Recent Topics

Ads

Battleobjectives during zonelocks

We want to hear your thoughts and ideas.
Forum rules
Before posting on this forum, be sure to read the Terms of Use

Structured class balance suggestions belong in the Balance Proposal subforum. Class-related discussion in this section are considered as ongoing debates and ARE NOT reviewed for balance changes.
User avatar
wonshot
Posts: 1101

Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#1 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:05 pm

Hello,

Right now for a zone to be locked the system requires a realm to control 3/4 Battleobjectives plus the two keeps.
This does however mean that most of the zonelocks we see on the server, are not getting contested because of how easy it is for the dominating realm in control to spread their forces out and get the required 3/4 BOs while holding the captured Ruin keep.
Because of how easy this task is, the timeframe for the underdogs to try and harrash and provoke the enemy is rather slim and in most cases this is completly bypassed and not even attempted.

Which, is a shame that an Open Realm vs Realm campaign is not promoting people to use the entire map and fight for every piece of land, but instead have this system to put the campaign in more of a speedrun mode to make zones easier to execute after you have taken the keep.
The win condition for the underdog after loosing their keep and recapturing the ruin is already slim to none for locking the zone for themselves, so why not give them the bone of a 4/4 requirement so they can atleast set up a last stand on a BO and not just watch the enemy go capture the other 3/4 and avoid the confrontation after being forced to spread their numbers.

Suggestion:
Change the zonelock requirement from 3/4 BO control to 4/4 for a week and evaluate with the community if this was a good or bad idea.
If the worry is that some maps will have too easily defendable BOs, like the Manor BO in south reikland. Maybe a backdoor portal could be added like we see in the Tavern BO in T3 Empire.


I truely believe this change would promote more regionchat coordination where people actually have to work as a realm to lock a zone, by spreading out securing objectives and informing others about enemy movement. This part of the game has been forgotten for too long for an orvr driven campaign game, and its about time RvR is brough back to being more engaging. Spreading the action out, fighting for control, and having engaging openworld combat that other games cant match as RoR does it better.
Bombling 92BW - Bombthebuilder 82Engi - Bombing 82SL - Bling 81Kobs - Orderling 80WP - Jackinabox 67WH
Gombling 85mSH- Chopling 83Chop - Notbombling 82Sorc - Powerhouse 81Zeal - Goldbag 80Mara - Smurfling 75Sham -Blobling 66BO

Ads
User avatar
Nekkma
Posts: 722

Re: Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#2 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:39 pm

Some of my most memorable moments from live where to defend a zone as an underdog when the domination system was in place. A smaller but coordinated force could delay, sometimes stop, an uncoordinated zerg. I think the duration you need to hold should be slightly increased as well (say 3 minutes, subject to testing).

Edit: A problem with making zones more difficult to cap is less zone caps and less cities (especially during primetime) meaning some adjustments on how to get sov may be needed to compensate.
Nekkma / Hjortron
Zatakk
Smultron

Hannesnewb
Posts: 12

Re: Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#3 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:01 pm

I haven't been playing on this server for a long time yet, but I noticed that RvR is not really rewarding in terms of gear progression during prime times. And I have the feeling that this would make it even less possible to have a city at a decent time. There should be some kind of reward system that gives you more rewards the more players take part i.e. dead cities at 4am with 5 instances do not reward as much as cities during prime time with 20 instances. Same with oRvR in my opinion.

I'd love to see a change that makes it harder to lock zones but only with appropriate reward tuning (I know a lot of you are high RR with a lot of characters and maybe do not care as much about that).

User avatar
Likeaboss
Posts: 230

Re: Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#4 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:19 pm

Well, i get Bomblings point and in some points agree with them...

but the hardest thing should be to take the keep, and not to flip the zone when the keep has fallen.
I would liek to see something that forces the zerg to split and hold some BO's...

By example
the defending Realm hold's 2 BO's = Ram damage reduces by 25%
the defending Realm hold's 3 BO's = Ram damage reduces by 50%
the defending Realm hold's 4 BO's = Ram damage reduces by 75%

Ram damage reduced by that amount and handing in ressources will force the attacking realm to defend BO's, or at least clear them

This is just a example which came to my mind in 5s, while writing i already notice some problems ofc,
but it is just a little push in a other direction, than the Post above^^

But in my opinion still a better idea than force a Realm to cap all BO's (when Zone-Pop is even)
imagine taking TM as Order, and for Zone lock you have to get Gromril Kruk with FMJ, Zerg etc inside...
Same for DW WArcamp BO, Eataine, Caledor

I don't really miss the 5 Days KV fights, but if you wanna have it tested for a week, i'd be in ;)
wargrimnir wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:50 pm Accidental solo-friendly content doesn't stay that way for very long.

Lorsten
Posts: 57

Re: Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#5 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:36 pm

Spoiler:
Likeaboss wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:19 pm Well, i get Bomblings point and in some points agree with them...

but the hardest thing should be to take the keep, and not to flip the zone when the keep has fallen.
I would liek to see something that forces the zerg to split and hold some BO's...

By example
the defending Realm hold's 2 BO's = Ram damage reduces by 25%
the defending Realm hold's 3 BO's = Ram damage reduces by 50%
the defending Realm hold's 4 BO's = Ram damage reduces by 75%

Ram damage reduced by that amount and handing in ressources will force the attacking realm to defend BO's, or at least clear them

This is just a example which came to my mind in 5s, while writing i already notice some problems ofc,
but it is just a little push in a other direction, than the Post above^^

But in my opinion still a better idea than force a Realm to cap all BO's (when Zone-Pop is even)
imagine taking TM as Order, and for Zone lock you have to get Gromril Kruk with FMJ, Zerg etc inside...
Same for DW WArcamp BO, Eataine, Caledor

I don't really miss the 5 Days KV fights, but if you wanna have it tested for a week, i'd be in ;)
Attacking keeps already is far more complicated than defending them, this ram system, defenders ressing inside keep, keep flight masters... Why making it even more hard?
Active rvr moves like sieging or roaming must be much more rewarding than sitting in keep, which is not the case since introducing bag rolls for successfull defence.
There is no way you can take 3* keep against 3 organized WB's, even if you have 5. So meta now is order sitting in keeps and destro jumping zones (at least at EU prime). Current siege gameplay is not interesting for organized WBs, they try to skip this part of rvr.

User avatar
Likeaboss
Posts: 230

Re: Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#6 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:44 pm

As i said, it's not a perfect idea :lol: at priemtime the keeptakes take's long enough,
but you should log in early in the morging until lunchtime, Order flips zones in a 30min interval, and this is BS...
wargrimnir wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:50 pm Accidental solo-friendly content doesn't stay that way for very long.

mogt
Posts: 480

Re: Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#7 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:54 pm

the problem is, many players dont split as example, isee it many times. 3 pairngs are open

95 % players are in one zone , they attack eachother 5-6 hours, no forward and backwards, the other zones are empty, you see the problem, the playerbase have no interest to split and bring forward the campaign, this problems are the players, not the system..

the sytem is good it works, theother problem, are the xrealmers, that they swichtig the side and then you have automaticly a domination side and then the underdog side, have a big problem.

the core problem are the players, that they dont want fight for a zone they want just kills kills kills,without bring the campagins forward

User avatar
Likeaboss
Posts: 230

Re: Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#8 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 3:05 pm

mogt wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 1:54 pm the problem is, many players dont split as example, isee it many times. 3 pairngs are open

95 % players are in one zone , they attack eachother 5-6 hours, no forward and backwards, the other zones are empty, you see the problem, the playerbase have no interest to split and bring forward the campaign, this problems are the players, not the system..

the sytem is good it works, theother problem, are the xrealmers, that they swichtig the side and then you have automaticly a domination side and then the underdog side, have a big problem.

the core problem are the players, that they dont want fight for a zone they want just kills kills kills,without bring the campagins forward
People dont split into multiple zones because it doesnt make sense...

With SOR your have to rank the zone to 2*, then move Ram to keep, destroy 2 doors, when you did that uncontested, lets say with 24 man, it takes you like 10-15 minuts or even more to kill the lord... This won't happen.

And this is not a mentality problem...

I'd like to get the Flag back in Lordroom, but i guess that won't happen as well :lol:
wargrimnir wrote: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:50 pm Accidental solo-friendly content doesn't stay that way for very long.

Ads
mogt
Posts: 480

Re: Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#9 » Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:48 pm

that is false that, that is the problem. the palyers dont want split in mulitple zones and why???? there is no answer why they dont want that, if we attack a zone, then the enemy must decide what they do and if they dont come for defend then the enemys have the problem and not we as attackers, the attackers do it right and we push the campagin forward.

the goal frpm this game is attack enemy city and how you get in enemy city, right you must push the campagin forward, instead 5-6 hours romaing in one zone. the players have forgot how important is tactical gameplay and THIS is a playerbase problem and not the system

Elymas
Posts: 15

Re: Battleobjectives during zonelocks

Post#10 » Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:10 pm

mogt wrote: Wed Apr 21, 2021 5:48 pm that is false that, that is the problem. the palyers dont want split in mulitple zones and why???? there is no answer why they dont want that, if we attack a zone, then the enemy must decide what they do and if they dont come for defend then the enemys have the problem and not we as attackers, the attackers do it right and we push the campagin forward.

the goal frpm this game is attack enemy city and how you get in enemy city, right you must push the campagin forward, instead 5-6 hours romaing in one zone. the players have forgot how important is tactical gameplay and THIS is a playerbase problem and not the system
The system is what creates the player base mentality, so your argument is not solid. The player base does what the system encourages them to do, and at the moment it looks like there aren’t enough incentives for splitting into multiple zones and taking the campaign forward this way.

Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with the OP's suggestion. I don't even share the concern that some maps will have "too easily defendable" BO's. I mean, isn't that exactly what BO's are supposed to do? To be fortified, protecting the ones holding it and making it as hard as possible for the enemy to capture it. So this worry makes no sense in my mind and we should see more BO's (re)structured in this defendable fashion. Besides, if the attacking realm was already able to capture a keep, they should also be able to conquer that one last BO, even if it was zerged inside.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Loctar, Phantasm and 24 guests