Siege weapons

[Kattastrof]

But wont people just abuse it for bo control and never take keeps. Just farm with your siegeweapons?

[Genisaurus]

But wont people just abuse it for bo control and never take keeps. Just farm with your siegeweapons?

Then the keeps don't get taken.
And the fight never moves to Forts. So nobody gets Conqueror gear.
And the fight never moves to cities. So nobody gets Invader, Warlord, or Sovereign gear.
Nobody gets to participate in events or dungeons that we tie to the campaign state.

Sure, there is a real risk that people will work hard to create and maintain the most boring game state they possibly can. They will then also likely blaming us for creating a system that enabled that to happen. It would be, as they say, a community problem.

But that's no different than what we have now. You could just as accurately say, "But wont people just abuse it for keep defenses and never take keeps. Just farm with your siege weapons?"

We can give all the motivation to players in the forms of renown, influence and gear, but eventually those rewards run out. The community needs to be able to motivate themselves. For our part, we need to make a system that's fun enough for them to want to do so. Maybe that's not possible with what we're trying, but it certainly wasn't possible with what we had in WAR.

[magter3001]

Does this mean that the method of locking zones will revolve around controlling BOs then? Is orvr gonna be similar to how scenarios grant points before finally locking or what is the method of locking zones gonna be then if BOs are a big part? Sorry for all these questions but i think you can understand that some people are concerned about the state of Orvr in the future.

We can give all the motivation to players in the forms of renown, influence and gear, but eventually those rewards run out. The community needs to be able to motivate themselves. For our part, we need to make a system that's fun enough for them to want to do so. Maybe that's not possible with what we're trying, but it certainly wasn't possible with what we had in WAR.

All content runs out eventually.... just look at WoW and all the content that they continually had to add after launch. They had to add raids, gear... new end game content because eventually they new everyone would get it. You guys gotta understand that there will be people who play for that carrot... and once they reach it, they will stop playing. That's not your fault, nor is it the player's... it just the way things are.

[catholicism198]

Is siege weapon farming that lucrative?
I deployed one the other day during a keep siege and only went from rr43.5 to rr44.1

...and yes, I also always see the same people using siege weapons.....always.

[drmordread]

I am going to cry when there are no more large scale battles of three to four WB on one side and three to four wb on the other side, smashing them down the lake to their keep and then taking that away from them too.

I am sorry, I am a fan of WARHAMMER a mmo about war. You want to turn it into small scale multiple skirmishes, and grudgingly I admit your system would work to do just that. There are though some problems you have not thought of.

1- The average player joins a guild for the perks of banners, horses and just friends to have fun with. NOT to form highly trained/competitive small groups that will work together with other guilds/alliances to effectively fight small separate skirmishes that can beat an enemy back to their keep.

2- The average player will sit on the sidelines or back on live, do SC's till the WB's reached the enemy keep. (when SC's were worth doing for medallions and emblems, a high rr reward and in the real old days INF as well)
Then, they would ride down, join one of the pug wb's, take keep, leave wb, and go on to next zone.

3. The average player is not interested in tactics, guild groups, or anything like that.

All of your changes, while actually pretty good, are not changes that take the average player into consideration. So, why should the average player invest more time into this game that you are working so hard to resurrect and I am thankful to play?

[magicthighs]

I am going to cry when there are no more large scale battles of three to four WB on one side and three to four wb on the other side, smashing them down the lake to their keep and then taking that away from them too.

I am sorry, I am a fan of WARHAMMER a mmo about war. You want to turn it into small scale multiple skirmishes, and grudgingly I admit your system would work to do just that. There are though some problems you have not thought of.

1- The average player joins a guild for the perks of banners, horses and just friends to have fun with. NOT to form highly trained/competitive small groups that will work together with other guilds/alliances to effectively fight small separate skirmishes that can beat an enemy back to their keep.

2- The average player will sit on the sidelines or back on live, do SC's till the WB's reached the enemy keep. (when SC's were worth doing for medallions and emblems, a high rr reward and in the real old days INF as well)
Then, they would ride down, join one of the pug wb's, take keep, leave wb, and go on to next zone.

3. The average player is not interested in tactics, guild groups, or anything like that.

All of your changes, while actually pretty good, are not changes that take the average player into consideration. So, why should the average player invest more time into this game that you are working so hard to resurrect and I am thankful to play?

I think a better question is, why should we cater to people who want to reap the rewards for other people's hard work?

[bloodi]

I think a better question is, why should we cater to people who want to reap the rewards for other people's hard work?

Oh god, not this again.

Can you please stop using fallacies like this? People who want to progress by just playing are not "people whop want to reap the rewards of others people hard work". Stop using the "poisoning the well" fallacy.

Every time people brings up reward systems, you appear and say this, this is not an argument, at all.

[magicthighs]

Bloodi, I'm replying to a post that literally stated this:

The average player will sit on the sidelines or back on live, do SC's till the WB's reached the enemy keep. (when SC's were worth doing for medallions and emblems, a high rr reward and in the real old days INF as well)
Then, they would ride down, join one of the pug wb's, take keep, leave wb, and go on to next zone.

That's precisely what I'm talking about, and it was a huge problem on mythic's servers.

And since you claim I make this argument every time rewards are mentioned, I guess you won't have trouble linking some examples. I'm waiting.

[RyanMakara]

I think a better question is, why should we cater to people who want to reap the rewards for other people's hard work?

Oh god, not this again.

Can you please stop using fallacies like this? People who want to progress by just playing are not "people whop want to reap the rewards of others people hard work". Stop using the "poisoning the well" fallacy.

Every time people brings up reward systems, you appear and say this, this is not an argument, at all.

"just by playing" can be interpreted in many ways. I know one way of playing centered around standing around all day doing nothing like an asshole. People have been rewarded with more than they should have like this, before. Be it on RoR or live. It's partially to blame to the contribution system centered around only the keeps, and not the entire zone (discouraging contribution on BOs) and the flat rates for zone ticks. If you show up in a zone that is about to lock, and get as much reward as the people who may have been fighting for this lock for three hours, for being there for a minute at the right time, there is an obvious unfair advantage to doing nothing. This encourages a leeching mentality, which influences actual gameplay mechanics centered around fair gains, such as AAO. Nobody likes nerfed gains in the face of a larger enemy, due to AFKers.

The point for Open RvR is to contribute to a large-scale war effort as an individual. Whether you are in a warband or roaming solo, you should be able to make a relevant difference in the game, and get properly rewarded for it. If the game's allowed individualism leads to selfish acts such as warcamp leeching and siege weapon hogging for massive renown gains outside of party, which is massively superior to using actual tactics and playing TOGETHER in a semi-coordinated fashion at least, there is not a single reason to even PLAY this game as an MMORPG. In such case, we are doomed to fail.

I'd like to say to the nay-sayers (who i do not have a problem with whatsoever), to please give the proposed changes a chance. As much as I'd enjoy sticking in the old-school meta we've grown accustomed to myself, it is time to change this game for the better. As a Dwarf player, I know innovation leads to trouble. But it is a risk we have to take, to stop the idiotic easymode zergmode mentality we currently have. Even with every 'failed' patch, and delayed implementation, we have to make do with what we have, and with what is possible, to make Warhammer Online great again.

[7rere7]

Siege weapons are way to OP against keep takes! 600 damage unmitigated every second is extreme and puts way to much burden on healers to heal teammates . That's not counting in the damage of oil ,champions and player opposition !
Even if there are some successful keep takes the opposing team defense will get as much renown and influence for losing the keep.....so why take a keep ,just defend? That is what RVR is turning into!
Scale down siege weapon damage to 300 that would balance RVR a lot!