ORvR Proposal

[Hargrim]

exatly, it is even wc to wc spawncamping...

@op

frankly speaking to op, this proposal is pure madness, you want that every single player in zone focus over 1 flag at time which is exatly what we want to prevent, plus there is nothing forcing ppl to spread at the same time over the map as you just open more flags with more population just allow again snowballing around pretty bad as proposal imo sy.

I dont think it is madness. I'd personally like unlocking zones linked to population (e.g., if there is 50 or less people on one side only one zone is unlocked). The developers said it was too difficult to code something like this, however.

Did someone said it? Because like a month or 2 ago it was like that - additional zones opened in T2 based on population. And what? And nothing, just zerging one zone.

[BeautfulToad]

exatly, it is even wc to wc spawncamping...

@op

frankly speaking to op, this proposal is pure madness, you want that every single player in zone focus over 1 flag at time which is exatly what we want to prevent, plus there is nothing forcing ppl to spread at the same time over the map as you just open more flags with more population just allow again snowballing around pretty bad as proposal imo sy.

I dont think it is madness. I'd personally like unlocking zones linked to population (e.g., if there is 50 or less people on one side only one zone is unlocked). The developers said it was too difficult to code something like this, however.

Did someone said it? Because like a month or 2 ago it was like that - additional zones opened in T2 based on population. And what? And nothing, just zerging one zone.

viewtopic.php?f=15&t=32540

I was meaning the system would be more dynamic. The main issue is the side that is outnumbered suffer a lot from open zones, since they can't realistically seige anywhere except as a tactic to frustrate the side with vastly more numbers. I dont disagree that in EU prime time, the current situation is an improvement since you have a critical mass of players which allows for fights across zones. Order, though, often struggle to put together one warband at times, and you can't realistically kill a lord with a single warband.

I think the OP has a point in these cases. What can be done, whether that is how zones open, options to move across the battlefield, how keeps repair, or how supplies spawn, etc - I am not sure. I would just like a few more tools for an outnumbered side that are not available to the side with large numbers, so they can actually fight them and not just constantly try to repair and defend keeps whenever the more heavily populated side decides to seige. Clearly fixing the invader medallion issue will improve incentives to fight, but there may be other things.

[Tesq]

exatly, it is even wc to wc spawncamping...

@op

frankly speaking to op, this proposal is pure madness, you want that every single player in zone focus over 1 flag at time which is exatly what we want to prevent, plus there is nothing forcing ppl to spread at the same time over the map as you just open more flags with more population just allow again snowballing around pretty bad as proposal imo sy.

I dont think it is madness. I'd personally like unlocking zones linked to population (e.g., if there is 50 or less people on one side only one zone is unlocked). The developers said it was too difficult to code something like this, however.

it is useless because unlike other suggestions it does not improve anything, it is not like ppl have problem blob lol so you need to REDUCES flag numbers to 1 if there is too few ppl it is the exact opposite.....sigh....

-you are not providing a fix to extreme zerg aka you are not making spread ppl around the whole zone at the same time making em fight for more objective simultaneusly

- you also dont fix aao problem by not provide any malus in term of objective to contest for the higher number and a lower one for the lower number.

of 2 problem ANY system we had till now you are not going to fix anyone of those; that suggestion would only mean loose time around something it's not going to improve daily rvr experience by one bit...

you also going to reintroduce healing on door with flag? really???????????????? we alredy had that once.... no thx.....

[Martok]

I have an ORvR proposal:

Form a group and go fight.

Or baring that get out there and fight.

The end.

[BeautfulToad]

I have an ORvR proposal:

Form a group and go fight.

Or baring that get out there and fight.

The end.

Just to be clear, I do that. I like oRvR, I like fighting as an underdog, we have won a bunch of good fights against overwhelming odds and being badly outnumbered. I have taken PUGs to hunt premade roaming groups, and wiped premade warbands with PUGs who have 40+ AAO. I certainly don't buy into destro warbands being anything special compared to order ones.

All I think is we should recognise the difficulties open zones bring with one side being outnumbered:

1. Allowing attackers to seige effectively empty forts is a problem, and a bigger one than defenders not defending keeps before a fort.
2. Those pushing empty forts can switch to the main, proper fort seige that defenders concentrated their forces in.
3. General problems outnumbered forces have, and how concentrating forces in one zone is simply not a viable strategy. All the side with vastly more numbers does is get to 3 stars in whichever keep the outnumbered side is pushing, and go and push two empty zones. (this leads to 1 and 2)
4. The fact the last patch nerfed the rewards for defending when this open zone system was introduced but not fully tested. The patch was sensible in the old system of one zone open at a time, but not in the new system. You are not rewarded for being in the outnumbered side in any material way any more since pushing an empty fort will get you the RR that you would have gained from the AAO, and a whole bunch of loot.

[Tesq]

I didnt agree with open 3 zones as this is a bandaid for have not a fine flags system which spread ppl all over the map

( exemple: 1 big timer which open/ close all flags with short open timer and longer lock timer + faction outnumbering the aao one need more objective for generate same number of resource )

but to say that proposal would fix it....sy not gona happen.....

We have 2 prob , deploy a rework that solve 2 prob not that focus on other thing which could be label as thematic.

[BeautfulToad]

I didnt agree with open 3 zones as this is a bandaid for have not a fine flags system which spread ppl all over the map

( exemple: 1 big timer which open/ close all flags with short open timer and longer lock timer + faction outnumbering the aao one need more objective for generate same number of resource )

but to say that proposal would fix it....sy not gona happen.....

We have 2 prob , deploy a rework that solve 2 prob not that focus on other thing which could be label as thematic.

I completely agree that the OP's suggestions probably don't address the core issues. The number of objectives probably do affect things a bit, but seems like it would be a lot of work for developers.

I think the main issue with the open zones is giving people incentives to play in the side with less players, coupled with mechanisms to allow viable strategies.

[Tesq]

I didnt agree with open 3 zones as this is a bandaid for have not a fine flags system which spread ppl all over the map

( exemple: 1 big timer which open/ close all flags with short open timer and longer lock timer + faction outnumbering the aao one need more objective for generate same number of resource )

but to say that proposal would fix it....sy not gona happen.....

We have 2 prob , deploy a rework that solve 2 prob not that focus on other thing which could be label as thematic.

I completely agree that the OP's suggestions probably don't address the core issues. The number of objectives probably do affect things a bit, but seems like it would be a lot of work for developers.

I think the main issue with the open zones is giving people incentives to play in the side with less players, coupled with mechanisms to allow viable strategies.

Viable stratagem is force ppl to spread when you are not sieging over more objective at the same time and requiring the out numbering side more effort to achive the same results.

And enable a improved form of the patrol system we had in live when some crazy aao are reached.

These are the criteria anything that do these 2-3 things can go.

[Raggaz]

Also I think another huge problem is people going to keep and waiting.
What happened to getting BOs and them repairing the door/lord?

If BOs healed door/lord that was good. It prevents everyone from sitting in the keep.
And then being too outnumbered to do anything about it.

What about making the BOs more like the Battle for Praag or Gromril Crossing scenarios? BOs open sequentially from one keep to the other. As you get closer to the enemy keep, the BO could give a buff to the defenders (maybe 100ft or 150ft range only). You could even allow back-capping of BOs to reset if there is concern about getting the entire zone fighting in one location (i.e., need to have defenders at already-capped BOs). Plus you could keep the supply requirement to rank up keep, so folks will need to run supply instead of fighting on the front lines.

Yes this is near exactly what im saying!

People dont like this idea, because they think of aao and it scares them and makes them quit and go sit in keep apparently.
So the devs have to make ways that spread everyone. And then no one does anything anyway..

Imagine 100 vs 100 fighting for one BO...would be amazing. ¬¬'

Is this sarcasm or??
I dont understand why everyone calls it zerging. I dont understand why no one wants to fight.

This is a pvp game and the majority of players seem fine with not fighting.

Ya I think 100 vs 100 fighting over one place would be great. It happens sometimes, normally just at keeps.
You dont see skirmishes on a bo, you dont fight for resources.

Ya people sit around and wait for keep defense because its where they know the fight will be.

Its like no one wants to fight. Everyone sees it as this issue. I dont care if there is 120aao. Great, bring it on. More rewards for me.

frankly speaking to op, this proposal is pure madness, you want that every single player in zone focus over 1 flag at time

Its based on population. More population more bos/zones.

OR have 2 BOs open at once no matter population size. Here is another player that doesnt want to pvp.
And now the game is based around not pvp.

[Tesq]

Man idk what you are talking about regarding the not wanting to fight, what you want regarding 100vs100 figths alredy happen in most zones with both sides zerg snowballing around from 1 flag to another...

Again ppl see clearly where this is going to go, there is alredy great concentretaion which is exatly what we want to "not"make happen exept during keep sieges,

Stop extreme concentration does not translate into avoid fight...it mean have more fight all over the map, instead just a very big one.... There are zones like tm/bc/kv where sometimes its even hard be able to split the realm in 2 group.....

If you want just 2 brainless blob fighting each other i dont think you will get much support here. We need smart solution not obviously stuff cementing problems we alredy have....

Do i really have to point out the obvious that dosent matter hiw many flags you open based on pop? What make ppl spread over 3 flags? Did you even tought about that? You simply opening flags based on pop wont change a single thing: its just useless work for dev.... We need zerg spreading when there are 100 ppl per realm not ppl concentrating when there are 20 ppl online per side...