fortresses fix: load of bollocks

[Mabs]

sorry but it is:

We will be implementing a hard cap on the total number of players that are able to occupy the Fortress area during a siege. The purpose of this change is twofold: to improve server stability, and allow even more players to participate in, and benefit from, capital city sieges.

er no that is not actually possible sorry
but its this bit i really like...

When the Fortress population reaches certain population thresholds, players who are attempting to enter the area of the besieged Fortress that are Rank 35 and below will be teleported to the warcamp for the region they are in. When the next area population threshold has been met, players that are Rank 37 and below will be teleported to the warcamp when trying to enter the area. The final population threshold applies to players that are Rank 39 and below. Once the total population cap has been met for the area surrounding the Fortress, all players that attempt to enter the area will be teleported back to the region’s warcamp.
Please note that your character will stay in the fortress area no matter which level he has if he entered it before the thresholds applied.

so if someone goes LD in the siege which is pretty much a given, they better be capped level cos god forbid someone is trying to "defend their realm" as a not-40 rather than, say, off in a different zone PVEing keeps for loots...

im waiting for the next fix when this doesnt work which will be "anyone without capped stats, epix armour and a set group will be removed automatically"

way to exclude people

:lol:

 

[pikeh]

Thats pretty awful, to be honest. Warhammer is one game where I felt I could contribute even without being max level/epix etc. They are basically taking a part of that away.

 

[Cylian]

Can always block reinforcements from their Warcamp, atleast for some forts.

 

[gordro]

Your all missing the point


This isnt a fix, its a reposnse to the fact that fortress fights are impossbile at this moment in time.


What it means is that we will actually see Citys attacked.

So yes numbers on the Fortress assult are capped, but this will lead the way to people being able to fight in City assults.

Which means more people will benefit in the long term.

 

[Tetley]

I hope it is meant to be a temporary fix until a better solution is found.

Group balance could be badly affected if people crash or recall to the warcamp when dead and then cant get back in again as someone else has moved in while they were out of the fort. You could lose your only healer that way.

Mythic have to try something but I hope they can improve on this before too long.

 

[NicGOA]

What Mythic meant by

We will be implementing a hard cap on the total number of players that are able to occupy the Fortress area during a siege. The purpose of this change is twofold: to improve server stability, and allow even more players to participate in, and benefit from, capital city sieges.

is that if the stability and performance during Fortress sieges improves this will result in more successful Fortress Sieges > Zone locking and then City Sieges. So it's not quite as contradictory as it seems when quoted like that.

In the same message it is written that Mythic will continue to work on the root of the problem and hopefully the caps can be set higher at a later stage or even be completely removed.

Please also note that the caps are set high enough to still allow for very epic battles between two massive forces.

 

[ramathorn]

correct, this is absolute bollocks

 

[Nate]

How many per side are allowed in now Nic?

 

[Mabs]

How many per side are allowed in now Nic?

call me an old cynic, but i suspect that that will never be known

so they can keep turning it down till it stabilises and then go LOOK WE FIXED IT !!!11

Nic i appreciate the input, its a mythic fuckup dont feel its directed at goa

 

[ford prefect]

It's an understandable comprimise really, numbers vs server stability. It shouldn't have been necessary really, but as I and many others have said before, it comes down to war being launched a bit too early.

 

[Vell]

I would be very surprised if it will work with more than 3 WBs on each side. 150 people in the same small area is going to punish the servers enough as it is. They may try setting it higher, and it may stop the crashed, but we'll still be left with the stupid 10 second lag on everything.

I would prefer it if the fortresses were in a seperate instance; when that instance reaches it's cap, a new one opens, and so on. That would ensure that everyone who wanted to take part, could.

 

[NicGOA]

How many per side are allowed in now Nic?

call me an old cynic, but i suspect that that will never be known

Mabs you're an old cynic, and I suspect you are correct in this case.

I would be very surprised if it will work with more than 3 WBs on each side.

This is the first and last time I will respond to the discussion about the amount of the caps, but I can tell you it is well over 3 war bands a side.

 

[Sharkith]

So what alternative fix would you like that can be implemented more or less now?

 

[Gahn]

Oh well a band aid is better than nothing i guess, that said this isn't a solution (even tho many of us predicted it in typical Mythic fashion).
If they don't find a feasable solution they just cornered emselves in a market niche since there won't be EVER more than a 200 vs 200 (just a guess) Fortress siege.
Talk about self cutting bollocks.

 

[Ctuchik]

well, look at it this way, will you rather have a chance at a fortress siege (and one that can actually be COMPLETED) or have the zone constantly crashing because to many ppl that really should be leveling enter the battle??

i didnt agree on theese changes at first either, but after thinking a bit about it i cant see it being anything but an improvement.

besides, have we actually HAD a city siege on this server yet?


i'd even accept it if they had the fortress sieges be available for lvl 40's only. and no, i dont have a lvl 40 yet so i'm not even biassed. because even with the boost buff, a lvl 40 is WAY more useful then a wannabe lvl 38.

 

[Mabs]

well, look at it this way, will you rather have a chance at a fortress siege (and one that can actually be COMPLETED) or have the zone constantly crashing because to many ppl that really should be leveling enter the battle??

i didnt agree on theese changes at first either, but after thinking a bit about it i cant see it being anything but an improvement.

besides, have we actually HAD a city siege on this server yet?


i'd even accept it if they had the fortress sieges be available for lvl 40's only. and no, i dont have a lvl 40 yet so i'm not even biassed. because even with the boost buff, a lvl 40 is WAY more useful then a wannabe lvl 38.

id rather take a "wannabe 38" ex DAoCer over a 40 + Epixed ex WoWer whose idea of RVR is bunny hopping around like a twat going pew pew

 

[Jupitus]

id rather take a "wannabe 38" ex DAoCer over a 40 + Epixed ex WoWer whose idea of RVR is bunny hopping around like a twat going pew pew

Oi!!! I don't bunny hop!!

Besides... weren't you once known as 'Hando', the incredible bouncing Palladin?

 

[Grotnob]

I would prefer it if the fortresses were in a seperate instance; when that instance reaches it's cap, a new one opens, and so on. That would ensure that everyone who wanted to take part, could.

So, enough players show to spawn two instances. Order wins one battle in one instance, but Destruction wins the other. Is the keep taken, or not?

 

[Nate]

So, enough players show to spawn two instances. Order wins one battle in one instance, but Destruction wins the other. Is the keep taken, or not?

It's battled out over the epicness of the Vegas Loot System!

 

[Ctuchik]

id rather take a "wannabe 38" ex DAoCer over a 40 + Epixed ex WoWer whose idea of RVR is bunny hopping around like a twat going pew pew

yeah because everything thats bad about this game is the ex WoW players fault eh?

and theres noone bunny hopping in WoW pvp so u should probably actually play the game before stating things like that.

besides, theres probably more ex WoW players in WAR playing orvr the way it should be then ex DaoC'ers thats only whining about the zergs and the inability to run FG versus FG farmfests.

 

[Mabs]

yeah because everything thats bad about this game is the ex WoW players fault eh?

and theres noone bunny hopping in WoW pvp so u should probably actually play the game before stating things like that.

besides, theres probably more ex WoW players in WAR playing orvr the way it should be then ex DaoC'ers thats only whining about the zergs and the inability to run FG versus FG farmfests.

lol play which game exactly ?
4 years + playing daoc
2 years in WoW

which one ?

or are you not seeing the witch hunters strafing and hopping in rvr ? cos i keep meeting them

/edit

or did you mean bunny hopping IN wow ?
well then go look at all the stunlock rogues, bunny hopping like a special bus users is a baseline skill

 

[Grotnob]

So what alternative fix would you like that can be implemented more or less now?

Implementing the other four capital cities, so the RvR campaign is spread out more rather than pulling three pairings worth of players into a single keep siege each and every time. It would also have the benefit of increasing the number of players, overall, that get to experience endgame city assault content. At the moment, city attacks can be fended off by leaving the fortress to rot while you concentrate your efforts on beating down the other now empty pairings to the point where they're highly unlikely to regain them AND take a second Fortress within 24 hours.

So whilst Destruction are attacking a Fortress for an hour, they're no longer defending the keeps in the other pairings, and aren't in a position to do PQs or queue for scenarios, so Order can get VPs very fast.

