MMORPG.com's Garrett Fuller asks a few questions of the team at Mythic Entertainment of the most recent update to their MMORPG Warhammer Online.

MMORPG.com:

How does changing the scenario system impact players the most? Will removing the less used scenarios help with wait time?

James Casey:

The biggest impact of the scenario system changes is that there is a higher concentration on scenario quality and consistency. For some of the more popular scenarios, we're extending them across multiple tiers, so players can learn the ropes in the lower tiers and be masters of the scenario by the endgame. Each tier also has unique scenarios, so there's something fresh to experience. In selecting those, we focused on scenarios that were more appropriate given the abilities players would have at those levels. This new scenario allocation also means that at any given time, people will always know what to expect from the scenario systems, the gameplay, and the rewards. This is especially important in Tier 4, where the dependency on the campaign meant that there could be as few as one scenario open for players. Now there will always be at least six. As for wait time, removing the less used scenarios should help with wait time in a number of ways. With a consistent and manageable core group of scenarios (in tier 4 especially) that are comprised of some of the most popular scenarios, the pool of players for any given scenario should be larger, which in turn brings less wait time. Additionally, the scenarios that were selected for Tier 4 centered around a group of scenarios that have similar ending times and renown gain, so that players would be more likely to embrace the variety. With the addition of Warfront events, weekends will be buzzing with players revisiting old scenarios, which should drive bigger pools in a targeted fashion. We'll be monitoring the metrics of scenarios post 1.3.4 to see how well the new lineup affects wait time amongst a number of other measurable goals. ;)

Read the Update 1.3.4 Interview.

In my opinion, one of the more vocal complaints in closed beta was that the endgame city siege had too much PvE. Wth Barnett hyping them to no end, about capturing a king, pillaging the enemy capital, etc,  it seemed so anti-climactic.

It always seemed to fall on deaf ears. Glad they are finally looking into it, but it should have been done a long time ago..

Thanks for the interview! I'm glad that devs finally communicate again recently. (Though they should do it on a more regular basis, tbh.) I'm really looking forward to seeing those changes in action.

And i still wait for an expansion announcement. :(

I've got 10 free days on my account, I'll give it another shot for a bit.

Downloading the client now.

Originally posted by Marcus-

In my opinion, one of the more vocal complaints in closed beta was that the endgame city siege had too much PvE. Wth Barnett hyping them to no end, about capturing a king, pillaging the enemy capital, etc,  it seemed so anti-climactic.

It always seemed to fall on deaf ears. Glad they are finally looking into it, but it should have been done a long time ago..

 

The main reason for that really is that they cut out the 4 additional cities and put in some fast PvE stuff  instead. When you are fighting for control over your race city things would be very different, if your side lost 2 all the players would be crowded in the last city.
 

The races of the same side were also originally intended to be able to backstab eachother, that would also add a lot to the endgame.

Keeps and the PvE just is a fast fix for this but the game really needs those cities to be whole, canceling a huge part of the endgame is seldom a good idea.

And to truly fix the endgame they will have to add those cities, nothing else will be enough. They said that they were almost finished but not polished enough and would soon be patched in when they launched but I guess that was a lie and they never even started on them.

I am not sure they can fix the endgame now with so few employees, but one can always hope. 

Thanks for this Garrett.

It seems there are nice changes ahead.

I would like to hear about a npc fix though. The mobs are bugged, running away from the players and resetting their health. It is very annoying in sieges specially when they pick on the healers.

Maybe someone will read this and add it to the "to do" list.

Happy gaming,

V

I was kinda hoping they would add the skaven, lizardmen, and more content to the game for me to come back. Maybe I was being too optimistic.

(BBBBBWWWWAAAAAHHHHH fires plunger at Mythic for ruining a good IP)

Originally posted by Loke666

Originally posted by Marcus-

In my opinion, one of the more vocal complaints in closed beta was that the endgame city siege had too much PvE. Wth Barnett hyping them to no end, about capturing a king, pillaging the enemy capital, etc,  it seemed so anti-climactic.

It always seemed to fall on deaf ears. Glad they are finally looking into it, but it should have been done a long time ago..

 

The main reason for that really is that they cut out the 4 additional cities and put in some fast PvE stuff  instead. When you are fighting for control over your race city things would be very different, if your side lost 2 all the players would be crowded in the last city.
 

The races of the same side were also originally intended to be able to backstab eachother, that would also add a lot to the endgame.

Keeps and the PvE just is a fast fix for this but the game really needs those cities to be whole, canceling a huge part of the endgame is seldom a good idea.

And to truly fix the endgame they will have to add those cities, nothing else will be enough. They said that they were almost finished but not polished enough and would soon be patched in when they launched but I guess that was a lie and they never even started on them.

I am not sure they can fix the endgame now with so few employees, but one can always hope. 

It may be my age, but i'm pretty certain we were testing city sieges before the (announced) cut of the other capitals, i could be wrong, and I wish I could be positive. 

