Simple Question, Crucial Answer: Will there be a new pvp zone?

[whheydt]

Actually, the tracking sites are pretty accurate. Check ones such as surugi, and they have pretty good information. Unlike Turbine, they have ranks from my toons dating back to 08, but Turbine decided to erase that info for whatever reason. Just an example of their tracking compared to Turbines.

So you think the ability to screen scrape static data periodically (character specs at various times) indicates an ability to accurately gather dynamic data (logins)? How does that follow?

So you're saying they promised something, and then didn't go through with it? That's my point.

Depends on what you mean by a "promise". "We are planning to add X with the next expansion" followed by "sorry, we're not going not going to be able to add X" is only a "promise" if you're hanging all your hopes on that feature. Once again, that's why Turbine refrains from saying things that might be construed as a "promise"...and then people try to read a "promise" for whatever they want into what Turbine *does* say. At least one poster tried to read a new PvMP zone into the HD press release that came out early last month.

If they added the pvp zone when they said they were going to add it and didn't back out, it would have been beneficial...

That's unprovable. Granted, my (and others) contention that the addition of another zone might *not* be beneficial is also unprovable. But Turbine has data on how many players are using the Ettenmoors, which would go a long way to determine whether or not a new zone would be a good idea.

I fully understand that there are PvMPers who really WANT a new zone...but not everything one wants is good for one.

Regardless of the %, they ignored that % of their customers, which is a mark of a bad, untrustworthy company. In this thread, someone indicated that the % of the pvp population was about 50,000. That's no number to scoff at, even if % wise it is small.

No one actually said 'there are 50,000' PvMPers. What was said that 'if--hypothetically--LotRO has 500,000 players, *then* 10% would be 50,000 PvMPers'. Note the "if...then..." structure. It was a made up example to demontrate a point...NOT a real number.

There have also been plenty of threads that would say its a good idea. I can assume these threads were made by mainly pvers.

That would be a good assumption.

I can assume from your point of view, you're mainly a pver, so why would you care how it fairs?

The problem is that many of the requests for more area in which to do PvMP involve one or more of: expanding PvMP into areas that are now PvE; grabbing off iconic locations, such as Osgiliath or Helm's Deep; placing a new PvMP zone adjacent to PvE areas with porous borders. You want another isolated PvMP zone that won't impact PvE? Find something in LotR that fits the Lore, isn't going to be used for PvE, and can be isolated and go for it.

Also, if they never added PvP in this game, we wouldn't be having this conversation and I wouldn't be here haha .

I'd be having the conversation with someone who was of the opinion that LotRO really, really needed some for of PvP because no game can survive without it! Indeed, with respect to open world Pv(M)P there are people that make that exact argument

Once again, thx for the responses. We can probably conclude from this that Turbine has no interest in bringing out a new pvp map, so I'm most likely done with the pvp forever in this game, oh well, time to move on then.

I think the first thing that needs to be demonstrated is that there is an actual need for an additional PvMP zone, that--on most servers--the Ettenmoors are bursting at the seams, that there are queues to log into or travel to the Ettenmoors and that that is likely to continue over time. If those conditions don't hold...what is a new zone needed for?

[Crell_1]

So, either Sapience is wrong about the percentage in the moors, he's wrong about the number of players overall, or the servers themselves are reporting bad data to the launcher.

Or the metric of tracked players by that site is proportional to the number of players leaving or entering the game for other reasons such that there's no sizable shift in the percentage metrics.

[Kongas]

That's not the whole picture.

Instead of making a new PvMP zone, Turbine overhauled the Ettenmoors and PvMP to improve the experience.

You may think of the overhaul what you may, but you cannot deny that they made an effort.

They made an effort to monetise it. That's probably not the effort people had in mind.

[Ciubakka]

They did say in a twitter dev chat that they won't do anything major to pvp anytime soon. Maybe some changes to creeps seen they are doing character changes with HD but afaik, no new pvp map.

[bohbashum]

They did say in a twitter dev chat that they won't do anything major to pvp anytime soon. Maybe some changes to creeps seen they are doing character changes with HD but afaik, no new pvp map.

it was said somewhere from someone who met the team in real life that they plan on giveing some changes to creeps to counter the freeps class revamp. however there will probebly be another creep update to better balance skills and make appropriate counters for creeps. freeps will be mainly designed for PvE. creeps will be made to have freeps strong against parts and weak to parts depending on class vs class kinda system.

assuming that means we'll see more of a rock paper scissors in moors instead of rock glass glass glass potatoe another rock...

[joshy8910]

So you think the ability to screen scrape static data periodically (character specs at various times) indicates an ability to accurately gather dynamic data (logins)? How does that follow?

Well, the fact they have a more consistent data system than Turbine has from a longer period of time would indicate so. Also, it has been an accredited source by many people that pvp as I see it cited on a daily basis by people.

Depends on what you mean by a "promise". "We are planning to add X with the next expansion" followed by "sorry, we're not going not going to be able to add X" is only a "promise" if you're hanging all your hopes on that feature. Once again, that's why Turbine refrains from saying things that might be construed as a "promise"...and then people try to read a "promise" for whatever they want into what Turbine *does* say. At least one poster tried to read a new PvMP zone into the HD press release that came out early last month.

If they are going to say they are going to add something as game-changing as a new pvp zone and aren't going to go through with it, then they shouldn't bring it up and then back out on it to give false hope to those that were looking forward to it.

That's unprovable. Granted, my (and others) contention that the addition of another zone might *not* be beneficial is also unprovable. But Turbine has data on how many players are using the Ettenmoors, which would go a long way to determine whether or not a new zone would be a good idea.

I fully understand that there are PvMPers who really WANT a new zone...but not everything one wants is good for one.

Improvable perhaps, but not illogical to think for that time that it would have done something auspicious. Granted my (and others) contention that the addition of the anoter zone might *be* beneficial is also improvable, but nonetheless, it was not illogical to think that way at the time. If you had pvped during that time, you would have a better understanding of what I would get through. Though defined as "small" in population, pvpers are esoteric in regards to the general population of lotro.

No one actually said 'there are 50,000' PvMPers. What was said that 'if--hypothetically--LotRO has 500,000 players, *then* 10% would be 50,000 PvMPers'. Note the "if...then..." structure. It was a made up example to demontrate a point...NOT a real number.

It's still the principle of the matter. Ignoring a hypothetical 50,000 people in general's needs is still ignoring 50,000 people in general's needs.

The problem is that many of the requests for more area in which to do PvMP involve one or more of: expanding PvMP into areas that are now PvE; grabbing off iconic locations, such as Osgiliath or Helm's Deep; placing a new PvMP zone adjacent to PvE areas with porous borders. You want another isolated PvMP zone that won't impact PvE? Find something in LotR that fits the Lore, isn't going to be used for PvE, and can be isolated and go for it.

And runekeepers are so very lore-based *sarcasm*. I honestly don't care at this point if it is Helm's Deep or not; if it is going to effect the PvE in a negative way, then don't make it Helm's Deep. Make it the Westfold then if it needs to appease the PvErs. I don't see how us being at Helm's Deep when we as characters technically didn't exist in Helm's Deep in the actual book though (being just 300 rohirrim) makes sense with the "lore". Sort of contradicts your statement. There wasn't a googleplex of dwarfs, elves, hobbits, and men that were at Helm's Deep named so and so and this and that.

I'd be having the conversation with someone who was of the opinion that LotRO really, really needed some for of PvP because no game can survive without it! Indeed, with respect to open world Pv(M)P there are people that make that exact argument

No, but it was a good idea they did put it in. Like I said, they would not have gained as much revenue, whether you like to believe it or not, or whether they'd like to admit it or not. I said before, they could have made an open pvp server, just one measly server is all to test it out, then expand if it became more successful, which it may have or may have not happened, but we won't ever know.

I think the first thing that needs to be demonstrated is that there is an actual need for an additional PvMP zone, that--on most servers--the Ettenmoors are bursting at the seams, that there are queues to log into or travel to the Ettenmoors and that that is likely to continue over time. If those conditions don't hold...what is a new zone needed for?

Perhaps it is too late to know what could have been. It's a shame really. This game was bustling with pvp potential. I will say they have done a good job with the PvE, but dropped the metaphorical ball with the PvP when it could have been such a nice addition.

[Sapience]

I know this isn't the pvp forums, but it applies to Helm's Deep expansion nonetheless. About 2 years ago, Turbine promised a new pvp zone at the beginning of RoI. Two years have past, and there is still none. So, the title says it all.

We have stated numerous times that there is no new PvMP planned, in the works, or scheduled. So the simple answer is no, Helm's Deep will not include a new PvMP Zone. There are no plans to add any new PvMP zones to the game.

[joshy8910]

We have stated numerous times that there is no new PvMP planned, in the works, of scheduled. So the simple answer is no, Helm's Deep will not include a new PvMP Zone. There are no plans to add any new PvMP zones to the game.

Appreciate the response, and I also appreciate how you indirectly admitted that you backed out on your promise back in RoI(not you personally since you are just the forum mod, but those behind those designs). Thank you.

[Sapience]

Appreciate the response, and I also appreciate how you indirectly admitted that you backed out on your promise back in RoI(not you personally since you are just the forum mod, but those behind those designs). Thank you.

I'm sorry, I didn't feel the need to restate there would be no PvMP zone in ROI when we announced that six months prior to ROI's release. We stated clearly the feature had been cut. Wasn't indirectly admitting anything as we had previously, clearly, stated it. It's public record.

[joshy8910]

I'm sorry, I didn't feel the need to restate there would be no PvMP zone in ROI when we announced that six months prior to ROI's release. We stated clearly the feature had been cut. Wasn't indirectly admitting anything as we had previously, clearly, stated it. It's public record.

Do you have the link to this? I was searching for a bit, and couldn't find any semblance of it. It's not your fault, I just blame those that had it in the works, and simply didn't go through with it, thus backing out of it. Your job is just to announce these things when called upon, not to go through with them and work on them.

[Whiteberry_Laurelin]

I found it in an interview here (in the FAQ). I don't know if that's considered the official record: http://casualstrolltomordor.com/2012...-from-e3-2012/

[Sapience]

I found it in an interview here (in the FAQ). I don't know if that's considered the official record: http://casualstrolltomordor.com/2012...-from-e3-2012/

You can also reference two dev chats in the past six months that included explicit references to PvMP and the fact there would be no new maps.

No new PvMp feaures
http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...-March-21-2013
(I also made a commitment in there that I forgot about and will talk to HoarseDev about)


No new Map (stated 3x), No ettenmoors revamp/extension
http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...bruary-21-2013

So basically, this isn't really news when you consider we've been saying the same thing for about a year now.

[PureWorgNakh]

Sapience,

Any chance for new PVP cosmetics ? At least that would add something new to PVMP. Six years have passed and all we have seen are new skins for Creeps (20+ total at this point) while Freeps are left to look like an army of clones all wearing the exact same PVP armor

http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...ove-for-Creeps

No new PvMp feaures

[joshy8910]

I found it in an interview here (in the FAQ). I don't know if that's considered the official record: http://casualstrolltomordor.com/2012...-from-e3-2012/

Thanks for the info.

You can also reference two dev chats in the past six months that included explicit references to PvMP and the fact there would be no new maps.

No new PvMp feaures
http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...-March-21-2013
(I also made a commitment in there that I forgot about and will talk to HoarseDev about)


No new Map (stated 3x), No ettenmoors revamp/extension
http://forums.lotro.com/showthread.p...bruary-21-2013

So basically, this isn't really news when you consider we've been saying the same thing for about a year now.

Thanks for the clarification,though. I just wanted to make sure clearly, as you guys have had a way of flip-flopping things on us. Looks like you lost a customer for the long-term-forever range though, but I don't expect you guys to care much, just stating that though.

[banjolier]

... instead of rock glass glass glass potatoe another rock...

Dan Quayle, is that you?

[AvengerofKhand]

I'm pretty sure Sapience declined it... but perhaps.

[Jadzi]

Freeps are left to look like an army of clones all wearing the exact same PVP armor

Generally speaking, most formal armies are uniform in their attire. That's why they call them uniforms.

That said, we ought to just do away with the cosmetic restriction in the Moors already. This entire notion that "oh, creeps will get confused!" is just silly, and always has been.

