Warhammer developers weigh in on 1.1a RvR changes
Filed under: Fantasy, Patches, PvP, Warhammer Online, Massively Interviews
Yesterday, just a day before this morning's announcement of the 1.1a patch to Warhammer Online, we had the chance to speak with some of the leading lights in the Warhammer development process. Adam Gershowitz, Associate Producer Josh Drescher, and Designer Brian Wheeler laid out the ins and outs of Realm vs. Realm changes in our discussion.
Said Josh Drescher, "The core philosophy for 1.1 as regards RvR is to guarantee you a rewarding time in open field combat. It should be just as rewarding as spending an hour anywhere else in the game. We want to address the problem where players would want to participate in open RvR, but had limited time and felt they would be better rewarded in a Scenario. We were specifically addressing that in this update this time around."
Read on below the cut for our full discussion.
There have been a number of tweaks to the RvR game since launch. What can you speak to as far as a tone or perspective in RvR that wasn't in the game at launch that you're now patching in?
Brian Wheeler: What we're looking at doing is making sure open field gets a lot more attention in terms of traffic and use. There are a lot of really cool things you can do in terms of keep sieges, battlefield objectives, and the overall experience we want to have.
We found after launch that players love to do the Scenarios because it was instant action. They clicked a button and were whisked away to a magic land of killing anybody and everybody. The gameplay was a lot of fun, we had lots of driven goals for them to accomplish. You get out into open field and – yeah, there are keeps and objectives – but there was no directed action. Some of the events we've run so far were directly aimed at providing some of that direction.
During the Halloween event we put the PQs out in oRvR, and during Heavy Metal we put specific goals in there: go kill 15 players in open RvR. We found a lot of players responded to that better than "here's a sandbox go have fun." What we're trying to do with the influence system going in with 1.1 is proving a little more guidance for players. If you do 'these things' in open RvR you'll be rewarded.
It's a system they're already familiar with thanks to Public Quests. We're letting players advance their itemization via open RvR if they want to. That's the first of many steps we're working on. A lot of what we're working on right now is based on what we've seen live and in the game. When players have goals or instant action they seem to reply to things a lot better than just 'use the sandbox.'
We can't give details in terms of what exactly we're doing, but we've been looking at all the feedback from players, taking that into account for future content.
Are you planning to focus players on a daily or weekly basis around open RvR? Providing some sort of extra incentive for open RvR in this zone, that sort of thing?
Brian: There have been talks about doing things like that. We're also talking about focusing on which objectives to take on a nightly basis to a degree, depending how the war is going. We're still trying to work out what will be the best way to go about this. We don't want to just offer a checklist of do this, do that, and the zone is yours.
We want to allow a lot of what I call 'backhacking'; letting players figure out how to flip a zone in a clever way. Right now players are looking at the objectives, looking at the keeps and thinking "We hold everything, why isn't the zone ours?" We want to give the players more guidance and more focus. That's on the table, but we're not looking to be too restrictive.
Josh: Everything is on the table!
Adam: Short version is that patch 1.1 is the first of many steps we're taking to incentivize open RvR. Like Brian was saying there are about eight zillion ideas on the table. Some have come from inside the company, some from the playerbase, and we're considering all of them. You're going to hear a lot more of them over the next month or two as we continue to progress the game into a more mature state.
Josh: The core philosophy for 1.1 as regards RvR is to guarantee you a rewarding time in open field combat. It should be just as rewarding as spending an hour anywhere else in the game. We want to address the problem where players would want to participate in open RvR, but had limited time and felt they would be better rewarded in a Scenario. We were specifically addressing that in this update this time around.
If there's one thing to take away from 1.1 for explicit goals, making open RvR more enjoyable is it.
As a last question, then, does that mean you are looking to disincentivize people from participating in Scenarios? What role do you want them to play?
Josh: We're never looking to drive people away from content. Always the carrot, never the stick. We want to attract you to open RvR, not drive people who just want to play Scenarios away from that content.
Adam: It's not about choosing a Ferrari or a Ford, it's about choosing between a red or a blue Ferrari.
Excellent. Thank you for your time, gentlemen.
Said Josh Drescher, "The core philosophy for 1.1 as regards RvR is to guarantee you a rewarding time in open field combat. It should be just as rewarding as spending an hour anywhere else in the game. We want to address the problem where players would want to participate in open RvR, but had limited time and felt they would be better rewarded in a Scenario. We were specifically addressing that in this update this time around."
Read on below the cut for our full discussion.
"During the Halloween event we put the PQs out in oRvR, and during Heavy Metal we put specific goals in there: go kill 15 players in open RvR. We found a lot of players responded to that." |
Brian Wheeler: What we're looking at doing is making sure open field gets a lot more attention in terms of traffic and use. There are a lot of really cool things you can do in terms of keep sieges, battlefield objectives, and the overall experience we want to have.
We found after launch that players love to do the Scenarios because it was instant action. They clicked a button and were whisked away to a magic land of killing anybody and everybody. The gameplay was a lot of fun, we had lots of driven goals for them to accomplish. You get out into open field and – yeah, there are keeps and objectives – but there was no directed action. Some of the events we've run so far were directly aimed at providing some of that direction.
During the Halloween event we put the PQs out in oRvR, and during Heavy Metal we put specific goals in there: go kill 15 players in open RvR. We found a lot of players responded to that better than "here's a sandbox go have fun." What we're trying to do with the influence system going in with 1.1 is proving a little more guidance for players. If you do 'these things' in open RvR you'll be rewarded.
It's a system they're already familiar with thanks to Public Quests. We're letting players advance their itemization via open RvR if they want to. That's the first of many steps we're working on. A lot of what we're working on right now is based on what we've seen live and in the game. When players have goals or instant action they seem to reply to things a lot better than just 'use the sandbox.'
We can't give details in terms of what exactly we're doing, but we've been looking at all the feedback from players, taking that into account for future content.
"Patch 1.1 is the first of many steps we're taking to incentivize open RvR." |
Brian: There have been talks about doing things like that. We're also talking about focusing on which objectives to take on a nightly basis to a degree, depending how the war is going. We're still trying to work out what will be the best way to go about this. We don't want to just offer a checklist of do this, do that, and the zone is yours.
We want to allow a lot of what I call 'backhacking'; letting players figure out how to flip a zone in a clever way. Right now players are looking at the objectives, looking at the keeps and thinking "We hold everything, why isn't the zone ours?" We want to give the players more guidance and more focus. That's on the table, but we're not looking to be too restrictive.
Josh: Everything is on the table!
Adam: Short version is that patch 1.1 is the first of many steps we're taking to incentivize open RvR. Like Brian was saying there are about eight zillion ideas on the table. Some have come from inside the company, some from the playerbase, and we're considering all of them. You're going to hear a lot more of them over the next month or two as we continue to progress the game into a more mature state.
Josh: The core philosophy for 1.1 as regards RvR is to guarantee you a rewarding time in open field combat. It should be just as rewarding as spending an hour anywhere else in the game. We want to address the problem where players would want to participate in open RvR, but had limited time and felt they would be better rewarded in a Scenario. We were specifically addressing that in this update this time around.
If there's one thing to take away from 1.1 for explicit goals, making open RvR more enjoyable is it.
"It's not about choosing a Ferrari or a Ford, it's about choosing between a red or a blue Ferrari." |
As a last question, then, does that mean you are looking to disincentivize people from participating in Scenarios? What role do you want them to play?
Josh: We're never looking to drive people away from content. Always the carrot, never the stick. We want to attract you to open RvR, not drive people who just want to play Scenarios away from that content.
Adam: It's not about choosing a Ferrari or a Ford, it's about choosing between a red or a blue Ferrari.
Excellent. Thank you for your time, gentlemen.
![]() |
WAR has gone 1.1! Check out our full coverage of the 1.1a patch, along with our interviews exploring upcoming content and the open RvR changes. Plus, don't miss any of our ongoing coverage as Massively goes to WAR! |





















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MrGutts said on 8:11AM 12-11-2008
Nice read, but I always thought the WAR's devs gave info on a one way street. They say they are listening to the community, but how can they, they have none.
Do they have some special fan site they like to troll?
Do they have favorites towards any of those?
