Old or new campaign system

[Kpi]

2 months ago the patch with the new campaign system was released, with some changes over the old system. Some players like it, and some don't.

I'm really curious about this

[Omegus]

New over old, could still do with some tweaking (not a fan of it going to 1 zone if both sides have a fort). Old campaign just encouraged people to throw defenses for cities.

[Kpi]

New over old, could still do with some tweaking (not a fan of it going to 1 zone if both sides have a fort). Old campaign just encouraged people to throw defenses for cities.

It also gave a sense to the campaign. Now it is like a soccer game...2 forts vs 5 forts.

[tazdingo]

new, it seems to have smoothed things out and cities "interrupt" things less frequently for those of us who aren't as interested in them

[Sulorie]

I still don't know why one campaign is locked all time but that's just me. Overall I prefer the new system.

[Napis]

I'm fine with the new system for scheduled forts since it's much easier to coordinate city grp with guildies when you know in advance when it's going to happen. Also if I don't want to participate city there no stupid down time.
Still it's not perfect. I'd like to see all the pairings open since at least during prime times things tend to get really zergy and boring.

To quote one of our famous politician (sorry for rough translation) "I'm not in favor of it or against is, more like other way around"

[Grock]

Having city sieges always dangling on the end of capturing a pairing always gives some people on the defending side an incentive to throw in order to bring the juicy sity rewards closer (which is relevant to recent discussion about city rewards), and thats before even mentioning the whole xrealming can of worms with some folks pushing campaign on one side to relog defend city on the other side not a big issue but still happened

Having city sieges scheduled and based on campaign score means there's no reason to throw or help opponent's push, and instead there's a reason to defend to the end to preserve city rank & smaller AH taxes

Would be cool if all 3 pairings were open at once, but even with 2 of them its usually just 1 active zone. Whats needed is some extra incentive for players to go into an inactive zone.
Perhaps something like AAO but based not on faction pop difference, but on pop difference between active zonesl

[Tanski]

The new system is way better. As stated, in previous system cities just encouraged throwing, xrealm, and Zerg pvedoor. They then would shut down the lakes for like 2 hours with the 30 minute timer. They should remain scheduled optional content for premades.

[Akalukz]

I like the new system, just need to be sure to always have 2 zones open, often there is only one.

EDIT: Now tie lockout timers to city sieges. You are stuck to a side for RvR until the next city siege if you switch sides.

[Aethilmar]

Would have liked an option to vote for "neither".

Same dumbed down theme-park system with a lack of tactical or strategic options that have an actual effect on the outcome of the campaign. It just turns out that responsibility for operating the park has moved from sub-contractors (the guilds) back up to the parent corporation (the RoR team).

With LotD out of the way, they will just need to reinvent "Wrath of Heroes" and the game's reincarnation cycle will be complete.