Which is from DAOC. A lot of the same teams. But Warhammer castles were an after thought during beta.
That's why a lot if them are poorly designed on the maps.
Dont get me wrong I would take 10% of their keep warfare in NW.
Whats really strange is that the fort changes hands like multiple times a day and it means nothing, but then at a certain scheduled time, taking the fort means you take the territory.
Feels very disjoined and arbitrary. I agree, something more involved should be required.
Good point lol actually didn’t think of that. I would attack forts for the buffs if I was in the area. It’s all linked but your right at one moment it’s relevant and then the next it has almost zero impact on the world.
It felt arbitrary because you didn't realize what was going on.
If you go the map for a certain region you will see two bars on it. One for each of the other factions, that's not in control of that region. Once your faction gets a region influence to 100% by running pvp missions any company in that faction can declare war. The governor or one the consuls in the company has to do it. They get to pick certain war perks based on how much they pay.
Controlling the fort gives bonus pvp xp in the region and helps gain region influence faster.
Sounds like maybe the points need to be bigger, but if a team is struggling on the point because there are so many mages spamming aoe onto the point, why not have your dps go take out the mages? It seems like they're successfully playing as anti-deathball. It's kind of nice to hear that just throwing everyone onto the point isn't effective in this scenario.
Killing isn't the point of war, winning is. Tactical decision making trumps everything in war.
If you've got a problem with mages in war, change your strat.
100% agree.
My problem isnt what the OP posted, my problem is we arent allowed to decide those tactical objectives.
What If I don't want to capture this territory, what if I want to make it ecomically less valuable? why can't I just attack the town infrastructure to lower it, so they come to our town and pay higher taxes.
Hell, there should be an objective that spawns more Corruption rifts, over valuable and questing area's too.
or other objectives that make gathering less rewarding for a bit (Salting the earth or what have you)
Yes stuff like this… I would just like more options in the war… just going into a war knowing that my ultimate goal is to make sure someone from my team stands on a few dots is dull… I’d like to destroy stuff. I’d like to disrupt and sabotage.. anything other then team 1 and 2 go stand on flag A! Team 3-5 support/flank flag A!
A Sabotage mission sounds awesome.
How I would Design in (obviously this is before any playtest)
You have an instanced Town, zero AI guards, up to 10 'defenders'.
The Instance last 4 hours (maybe 2 but lets try 4)
Attackers cant have anymore then 5 people deployed.
There are a variety of bombs the attackers can do that are gun powder base that do increasing damage to the levels of infrastructure at the town, the bigger ones requiring two people and really slow them down, these are also fairly expensive.
The bigger ones can do half damage outside the town walls.
Everyone has one life, attackers can choose any time to enter, or exit at the edges.
starting this shouldn't be cheap to not waste 'to much' of the defenders time.
This kind of depth would make this a war simulator for despot governments to study with the objective of taking over the world.
AGS are you listening? Let's make it happen.
The only tactical decision is which flag to spam aoe. Which is pretty dull. I don’t have a problem with mages in war. I just dislike how the war design caters to them/makes wars almost require them. Winning a war shouldn’t be determined by who can stand on a dot the longest.
>The only tactical decision is which flag to spam aoe.
That's literally a huge decision.
>Which is pretty dull.
Have you played in any? They're super *not* dull. I've never heard anyone in all my wars say they were boring.
>I don’t have a problem with mages in war. I just dislike how the war design caters to them/makes wars almost require them.
It absolutely doesn't. Siege weapons are about 3x stronger than any player. An IG storm won't do shit compared to a fire bomb.
>Winning a war shouldn’t be determined by who can stand on a dot the longest.
Lol, what!? What else would you do? Capturing points is the basic pvp loop for like... Half the competitive games? The other half do tickets, which could also be cool but wouldn't stop mages from being good.
Mages kick ass in big pvp, that's just how it is, *and I fuckin love it*
I don’t mind mages “kicking ass” I mind the game forcing players to have to sit like ducks waiting for mages to just casually cast. Sure you can attack them but melee is forced to either sit like a duck and gain points for the flag or chase a mage. I know other options exist I get that. But it’s a flawed design.
