Changelog 4th June, 2016

[magicthighs]

Who wants to be a sheep and travel in flocks all the time?

You do realise that the intent is to break up zergs, right?

[Zanilos]

Leave the sheep analogies to me pal!

Well if I was not made to feel as though I should be playing one ....

I don't want to sound like our resident 6 man expert but... Its a L2(play)Guild issue.
We have so so many people knocking around casually in RvR (nothing wrong with it) but they have no direction. No leadership. No common goals. Then on the flipside we have the RU community using more than 1 WB to zerg around zones collecting medallions. Like they did on live. Again though, with no plans to take the zones.

The community needs to sort out community issues. That way you will not be forced to spread out. You will want to.

@magic, how will it though? Just means zergs don't go to keeps. Still no keep fights. Still Wc to Wc.

[drmordread]

OK, I do see you point, I do. If this was another game I would even be in a 100% agreement with you. But it is WAR, and while you feel the RvR system was broken, as a solo player I found the old system to be conductive to my playstyle, as well as for groups. What you guys are doing is basically forcing people to be in wb's.

Also....
If you want people to care about BO's, bring back rewards when a BO is taken. XP/RR/INF on taking, caping and defending! Forcing people to play for BO's in some different aspect of the 1.4.0 version of BO resources, without even any reward is pointless. No one will do it and everyone will just spend another 5 weeks fighting over Martyrs Square in a t1 style of ...log in..run to center...fight...die...respawn...run to center, fight die ...respawn .... rince and repeat!

[Zanilos]

OK, I do see you point, I do. If this was another game I would even be in a 100% agreement with you. But it is WAR, and while you feel the RvR system was broken, as a solo player I found the old system to be conductive to my playstyle, as well as for groups. What you guys are doing is basically forcing people to be in wb's.

Also....
If you want people to care about BO's, bring back rewards when a BO is taken. XP/RR/INF on taking, caping and defending! Forcing people to play for BO's in some different aspect of the 1.4.0 version of BO resources, without even any reward is pointless. No one will do it and everyone will just spend another 5 weeks fighting over Martyrs Square in a t1 style of ...log in..run to center...fight...die...respawn...run to center, fight die ...respawn .... rince and repeat!

Not true, not true at all. The BOs will be held by guilds while solo players such as yourself benefit from the effort the guilds make when they lock zones. Zone locks didnt magically happen in T3 because of BO rewards. We capped BOs to lock zones long long after needing anything from them.

Bring baxk xp/rr/inf? Just making zergs go clockwise instead of WC to WC. PF proved that in T3 elf.

[drmordread]

Not true, not true at all. The BOs will be held by guilds while solo players such as yourself benefit from the effort the guilds make when they lock zones. Zone locks didnt magically happen in T3 because of BO rewards. We capped BOs to lock zones long long after needing anything from them.

Bring baxk xp/rr/inf? Just making zergs go clockwise instead of WC to WC. PF proved that in T3 elf.

Right because guild players are any better at not running off chasing a single player. Every day I kite at least two to four guild grps across an entire zone on my WH or AM. And then of course there is more RR and INF at the keep. You trying to tell me that guild players will sacrifice rr/inf/medallions to hold a BO? I do not see that happening, unless you completely remove rewards from the rvr lakes except for locks, and that will assuredly kill all rvr.

[Azarael]

You're still missing the point, Mordread. The point is to break up zergs. If you consider what has been said here, you'd realize that trying to zerg in Martyr's Square is pointless, because if you try that, all the defending realm has to do is focus its siege engines to that point and they will either rip you apart, or your own force will split up and the goal of the design has already been accomplished. I believe the present implementation of artillery weapons has already shown just how much chance a zerg would have if it tried a head-on attack against that kind of position.

The aim is to allow building of a defensive roadblock against mass attacks, and have that roadblock's components themselves be vulnerable to flanking/bypassing and combined arms attacks, whose components depend both upon holding map control and being able to move elements across the map. Both of these elements require dispersed forces and the idea is to build them such that an actual harassment role for smaller parties and soloists becomes viable. Warhammer is lacking defensive elements outside of warcamps and keeps and it's why ping-pong is happening. This is elementary stuff. The game is a lot like a RTS mirror match in which you can only build infantry. Limited.

This isn't anything new - these concepts are present in RTS games already, and for me some of the complaints I've seen in general feel a bit like a Zerg player complaining that Siege Tanks shouldn't exist because he ran a ton of Zerglings into a Siege Tank line and got crushed for it. If you build a system designed to emulate large-scale warfare and disrespect ancient battlefield concepts such as battlefield roles, artillery, cannons, defenses, siege towers, tactics and strategy, which have been integral to battle for centuries, you're not doing it right. Real armies employed these solutions to deal with real battlefield problems, until a tactical equilibrium is reached, and emulating that kind of R&D is something I feel is natural and organic, and exactly what the two armies would be doing to get an edge.

[adei]

We have a lot of sheep, not many shepards

Sadly its the players mindset at fault, they always want the easiest way out and max rewards, we must look to guilds to lead the sheep. I know its sad but Plenty a night we have seen all 4 BO's capped and yet the entire set of wbs decide to swap zones for an easier challenge.

Its understandable on one hand given how hard it is to siege keeps atm with oil/door hp etc but on the other its because they simply have no communication and quite frankly have no idea what to do and will crumble after one wipe. Many people loose sight of the fact that wbs require effort to set up and most of the time just get referred to as 'zergs'.. most commonly by lesser sized groups who feel they have more influence but meh its the way it is. The difference between zergs and wbs have become quite apparent to more people these recent weeks as we see so little of the many sieges that took place in t3.

This server will survive on wb guilds and with wb guilds alone as it will be the only route to attain the end goals, its just going to take time for other people to understand this.

How it must feel I suppose, but someone has to lead.

Spoiler:

[drmordread]

You're still missing the point, Mordread. The point is to break up zergs. If you consider what has been said here, you'd realize that trying to zerg in Martyr's Square is pointless, because if you try that, all the defending realm has to do is focus its siege engines to that point and they will either rip you apart, or your own force will split up and the goal of the design has already been accomplished. I believe the present implementation of artillery weapons has already shown just how much chance a zerg would have if it tried a head-on attack against that kind of position.

The aim is to allow building of a defensive roadblock against mass attacks, and have that roadblock's components themselves be vulnerable to flanking/bypassing and combined arms attacks, whose components depend both upon holding map control and being able to move elements across the map. Both of these elements require dispersed forces and the idea is to build them such that an actual harassment role for smaller parties and soloists becomes viable. Warhammer is lacking defensive elements outside of warcamps and keeps and it's why ping-pong is happening. This is elementary stuff. The game is a lot like a RTS mirror match in which you can only build infantry. Limited.

This isn't anything new - these concepts are present in RTS games already, and for me some of the complaints I've seen in general feel a bit like a Zerg player complaining that Siege Tanks shouldn't exist because he ran a ton of Zerglings into a Siege Tank line and got crushed for it. If you build a system designed to emulate large-scale warfare and disrespect ancient battlefield concepts such as battlefield roles, artillery, cannons, defenses, siege towers, tactics and strategy, which have been integral to battle for centuries, you're not doing it right.

Like I said, I play solo, alliance 6 man at the most. maybe once a day i'll join a wb for an hour, two at the most. I hate zerging, But I also realize that it has its place.

Like I also said, I like your system, for any other game. I do not think this system works well in WAR. AND... more important ....

By forcing players to use the entire map and not just the direct way to center BO, you make my life as a solo ganker complete HELL! I will not have any clear ways to get to other side of map ..... hehehehehe ....

Well, there is a bright side! With no one really interested in dying to siege weapon 2 shots all over the map, will mean more people in SC's, which is "my" fav part of this game (and some days all that I do).

[Azarael]

Well, there is a bright side! With no one really interested in dying to siege weapon 2 shots all over the map, will mean more people in SC's, which is "my" fav part of this game (and some days all that I do).

Yeah, this is a strawman as well. Artillery is set up to deal poor damage to targets that aren't clustering together, and cannons have a 5 second reload time combined with a 5 second recentering time for full damage and will use a line attack, so they'll be a crappy choice against small groups too. The purpose of artillery is indirect fire and blasting barricades/zergs, and the purpose of cannons is primarily to smash barricades / artillery / other cannons from 400ft, and secondarily to assist in attacking zergs.

[Vayra]

One thing I don't get is why you view funnelling as bad. Especially when you are also opposed to zerging. Funnelling at keeps (and certain BOs) is one of the most effective ways for a smaller, organised force to defend against and break up a zerg.

Other than that I think the ideas you've outlined sound like an interesting system.