Organized wbs and gamedirection

Let's talk about... everything else

Moderators: Developer, Management, Web Developer

User avatar
Acidic
Posts: 957
Contact:

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#11 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:13 pm

Yes have to agree the loot bag mentality is appearing to win over game play.
Still think that just removing loot bags from the game would sort a lot of issues around blobbing and general mindless play that goes on. No bag no need to Zerg reduced lag

User avatar
Grock
Posts: 237

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#12 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:16 pm

You dont need to test or even "theorycraf" anything to realize that having no active zone at all for an hour of playtime is a terrible decision, and will be destructive for any kind of organized play.

And then there's this perspective: a sub-40 player participating in pre-fort T4 zone is essentially fighting to get a 1-hour timeout from the game.
Orkni
Image

User avatar
Reesh
Posts: 614

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#13 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 5:23 pm

Well, you will just need to amass x2 organized wbs instead of one, to face 5 warbands on opposite side.
Image

Tom
Posts: 54

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#14 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:01 pm

Is it correct to understand the "only-one-pairing-at-a-time-open" as temporary for improvement reasons? (I really hope so, because personally I'd prefer all pairings open rather than only one).

Also, why have no pairing open while the fortress fight is on? If scs don't pop frequently (which is often the case during certain hours), is it preferable that people log off for an hour or sit afking in city instead of playing rvr in a new zone? Does that help improving things?

User avatar
normanis
Posts: 336
Contact:

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#15 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 6:18 pm

i think when open forts there should be opened next pairing zone. if attackers loosed it. than u need lock opened next pairing zone. for example
stonewach - opened next zone is t2 emp. if destro loose to stonewatch u need lock t2emp (no matter who win) open thundermountain. 1 pairing zone is always opened.
also we should give try about new changes , because locking empty zone is less rewarded. also why premades are so worried i will tell u.
for example ordr pug whant to lock dwarfs (byt all big fight is in reikland) , there is premades who whant easy rr and go to dwarfs defeat order lowbie pug and than go back to reikland. and again same lowbies get new ram and like rams going after dwarf lord , show up destro and again wipe tham. easy rr.
p.s its mean '' seperated'' zerg fights , to avoid lags. :lol:

Secrets
Developer
Posts: 107

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#16 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:30 pm

This decision was made to ease the transition to cities from a technical perspective. Eventually, this was going to happen anyways when we launch city scenarios. Now that we have the framework in place from a technical perspective, we can re-explore implementing creative ways of unlocking pairings, perhaps even contextually.

I haven't discussed this with the rest of the team - so anything below is purely speculation, but what if we unlock a T2-T3 pairing *that hasn't been captured yet* while a fort is going on?

The T2-T3 pairing that opens up would be one of the pairings that hasn't been captured in favor of a specific realm. If the fortress siege fails, the other pairing that opened up will close upon zone flip. If the fortress siege completes, the new pairing will stay open and the campaign will progress.

There would still be a situation in which the campaign could *not* unlock another pairing (IE; Dwarf/Empire locked, Elf in fortress) but most will be preparing for a city at that time when the last fortress is active, so I think it would be fair to lock everyone out for an hour.

Another option I had floated around by the community members that I have talked to is opening a 'side-campaign' during fortress sieges that closes after the fortress is captured or defended. This 'side-campaign' would function like T1 but in a T4 side lake. (IE; West Praag, Cinderfall etc) - would require a bit of development time, but I think it would be beneficial.

Last idea I had was to reduce the timer for SCs during fortress time. I don't want to do that, and it feels like a last resort/bandaid fix.

User avatar
Skullgrin
Posts: 385

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#17 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:23 pm

Secrets wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:30 pm
Another option I had floated around by the community members that I have talked to is opening a 'side-campaign' during fortress sieges that closes after the fortress is captured or defended. This 'side-campaign' would function like T1 but in a T4 side lake. (IE; West Praag, Cinderfall etc) - would require a bit of development time, but I think it would be beneficial.