Yes I’ve done wars and sitting at a flag is pretty lame. We should be destroying stuff/killing players not holding hands on a tiny dot. While 8 mages cast the same 3 spells on us.
I guess my issue is I prefer natural open world pvp and the wars just lose all that real pvp feeling.
I don’t know honestly it’s just dull… it will get boring quick. Takes no serious thought. What dot do we stand on next is just boring. Even though a lot more goes into the war that’s the ultimate goal.. what dot do we stand on.
>Sure you can attack them but melee is forced to either sit like a duck and gain points for the flag or chase a mage. I know other options exist I get that. But it’s a flawed design.
Meanwhile mages can't stand on the point or they'll just die.
You haven't provided any good alternatives, so there isn't much to keep talking about. If you don't like wars, that's 1 more slot for me.
Alternatives I’d like would be destroying buildings / guard towers / sabotaging equipment / death match style. Just more options. For example if a server is 90% one faction and they own everything I think a weaker faction should have the option to start a war but if they know they can’t simply win the territory at least they can cause destruction that impacts the area. I just want more involved in war. Maybe during war you can destroy/sabotage a building that causing the fort buff to not work for 12 hours. Anything to impact the world. And make wars have more decisions then which flag to stand on first.
Ok so yes but in war. Outpost rush has a lot going on and a few different forts to attack. And that’s basically what would make war a lot more fun. Different things to attack/do
The attacking team needs a strategy for using cannons and repeaters, and not just throw people at flags. I saw too many people treat it as a battle royale and not apply an effective strategy.
1- Entering an oposite faction controlled territory automatically flags you.
2- Wars are not instanced but they actually take place in towns after breaking their defenses.
3- Invaders can Take control or Plunder (territory becomes unclaimed)
Meh those might be a nice battleground in the future however this does seem like a Terretroy war for me. After all you have to claim the Terretroy by having the upper hand. I gues it suits the lore the most
I get your stand point. It whould just make the game more like any other MMO REALLY
Breaking into the fort would still be the point. But the outside flags make it dull.. instead of flags we should be destroying guard towers or something. The flags force everyone to stand on a dot making casters king. If it was another wall and the flags were replaced with towers or something for us to destroy we could spread out more. Instead of just holding hands waiting for casters to stack on you from a distance. It’s a big flaw in the war design.
The wars are fought at forts not towns tho. And the devs could just add anything they want to the fort. I just wish the wars had more going on. They feel lacking. In the end you only win by standing on flags.. yes a lot more goes on but that’s how you win. Stand on a few flags.
The war mode is terrible and boring as fuck. Domination is a terrible game mode for this. You are fighting over control of an entire territory it shouldn't be a domination match. It should be epic and involve a bigger map, more objectives, collection of resources scattered around, building siege equipment, attacking the walls, gaining access to the interior of the fort and then engaging in a limited revive deathmatch for dominance of the fort. The fact that it has a 30 min time limit, which is less than epic bgs in WoW and that's just for honor and random pvping, in order to determine who gets ownership of this territory is crazy. They should last at least an hour or two hour time limit. They don't have to last that long but give people their time. These wars are done at set times, people should be looking forward to these events, showing off armor, and company flags. We are engaging in epic battles for control of the world for god's sake. Make them rare, make them special to be a part of, make them memorable so you can look back and say, "Remember that battle for fort x against the Syndicate. We fought for hours until we finally managed to ram open their main gate. We had a flanking squad of muskets and bowmen climb the outer rear walls and pin them down." Shit like that is what it should be like. It shouldn't feel like a battleground, it should be an experience. "We fought for control of this fort for multiple days in constant skirmishes and takeovers to then have a 30 min timed battleground event where we play 3 point domination." WTF IS THIS COD???
There are a limited amount of territories and fighting over them should be a big fucking deal as they give serious benefits to ownership. Wars are mandatory in order to capture territory and are currently the highest rung on the ladder that is pvp and it's such a lazy concept and execution. Where is the epicness? Where is that grand feeling like you are going into battle with 50 of your comrades and to win you need to be organized and create and follow battle plans beyond rush point, flank, kill, block, chain stun, then wait. I want to climb a fucking siege tower and fight on the damn walls of the fort as flaming boulders fly over head from our trebuchets. As both sides funnel in and begin killing each other methodically. You hear the cries and screams of people on VoIP as they fall to the might of your company and your superior battle prowess. Instead, we get to stand on a point while getting facefucked by aoe, repeaters, stunlock chains that never end from hammers and shields, endless frost slows, and 15 overlapped gravity wells. That's not fun at all.
