PvP mindset

[anarchypark]

How do you fight against 100 aao ?
When you meet 6:6 and found that enemy were superior, what would you do ?
I can think of 4 options.
1. headbutt and melt, aka feed.
2. sit and wait, not playing
3. split enemy, make them disorganized, aka play objective.
4. find better players, comp. if not possible, logoff. kind of option 2.

the moment after winner/loser were decided war runs different course.
probably 90% of players only focus on win/lose battle, which is already decided at first encounter. few more rounds if it was close.
but let's say it was 100 aao.

ppl don't realise what should be done as winner or loser.
so winners keep chasing already defeated enemy to the wc.
losers refuse to play.
they should do this instead.
winner - lock zone or end SC
loser - defense and fight back.

and the objectives help it.
giving chance to the losers to overcome enemy by split superior force.
giving winners something else to do than farming lesser force.

you're either zerg or quitter in the end.
objective play is grey middle area refugee from it.

[Davjen]

I honestly don't see the point in this 3d. Lack of pvp in scenarios as someone said when talking about "easy flag, or easy objective" it's because people are not playing the scenario as intended. If u play a capture flag game u will have endless amount of pvp around flag. People are just stupid, pretending to play Deathmatch in a non Deathmatch game so they are in wrong position fighting meanwhile people who knows what to do win the game alone uncontested. It's not game or device fail. Is player fault that's it. Start to follow people calling things, start to read instructions of scenarios and u will have 10x more pvp

[TiberiusD]

I honestly don't see the point in this 3d. Lack of pvp in scenarios as someone said when talking about "easy flag, or easy objective" it's because people are not playing the scenario as intended. If u play a capture flag game u will have endless amount of pvp around flag. People are just stupid, pretending to play Deathmatch in a non Deathmatch game so they are in wrong position fighting meanwhile people who knows what to do win the game alone uncontested. It's not game or device fail. Is player fault that's it. Start to follow people calling things, start to read instructions of scenarios and u will have 10x more pvp

I like what you said about fighting near a flag. This is the vest PvP experience. You have a reason to do it. And it's poeple who do not understand this...

[RuffRyder]

I'm curious what Yali has to say about this topic and I agree that it has to be discussed while looking forward to it, hoping the thread doesn't derail at some point.

While I don't see the OPs overall problem of making PvP less attractive, there are definitely things that need to be addressed, foremost for SCs. I experienced both PoVs - solo queueing and hoping for quick Emblems and going with 6 not finding appropriate fights and getting less rewarded - and I can't tell what's more annoying tbh, while pops in general have decreased lately even when queueing as tank or healer, so it's not even about the SC handler but the willingness of the community to queue at all it seems.

As mentioned before, there are maps that combine the flag capture and PvP mechanic very well, like Battle for Praag, where in addition a one-sided domination and keeping an enemy at spawn always led to a quick ending due to accumulated flag points, while even fights made it a long enjoyable back-and-forth fighting experience with a lot of kills and rewards in the end for both sides - and actually that's what I exspect from an SC.

On the other hand, the mentioned Thunder Valley, which is still one of the quicker SCs imho, follows the pattern of having to constantly take and retake the flags to collect enough points over time, leading to running around and avoiding many of the fights the players could have had with less flags. Same goes for e.g. Blood of the Black Cairn.

Less flags with poor positioning, like in Black Crag Keep, can end in the same pattern, while better positioned ones like in Nordenwatch, where the spawn points are not simply symmetric to each other and the flags, bring more options to the table regarding movement paths and strategic flag captures. Reikland Factory is a good example for that, while the addition of the fourth flag destroyed most of its former strength imho.

So a conclusion could only be made for individual SCs if you ask me.

Talking about RvR it's different and less complex imho.

Considering the rewards we had way worse times - good from easy farming PoV - 2 years ago where there was no level restriction for RvR bag rewards and you were able to get the first Conqueror/Subjugator/Genesis pieces from level 16 upwards.

While the roll itself does not take into account all other players' rolls, it still does take into account the contribution of all others players in the zone, what leads to people getting no bags when just flagsitting or whatever, and have to wait way longer for their roll bonus to add up.

The tendency I see in RvR development of the playerbase - that's only Order PoV here - is at least more trying to organize since fortresses were implemented and campaign management has changed. I really hope this tendency continues for City release so that organized forces have the incentive to get rewarded more than a random force.

Most problems in RvR imho come from class/realm/ability/morale balance (pick what you want^^), and that's nothing to be discussed in here.

[Collateral]

I still stand by what I said numerous times. The only thing that affected the quality of rvr was the merging of the tiers. After that the quality of rvr started going down by the day. Yes there were zergs before, but they weren't an every day occurrence and there were also A LOT more hardcore 6mans and organized 12-24 man warbands. People knew their game, their classes and mechanics etc. Yes it was sad that so many maps weren't used and the mid tier was dead, but I still think that there is a better way of fixing it. Though I guess it's pointless repeating myself over and over, I will become another Tesq, only in the rvr sense (not that I have anything against him, he genuinely has some good proposals and thoughts, but no one listens).