I (personally) think the current endgame was (always) their intent, other than the other cities of course, and I know they were pretty adamant in thier defense of how they wanted it to work, despite the cries of the testers. I also don't entirely believe their reasoning for cutting them, and considering the feedback they were getting, perhaps they should have reconsidered, as that is obviously why you have a closed beta.

Yes, money, time, EA, but in my opinion their end game was almost the complete opposite of what they were selling, and look where it got them. Theres other issues of course, but for me, this was always the biggest.

As I said, I am glad its finally getting a revisit, though I highly doubt you'll see the addition of the the other two capitals.

Well sad  to say  with the new patch and  Day  1 always  being the  busiest  of  any new  patch.

That  the lower tiers stil (t2  and t3) have  hrs on end  of  waiting  to get into scenarios,In t4  sure its nearly insta pop but once  mor e the dead  zone  of  t3(more so then t2) is  just that dead  zone ,waite  for  Land  of  dead and  grind  there,Would be nice if  they could  force /add more bos  or somethign into t3  to encourage actually  rvr and scenario pops  for this  tier.

Played since  launch and this is  the tier  where alot of players start to leave  the game.

Its great to hear that they are making the city sieges more about RvR and less about PvE. I remember our first city siege and how people were just farming the instances instead of actually fighting each other. I was so discouraged that I didnt log on for a week after that.

Have they done anything to the fortresses or are they still instanced? When I quit I swore I wouldnt go back until the lifted the 'temporary' cap on players duty a fort raid.

Originally posted by Murashu

Its great to hear that they are making the city sieges more about RvR and less about PvE. I remember our first city siege and how people were just farming the instances instead of actually fighting each other. I was so discouraged that I didnt log on for a week after that.

 

Have they done anything to the fortresses or are they still instanced? When I quit I swore I wouldnt go back until the lifted the 'temporary' cap on players duty a fort raid.

They removed the fortresses a long time ago and the games keeps have two ramps + multi upgrade systems.    They forgot to mention the best part of this patch.   There is no 30 minute city safe mode timer :)

Originally posted by Utopi

They removed the fortresses a long time ago and the games keeps have two ramps + multi upgrade systems.    They forgot to mention the best part of this patch.   There is no 30 minute city safe mode timer :)

Wow I guess I havent been paying attention. I'll have to go back and read how they are doing it now. Its a shame they removed the forts instead of fixing them though, they were the highlight of WAR RvR before they instanced them.

Originally posted by Murashu

Originally posted by Utopi

They removed the fortresses a long time ago and the games keeps have two ramps + multi upgrade systems.    They forgot to mention the best part of this patch.   There is no 30 minute city safe mode timer :)

 

Wow I guess I havent been paying attention. I'll have to go back and read how they are doing it now. Its a shame they removed the forts instead of fixing them though, they were the highlight of WAR RvR before they instanced them.

They will come back as relic raids once they figure out the best way to implement it. I personally never liked the FORTS but it might be better now that the server can handle 400v400 battles without any lag.

so finally they are adding the other 2 cities that they announced they would add after a few months after launch?

LOL...

I had high hopes for this game and wasted 80 bucks on collectors edition, i wont resubscribe to this POS even if its free.

Please let it die in peace....RIP WAR

Originally posted by Utopi

They will come back as relic raids once they figure out the best way to implement it. I personally never liked the FORTS but it might be better now that the server can handle 400v400 battles without any lag.

The forts actually felt like they had a reason. We wanted to defend them because we didnt want the other team having access to our city. The keeps were just for gear farming so people wanted the other team to take them.

The lag was the one thing I disliked about forts, but that was due to bad design (forcing everyone into the same small room) and buggy code(clicking on a fort gate would drop my FPS from 75ish down to 1-4, but as soon as I untargeted the gate my system would run smooth again).

If they make city sieges fun, the lack of forts wouldnt be so bad.

Although I had a good amount of fun in this game, what eventually led to me leaving was the lack of people pvping. Most everyone was hiding in the group duel instances. I kept hearing dev's spew the 'War is everywhere!' stuff, yet I could rarely find pvp anyplace. Imo it would have helped a ton to not have terrain barriers all over keeping the 2 warring factions seperate.

Originally posted by gonno

Although I had a good amount of fun in this game, what eventually led to me leaving was the lack of people pvping. Most everyone was hiding in the group duel instances. I kept hearing dev's spew the 'War is everywhere!' stuff, yet I could rarely find pvp anyplace. Imo it would have helped a ton to not have terrain barriers all over keeping the 2 warring factions seperate.

Same here.  The best time is when they have some kind of trial. After that its DEAD..

You know you are facing a DEAD game if asking a dev about this YEAR's plans yields you the answer "more inventory space".

End of the month the long-promised mass lay-offs will begin. And from the interview it's already apparent that this game is maintenance mode; there are no long-term perspectives. All they think about is "the next patch in 3 months" (with great content like... more inventory space!).

Anyway, long time ago I said that WAR will never see its first expansion. Just a pity. There was so much potential.

Honestly, I'll never understand those who wish any game's death. If you don't like it, you don't have to pay for it and play it, fair enough. But what's the benefit from if it 'finally' dies? Weird...