Whats missing in orvr

[Tallen]

Just a few thoughts on the things which, imo, kept players rvring on DAoC for nigh on 7 years and counting and some things which are seemingly absent from Warhammer.

Titles: Yes there are rank titles, but they are never the main focus of the identity systems. If i click on an enemy, i'd like to know what renown rank he/she is and as such know what kind of fight im in for. Currently all you get is name, class and level. I'd love to be seeing the high rr players identified clearly in orvr, sure this is an epeen thing, but players love earning and displaying titles which have meaning to them and their enemies.

Focussed Objectives: Ob's and keeps are incidental, there is no focus for players in rvr. I'd like to see all rewards for OB's removed but have them instrumental in keep sieges and defences. For example, take a certain BO and it grants you an instrument to blow a hole in the outer keep wall, one that causes a magical fog-of-war making it more difficult for defenders to target enemies etc. Then have all the emphasis on the keeps, taking an undefended keep should reap HUGE rewards BUT you need to take ALL the BO's first to be able to do this (taking a keep without holding all the BO's should give you nada). This will hopefully encourage players to defend and encourage pvp instead of pve, put the emphasis on the defending realm to go out and hold their keep instead of them just shrugging their shoulders and wandering off to pve elsewhere. Losing an undefended keep should also put massive penalties on the defending realm across all same and lower tiers (to stop players doing this in T2 to screw over T4) and all zones, say, 50% reduction in RP's and all XP types for, say, 12 hours. To make this work keeps will need to be more difficult to take or at least take longer to allow players the chance to raise a defence force. Defending a keep should give the opposite positive bonus and attacking a defended keep should also reap a nice bonus for the agressors.

Just my 2 cents, i have no idea how to encourage open-field rvr, love to know if anyone has any bright ideas about this.

 

[Jess]

A feeling of "our lands/keeps" versus "their lands/keeps" is vital ... Hence zones ala good ole' Daoc.

And please remove the fixed pads for siege stuff ... Totally kills immersion and makes me feel like Im participating in a chess game.

 

[Mr_Grumpy]

imo there should be something along those lines. Even if they made it that defenders got gold bags of loot after defending for a certain time etc . There needs to be something to encourage folk to defend AND also to attack a defended keep.

Otherwise folk give up and go pve a keep elswhere.

 

[bronnac]

Take away Senario's.

Job Done.

 

[`mongoose]

a third side

relics

Keep pads and stuff

Don't fix what ain't broke mythic!

M

 

[Mr_Grumpy]

Take away Senario's.

Job Done.

Just because they work and do what theyre supposed to do doesnt mean that they should be removed altogether. Theres room for everything and various methods of play in WAR, they just need to get their act sorted out.

 

[civy]

A redesign of the keeps. Once the defenders get 3 or 4 tanks blocking the stairs with healers then the take is over. Anyone charging up wil be ae'ed to death by peeps that there is no LOS to. Thats the main reason IMO that peeps would rather take a undefended keep.

 

[Aada]

Just because they work and do what theyre supposed to do doesnt mean that they should be removed altogether. Theres room for everything and various methods of play in WAR, they just need to get their act sorted out.

Sorry but Scenarios have ruined what the game was meant to be about either they are removed or the problems plaguing ORVR will never be solved.

 

[bronnac]

Just because they work and do what theyre supposed to do doesnt mean that they should be removed altogether. Theres room for everything and various methods of play in WAR, they just need to get their act sorted out.

Ok, well then keep the senarios but remove the ability to gain Renown XP in them...just make them battlegrounds.

Either way, make the openworld the only place to get Renown XP.

 

[Boggy]

WAR RvR is not complex enough to be interesting. In DAoC you had more variables.

Bigger frontier meant you could have roaming groups as well as siege, whereas WAR seems just to be siege.

Three realms meant more permutations for battles, both roaming and RvR.

Keep and tower ownership affected logistics (through teleport rules) in DAoC, meaning there were many permutations of logistical challenge for both attacking and defending force.

Overall it gave a richness of strategic and tactical play that is completely lacking in WAR from what I can see. Unless it's there and I've just not got that part yet.

 

[dee777]

Sorry but Scenarios have ruined what the game was meant to be about either they are removed or the problems plaguing ORVR will never be solved.

What gives you the authority to judge what WAR was meant to be?

 

[Boggy]

All these people saying scenarios have ruined the game are coming at it from the wrong direction. There are only 3 reasons I can think of that might account for people doing scenarios rather than ORvR:

1) Scenarios are more fun for those people

2) Scenarios are the best way to level

3) The barrier to ORvR is higher in terms of organisation and numbers

These reasons are not mutually exclusive so maybe more than one of them contribute for a lot of people.

Simply removing scens will spoilt the game for people who feel reasons 1 and 2, and not change reason 3 although it might make it irrelevant (if there are no alternative activities in game people will either do ORvR or cancel their subs).

A better solution would be to give more tools for organising ORvR (the same could be said for PQs tbh), which would address issue 3 and give people a genuine choice on issues 1 and 2.

Also, lowering the leveling XP requirements would help with issue 2. It would also stop people like me cancelling our subs at level 30 cos we cba to grind XP (through any means, not just scens).

Obviously, if reason one is the one felt most strongly by most people, they somehow need to make ORvR more fun.

 

[Twinky]

Ok, well then keep the senarios but remove the ability to gain Renown XP in them...just make them battlegrounds.

Either way, make the openworld the only place to get Renown XP.

Agree. Scenarios should make u XP in ranks alot faster. Making the grinding and questing less dull in the long run. And not a place t farm renown. Also i would love to see alot of s***t inside keeps removed. Get stuck 24/7 inside a keep... in a tent or smth else. And maybe mob xp bonus in oRvR. Sure ppl will whine getting ganked in oRvR while farming mobs, but it will lure ppl out

 

[Xandax]

WAR RvR is not complex enough to be interesting. In DAoC you had more variables.

Bigger frontier meant you could have roaming groups as well as siege, whereas WAR seems just to be siege.
<snip>.

Indeed. It is difficult spitting these days without hitting a desto zerg cause the RvR zones are so small.

 

[Platin]

I wanna see:
1. make the keeps harder to take, make rvr zones bigger (alot to ask i know). Increase the total number of keeps to 3-4 per zone
2. Make zone control dependant on having all the keeps under your control rather than waiting for some damn victory-points bar to move. Basically, I want to see more strategy in the game, rather than zerg this and that keep for renown.
3.take away siege pads and make the keep walls destructable.
4. take away the bo's.
5. increase renown from player kills. Wb:s should decrease renown dramatically, possibly create battlegroups for coop between 2 groups, which would increase renown alittle more compared to wb:s.

Basically copy-paste ideas from daoc,

 

[Toel]

Just a few thoughts on the things which, imo, kept players rvring on DAoC for nigh on 7 years and counting and some things which are seemingly absent from Warhammer.

Titles: Yes there are rank titles, but they are never the main focus of the identity systems. If i click on an enemy, i'd like to know what renown rank he/she is and as such know what kind of fight im in for. Currently all you get is name, class and level. I'd love to be seeing the high rr players identified clearly in orvr, sure this is an epeen thing, but players love earning and displaying titles which have meaning to them and their enemies.

Spot on. Coudn't agree more.

 

[othmaar]

... And please remove the fixed pads for siege stuff ... Totally kills immersion and makes me feel like Im participating in a chess game.

I agree! There are many other things that kill immersion too like Bind on Equip and Bind on Pickup. It feels restrictive and artificial and "cheap".

Back on topic, orvr need more objectives like relics and control favourable hunting areas (PQs?) outside rvr lake as well. Allow raids into enemy territory!

 

[dee777]

There are many other things that kill immersion too like Bind on Equip and Bind on Pickup. It feels restrictive and artificial and "cheap".

A working economy is so much more important than immersion IMO. Look at Tabula Rasa for a prime example of how no BoE/BoP kills large parts of a game.

 

[Lubbock]

Removing Scenarios is silly, many people prefer these, i like em , its instant action for whwen i got 30 mins or so and dont wanna go ORvR and its a good way to level fast and learn the tools of the trade, so lets just keep em, remove Renown sure, make the Scenarios unavailable to level 40s sure.

Whats missing is the feeling this is my land and it matters, if i lose all keep it dosnt really have a consequence, in DaoC such a change meant that you had your relics exposed so all came to help defend, this just isnt happening here, now we just lost that keep, dosnt affect me or my realm in any way.

This is just the ramblings of a mad dane.
But putting the blame on scenarios is just silly, improve ORvR and make consequences for losing zones, then its good.

 

[Xandax]

A working economy is so much more important than immersion IMO. Look at Tabula Rasa for a prime example of how no BoE/BoP kills large parts of a game.

Well - TR had many flaws, so it'll be difficult of evaluating the lack of BoE/BoP on that game in the face of so many other things
Lack of BoP/BoE worked well in DAoC IMO - although it opened up for many twinks, but .... well - you can't have it all

 

[dee777]

Well - TR had many flaws, so it'll be difficult of evaluating the lack of BoE/BoP on that game in the face of so many other things

TR had many problems, I wont argue that, but what I was referring to was the economy part that was more than screwed. With no drain and new items getting onto the market every day, that is a recipe for inflation. I had full endgame purple sets for my toons when they were in their 20ies. Takes away a lot of "addiction" when you just get the pimp loot and wont have to make the least effort to get it.

Lack of BoP/BoE worked well in DAoC IMO - although it opened up for many twinks, but .... well - you can't have it all

I disagree about the system working well in DAoC. Before Timesinks of Atlantis the economy was just as fubared as TRs was. Grind some plat, buy the perfect stuff, be done with it. Little effort for massive gain. After the expansion the items themselves werent BoE/BoP, but due to the need of having completed the appropriate encounter for each artifact, the system resembled BoE/BoP very closely.

Later, when Mythic "dumbed" it down so you could buy everything via bounty points, the system itself went back to the borked up state. However since the game was in the process of dieing already, I think it was the right thing to do. Made it easier to try out alts with decent setups.

 

[Calaen]

I reckon if they should have made the cities accessible by the realm holding the majority of relics/keeps in each zone. That way actually defending a keep means something because if you lose it you know they are going to march on your city.

 

[Tallen]

I reckon if they should have made the cities accessible by the realm holding the majority of relics/keeps in each zone. That way actually defending a keep means something because if you lose it you know they are going to march on your city.

I'll go you one better, how about if any faction locks down an enemies T4 pairing, that instantly flags every player in the losing pairing in every tier below the capped tier for rvr until that pairing is unlocked.

That might galvanise players into defending

 

[dee777]

I'll go you one better, how about if any faction locks down an enemies T4 pairing, that instantly flags every player in the losing pairing in every tier below the capped tier for rvr until that pairing is unlocked.

That might galvanise players into defending

Funny idea, however it would mean that the tier4 people fail and the tier1 to 3 people suffer for it. Given the state of "oRvR" today, that system would only make pepple evade to another pairing anyway I presume.

The only thing that seems to be an incentive for people to do anything nowadays seems to be loot and arpees. As sad as it is...

 

[Xandax]

<snip>
I disagree about the system working well in DAoC. Before Timesinks of Atlantis the economy was just as fubared as TRs was. Grind some plat, buy the perfect stuff, be done with it. Little effort for massive gain. <snip>

I don't see that as "fubar" economy, but as an actual working economy. Something games should strive after.

Person A did work X and Person B did work Y, then they can interchange the benefit of their work by trading X for Y, instead of having to do both work X and Y. That's how economies work.
I don't go out and grow the food I eat, I let others do that and buy their services.

BoP especially hinders the economies more then promote it.

 

[Loneliness]

with op, wont improved orvr but some armour for mounts wouldnt go a miss either

 

[dee777]

I don't see that as "fubar" economy, but as an actual working economy. Something games should strive after.

Person A did work X and Person B did work Y, then they can interchange the benefit of their work by trading X for Y, instead of having to do both work X and Y. That's how economies work.
I don't go out and grow the food I eat, I let others do that and buy their services.

BoP especially hinders the economies more then promote it.

You neither quoted nor adressed my point. BoE/BoP are used as a drain, something every working economy needs or you suffer inflation.

Paying for upkeep/maintenance would be another working idea, tho you d end up paying more over time. I suppose thats why people usually dont like the idea.

 

[Zede]

why do i get the feeling mark jacobs has had a load of sycophants around him for the last 3 years making this game.


its shocking how they can get the orvr so wrong, when they had a template with daoc, where imho, they got it so right.

I catagorically state I could do a better job than mark head in the clouds jacobs.

the guy is an idiot.

 

[Boggy]

A working economy is so much more important than immersion IMO. Look at Tabula Rasa for a prime example of how no BoE/BoP kills large parts of a game.

I dunno, I'd say it's essential to either have a working economy or NO economy. In WAR I'd be pretty happy with no economy. If people say money and items are meaningless, I say hooray, because I won't be needing to accumulate any through farming, grinding or auction watching.

 

[Tallen]

I dunno, I'd say it's essential to either have a working economy or NO economy. In WAR I'd be pretty happy with no economy. If people say money and items are meaningless, I say hooray, because I won't be needing to accumulate any through farming, grinding or auction watching.