RVR thoughts

TheHavok · June 2007

I think the RVR concepts in war are very interesting. However, i have a few questions based on there system of pvp. So they mentioned there are four tiers that each faction will hold and eventually do battle over. In the process, factions can lose or gain their tier based on a number of different factors of pve and pvp.

My question is, what happens to a faction when it begins to lose their tiers? It seems like a snowball affect would arise, thus granting the winning factions with more assurance to dominate in the conquering of their opposite faction. Wouldn't this eventually lead to servers being totally overrun by a certain faction? I have watched many videos about war and i still am not clear about the pvp system. In theory it seems more fun, mainly giving the players control to shape the world. Hopefully it doesn't turn out that a player's game experience is based off of the early accomlishments of his or her faction rather then an open world that is constantly up for grabs.

Gooney · June 2007

I understand the RVR system to be an evolution of the RVR system found in DAoC. DAoCs system works something like this. The more keeps your side holds the WEAKER your innate NPC defenses become (not including any guild invested defenses).

I have a hard time believing that Mythic would create an RVR system worse than the one they have now in DAoC, which is in my opinion the best RVR in any MMO. If anything RVR is the one area of MMOs that Mythic really does well.

Not sure if this answers your concern or not, honestly I havent done too much research into this title other than the promo and demonstration videos they released. What Ive seen so far isnt all that convincing, looks a lot like WoW graphics (stylized like original War Hammer), lots of big colorful explosions, scrolling stats...eh.. been there done that.

Plus, I have a hard, hard time getting excited about yet another fantasy setting. Fantasy to MMOs right now is what World War 2 was to FPSs and Strategy games 2 years ago... way way over done.

-Gooney

TheHavok · June 2007

Hmm, well hopefully the RVR will be further explained in the coming months.

In regards to your other claim about fantasy games being over played, yea i kind of see what your getting at. Thats why im also keeeping my eye on huxley. Although what i really am looking for is a game that can repeat the stages of fun i had with wow. Back before there were battlegrounds, shouts of "raiding ___ pst for invite" filled the general chat where all levels could participate in massive assaults against the opposing faction's outpost. Then, you could log onto the forums and read about the previous event from all sorts of different perspectives. Friendships, rivalries, enemies, and dedicated trolls would arise.

Yea....i miss those days.

TheHavok · June 2007

On a side note, warhammer has a lot of mmo players interested. Many different types of gaming communities are talking about dropping their current game and switching over to war once it comes out. Personally, i have only seen this done with a few games like star wars galaxies, everquest 2, and world of warcraft.

All of these games were very successful in their own rights (although swg seemed to constantly hurt itself) Basically what im trying to convey to you is that warhammer WILL have a strong community from the start and will most likely be a success unless the developers make major mistakes.

Cousmash · June 2007

im not sure, but i thought i heard that once a side of the faction takes control of the main city, after a while it will start all over again and then you get to do it all over. they did it so that no one faction could control everything always.

impulsebooks · June 2007

Originally posted by Cousmash

im not sure, but i thought i heard that once a side of the faction takes control of the main city, after a while it will start all over again and then you get to do it all over. they did it so that no one faction could control everything always.

Yes. One of the Pod casts mentions this. When attacking the capital city, an instanced scenario occurs and spawns as many instances as necessary to cater to all players involved. If your side gains enough points to win, the instances are shut down emptying all players outside the gates of the city, and the walls/gates are breached in the actual game world. This lets everyone inside to sack/loot the city. The only part that doesn't become under your (the winners') control is the safe zone around the opposing faction's flight master... the Mythic dev didn't go into too much detail, but he did say that after a set time the city reverts and the tier resets to default condition ie 50/50

Here is a video about the campaign game (capturing capital city) its toward the end of the first vid he talks about capturing the capital:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J8XaEUuYzI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h31S9wMGbhE

red_enferno · June 2007

The whole "snowball effect" is very true, but only to a point. I'm guessing there will be ways to gain your tier back before loosing, but thats all up to the players. I don't think that the RvR "Wars" are going to be short, they'll most likely take a while.

raykor · June 2007

Originally posted by TheHavok

I think the RVR concepts in war are very interesting. However, i have a few questions based on there system of pvp. So they mentioned there are four tiers that each faction will hold and eventually do battle over. In the process, factions can lose or gain their tier based on a number of different factors of pve and pvp.
My question is, what happens to a faction when it begins to lose their tiers? It seems like a snowball affect would arise, thus granting the winning factions with more assurance to dominate in the conquering of their opposite faction. Wouldn't this eventually lead to servers being totally overrun by a certain faction?

I don't see any problem with this "snowball" effect you describe as it actually helps one side accomplish the game's highest goal of sacking and looting the enemy capitals. Without the snowball effect, you would probably end up with a stagnant stalemate. I would prefer to see one or two of the six capitals fall every month and not once a year. It won't lead to any long term imbalance since we already know that the game resets the tiers after a victory.

What does concern me, is where are all the fighters for tiers one, two, and three supposed to come from? This won't be a problem when the game is new but after a short time everyone will have their main character at max level and restricted to combat in the fourth tier. Since you get experience from PvP, it will not be possible for veteran players to keep one alt set aside for each of the lower tiers. Do they expect players to constantly delete and reroll alts to fill the first three tiers with combatants? Do they expect the lower tiers to be supported by a constant flow of new players?

Elgareth · June 2007

Originally posted by raykor

I would prefer to see one or two of the six capitals fall every month and not once a year. It won't lead to any long term imbalance since we already know that the game resets the tiers after a victory.
What does concern me, is where are all the fighters for tiers one, two, and three supposed to come from? This won't be a problem when the game is new but after a short time everyone will have their main character at max level and restricted to combat in the fourth tier. Since you get experience from PvP, it will not be possible for veteran players to keep one alt set aside for each of the lower tiers. Do they expect players to constantly delete and reroll alts to fill the first three tiers with combatants? Do they expect the lower tiers to be supported by a constant flow of new players?

1.: Current plans are, that one capital city, on a fairly balanced servers, falls every week. Sounds too fast for me, so that it'll get "old" pretty soon, but it's in the testing, and I hope they change it to once every three weeks or something. Sucks when you can't be there when it falls and you have to wait for another ~3weeks, but IMO will keep the long-term fun up.

2.: The Lower Tiers don't really matter. Well yes, ~10-20% of the Tier 2 control will be determined by who owns the Tier 1 Zones and so on and so forth, BUT even if for example Order owns all Tier 1, 2, 3 Zones, but Destruction totally dominates the Tier 4 lands, those Tier 4 Lands will still be under Destruction's control. You'll just have a harder time conquering the higher TIer Zones if you don't already own the lower tier zones.

impulsebooks · June 2007

Originally posted by Elgareth

... BUT even if for example Order owns all Tier 1, 2, 3 Zones, but Destruction totally dominates the Tier 4 lands, those Tier 4 Lands will still be under Destruction's control. You'll just have a harder time conquering the higher TIer Zones if you don't already own the lower tier zones.

I think you're right about that. Still, even if you are at max level and mostly playing in the tier 4 zone, there is nothing stopping you going back to an earlier tier and causing havoc. I don't mean by greifing lower level players (I think I read somewhere that the game won't let you do that anyway) I mean by completing public quests and doing the PVE that all tiers have. I know PVE is a sore subject for a lot of people, but it does have a place in WAR. There are countless vids explaining how the PVE quests/storylines add to your factions' points. I suspect a lot of the quests (public ones especially) will be replayable and not the normal "one time only" quests. I don't know it for fact, you understand, but it seems a sensible way out.

Elgareth · June 2007

Originally posted by impulsebooks

I suspect a lot of the quests (public ones especially) will be replayable and not the normal "one time only" quests. I don't know it for fact, you understand, but it seems a sensible way out.

Public Quests are repeatable, yes.

And there'll surely be ways to help controlling lower tier zones as Tier 4 char, be it through down-scaling or whatnot.

However, seeing that 10 Tier 3 Victory Points effectively are only worth ~1 Tier 4 Victory Point, I think it'll be much more senseful to stay at your Tier (aka the highest Tier in which you can survive ;-) )

But yeah we'll have to sit and wait

And Pray to the Mythic Gods for entrance into the holy Beta Land

impulsebooks · June 2007

Originally posted by Elgareth

...

But yeah we'll have to sit and wait

And Pray to the Mythic Gods for entrance into the holy Beta Land

True,

I doubt I will get in the beta. I still can't get the website to accept the DxDiag file, and although I used the button to alert them to my problem via email including attaching the file, my profile still does not indicate I have applied to the damn beta!

Sickpup · June 2007

sounds like the overpopulated realm would be waiting in line to get into the instance's.Innovative way to balance the servers.

TheHavok · June 2007

Hmm, so the tiers are resetted once a city is sacked. Im a little dissapointed in this but i guess there is no other alternative for balance. Oh well, thanks for answering my questions.

I give this thread an 8/10

tikovoo · June 2007

Going to suck that the game world is reset every so often. Don't think I could stand the disapointment.

Volkmar · June 2007

Originally posted by tikovoo

Going to suck that the game world is reset every so often. Don't think I could stand the disapointment.

seems better to me than the "ok, dwarf capital gone and no chance for the stunties to win ever again so everyobdy rolls greenskins" scenario to me.

Warhammer is about perpetual war, not who win or lose a single battle

BTW. Yes public quests are repeatable and they COULD help in the local pvp by unleashing some ally in the battlefield, but nowhere is said that PVE quests actually give faction points!

THe pvp podcast specifically did not include ANY pve activity in the points calculations.

Horpse · June 2007

Originally posted by tikovoo

Going to suck that the game world is reset every so often. Don't think I could stand the disapointment.

Obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Quoted from a recent source from those peeps who went to Baltimore and did those interviews: http://www.nulnhighwayboys.com/forums/index.php?PHPSESSID=5e1ee3bbfdf320ce736267ee0d99e927&topic=1645

There was one good question that really stood out, and it involved city sieges. Jeff went into city sieges and explained that these things were HUGE. Jeff said they were going to be stress testing servers to see how many people they can fit in an area without the server exploding; he said at the moment we are able to put HundredS of people in an area without server problems. He said they would continue to test this until they reach a maximum number of people they can fit without servers being gay. I always thought that the city sieges would be like a set amount of people in a smaller area and points would build up from that, but from what Jeff said it seemed like a city would be taken by sheer brute force, which is fucking awesome. The other detail talked about was that if a capital city is captured, it will NEVER reset. That means the people have to retake it. Now, before people start getting nervous about server population problems Jeff simply said that “It won’t be hard to retake it, but you have to make some effort, the game simply won’t restart for you, this is War.”

catafract · June 2007

Why they dont implement attacks in actual city rather than instance, they could have npc respawn after 2 days of their death so losers have some motive to defend hard and slow back will be small if defenders lose and motivate them to work harder either to lauch counterattack or defend better .

Horpse · June 2007

They have both. There was a video explaining how it roughly works.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5J8XaEUuYzI

From the video, it seems that there are instances that involve the city attack on the outer perimeter first. Once the instances are complete, they are locked down. THEN the static world pvp begins and city gates are thrown open and everyone gets to pour in or out.

So to all those who are wondering why not world pvp for city sieges, I suppose you have forgotten to think about what if there were both instances and world pvp.

impulsebooks · June 2007

Originally posted by Volkmar

BTW. Yes public quests are repeatable and they COULD help in the local pvp by unleashing some ally in the battlefield, but nowhere is said that PVE quests actually give faction points!
THe pvp podcast specifically did not include ANY pve activity in the points calculations.

Its not mentioned in the pvp podcast, its in the RVR podcast. "PVE quests give victory points that help determine overall control of the zone" -- a quote from the following podcast called Types of RVR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApYSgxl_l00

The idea is obviously to make everyone valued no matter their choice of game play. PVP and PVE do count in WAR. PVP counts for more points of course, and most people will play that way. If PVE didn't count, no one would do the quests and Mythic would not like that as the quests are all about storyline.

impulsebooks · June 2007

Originally posted by catafract

Why they dont implement attacks in actual city rather than instance, they could have npc respawn after 2 days of their death so losers have some motive to defend hard and slow back will be small if defenders lose and motivate them to work harder either to lauch counterattack or defend better .

My guess would be player numbers. If they did city seiges in "real world" they would have problems balancing the sides. Or maybe its a matter of technology? Maybe they worry about server load. I am not a computer techy, but I beleive instances are on different servers.

There will be a lot of real world fighting in the city. The instance part is only for breaching the wall, or knocking down the gate, or tunneling under the wall etc.

Howdy, Stranger!

RVR thoughts

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

RVR thoughts

Comments