PDA

View Full Version : My Idea of RvR


fr0st2k
11-03-2007, 12:22 AM
This is my idea of RvR in this game currently. It is what I'd LOVE to see, and what I am currently hoping to see in the game. Having been unable to decipher what exactly this game is going to offer, I've come here to ask and to learn more about what this game is offerering...

From what I've heard, this is how the game will be played:

|O|1|2|3|4|-3|-2|-1|C|

O=order
C=chaos
1=beginners zone
2=you know, ... the next zone
3=next
4=final, or central zone

So, if the Order pushes up to -1, they will be attacking the area right outside of Chaos's major city? Right? Lowbies and Newbies will be onlooking from the PvE Cliffs and viewing the onslaught that is the RvR from another zone? Once Order pushes through, the City will become sieged, and ... according to the new, info being released in the interview, there will be instanced ....and .... non instanced scenerios????

Back in Camelot, non instanced gameplay is what was FUN! You would log into the game, hear from your guild that the castle in the center of the BG was getting raided, and you would rush your over to it. In WoW, before release, idiots complained, and COMPLAINED, that this created unfair battles. You know what happened. The retarded Wow Devs actually listened to the complainers, and created instanced battlegrounds. 10v10, 15v15, 25,25 so that it would be "fair". TERRIBLE!!!! I dont know a single WoW player that enjoyed those instanced BGs, unless they were legitamitely retarded.

WHY? Because they weren't fun. The fun part of battles is interacting with your SERVER, and gathering reinforcements to fight back. If youre unable to do that in time, then you lose your Castle/front, and the advantage it gives you.

Who said that BGs HAVE to be about fair, even, groupVgroup battles? If i wanted to play that, I would play Counter-Strike, Halo, TFC2, or Guild Wars. The point of an MMO is to form relationships, and to create bonds. By getting your whoopped on the frontlines, then reporting back to your team and yelling "Need Help At XXXXXX," people would/will form a much closer relation to each other.

Even if you get destroyed, the game 'could' revolve about forming a group that is stronger than the one that wiped you out. Going back in and retaking what was lost.

If you owned "4", the central ground, and someone took it from you with a lot of players...think about it. Not only could you be part of that group that took it back, but you WOULD be part of that. and you could ALSO be part of the defense force, and the force that pressed forward onto 3, or -3.

I understand that too many people in the same area would cause lag. But the way DAOC did it was great.... If you die, you warp out, and you have to be TPed back in. I understand that the technology back in that day was worse, and more comps could use it, and more models could be on a screen at the time........but changing the game so that we could NEVER have huge battles, eliminates the need to even own a MMO.

Scenerios are nice, but World PvP should be the norm. Unfair battles should crop up. The game should be based around organization. If you pop onto the forums and see "Taking Capital City, Thurs. NIGHT!!! Report to Zone3" I assure you, YOU, and many others would feel OBLIGATED to join. And the enemies would show up to defend, or "generals" aka "leaders" would show up to foil your plans. Even if you weren't a forum visitor, you would still hear about it when you signed on and heard everyone talking about it.

I just really hope they dont take WoW's way out and isntance battles, limiting them, making them pathetically small, boring, and something I can get from 100's of other multiplayer games. I play MMO's for the "massive" adjective, not the multiplayer.

Does anyone agree with me? Or do you all want to make WoW's mistake, and complain about Lag, and unfair battles? Or do you perhaps.., want to grow some balls, and get creamed by a huge number of enemies once in a while, so that you can organize and be a part of the huge counter offensive to blast your opponents to hell and back. Battles that are fair would most certainly appear. If breaking down the enemies gate was hard enough, It would give the opponent PLENTY of time to gather reinforcements to counter your attack, or at least make it harder, or prolong it for more players to log in.

So. ... what do you want? Crappy scenerios dominating gameplay? Or player created battles, where its different EVERYTIME you log in?

Please, tell me that its the latter...if so, i will buy this game with no regrets. If the former, I will be buying this game with the simple assumption that I will be buying WoW2.

Brynduraz
11-03-2007, 12:54 AM
I have played many mmorpg but am a pvp noob... I understood and appreciated your concerns and i also feel that unfair "odds" would be more fun

I also had 2 thoughts..... 1) when the odds are "unfair" perhaps special NPC could spawn for a few minutes while the rally call goes out. Perhaps these npc function like normal npc OR what if the player could give them general commands. For example get 3 NPC players to guard a particular area.


2) My overwhelming concern with this RvR is it seems like it may prevent some of the fights that i think are so interesting in warhammer. I would like to be able to roll an orc warboss who happens to also want to take on a few chaos outposts. What if a few roudy dwarves have a reason to be grudgesworn against some Elgi. Or what about orcs who want to fight each other for the approval of the current warlord. I hope some of the RvR servers allow for these interesting scenerios.

Even if they are GM events... some GM make a character like King Elfslayer who wants to revive the war of the beard......all the dwarves who want to join his forces can join him on a raid of the elven city . Or another more likely scenario would be orc warboss soandso wants to plunder a city and he wants to start in chaos areas. All the orcs who join his cause can join him and are allowed to attack chaos players for a certain amount of time.

From a game balance perspective these fights would be unbalanced because the devs are trying to balance one realm vs the other BUT some of us may not care much about balance. Give us a special free for all server and some speciall reasons to attack peeps who should be our allies and see how it goes. I would think you should still restrict group forming to be only within standar RvR structure so you dont have lame gruops like chaos and dwarves fighitn together against HE.

I could forsee a time in the future where some RL guild of skaven may try to thwart the plans of some RL guild of orcs when they attack the dwarven holds. maybe their could even be a quest tie in or a GM event where two different GMs on the evil side try to see which GM can conquer a certain good city first. The players who enlist with a certain GM get a special PvP tag allowing them to attack peeps who are alligned with that other notorious GM even if he is in their current "realm"

I hope their is a thread about this tha i can continue my mini tangent on.....

Aqe
11-03-2007, 02:16 AM
Nope game isn't build like that.

its:

. . . . .C
1 2 3 4
| | | 4
1 2 3 4
. . . . .C

Tier1, Tier2, Tier3, Tier4, City.
http://www.warhammeronline.com/english/media/podcast/files/Tir-RvR_explaination_final.html

Sturmer
11-03-2007, 03:29 AM
Its suggestion... doh

Anyway original idea, like Aqe said is much better.
Lower Tier players wont get in middle of Tier 4 battle, creating unnecessary lag and confusion who is Tier 4 player and who is not.

PlagueLord
11-03-2007, 09:24 AM
i envisioned war to be exactly like the OP described it...i don't want a game to be fair, i want the odds stacked against me. if everyone is in a crossed server instance there is no relationship formed between your allies, you might as well be playing with a bunch of npc's....give me open pvp and war that is everywhere, and not just a slogan for selling your game.if a game is based on player skill, balance should not be a problem.

br00tal
11-03-2007, 10:56 AM
I just realized, I don't acutally know what happens when you capture the enemies Tier 1 zone.

Does anything happen? haha.

Ranti
11-03-2007, 11:07 AM
I just realized, I don't acutally know what happens when you capture the enemies Tier 1 zone.

Does anything happen? haha.

You can't "take" tier 1, 2, or 3. at least to the best of my Knowledge


But, VPs from tier 1, 2, and 3 will effect tier 4 and the final campaign

So in essence, you work to take tier 4 while fighting in 1-3

br00tal
11-03-2007, 11:09 AM
You can't "take" tier 1, 2, or 3. at least to the best of my Knowledge


But, VPs from tier 1, 2, and 3 will effect tier 4 and the final campaign

So in essence, you work to take tier 4 while fighting in 1-3

http://www.warhammeronline.com/engli...ion_final.html

it shows the greenskins capturing tier 1.

RexT
11-03-2007, 12:36 PM
Please, instances don't limit world PvP. Crappily designed world PvP limits world PvP. Even if Blizz did away with all the instances people still wouldn't bother with the world PvP objectives because they would still be crappy. Instanced scenarios are fine the way they are. If Mythic creates a suitable environment for world PvP then people are going to show up, its as simple as that.

Grondoth
11-03-2007, 02:34 PM
I just realized, I don't acutally know what happens when you capture the enemies Tier 1 zone.

Does anything happen? haha.

Noone knows how zone control works yet, I'm afraid. Nothing's been really said about it, except for maybe some hints in one interview(http://www.mpogd.com/news/?ID=3118) but that's not really clear cut either. So everyone's pretty much where you are.