Recent Topics

Ads

New xRealm Lockout

Talk about the development of the emulator and related services.
Check out new and upcoming features to be implemented onto the server.

Moderators: Developer, Management, Web Developer

Forum rules
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use
jvlosky
Posts: 158

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#181 » Tue Aug 04, 2020 5:51 pm

Doesn't this still not stop xrealmers? The issue isn't SWITCHING BACK, the issue is SWITCHING in the first place.

Example: I am on Order and omg we are losing. I SWITCH to Destro. Now I can't switch back to Order for 90 mins but why would I care? I SWITCHED to the winning side and got what I wanted.

Nobody ever wants to SWITCH BACK, and even if they do after 90 mins they have accomplished whatever they wanted to do in the first place whether switch and xrealm for a few zone flips, or even after a fort.


IMO to prevent such aggressive xrealming the timer should FLAG and start from
A: When you enter RVR state and if you try to log off you have to wait or
B: The last time you were in an RVR state after it turns off.

So if I go RVR state and try to swtich I have to wait 90 mins. Or if I went RVR and then did some PVE, from the last time I was RVR state the timer has started so you can still do other things on your toon to wait.

Ads
User avatar
uberchaoslord
Posts: 5

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#182 » Sun Aug 23, 2020 10:05 pm

I'm sure this idea is in this thread somewhere, but why not a 30 minute time from when you log off? Isn't the point to prevent people from pushing to a city, only to switch realm and then win the city?

If the timer itself is an issue, why not apply a buff to all accounts logged in every 10 or 15 minutes, that lasts 45? That way the minimum is 30, preventing people who were signed in for a fort from switching to the opposite realm and queueing for city. Or apply that buff the moment you're flagged for RvR?

User avatar
Spellbound
Posts: 74

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#183 » Mon Aug 24, 2020 11:20 am

dshdf wrote:
Mon Dec 30, 2019 8:25 pm
90 min lockout on log IN will stop only last minute xrealm, but actlly wont prevent xrealm from players who logged in earlier . Why not simply make it 50 min after log OFF ?
Amazing reading back on this. Just reply #3 had the same suggestion that’s being said now that lock out should apply after you log out.
Image

User avatar
uberchaoslord
Posts: 5

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#184 » Thu Aug 27, 2020 10:49 pm

IMO this is really starting to hurt the player base. Anyone who doesn't have a bunch of 40s on both sides is very discouraged and unlikely to commit to the time involvement required.

User avatar
Wam
Legacy RR80
Posts: 686

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#185 » Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:22 am

The reason for xrealm lockout was because of the blatant abuse of forts in prior system where everyone would stack on the defender side to gurantee victory for maximum reward minimum effort...

People can't blatant abuse this anymore due to the change but has other side effects...

I.e today log in destro losing fort and outnumber, have to pick a side, pick the side which was outnumbered at the time so end up on destro, after fort destro outnumber order (they either log off) or more destro logged in... so stuck locked on destro with FMJ/PNP/VII/NGE and TUP all on one side... very zergy lack of good fights around, if we went order when they had more numbers at the start "you are just zerging etc" its very hard balance to get when forts and cities always being pushed hard pre prime time.

People have a bit of tin foil hat too much when it come to x realm and only see it one way, where x realm is many different forms from large to small. If people swap sides and push campaign more power to them, you should be thankful for some opposition/action/potentially locked content being unlocked win or lose... it don't matter the war always goes on.

If people think needing to actively participate in campaign to earn city contribution is a good idea you are totally wrong and see the fiasco of when forts was super limited and having gated content limited to small faction of playerbase... your going to reduce the amount of players in a already small pool = less instances = less fights = less progression, restrict class flexibility (people like to play their alts then swap to whats needed for city) and the toxicity will just be increased same with boredom and desire to play if restricted you must play only one class... only way i can see semi lessen problems is making rewards account wide and being able to trade/swap them around but this can also make problems too.

X-realm is scapegoat and over exaggerated... for when either outnumbered or out organised, sometimes one side has more its constant flux. Increase carrot on underdog side and make AAO more lucrative if its a problem, more reward for defending to incentivise if required.

Player/Testers/Content consumers ... the more choice we have the better, the more limited the more stagnant and zzzz.

Everyone's different, different motivations and goals and capabilities. I prefered old system where there was no restriction and more freedom of movement which made swapping sides easier if you run out of "decent action" / enemies to kill. I can understand why the changes was made because of fort explotation and over stacking, so Dev's tried to get some middle ground to prevent explotation as some people will always flock to the side with momentum. People who want more restrictions want a worse gameplay experience. People play both sides as they want to exerpience all the content and sometimes the other side has better action/quality fights waiting on it.

