Saturday, May 8, 2010

Warhammer Online "Final Days" feedback Videos

Part 1

Part 2


  1. GJ on these vids, interesting ideas and a lot I'd agree with.

  2. I absolutely love the ideas in the second video and I wish Warhammer would adopt these ideas! I saw it was 9 mins long and wasn't sure I'd make it through, but you did a fabulous job.

  3. Nice vids!

    Love the relic idea ... however, wouldn't that perpetuate the zerg? If Order takes the Maw and the relic begins its march towards Reikwald, couldn't Destro amass forces where the RvR lakes meet in the North of Reikland to hold them back? Could Mythic's servers handle the possible number of players in that area? Would the relic stop as Order meets Destro to fight or will it keep on going until the last Order player near it falls?

    Lots of questions but I like this idea a lot.

  4. I already commented on the first part on youtube, just thought I'd offer some criticism for the second (imo more important) RvR part.

    I really like your idea of consolidating and simplifying the current currency system, which solves a major complaint for most of the players. Namely grinding up to RR80 doesn't necessarily get you the gear appropriate for that rank. You'll have to grind scenarios and city sieges if you for instances got your RR up mostly by killing people in the lakes. This would pretty much solve that.

    I really do want forts reintroduced with the second ramp (was surprised to see they didn't implement it to the forts too, when it first came online), but I dislike the details you outlined, seem like even more bashing on the fort doors. The idea behind it is solid but there need to be some changes made in the way you would implement it. For example, once one of the doors fall, getting other two outer ones would be extremely trivial, thus automatically earning +40 min for the attackers once one of the doors is down. Similarly, defenders would have a hard time recapturing a single door after the front line have already been broken. I also think that spawning the defenders behind the fort would make spawn trapping them extremely easy to do, since there is only one set of doors leading to the fort from the defenders side. A change to door bashing would also be in order imo, something along the lines of defending NPCs that destroy the doors? Haven't really thought that through, just dislike bashing an inanimate object. :P

    I didn't quite understand the relic system you are proposing. Since you propose 6 relics I presume one for each fort. Does this mean that in a neutral state each realm controls 3 relics? How does taking back a relic work after it's been captured? Or is that not possible and once a realm owns a relic it only resets if a city is successfuly attacked/defended?

    And once again, I like your idea of streamlining and incorporating the underdog system into something that is actually visible in the world, rather than superficial numbers that don't really do much to incentivize the underdog realm to engage in RvR.

    I think that Mythic has finaly started to listen to the players and we'll see changes player have been suggesting since the launch. One can only hope.

  5. Blaq,
    I used the fort doors as a static objective which can be obtained, but honestly it can be any object near those doors. like a flag that needs to be caped or placed in order for the door to act as a respawn point. and if the defenders take that flag.. it shuts down that respawn point etc etc. So it can really just be anything. Along as it's something the defenders can retake.

    As for the relics, yes each realm would have 3 relics each for the neutral state. taking back a relic once it's been captured means your realm needs to lock all the zones up to the fort that has your missing relix, attack the fort, kill the fort lord. And it will drop your realms relic, which will need to be transported back to your fort.

    Only one relic will ever drop at a time for any one fort lord. So to take the 2nd relic from that same fort, you will need to take the fort a 2nd time.

  6. An addition to my earlier post ...

    How would this open the city for siege? Would the invading realm need to take 2 of the 3 enemy relics to open the city? If the magic number is 2, would they have to transport the relic all the way back to their home fort only to run all the way back to attack the city?

  7. Krosussasysburn,
    With a working VP system, and with the forts using this design.

    Cities would be much much harder to reach. So locking 1 pairing.. and capturing the fort in that pairing. would open up the city for engagement.

    However, Being that the current city is set up like a scenaros. I would even say, let it be a scenaro. And let players just que up for anywhere to jump into the city fight. Because heck.. the fort battle is where the epic battle took place. Might aswell just let us into the city once we earned it.

  8. Krosussasysburn,
    As to your first post. Yes a realm can mass a huge force and try to hold them back. Thats sort of the reason behind it all.

    It would also allow more then 1 opportunity to get the relic back.. being if you fail at one point in the zone, you can fly to the next and the next.. Or even chase the relic down on mounts.

    But also keep in mind. As long as the controling realm is beside the relic.. it will keep moving. So the battle in a way is constantly being pushed in either direction. where as one lucky soul can find himself beyond the defenders zerg wall with the relic still moving besides him.

  9. I presume that you would leave ORvR active while the city siege is in progress then? So the defending realm can go and take back a relic eventho their city is under attack?

    I still think that using the current design of the fortresses together with your idea would only serve as a means for defenders to cut the fort battle short if they had no attackers. I was thinking more along the lines of extending fort battles beyond just 2 doors and lord room. So you would have epic battles for spawn points as well as for the doors and the lord. For that to happen the capturable spawn points would need to be in a linear progression imo. But I see now that your initial intention was only to provide a means to avoid uncessary corpse running, 40 min waits and to tie in underdog system. If I understood correctly that is.

  10. Blaq,
    Yes i would leave the RvR lakes in the other pairings open after the fort has been captured and during the city siege.

    the 15 mins window is the means to keeping the battle short if no one shows. BUT if the attackers take down a door, they get rewarded more time. If they don't take down a door, then the defenders win and retain control of the fort.

  11. Loving these ideas man. Too bad Mythic can't see beyond their noses. I saw how they just skipped over your question in the last Q&A as well. Nate said that the reason insignias don't drop in RvR is because they don't want people to focus on one aspect of the game??? lol that's what scenario weapons are doing :P