I'm waiting to see it in action and get to t-4 myself. It reads to me, though, to be less of an auto win and more of an unignorable incentive to queue for scenarios to oppose the larger realm.
Then again, I could be dead wrong and wait to see it in action.
 

Thanks for the link, Tobold!

It actually brought me another link from a stranger site. Looks like this guy : http://mmorpg.vg/ is taking all your content, and running it through some weird translator to trick google into thinking it's new content.

"There is a very unearthly change in the connector notes 1.04 of Warhammer Online: “Victory points towards regularize curb module be acknowledged if a demesne has sufficiency players in the line to start the scenario and the another demesne doesn’t.” Of instruction the literal gist of this is ease unknown, as it depends rattling such of how some conclusion points are awarded for inactivity in a scenario queue. But it is plain by rattling ultimate science that the more inhabited demesne module ever be the digit having more grouping in inactivity queues, and thusly intend more conclusion points discover of this.

I rattling likeable the preceding method better: Scenarios somewhat pet the inferior inhabited realm, because they could endeavor them more often. Open RvR pet the more inhabited realm. Done correct this could preclude digit demesne high the other, meet because more players chose that digit demesne than the other. After the modify every kinds of RvR souvenir the large realm. Order strength as substantially arrange up and go home. "

I don't imagine he has many readers.
 

It's to counter an exploit where tiers were continuously kept in contention even when they could be locked down by a side joining scenarios and then all exiting.
 

To me it feels like we aren't seeing the whole picture here or that it's really explained badly. If it really favours the bigger realm by a substantial amount then it's just stupid.
 

It used to be that winning scenarios contributed to zone control (still does actually), so if you already controlled the zone, you could simply get your side not to queue for the relevant scenario. The goal here is not to reward people for not queueing.

Scenarios also favour the smaller side because they guarantee evenish numbers. So it's a good thing for the smaller side that scenarios are being forced to count. Unless you totally hate that scenario ofc (Thunder Valley, frex).
 

Lol rewarding people for logging on I guess ?
 

If this is merely a "cure" for an exploit, what a strange way to counter it. Seems to cause as many problems as it tries to fix.
 

Does anyone actually know the specifics of how the campaign and victory points work in the first place? Do keeps and BOs award a fixed lump when they are captured, a trickle over time, act as a multiplier, or something else?

I guess this change, might, in principle, make it a smart move to play whatever scenario was contested on the world map, which would be a good thing: rvr affecting scenarios, and making them more interesting, and victory in them more important. Of course, without feedback on victory points earned, or any general public understanding of the system, it will likely just work in the opposite direction: the existing pattern of scenarios will continue unchanged, and screw up RvR in random ways (say a massive influx of points from ToR Anroc making a zone uncapturable or trivial).
 

Thing is, some folks seem to be convinced, when they want a scenario and it doesn't launch, that it's because of some sinister plan by the enemy. They are trying to suggest that the opposing faction is so organised, so dedicated, so of one mind, that none of them sign up, even though scenarios are fun and grant good rewards.

That is one possible explanation, but I can think of a lot of simpler ones.
 

I think this is in direct relation to Order ONLY QUEUING UP FOR ONE GADARM SCENARIO!!! So, in T3... if Destro doesn't want to continually lose Tor Anroc and queues up for the other 5 scenarios, and Order only wants to play Tor Anroc because they get a win button... well Order actually loses on a 5 to 1 scale... I like it.
 

No, the point here is that you get victory points for playing the relevant scenario for teh zone. If you were winning the zone already, you would be better off NOT playing the scenario than you would be playing it, since when you play you are risking the enemy getting points.

Now, if you refuse to queue for the scen because you're winning the zone and want to turtle, that doesn't work anymore. If the enemy is trying to play the scen, and you won't go fight them, they will get the points anyway. It's not about an auto-win for the larger realm. It's about rewarding people for doing what gives victory points, as opposed to before when you were rewarded for AVOIDING the scenario.
 

As an Order player in T3, I can tell you I have hardly ever queued up for a single scenario. I queue for all and drop that one annoying that Destro ALWAYS wins...can remember the name). I still only seem to get Tor. Not sure why.
 

Reason ToR Anroc pops more than any other is simply that it gives 10 points per kill, instead of the 1 or 2 points that all other t3 scenarios do.

So even if you are walked over, as long as you get some kills, you get 200/300 points in 10 minutes, which translates as reasonable exp, and literally 10x what you would have got in most of the other scenarios, more when you factor you probably don't have the matching quests for the rarer one. That's enough of a difference in reward to cause a pretty large fraction of people to pick it exclusively, meaning it fills up first, and those who don't express a preference will end up there too (and teamed with people who are pretty much expecting to lose).

If you just reworked the other scenarios so they gave 2 or 5 points per kill, things would be less lop-sided - things are never going to be perfectly balanced, but a lot fewer people would be tempted by a 50% bonus than a 950% one.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Ravious, do you know Order only queue up for one scenario because:

A: Order says so?
B: Because only one scenario pops?