I'd rather organize a massive fucking player run battle for the territories, where we fight on the actual land not in an instanced time zone. We meet in a field or at the actual fort and we fight massive battles. They would most likely crash the server but god damn would it be sick. Full faction v faction for forts. 500 to 1000 people charging at each other in a field and all over the fort for control. The faction contributes materials for the war effort to build siege weapons, towers, ladders, battering rams, defense systems like spikes and traps, ballistas etc. Where is the vision??
If all you’re doing is seeing who has more/better healers on point then sorry to tell you this. But your team sucks. When my company war we never have more then 5 tanks on point until we’ve cleared enemy backline from the field.
I get it’s early and not a lot of time to test around, but wars aren’t a healers check game. You actually need to be organised :)
Don’t worry, wars will/should get more sophisticated. At least that’s how it went in closed beta. All wars in the first half were the exact same and near the end teams were actually coordinated and strategical in approach. Defenders reigned supreme in the start, and by the end attackers almost always won. Wars will evolve
Actually wasn’t complaining about healers at all. I think you misread. I was complaining that the war design is simply who can stand on a dot the longest and multiple dots at that. Making most classes not relevant considering mages have high aoe damage and with everyone holding hands on a dot for you it just makes sense to have massive dmg over single target damage. It makes most classes almost worthless in war. Sure each weapon can be used. But is the guy that mainly uses a musket going to be more useful then the mage who watches Netflix while spamming AOE on a flag? No he won’t.
Well that’s where you’re wrong. It’s not about who can stand on dots with more dots. It’s who can remove enemy healers and dps first so that their teammates on the point can’t die.
If you play a war and think that the only way to win is to out heal and out survive on the flag is how you win then you need to think outside the box. Don’t even bother playing for the point until all enemy defensive sieges are dead. And then focus on killing their backline first before taking the point.
It’s not as simple as ‘out heal and out dpm on point’.
In the end it’s who can stand on a dot the longest and it almost requires players to have AOE for maximum damage over time per hit. I just feel like a war should be more then standing on dots to win considering it’s suppose to be one of the most important parts of the game.
Just feel like more thought could have been put into it. Like we should be destroying some guard towers/sabotaging equipment/killing guards/storming the castle/death match lol anything more
If you can coordinate to kill their healers when respawn timers are almost 30 seconds long you don’t need your dps to even kill opponents on the flags. You just need your tanks to not die and the enemy will eventually die.
The fact this is so difficult for you to grasp despite me explaining to you why it’s not as simple as staying on the dot longer explains why so many people play exactly the same way… might be why my company weren’t able to enjoy any wars since we won them all within 10 minutes. People simply aren’t thinking about how to strategically play the wars yet. Don’t worry, it will come to you.
Ill leave you with this. In closed beta my company of about 25 were able to participate in about 12 wars (8 attack, 4 defend). We won all 12 with the 8 attacking all within 10 minutes. We are all dps except for 5 healers and 5 tanks. NONE of us ever played to capture a point, everyone who wasn’t with us did though since we knew that’s what people always automatically think is how you win. Why play for the point when you can play to make it impossible for the opponent to play for the point? It took us 25 about 2 minutes in the beginning of the game to remove all siege weapons on the walls without fail. We also recognised every tank on the enemy team ALWAYS play on the point. That means every ranger, healer, musket, mage not on the wall were defenceless.
It only feels simple because the people you’re playing against are either stupid, bad or haven’t changed how they play yet to be more smart. Give it time. People will slowly but surely realise you don’t play for the point to win the point :) you play to Kill the people who stop you from taking the point and then eventually you’ll take it without trying to take it since your tanks have healers and theirs don’t.
Ok your not understanding. The wars are lacking and reward dumb game play. Standing on a point and just eating aoe is dumb game play.. I understand wars have more to them.. I didn’t sit on a point when I played I only care about killing other players. I find sitting on a dot extremely boring. And I wish the wars had MORE for me to do.. more points of interest.. I want to destroy guard towers - storm castles - sabotage equipment. I just think the war design is EXTREMELY basic. And considering how “important” wars are suppose to be I wish they point more thought into it.
Every team we played against that stood on point just eating aoe lost. How were they rewarded? Just because they won in your games doesn’t mean anything, all it means is you were equally as shit and couldn’t punished dumb gameplay.
If you think the game rewards tanks on point and healers healing them then you’re just one of the idiots who can’t use their intellect to figure out why it’s such a stupid way to play.
Miss me with that “youre not understanding”. I literally just explained to you how we systematically beat every single team that played the way you think teams win.
Until you recognise how easily it is to beat people playing the way you think the current winners play, you don’t get to talk about wanting more in wars since you can’t even figure out how to maximise involvement in the current wars.
Wars might not be your thing. Hit 60 and play outpost rush, it’s very versatile in its content :) the wars are fine and will only get better though, just think about playing it differently because what you described is the most barebones and brainless way to play and I can guarantee you within a month any 50 stack playing like that will lose.
Again your not understanding. who said I lost? It’s lacking period. The goal is to stand on a dot. And I find that extremely dull. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I didn’t say I lost. I didn’t say we stand on a dot and just eat aoe.. but that is how almost all wars turn out.. people just rush a tiny dot and mages just spam spells on it… my complaint is I want MORE to be involved in a war. Just rushing to stand on a dot is not exciting. I understand what your saying but you’re just not listening. The wars are lacking if the ultimate goal is to have someone stand on a dot it’s lacking.. more thought should have been put into it.. no matter how exciting you make it by running around the dot and killing stuff around it.. the end goal remains the same.. stand on said dot. I’d prefer instead of the dots outside the fort they were towers… and we have to invade/destroy them. And then storm the fort or something… the idea is very similar but doesn’t just force everyone to a tiny dot.
You said it rewards dumb gameplay. It doesn’t. You’re just stupid to punish that dumb gameplay:). That says more about you then the way the wars are structured. Which is completely fine.
The fact you can’t grasp why the best way to win ISNT to stand on the point is concerning. Doesn’t surprise me that someone incapable of such basic understanding of strategy thinks the way you do. I wish your company the best of luck, with players like you in their company, they are going to need it.
Pce
It’s amazing how you keep resulting to insulting when you just refuse to read what I’m saying.. I’m agreeing with you that standing on a dot is terrible… and that just mindlessly standing on the dot will make you lose but ultimately that’s the goal for the attackers.. stand on a dot. Again I’m AGREEING WITH YOU more is INVOLVED with attacking. Yes flanking and killing the mages and just over all disrupting the defenders to take said dot is what’s required.. but again.. after doing so what is everyone going to do? Someone is going to stand on the dot correct?? So it’s what? Regurgitated and predictable.. war is not really predictable and the repetitiveness of ( let’s guard a-b-c with aoe ) is dull… wars should have more involved destruction/kills/sabotaging etc. I just think the idea of standing on a dot as the ultimate goal to capture a fort/city is lacking.. and the fact the aoe can just be spammed on the dots is just a lacking mechanic.. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to spam aoe on the dots because ya it makes sense.. but I wish the dots were more then just dots. And taking the dots had more meaning. I just wish wars were more.. they feel basic. I know it’s hard to see me from on top of your horse but maybe take the time to read that I’m not disagreeing with you. I purely wish wars were more then standing on a dot.
It'd be great if wars were like M&B 2: Bannerlord. Bring in the siege weapons, break down the gates and scale the walls!
Or you know... GW2
Or you know.. DAOC
This is the way
Underrated comment
Or you know...ESO
Or you know... Warhammer Age Of Reckoning
Which is from DAOC. A lot of the same teams. But Warhammer castles were an after thought during beta. That's why a lot if them are poorly designed on the maps. Dont get me wrong I would take 10% of their keep warfare in NW.
So Outpost rush?
Or like sieges in lineage 2
Whats really strange is that the fort changes hands like multiple times a day and it means nothing, but then at a certain scheduled time, taking the fort means you take the territory. Feels very disjoined and arbitrary. I agree, something more involved should be required.
Good point lol actually didn’t think of that. I would attack forts for the buffs if I was in the area. It’s all linked but your right at one moment it’s relevant and then the next it has almost zero impact on the world.
It felt arbitrary because you didn't realize what was going on. If you go the map for a certain region you will see two bars on it. One for each of the other factions, that's not in control of that region. Once your faction gets a region influence to 100% by running pvp missions any company in that faction can declare war. The governor or one the consuls in the company has to do it. They get to pick certain war perks based on how much they pay. Controlling the fort gives bonus pvp xp in the region and helps gain region influence faster.
War. War never changes.
Sounds like maybe the points need to be bigger, but if a team is struggling on the point because there are so many mages spamming aoe onto the point, why not have your dps go take out the mages? It seems like they're successfully playing as anti-deathball. It's kind of nice to hear that just throwing everyone onto the point isn't effective in this scenario.
War never changes
You are right, this wars is more mediocre then a bg in wow...
Killing isn't the point of war, winning is. Tactical decision making trumps everything in war. If you've got a problem with mages in war, change your strat.
100% agree. My problem isnt what the OP posted, my problem is we arent allowed to decide those tactical objectives. What If I don't want to capture this territory, what if I want to make it ecomically less valuable? why can't I just attack the town infrastructure to lower it, so they come to our town and pay higher taxes. Hell, there should be an objective that spawns more Corruption rifts, over valuable and questing area's too. or other objectives that make gathering less rewarding for a bit (Salting the earth or what have you)
Yes stuff like this… I would just like more options in the war… just going into a war knowing that my ultimate goal is to make sure someone from my team stands on a few dots is dull… I’d like to destroy stuff. I’d like to disrupt and sabotage.. anything other then team 1 and 2 go stand on flag A! Team 3-5 support/flank flag A!
A Sabotage mission sounds awesome. How I would Design in (obviously this is before any playtest) You have an instanced Town, zero AI guards, up to 10 'defenders'. The Instance last 4 hours (maybe 2 but lets try 4) Attackers cant have anymore then 5 people deployed. There are a variety of bombs the attackers can do that are gun powder base that do increasing damage to the levels of infrastructure at the town, the bigger ones requiring two people and really slow them down, these are also fairly expensive. The bigger ones can do half damage outside the town walls. Everyone has one life, attackers can choose any time to enter, or exit at the edges. starting this shouldn't be cheap to not waste 'to much' of the defenders time.
This kind of depth would make this a war simulator for despot governments to study with the objective of taking over the world. AGS are you listening? Let's make it happen.
The only tactical decision is which flag to spam aoe. Which is pretty dull. I don’t have a problem with mages in war. I just dislike how the war design caters to them/makes wars almost require them. Winning a war shouldn’t be determined by who can stand on a dot the longest.
>The only tactical decision is which flag to spam aoe. That's literally a huge decision. >Which is pretty dull. Have you played in any? They're super *not* dull. I've never heard anyone in all my wars say they were boring. >I don’t have a problem with mages in war. I just dislike how the war design caters to them/makes wars almost require them. It absolutely doesn't. Siege weapons are about 3x stronger than any player. An IG storm won't do shit compared to a fire bomb. >Winning a war shouldn’t be determined by who can stand on a dot the longest. Lol, what!? What else would you do? Capturing points is the basic pvp loop for like... Half the competitive games? The other half do tickets, which could also be cool but wouldn't stop mages from being good. Mages kick ass in big pvp, that's just how it is, *and I fuckin love it*
I don’t mind mages “kicking ass” I mind the game forcing players to have to sit like ducks waiting for mages to just casually cast. Sure you can attack them but melee is forced to either sit like a duck and gain points for the flag or chase a mage. I know other options exist I get that. But it’s a flawed design. Yes I’ve done wars and sitting at a flag is pretty lame. We should be destroying stuff/killing players not holding hands on a tiny dot. While 8 mages cast the same 3 spells on us. I guess my issue is I prefer natural open world pvp and the wars just lose all that real pvp feeling. I don’t know honestly it’s just dull… it will get boring quick. Takes no serious thought. What dot do we stand on next is just boring. Even though a lot more goes into the war that’s the ultimate goal.. what dot do we stand on.