Why are they still trying to make players play a certain way? Do they understand this is why most left? Myself included..
and Why is Mark J. such a arrogant no it all prick when he talks to the new sources?
Reply
WrrLor said on 8:53AM 12-11-2008
In game feedback, and they do browse the main community boards quite a bit, according to them.
I hate to tell you this, but you are among the small minority that wants a "play my way" game. More freedom is and will be very good for the game, but there needs to be some guidance.
Sounds like you just have a grudge to bear, regardless of what was said.
MrGutts said on 9:10AM 12-11-2008
Yeah I think you are right about the grudge.
After making T4 within the first 4 weeks, and no ques for weeks in T4, being on a desolate server and wandering entire zones to see NOT ONE single player will do that I guess.
On top of that the pvp designed to be a HUGE god damn grind fest to get lvls and gear, worst than I have ever seen in any PVP game and if your not grinding your ass off to get those pvp levels and gear to keep up, then you are going to be someones road kill in the lakes and scens. But wait, you can't get reknown if no one is playing around your time or your server is not popular faction.
yifes said on 9:35PM 12-11-2008
Gutts:
You say they have no community, yet the devs post all the time on the major fansites. I've seen more feedback from the WAR dev on fansites than Blizz on their official sites. Maybe you just don't know where to look.
And WTF is with all the hate? Mark J. didn't even say ANYTHING in this article and you're calling him out. All you're doing is make yourself look like a biased *****.
Valdur said on 12:05PM 12-11-2008
I have lost all hopes for that game after reading this article... :(
Reply
hangten said on 5:56PM 12-11-2008
Wow! After seeing this in action briefly, I have to confess.. I didn't think Mythic could mess it up to this degree... I was wrong. This isn't a choice between a Ferrari or a Ford.. it's a choice of a Pinto vs an Edsel. I have never, in all my days, seen a company that is so active at avoiding subscribers. IMO, this is on par with the UO lawsuit. My account is definitely cancelled, and I doubt I'll ever buy an EA product again.. the last good one I saw was "Bard's Tale" for the C64
Reply
exile said on 5:56PM 12-11-2008
So you hate the game because you leveld faster than most then complain theres no one around in your tier? GG thats all I can say.
Reply
yifes said on 9:29PM 12-11-2008
it's retarded how some people just hate on these patch notes without giving any criticism. Why do you think this new patch messes things up? How the hell is mythic avoiding subscribers?
All you do is just b**** and moan.
Reply
sigie said on 12:53AM 12-12-2008
I find it hard to believe that people could just jump to conclusions right off the bat because they had a bad experience with the game when it was either first released or after a patch.
It is a MMO it changes and evolves faster than other games (although I would have thought WoW might have changed something to help in PvP by now, WotLK is a joke).
I played when this patch came on and their was a significant difference, EVERYONE was in ORvR and it was great. I checked through all the tiers (1-4) on my Med Order and Med Destruction server and every ORvR lake became a massive battle and in almost every pairing.
It was a great feeling to know you are in a fight involving 2 full warbands (48) and a few scattered parties trying to assault a keep being defended by maybe 30 or more destruction characters. When you finally succeed then to continue on defending your prize or help in the fight elsewhere.
For those I talked with about these changes they felt good about playing ORvR with rewards and seeing the other team to come out and fight. The only people who didn't like it were the ones who had addons because the patch removed them.
So I must question Valdur and Hangten what the heck are you smoking or are you just huge WoW fans that can't get a grip on reality that we have lives and so can not spend as much time in WoW to get gear (or walk back to our bodies) and be successful in its failure of a PvP system.
Reply
Ezze said on 7:36AM 12-12-2008
EA's poor timing with release to try and get the most payout before the launch of WOWs new expansion is the reason WAR has had a terrible launch.
The game has released way too early and has lost a huge chunk of its player base.
Paid beta. Game is boring as **** and broken. Cannot support large scale epic siege pvp, servers go down and zones get reset.
Reply
Tyson Nielsen said on 11:21AM 12-15-2008
I guess you haven't played in the last 2-3 months. This game is rocking and every patch it gets even more fun. This past weekend was one of the most fun weekends for the game!