Now this is an idea that I like, had a similar thought a while back except that the 'side-campaign' area would be in an instanced new zone - but setting something up that is open-world also works. My only concern is how difficult it would be to implement, but if you guys think it is feasible to do then I'm all for it!

Edit: Just had another idea, perhaps you could implement a world event while the Fortress/City siege is happening - something like a Skaven invasion in a random T2-T3 zone. I know for a fact that Wargrimnir has fuzzy feelings for the rodents. :lol: :P :lol:
Image
Thargrimm - Chosen 40/85

User avatar
adapter
Posts: 29

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#18 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 8:52 pm

What about 24vs24 Scenario for organized warbands which gives tokens for a new set

User avatar
Ototo
Posts: 514

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#19 » Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:04 pm

Secrets wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:30 pm
(...)
Another option I had floated around by the community members that I have talked to is opening a 'side-campaign' during fortress sieges that closes after the fortress is captured or defended. This 'side-campaign' would function like T1 but in a T4 side lake. (IE; West Praag, Cinderfall etc) - would require a bit of development time, but I think it would be beneficial.
(...)
OK, completely crazy idea probably, but you have the unused maps for the other 2 capitals for each realm, 4 full unused maps. Maybe open one of them?

Let's say that Altdorf unlocks cause of Elf and Dwarf pairings locks. Random dice open an order realm city but not Empire, with 4-5 BOs placed in it, and the realm with most X at the end of City Siege get some bags and renown. Let's say that the siege of the Inevitable City was due to Dwarf and Empire locks, it opens allways Greenskin capital.

This could turn a very frustrating situation into a big win-win situation.

Those capitals have no quests tied to them, and actually nothing that can interfere with any development that you want to do in them at all. We get unique battlefields for all levels T2+, and you get an easy solution for this :) :)
Characters
Order:
Empire------->Ototo (WP), Marajade (KoBS), Atata (WH), Flama (BW)
High Elves--->Aduril (AM), Liruda (SM), Elearia (WL), Lambrusco (SW)
Dwarves----->Durilam (Slayer)
Destruction:
Chaos-------->Sigmana (Zealot), Arehucas (Chosen), Spike (Marauder), Falcata (Magus)
Dark Elves--->Dathenor (BG)

MARTILLO DE GUERRA (Cofradía Hispano-Parlante)

User avatar
Onemantankwall
Posts: 318

Re: Organized wbs and gamedirection

Post#20 » Sun Jun 23, 2019 12:56 am

Ototo wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 9:04 pm
Secrets wrote:
Sat Jun 22, 2019 7:30 pm
(...)
Another option I had floated around by the community members that I have talked to is opening a 'side-campaign' during fortress sieges that closes after the fortress is captured or defended. This 'side-campaign' would function like T1 but in a T4 side lake. (IE; West Praag, Cinderfall etc) - would require a bit of development time, but I think it would be beneficial.
(...)
OK, completely crazy idea probably, but you have the unused maps for the other 2 capitals for each realm, 4 full unused maps. Maybe open one of them?

Let's say that Altdorf unlocks cause of Elf and Dwarf pairings locks. Random dice open an order realm city but not Empire, with 4-5 BOs placed in it, and the realm with most X at the end of City Siege get some bags and renown. Let's say that the siege of the Inevitable City was due to Dwarf and Empire locks, it opens allways Greenskin capital.

This could turn a very frustrating situation into a big win-win situation.

Those capitals have no quests tied to them, and actually nothing that can interfere with any development that you want to do in them at all. We get unique battlefields for all levels T2+, and you get an easy solution for this :) :)
There is no other 4 capitals no maps no npcs nada it never existed and never will lmao EA shut it down before game release
Filthy live vet
Chosen main rr83 (alts to remain nameless, ssshhh)
Founder/Leader of (L2P)
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pikeasey, Tankbeardz and 19 guests