On a lower pop server, having the flexibility of playerbase to move back and forth is a good thing... even if at times some people think its unfair / exploited slightly... like it or not Destro & Order are locked in a symbiotic relationship, each side needs the other, sometimes each side is the other. Its a 2 faction system so its on the players to balance it the best they can, whilst remembering international server with overlapping guild raids and pug leaders coming and going which cause a flux in population.
Wamizzle Guild Leader [TUP]
Wamizzle Guild Leader [The Unlikely Plan]

User avatar
uberchaoslord
Posts: 5

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#186 » Fri Sep 04, 2020 6:37 pm

I agree you want some flexibility, I read another thread about moving some of the endgame drops to forts/zones, allowing the royals to be obtained through some method beyond city.

User avatar
Sidmar
Posts: 47

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#187 » Fri Sep 04, 2020 7:42 pm

12Hr lock will work

User avatar
kirraha
Posts: 153

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#188 » Fri Sep 04, 2020 8:49 pm

Issue with this lockout timer when its getting long is that ppl who cant to counterbalance can't when getting locked to one side. It's forcing ppl more or less Zerg with the rest.

Ads
p00ky
Posts: 62

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#189 » Fri Sep 04, 2020 9:34 pm

Wam wrote:
Fri Aug 28, 2020 12:22 am
The reason for xrealm lockout was because of the blatant abuse of forts in prior system where everyone would stack on the defender side to gurantee victory for maximum reward minimum effort...

People can't blatant abuse this anymore due to the change but has other side effects...

I.e today log in destro losing fort and outnumber, have to pick a side, pick the side which was outnumbered at the time so end up on destro, after fort destro outnumber order (they either log off) or more destro logged in... so stuck locked on destro with FMJ/PNP/VII/NGE and TUP all on one side... very zergy lack of good fights around, if we went order when they had more numbers at the start "you are just zerging etc" its very hard balance to get when forts and cities always being pushed hard pre prime time.

People have a bit of tin foil hat too much when it come to x realm and only see it one way, where x realm is many different forms from large to small. If people swap sides and push campaign more power to them, you should be thankful for some opposition/action/potentially locked content being unlocked win or lose... it don't matter the war always goes on.

If people think needing to actively participate in campaign to earn city contribution is a good idea you are totally wrong and see the fiasco of when forts was super limited and having gated content limited to small faction of playerbase... your going to reduce the amount of players in a already small pool = less instances = less fights = less progression, restrict class flexibility (people like to play their alts then swap to whats needed for city) and the toxicity will just be increased same with boredom and desire to play if restricted you must play only one class... only way i can see semi lessen problems is making rewards account wide and being able to trade/swap them around but this can also make problems too.

X-realm is scapegoat and over exaggerated... for when either outnumbered or out organised, sometimes one side has more its constant flux. Increase carrot on underdog side and make AAO more lucrative if its a problem, more reward for defending to incentivise if required.

Player/Testers/Content consumers ... the more choice we have the better, the more limited the more stagnant and zzzz.

Everyone's different, different motivations and goals and capabilities. I prefered old system where there was no restriction and more freedom of movement which made swapping sides easier if you run out of "decent action" / enemies to kill. I can understand why the changes was made because of fort explotation and over stacking, so Dev's tried to get some middle ground to prevent explotation as some people will always flock to the side with momentum. People who want more restrictions want a worse gameplay experience. People play both sides as they want to exerpience all the content and sometimes the other side has better action/quality fights waiting on it.

On a lower pop server, having the flexibility of playerbase to move back and forth is a good thing... even if at times some people think its unfair / exploited slightly... like it or not Destro & Order are locked in a symbiotic relationship, each side needs the other, sometimes each side is the other. Its a 2 faction system so its on the players to balance it the best they can, whilst remembering international server with overlapping guild raids and pug leaders coming and going which cause a flux in population.
This explains perfectly why you shouldnt increase lockouts further!

lifeson
Posts: 15

Re: New xRealm Lockout

Post#190 » Sat Sep 05, 2020 2:27 am

When you factor out guild nights there does seem to be a big pool of 'floating voters', around 100 players on busy times. You can see it happen - 250 vs 150. The 250 start getting farmed by some decent warbands and the chance of zone lock or fort diminishes. 15 mins later the pop is close to a mirror image. If you mainly play on one side it can seem a bit laughable - but then I guess it breaks stalemates sometimes.

Then you have people who switch to losing side and also small groups who like to play on both sides for variety away from the zergs. Don't want to hinder those with more severe lockout rules.

No easy solution to keep all happy.

It just feels a bit farcical sometimes when you see the current campaign being influenced so much by fair weather xrealmers.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests