PDA

View Full Version : Developer Feedback - Warfields


Deneir_Allaston
07-18-2010, 03:00 AM
<p><span style="font-size: x-small;"><p>Hi I have to start by saying as an old school EQ2 Player and overall PvP'er at heart, one with roots stretching back to Ultima Online, I was pretty excited when I first heard that you guys were implementing something to encourage more open world based PvP in the form of what you guys termed "Warfields". The idea intrigued me, I remember playing on Venekor when the PvP Servers first launched and the epic battles that took place in the Commonlands and Antonica were pretty amazing to be a part of.</p><p>They were massive fights, which waged across the entire zone usually culminating in a great struggle directly in front of the city gates. It was definately alot of fun, so its easy to see why you guys would want to recapture those moments. But I must say, the Warfields in their current form do not do those days justice. They idea of them is not all bad at all though, I think its actually a great idea and given a new form of implementation it could really bring back some great PvP moments to those old areas reminiscent of the conflict from the early days of the PvP Servers.</p><p>Now of course we have to examine the flaws of the current Warfields, which as it turns out are quite a few unfortunately. We have victory incentive issues, warfield objective issues, we have lag, we have PvP credit leeching from kills and the Warfield itself, multiple Warfield spawning, and finally zone population cap abuse. Fortunately, I think I have a design solution to all of these issues, but it is going to require a reworking of the way these Warfields function at a fundamental level.</p><p>The first thing that needs to be done is revert Warfields to the way they were orignally planned to be, allowing only one single Warfield to be up at a given time, be it Antonica or Commonlands that is under siege. The spawning time of the Warfield should be randomized so it is unpredictable, but fairly frequent throughout the day and night. The second thing that needs to change is the way the Warfields are accessed by players. Instead of piling all players of all levels into a single Warfield, split them up based by Tier. This simple Tier based approach has many benefits. It resolves the lag issue, the PvP credit leeching, the zone population cap abuse, and the need for the current multiple Warfield approach which only exists to spread the player base out and avoid overcrowding in the first place.</p><p>This can be handled in two different ways, you can literally split the Warfields off into the zones appropriate to the tier of the player, where only players of those tiers will get credit for participation. For example (T2 - Antonica/Commonlands), (T3 - Thundersteppes/Nektulos), etc. Or you can instance the two existing Warfields of Antonica or Commonlands based by Tier. In either case, basing the Warfields by tier seems to be the single most effective solution to the majority of the current issues.</p><p>Essentially what would occur under a system of tier based instancing would break down like this, a message goes out alerting players that either Antonica or the Commonlands has come under siege by the enemy, when this happens 8 Tier based Warfields open up for the announced zone. One for T2 (10-19), T3 (20-29), T4 (30-39), T5 (40-49), T6 (50-59), T7 (60-69), T8 (70-79), and T9 (80-90). For example if Antonica came under siege, a level 77 player using the swift travel bell to goto Antonica to participate would be presented with only two options "Antonica" or "Antonica - Under Siege (Tier 8 Warfield)". The first would be the reguler Antonica zone, the second of course being the active Warfield for the players tier, which would be clearly identified by its name.</p><p>As soon as you enter the Warfield under this system you would also become Warfield flagged as with current Warfields, denoting your participation in the event but also locking you to the Warfield version of the zone until the Warfield concluded. In other words you would be unable to travel to the normal Non-Warfield version of the zone as long as the Warfield is active but you could for example travel to an adjacent zone and return to the Warfield if you needed to. The docks in these new Warfields would not be considered "immunity zones".</p><p>The second major change to the Warfield would be one of playstyle. Instead of the current system involving the seemingly pointless destruction of Towers and Tower Guardians, I would propose the Warfield objective be changed to one of "Territory Domination" in Antonica or Commonlands, which pits players against one another directly in defense of their respective homeland. It would work like this, each Warfield would contain six control points scattered throughout the zone, these would be strategic locations that would make sense to keep control of based on the zone geography.</p><p>The six contested control points at the start of the Warfield would be in control of the defenders. The Warfield ends when either 30 minutes have elapsed or all six control points fall to the aggressors. A losing defender would be forced into their city at the conclusion of the Warfield, a losing aggressor would be forced back into the adjacent zone, either the Thundering Steppes for an Antonica siege or Nektulos Forest for a Commonlands siege.