Recent Topics


Battleobjectives, oRvR, and zones

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
Posts: 1103

Battleobjectives, oRvR, and zones

Post#1 » Sun Feb 25, 2024 5:18 am


With the ability datarework over there might be more time to think and make adjustments to the main replay loop of RoR - The zones & the campaign.
Therefor this following series of suggestions is made with the intention to spark inspiration, conversation and creativity within the world of reason.
I will list a handful of proposed suggestions and below each make a red comment section explaining some of the thought and target behind each.
The overall focus is to target the standing issue of open RvR not spreading out the fights, useing enough of the actie Zones layout and not believing that expandin the exsisting orvrlakes will simply be a solution, as this was kinda proved with LOTD and playerbehavior just stacking in the middle.
There will undoubtibly be flaws and things I didnt account for as with any system. But please let me know what you think and keep the civil tone, thanks for reading.

Main target: Create insentive for players to actively seek and spread out to the Battleobjectives and not just running to the closest objective between the two warcamps for easy action, leading to all action happening there as even the roam-willing players will know the action is in the center.

There will continuously be the four BOs in each active zone with the same location. Each will have a locked timer after being contested and succesfully captured as following:
1) When a BO is open for attack it will take 5minuts to stand on it and capture it. During this "contested" periode the attackers will get a stream of 1 warcrest ticks in periods scaling with AAO. Should the attackers succesfully capture the BO it will be locked for their realm for 5minuts. These timers are based on travel & reactime for the enemy to have a chance to respond, create a chance for skirmish to happen, and also accounted for the different stages of a zonelock especially the zonelock stage after a keeplord is dead and BOs need to be focused.

2) For progression with Boxes. One active BO is enough to generate boxes. However boxes brought from further distance objectives to a keep/wc will give more progression & rp/inf based on the distance to make the travel and risk more worth it. This is taken into account when a keepsiege has falled and boxes are needed to repair, to spread out the action on BOs. But also for either building either a 2star rank to push a zone with a ram, or a 5star zone attempt.

3) Battle objectives contested and in conflict. Should a fight break out on a BO while it is contested a pool of RPs open up. Any kills happening in the range of the BO will be put into the pool (potentially gonna need a cap or scale with AAO) and any player who was involved in the battle will reap a tick after the BO is no longer contested based on their involvement. Think of it as a minizonelock tick. This should in theory make Battleobjectives more interesting for roamers, pvpers, zonelockers and most playstyles included in the active zone. It opens up value in defending a BO your realm holds, while also making it appealing to attack a protected objective.

4) Skaven smallscale annoucement: One outskirt BO per active zone will be announced to be infested with skirmish promoted by the skaven. This Battleobject will have a bonus for any player who is either solo or in a group but not in a warband to their kill rewards while near the BO. Just a small idea to bring some smallscale skirmish back to orvr.

5) During a keep siege the Ram will be dealing between 25/50/75/100% of its normal damage based on how many BOs the attacking realm is holding during the ramming. 25% per BO held. This is to give players who are not interested in keepsieges something to do, create hotspots while a siege is ongoing in the rest of the map. And to still keep the BOs relevant part from healing the door and box-flying into the keep.

6) All four Battleobjectives are needed to lock a zone now. With the lock timer on captured BOs strategy can be used to pull a larger force around and make them waste time untill other objectives open up giving more options for smaller forces or more organized groups to play the map.

Local AgainstAllOdds
The code used from Land of the dead scanning nearby allies in the areas and debuffing your heal/damage output, could be changed to scanning in oRvR for how evennumbered a fight is and apply aao to any force fighting outnumbered to reward them for their efforts. A single warband getting a flank on two warbands and they manage to take out 10 players before they get swarmed outnumbered 2:1, should be equally rewarded for the risk they engage in. This is an attempt of rewarding organized forcing for standing on their own and winning their skirmishes, but at the same time not over penalizing weaker or unorganized players for playing the game to progress or simply useing any means possible to take down a stronger foe. oRvR is for anyone and any playstyle after all.

Kills in the zone contribute to keepprogression
Kills in the zone will grant a tiny bit of progression towards keepranks. May sound scary but hear me out!
Kill contribution is counted per dead enemy while in range of Battleobjectives and not keeps.

1)Kills done while having 40-400% reverse-aao will not grant any progression to the realms keep

2) Kills done while having 0-400% aao will grant abit of keep progression

3) Kills done while the Skaven smallscale skirmish buff in solo/group will grant the most progression
So here we are tieing the systems together. AAO is local so more "good fights" are promoted and incentiviced while being rewarded. There is still some room for outnumbering-players to get a tiny bit of progression as long as they dont superzerg higher than 40%aao. In the cases of a realm being so dominant that the enemy will have to blob up to counter their strength or organization there is simply no extra progression reward and things will work out as they currently do. You get to kill stronger enemies but no extra rewards for zerging them down but they get potentially more rewards for being outnumbered
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

User avatar
Posts: 208

Re: Battleobjectives, oRvR, and zones

Post#2 » Sun Feb 25, 2024 7:03 am

I like the suggestions. A rework to oRvR after all this years is a welcome relief.
The actual BO/keep system is flat and without any tactical relevance. Push keep spawn ram siege.

Giving BOs a deeper impact to the campaign will maybe bring more dynamics on the battlefield beside the actual WB blob zerg behavior.
Solo small scale push is always welcome

Sometimes a zone is so crowded you cant leave the war camp without stepping on a gobbo/dwarf (no hate) but make all open zones interesting again for player will definitely push the quality of life. We all know some oRvR zones are bad by their map design itself. But making the zone also uninteresting by their mechanics kills the fun on some days.
Knick WL RR85+
Knickli Mara RR80+


Posts: 100

Re: Battleobjectives, oRvR, and zones

Post#3 » Sun Feb 25, 2024 11:37 am

Sounds cool

User avatar
Community Management
Posts: 186

Re: Battleobjectives, oRvR, and zones

Post#4 » Mon Feb 26, 2024 11:33 am

Thank you for posting such a detailed Feedback Post, Wonshot! :mrgreen:

User avatar
Posts: 304

Re: Battleobjectives, oRvR, and zones

Post#5 » Mon Feb 26, 2024 12:20 pm

This sounds very interesting!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests