20 Questions – Big Battles

[AllySanders]

Ok, this is as far as I've gotten in this thread, so sorry if the post has been superseded, but this point reflects a major concern of mine. How does my elf or hobbit show up at Helm's Deep while staying true to the lore that there were no hobbits and one elf there? I'll keep reading in the hopes that the keeper of lore weighs in here.

I think that when it comes to playing LOTR as a MMO that there is going to have to be give in it. I just don't think that a MMO can truly stay lock-in-step with everything in canon and still provide variety and flexability. I mean, if you wanted to stay fully lore compliant, then instead of creating a character and playing them up, you'd have to create a class type which would change based on what area of the map you were playing in so you could remain canon compliant. That would mean that if you rolled a hunter, you could start out in Bree as a Breelander, but once you got to the Troll Shaws or to Rivendell, your Breelander would have to instantly morph into an elf or at least a Dunedain, as technically no one else should know where Rivendell was at. When you made it to Moria, you'd have to become a dwarf to fit the lore; later, in Lothlorien, your hunter would become an elf, and when you made it to Rohan, your hunter would change into a Rohirrim. In order to achieve this, there couldn't be an over-arching storyline as there wasn't a single person at all places at all times except for the heroes themselves. So basically, each area would have to become its own mini-world for certain levels, each with its own individual story. Oh, and you would not be able to play a female character as Tolkien's canon view was very much a Middle Ages world and women were not warriors. Your other option would end up being a console game where you play through the events as one of the heroes themselves.

So effectively, what happens is that the game becomes a series of session plays, except that you keep the same class type in each session. While this is a possibility for a game play style, I suppose, I don't think it would appeal to the masses because while that would make it possible to totally remain canon compliant, it would totally kill the role playing aspects of the game and the ability to grow with a toon. I personally love my individual toons for the characters they are and their own individual stories based upon their backgrounds, sex, race, etc.

I realize that it comes down to a suspension of believe based upon an individual's point of view of canon, and that everyone has their own individual "line in the sand". Truthfully, the game mechanics themselves really requires that--after all, you really couldn't realistically ride from Rivendell to the Shire in the matter of a half hour, and getting hit by the first arrow should in reality kill you, and that brigand will still see you walk past him at 20 yards if he can see you at 19, and if you fall off a cliff, your leg will not heal in 30 seconds........

And besides--a lot of people, if they were honest, would admit that they in their minds do self-inserts into their favorite stories and dream about what it would be like to be right there alongside their favorite characters. I know that is true because look at how much fan fiction exists online!

The best way, I think, to deal with it is to consider the game to be "based on LOTR" and not necessarily "Middle Earth online" and simply treat it as an alternate universe to play in. Look at it this way: Tolkien claimed to have been translating the Red Book of the Westmarch from several ages and several thousand years, handed down through the centuries and copies several times over, and he was translating it into English. Like any other myth from so long ago, while the basic elements may remain the same, there are several versions to it, some which differ widely, depending on which version you read, and no one knows all the facts as to what really happened. So treat the game as another translation from a different source than the copy Tolkien was working from, one that has a slightly different interpretation of what happened--the basic elements are there, yes, and the basic heroes, but there are some things that change in this version from the other one. It's sort of like talking to the witnesses of a trainwreck; you'll get different versions of the same event from different perspective. Or think of it as the other side's version of what happened, sort of like reading the English side of events versus the French side of events in the 100 years war

But that's just me, and maybe I'm just pre-conditioned to think that way, considering the fact that I am a fan fiction reader and the fandom that I read the most in has about a million alternate universes to it.......I look at it as book-verse, movie-verse, and game-verse--all have common elements to them, but they have things that distinguish them from each other-you know, like the DC and Marvel comic book worlds......

[AllySanders]

LOL that should be a bumper sticker. LOL

*grins*

I wonder where we could get a few printed up......

[Patrickwg]

Not sure if this was said yet or not. Are the quest repeatable (do them multiple times the same day) or just once a day?

[Whart]

Do you believe "lore" contains an objective and detailed description of the battle and direct statements about composition of defending forces (on lower level than "armies" or "regiments" etc)? If yes, what do you base that belief on?

Judging from common "it's breaking lore!" arguments, that proved pretty much nothing so far save from supporting a few "but this or that detail should be avoided" conditions, "lore" is pretty much "Two Towers", which makes the whole argument even weaker than claiming there's an evidence of absence (of PC in Helm's Deep) through absence of the evidence (of their presence). What's left can certainly be used to argue how it should not be done, but hardly that it should not be done at all. But I guess less dramatic positions are not attractive enough

I'm not ruling out imagination in this process or trying to hold to some rigid standard, just trying to figure out how this all fits together with the story that I've read, which I hope plays some role in this because the story is why I play. I understand that leaps have to be made for gameplay purposes, because you always have to remember that this is a game and not a book, but there are also certain things that just don't fit my understanding of this world, and while I'm by no means an authority, I'd appreciate seeing some information on how it all fits together. What I use as lore is the chapter on Helm's Deep in The Two Towers, which while it doesn't specifically say there were no hobbits and no other elves or dwarves than Gimli and Legolas, does contain an exchange between those two where each laments that there were not others of their kind there. Maybe they didn't know there were others there? I suppose one could consider that option given the size of the operation. I'm not saying that other possibilities *can't* happen, just that further elaboration on how and why we can be there would be something I'd like to hear more about. What does the game story look like and how does it fit within what has already been written about this scene? Is that not a legitimate area of curiosity?

[Minquinn]

I'm not ruling out imagination in this process or trying to hold to some rigid standard, just trying to figure out how this all fits together with the story that I've read, which I hope plays some role in this because the story is why I play. I understand that leaps have to be made for gameplay purposes, because you always have to remember that this is a game and not a book, but there are also certain things that just don't fit my understanding of this world, and while I'm by no means an authority, I'd appreciate seeing some information on how it all fits together. What I use as lore is the chapter on Helm's Deep in The Two Towers, which while it doesn't specifically say there were no hobbits and no other elves or dwarves than Gimli and Legolas, does contain an exchange between those two where each laments that there were not others of their kind there. Maybe they didn't know there were others there? I suppose one could consider that option given the size of the operation. I'm not saying that other possibilities *can't* happen, just that further elaboration on how and why we can be there would be something I'd like to hear more about. What does the game story look like and how does it fit within what has already been written about this scene? Is that not a legitimate area of curiosity?

I will give Sapience credit, since he said it best.

The second you created your first toon you broke lore. The time you interacted with Gandalf in the prancing pony you broke lore. The moment we were able to fight a balrog we were breaking lore? (not sure about that one)

The point is just because the game doesn't follow the books to a T, doesn't mean it is gamebreaking

[Ferthcott]

I'd appreciate seeing some information on how it all fits together.

Me too. So far I am still seeing Two Towers. No word from creator himself, which would definitely solve the issue for me. Not even non-LOTR works. It's either "I know but I won't tell" or Two Towers and random personal interpretations are everything that is currently available from "lore break!" PoV. As for Big Battles - I imagine we will see a Dev Diary at some point, explaining when, where and what exactly are we fighting in each instance. Even then we won't know everything, as sometimes a smart quest bestowal text can make a difference.

What I use as lore is the chapter on Helm's Deep in The Two Towers, which while it doesn't specifically say there were no hobbits and no other elves or dwarves than Gimli and Legolas, does contain an exchange between those two where each laments that there were not others of their kind there.

They are talking about having a hundred of their kin around. It its only enough to condemn poor Jackson from "lore" point of view, not to mention that having organized military presence of any other race/country would have been waaaay too important not to mention even in Red Book. It throws some numbers around, staying at "army" level most of the time, not even pretending to care about details. It's funny people argue that every single non-Rohir participant has to be mentioned, while it doesn't even mention Rohirrim heroes. Yeah, that's totally believable, a defining, desperate battle of a generation, fought without any other major military power around (unlike Pelennor) and the only non-royalty person who distinguished himself was Hama. So what unusual did he do? Died.

Maybe they didn't know there were others there? I suppose one could consider that option given the size of the operation.

Exactly. I have no idea why it's a given they would know - especially at the time, not ex post. Same goes about random soldiers who would, somehow, not be stuck at their posts, too busy, too scared, too drunk afterwards, exchanging stories about fighting hobbit right along with two-headed orc riding a pink warg. Even after hearing those stories (and sobering up after "fighting" PTSD) they would be still amazed when actually seeing a hobbit. It's like "lore" magically overrides how battles work, what limitations perception has when you are among thousands of strangers, how truth is the first victim of any war, how Red Book was written etc.

It remains to be seen if Turbine tries to use similar/different workarounds or... simply chooses ezmode - like with "Thane of Hytbold" or with insisting we have to meet Eomer (or, presumably, people would cancel their accounts because it's been too long since Important LOTR Character told them how awesome they were, which makes all the difference, because, let's face it, who the heck is Fastred?).

What does the game story look like and how does it fit within what has already been written about this scene? Is that not a legitimate area of curiosity?

Never said it wasn't. In fact, the most important parts of "lore break" being a "lore break" (or not really...) are still depending on how exactly it's implemented. So far we know it's "Big" Or eg. something jwbarry said about about culvert - if that implies we are going to throw stones at Gimli, then it gets kinda shady, but still, as long as it's happening fast enough... we can even handle meeting Aragorn in a similar way. Just remember to run away when there's time to rest and you get an idea to talk about how you had to babysit certain Grey Company and to complain his subjects are a bunch of...

[Angadan]

Theoden rode out from Edoras with a muster of "more than a thousand" (TT p. 528). They are described as "a great host of men, old and young," and were certainly almost all of Rohan. And yet, less than 10 of them were named--and among those named were an elf and a dwarf. Is it possible other friends of the Rohirrim of other races rode out that day? Tolkien doesn't say no.

Arriving at Helm's Dike, Theoden discovers that "Erkenbrand had left many men to hold Helm's Gate, and more had since escaped thither" (TT, p. 534). He receives an update from Gamling, leader of the outer defenses. Gamling tells the King that there are "maybe a thousand fit to fight" garrisoning the keep, "but most...have seen too many winters, as I have, or too few, as my son's son here." Furthermore, Gamling informs the king that the caves of the Deep also shelter "three parts of the folk of the Westfold, old and young, children and women" (TT, p. 535). This is a large number of additional people, albeit non-combatants...and, importantly, yet another place where a friend of the Rohirrim could arrive with them.

As Whart mentioned, there is one exchange between Gimli and Legolas which applies to this discussion. Legolas says, "But you comfort me, Gimli...I wish there were more of your kin among us. But even more would I give for a hundred good archers of Mirkwood. We shall need them" (TT p. 536) JRRT's wording was a bit vague, leaving us free to interpret it as we each wish. It could mean that Legolas and Gimli saw every one of the thousands of fighters and non-combatants throughout the keep and all its ramps and ramparts and passages and halls and tunnels, and are certain there are no other dwarves present (and no company of 100 Mirkwood elves). Or it could mean that there might be some small number of dwarves and elves around, but that Legolas and Gimli were not aware of them. Or it could mean that there are SOME of Gimli's kin there, but Legolas wishes there were MORE. I personally find it no great stretch to imagine a dwarf or two, and an elf or three among the crowded masses inside the hold. Not to mention some men who hail from lands other than Rohan.

Note that I do not intend to 'run circles' around the lore or 'assert loopholes' (not even sure what the latter means), as someone accused people of doing earlier. I am a huge Tolkien fan, and am as eager as any to see LotRO reflect LotR faithfully. I am simply pointing out, as others have, that "an absence of evidence" should not be confused with "evidence of absence." If you want to believe that you could be at the Battle of the Hornburg and still fit nicely within the lore of the Lord of the Rings, you certainly have the logical foundation to do so. I know I will. (unless you're a hobbit...sorry, lore really has a problem fitting you in)

[whheydt]

Note that I do not intend to 'run circles' around the lore or 'assert loopholes' (not even sure what the latter means), as someone accused people of doing earlier. I am a huge Tolkien fan, and am as eager as any to see LotRO reflect LotR faithfully. I am simply pointing out, as others have, that "an absence of evidence" should not be confused with "evidence of absence." If you want to believe that you could be at the Battle of the Hornburg and still fit nicely within the lore of the Lord of the Rings, you certainly have the logical foundation to do so. I know I will. (unless you're a hobbit...sorry, lore really has a problem fitting you in)

"Asserting loopholes" is exactly what you were doing. Tolkien doesn't absolutely say that Gimli and Legolas checked out everybody, everywhere and didn't find any other dwarves or elves, therefore such *could* have been present. That is trying to create a loophole to allow player characters in without violating the explicit word of the text.

Really guys... Religions have been at all those tricks for thousands of years.

Just be honest and say something the order of, "Yeah. It's a lore break. It's done to keep the 'I MUST experience the Battle of the Hornburg with my very own character or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue' folks from having screaming fits all over the Forums." There is no actual text giving a clear lead to pronounce that there were non-Rohirrim Men, Elves, Dwarves, or Hobbits present, other than ones Tolkien enumerated because they were the ones he was concerned with. If you take that route, there's no reason why neither of the Blue Wizards were present, and no reason why the Rohirrim failed to break out their Gatling guns. Tolkien didn't say that those weren't there/didn't happen, either.

[Angadan]

By the way, a small note on definitions. Specifically, the term 'lore-breaking.' I've always taken it to mean an element of the game that definitively conflicts with something Tolkien wrote, esp. something he included in his published works (Hobbit, LotR, Silm), something he considerd "final" enough to give to a printer. I get the impression that some here use 'lore-breaking' to mean anything that was not mentioned in the books. Which is HUGELY different. Using that definition, Sapience is right: our very existence is lore-breaking. But my problem with people using that definition is that it insults JRRT. See, if you say that NOTHING can exist unless it was mentioned in the books, you are saying that Tolkien's world is shrink-wrapped to include nothing other than what he wrote. Nothing else. Think about that for a bit. Whole parts of Middle-earth simply cease to exist in any meaningful way, using that definition, because Tolkien never published anything about them during his lifetime, other than including them in his drawn maps. No adventurer ever left home, no good guys ever defeated any bad guys, no heroes were born, except those specifically mentioned in Tolkien's works. No, JRRT was far more creative and genius than that. His world DOES have depth and complexity and the millions of moving pieces beyond what he focused on. So I'd prefer if we stuck with 'lore-breaking' meaning elements that definitively conflict with something he DID say, rather than including everything that he DIDN'T say. If you must, you can call those latter things, "expanding on the lore." Just not breaking it.

[Angadan]

If you take that route, there's no reason why neither of the Blue Wizards were present, and no reason why the Rohirrim failed to break out their Gatling guns. Tolkien didn't say that those weren't there/didn't happen, either.

You're a smart guy, I've read your posts for years now. You know that you're engaging in hyperbolic argument here. If the Blue Wizards showed up, of COURSE it would be note-worthy, therefore of course Tolkien would have mentioned it. He didn't mention it, so it would be lore-breaking for them to be present. Same with gatling guns changing the course of the battle, heck of warfare. It is too important for Tolkien not to have mentioned. But the presence of a few people here and there who are different from the majority but nevertheless aren't mentioned? That's a whole lot more subtle. So I turn your words back on you a bit...just be honest and say something on the order of, "yeah, Tolkien was a little too busy to note every single lump in every bite of the oatmeal...it is possible a raisin or two were in there." You'll feel better for it.

[Minquinn]

"Asserting loopholes" is exactly what you were doing. Tolkien doesn't absolutely say that Gimli and Legolas checked out everybody, everywhere and didn't find any other dwarves or elves, therefore such *could* have been present. That is trying to create a loophole to allow player characters in without violating the explicit word of the text.

Really guys... Religions have been at all those tricks for thousands of years.

Just be honest and say something the order of, "Yeah. It's a lore break. It's done to keep the 'I MUST experience the Battle of the Hornburg with my very own character or I'll hold my breath until I turn blue' folks from having screaming fits all over the Forums." There is no actual text giving a clear lead to pronounce that there were non-Rohirrim Men, Elves, Dwarves, or Hobbits present, other than ones Tolkien enumerated because they were the ones he was concerned with. If you take that route, there's no reason why neither of the Blue Wizards were present, and no reason why the Rohirrim failed to break out their Gatling guns. Tolkien didn't say that those weren't there/didn't happen, either.

Can we just end this nonsense and get back to the questions about the Big Battles?

We were warned about this type of discussion. That it would end in the thread being closed. Unless you want to see that happen. Then continue on.

Back on track.

Will tanks and healers have a large role in how these big battles play out or will 12 hunters be sufficient?

[Darlgon]

Sorry, not so lucky. I reset all the broken links in everyone's signatures to say that and made it hot pink so everyone would notice it and change their sigs. I knew it was the fastest way to get people to fix their sigs. You weren't trolled, you were manipulated. At my expense I might add.

Now, about the multiple violations of the community guidelines in your post....

Man, I was just gonna leave it blank... Sigh.. NOW I have to figure out how to make a sig that everyone will dig.

Oh, wait, you kept the text sig I had, it did not change. I saw it when I hit post. Did only the graphic ones change?

[Cefely]

Way to improve community relations!

Way to edit your original post that was all about you!

"Sapience actually added "A vote for Sapience is a vote for progress! Vote today!" to my forum post since I replied negatively to the dev chat lol! Gotta love being trolled by the Community Manager!" -Cas

Too bad it had nothing to do with your 'negativity'.

[Ferthcott]

Really guys... Religions have been at all those tricks for thousands of years.

Interesting comparison, seeing how the only way for Red Book to be considered a correct, objective and complete version of the battle is to treat it as a believer treats religious texts. Or "lore".

If you take that route, there's no reason why neither of the Blue Wizards were present, and no reason why the Rohirrim failed to break out their Gatling guns. Tolkien didn't say that those weren't there/didn't happen, either.

Actually, if you take that route, you are simply using argumentum ad absurdum (with a pinch of projections), which proves nothing aside from your inability or unwillingness to argue the issue with something valuable.

Gatling guns break pretty much everything, from setting to common sense, from Red Book to a mountain of statements from author himself. But if you are trying to suggest Red Book is magically made vulnerable to absurd of that scale simply because it is written as a flawed, biased and incomplete account, then you are simply arguing out of your element. Random Persian mercenary at Crecy? Surely you jest, that's like French using gatling guns! Yeah, that's how it works... not.




Ironically, siege weapons might turn out much more problematic if "good" side controls a bit too "advanced" pieces. Which reminds me...

Wow, this sounds kind of like a PvE version of Dark Age of Camelot's battlegrounds system. I hope there will be siege weaponry on both sides!

Ha. Seeing how earlier purpose of Helm's Deep was to defend against foes that were neither organized nor technologically advanced enough to construct "proper" siege weaponry - or that stones are being "hurled" at ram crews during the battle (the possible angle says all in that case)... I am not sure what kind of equipment "good" side has. "Repurposing" stuff instead, like at Thangulhad?

[Darlgon]

Can we just end this nonsense and get back to the questions about the Big Battles?

We were warned about this type of discussion. That it would end in the thread being closed. Unless you want to see that happen. Then continue on.

Back on track.

Will tanks and healers have a large role in how these big battles play out or will 12 hunters be sufficient?

Sigh.. 17 pages and you did not notice that solo play means that even burgs and captains can play them by themselves if they wish? The big battle is the number of NPCs in the instance. You are just a.. hmm.. lynchpin.. that turns the tide for or against the defenders, depending on how well you react to changes in the "big battle", "large scale combat", "multi-NPC instance" or whatever they call it in the end..

Besides, never knew Sapience was a warden, derailing threads with ease. Plus one rep.. oh wait.. that system is gone.

[Minquinn]

Sigh.. 17 pages and you did not notice that solo play means that even burgs and captains can play them by themselves if they wish? The big battle is the number of NPCs in the instance. You are just a.. hmm.. lynchpin.. that turns the tide for or against the defenders, depending on how well you react to changes in the "big battle", "large scale combat", "multi-NPC instance" or whatever they call it in the end..

Besides, never knew Sapience was a warden, derailing threads with ease. Plus one rep.. oh wait.. that system is gone.

I was asking about the group setting but thanks for the info. I'd hate to see my Warden or guardian become useless. Unlike some I do not play DPS classes. 17 pages was alot to read.

[Cefely]

What would do it for me would be for Sapience to be upfront about them breaking lore--"spending a lore cookie" for those who remember that terminology--and just saying that they couldn't find another way to handle the battle without driving too many players away...and took the calculated risk that this would be accepted. Crass and money grubbing, but realistic and understandable. Trying to weasel word everything...not so much.

This could be reworded a bit to represent the point of view of the folks that love raiding/grouping as well I suppose...

[Cefely]

I'm not ruling out imagination in this process or trying to hold to some rigid standard, just trying to figure out how this all fits together with the story that I've read, which I hope plays some role in this because the story is why I play. I understand that leaps have to be made for gameplay purposes, because you always have to remember that this is a game and not a book, but there are also certain things that just don't fit my understanding of this world, and while I'm by no means an authority, I'd appreciate seeing some information on how it all fits together. What I use as lore is the chapter on Helm's Deep in The Two Towers, which while it doesn't specifically say there were no hobbits and no other elves or dwarves than Gimli and Legolas, does contain an exchange between those two where each laments that there were not others of their kind there. Maybe they didn't know there were others there? I suppose one could consider that option given the size of the operation. I'm not saying that other possibilities *can't* happen, just that further elaboration on how and why we can be there would be something I'd like to hear more about. What does the game story look like and how does it fit within what has already been written about this scene? Is that not a legitimate area of curiosity?

I would also appreciate a further elaboration on how & why we are there as well. I understand that they are not going to give away spoilers right now, but hopefully it will be explained when we get there. I'm not a writer or a programmer, so I'll leave it in the hands of the experts of those fields.

[Boraxxe]

Sigh.. 17 pages and you did not notice that solo play means that even burgs and captains can play them by themselves if they wish?

Even burgs eh?

I guess that would mean even a warden could try to solo if he had the courage.

[Cefely]

By the way, a small note on definitions. Specifically, the term 'lore-breaking.' I've always taken it to mean an element of the game that definitively conflicts with something Tolkien wrote, esp. something he included in his published works (Hobbit, LotR, Silm), something he considerd "final" enough to give to a printer. I get the impression that some here use 'lore-breaking' to mean anything that was not mentioned in the books. Which is HUGELY different. Using that definition, Sapience is right: our very existence is lore-breaking. But my problem with people using that definition is that it insults JRRT. See, if you say that NOTHING can exist unless it was mentioned in the books, you are saying that Tolkien's world is shrink-wrapped to include nothing other than what he wrote. Nothing else. Think about that for a bit. Whole parts of Middle-earth simply cease to exist in any meaningful way, using that definition, because Tolkien never published anything about them during his lifetime, other than including them in his drawn maps. No adventurer ever left home, no good guys ever defeated any bad guys, no heroes were born, except those specifically mentioned in Tolkien's works. No, JRRT was far more creative and genius than that. His world DOES have depth and complexity and the millions of moving pieces beyond what he focused on. So I'd prefer if we stuck with 'lore-breaking' meaning elements that definitively conflict with something he DID say, rather than including everything that he DIDN'T say. If you must, you can call those latter things, "expanding on the lore." Just not breaking it.

Keep talking, please. The posts you have made have been the most rational, thought out, intelligent, agenda-free posts I have read here in a long time, where the rest have left me cringing at the same old ridgidity.

Wish we had +rep right now.

[Vexendynamus]

I enjoy traditional dungeons and raiding, but am willing to try something new. As such, I will reserve judgement on this feature until actually playing it. Allowing characters of all levels to play together in a meaningful way sounds wonderful.

[Macroscian]

One of the reasons I enjoy MMOs instead of playing various single player games is that I well and truly dislike strategy games. This sounds like a strategy game.

If this is anything like the Hytbold instance where you cooperate with scripted NPCs (was it Walstow?) and instantly get splattered if you take one wrong step, I will cry.

It sounds utterly tedious, sorry.

Oh and the requirements in MORIA certainly has nothing to do with the requirements that were bumped with areas like remade BREE, not sure what that is about. Computer fans go full blast instead of at a regular mellow, nothing whatsoever to do with hardware specs for Moria. Moria is atmosphere and LACK of tedious detail, current Bree lacks atmosphere and has tons of tedious detail. Pootle.

EDIT To clarify, generic scripted stuff with major graphic impact to react to in a vast battle with everyone basically in same gear and eqipment sounds like a strategy sim game designed for a game console with 3 buttons.

[guguzza71]

This is how you make a gattling gun work in a pre industrial world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxtHtPK2MH8

I am happy with the idea of big battles. Cant wait for more information to come out.

[michael_black22]

yo guys:
here are my ideeas about what the Big Battle must have:
1. Locks
2. Different Loot Table bettwen solo/3/6/12 man
As far as i understood you can get pretty much everything in solo but will take longer to get those speacial marks if do not group or join raid.
Since we can expect a new small update with something new in around 03.2014 or so, means one think...If tubine puts no locks on this Big Battle then players will spam it like they do now with all the 6/12 man getting tired of this fast.
If one think turbine can learn form this time we have now, since they can not bring something new every 3-4 months...locks help a fresh content not to get burned fast.
Is very fair from Turbine to give us all a chance to test it on Bullroarer before buying....ty for that.
Even if the books are asking for a different instance, like the Big Battle, still one thing i will not want to see is that everything can be gotten in a solo mode.
Big battle is a nice project and saw many players saying that this is the point when they will want to go into grouping more. Let´s only hope the reward system will guide players more to group and go into kins.
Being in a kin makes the community stronger and together we can stand throw the times like we have now. (even if not many of my kinnies are coming atm online i´m still coming online and on teamspeak)
In the past, having locks on the raids made me level 2 character per year and now i end up with 7 maxed out toons(all-lm and burg) but for the players with 1 or 2 alts , if they see no locks coming on Big Battle then they will not bother making a new one now , till HD.
Considering the fact that we get only one instance...please try to take this also into consideration.
If there will be no locks then HD´s Big battle will have the allmost the same meanig like the u11 one... 1 toon i´ll bring to 95 or max 2 ...and the rest of them will stay at 85 being scaled anyway when going in.
No locks makes ure hard work (6 months work or so) being burned in max 2-3 months...ure call if u want it that way.

[Macroscian]

One of the reasons I enjoy MMOs instead of playing various single player games is that I well and truly dislike strategy games. This sounds like a strategy game.

If this is anything like the Hytbold instance where you cooperate with scripted NPCs (was it Walstow?) and instantly get splattered if you take one wrong step, I will cry.

It sounds utterly tedious, sorry.

Oh and the requirements in MORIA certainly has nothing to do with the requirements that were bumped with areas like remade BREE, not sure what that is about. Computer fans go full blast instead of at a regular mellow, nothing whatsoever to do with hardware specs for Moria. Moria is atmosphere and LACK of tedious detail, current Bree lacks atmosphere and has tons of tedious detail. Pootle.

EDIT To clarify, generic scripted stuff with major graphic impact to react to in a vast battle with everyone basically in same gear and eqipment sounds like a strategy sim game designed for a game console with 3 buttons.

It sounds like an endless session play with generic skills (the huge number of 1-2 minute session plays of Rohan are quite tedious the first time through and you exit with your toggles off every time). Just...no. Please no.