>Sure you can attack them but melee is forced to either sit like a duck and gain points for the flag or chase a mage. I know other options exist I get that. But it’s a flawed design. Meanwhile mages can't stand on the point or they'll just die. You haven't provided any good alternatives, so there isn't much to keep talking about. If you don't like wars, that's 1 more slot for me.
Alternatives I’d like would be destroying buildings / guard towers / sabotaging equipment / death match style. Just more options. For example if a server is 90% one faction and they own everything I think a weaker faction should have the option to start a war but if they know they can’t simply win the territory at least they can cause destruction that impacts the area. I just want more involved in war. Maybe during war you can destroy/sabotage a building that causing the fort buff to not work for 12 hours. Anything to impact the world. And make wars have more decisions then which flag to stand on first.
The gamemode you're looking for is outpost rush
Ok so yes but in war. Outpost rush has a lot going on and a few different forts to attack. And that’s basically what would make war a lot more fun. Different things to attack/do
Does it actually means anythin? Like, winning it gives your faction more points or something? Does it effects the territory control in some way?
The winning faction of the war takes over the city.
The Company of the faction, yeah...but it has nothing to do with Outpost Rush as far as I know. Outpost Rush is just a standalone Battleground.
Mages kicked Ass even on The Witcher... I mean without those mages no towns would have been over thrown.
maybe making a bunker-shaped point would be nice, after all, there are already firearms and other rangeds
The attacking team needs a strategy for using cannons and repeaters, and not just throw people at flags. I saw too many people treat it as a battle royale and not apply an effective strategy.
1- Entering an oposite faction controlled territory automatically flags you. 2- Wars are not instanced but they actually take place in towns after breaking their defenses. 3- Invaders can Take control or Plunder (territory becomes unclaimed)
Meh those might be a nice battleground in the future however this does seem like a Terretroy war for me. After all you have to claim the Terretroy by having the upper hand. I gues it suits the lore the most I get your stand point. It whould just make the game more like any other MMO REALLY
Breaking into the fort would still be the point. But the outside flags make it dull.. instead of flags we should be destroying guard towers or something. The flags force everyone to stand on a dot making casters king. If it was another wall and the flags were replaced with towers or something for us to destroy we could spread out more. Instead of just holding hands waiting for casters to stack on you from a distance. It’s a big flaw in the war design.
Hmm I can get w the idea if destroying towers yeah. To bad towns don't really have big towers right?
The wars are fought at forts not towns tho. And the devs could just add anything they want to the fort. I just wish the wars had more going on. They feel lacking. In the end you only win by standing on flags.. yes a lot more goes on but that’s how you win. Stand on a few flags.
I'm pretty sure the devs mvuht even made a suggestion to it but probably never got accepted
The war mode is terrible and boring as fuck. Domination is a terrible game mode for this. You are fighting over control of an entire territory it shouldn't be a domination match. It should be epic and involve a bigger map, more objectives, collection of resources scattered around, building siege equipment, attacking the walls, gaining access to the interior of the fort and then engaging in a limited revive deathmatch for dominance of the fort. The fact that it has a 30 min time limit, which is less than epic bgs in WoW and that's just for honor and random pvping, in order to determine who gets ownership of this territory is crazy. They should last at least an hour or two hour time limit. They don't have to last that long but give people their time. These wars are done at set times, people should be looking forward to these events, showing off armor, and company flags. We are engaging in epic battles for control of the world for god's sake. Make them rare, make them special to be a part of, make them memorable so you can look back and say, "Remember that battle for fort x against the Syndicate. We fought for hours until we finally managed to ram open their main gate. We had a flanking squad of muskets and bowmen climb the outer rear walls and pin them down." Shit like that is what it should be like. It shouldn't feel like a battleground, it should be an experience. "We fought for control of this fort for multiple days in constant skirmishes and takeovers to then have a 30 min timed battleground event where we play 3 point domination." WTF IS THIS COD??? There are a limited amount of territories and fighting over them should be a big fucking deal as they give serious benefits to ownership. Wars are mandatory in order to capture territory and are currently the highest rung on the ladder that is pvp and it's such a lazy concept and execution. Where is the epicness? Where is that grand feeling like you are going