the large scale PvP get the same deal in regard to emblems?

[Azarael]

Cmon Az be realistic. Its not an opinion...the sheer quantity of content that is designated to orvr (as oppose to the comparably simple scenario system) indicates that the game is about the orvr. Scs are the side show. It is obvious and simple common sense that this is how it was intended to be. Youre the one talking complete and utter crap here. Its like me saying Hearthstone isnt about Tavern Brawl and you responding saying I couldnt possibly know what the developers intended even though its perfectly obvious what their intentions were.

Except you fall flat. The scenario system is actually more complex than the RvR. Look at what you've got:

- Wealth of gametypes (domination, ctf, artifact control, bombing, etc)
- Numerous maps designed specifically for SCs
- Archetype / team balancing

What do you have in RvR? A part of the landscape was cordoned off, made devoid of NPCs and players are told to go fight over it. That landscape has to exist anyway, because all the maps are 65535x65535 square.

Then you've got beta players saying that the RvR was actually an afterthought and originally the game was designed around scenarios. It shows. The RvR design has/had numerous flaws that scenarios never did:

- No team/faction balancing combined with lack of third faction
- Zerg reducing skill/gameplay quality
- Overcentralization on keeps
- Mobility problems (taking ages to get back into the fight after dying)
- Saturation problems (trying to force hundreds of players into tiny keeps as it was on live)

And after that? You've got the fact that the game is the most competitive (i.e. plays the best and has the most depth) in 6v6. Not 100v100. Not even 24v24. 6v6. It's a typical MMO, with a vast number of skills and subtle side effects to those skills which work better in a smaller environment where individual choices matter more.

I don't know how you can stand there with a straight face and tell me I'm talking crap. I didn't even come out and say that RvR should be marginalized in comparison to SCs, I said that they're both part of the game. You seem determined to ensure that scenarios are considered the minigame. Well, they're not. They came first, they're better designed and balanced and they cater more to the game design's strength.

[peterthepan3]

increased rewards for scen will never 'threaten' rvr as true rvr fans/guilds will avoid scenarios like the plague as best they can. i personally wouldn't see a problem with emblems dropping at a reduced rate in rvr, sure, as long as you factor in how much more renown and xp you get from rvr, the influence rewards you can get from rvr, its relative ease and the BIS purple bag jewels, too.

aaaand pretty much what aza said ^ lul

[magter3001]

And after that? You've got the fact that the game is the most competitive (i.e. plays the best and has the most depth) in 6v6. Not 100v100. Not even 24v24. 6v6. It's a typical MMO, with a vast number of skills and subtle side effects to those skills which work better in a smaller environment where individual choices matter more.

I don't know how you can stand there with a straight face and tell me I'm talking crap. I didn't even come out and say that RvR should be marginalized in comparison to SCs, I said that they're both part of the game. You seem determined to ensure that scenarios are considered the minigame. Well, they're not. They came first, they're better designed and balanced and they cater more to the game design's strength.

I'm not so sure I agree with the game being most competitive in 6v6. I've done both 6v6, and large guild wbs vs guild wbs (back on live albeit) and both were just as competitive as the other. With 6v6, the competitive nature mostly came out of scenarios as you see it now. At the moment, we don't have the biggest gear gap as we did on live so most of the time the premade with the most coordination and skill usually win.

in 24v24 most of the competitiveness came from ORvR. My guild would communicate with other smaller guilds to take certain BOs or to queue scenarios (back in Victory Points days) and we would work together to lock a zone. The competitive nature came with the other realm doing the same thing except instead they are trying to stop you from locking a zone. Then when engagements began, you would have to pick the right place to fight, ideally with chokepoints, in order to fight off the enemy.

Both 6v6 and 24v24 are competitive, equally competitive. 6v6 I wager doesn't require as much coordination with other guilds or groups as you are generally stuck in grinding out scenarios. However your 6 man usually has some of the better players and most knowledgeable people on their respectable classes. 24 mans usually build their wbs around a certain playstyle be it melee morale drop or PBAoE groups based around BWs and lots of tanks and healers. Those 24 mans are usually very knowledgeable in how Orvr works, how to flip zones, and how to keep a zerg from falling apart.

[Gachimuchi]

I'm not so sure I agree with the game being most competitive in 6v6. I've done both 6v6, and large guild wbs vs guild wbs (back on live albeit) and both were just as competitive as the other. With 6v6, the competitive nature mostly came out of scenarios as you see it now. At the moment, we don't have the biggest gear gap as we did on live so most of the time the premade with the most coordination and skill usually win.

in 24v24 most of the competitiveness came from ORvR. My guild would communicate with other smaller guilds to take certain BOs or to queue scenarios (back in Victory Points days) and we would work together to lock a zone. The competitive nature came with the other realm doing the same thing except instead they are trying to stop you from locking a zone. Then when engagements began, you would have to pick the right place to fight, ideally with chokepoints, in order to fight off the enemy.

Both 6v6 and 24v24 are competitive, equally competitive. 6v6 I wager doesn't require as much coordination with other guilds or groups as you are generally stuck in grinding out scenarios. However your 6 man usually has some of the better players and most knowledgeable people on their respectable classes. 24 mans usually build their wbs around a certain playstyle be it melee morale drop or PBAoE groups based around BWs and lots of tanks and healers. Those 24 mans are usually very knowledgeable in how Orvr works, how to flip zones, and how to keep a zerg from falling apart.

Most of what you describe isn't being competitive, its called having logistics. When theres things such as guild/alliance chat it really isn't anything extraordinary.

What you describe as 'trying to pick the right place to fight' is known as funneling and doesn't really take all that much to do. Then you mash your AoE buttons... until one side dies. The players in this 24 man wb may be intimate with' the deepest intracaies of the little known workings of oRvR', and 'how to flip zones' and how to... keep your rands from dropping? Too bad they don't need to have hardy any knowledge of their class, they just need to know where their AoE buttons and AoE morale buttons are located. As stated earlier, anything that has an AoE component is much more useful than anything else you can do, and things become simplified. I really can't see how you can say '6v6 and 24v24 are equally competitive'.

[Ninepaces]

The scenario system is actually more complex than the RvR. Look at what you've got:

- Wealth of gametypes (domination, ctf, artifact control, bombing, etc)
- Numerous maps designed specifically for SCs
- Archetype / team balancing

No. Every scenario boils to simply rolling over the other team. You kill first, and cap the blag/bo/pick up ball when they're dead. Its how its always done. Only the noob plebs run around ghost capping while the other team farms them (and end up losing anyways).

What do you have in RvR? A part of the landscape was cordoned off, made devoid of NPCs and players are told to go fight over it. That landscape has to exist anyway, because all the maps are 65535x65535 square.

Then you've got beta players saying that the RvR was actually an afterthought and originally the game was designed around scenarios. It shows. The RvR design has/had numerous flaws that scenarios never did:

- No team/faction balancing combined with lack of third faction
- Zerg reducing skill/gameplay quality
- Overcentralization on keeps
- Mobility problems (taking ages to get back into the fight after dying)
- Saturation problems (trying to force hundreds of players into tiny keeps as it was on live)

RVR is part of the story. It has a narrative part to it. It is the store about the forces of chaos/orcs/dark elves attempting to invade the lands of the empire/high elves/dwarfs. Within this narrative t4 is supposed to represent each faction pushing and pulling until one side beats the either and is dominated. At that point, one of the side wins that round and the game is reset to start over again.

In terms of gameplay, there is an incredible amount of organization required to cap zones when outnumbering and defend zones when being outnumbered. Of course when there is no resistance its easy, but when there is resistance organization and wb discipline is required to know which bos to attack/defend or when you attack/defend a keep and so on. There is also the small matter of having to beat the other warbands over a BO. It is the constant fluctuation of population and situations that makes the game interesting. Keep warfare is in itself an art, but not everything. Many zones have been won or lost by a warband level clash at a BO that would either allow the continuation of a siege, or stall it for 15 min+ to allow the defending side to reinforce their positions.

Mobility problems are the penalty for dying. There has to be SOME downside to dying. That is it. It is the time it takes to get to x BO or to x keep and get back into the fight.

Saturation problems are not an issue in my eyes. It is part of the beauty of the system.

And after that? You've got the fact that the game is the most competitive (i.e. plays the best and has the most depth) in 6v6. Not 100v100. Not even 24v24. 6v6. It's a typical MMO, with a vast number of skills and subtle side effects to those skills which work better in a smaller environment where individual choices matter more.

Of course its the most competitive. I have played at the highest 6v6 level, with different guilds including the best 6v6 players (a guild I will not name that has recently taken some bans, as a guest). I never said it wasnt. But it is also the most repetitive, boring, and unbalanced. Some classes, (including my main) don't even get a sniff in your competitive 6v6. Even certain archetypes (rdps) hardly get a sniff over the preferred melee train. Whats the point of those other classes? Everyone has a roll in oRVR because since the scale of combat is so high you can hide deficiencies of certain classes through sheer numbers.
That being said, 6 mans can have an important part to play in oRVR. They just choose not to perform them. Like a scalpel they can hold a BO against superior numbers (to an extent) or hit an attacking group from the sides or at a postern or at an important part of the battlefield (like oil for example). A 6 man surrounded by pugs for bait/distraction can be even more dangerous.

I don't know how you can stand there with a straight face and tell me I'm talking crap. I didn't even come out and say that RvR should be marginalized in comparison to SCs, I said that they're both part of the game. You seem determined to ensure that scenarios are considered the minigame. Well, they're not. They came first, they're better designed and balanced and they cater more to the game design's strength.

I'm the one that has to ask YOU how you can say with a straight face that I'm talking crap.
I also said SCs should be part of the game. In my very first post I said the role they have in the game... they're fun little games where you can earn renown when there is a bit of down time in orvr lakes. But putting too emphasis on them and FORCING people to play them in order to get BiS detracts from the main part of the game and just pisses people off when they get rolled repeatedly because they dont have a premade (or double premade!!!) or they're kicked/not invited to premades because their class isnt wanted. Cmon man you're a dev for godsake.

Edit:
Someone sent me this via pm... a Q and A question:

Well, they're not. They came first, they're better designed and balanced and they cater more to the game design's strength.

Prodigal Apr 29, 2007 (Before beta)

MMOSITE.COM: RvR system is one of the most important reasons why WAR is greeted by the players. However, players now have different views on the RvR system. What is your understanding about RvR and what are the differences between PvP and RvR in WAR?

Richard: PvP is all about the player and personal gain. RvR is about being part of a larger group and fighting epic battles for a cause. In WAR, it s about leading your army to the doors of your opponent s capital city, kicking them down and then burning and pillaging the whole place.

[Brigamartis]

I would personally never set foot in RvR anymore unless I was defending a keep.

To be honest I,m of the complete opposite disuation. I don't find it at all enjoyable standing behind walls defending waiting for a 'tic'. I get a lot more enjoyment from assaulting walls, striving against the odds, and eventually(if I,m lucky) obtaining my objective. We all play to different values and levels of enjoyment however so I recognise that defending a wall can be just as enjoyable . I do like being a martyre tho^^