Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 03:44:46 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Warhammer Online (Moderator: tazelbain)  |  Topic: PSA: I want to fistfight whoever designed the T4 and T3 scenarios. 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: PSA: I want to fistfight whoever designed the T4 and T3 scenarios.  (Read 30375 times)
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
on: October 10, 2008, 10:41:13 AM

This is a standing offer. I want to fight you, whoever you are. Fucking bareknuckle. In the street.

I'll even fight in nothing but boxers and you can wear steel toed boots and have knuckledusters or a bladed weapon of your choice.

I want to fucking chew part of your face off.

That is all.
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590


Reply #1 on: October 10, 2008, 10:48:15 AM

This is your opponent.


~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #2 on: October 10, 2008, 10:54:07 AM

Funny, I made a comment in game about them being retarded apes.
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #3 on: October 10, 2008, 12:12:21 PM

Someone didn't participate in beta much?   Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

Sorry... cheap shot on my part.  I'm just saying that I'm having a REALLY hard time continuing in this game.  The endgame is fun, but I'm really tired of the "YOU MUST BE THIS TALL" in order to get to the fun that exists beyond the first tier.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2008, 12:14:02 PM by Nebu »

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Draegan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10043


Reply #4 on: October 10, 2008, 12:32:04 PM

I'm not in T4 yet, but T3 scenarios are cool in my opinion.  I'll rank em:

1.  Doomfist Crater (awesome).
2.  Temple of Isha
3a. Talabec Dam
3b. Black Fire Basin
4. Tor Arnoc
5.  High Pass Pass Cemetery (Never Popped for me)

Doomfist is pure win though.  Small area, and just complete havok.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #5 on: October 10, 2008, 12:55:53 PM

Doomfist so far for me has been one of those scenarios where group cohesion makes or breaks it. You can kind of get along in the others with a semi-uncoordinated group, but in Doomfist, if people don't work together, it's a disaster from start to finish.
Fraeg
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1015

Mad skills with the rod.


Reply #6 on: October 10, 2008, 06:43:37 PM

i want to smack the genius who decided that:  if altdorf is under assault and you are under T4  you have no way to access your bank. 

if you are T4 there is reikland which has the refuge camp.  but hey all you poor fuckers who haven't hit T4 yet, you have no way to access any sort of bank.. you know that place that you store things... like maybe the gear you just fucking grinded up to meet the lvl/renown specs and now can't use....Raaaaah Shaking fist

« Last Edit: October 10, 2008, 06:59:08 PM by Fraeg »

"There is dignity and deep satisfaction in facing life and death without the comfort of heaven or the fear of hell and in sailing toward the great abyss with a smile."
Hayduke
Terracotta Army
Posts: 560


Reply #7 on: October 10, 2008, 09:07:59 PM

What about a server without scenarios at all?

From a MJ post on vnboreds:


Quote
Folks,

Okay, so as usual we are always looking at player feedback and one of the themes that has been brought up here a lot is the issues of scenarios in WAR. Here's your chance to tell us if you would like to see a new server type that addresses some of the points raised here. So, if you would like to play on a server that has no scenarios, limited scenarios or only Tier 1 scenarios, vote now and tell all your friends/guildmates to come here and vote as well. This won't be the only place we are going to poll but it's a good start. We expect to hear a lot from our DAoC fans as well. happy

Mark

Link!


Now aside from the obviously disturbing fact that Mark Jacobs feels his base ought to be a community of old and out of touch mouthbreathers I'm curious about how this would work out.  I'm actually kind of interested in the idea since I hate the scenario grind and I've been playing the game to see ORvR content (without much luck).  But it seems a little drastic.
Hawkbit
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5531

Like a Klansman in the ghetto.


Reply #8 on: October 10, 2008, 09:49:13 PM

More than likely, if they go with a no-scenario server and it's relatively populated, I'll roll my Destro alts there.  Not having that side of the game where people POOF all the time will be interesting.  I suspect PQs will become a larger source of one's XP gains and orvr will be very, very interesting.  I like it.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #9 on: October 10, 2008, 11:49:12 PM

Why would he run that vote at IGN and not Warhammer Alliance?

