Mythic shouldn't take the war out of the players' hands.

[nero0102]

It is an idea ....


An idea that reminds me of how great ToA was supposed to be ...


Removing the complexity reminds me the difference between Putt-Putt and real golf.

NO NO...!! You can only putt in this direction on hole 5 at this much power, but only until wednesday when we want you to play hole 7 over and over while we sweep hole 5 for next week..

If I want rigidly structured PvP I might as well go back to playing WOW.

[Vengance]

I definitely don't like the idea of rotating cities. Talk about players being bored. I know it will only be fun to siege Altdorf so many times before it gets boring. Even if we only do it once every few weeks.

And I guess the Mythic guys would know best since they can actually PLAY the game, but I can't see how one front won't result in a massive stalemate if the sides have relatively even numbers.

You need zone control to be able to take the cities right? Well if you throw 2,000 players against 2,000 players over 10 zones... One holds 5 and the other 5 as well? To me as soon as one realm takes one zone, the enemy will rally and take one or and it starts over.

It just doesn't seem right to me. Plus it just totally negates the idea of realm coordination! Anyone can zergfest the contested areas. The joy for me was coordinating with the other guilds/alliances as to which group would be taking anf holding what pairing, or all working together.

If we get a grace period to learn the game and tactics with only one pairing GREAT! That motivation I can totally understand, as well as cutting the cities for now. But if the realms whole population is funneled toward one capital forever? Even if they rotate it seems like it takes a lrage chunk of the fun out for me. (even just in concept)

[Zeathy]

Originally Posted by Drokk

Dutch, I know it's an idea. I just hope the idea is squashed before it takes roots.

Same for me. I like being able to have the freedom to choose my front. I believe I can coordinate well enough to be able to do proper seiges even with all fronts open. I say if they need to, take there time with the cities. But when they are done, let us have at it as we desire.

[Weezheat]

1- Don't limit players
2- ??
3- Profit

[ChosenOne]

Originally Posted by alConn

I love how people think Mythic is dictating when, where and how to fight in RvR. I just don't understand where this is coming from...you can still do pretty much whatever you want, now all battlefronts just lead to a single capital city.

Each city is supposed to have up towards 12 PQ's inside them and over 100 quests. Not to mention three dungeons or more.

Thats alot of content players cant touch in their own cities just because Mythic wants them to possibly be on a permanent rotation. They have yet to directly state that at some point all six cities will be in the game, even if the battle presses forward in one front. IF they keep only two cities in the game at a time permanently then that is 48 pq's 400 quests and 12 dungeons that players wont be able to touch.

I dont think that consists of doing "pretty much whatever you want".

Polls and posting shows that a resounding number of players dont like the sound of this idea as a permanent change in the game. That means the burden of proof lies with Mythic to show why this is such a great idea because 3/4's of the people taking notice here are not agreeing.

One cannot say the dev's know better else they wouldnt need to have a beta that lasts for over a year and they wouldnt be making statements about how they need to depend on post release trends of PLAYERS in order to properly build and balance the cities. Fact is a permanent transition to a rotation system is one done without proper testing and against the wishes of a majority of folks who are actually going to be paying to keep this game going. Where is the "cents" in that?

[Destructive]

I remember I posted here but my post seemed to have disappeared. (Bad browncoat )

Anyway, I agree. Choices are a good thing to have. I don't really want to start a seige against X then have a message saying "You can't seige this area, the WAR is in Altdorf!" If I remember correctly WAR is everywhere.

(I remember my older post was a bit longer /sigh)

[TheStraw]

Originally Posted by ChosenOne

One cannot say the dev's know better else they wouldnt need to have a beta that lasts for over a year and they wouldnt be making statements about how they need to depend on post release trends of PLAYERS in order to properly build and balance the cities. Fact is a permanent transition to a rotation system is one done without proper testing and against the wishes of a majority of folks who are actually going to be paying to keep this game going. Where is the "cents" in that?

While I think a permanent rotation of active realm pairings is a terrible idea and very much a change from what has been presented to us for so long, I should point out that the rotation is only for sieges. All other functions of the cities (once they have actually been patched into the game) will be available.

I have read this in a Mark Jacobs post earlier today.

[Weezheat]

A bad idea is a bad idea, no matter how you try to spin it.

[Dunhill]

I like the OPs post.

I too sort of feel like mythic is trying to bottleneck the rvr now.

[andy_tenshi]

the way I understood it and I could be wrong though I hope I'm not is that as they improve the other cities and get them up to a workable level they will rotate them out for live testing and then once everything seems to be working fine with all 3 sets of cities they will put them all in at once.

if this isn't true and they do plan to continually rotate out which cities are active throughout the life of the game then I am definitely against it. seems very small scale and not much different than wow's stupid Battlegrounds and "battleground weekends"

[TheStraw]

Originally Posted by andy_tenshi

if this isn't true and they do plan to continually rotate out which cities are active throughout the life of the game then I am definitely against it. seems very small scale and not much different than wow's stupid Battlegrounds and "battleground weekends"

What Mr. Jacobs suggested was that the rotation would be a permanent arrangement. It would only determine which cities could be sieged, though. It would not limit other city functions.

Really, the system is far more restrictive than the 'weekends' in WoW, as they only give a bonus for playing a particular Battleground, not limit play to just that one.

[Mbj]

Folks,


1) I've said time and time again that city rotation is just an idea. We need to see how things go before we move forward with the cities, rotation or just about anything else. These things take a tremendous amount of time to perfect and we'd be foolish to rush blindly down any path, whether it is city rotation or not.

2) It's not about a lack of respect the player, stifling players, etc. It's about building opportunities, goals, etc. for the players. We're not forcing them to RvR, sack cities, etc. just putting out things for them to accomplish. Saying that because we are going with one city that will serve as the focus for initial endgame RvR, that I somehow don't respect them is as wrong as saying I don't respect players because I didn't design WAR as a totally open skill-based system with all the races of Warhammer so players could do exactly what they wanted or that Blizzard doesn't respect the players because they have so few classes to choose from in WoW. There have to be boundaries/limits in just about every game and by having one city as the focus of the opposing realm we hope that the RvR action will be more intense and happen more often than the other way. How that somehow shows a lack of respect, I don't understand.

City sieges are our endgame, the key to our success. The taking of a city is supposed to happen once a month depending on how effective the players are on each side. Taking a city is not like organizing a group to go on a raid, it is a long process that requires a lot of steps to complete. Based on what we learned from DAoC, which was the successful RvR/PvP of its time, lots of players did not want to RvR and stayed with PvE. By having one city on to focus at launch, we mitigate the chance of having servers in which city sieges don't happen nearly as often as we would like because there aren't enough players who want to RvR especially for the endgame content.

What I find frankly upsetting about this discussion is that when we make a decision, players ask for not only the reason but what ideas we might have in mind. When I say we're thinking about something, well, then I/we get pilloried for even thinking about an idea which is supposed to make the game better for the player base. It's not like the idea of rotation is intended to get more money out of players, add micro-transactions or do anything that I could understand this type of response. It's simply an idea that I thought might serve to give players new content and new challenges on an ongoing basis while allowing us to correct mistakes we may have made in the design of the initial cities. Personally, I don't care what solution we use as long as it is fun for the players, period. I don't mind people saying it's a bad idea but when that is then taken to the next level, all it does is make I/us less likely to ever talk about anything until it's done which is the exact opposite of what I want to do and what you should want us to do.

Over the last few days I/we have taken a lot of heat over our decisions and that was to be expected. However, when it becomes personal, insulting or just downright rude and/or any discussion/idea tossing is quickly met with that same kind of anger it is pointless for me or anyone else to engage the community with anything besides a Magic Show which is what other developers might do right now. I'll simply choose to take a little break for now.

Mark

[Microwavegerbil]

If it makes you feel any better MBJ, I think it's a pretty good idea! City rotations and more specifically, requiring 2/3 battlefront control forces one team to actually win. A big worry of mine with the 3 front system is everyone ignoring defense on the losing front and focus of offense on the winning front in pursuit of siege rewards. Essentially the "run past actual pvp" system we see so prevalent in AV on WOW atm. I'm curious to see how a rotating system would work.

[Xipetotec]

Im pretty sure the players can handle the war just fine. As long as they done put something in game to draw people away from it.

[TheStraw]

Originally Posted by Mbj

City sieges are our endgame, the key to our success. The taking of a city is supposed to happen once a month depending on how effective the players are on each side. Taking a city is not like organizing a group to go on a raid, it is a long process that requires a lot of steps to complete. Based on what we learned from DAoC, which was the successful RvR/PvP of its time, lots of players did not want to RvR and stayed with PvE. By having one city on to focus at launch, we mitigate the chance of having servers in which city sieges don't happen nearly as often as we would like because there aren't enough players who want to RvR especially for the endgame content.

Well Mr. Jacobs, I'm sorry but - that really isn't up to you to decide. I can understand that you and your team have put a tremendous amount of skill and effort in the city siege end game. However, it is for the players to decide whether we want to maximize use of that content.

I honestly think that if the game is placed on rails, then many players will rebel and leave.

The main reason for my interest in playing this game was that I saw it as an opportunity to make my participation in the gameplay have an effect in the game world. Taking away some of my freewill WRT to the end game diminishes my feeling of being a hero, rather than just a footsoldier.

Yes, people here are very emphatic about the issue. Speaking for myself, I can say that it is because I am afraid that a potentially excellent game is about to take a wrong turn. I have been drawn to your game by the great enthusiasm shown by you and your associates. It's infectious and I get caught up and SO want to spend many hours playing your game. That is true for many of us, and that is why we are so vociferous about what we think is a possible turning point in the game's design.