I don’t know if it’s already been mentioned (Lol I’m not reading 263 comments) but I remember my favourite PvP-RP campaigns had these two rules:
HP limits, so you can’t run in with your l e e t gear and never die, and it’s more balanced even when there’s a numbers disparity.
A surrender, run, or die rule when you’re outnumbered. In recent campaigns I’ve seen weedy lil Blood Elves 1 v 4 in combat with people and /grinning about it. Everyone knows Belfs are terrible at fighting (signed the Silver Hand bois)… In older campaigns I remember a rule for when you were out numbered by, say, 2 v 1 or more, and you’d have the choice of surrendering, retreating, or they have the right to nuke you. This worked well because it meant tactics were used to actually gain ground on enemies by forcing them to retreat.
I always thought those campaigns actually had a fair balance and ways to gauge who’s winning. I’ve never organised an RP-PvP though so I could be wrong.
Its kind of hard to do that nuking bit when horde is usually outnumbered. The strain on healers would be too intense/ ganking is already a problem isn’t it
Imo making a campaign for one side to ‘lose’ (if you can even lose at RP) is the way forward, since a lot of the -slinging tends to originate from accusations of faction bias. Pre-determining as much as you can apart from the actual battles themselves should be the way to go - as a DM, you’re there for the players to experience your storyline, not to yell at people that press the bad button that kills people OOC.
Some campaigns are pre-determined, remember northrend was organised by Chyouka and she had planned an ending that alliance decided to void.
When you’re signing up for a campaign you should trust the ORGANISER and his plans, they’re not just hosting a doodle .com family reunion for guilds to come to
The numbers disadvantage for Horde isn’t so bad if the battles are structured cleverly - another issue I personally find with most of the recent campaigns is that very few of the fights are actually making use of the setting or anything.
It’s all just line battles on flat land between Horde & Alliance, which is obviously going to be affected by numbers a lot more. To use the recent Silverpine campaign as an example, a way to limit the Alliance’s numbers could’ve been forcing them to fight through a chokepoint/across a bridge or something. There’s ways around this stuff.
I remember there was a fight downhill on a path surrounded by hills on either side, but nobody capitalised on the environment to win. But, the thing is, I don’t know if that’s an issue with event management or a lack of originality in the respective sides leadership?
Then again nobodies a Commander irl so knowing battle tactics might not be every bodies forte.
If a campaign is designed to be won by one side, it needs to be clearly said out in the opening post of the campaign thread, or communicated in some other way so that everyone would be aware.
Also, I’m not sure if I’m a fan of those campaigns, except if they make sense (eg campaign happens in Durotar and is meant for Alliance to lose, or vice versa for Elwynn etc). If it’s in a contested territory to begin with, and one side is meant to be losing (let’s say Alliance), but that side keeps winning every battle in restricted and unrestricted, it feels a bit weird. Especially if that side doesn’t know that they’re meant to be losing!
Sent to the Savannah felt like that, if I remember correctly. The finale felt like a pisstake on Alliance, even though Alliance won like 90% of the battles.
In the good ol’ days people were less inclined to plant a giant turd on the organizer’s plate when things weren’t going their way. For some magical reason rules were easier to enforce and those who didn’t like them joined a weird neutral camp to make their billboards to protest with or just left.
Nowadays people have this strange entitlement issue that a campaign organized must cater to all their needs and not that they should be 110% adherent to an event or event chain they signed up for.
Chances are if people dropped the attitude of bending or completely disregarding rules so they could do Prisoner RP, make truces, perform region-wide events without the consent of the organizers, make their own events and then expect these to alter the campaign narrative, do skirmishes at some ungodly hour and claim it as part of the campaign when there are clear time intervals when these should be done etc etc. then campaigns would go a bit more smoothly and the organizers wouldn’t have to act like mediators to get the consent of those who actually agreed to what they are meant to do by signing up and not try and force their own ideas.
Quite frankly I don’t think the issue lies with the RP-PVP but instead with the community and how we act and treat other players, Chooks campaign showed this rather bluntly with people doing things that were absolutely vile OOC and showing absolutely no human decency or even a shred of respect to their fellow players.
If we want a massive Server-wide campaign to be possible then the community needs to clean up its act and realize that people are putting huge amounts of effort and time into creating these events so that people can get together; socialize and enjoy a hobby that they all love.
On the other end of the spectrum however I believe communication needs to be possible at every waking moment during a Campaign so that people have someone they can go to or talk to if they have an issue they would like to raise.
Alliance leaders didn’t follow the organisers instructions, its a shame really maybe the climax would have been different i dont know.
Id argue securing an actual foothold in the barrens mid legion might have been a bit crazy, it is just next door to orgrimmar and thunder bluff.
It was just an incursion, again a bit iffy to seize total control!
Again i dont know why you are upset about the outcome, alliance would win every campaign at this rate then - just rp that reinforcments arrived from orgrimmar because as i recall the final day the rp-pvp was in hordes favor so idk!
Best way to achieve an uncomplicated, simple, unstressfull campaign or RP-pvp plot chain? Make it smaller, and don’t advertise it on the forum.
Sign ups lead to publicity, publicity leads to huge numbers, huge numbers lead to confusion/imbalance/un-wanted sign ups.
I honestly think AD needs a prolonged period where guilds or small groups of guilds should organise RP-pvp privately. Say, a maximum of 20 to 40 a side. And spread them around!
We have enough server discords and forums to allow people to arrange things in this fashion. Who knows, it may help gradually resolve the campaign numbers issue at a later date.
Other suggestions?
-Puish people who show up without invitations.
-Have cut off times, so events do progress beyond an organizers control after hours.
-Use some zones other than those in bloody Lordaeron!
Addition to the punish. Any uninvited people unless they generally asked and got accepted. The Punishment isn’t no slap on the wrist. Treat them like griefers for thinking they are above the rules given for a campaign. And nuke the absolute hell out of them.
![:poop:](https://d1bg94bbsh66ji.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/poop.png?v=6" ":poop:")
-slinging tends to originate from accusations of faction bias. Pre-determining as much as you can apart from the actual battles themselves should be the way to go - as a DM, you’re there for the players to experience your storyline, not to yell at people that press the bad button that kills people OOC.