Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Warhammer Online: Age of Reckoning: 100% RvR City Siege Details Unveiled

MikeBMikeB MMORPG.com Community ManagerQueens, NYPosts: 5,719Administrator Uncommon

Warhammer Online Community Coordinator Andy Belford has posted the full details on the 100% RvR City Siege overhaul which was teased in a recent Producer's Letter focused on patch 1.3.5. The aim with this change is to shift the WAR campaign to be 100% RvR driven, and to that end City Sieges are now going to be 24 vs. 24 battles with multiple stages where both the invaders and defenders will have a chance to earn the game's best loot, and this includes Sovereign armor! With the completion of each stage, the winning realm will roll on a number of loot bags just like a PQ. Those who do not win a bag (including all of the losing realms side) will have Crests deposited right into their inventory. A Scenario Crest will also be rewarded to the winning realm.

image

City Sieges will consist of three stages, read below for a breakdown:

Stage 1



  • Setup Phase: 5 Minutes


  • Duration: 15 Minutes (Maximum: 45 Minutes… details included in the description)


  • Invader's Win Condition: Breach the Palace Gates


  • Defender's Win Condition: Hold Out (until the timer expires)


  • Reward Lockout Duration: Approximately 20 Hours


Stage 2


  • Duration: 30 Minutes


  • Invader's Win Condition: Escort Either Allied Warlord to the Palace Gates or Defeat Enemy Warlords


  • Defender's Win Condition: Escort Either Allied Warlord to the Palace Gates or Defeat Enemy Warlords


  • Reward Lockout Duration: Approximately 44 Hours


Stage 3


  • Duration: 30 Minutes


  • Invader's Win Condition: Defeat the Enemy King


  • Defender's Win Condition: Defeat the Enemy King


  • Reward Lockout Duration: Approximately 68 Hours

For additional details, read the full preview here.

[Thanks Rohn for the tip!]

Michael "MikeB" Bitton
Community Manager
Twitter: @eMikeB

«1

Comments

  • MMO_DoubterMMO_Doubter Bedford, NSPosts: 5,056Member

    After reading the details - I am cautiously optimistic.

     

    No - no one hijacked my PC.

    "" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2

  • RohnRohn Saint Peters, MOPosts: 3,740Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

    After reading the details - I am cautiously optimistic.

     

    No - no one hijacked my PC.

     

    We'll obviously have to wait and see how it plays out, but it does appear to be a huge step in the right direction.

    Hell hath no fury like an MMORPG player scorned.

  • UtopiUtopi New El, ILPosts: 61Member

    Going to have to see how this plans out.  After looking at all the details of this patch this is a HUGE patch for both End-Game, Class balance, and new tidbits.

    Just hope they didn't do more than they can chew!

  • vladakovvladakov noneofurbusinessPosts: 710Member

    This somehow directly made me think of  Isle on Conquest in WoW, seriously....

    image

  • ColdrenColdren Nowhereville, TNPosts: 456Member Uncommon

    Did I read this right? I've been away from WAR for quite some time, but are they changing it so that you particpate in a siege once, and if you try to particpate again after that, you don't get a chance to roll on a reward?

    So it's like a raid lockout, where you only bother to do it once, because what's the point?

  • gszebegszebe PPosts: 214Member

    Sounds good

  • noothernoother istanbulPosts: 5Member

    There is another thread about this.

    Maybe they should be merged.

  • MMO_DoubterMMO_Doubter Bedford, NSPosts: 5,056Member

    Originally posted by vladakov



    This somehow directly made me think of  Isle on Conquest in WoW, seriously....

    The sad thing is that WoW did siege combat better as a minor sidegame, than Mythic did with it as their focus.

     

    3 star talent FTL.

    "" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2

  • LorkLork Phildadelphia, PAPosts: 338Member

    Originally posted by Coldren



    Did I read this right? I've been away from WAR for quite some time, but are they changing it so that you particpate in a siege once, and if you try to particpate again after that, you don't get a chance to roll on a reward?

    So it's like a raid lockout, where you only bother to do it once, because what's the point?

     

    No, you didn't read it right. You can continue to battle but you are locked from attaining a rewarded.

    I guess it helps spread the wealth?

  • bobfishbobfish SouthamptonPosts: 1,688Member

    24 vs 24 once per day?

    That is hardly massively multiplayer or a real end game, if thousands of players can't participte in the end game on any given day.

  • LorkLork Phildadelphia, PAPosts: 338Member

    Originally posted by bobfish



    24 vs 24 once per day?

    That is hardly massively multiplayer or a real end game, if thousands of players can't participte in the end game on any given day.

     

    I don't believe there are a thousand  players on WAR at one given time.

  • jotulljotull sailisbury, NCPosts: 256Member

    And the producer of the week keeps rolling out the fail... I wonder who they are going to get to replace her next week? A buddy of mine who left Mythic for Turbine last week told me that EA has tried to "Reach out"  to Mark Jacobs four times since Jan 2010, he hasn't returned their calls.

    Look for this one to be Earthed and Beyonded (aka shut down) By Christmas.

  • buegurbuegur Belle Fourche, SDPosts: 458Member

    Unfortunately its a catch 22 where the better the graphics, the less people the game can support in PvP.  Problems been around for a long time as look at DAoC's epic seiges with epic computer lock up when the two armies meet, although that game seemed able to handle crowds under 80 a side good enough (probably handles more now).  Shadowbane you had to drop your graphic level way down something the beta testers knew but didn't mention to us new players.  Lost our city basically without any fighting due to standing there unable to respond!  Almost all newer games have reduced the combat to maximum numbers, PotBS 25 a side, STO varies on senario's, AoC etc.  Wish they could do the epic battles but it doesn't seem to be possible at the graphic levels we are demanding in todays games.

  • MurashuMurashu Ft Rucker, ALPosts: 1,394Member

    Originally posted by buegur

    Unfortunately its a catch 22 where the better the graphics, the less people the game can support in PvP.  Problems been around for a long time as look at DAoC's epic seiges with epic computer lock up when the two armies meet, although that game seemed able to handle crowds under 80 a side good enough (probably handles more now).  Shadowbane you had to drop your graphic level way down something the beta testers knew but didn't mention to us new players.  Lost our city basically without any fighting due to standing there unable to respond!  Almost all newer games have reduced the combat to maximum numbers, PotBS 25 a side, STO varies on senario's, AoC etc.  Wish they could do the epic battles but it doesn't seem to be possible at the graphic levels we are demanding in todays games.

     Although it has been a while since I left WAR, lag was never really an issue unless you got up to 200+ players. If they could handle 100vs100 battles a year ago, I dont understand the need to limit the battles to 24v24 in the future unless they just dont have that many people left playing the game.

    www.agonysend.org

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,982Member Uncommon



    Originally posted by buegur



    Unfortunately its a catch 22 where the better the graphics, the less people the game can support in PvP.  Problems been around for a long time as look at DAoC's epic seiges with epic computer lock up when the two armies meet, although that game seemed able to handle crowds under 80 a side good enough (probably handles more now).  Shadowbane you had to drop your graphic level way down something the beta testers knew but didn't mention to us new players.  Lost our city basically without any fighting due to standing there unable to respond!  Almost all newer games have reduced the combat to maximum numbers, PotBS 25 a side, STO varies on senario's, AoC etc.  Wish they could do the epic battles but it doesn't seem to be possible at the graphic levels we are demanding in todays games.

    There should be ways around that, like at least make an instance for each wall or something. To have so few people being able to play the endgame is really bad.

    Or they could use some kind of strategic map instead of the actual graphics, the more people that can join the better.

    They could also cut out spell effects and similar things to make the game run more players. Anything is better than so few players in a game like WAR.

  • OyjordOyjord Riverside, CAPosts: 372Member Uncommon

    24 vs 24?  Ugh.

     

    Where's my 100 vs 100?  DAoC had EPIC fun relic battles.  W/o that, WAR will always be severly lacking.

  • MMO_DoubterMMO_Doubter Bedford, NSPosts: 5,056Member

    It's not like the total numbers at each siege are 24v24. Each instance will be 24v24.

    You won't miss out on the siege if 24 people from your side are already at the siege.

    "" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2

  • ColdrenColdren Nowhereville, TNPosts: 456Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Lork



    Originally posted by Coldren



    Did I read this right? I've been away from WAR for quite some time, but are they changing it so that you particpate in a siege once, and if you try to particpate again after that, you don't get a chance to roll on a reward?

    So it's like a raid lockout, where you only bother to do it once, because what's the point?

     

    No, you didn't read it right. You can continue to battle but you are locked from attaining a rewarded.

    I guess it helps spread the wealth?

    .. That's what I said. I did read it right. Raid Lockout at the end was a bad choice of words, as I understood you could keep fighting.

    If you get a reward once, you can keep fighting, but you can't roll on rewards. The reason I mentioned the raid lockout was because if you don't get rewarded in anything beyond what other scenarios reward you, what is really gainned? Hence, why do it again until the timer is up?

  • buegurbuegur Belle Fourche, SDPosts: 458Member

    Doubter how does multiple instants work out for the city battles?  They take the averages of who won each instance?

  • Player_420Player_420 KuesecPosts: 686Member

    pretty much, It's still a pretty flawed system. Only reason I quit WAR was because of this endgame mechanic, and this patch seems to do nothing like they were promising.