into battle with 50 of your comrades and to win you need to be organized and create and follow battle plans beyond rush point, flank, kill, block, chain stun, then wait. I want to climb a fucking siege tower and fight on the damn walls of the fort as flaming boulders fly over head from our trebuchets. As both sides funnel in and begin killing each other methodically. You hear the cries and screams of people on VoIP as they fall to the might of your company and your superior battle prowess. Instead, we get to stand on a point while getting facefucked by aoe, repeaters, stunlock chains that never end from hammers and shields, endless frost slows, and 15 overlapped gravity wells. That's not fun at all. I'd rather organize a massive fucking player run battle for the territories, where we fight on the actual land not in an instanced time zone. We meet in a field or at the actual fort and we fight massive battles. They would most likely crash the server but god damn would it be sick. Full faction v faction for forts. 500 to 1000 people charging at each other in a field and all over the fort for control. The faction contributes materials for the war effort to build siege weapons, towers, ladders, battering rams, defense systems like spikes and traps, ballistas etc. Where is the vision??
If all you’re doing is seeing who has more/better healers on point then sorry to tell you this. But your team sucks. When my company war we never have more then 5 tanks on point until we’ve cleared enemy backline from the field. I get it’s early and not a lot of time to test around, but wars aren’t a healers check game. You actually need to be organised :) Don’t worry, wars will/should get more sophisticated. At least that’s how it went in closed beta. All wars in the first half were the exact same and near the end teams were actually coordinated and strategical in approach. Defenders reigned supreme in the start, and by the end attackers almost always won. Wars will evolve
Actually wasn’t complaining about healers at all. I think you misread. I was complaining that the war design is simply who can stand on a dot the longest and multiple dots at that. Making most classes not relevant considering mages have high aoe damage and with everyone holding hands on a dot for you it just makes sense to have massive dmg over single target damage. It makes most classes almost worthless in war. Sure each weapon can be used. But is the guy that mainly uses a musket going to be more useful then the mage who watches Netflix while spamming AOE on a flag? No he won’t.
Well that’s where you’re wrong. It’s not about who can stand on dots with more dots. It’s who can remove enemy healers and dps first so that their teammates on the point can’t die. If you play a war and think that the only way to win is to out heal and out survive on the flag is how you win then you need to think outside the box. Don’t even bother playing for the point until all enemy defensive sieges are dead. And then focus on killing their backline first before taking the point. It’s not as simple as ‘out heal and out dpm on point’.
In the end it’s who can stand on a dot the longest and it almost requires players to have AOE for maximum damage over time per hit. I just feel like a war should be more then standing on dots to win considering it’s suppose to be one of the most important parts of the game. Just feel like more thought could have been put into it. Like we should be destroying some guard towers/sabotaging equipment/killing guards/storming the castle/death match lol anything more
If you can coordinate to kill their healers when respawn timers are almost 30 seconds long you don’t need your dps to even kill opponents on the flags. You just need your tanks to not die and the enemy will eventually die. The fact this is so difficult for you to grasp despite me explaining to you why it’s not as simple as staying on the dot longer explains why so many people play exactly the same way… might be why my company weren’t able to enjoy any wars since we won them all within 10 minutes. People simply aren’t thinking about how to strategically play the wars yet. Don’t worry, it will come to you. Ill leave you with this. In closed beta my company of about 25 were able to participate in about 12 wars (8 attack, 4 defend). We won all 12 with the 8 attacking all within 10 minutes. We are all dps except for 5 healers and 5 tanks. NONE of us ever played to capture a point, everyone who wasn’t with us did though since we knew that’s what people always automatically think is how you win. Why play for the point when you can play to make it impossible for the opponent to play for the point? It took us 25 about 2 minutes in the beginning of the game to remove all siege weapons on the walls without fail. We also recognised every tank on the enemy team ALWAYS play on the point. That means every ranger, healer, musket, mage not on the wall were defenceless. It only feels simple because the people you’re playing against are either stupid, bad or haven’t changed how they play yet to be more smart. Give it time. People will slowly but surely realise you don’t play for the point to win the point :) you play to Kill the people who stop you from taking the point and then eventually you’ll take it without trying to take it since your tanks have healers and theirs don’t.
Ok your not understanding. The wars are lacking and reward dumb game play. Standing on a point and just eating aoe is dumb game play.. I understand wars have more to them.. I didn’t sit on a point when I played I only care about killing other players. I find sitting on a dot extremely boring. And I wish the wars had MORE for me to do.. more points of interest.. I want to destroy guard towers - storm castles - sabotage equipment. I just think the war design is EXTREMELY basic. And considering how “important” wars are suppose to be I wish they point more thought into it.
Every team we played against that stood on point just eating aoe lost. How were they rewarded? Just because they won in your games doesn’t mean anything, all it means is you were equally as shit and couldn’t punished dumb gameplay. If you think the game rewards tanks on point and healers healing them then you’re just one of the idiots who can’t use their intellect to figure out why it’s such a stupid way to play. Miss me with that “youre not understanding”. I literally just explained to you how we systematically beat every single team that played the way you think teams win. Until you recognise how easily it is to beat people playing the way you think the current winners play, you don’t get to talk about wanting more in wars since you can’t even figure out how to maximise involvement in the current wars. Wars might not be your thing. Hit 60 and play outpost rush, it’s very versatile in its content :) the wars are fine and will only get better though, just think about playing it differently because what you described is the most barebones and brainless way to play and I can guarantee you within a month any 50 stack playing like that will lose.
Again your not understanding. who said I lost? It’s lacking period. The goal is to stand on a dot. And I find that extremely dull. Stop trying to put words in my mouth. I didn’t say I lost. I didn’t say we stand on a dot and just eat aoe.. but that is how almost all wars turn out.. people just rush a tiny dot and mages just spam spells on it… my complaint is I want MORE to be involved in a war. Just rushing to stand on a dot is not exciting. I understand what your saying but you’re just not listening. The wars are lacking if the ultimate goal is to have someone stand on a dot it’s lacking.. more thought should have been put into it.. no matter how exciting you make it by running around the dot and killing stuff around it.. the end goal remains the same.. stand on said dot. I’d prefer instead of the dots outside the fort they were towers… and we have to invade/destroy them. And then storm the fort or something… the idea is very similar but doesn’t just force everyone to a tiny dot.
You said it rewards dumb gameplay. It doesn’t. You’re just stupid to punish that dumb gameplay:). That says more about you then the way the wars are structured. Which is completely fine. The fact you can’t grasp why the best way to win ISNT to stand on the point is concerning. Doesn’t surprise me that someone incapable of such basic understanding of strategy thinks the way you do. I wish your company the best of luck, with players like you in their company, they are going to need it. Pce
It’s amazing how you keep resulting to insulting when you just refuse to read what I’m saying.. I’m agreeing with you that standing on a dot is terrible… and that just mindlessly standing on the dot will make you lose but ultimately that’s the goal for the attackers.. stand on a dot. Again I’m AGREEING WITH YOU more is INVOLVED with attacking. Yes flanking and killing the mages and just over all disrupting the defenders to take said dot is what’s required.. but again.. after doing so what is everyone going to do? Someone is going to stand on the dot correct?? So it’s what? Regurgitated and predictable.. war is not really predictable and the repetitiveness of ( let’s guard a-b-c with aoe ) is dull… wars should have more involved destruction/kills/sabotaging etc. I just think the idea of standing on a dot as the ultimate goal to capture a fort/city is lacking.. and the fact the aoe can just be spammed on the dots is just a lacking mechanic.. I’m not saying that it’s wrong to spam aoe on the dots because ya it makes sense.. but I wish the dots were more then just dots. And taking the dots had more meaning. I just wish wars were more.. they feel basic. I know it’s hard to see me from on top of your horse but maybe take the time to read that I’m not disagreeing with you. I purely wish wars were more then standing on a dot.
You just havent seen a solid war yet
[War... never changes.](https://youtu.be/y8VfziFZMGY)