Improving Scenarios in WAR
My biggest complaint about WAR: Scenarios. Not because they suck. No, it’s because they are incredibly fun. My complaint is not with the scenarios themselves, but with the queues to get into a scenario if you’re on a lower population server and/or are on the side with more players. They’ve already taken a big step by allowing you to queue up for all 3 scenarios in your tier from anywhere. Where should they go from here?
Cross-server scenarios. As a game designer, I understand the hesitation to do it in the first place. This game is about PvP. It’s about controlling territory and winning the war. Scenarios contribute to the overall control of an area. And, players can get to know the faces of the enemies they’ll face in the overland battlefields within the world.
But, it’s all about fun. It is not fun to wait 30+ minutes to get into a scenario (sometimes even hours) even in primetime. It is not fun to wait even longer during the morning or early afternoon (read: I’ve never been in a scenario before about 4:00PM on Thorgrim). What is fun is to get into a scenario within 5-10 minutes and commence the beatdown.
As I mentioned, allowing players to queue up for all of their tier’s scenarios no matter which of the zones they’re in was a great step. I’ve seen a bit of a drop in queue times, so I’ve seen a bit of an increase in fun.
But I think they need to go further. What would I do?
I would make all servers of the same general type join the same pool of characters for scenario queues. That means all PvE-focused servers would be in one pool, and all PvP-focused servers would be in another. I might even go so far as to just put all servers into the same pool, regardless of their server type.
Why? So players can get to the fun faster! I know that scenarios contribute to the overall control of an area, and I wouldn’t change that. What I would do is change it to the following:
If an individual player wins, his side on his server gains a point in the region the scenario is part of. If an individual player loses, his side on his server loses a point in the region the scenario is part of.
The reason to make them lose a point for a loss is to essentially continue using win/loss percentage rather than just number of wins. Order would still, using my system, get into scenarios more frequently than destruction on an individual basis. There would also be more points gained/lost on certain servers.
Basically, you get something for winning, you lose something for losing. That’s how it is on servers right now, and I would want to preserve that.
I’m hoping they go in this direction if scenario queues don’t improve significantly over the next couple weeks. I would definitely try this before considering merging servers, which is something they may have to do depending on how the end game plays out on lower population servers.
Well, I’m off to WAR to hop into some scenario queues.
If they cluster the PvP instances then they may as well do the whole step and cluster even the PvE zones so that they are distributed on players activity.
But it’s a bit late to consider all this now.
Issues like this are the main reason I am a huge advocate of any efforts to reduce the number of servers for a game. Ideally, you would have 1 server per rule set, or possibly just 1 server with mirror continents that support different rule sets. I know there are technology issues with getting that many users playing on one world… but I think it would we worth it to find ways to overcome those issues.
Why not have a PvP scenario where you fight your own faction? You could call it ‘training’ or something. I’m pretty sure that would reduce wait times.
To prevent people from only using a ‘training’ scenario, you reduce the amount of RP and XP gained, as well as nerf the drops.
Instancing goes back a long way, but somewhere in the last 6 years it got re-adopted by post-EQ games as a means of further compartmentalizing the server population around heavily contested resources. This never made sense to me: the server/shard concept already rips the “massively” out of a player’s experience of a game, and instancing further reduces it to a sense of “slightly multiplayer”. I’ve been toying with a notion of “Virtual Sharding” for a few years now, although I’ve been sort of sitting on it because it seems like instancing is a tainted word and because, frankly, I was hoping we might have chance to do something with it on Battleground Europe and didn’t want to steal the wind from my own sails
My recent blog entry explaining more…
It’s definitely something that would help out Destro greatly in most cases, but I wonder how easy it would be to implement changes to the way a region gets renown and zone control.
Last night, on Order CoW I ran some Mourkain temple with the guild. 5 times in one hour. We won 4.
So for now, as an Order player I don’t see the problem, but I’ve heard nothing but bad from destro side. That’s not good. I don’t want Shwayd changing sides and trying to be cool like us Order folks, so I propose this gets fixed immediately.
Some of the Destruction folks have already jumped ship. I was planning on having a Shaman as my main. That did not last a full week. Ventrilo yesterday featured the discussion of “wow, you can get scenarios over here. Which do you guys need more: tanks or healers?”
[...] Don’t get me wrong here, I’m a very liberal guy (from Canada, duh), but I don’t know if cross-server scenario queues are the best/only solution for our current queuing issues on underpopulated servers/overpopulated realms. [...]
I really enjoy the rivalry aspect and would hate to lose that. Of course I play on Order.
Shouldn’t they be working on the core issues rather than applying a bandaid fix for the result of said issues? The real problems are server populations (low/medium specifically) and realm imbalances (destro > order 99% of the time). If they could fix these problems, I believe it would have a trickle down affect, not only to scenario queues, but open-world RvR as well.
Been hugely busy to really slam it down in WAR at the moment, but here’s the problem:
On most servers Destruction is higher pop than Order on 75% of the servers. NOTHING is going to solve this issue until either more people go Order. WoW had this problem. Even Cross-servers did not solve the issue as all it succeeded in doing was bringing even more Alliance players into the Battlegroup to go against a lower populated Horde side. This solution failed and ruined many server communities.
Face it, fact is that people wanted to go destruction. Destruction was known to be the high-pop faction. Unless you are on one of those servers with FULL/FULL pops, it’s going to be some queue time before you get in scenarios. I’ve had the same issue when trying to queue on Thorgrim (back when I could play– this week’s been pretty hectic IRL).
Or, GASP! You could actually make the non-scenario portion of the game so fun that you weren’t ‘not enjoying’ the time you spent waiting for the scenario queue to come up!
I’m not sure I like the idea of cross server scenarios due to my experiences in WoW. It isn’t a bad idea but it isn’t optimal. I also think we should be a little more patient. I think Warhammer Online has a lot of sales coming, especially with all the positive press and the looming holiday season. If they don’t open more servers this might fix the issue.
Another problem I see is that the server’s definition of “full” and my definition of “full” aren’t the same. One is based on resources and the other is based on seeing bodies around. I’d just like to see more bodies around period. I’d like to do PQs without having to build a group. I can, yes, at any time but that isn’t the point. Ryan’s previous statements were correct.
I’d also like to see balance addressed before this though. People frequently claim destruction is “better.” I’m actually going to disagree. On a class by class comparison I think Order often comes out slightly on top (it is cool that you disagree, I don’t want to high jack the blog with this. Reference Sorceress vs Bright Wizard). Where destruction has an advantage is numbers. We frequently have more people. That doesn’t necessarily mean better people however. Throw enough bodies at a problem though and it does work eventually. That said, I’ve seen destruction on my server literally give away scenarios that should have been easily won. They do this frequently. We lose a lot more than we win not because of the slight balance issue but because of sheer unadulterated stupidity.
I also think scenarios are preferable to open RVR due to scaling issues. Last night I lead my guild on some keep runs. We’re not a huge horde but basically speaking one defending player is equivalent to six attacking players on a keep run. All the advantages are on their side unless you can gain extreme numerical superiority. Anything close won’t do. Unfortunately most people don’t seem interested in raiding keeps. The reward is far inferior to taking objectives and doing scenarios. The risk is also skewed because of that. A few people can easily be turned aside by even fewer people. Why waste all the time when you can just queue up for a scenario?
We do it, yes, but the majority of our server does not.
“wow, you can get scenarios over here. Which do you guys need more: tanks or healers?”
And thus the problem solves itself? Or will Order find themselves switching to Destro soon too because it flip-flops?
Personally I thiink cross servers is worth a try. A lot of times a server community doesn’t work out so well anyway. And I agree that the numero uno focus right now needs to be making it fun for each player, and rIght now queue time significantly detracts from the fun. If a server community is going to be ruined by going the cross server route, that would come later, and maybe we/they can figure out something to address that issue between now and then. But first things first.
The other thing that would be fun is let warbands join the queue together, not just groups, so your scenario team is all guildies and no puggies. And while we’re at it, if we’re going the cross-server route, let’s let guilds elect to go up against other guilds, so we can have the be all, end-all battle for supremacy among all of the guilds in the entire game.
Last thougt: I really like the in-game abilty to speak with someone verbally in LotRO, i.e. not having to be in the same vent server with someone in order to be able to speak with them. If you’re in the same group as them and have a headset, you can all speak with each other. Having this in WAR scenarios would be a nice improvement b/c the big problem with pugs is that total lack of communication in SP chat leads to u-fail and is frustrating, especially when the other team is in vent together. In those cases your chances of victory are basically nil.
[...] problems that have cropped up in its first weeks of life. Chief among its growing pains is the problem of scenario queuing issues, both on barren servers and the ones that are practically choking on players. Snafzg over at The [...]
Nybling is right. Let’s do the math;
On Throgrim, let’s say we have 2800 Destruction and 2000 order. It’s a factor of 1.4 to 1 in favor of the Destruction side in numbers. That means that through rotation in the scenario cues, The Order players will get into about 50% more scenarios, since they will immediately get a spot in the scenario following the one they are doing, while Destruction has to wait for that one to end to get another (it’s just an example, not 100% accurate.)
For the sake of argument, let’s say that there are 100 servers, and they all have similar proportions to the one mentioned above. Math tells us that if we take a cycle, and change it by a factor of 100, it doesn’t change how long that cycle takes to complete, only how many get through the cycle. Since this is happening concurrently on all of the individual servers anyway, putting the servers together really only serves to keep the server community from developing interesting rivalries (I’ll get you one day, Grumpi!) and making things muddier and more difficult to quantify on a server by server basis (like the Renown Rank factor.)
It’s admirable to want to make a change that improves the quality of the game for everyone, but this smacks of action for action’s sake. When the difference is painful enough, then enough people will move to the other side to compensate. That is the only real solution until we all reach max RR.
It would reduce the amount of waiting time to get into a scenario for those on lower population servers. If you don’t trust Mathguard (me!), trust servers with high population — even players on Destruction on high pop servers get into scenarios much faster than those on lower population servers.
I just wish people would run something other than Nordenwatch all the time…
AMEN! I was saying this the first week the game was out; and I got blasted on forums b/c people feel it will water the server rivalries down and some how decrease server pride, not to mention cause open RvR to be even less scarce. I think when everyone is level 40 and the only thing left to do is RvR and get renown more people will be doing open RvR. Right now allot of people want to level, gear up, and get renown. I would love to see faster scenario queues, I barely pay attention to names right now anyway. I pay attention to people’s names and guild tags when I’m out in the open RvR areas. Scenario action is too fast to care about the other side… at least to me. I do what is the most fun and doing scenarios is FUN to me right now, I just wish something other than PG would pop
I’m very happy to see mythic add the ability to queue all 3 scenarios at your tier. That was a plus and I’m sure their thinking of ways to continually help the population issues. I would not mind battle groups or server merges or something to help with this. I am so glad I’m not the only trumpeting for cross server queues either
Some points:
1. Queues are short on cap population servers because the population online at any given time is guaranteed to be equal. On Skull Throne, queues are short at primetime because the server queue makes the population of order and destruction equal. At off hours, it can take an hour to get through a single queue, though that’s an extreme situation - the same as any other imbalanced server.
2. There is a(t least one) very specific reason WoW battlegroups mix PvE and PvP servers - their demographics have alliance up by about 1.5 to 1 for population on PvE servers, horde by 1.5 to 1 on PvP servers. Match the two together and you get a situation where the populations match up fairly well.
3. The players will adjust eventually, but it will be painful until then and it *will* cost them customers - with some segment of the population “adjusting” by playing something else. They need action that will actually work. Battlegroups would work if their problem is a specific one: if they’ve got so few Order players in some places that Destruction players end up stuck in queues for long periods of time simply because there aren’t enough players on the other side queuing to start a game. In that situation, you have players locked out of Scenarios for time disproportional to the population imbalance. Battlegroup up and you’ll make the wait time proportional to population imbalance instead.
In the end I don’t have access to their internal data, but I suspect battlegrouping up a few lower pop servers here and there would help things a lot. In the meantime, unless they can come up with a painless way of pushing Destruction players to Order (and I suspect no such method will be found) they and their players are just going to have to ride out the population issues until it is naturally resolved.
If you have 15000 Destruction players and 10000 Order players queued for T3 scenarios, that means 833 can be going on at once. 5004 (33.36%) Destruction players can’t play at that time. Then, 15 minutes later (if all the scenarios went to max time), those 5004 Destruction players who didn’t get to play in the first batch will get a spot in the second batch (as long as 5004 [50.04%] Order players requeue).
If you have 1500 Destruction players and 1000 Order players queued for T3 scenarios, that means 83 can be going on at once. 504 (33.6%) Destruction players can’t play at that time. Then, 15 minutes later (if all the scenarios went to max time), those 504 Destruction players who didn’t get to play in the first batch will get a spot in the second batch (as long as 504 [50.4%] Order players requeue).
If you have 150 Destruction players and 100 Order players queued for T3 scenarios, that means 8 scenarios can be going on at once. 54 (36%) Destruction players can’t play at that time. Then, 15 minutes later (if all the scenarios went to max time),those 54 Destruction players who didn’t get to play in the first batch will get a spot in the second batch (as long as 60 Order players [60%] and 6 Destruction players requeue).
As you can see from those sample numbers, the bigger the pool gets, the more likely players are to get into a scenario quickly, and the less dependent Destruction players become on a large percentage of Order players requeueing. It’s not super significant, but I think it’s still a non-trivial difference.
On lower pop servers, players can easily get left in the dark for 30 minutes or more if not enough Order requeues. I’d like to see Mythic’s numbers, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was closer to 2 to 1 in favor of Destruction queueing for scenarios (I believe Destruction players queue more often than Order players due to their inclination to PvP AND because it takes so long to get into a scenario) if there are 1.5x as many Destruction players on servers in general.
Which is essentially the point I was making. The place where it helps out is where a significant number of players get stranded because of the simple fact that you can open 83 scenarios but can’t open 8.3 scenarios.
It would definitely help out the very low population servers, but would not come close to completely solving the problem.
In the next big patch, they’re going to give 20% extra renown and XP to players who are part of realms that need more heroes. This isn’t for all servers, but it should give a bit of a boost to sides that need more players.
We’ll see if that incentive will actually help now that most people are established. It will probably help more in the long term than the short term. Hopefully Thorgrim is one of the servers that gives a bonus to Order.
I’m not sure if it’s the solution I would have tried first. I’d probably give more renown, more coin, and more frequent loot drops before I gave additional XP; Order players already gain levels faster due to scenario frequency, and now they’ll just outlevel the tiers quicker.
Another change I’m happy to see and would have made myself:
“While in scenarios, players will no longer be able to select “Need” in their loot windows unless their career or race can use the item being offered. Please note: players of a lower level than required by the item are still able to roll.”
No more of those incredibly annoying people selecting Need every time. Man those people piss me off.
Must have picked a lucky server. I have force myself to stop clicking the queue button if I want to get anything done, they pop that fast, cant even summon my mount sometimes.
Karak Hirn Destruction EU Tier 2