</p><p>Each control point will have a flag which flies the colors of the controling city and a number of basic guards protecting the area by default which consists of three groups of three ^ heroic guards and a single ^^ heroic captain appropriately leveled to the midway point of the Tier of the Warfield. For example a T5 Warfield would have level 45 guards placed at the control points. To actually begin capturing a control point the 10 guards will need to be slain before the flag will start to be captured by the aggressors.</p><p>The flag control will automatically begin to count down when all the guards are dead and all defending players are defeated. The speed at which the flag captures depends on how many living players of a given faction are in the area. For example if there are three living Freeportians battling for control of a Qeynos control point after killing all the guards and two Qeynosian players are still in the area fighting the flag will slowly begin to fall to the Freeportians, if a third Qeynosian were to join the fight then the battle for the control point would be at a stand still until one side or the other gained the numerical advantage again, either by forcing the enemies to flee or defeating them to finish capturing the point. After keeping a given control point for 5 minutes without any contention it will respawn guards of the appropriate controling faction, either Freeport or Qeynosian.</p><p>Reward for the Warfield would vary between 5-15 tokens depending on how well the battle went. At the end of the 30 minutes defenders with 6 of the 6 control points would be granted a "Total Victory" recieving 15 tokens with 5 going to the aggressors for their total defeat, defenders having 4 of the 6 control points would be granted a "Partial Victory" recieving 10 tokens with 5 going to the aggressors for their partial defeat, defenders with 3 of the 6 control points end the battle in a "Draw" with both defenders and aggressors recieving 10 tokens, defenders with 2 of the 6 control points suffer a "Partial Defeat" recieving only 5 tokens with the aggressors claiming 10 for a partial victory, defenders with 0 of the 6 control points lose the battle instantly and suffer a "Total Defeat" recieving only 5 tokens with the aggressors claiming 15 for their total victory.</p><p><strong>The control points I would recommend for The Commonlands would be:</strong> Freeport Crossroads, Kerran Village, Lucan's Mount, Ruins of Val'marr, Smuggler's Path, and Tower of Zarvonn.</p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/FreeportCrossroads.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/KerranVillage.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/LucansMount.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/RuinsofValmarr.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/SmugglersPath.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/TowerofZarvonn.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><strong>The control points I would recommend for Antonica would be:</strong> Coldwind Point Lighthouse, Keep of the Ardent Needle, Keep of the Gnollslayers, Qeynos Highway, Tower of the Oracles, and Windstalker Village.</p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/ColdwindPointLighthouse.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/KeepoftheArdentNeedle.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/KeepoftheGnollslayers.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/QeynosHighway.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/ToweroftheOracles.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p><p><img src="http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb98/Hanzou_Masamori/WindstalkerVillage.jpg" width="1024" height="819" /></p></span></p>

Culsu
07-18-2010, 04:24 AM
<p>OMG, you just did not put that wall of text in 6pt.  Cm'on some of us are over 40 and need reading glases for regular text.</p>

Deneir_Allaston
07-18-2010, 11:08 AM
<p><cite>Culsu wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>OMG, you just did not put that wall of text in 6pt.  Cm'on some of us are over 40 and need reading glases for regular text.</p></blockquote><p>Hah. I wrote it late last night before crashing, it was something that had been bothering me about the implementation of the Warfields ever since they launched and I felt I couldnt wait any longer to let it out. I straitened out the paragraphs for you and other readers though, to make it a little bit easier to read... granted its still a long read heh.</p>

Nightstriker
07-20-2010, 04:34 AM
<p>i like this idea just because POI's are more interesting than some miniature castles that randomly spawn. Warfields are a lost cause though, unless the "new hardware" they ordered actually makes a difference.</p>

sveppir
07-20-2010, 03:12 PM
<p>Interesting approach, and it would solve some of the problems WFs brought, but what you just described is basically Smuggler's Den.</p>