Yes of course RvR will be more fluent when you cut out the siege content. But for what price? You suggest, more or less, to reduce the siege mechanic to a minimum, and make zone locks faster. I dont see any improvement in that, only a reduction of content, and i dont think that is a good direction.Hazmy wrote: Mon Oct 06, 2025 8:22 pm Yes, and this idea would make RvR significantly more fluent, dynamic than now and make Warbands have to think more than AFK in front of keeps or blob in a big group as an overflow warband
Multiple Zones ARE indeed active right now. Its a player mindset problem, that they prefer to blob in one zone with 400-600 players, while the 2 other active zones are empty. If they would spread and use all the zones, there wouldnt be stalemate sieges with 300 players camping in one keep. And i dont see anything in your suggestion, wich would touch that problem or change it in any way. The only thing that would change is, that the zones - and espacialy these empty ones - will get locked insanely fast by a handfull of people. More and faster zone locks. Thats it. I dont see how this is making the gameplay itself better in any way.Hazmy wrote: Mon Oct 06, 2025 8:22 pm Battle Objectives will matter more to pushing the campaign and multiple zones could be active at the same time with a chance to win that zone without a stalemate siege.
A better way instead of cut content, is to improve content. Make sieges more interesting by adding some mechanics, wich allow the players to be part of the siege. Dont make the fight stop at the walls, bring the fight up on the walls, and on top of the keeps.
And if you want more active zones, the only way is to spread the players. If they dont do that by themselfes (what they wont do obviously), then the only way is to force them, by implementing a player limit for each zone. That would touch the entrenched situation in the zones directly, without castrating the core of the game even more.