    I play all ghame

  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member

    Originally posted by buegur



    Unfortunately its a catch 22 where the better the graphics, the less people the game can support in PvP.  Problems been around for a long time as look at DAoC's epic seiges with epic computer lock up when the two armies meet, although that game seemed able to handle crowds under 80 a side good enough (probably handles more now).  Shadowbane you had to drop your graphic level way down something the beta testers knew but didn't mention to us new players.  Lost our city basically without any fighting due to standing there unable to respond!  Almost all newer games have reduced the combat to maximum numbers, PotBS 25 a side, STO varies on senario's, AoC etc.  Wish they could do the epic battles but it doesn't seem to be possible at the graphic levels we are demanding in todays games.

    WoW handles much better in Wintergrasp, and Alterac Valley, and another one... can't remember the name... Isle of Conquest?

    It's like 40vs40 for AV and IoC, Wintergrasp I think is 100 per side or some such.

  • LorkLork Phildadelphia, PAPosts: 338Member

    Originally posted by Coldren



    Originally posted by Lork



    Originally posted by Coldren



    Did I read this right? I've been away from WAR for quite some time, but are they changing it so that you particpate in a siege once, and if you try to particpate again after that, you don't get a chance to roll on a reward?

    So it's like a raid lockout, where you only bother to do it once, because what's the point?

     

    No, you didn't read it right. You can continue to battle but you are locked from attaining a rewarded.

    I guess it helps spread the wealth?

    .. That's what I said. I did read it right. Raid Lockout at the end was a bad choice of words, as I understood you could keep fighting.

    If you get a reward once, you can keep fighting, but you can't roll on rewards. The reason I mentioned the raid lockout was because if you don't get rewarded in anything beyond what other scenarios reward you, what is really gainned? Hence, why do it again until the timer is up?

     

    For the exp?

  • tronjheimtronjheim westland, MIPosts: 28Member

    Or for fun....I think most War players find the fight more rewarding than the spoils.

     

    What they really need to do is make city seige zone structure like DAoC battle grounds, since they are so important to the end game, wouldn't it make sense to make the city zones more stable for pvp than the rest of the areas, then follow up restalizing the rest of the game?

    image
  • MurashuMurashu Ft Rucker, ALPosts: 1,394Member

    Originally posted by heerobya

    Originally posted by buegur



    Unfortunately its a catch 22 where the better the graphics, the less people the game can support in PvP.  Problems been around for a long time as look at DAoC's epic seiges with epic computer lock up when the two armies meet, although that game seemed able to handle crowds under 80 a side good enough (probably handles more now).  Shadowbane you had to drop your graphic level way down something the beta testers knew but didn't mention to us new players.  Lost our city basically without any fighting due to standing there unable to respond!  Almost all newer games have reduced the combat to maximum numbers, PotBS 25 a side, STO varies on senario's, AoC etc.  Wish they could do the epic battles but it doesn't seem to be possible at the graphic levels we are demanding in todays games.

    WoW handles much better in Wintergrasp, and Alterac Valley, and another one... can't remember the name... Isle of Conquest?

    It's like 40vs40 for AV and IoC, Wintergrasp I think is 100 per side or some such.

    Yeah I wish I understood the reasoning behind WAR using a 24v24 scenario as the pinnacle of their entire open world RvR system. Atleast with Wintergrasp, if you lost, you would know what happened and where you messed up. With this new system, you can win your scenario and still lose the campaign because someone in one of the many other instances lost.

    www.agonysend.org

  • BadSpockBadSpock Somewhere, MIPosts: 7,974Member

    Originally posted by Murashu



    Originally posted by heerobya


    Originally posted by buegur



    Unfortunately its a catch 22 where the better the graphics, the less people the game can support in PvP.  Problems been around for a long time as look at DAoC's epic seiges with epic computer lock up when the two armies meet, although that game seemed able to handle crowds under 80 a side good enough (probably handles more now).  Shadowbane you had to drop your graphic level way down something the beta testers knew but didn't mention to us new players.  Lost our city basically without any fighting due to standing there unable to respond!  Almost all newer games have reduced the combat to maximum numbers, PotBS 25 a side, STO varies on senario's, AoC etc.  Wish they could do the epic battles but it doesn't seem to be possible at the graphic levels we are demanding in todays games.

    WoW handles much better in Wintergrasp, and Alterac Valley, and another one... can't remember the name... Isle of Conquest?

    It's like 40vs40 for AV and IoC, Wintergrasp I think is 100 per side or some such.

    Yeah I wish I understood the reasoning behind WAR using a 24v24 scenario as the pinnacle of their entire open world RvR system. Atleast with Wintergrasp, if you lost, you would know what happened and where you messed up. With this new system, you can win your scenario and still lose the campaign because someone in one of the many other instances lost.

    I garauntee you that their network code as well as engine/client code is no where near as polished and technically perfected as Blizzard's.

    The graphics of WAR are not that high above what WoW can offer (especially in ultra mode and in coming expansion) to justify the extreme loss of fluidity and latency.

    They also haven't had nearly 6 years and billions of dollars to perfect it.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.