[Dajciekrwi]

For me Warhammer is not a strategic or tactical game.
Its a game about endless struggle between unspeakable cosmic powers: ORDER & CHAOS.
One of this powers will perish and one will triumph. So i must literally kill everyone of ORDER HEROS to let the CHOAS dominate. I dont want to be a next imperator ora king or warchief - i wanna burn whole world for Khorne!
So killing is everything - from destruction any rewards and blesses - gear, weapon, medals emblems, gold, potions, renown, experience. Keeps , Cities, BO -ok , but just on second plan.

[Davjen]

To make it more clear. From my point of view people see that problem as a problem because most of us are not playing as intended. Warhammer from my point of view it's not a retard game that let u win something by just "pushing". This game I think is a lot harder than most of the people think. In can't just facetank WB. You need to have objective for 2 reason:

1) meaningless pvp is fun for the first month...then u gonna get bored.

2) better leader/strategy can win against pure numbers.

If u remove objective from sc and rvr u will end having just a big boring arena with clueless headless chicken running towards middle and hit eachother.

In fact with flags, with objective u can't just run. U need to use brain, flank, retreat,push, split. U make a simple thing like "pvp" a true nice different experience than other so-called "pvp games".


One day, if people will start to follow wb leaders, scenarios instructions you will have WAY WAY more pvp. Imagine hide to find enemy wb with supplies and gank them. Or gank flag owner...come on you just need to understand that our vision is just bad because we are bad.

You can't be like "My pizza suck, I gonna report this japanese restaurant" this game is not meant to play as a headless chicken zerged, or a boring arena player

[peterthepan3]

Why do people assume that wanting to promote PvP equates to wanting to removing objectives completely? It's a bit of a strawman tbh.

I think people are really giving the objective game too much credit, claiming that there's a huge amount of strategic play involved. In reality, WAR is a very, very simple game, as is evident in the fact that it has never been regarded as a competitive game vs other MMOs. Saying that people are 'too dumb' to do the objectives is just an attempt to remove the spotlight away from the complete and utter monotony that is prevalent in many of the scenarios' objectives: sitting on a flag, move to next flag, rinse-repeat, avoid PvP, etc. are hardly expert strategic maneouvres.

This notion that people will suddenly come out of their warcamp to defend the objectives against the winning side is farcical, as 99% of the time people will just idle in their warcamp - irrespective of what the opposition is doing; it just doesn't happen. Also, there are some good maps that do have a nice mix of PvP in/around the flags (mentioned already), but to suggest that all of the maps promote this is wrong: again, you can win Thunder Valley with no PvP whatsoever.

Aside: removing PvP from scenarios would end up in much, much fewer people (aka the vast majority) queuing than if you were to remove the objectives. In fact, I doubt you'd lose many people if the latter were the case However, nobody is advocating for either of these things.

[wonshot]

Once again I did not start this topic, with the mindset of "I am stick of capping Flags and all objectives should be removed"

I like objectives as a direction, as to where my PvP will happen. I will once again use Nordenwatch, would I ever run up to where the middle-flag is placed if there was no flag, and use the terrain the map offers me, had there not been a flag? Probably not. With a Nordenwatch scenario without the 3 flags most of the clashes would be in the middle ground between the two warcamps.

I think the objectives are amazing when used correctly, as a direction to where the fighting will be happening.
If I queue for Nordenwatch, both realms cap their first flag and then clash at the middle BO I will sit with a feeling of (ok this is an important fight the points are even, winning this fight here will swing the lead towards whoever wins) I am having fun playing the objective and fighting players.

If I am in Thundervalley fighting on the middle BO and the other realm is staying 90% of the time on their mounts running around on the outskirts capping flags and getting ahead by "pveing" (granted playing the scenario as intented) I think that is when we see the different approaches coming into play in this debate, because ofc the guys on mount capping flags are winning for playing the scenario. But just because it is working as intented, does that mean we should not look at if the intention is solid enough or if correction is needed?

I named the topic PvP mindset. And that also leads to my followup question. So what happends next? The guys winning Thundervalley SC got their medals, they get their gear, became max rank and have everything they want. - Do they start fighting in their next Thundervalley scenario and change their focus to ingnore the flags and look for the fighting, is this the issue? The playerbase beind devided into two categories of;
1) im fully geared ready to fight.
2)I need my X gear so I will just focus on obtaining this in the fastes manner.

The same sort of split category can be seen in Fortresses Stage2:
1) the organized or geared players will want to setup a funnel stopping the players from entering, or just focus on killing.
2) the players who are "invader -and contribution" focused will tunnelvision on the flags and rewards.


The mindset seems to be fully carrot and progression based, and when many toons reach the fully equiped stage. People often lose interest in the toon, and quit or reroll. The few that stick around looking for a more "combat and killing" based gameplay experience feel like as the gamemechanics are not working against them. (Stage2 forts and Thundervalley sc example above)

[flintboth]

If there were less differences between gear power probably you would have less differences between the both categories you draw, 1) and 2) and fight would be more interesting.
Game would be less progression based and more battle/RvR/PvP oriented but I m just a player, this is just my opinion.
There would be more scenario because more fair enough.

Currently gear power differences as more impact in scenario than on RvR, because the players number on the RvR make gear differences less visible.
In scenario the gears differences impact on the battle outcome, match become unfair if one side is full geared.