[PureWorgNakh]

Generally speaking, most formal armies are uniform in their attire. That's why they call them uniforms.

I can see you don't PVP much. Are you thinking everyone who enters Ettenmoors is part of the Coldfells Army?

[Cazthelm]

This entire notion that "oh, creeps will get confused!" is just silly, and always has been.

You do know that is not the only (not even the main) reason for no cosmetics in Ettenmoors, right?

One thing comes to my mind: server performance. Just saying.

[Crell_1]

You do know that is not the only (not even the main) reason for no cosmetics in Ettenmoors, right?

One thing comes to my mind: server performance. Just saying.

Having nearly uniform appearances significantly helps my PC handle the moors, in terms of textures it keeps in memory, how long it takes to load and render the freeps coming over the horizon, etc.

There's still some individuality with dyes, and mounts for the freeps.

[PureWorgNakh]

Having nearly uniform appearances significantly helps my PC handle the moors, in terms of textures it keeps in memory, how long it takes to load and render the freeps coming over the horizon, etc.

There's still some individuality with dyes, and mounts for the freeps.

Well then, we need to delete some of the 20+ skins each creep class can acquire (Rank,Sigils,Anniversary, and Store).

That's over 100 unique total skins for Creepside. We should limit it to one skin per class to match Freepside, and throw in some dye to change 5% of the overall color.

Sound good?

[Aineas.]

So...you got your hopes up with no information or hints to support them and you now accuse Sapience of lying about the numbers? Yeah...that's going to fly...NOT.

uhm, sapience works independently nowadays then? you do know he works for the firm and you do realize in the real world that when a firm wants to go left, it sure will never support and announce numbers that says to go right. Having said that... if I look at your math about the amount of fa's: 15% or so you mention based on the sapience numbers of raiders: single digit.. I have to wonder why it is that most if not all people I see do have a fa? This means the definition of raider isn't clear and for example sapience may only state the ones raiding more then 3 times a week, or something else is at play. My own visual observation says it's not everyone, but sure not even close to your 15% either... And I do question that single digit number, because it's not from an independent source. My simple observation is that there is at least every night multiple raids going (based on knowledge from kins and simple glff observation). If globalchannel at it's busiest time has 500 users and there's 2 raids a night this is already 10% of the global users. Take a handfull of ppl not connected to global then it drops below 10%, however this is a very considerate estimation based on 2 raids going a night. From my simple knowledge and observation it's more. so I do wonder how he can reach a single-digit number... it might be right tbh, but without more insight in how that number is constructed, I cannot tell whether it's right or wrong. Just my simple gut feeling says single-digit numbers seems very low. And it's not calling someone a liar... there are many truths, I just wish to understand how that one came to be.

[whheydt]

If globalchannel at it's busiest time has 500 users and there's 2 raids a night this is already 10% of the global users. Take a handfull of ppl not connected to global then it drops below 10%, however this is a very considerate estimation based on 2 raids going a night.

What makes you think that only a "handful" of people don't use /glff?

[Aineas.]

What makes you think that only a "handful" of people don't use /glff?

what makes you think that it's more then a handful? admitting it's only a handful wouldn't fit to support your or sapience reasoning, so I understand your answer, been expecting it. So you got my point?

it's up to you to believe sapience on his words or not. However I would like to see more information before I believe them or not. Cause I don't find a single digit very believable, but then again, it might be true... Since turbine won't give the information ofcourse (like I said before... we might discuss them and prove them wrong so their support for going left is then gone) I indirectly know whats going on... so I'll go by what I see and experience and don't have the exact number, but I believe it to be higher.

back on topic: I would love to see a new area, but I realise we won't get it. I would even prefer above that an instance, battle-arena, for the 1v1 people (no renown or half what it is now, just so it's really for the challenge ;P). Then the forced 1v1 on the map is gone and no QQ in ooc-channel about it anymore.

[Jeffor]

Instead of a new zone (which we don't need) why not use dynamic layering to open up existing zones to creeps at certain times? The creeps would be kept in a single layer and freeps would be able to join on a voluntary basis. Skirmishes could be used to give creeps a change of scenery as well. There are ways to do this without creating a whole new zone and abandoning the Moors.