GodDAMNIT, MARK.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #10 on: October 10, 2008, 11:50:16 PM

The correct answer is "Diminshing number of scenarions as the Tiers increase (73 votes)" btw.

And the correct number is:

3, 3, 2, 1.

All of them death matches in varying environments just to get you ready for oPVP and the endgame, and the 1 tier 4 one has 24 people per side.

This objective bullshit has got to fucking go.
squirrel
Contributor
Posts: 1767


Reply #11 on: October 11, 2008, 01:15:00 AM

It's stupid to be even talking about this publicly at this stage. I'm fucking shocked. Yeah, the system needs tweaking, hell i'd rather do RvR than scenarios myself. But "HAI GUYZ LET'S ASK VN WAT THAY THINK AND SEGMANT OUR BASE MOAR!!" is a bad approach.

Speaking of marketing, we're out of milk.
Evildrider
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5521


Reply #12 on: October 11, 2008, 03:04:08 AM

That's gay.. fix all the servers don't make more new types.

Add more scenarios or replace some of the current ones with deathmatch type runs.  End scenarios at level 39 leaving the main RvR to battlefields and keeps.  Allow "debolstering" so that you can take your level 40 and go to a t3 area, get knocked down to like level 31 and allow them into the RvR areas.  Give us all the classes that were cut and put them back in game.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 03:25:23 AM by Evildrider »
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #13 on: October 11, 2008, 04:49:01 AM

No, there should be no "adding" of scenarios. They need to just start over and have much less. Too much dead weight with level layouts designed by people who call themselves "designers." No doubt they're denizens of Bolgia 10 in the 8th Ring of Hell.

The current scenarios don't really train crappy players to be good and they also don't typify how the endgame PVP will end up.

Why isn't a scenario where one team starts in a fortress and another team has to break in and kill some person or claim the keep or something? How hard would that have been?

Scenario design here is just crap.

Edited: Added a bit, clarified.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 04:50:59 AM by schild »
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #14 on: October 11, 2008, 05:17:34 AM

I think this is the wrong approach. What they need to do is incentivize the open-world RvR. The mass of players will do whatever delivers the most efficient risk/reward ratio. The game knows when you're in a keep or at an objective--so boost the rate of XP and Renown gain by 3X or 4X when you are, boost what you get for taking an objective, boost the quality of renown gear so that not having access to it is a very bad thing, and so on. Then they don't need another server type or anything complicated like that.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #15 on: October 11, 2008, 05:23:08 AM

Incentivizing it right now means re-working the entire system. Until you're 40, there's really NO reason to go get keeps unless you're totally grinding for set gear. And even then, Good luck >_<.

I'm not even sure Open world RvR should've been available prior to tier 3, and then have no scenarios at tier 4. Really there's lots of solutions that may or may not work and we could probably ramble off hundreds, but as it stands:

Tier 3 & 4 suck.
The scenarios were designed by dimwits.
A decent bit of class specific rare+ gear needs to be reitemized (most of it, that is).
Need real reasons to participate in RvR.

At the moment, the biggest problem across all 4 tiers I think is simply that due to the number of RvR lakes, the number of scenarios, PQs, etc - finding those random groups for massive fun are... well... unlikely.
Hawkbit
Terracotta Army
Posts: 5531

Like a Klansman in the ghetto.


Reply #16 on: October 11, 2008, 06:14:04 AM

I can't help but think how much better this game would be if there weren't levels. 

All we want to do is rvr - all the grind does is separate players.
trias_e
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1296


Reply #17 on: October 11, 2008, 07:38:51 AM

Quote
Incentivizing it right now means re-working the entire system. Until you're 40, there's really NO reason to go get keeps unless you're totally grinding for set gear. And even then, Good luck >_<.