Rather than there being a faction-wide conspiracy, I'm more inclined to suspect that the scenario launching system is flawed and that when everyone hits "join all", it keeps picking the same one. Also, it probably only takes one person to always pick a specific scenario, and if everyone else hits join all, that'll be the scenario you get.
 

We'll have to see this in action to understand exactly what it's doing. I know that playing as an Order player on an outnumbered realm lately about 2/3rds of my scenarios have ended early due to not enough Destruction being present. As a result, we're not earning victory points towards zone control, even though we're showing up for the fight. This change would fix that, and at least grant us victory points so that the match wasn't a complete waste of time.
 

Actually this is for the case where you own all the keeps and BOs but you are short on zone control points. If the other side boycotts the zone and its scenario then there is absolutely nothing you can do to take the zone.
 

@ Arkenor. Thanks for the link to that other site. The translation on the political blog posts are absolutly hilarious, I can read it all day. Now I have two great blogs to read. Tobold, I wouldn't bother asking this other site to close down, it's just too funny:

'So it would be cushy for me indite more most politics, do a queer semipolitical blog. It would be cushy to journal most how it takes $150,000 worth of makeup to invoke a pitbull into a evilness president, or how children undergo prizewinning what is really scary this Halloween.'

Read it out loud in an eastern european accent. Fantastic.
 

'The abstract is that if McCain is elected, he’ll be the oldest prototypal constituent chair ever. That effectuation that there is a quantity that he could expire in the incoming 4 years, in which housing wife Palin would embellish chair of the United States of America'

I couldn't help myself
 

"Tier 4 zones now require fewer scenario victory points to be captured. The mechanics of capturing a zone have not changed however. Zones which have no scenario opposition can still be captured if players join the queue for scenarios based on that Zone. Victory points towards zone control will be granted if a realm has enough players in the queue to launch the scenario and the other realm doesn’t. If players in those queues join a launched scenario or leave the queue, the victory points towards zone control will be forfeit."

The "new" system is the "old" system, they just lowered the points required.
 

Tobold you are normally pretty much on the money with any comment you makes, but this post really disappoints me.
I really wonder if your playing the same game as me.
I've been t4 for about a 2weeks now and in that time i have never played a scenario apart from Serpents Passage. This is not by choice you understand I've spent fruitless nights queued for everything apart from SP only for 0 scenarios to launch (I'm on Karak Hirn EU a high/high realm so population ain't the issue). Currently as some people have already stated the best way to defend a area is just not to play at all, add to that the amount of VP contributed by PQ's is truely woefully low,(not to mention the fact that that forcing players to do PvE when they want to play RvR is wrong) and you have the perfect recipe for stalemate.
So we end up with a situation where often one faction controls all the open RvR objective in all 3 pairing but cannot turn any of them over because the opposing side wont fight. This often means no open RvR for days, and the dominant team purposely not defending a keep if its attacked just in the hope of getting some RvR (it allot harder to get a PuG warband together to defend a keep than it is to attack one).
I play war for the open RvR, its the game unique selling point, and currently the way a side can effectively stall out a zone is killing that, while this does push the overall meta RvR in the favor of the attacking team that imo is better than there being no RvR at all.
You then write about the zombie event in WoW
"If we want MMORPGs to break out of their static shell, we have to allow those changes to affect us in sometimes negative ways. And with the event only lasting a few days, there really wasn't all that much to complain about."
Now wait a minute so zombies laying waste to Azeroth IS a good thing, but Destro laying waste to Aldorf ISNT?

You & Arkenor both seem to think that the inconvenience of 1 side is more important than there being no RvR taking place,& yes ill admit this is a problem on server with a overall low population. But put aside your doubts & look to the future, Mythic have in essence announced that they will be closing down low pop servers by announcing they will be allowing transfer away from low pop server to medium pop ones. Now you could say why not do that now? The answer as well all know if Wotlk is squatting just over the horizon, & like it or not it will take a slice out of the WaR player base. Just how much remains to be seen but after its hit & the dust has cleared mythic will have a far better idea of what its overall user base is & can react accordingly. After this is done hopefully we will be left with a situation where the majority of servers are high/high. And in at situation where there are a reasonable number of players on both sides this change will leader to a greater variety of Scenarios popping and RvR taking place more often.

war isn't fair & there's no reason WaR should be either. WoW has installed into everyone the idea that only in wining can someone show any worth, its about time that people remembered that even if you are defeated if that defeat was heroic, if as it was put in 300 "that few stood against many" that there is still a worth to this.

Perhaps i'm just enraged after seeing the gray sands of serpents passage one to many times, or form staring at a map hour after hour waiting for something to happen. and perhaps for what i say to be wholly true mythic need to offer some reward to those who do defend heroically but i still fell even unfair conflict is better than none.