With three capital cities per side, you would only need to cap one fortress to be at the gates of the racial capital, resulting in a much more dynamic, enjoyable, and lag-free campaign for everyone.

 

[Aiteal]

That's a ton of stuff to be building, and so it's really easy to dive in and go, "yeah we're gonna make a massively multiplayer game based on football! It'll be real easy." The next thing you know, you're two-and-a-half years in, you don't know what you're doing, your server code doesn't work, you've never worked with thousands of players at once instead of ten or fifteen, the engine that you're working with is designed for first-person-shooters and doesn't scale when you put fifty models on the screen. There's just a lot of experience that we had that made it much easier for us to build this kind of game because we've been in the industry for a really long time.

Next to yer man Paul's "we'll make destro really cool as the masses are drawn to playing elf and dwarfs" comment

Im thinking Boomerangs with teeth

 

[Gahn]

yeah because everything thats bad about this game is the ex WoW players fault eh?

and theres noone bunny hopping in WoW pvp so u should probably actually play the game before stating things like that.

besides, theres probably more ex WoW players in WAR playing orvr the way it should be then ex DaoC'ers thats only whining about the zergs and the inability to run FG versus FG farmfests.

I see we can't get over the same old shit! and anyway i witnessed way more organized Zergs in Daoc than i ever saw in WoW (talk about Relic Raids for instance vs ....... erm AV? ).

 

[Gwadien]

If this is what I'm reading, and I'm reading it correctly it sounds like they're setting up a "Group Versus Group" zone already lol..

It'll never work tbh, it'll have cap numbers of defenders and attackers at all times, and then that'll end up so it one of the sides will always win..

 

[scorge]

This is the first and last time I will respond to the discussion about the amount of the caps, but I can tell you it is well over 3 war bands a side.

Now now Nic your a community manager saying you wont engage with the community is ironic....

as long as its fairly civil

 

[NicGOA]

IroNIC...

Get it?

No?

Carry on, nothing to see here.

 

[Sharkith]

Implementing the other four capital cities, so the RvR campaign is spread out more rather than pulling three pairings worth of players into a single keep siege each and every time. It would also have the benefit of increasing the number of players, overall, that get to experience endgame city assault content. At the moment, city attacks can be fended off by leaving the fortress to rot while you concentrate your efforts on beating down the other now empty pairings to the point where they're highly unlikely to regain them AND take a second Fortress within 24 hours.

So whilst Destruction are attacking a Fortress for an hour, they're no longer defending the keeps in the other pairings, and aren't in a position to do PQs or queue for scenarios, so Order can get VPs very fast.

With three capital cities per side, you would only need to cap one fortress to be at the gates of the racial capital, resulting in a much more dynamic, enjoyable, and lag-free campaign for everyone.

Fair attempt at an answer but it in no way guarantees that crashes will not happen. Secondly it requires a lot of work to develop 3 completely new zones and all of that with the cast iron gurantee that in fact the zone crash issue is not solved. Your solution wouldn't really work since people could still zerg one capital city and cause a node crash.


You have to see Mythic's logic - its better to have the end game played than not at all which is what is happening.

This way they are trying to avoid the crash happening in the first place. So it is better to have one playable part of the end game than none at all. I do think it sucks but it is better than nothing and of course it is temporary. From what I was reading the interrupt system seems to need more love than this at the moment. Another way to look at this is that a cap might produce an even fight rather than one side zerging the other to oblivion.

You always hear complaints about people having greater numbers this way it might even produce an even playing field.

Anyway I can see the players frustration and I can agree with some of it but I am afraid I think as a temporary solution it ain't that bad. Not great, but not that bad either. At least it is better than having no game for everyone.

 

[Pandemic]

should not allow those below renown rank 40 to take part in fortress or city raids, so they have an incentive and reward to do rvr

 

[Ctuchik]

Anyway I can see the players frustration and I can agree with some of it but I am afraid I think as a temporary solution it ain't that bad. Not great, but not that bad either. At least it is better than having no game for everyone.

couldn't have said it better. and no matter how you look at it, having a hardcap on number of ppl in the zone (provided it actually DO remove crashes) IS alot better then the current situation.

yes i'd be annoyed if i got teleported to my warcamp aswell, but not even half as annoyed as having constant zone crashes.