If by reworking the entire system you mean, +XP and better loot in open RvR...then sure.  It's easy as shit pie to give incentive for people to do anything in a diku based MMORPG.  That's why people like making them...people are very predictable and basically do what you should expect them to do.  So to make open RvR more relevant...give people better loot and xp in open RvR.  I agree that there's too much land mass and this is a problem this game is going to have until the majority of players get into T4.  But the map works pretty well.  I was having no problems whatsoever finding open RvR action last night, and it was probably the most fun I've had in this game up to this point.

I think you're wrong about things pre-T4 schild.  The scenarios are fine in T3.  Except for CTF, that's obviously pretty borked in this game.  I don't want to play a scenario to have some strategic campfest where one team attacks and another defends.  That doesn't sound fun in a PUG at all, and it's too similar to open RvR.  Scenarios should be quake-style with basic objectives, a minimum of not-fighting, and basic strategy.  One of the best scenarios is Temple of Isha because it cuts out all of the crap.  Scenarios should be as different as possible from open RvR simply to diversify play experience and please different kinds of players.  I'm certainly ok with scenarios being less and less important as you level however, with scenarios at T4 being much less important than open RvR.  I think scenarios should have just been 3-3-3-3.  I wouldn't want only 1 scenario in t4, because forcing your players to play the exact same scenario for the eternity of their character's life is a bad, bad idea.
« Last Edit: October 11, 2008, 07:57:00 AM by trias_e »
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #18 on: October 11, 2008, 08:19:20 AM

It might be a "bad, bad idea" but uhhhhhh

6 scenarios (8 if they open up Caledor Woods and that other elfy one), tons of open RvR lakes (TONS), a shitload of keeps, and the final city areas?

That's just way too much shit, the easiest place to cut down is scenarios.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #19 on: October 11, 2008, 09:47:19 AM

I think this is the wrong approach. What they need to do is incentivize the open-world RvR. The mass of players will do whatever delivers the most efficient risk/reward ratio. The game knows when you're in a keep or at an objective--so boost the rate of XP and Renown gain by 3X or 4X when you are, boost what you get for taking an objective, boost the quality of renown gear so that not having access to it is a very bad thing, and so on. Then they don't need another server type or anything complicated like that.


This. Double plus this. I love the scenarios, but really, Morelag Temple is so farmable it KILLS all the other RVR/Scenario play for that tier. And I'm quite sure it's like that in other tiers as well. The T1 open RVR was fun as fuck in the Chaos/Empire area but it absolutely died in t2. I've yet to see more than 2 groups at once on either side of t2 RVR, but damn if Mourkain Temple doesn't pop every five fucking seconds.

And why the fuck would you make a whole new server type to FURTHER imbalance the populations? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU THINKING? Goddamnit, this shit isn't that hard to figure out. Pull some DAoC lessons - make the scenarios cross-server, but only in the least popular ones for each tier (i.e. if Tor Anroc is constantly popping, do the others). And schild's suggestion of a keep taking scenario is perfect. Hell, they did that in DAoC as well, and it was the most fun battleground on the server.

Goreschach
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1546


Reply #20 on: October 11, 2008, 10:00:43 AM

This game would basically be perfect if they hadn't wasted 2 years creating a 40 level pve grind nobody wants, a big empty world nobody uses, a million fucking items everyone hates, and just had everything scenario based, with a chat lobby.

Right now it seems to me like Dark Age of Team Fortress would be just about perfect. Give up cap the flag, actual deathmatches, fortress attack/defense scenarios, all that shit. And let us skip all the crap we need to do to get to the fun. Fuck customer retention grind mechanisms, I'd play that game forever.
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #21 on: October 11, 2008, 10:01:30 AM

Quote
This game would basically be perfect if they hadn't wasted 2 years creating a 40 level pve grind nobody wants, a big empty world nobody uses, a million fucking items everyone hates, and just had everything scenario based, with a chat lobby.

Fury did well.
HaemishM
Staff Emeritus
Posts: 42628

the Confederate flag underneath the stone in my class ring


WWW
Reply #22 on: October 11, 2008, 10:04:53 AM

Fury's game play was total shit, in addition to being an empty wankfest. At least WAR's mechanics are decent though flawed.

