Recent Topics


The State of RvR [Feedback]

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas.

Moderators: Developer, Management, Web Developer

Forum rules
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use
User avatar
Posts: 61

The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#1 » Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:51 pm

EDIT: This post was made AFTER the fort uncap and AoE uncap, and the 'issues' it highlights, are in the context that these are the 'issues' which prompted the recent changes to RvR, or more specifically, the changes recently made relevant to each issue. Because those changes are still in effect, at the date of this edit, this post remains relevant

This is not a whinge thread, please do not dismiss it as such. General feedback on state of RvR, too broad to be posted in the 'Balances' section and not specific enough to be posted in the relative 'Feedback Threads'. Next to each issue will be a rating of 1-3, indicating how much of a game-breaking issue it is and the urgency with which it needs to be addressed - 3 being most urgent. On an individual basis:


The Issue of Fort Lords / Mechanics - (1)
The changes made to fort lords several months ago have removed the technicalities that made forts challenging. The only challenging aspect of a fort, as they are now, is to break the defending funnel. Apart from 1 pairing, lords die incredibly fast once defense is broken - even if a jailbreak is achieved, lord is dead before defenders even run back to the main door.
What was it like before?
The initial mechanics, where lords did their 50% aoe knockdown, and also did substantial damage to those in LoS were better. It required better coordination on the behalf of attackers by keeping vulnerable classes out of LoS and an emphasis on lord control. It also meant Bottom, Lord, and 3rd floor defenses were all options. This was a good starting point and Pairng-specific mechanics need to be re-evaluated, cauldrons hit through the wall which compounds the current aoe cap.

Suggestions / Ideas / Possible Solutions
- Revert lord mechanics and HP to the old system and re-evaluate pairing-specific mechanics from this starting point
- Fix cauldrons hitting through wall or remove all-together
- Remove scrolls for defenders in prison (there was no need for this in the first place)

The Issue of Impenetrable Funnels - (3)
This is currently on of the biggest gripes in forts - but also to an extent in keeps. My feedback here is related specifically to the impenetrable funnels in forts, with further discussion required for the same situation in keeps. Using bottom floor funnels as an example, these single entry point funnels are meant to be 'high-risk-high-reward' and are meant to be difficult to break. The problem arises when the number of defenders reaches a critical mass, the defense becomes impenetrable. Critical mass and numbers are the key. As far as I have been able to tell, that critical-mass is around the mark of 45-50 defenders, maybe slightly more. Less than that and the defense is certainly hard, incredibly hard if orchestrated by an organized and strong team, but also breakable with coordination or ingenuity. A well orchestrated defense by a good team, while defending numbers are below critical mass, will also be near impossible to break. - but the ball is in the hand of the players when numbers are below that mark. When above that mark advantage lies massively on the side of the defenders and the question is how to make options available when number reach critical mass. Forcing defenders to move is an option.

Suggestions / Ideas / Possible Solutions
These suggestions may seem 'over the top' of far fetched, but they are worth discussing at the very least.
- The current aoe cap is negatively compounding this issue (separate discussion)
- If there are 50 (hypothetical critical mass) defenders in the zone, then there are probably atleast an equal number of attackers (if not then the defense was most likely unbreakable anyway). Attackers could have an NPC that "builds a 'Siege Tower' out of 50 rams" - essentially a merchant selling a siege tower for 50 rams, 1 player can only contribute 1 ram. This Siege Tower is simply a mobile platform/siege weapon (examples of these can be seen in Ekrund) that allows attackers to scale and get up the walls of the inner fort. Defenders can send parties to attack and attempt to destroy siege tower if they choose to. This forces movement on phase 3. The key remains determining the the critical mass number, 50 was used as an example here.

The Issue of Portal Clicking - (1)
The merit in the previous system was that players needed to actively participate in pre-fort zone in order to build the contribution for the fort reservation. This is a good thing. With the exception of disconnects and crashes, the vast majority of people 'clicking on a portal for 45mins' are ones who either participated very little or not at all in the pre-zone and hoping to sneak in a spot. If they then choose to click on the portal for 45 mins in the hopes of getting lucky, then that decision is theirs and should not warrant an entire overhaul of the RvR system. There already is an incentive in place for them to participate in the zone.

Suggestions / Ideas / Possible Solutions
- Revert to old contribution / reservation system
(07/01/2020)EDIT: Contribution and reservations reverted, still no need for sub 40s in forts. Revert to portal system, but see below

The Issue of 'Nothing to Do' (Lowbies and non-reservations) - (3) - EDIT: This has now simply rolled on to City Sieges
If one of the biggest problems in forts at the moment is numbers, then the worst possible thing to do is simply add more.
"We are aware that last change makes fort a bit messy, but hey, atleast, can everybody plays" - this approach is detrimental and just not justifiable enough. There is no reason for under 40 players to be in forts, and the previous cap and requirements was adequate. With that being said, the complaints of nothing to do during fort when there is only 1 pairing is legitimate and needs to be addressed, but the current solution is like trying to put out a fire with fuel. If anything, raising the entry requirement from 40+ to 50+ might be better.

Suggestions / Ideas / Possible Solutions
These suggestions may seem 'over the top' of far fetched, but they are worth discussing at the very least.
- Revert to old entry requirements and possible consider raising RR requirement from 40+ to 50+
- When a fort opens in a pairing, 1 (or more?) previous zone in that pairing (chosen at random?) opens up in a "Pillaged State". In a "Pillaged Zone" a section of the PvE map belonging to the defending realm becomes an 'RvR Lake'. In this section, players from the attacking realm are required to 'Pillage' the camps of the defending realm by running supplies that spawn in these camps back to their spawn point or warcamp. In a 'Pillaged Zone' hero NPC and camp guards despawn or die. The effects of pillaging, which is essentially gathering supplies, could have a variable effect on the current ongoing fort - eg, artillery fire (as before), or something more impactful, which needs discussing.
Order attack The Maw (The Destruction-Chaos fort). When the Maw Opens, Ostland (an Empire t2 zone, but any t1,2,3 zone) opens in a "Pillaged State". In it's Pillaged state, the Destruction PvE side of the map (or a portion of it) becomes the RvR lake and destruction camp guards die. Order players who were unable to enter fort - due to being low level or not participating in the pre-fort zone - then pillage destruction camps and collect and return supplies to a designated area. Destruction players who have not entered fort defend against this. The effect of gathered supplies impacts the ongoing fort in a yet undetermined way. Participants in the pillaged zone receive 1 or 2 invader medals depending on the winners of the fort.

The technical issues around this are obscure to me, but instancing a pillaged zone and entering through a portal is probably an option.
It also gets players interacting in areas of the game they may have spent very little time in, areas and assets which are already there, just not populated.

The Issue of 'Portal Camping' - (2)
This is far less of an issue than it is made out to be. The reason players are so vocal about it is because it is frustrating. Frustrating though it may be, it is a legitimate tactic. Portal camping is a legitimate tactic which can be used by players willing to forfeit the rewards of a fort, and it can be of great help to your realm if pulled off efficiently. This is an interesting option for players and should be left in place - and this is coming from someone who has been on the receiving and frustrating end of this. If players wish to rush the portal, rather than group up and clear the way to and secure the portal, then that is again the responsibility of the players and should not warrant drastic changes to RvR. The solution to this is simple and straight forward

Suggestions / Ideas / Possible Solutions
- Revert to old system. But, players can interact with portals even when in combat

The Issue of AoE cap - (3)
I realise there is a separate thread for this, this is feedback in the broader sense and does not follow the specific format required in the feedback thread. Either way I look at it, the aoe cap increase has been bad. It has negatively affected almost every aspect of RvR I can think of. If it was initially implemented to discourage zerging, it has not achieved that at all. Zerging is as rampant as ever, the fights are just less enjoyable now. Good, small organised groups will always do well against lesser organised zergs - they might not always win, but then why should they? This has been discussed in depth, so just touching on it here.

Suggestions / Ideas / Possible Solutions
- AoE cap has been detrimental to RvR as a whole, a number higher than before, but far lower than current 24 seems ideal. AoE cap of 10-12 seems ideally balanced.

Overall my feeback of the current state of RvR is pretty grim. Personally I believe RvR is the least enjoyable and in the worst state it has been in a very long time. The small changes over the last few months have been great (for example: keep door having less HP after being destroyed and up again), but the big changes have not been so kind to RvR.
I would be far happier having these issues addressed before the release of new content.

I will reiterate, this is not a whinge thread. It is honest, and hopefully constructive, feedback on recent changes.
To those of you who read it all and are itching at the finger tips to flame, your time is now. I know how many rockstar wannabes we have on these forums.

To others, i'm particularly interested to know if you feel the same, that RvR is in the least enjoyable state it has been in a very long time.
Last edited by Dalsie on Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:31 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Orrud -> Hirn -> Norn -> Marty'r Square

User avatar
Posts: 377

Re: The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#2 » Mon Nov 04, 2019 4:53 pm

Impenetrable funnels - make a set number of defenders increase the number of postern doors available or start to allow set spots in walls to be broken down (melee damage only?) to increase funnel numbers. DAoC had breakable walls - they were quite fun to add variety when critical mass defenders came into play.
Detangler - 40 DoK armor talisman farmer
Deetangler - 40/82 Chosen tankbot/murdermachine
Deeetangler - 40/6x Zealot healbot/talisman factory
Detanglerr - 40/xx Witch Elf boredom killer
Deetsquiggy - 40/x Squig butcherbot
Tangler - baby Slayer

User avatar
Posts: 6

Re: The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#3 » Mon Nov 04, 2019 5:26 pm

Bravo, echoing pretty much everything that I feel about RvR as well. I have almost nothing to add, so just big agreement and very detailed thread. <3
Roamy - Marauder cannon fodder with Pain and Pleasure.

User avatar
Posts: 172

Re: The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#4 » Mon Nov 04, 2019 6:14 pm

To be honest I have been in Forts only twice so I don't really have much expertise about that besides that I find them boring, espacially in Step 3. RvR is for small scale player mostly unplayable imo. It is just one big blobb against the other. I like you idea about the last Fortress with the pillaged state in another zone, could be fun. Even if I have nothing to complain about "not having anything to do" as a most time sc player.
For Forts I would like to have them instanced with 48 vs 48 so small scale and single target player could be usefull there too.
And yes, I also think that RvR is in a not enjoyable state.

User avatar
Posts: 394

Re: The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#5 » Tue Nov 05, 2019 4:21 am

Dalsie wrote:
Mon Nov 04, 2019 3:51 pm
The Issue of 'Nothing to Do' (Lowbies and non-reservations) - (3)
If one of the biggest problems in forts at the moment is numbers, then the worst possible thing to do is simply add more.
"We are aware that last change makes fort a bit messy, but hey, atleast, can everybody plays" - this approach is detrimental and just not justifiable enough. There is no reason for under 40 players to be in forts, and the previous cap and requirements was adequate. With that being said, the complaints of nothing to do during fort when there is only 1 pairing is legitimate and needs to be addressed, but the current solution is like trying to put out a fire with fuel. If anything, raising the entry requirement from 40+ to 50+ might be better.
I absolutely disagree with anything that you wrote here. numbers are not a problem. Even two warbands can create an impenetrable barrier simply by using aoe on a narrow entrance funnel. the Attackers were also difficult to win the forts before, when there was a limit on numbers. Of the last 10 forts in which I participated, attackers won only one, and that is because order had imprudently left the fort trying push desctro. All the rest were completely lost by the attackers both from order side and from destro side.

Many people mistakenly think that if you open the posterns, that will correct the situation, in fact, no. Just the defenders from the firts floor will move into the room of the lord, and there else the lord himself will also help them. And the result for attackers will be exactly the same.
Numbers in no way influct on this situation. I used to think that limit of numbers help in the fight against lags, but with the last patch I saw that lags are exactly the same if there are 100-120 people or 300 people in the zone, there is absolutely no difference and I don’t see any reasons why to get back these limits again.

The issue is why attackers cannot win the fort in my opinion in the following: They do not want to organize (create special rift premades, gank premades, bombs premides, etc.) and work together (pushing under def morals, use attacking morals at the same time, create voice communication, etc.) , usually the forces that are trying to capture the fort are pugs without voice connections, there is no general communication and therefore naturally attackers fail, simply because defending the fort is easier, there is no need for special communications, you just need to use the AoE on the funnel on CD.
Or / and u can go the another way ( expand the gate, open the posternsz, create alternative entrances to the room to the lord (2-3 the same entrances), reduce the DPS of the lord, etc.)

User avatar
Posts: 81

Re: The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#6 » Tue Nov 05, 2019 8:12 am

It is good to see more people speak up Dalsie.

I fully agree with your assessment of issues and severity currently being detrimental to rvr.
~~~~~~~~ OndeTv, Sorceress, <The Art of War> ~~~~~~~~
~~ Onds, choppa ~~ Ondarm, marauder ~~ Helligonden, zealot ~~
~~~~~~~~~~ and many more destro characters ~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~ Proud member of Nagarythe Corps in the old days ~~~~~

User avatar
Posts: 577

Re: The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#7 » Tue Nov 05, 2019 2:15 pm

Closed fort zone, reservations and portal create situations where you need to spend *hours* actively participating in the zone to get a chance to get in. It can be very exhausting. And then you also risk to get ganked and denied your place on attack if you weren't quick enough and didn't move with the zerg. Maybe it never happened to you, but happened to me and people i know, its infuriating and demoralizing to a degree that you want to just uninstall and forget this game exists.

It incentivizes people to abandon the zone lock and move to portal early to secure their fort spot. This behavior further exposes more responsile players that go for BOs risking their fort spots.

As much as i love "ganking spots" that portals create, this is very much a bad design that encourages selfish behavior in players.

The issue is even worse in Black Crag or Kadrin Valley where portal is both very far away from attackers WC (iirc it takes 2 or 3 minutes just to move from WC to portal in BC), and extremely close to defender's warcamp, making portal camping too easy compared to the time attackers need to get to it. Dying in BC even once means you lose your reservation.

Another issue created by reservation/portal mecahnic is that it is sometimes extremely hard to fill warbands with proper classes or get your organized warband from previous zone fully in.

And the whole "stay there and spam click" thing is just bonkers.
Either make an actual queue system that takes player's class into account and creates balanced 2/2/2 team compositions (without dps healers taking healer spots :x ) and ports the player in when there's a spot for them, or just keep it an open zone.

As for the "nothing to do" - there's no need to reinvent the wheel, just open up a temporary pairing until the fort is over. Or even better - keep the adjacent zone active during the fort, let people capture BOs and gather supplies (deliver them to WC) in order to maybe give a buff to their allies on the Fort. And when the Fort finishes give them RvR lock rewards and a few invaer tokens.

User avatar
Posts: 61

Re: The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#8 » Sat Nov 30, 2019 10:48 am

Is there any acknowledgement that any of the listed issues are even considered issues? Or are we at a point where we believe the current RvR/AoE system is optimal?
Orrud -> Hirn -> Norn -> Marty'r Square

User avatar
Posts: 38

Re: The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#9 » Sat Nov 30, 2019 4:19 pm

Good Morning,

- I agree with cap being reduced back it will help with the defensive issues of not being able to properly push and get into areas

- I dont think there should be a cap on forts but the RR requirement should be set 40-50 that does sound good....This will also push people to make some type of commitment
to the game and just end game in general and will reduce SOME of the bitching about "Power gap crying posts"

- The "nothing to do" once that campaigns Fort opens.....once the forts been opened the T2 version of said realm should automatically open as well....nothing really needs to happen here other than that really.....yes its going to make forts pop faster but the game needs to go on....No reason really to not have it open I mean people wanna play content and thats
what games are about....

- People crying about portal camping I mean just fly to the Maw no one there lol...... Just get off your fat ass and fly there easy fix....Not really an issue imo

- Side note for this constructive feed back thread and with todays update I do wanna monitor the new levers for forts and see its impact.
Always had you on farm :lol:
Infidelous/WH RR7x
Lordcorruptous/Chosen RR6x
Dadakaboy/Choppa RR5x
Drsicko/Slayer RR5x
Whiplash/Mara RR5x
Freedumb/Kotbs RR5x
Whiteclaw/WL RR5x

Posts: 50

Re: The State of RvR [Feedback]

Post#10 » Sun Dec 01, 2019 3:35 pm


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mathousalix6 and 6 guests