Sure these 6 SCs are better than the 6 that they purposed before, but the problem is that there are only 6 SCs the whole time, and 7 on the weekend. Again as the saying goes "variety is the spice of life" and this saying applies here. We need variety which is what this system right now does offer. We don't have the same SCs over and over again like the new system is going to do.
Also here are some thoughts on what he said in his post as well.
Last week we told the community that we were going “back to the whiteboard” on how we implemented the Scenario changes in 1.3.4. We took the feedback provided by you, the community, to heart and took a long look at what we wanted to accomplish with these changes compared to what the players are asking for.
Yes you did take the feedback on the SC choices, but you didn't take the feedback on just have 6 scs the whole time. It is going to get boring fast with only having a total of 6 scs, instead of now where there are 12 scs and varitey.
Andy wrote: Attaining “critical mass” for Scenarios to ensure that they are firing off as frequently as possible. If we put in too many Scenarios active at one time, we end up spreading out the active population to the point that there is a significant, and thereby not fun, wait for Scenarios.
Um I can barely get an SC pop with just 3 to 4 SCs open at one time, how is having 6 SCs open all the time going to make them fire off more frequently. This confuses me.
Andy wrote: Providing you with the variety in Scenarios that you’re asking for by adding in the most asked for Scenarios from the community and re moving some of the less played ones.
A lot of the SCs you removed were still fun. There were only two totally worthless SCs and those were Thunder Valley and Blood of the Black Carin. All the others were fine, those two SCs could be fixed pretty easily.
Andy wrote: Ending scores, for both the winner and the losing realm (the higher the better for the losing realm)
So you are saying I shouldn't have just tried to totally dominate in the SC then. I should let them at least get a couple of points. Well I say screw that I want to totally demoralize the other side, which is part of the game. I want them to challenge us, not to just hand them the points. I don't want an SC that just hands points to the other realm, I want SCs that make each realm work for the points.
Andy wrote: Time to completion
Hey it isn't our fault that you don't know how make some changes to the SCs so they all finish around the same time. Like Caledor Woods, make the flag earn you points quicker, instead of it taking the whole time just to finish the SC when the other side is spawn camped. Same thing with Maw, make it so you earn points slower when you are holding the part. There you go problem fixed.
Andy wrote: Fun of Gameplay, i.e..; does it feed into being an AoE meatgrinder or is it more strategic with lots of room to play in?You know I was thinking about this and Thunder Valley. If you made Thunder Valley just like Battle for Praag then it would be an awesome SC, it would be just like Gromil Crossing since there are no flags close by the camp, but since you kept Gromil Crossing... oh that is right you didn't, instead we have Battle for Praag, which is fun but the points are so close together that it is easy to wipe them once at the flag and the spawn camp the other side while in Gromil Crossing it takes a few wipes before that.
Andy wrote: “But Andy, that’s still only 6 static Scenarios in tier 4!”
Yes, yes it is. This is where the aforementioned “critical mass” comes into play. We understand the desire for as much variety as possible, however we had to temper that with ensuring the most active Scenario environment possible for everyone.You didn't need to change which SC pop now because you added a new way to earn weapons because of SCs. Because of this new system coming out more SCs would have been firing off and thus would have fixed your issue.
Andy wrote: We saw the large outcry against the inclusion of Phoenix Gate, Mourkain Temple and Gates of Ekrund at the higher level tiers and the exclusion of some favorites such as Reikland Factory, Caledor Woods and Serpent’s Passage.They are good SCs, well except for Phoenix Gate, except that those SCs would be a 6v6 sc instead of a 12v12 sc. If Mourkain Temple and Gates of Ekrund became 6v6 in t4 then I say let them in and they will be a blast.
Andy wrote: One thing that we didn't emphasize strongly enough in previous communications is that these Tier 4 Scenarios will be available at all times, no matter what state the campaign is in (aside from stage one of a City Siege).Um I had no question about that. I just wish that they were available during Stage 1 because Stage 1 can get boring.
Andy wrote: Making obsolete the need to queue for one or two specific Scenarios to “push” the campaign.Additionally, these Weekend Warfronts will do something that weekend events have never done before: contribute to the campaign. No longer will you be forced to pick and choose which Scenarios to queue for; all of them contribute.
This actually hurts the campaign then helps it. If we are trying to lock a pairing we can't tell people that aren't in premades to just queue for such and such SCs now we have to tell them not to queue at all and that isn't going to happen.
Andy wrote: So there you have it. We are extremely grateful to you, the community, for all of the feedback you’ve provided over the last few weeks regarding the Scenario changes. While we understand that everyone will react differently to this new system, we are steadfast in the belief that this is the best thing for the future of WAR. Thank you for being a part of what’s to come.
At least we can get new weapons now.