Home > Uncategorized > The Need for T5

The Need for T5

Yesterday I wrote about the growing divide between casual and hardcore players, as the latter progresses farther in the renown ranks and dons far superior gear. My conclusion was simple – there needs to be a divide in T4. The current bracket of RR40 (theoretically) to RR100 is massive; there is no realistic way for a RR40 to take on an RR100. There have been many suggestions as to amending this gap mainly about reshuffling the tiers into renown brackets instead of level brackets (I believe someone had it at T1=RR1-15, T2=RR16-30, T3=RR31-50, T4=RR51-100). While this suggestion would work, I’d prefer to modify it.

In Eka’s world, the Tiers would be shifted to a renown cap focus with level caps naturally for Tiers 1 and 2. Tier 1 would be RR1-18 (Full Obliterator is RR17); Tier 2 would be RR19-30  (Full Devastator is RR26); Tier 3 would be RR31-49 (First piece Anni is RR31, Full Conq is RR45); Tier 4 would span RR50-70 (Full Invader to full Warlord); and Tier 5 would be RR71+ but itself divided into three RvR brackets (RR71-80, RR81-90, RR91-100). So more or less the brackets would be divided by renown armor sets and their accompanying scenario weapons. Players over RR70 could return to T4 since this would remain as the main campaign, but they would see diminishing returns in terms of stats and renown gain (their stats would not exceed that of full Sovereign gear). If they wanted to fight to their fullest potential and reap full renown they would venture to T5.

Now I know what you’re thinking – “But Eka, Mythic doesn’t even have the resources to give us 12 character slots per server, how would they ever manage to construct a 5th Tier…?” Well the solution is simple (hopefully a temporary solution until a permanent T5 could be constructed). T5 would not exist in new maps, but would rather turn the campaign around. One thing most players agree on is that there is so much wasted space set aside for PvE, and most people who still play WAR are not here for the PvE so it is indeed wasted.

Previously I expanded the T4 scene into the T4 PvE lakes, and now I propose to do the same to the lower tiers. So you will recall I said T5 would exist in three brackets (RR71-80, RR81-90, RR91-100), well these brackets would coincide with Tiers 1-3 – we’ll say the ‘Sovereign’ bracket in T3, the ‘Doomflayer’ bracket in T2, and the ‘Warpforged’ bracket in T1 – so it is a reverse progression. In these tiers the PvE lakes take up almost 80% of the map, if not more, so there is ample room for expansion. Naturally a system could be implemented for the actions taken by the T5 troopers to affect the ‘home tiers’ they are located in – something balanced as to not make the zerg of T5 dictate the terms of T1-3.

Ah I can already hear the voices of dissent again “But how will my low level toons level without our PvE lakes??” Fear not, in my version a system would be implemented so both things could exist at the same time. T5 would take large portions out of T1-3, yes, but significantly large portions would remain for low level toons to gain experience. Also the PvE mobs would exist in a smart system where their level would be determined by the person attacking them (much like the event mobs in the cities which upon being attacked are an appropriate level to the attacker). Players of the ‘home tier’ would not be able to flag themselves for RvR in the T5 lakes and could safely execute quests and public quests without fear of being caught in the line of fire.

Naturally I will follow the same model I used for my T4 expansions and transform key locations via major landmarks and public quests into BOs. However, because no keeps exist in the the wilderness of T1-3, a system would be introduced reminiscent of the olden keeps with lords and champions – the T5 lords would be the chapter hub Rally Masters, and their guards the denizens of the chapter hub. In this way difficult objectives to take and defend would still exist, but doorhammer would not exist. Upon killing the Rally Master, the attackers would be rewarded and the zone locked down temporarily while the Rally Master revived (say a 30m lockdown on the Chapter hub) and for the sake of the low levels doing quests, yes they would still be able to interact with the fallen body of their Rally Master. In fact(!) as a motivating factor, the players of the lower tiers could be given some sort of a experience bonus for aiding in the reviving of their Rally Master (via quests and kill quests) – so he could either be naturally revived in 30 minutes, or the players could turn in quests to raise his HP (however the Chapter hub would still be on lockdown despite the Rally Master being revived sooner by lower tiers – as to prevent a cooperative farming system by both sides).

Over the next nine days I will tackle the various maps of these pairings to show where I would expand the T5 scene into. Hopefully I can illustrate a version of T5 which is both plausible and could separate the high renown ranks from the low renown ranks in T4.

Advertisements
Categories: Uncategorized Tags:
  1. Donagan
    January 19, 2011 at 5:11 AM

    fantastic ideas Eka! If Mythic listened to you, this game would be born anew

  2. Mario Rossi
    January 25, 2011 at 11:27 PM

    pls style your walls of text a little bit better.
    use more titles, subtitels, paragraps, bold important words, mix images and links inbetween.
    it scares me to even try to read the text.

    • January 26, 2011 at 12:50 PM

      Um… it is in paragraphs. If reading more than 2 lines scares you then I don’t suggest my blog. Sorry but I’m trained to write 15-20 page essays on a single subject and when you write for an academic institution you don’t splatter your work with links, pictures or bold words.

  3. appipapi
    January 27, 2011 at 5:31 PM

    like playing alone huh?
    guess solo pve is realy interesting…

    at night ne aktualy have like 6 tier 4 people online on both sides if you spilt that into, what was your plan, 6 diffent zones, chances are pretty high that more that half of them are actualy playing alone

    • January 27, 2011 at 5:39 PM

      Ah constructive comments aren’t your strength, that’s ok. You have apparently missed why so many people have left WAR – because there is no new content and they are tired of fighting in the same 9 T4 zones in the same 6 scenarios. You open up the fight in new places and people just might come back.

  4. Trieth
    January 27, 2011 at 11:52 PM

    Whilst I think it is a good idea and necessary I reckon the remaining player base would be spread too thin. It could work if it wasn’t divided up to such an extent and introduced in stages.

    For example introduce only three new RvR zones to start with and have it for RR71-100 to begin with. One per zone in T3 as you suggested. You can change this over time as they introduce new zones and whether it draws back enough players to support it. This is also easier for the limited resources now available at Mythic to implement.

    Also the reward for taking the zone should influence T4. High RR people still need to go to city sieges to get their gear. You can have it automatically upgrade the friendly keep in the associated racial T4 pairing by one level. Or it could make special more powerful siege weapons available for the duration of the lock. The general concept is you capture a T5 zone you gain an advantage in pushing the campaign to siege the city. Any benefits should only apply to the same racial pairing, capture dwarf/greenskin T5 pairing bonus applies in dwarf/greenskin T4.

    • January 28, 2011 at 11:55 AM

      I can agree that the current population wouldn’t support it very well, your suggestion of an initial 71-100 pairing in T3 would work. My hope would be that by opening up new areas for people to fight in and splitting up the big boys from the little guys (and thus giving new players an incentive to stay in T4 instead of quitting or rolling a new toon) the population would begin to pick up once more. The number one reason people are leaving is because there is nothing new/they’re tired of fighting in the same places for two years. While these aren’t necessarily new places, they are new places for RvR.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: