Seiges

[Alfa1986]

I agree, my only point is that currently in big RVR battles, there is not a big tactical incentive to attack if a game is tight, and order and destro have roughly the same number of warbands. This means RvR can run into a stalemate for hours, until one side gets bored and seiges.

As others have said there is a number of possible things that could be done to make seiges a bit more competitve in large cases (and probably most importantly not be exploited), and remain largely the same in smaller scale seiges.

so it often happens when there are a lot of players in the zone, an equal fight takes place (2-3-4-5 hours), then people start to go offline and the side where there is more people to play wins.

Yes, I think it's a problem if both sides know that sitting in your keep and waiting for players to log off is a viable strategy. That's why I proposed this, just give a side a tactical reason to play aggressively.

Yes, unfortunately this is a problem that cannot be solved by simple means, and the solution decisions require careful preparation and a very long and difficult setting in the future, about which no one will be involved. From simple solutions, it is possible to propose that it would be more motivating people to move around the zone, to capture and hold the ВO - these are various bonuses. For example, increased renown gained by killing a player, or increased damage, or increased heal. it is also possible to give resources only from two factions that are as far away as possible from their own keep, and to make a return of resources not as a separate player but as a NPC, so that they can be escorted and protected by the players. thus, at least one or two warbangs of the pug will be occupied by the NPС guard all the time up to 2 keep,s stars and the subsequent siege.


Yesterday, in the dragon's wake, they showed in the chat that the orler was 243 people, while the destro was only 150 or 170, that's what to do with this imbalance ...

Ps
I note a few more reasons that introduce some imbalance. during the siege of the keep, only those who managed to run into it before the first gate breaks are protected; for the rest of them, the gank of the attacking group is cut off. behind that, the attackers are outside the stems of a keep in open space and even if someone is killed, then they will be resurrected from the outside, the defenders have a big problem to resurrect the deceased, since where exactly on what floor did the player die it is very difficult, let alone if the player died out the keep. here I even agree with those above who wrote that it might be worth banning resurrecting people altogether when the first gate is broken, or at least when the lord of the fortress is under attack, such as when killing a boss in pv ?! so it would be even more honest ...

[BeautfulToad]

The problems stated: zones taking too long, players playing without purpose, lack of motivation, attacking side is at a disadvantage. Did I miss anything?

The problem I am raising: With very large seiges, there is not enough of an incentive to attack a fort unless you either counterseige or have a lot more players.

There is a number of suggestions: improve abilities of seigers, have permanent debuffs to the gate after a successful seige, improve rewards.

A group of players have taken the opportunity to talk abour "destro premades". If you think very large seiges are fine, just say so.

[druugaa]

there are also simple reasons that some people (like me) just gave up on rvr in t2-4.

LAGS, and BUGS

I sieged in Caledor yesterday as Order, and oh boy it was so laggy that when we were asked to push after destroying the first gate, we just couldn't.

AND THEN THE GATE RESPAWNED WITH 100% HP

when people saw that, well we packed our things and we GTFO.

[Stophy22]

The problems stated: zones taking too long, players playing without purpose, lack of motivation, attacking side is at a disadvantage. Did I miss anything?

The problem I am raising: With very large seiges, there is not enough of an incentive to attack a fort unless you either counterseige or have a lot more players.

There is a number of suggestions: improve abilities of seigers, have permanent debuffs to the gate after a successful seige, improve rewards.

A group of players have taken the opportunity to talk abour "destro premades". If you think very large seiges are fine, just say so.

I don’t see a downside in very large surges but I was trying to problem solve for the incentive to attack while improving reasoning behind an attack.

From a player stand point you enter a zone and there is purpose; get a keep lvl 3.

So you do this and the next purpose is to siege but, like you said, most people don’t want to unless it’s a clear victory or it’s pretty onesided. This leads to drawn out battles in zones, but the goodies come from capping zones so if it takes a long time to take zones you might not get your goodies with your allotted play time. Not everyone has 12 hours to play a day.

That’s why I said holding BOs gives this* to help people decide on taking that step to siege

“oh they can’t use the front door and their oil has a 10 minute cool down” <-( refer to previous post for context)
10 minutes to bust down door with minimal offense to rams.

because face it, no one wants to run out of a keep to break a ram if they’ll die, even if it means winning. People don’t want to die so they don’t have to run back etc. In the current way things work people pop in and out of a sieged door to bust the ram apart and there isn’t much you can do. It’s like how teleporting through the skaven tunnels used to be in Barak Var and BFP, completely ludicrous.

So basically, in short, incentivize grouped players to play for objectives, this kinda keeps the one tracked mind of pugs to hop from their mind path of zone>bo>lvl3>keep the same so they don’t have to change much since they’re not the ones trying to be organized. But it gives them a better chance if these premades work with them and take and hold BOs. Premades won’t do that unless they’re rewarded handsomely so basically up the ante. Better rewards all around. Happy playerbase that gets stuff done? Hopefully. In theory anyway.

Zergs will always happen but why not try to control where they happen so you can sort of avoid them.

this will gives roles to WB and premades alike. WBs take keeps, premades take BOs. Both benefit from each others efforts in the lakes.

[BeautfulToad]

there are also simple reasons that some people (like me) just gave up on rvr in t2-4.

LAGS, and BUGS

I sieged in Caledor yesterday as Order, and oh boy it was so laggy that when we were asked to push after destroying the first gate, we just couldn't.

AND THEN THE GATE RESPAWNED WITH 100% HP

when people saw that, well we packed our things and we GTFO.

To be fair, lag is going to be an issue in 120v120. Considering state-of-the-art games advertise 64-player multiplayer battles as "big", we have four times that on a 15 year-old game and the server does well. The rest I am in complete agreement.