If Warhammer had instanced RVR lakes, it would have been a powerhouse. Now, it's just another 300k entry into a flooded market of near misses.
And by the by, the author sounds like he's describing the SWTOR that I seem to be imagining.
Warhammer had instanced scenarios. There were instanced RvR lakes. Instead of laying siege to a big fortress you just captured the flag. That is one of the main arguments for an instance right? Fast and easy to get into. If they added a walled fort to an instance there would have been calls for murder. People would have complained that they couldn't get in 5 scenario runs in an hour any more.
So what is the difference in how Warhammer is and what you claim it should have been? What did they not add that you wanted to see? Personally I quit it because the instancing took people out of the open world RvR.
If Warhammer had instanced RVR lakes, it would have been a powerhouse. Now, it's just another 300k entry into a flooded market of near misses.
And by the by, the author sounds like he's describing the SWTOR that I seem to be imagining.
Warhammer had instanced scenarios. There were instanced RvR lakes. Instead of laying siege to a big fortress you just captured the flag. That is one of the main arguments for an instance right? Fast and easy to get into. If they added a walled fort to an instance there would have been calls for murder. People would have complained that they couldn't get in 5 scenario runs in an hour any more.
So what is the difference in how Warhammer is and what you claim it should have been? What did they not add that you wanted to see? Personally I quit it because the instancing took people out of the open world RvR.
No. There's a flaw in the logic of you open world, instance haters. Instanced PVP does not take people out of open world PVP.
Crappy open world PVP keeps people from participating in open world PVP.
Instanced lakes means that when you run into a lake from the "open world" you are loaded into a player population load balanced instance. Instead, we got a RVR that was determined only by which faction had more players.
When I started WAR at launch I was on a low population (but balanced server). My small to medium sized guild made a living taking keeps with 6-10 players until the Destro faction responded. Then we could hold a keep for hours against a slightly larger force. Other players from both faction would trickle in until either we lost the keep or the attackers got frustrated and left.
It was epic.
After the server merge and our guild reaching T4, no such luck. We couldn't even make it through a single keep lord before the zerg arrrived. Then, suddenly outnumber 3 or 4 to 1 we would get wiped in less than a minute.
EVERY TIME.
If the lakes were player population load balanced I'd still be playing. In two faction, static server, open world RVR, I suggest that it is theoretically impossible for the developer to guarentee a fair gaming environment because of server to server population imbalances.
Would you play checkers against somebody that only allowed you half your pieces? Chess if you only got the king side pieces? Maybe you would enjoy the challenge, but there's a reason that those game have survived and we both left WAR.
If Warhammer had instanced RVR lakes, it would have been a powerhouse. Now, it's just another 300k entry into a flooded market of near misses.
And by the by, the author sounds like he's describing the SWTOR that I seem to be imagining.
Warhammer had instanced scenarios. There were instanced RvR lakes. Instead of laying siege to a big fortress you just captured the flag. That is one of the main arguments for an instance right? Fast and easy to get into. If they added a walled fort to an instance there would have been calls for murder. People would have complained that they couldn't get in 5 scenario runs in an hour any more.
So what is the difference in how Warhammer is and what you claim it should have been? What did they not add that you wanted to see? Personally I quit it because the instancing took people out of the open world RvR.
No. There's a flaw in the logic of you open world, instance haters. Instanced PVP does not take people out of open world PVP.
Crappy open world PVP keeps people from participating in open world PVP.
Instanced lakes means that when you run into a lake from the "open world" you are loaded into a player population load balanced instance. Instead, we got a RVR that was determined only by which faction had more players.
When I started WAR at launch I was on a low population (but balanced server). My small to medium sized guild made a living taking keeps with 6-10 players until the Destro faction responded. Then we could hold a keep for hours against a slightly larger force. Other players from both faction would trickle in until either we lost the keep or the attackers got frustrated and left.
It was epic.
After the server merge and our guild reaching T4, no such luck. We couldn't even make it through a single keep lord before the zerg arrrived. Then, suddenly outnumber 3 or 4 to 1 we would get wiped in less than a minute.
EVERY TIME.
If the lakes were player population load balanced I'd still be playing. In two faction, static server, open world RVR, I suggest that it is theoretically impossible for the developer to guarentee a fair gaming environment because of server to server population imbalances.
Would you play checkers against somebody that only allowed you half your pieces? Chess if you only got the king side pieces? Maybe you would enjoy the challenge, but there's a reason that those game have survived and we both left WAR.
Sounds like the other side was just better organized and prepared. They got the most, the fastest, to the best place. Sometimes things are not balanced, Sometimes things are not fair. At 4 to 1 odds yea you are probably just screwed when you are not defending but you know what? If there were no instanced scenarios available to players then you might have made up alot of that disparity. At any given time in WAR 75-90% of RvR action is scenario based in my opinion. No one comes out unless there is a major event going on. Dump instances and you can have multiple keep raids going on end that will cut back the advantage of the side with more people. They cant be everywhere at once and they wont be divided evenly.
If numbers were all that mattered in anything then during the cold war the Soviets and China would have rolled us up inside of 5 years. There is something to be said for skill and thoughtfulness. Don't use we were outnumbered as an excuse. Plenty of time in DAOC I was on an under pop server fighting against overwhelming odds and had fun and was successful. Not always and not even most of the time. But we were never automatically out of the fight because of numerical inferiority.
And as far as the Chess analogy, I do play that way. Its a much better way to improve yourself then by playing fair, why? Cuss life ain't always fair. Best way to train for it is to handicap yourself. It's makes a win 100 times more satisfying then just winning a standard game. Try it sometime. If ya keep losing you can always quit....
Sounds like the other side was just better organized and prepared. They got the most, the fastest, to the best place. Sometimes things are not balanced, Sometimes things are not fair. At 4 to 1 odds yea you are probably just screwed when you are not defending but you know what? If there were no instanced scenarios available to players then you might have made up alot of that disparity. At any given time in WAR 75-90% of RvR action is scenario based in my opinion. No one comes out unless there is a major event going on. Dump instances and you can have multiple keep raids going on end that will cut back the advantage of the side with more people. They cant be everywhere at once and they wont be divided evenly.
If numbers were all that mattered in anything then during the cold war the Soviets and China would have rolled us up inside of 5 years. There is something to be said for skill and thoughtfulness. Don't use we were outnumbered as an excuse. Plenty of time in DAOC I was on an under pop server fighting against overwhelming odds and had fun and was successful. Not always and not even most of the time. But we were never automatically out of the fight because of numerical inferiority.
And as far as the Chess analogy, I do play that way. Its a much better way to improve yourself then by playing fair, why? Cuss life ain't always fair. Best way to train for it is to handicap yourself. It's makes a win 100 times more satisfying then just winning a standard game. Try it sometime. If ya keep losing you can always quit....
/sarcasm
Your comparison of a game with rules to the real world is apt.
/endsarcasm
Games are not life. Games are games. People like games that are fair.
Wish in one hand and poop in the other. Instancing is here to stay.
People like instanced PVP because it is balanced within the game mechanics. The past is gone. There is no going back. You will not get what you want except in a niche market game full of elitist gankers like yourself.
I said very plainly that I enjoyed hours and hours of epic battles against slightly larger foe using strategy and defensive positions in WAR. When it comes to numbers of 24 vs 96 or 100 v 300, the higher number teams advantage increase exponentially in a zerg fest.
Let me give you a concrete example. If my team has 20 players and the other team has 80 players, even if we kill them 2 to 1, once our 20 players die and run back from the GY, we have killed only 40 players on the other team. They still have 40 players there who have yet to go down.
DAOC was a three faction game. Your argument does not apply to a two faction system like WAR.
The "orginization" argument is weak attempt at a personal attack that illustrates your complete lack of comprehension of reality. The imbalance was in WAR was evident and well documented. You had but to connect to the login server to see MEDIUM vs HIGH or FULL population to know who was going to hold the keeps. And it did not simply break down to my personal experience or my groups lack of organization. The underpopulated side NEVER held and significant number of real world RVR objectives. The underpopulated side NEVER advanced through the endgame PVP raid encounters. Not just on my server, but on every server. It wasn't only Order getting crushed by Destro on every server. There were servers where Order had the higher population as well. They had daily raids on Destro's main fortress. Destro never made it to the fortress on those servers, as Order never made it to Destro fortress on my server.
Save your lack of logic and personal attacks from somebody who cares about your opinion. You sir are an MMO dinosaur. Instanced everything is the way of the future.
I merely stated a possible solution to your problem, remove the instancing. This will in effect force people to play together in an open world RvR system. As long as people have an easy out to get their quick fix of fast PvP action they won't spend time to go out and do some serious keep taking. At least a majority wont. That was one possible solution. Even at 4 to one odds if there are enough total players in the game world (one world) the guys with the most still cant defend everywhere equally. Human nature will show that guilds and friends will not evenly divide up for equal defense. Even if they do there are ways to outflank, feignt, and fool them with misdirection. This gives the attacker some advantage as they will be mobile while the defenders will remain mostly static. The attacker will also be able to pick the place of battle. these are facts in both gaming and real world conflict.
Now you can whine, complain, and quit, as you had. Or you can overcome this challenge that is in your path. So what I would really like to hear instead of someone calling me a ganker or an elitest is a possible solution to the problem you started out with. Do you have any ideas except for make everything an instance. Since I think that might go against the original problem just a little bit. You can play WAR as a pure instance game all the way to level cap bud. Nothing is stopping you from running instances all the way. might get boring after a while but all instances eventually do.
Comments
Warhammer had instanced scenarios. There were instanced RvR lakes. Instead of laying siege to a big fortress you just captured the flag. That is one of the main arguments for an instance right? Fast and easy to get into. If they added a walled fort to an instance there would have been calls for murder. People would have complained that they couldn't get in 5 scenario runs in an hour any more.
So what is the difference in how Warhammer is and what you claim it should have been? What did they not add that you wanted to see? Personally I quit it because the instancing took people out of the open world RvR.
Warhammer had instanced scenarios. There were instanced RvR lakes. Instead of laying siege to a big fortress you just captured the flag. That is one of the main arguments for an instance right? Fast and easy to get into. If they added a walled fort to an instance there would have been calls for murder. People would have complained that they couldn't get in 5 scenario runs in an hour any more.
So what is the difference in how Warhammer is and what you claim it should have been? What did they not add that you wanted to see? Personally I quit it because the instancing took people out of the open world RvR.
No. There's a flaw in the logic of you open world, instance haters. Instanced PVP does not take people out of open world PVP.
Crappy open world PVP keeps people from participating in open world PVP.
Instanced lakes means that when you run into a lake from the "open world" you are loaded into a player population load balanced instance. Instead, we got a RVR that was determined only by which faction had more players.
When I started WAR at launch I was on a low population (but balanced server). My small to medium sized guild made a living taking keeps with 6-10 players until the Destro faction responded. Then we could hold a keep for hours against a slightly larger force. Other players from both faction would trickle in until either we lost the keep or the attackers got frustrated and left.
It was epic.
After the server merge and our guild reaching T4, no such luck. We couldn't even make it through a single keep lord before the zerg arrrived. Then, suddenly outnumber 3 or 4 to 1 we would get wiped in less than a minute.
EVERY TIME.
If the lakes were player population load balanced I'd still be playing. In two faction, static server, open world RVR, I suggest that it is theoretically impossible for the developer to guarentee a fair gaming environment because of server to server population imbalances.
Would you play checkers against somebody that only allowed you half your pieces? Chess if you only got the king side pieces? Maybe you would enjoy the challenge, but there's a reason that those game have survived and we both left WAR.
Stop crying in my beer.
Warhammer had instanced scenarios. There were instanced RvR lakes. Instead of laying siege to a big fortress you just captured the flag. That is one of the main arguments for an instance right? Fast and easy to get into. If they added a walled fort to an instance there would have been calls for murder. People would have complained that they couldn't get in 5 scenario runs in an hour any more.
So what is the difference in how Warhammer is and what you claim it should have been? What did they not add that you wanted to see? Personally I quit it because the instancing took people out of the open world RvR.
No. There's a flaw in the logic of you open world, instance haters. Instanced PVP does not take people out of open world PVP.
Crappy open world PVP keeps people from participating in open world PVP.
Instanced lakes means that when you run into a lake from the "open world" you are loaded into a player population load balanced instance. Instead, we got a RVR that was determined only by which faction had more players.
When I started WAR at launch I was on a low population (but balanced server). My small to medium sized guild made a living taking keeps with 6-10 players until the Destro faction responded. Then we could hold a keep for hours against a slightly larger force. Other players from both faction would trickle in until either we lost the keep or the attackers got frustrated and left.
It was epic.
After the server merge and our guild reaching T4, no such luck. We couldn't even make it through a single keep lord before the zerg arrrived. Then, suddenly outnumber 3 or 4 to 1 we would get wiped in less than a minute.
EVERY TIME.
If the lakes were player population load balanced I'd still be playing. In two faction, static server, open world RVR, I suggest that it is theoretically impossible for the developer to guarentee a fair gaming environment because of server to server population imbalances.
Would you play checkers against somebody that only allowed you half your pieces? Chess if you only got the king side pieces? Maybe you would enjoy the challenge, but there's a reason that those game have survived and we both left WAR.
Sounds like the other side was just better organized and prepared. They got the most, the fastest, to the best place. Sometimes things are not balanced, Sometimes things are not fair. At 4 to 1 odds yea you are probably just screwed when you are not defending but you know what? If there were no instanced scenarios available to players then you might have made up alot of that disparity. At any given time in WAR 75-90% of RvR action is scenario based in my opinion. No one comes out unless there is a major event going on. Dump instances and you can have multiple keep raids going on end that will cut back the advantage of the side with more people. They cant be everywhere at once and they wont be divided evenly.
If numbers were all that mattered in anything then during the cold war the Soviets and China would have rolled us up inside of 5 years. There is something to be said for skill and thoughtfulness. Don't use we were outnumbered as an excuse. Plenty of time in DAOC I was on an under pop server fighting against overwhelming odds and had fun and was successful. Not always and not even most of the time. But we were never automatically out of the fight because of numerical inferiority.
And as far as the Chess analogy, I do play that way. Its a much better way to improve yourself then by playing fair, why? Cuss life ain't always fair. Best way to train for it is to handicap yourself. It's makes a win 100 times more satisfying then just winning a standard game. Try it sometime. If ya keep losing you can always quit....
Sounds like the other side was just better organized and prepared. They got the most, the fastest, to the best place. Sometimes things are not balanced, Sometimes things are not fair. At 4 to 1 odds yea you are probably just screwed when you are not defending but you know what? If there were no instanced scenarios available to players then you might have made up alot of that disparity. At any given time in WAR 75-90% of RvR action is scenario based in my opinion. No one comes out unless there is a major event going on. Dump instances and you can have multiple keep raids going on end that will cut back the advantage of the side with more people. They cant be everywhere at once and they wont be divided evenly.
If numbers were all that mattered in anything then during the cold war the Soviets and China would have rolled us up inside of 5 years. There is something to be said for skill and thoughtfulness. Don't use we were outnumbered as an excuse. Plenty of time in DAOC I was on an under pop server fighting against overwhelming odds and had fun and was successful. Not always and not even most of the time. But we were never automatically out of the fight because of numerical inferiority.
And as far as the Chess analogy, I do play that way. Its a much better way to improve yourself then by playing fair, why? Cuss life ain't always fair. Best way to train for it is to handicap yourself. It's makes a win 100 times more satisfying then just winning a standard game. Try it sometime. If ya keep losing you can always quit....
/sarcasm
Your comparison of a game with rules to the real world is apt.
/endsarcasm
Games are not life. Games are games. People like games that are fair.
Wish in one hand and poop in the other. Instancing is here to stay.
People like instanced PVP because it is balanced within the game mechanics. The past is gone. There is no going back. You will not get what you want except in a niche market game full of elitist gankers like yourself.
I said very plainly that I enjoyed hours and hours of epic battles against slightly larger foe using strategy and defensive positions in WAR. When it comes to numbers of 24 vs 96 or 100 v 300, the higher number teams advantage increase exponentially in a zerg fest.
Let me give you a concrete example. If my team has 20 players and the other team has 80 players, even if we kill them 2 to 1, once our 20 players die and run back from the GY, we have killed only 40 players on the other team. They still have 40 players there who have yet to go down.
DAOC was a three faction game. Your argument does not apply to a two faction system like WAR.
The "orginization" argument is weak attempt at a personal attack that illustrates your complete lack of comprehension of reality. The imbalance was in WAR was evident and well documented. You had but to connect to the login server to see MEDIUM vs HIGH or FULL population to know who was going to hold the keeps. And it did not simply break down to my personal experience or my groups lack of organization. The underpopulated side NEVER held and significant number of real world RVR objectives. The underpopulated side NEVER advanced through the endgame PVP raid encounters. Not just on my server, but on every server. It wasn't only Order getting crushed by Destro on every server. There were servers where Order had the higher population as well. They had daily raids on Destro's main fortress. Destro never made it to the fortress on those servers, as Order never made it to Destro fortress on my server.
Save your lack of logic and personal attacks from somebody who cares about your opinion. You sir are an MMO dinosaur. Instanced everything is the way of the future.
Stop crying in my beer.
Wow, such anger.
I merely stated a possible solution to your problem, remove the instancing. This will in effect force people to play together in an open world RvR system. As long as people have an easy out to get their quick fix of fast PvP action they won't spend time to go out and do some serious keep taking. At least a majority wont. That was one possible solution. Even at 4 to one odds if there are enough total players in the game world (one world) the guys with the most still cant defend everywhere equally. Human nature will show that guilds and friends will not evenly divide up for equal defense. Even if they do there are ways to outflank, feignt, and fool them with misdirection. This gives the attacker some advantage as they will be mobile while the defenders will remain mostly static. The attacker will also be able to pick the place of battle. these are facts in both gaming and real world conflict.
Now you can whine, complain, and quit, as you had. Or you can overcome this challenge that is in your path. So what I would really like to hear instead of someone calling me a ganker or an elitest is a possible solution to the problem you started out with. Do you have any ideas except for make everything an instance. Since I think that might go against the original problem just a little bit. You can play WAR as a pure instance game all the way to level cap bud. Nothing is stopping you from running instances all the way. might get boring after a while but all instances eventually do.