UnSub
Contributor
Posts: 8064


WWW
Reply #23 on: October 11, 2008, 10:57:31 AM

Instead of more server types, how about fewer servers that can hold more players? That's the biggest problem with WAR - large world, lots of content, players spread so thinly that unless you are playing prime time good luck finding anything but scenarios (which work because they warp players into them - it's why scenarios work and RvR is dead). This will change when more players hit the top tier, of course... god help those newbie players when the end-game becomes the only show in town.

So: more players per server type, thanks.

Goreschach
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1546


Reply #24 on: October 11, 2008, 11:34:37 AM

Instead of more server types, how about fewer servers that can hold more players? That's the biggest problem with WAR - large world, lots of content, players spread so thinly that unless you are playing prime time good luck finding anything but scenarios (which work because they warp players into them - it's why scenarios work and RvR is dead). This will change when more players hit the top tier, of course... god help those newbie players when the end-game becomes the only show in town.

So: more players per server type, thanks.

Ideally, this would help. But seeing as the game already has enough lag related problems, it would probably just make a bunch of other issues even worse, and combining server hardware wouldn't just be a matter of plugging some network cables between boxes. They'd probably have to do some serious work to allow for a doubled world capacity.

And I don't see where you're getting the idea that things will sort out at level 40. Tier 4 has the highest number of scenarios, the highest number of zones, and the largest percentage of rvr lake. If we're already seeing the problem with most people being too spread out in tier 2+3, with 1 and 4 mostly empty, then it's going to be even worse when a large portion are in t4. It isn't like everyone will be in t4 in a month or two, as people are constantly rolling alts. WOTLK releasing next month isn't going to help.

Also keep in mind that one of the reasons you're not seeing so much rvr is that a lot of Order is going to go out of their way to avoid it due to pop imbalances that don't exist in scenarios.
Hayduke
Terracotta Army
Posts: 560


Reply #25 on: October 11, 2008, 01:26:52 PM

I'd really like larger servers, but if they had servers without scenarios the world might feel more populated anyway so it's a good first step.  As to adding new servers possibly making even more low pop deserted servers, I don't know why they couldn't convert a few of those.  We're only a couple weeks into the game, I don't think there's a huge concern with ruining server communities just yet.  And you could offer free transfers off for those people (and a lot of those people on low pop servers would love to have that).
Lakov_Sanite
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7590


Reply #26 on: October 11, 2008, 01:30:52 PM

I'd really like larger servers, but if they had servers without scenarios the world might feel more populated anyway so it's a good first step.  As to adding new servers possibly making even more low pop deserted servers, I don't know why they couldn't convert a few of those.  We're only a couple weeks into the game, I don't think there's a huge concern with ruining server communities just yet.  And you could offer free transfers off for those people (and a lot of those people on low pop servers would love to have that).

I think I'm going to right up a larger post for this soon but I think the biggest issue that encompasses all the little thing is that mythic gave this game a lot of width but not enough depth. Lot's of time was spent on making hundreds of similar quests, of making huge landscapes that end up feeling barren while it seems like there could be more classes, more professions, more cities and just fine tuning the stuff that people liked most.

~a horrific, dark simulacrum that glares balefully at us, with evil intent.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #27 on: October 13, 2008, 08:36:29 AM

Another thought on incentivizing RvR: renown-merchant consumables that are cheap and well worth having. Again, part of the problem is that if your faction loses all access to keeps past T2, that doesn't seem like such a big deal. You want to make it a big deal without saddling one side with a feedback-loop accelerating disadvantage.

---

As far as T3 scenarios, since I've now had a chance to play quite a few of them? Black Fire Basin is an epic fail design. 95% of the time both factions just turtle up and the score comes down to which side had one or two fewer deaths in the occasional bouts of combat that took place. The scenarios that work are the ones that either put escalating pressure on the side with an advantage (holding a flag or murderball) or that force teams to work continuously hard to hold an area against waves of enemy assaults that come relatively quickly.
kaid
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3113


Reply #28 on: October 14, 2008, 04:01:15 PM

The tier 1 and tier 2 scenarios are pretty good. In tier 3 only a couple appeal to me. The crater and tor anroc are fun. Who ever designed blackfire basin needs to be punched in the nuts. The map is WAY to big for the amount of players even with mounts it takes way way way to long to mount an attack on the flag and the defenders come back so much faster than a respawn can it usually winds up with both sides turtling up hoping enough stupid people get bored and try for the flag.

While I enjoy the crater both that and the temple of isha suffer from a huge problem. Both of them are cap one flag and hold it as long as you can matches. The problem is I have never seen a team win that did not get the flag first. The advantage to taking and holding the flag especially with all the knock backs in tier three make it damn near impossible to come back and win if you don't get the node first.

Its kinda sad when you know which team will win within about the first 30 seconds to minute of the bg and yet you know that bg will go the full 15 minutes without a damn thing you can do to change the outcome.
Khaldun
Terracotta Army
Posts: 15157


Reply #29 on: October 14, 2008, 07:06:11 PM

Yeah, if you don't have a very well-organized team on Vent, you're not getting Isha or Doomfist back if the other guys get on the flag in any significant numbers.

Any defend-the-flag scenario should bring automatic, escalating pressure against the team that holds it for more than 2 minutes, ratcheting up each minute. DOTs against the owning team, NPC mobs spawning on them, something.
bubblegumbo
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1


Reply #30 on: October 22, 2008, 02:53:35 AM

Tor Anroc made me a better golfer.
Sahrokh
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4


Reply #31 on: October 22, 2008, 05:34:09 AM

Even improving the ORvR there's still the issue about it being pointless.
2 days ago we got our first keep. For several gold / hour you'd expect *something* to happen. Nope, some tiny thing here, half the castle graphics did not work (helloooo this is a RvR game, everything about it should work with priority over other candy) and other bugs. The guild rank did not budge, the renown did not move. Basically what did we got this thing for?
Until taking a keep is just for the "feeling" of conquer, the wowjunkies won't get off their precious scenarios, even at 40.
ghost
The Dentist
Posts: 10619


Reply #32 on: October 22, 2008, 05:45:49 AM

750,000 subs or boxes bought
55 servers

That is around 13,500 peeps per server if spread evenly.

That seems a bit low to me, considering that a percentage of the boxes bought won't renew and then you factor in the differences between servers.  So what they likely ended up with is about 5-7 "full" servers-  not sure what their capacity is, and a shitton of west Texas desert servers.
« Last Edit: October 22, 2008, 05:48:52 AM by ghost »
Righ
Terracotta Army
Posts: 6542

Teaching the world Google-fu one broken dream at a time.


Reply #33 on: October 22, 2008, 06:36:57 AM

Tor Anroc made me a better golfer.

Presumably because you stopped playing MMOs and got out on the fairway.

The camera adds a thousand barrels. - Steven Colbert
Maegril
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8


Reply #34 on: October 22, 2008, 10:56:41 AM

This game would basically be perfect if they hadn't wasted 2 years creating a 40 level pve grind nobody wants, a big empty world nobody uses, a million fucking items everyone hates, and just had everything scenario based, with a chat lobby.

The 40 level grind and big empty world are there to attempt to make sure that in 6 months the only people playing the game aren't you and everyone else who's excited because they have a new top-level playground since DAoC is stale.  If you want new players and growth in your PvP player base, you have to train them.  You may find the 40 levels and the amount of time it takes to get through that excessive.  I assure you the people for whom the first 10 levels are insufficient to understand "Kill the goddamn healers/casters first!" are not in the same boat.  If you want them to eventually have any chance of offering good opposition/backup when you're playing, you have to have the structure in place to train them how to play.
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  The Gaming Graveyard  |  Warhammer Online (Moderator: tazelbain)  |  Topic: PSA: I want to fistfight whoever designed the T4 and T3 scenarios.  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC