Poll: RvR System Proposal

[Genisaurus]

Last Revised: 9/24/2015 @ 2:18pm EST

DISCLAIMER: While I may be a dev, this proposal does not reflect the opinions of the dev team as a whole, nor does this poll represent an official development direction.

1. Two zones are open for capture at any time, locking any one zone will unlock the third.
2. A zone locks when one faction accumulates enough Victory Points (VP)
   • Alternatively: If, and only if, a faction has <=55% of the population, they can lock a zone by holding all of the objectives in that for 1 hour. If any objectives are lost within that time, the timer will reset.
3. When zones unlock, each realm owns a Keep, and two Battlefield Objectives (BO).
   • In Tier 1, Destro will hold the Nordland XI, Order will hold Harvest Shrine, and Festenplatz will be neutral.
4. Keeps can be attacked at any time, there is no requirement to hold BOs.
5. Each BO held increases the door's HP Regen, and reduces the amount of time before the door closes after an attack.
6. Capturing a BO grants a 1x reward (Exp, RR, Inf) to all players in range of the BO, and prevents the BO from being attacked for 15min.
7. Capturing a Keep grants a 2x reward to all players in range of the Keep, and a 1x reward to all players within range of a BO.
8. Defending a Keep will grant a 2x reward to all players within range of the keep and a 1x reward to all players within range of a BO, after the previously breached door closes.
9. Locking a zone grants a 4x reward and Medallions to all players in the zone

VPs to lock: 66 + [(faction pop ratio - 50%) / 2]

Scoring / Max VP:

1. Objectives: 60/56
   • Keeps are worth 12 VPs each, BO's worth 8 each. Total VP for objectives: 56
   • In T1, each BO is worth 20 VPs, so the total VP from objectives is 60.
2. RvR Kills: 40
   • +1 VP every (Faction Tier Population # / 6) kills.
   • -1 VP every 30min for both factions

Some Examples:

1. 50% (72 players in T2) : 50% (72 players in T2)
   1. Both sides need 66VPs to lock.
   2. If both sides can hold onto 1 keep and 2 BOs, they each have 28VPs.
   3. Both sides need to get 12 kills for 1 RvR VP. Both sides will need to continue to get >12 kills every 30min to beat the decay rate.
2. 60% (86 players in T2) : 40% (58 players in T2)
   1. Order needs 71 VPs to lock, Destro needs 61.
   2. Order will probably hold all of the Objectives, meaning they still need 71 - 56 = 15 VP to lock the zone
   3. Order needs 14 kills for 1 RvR VP, Destro needs 9. Both sides will need to do better than this to beat the decay rate.
3. 30% (43 players in T2) : 70% (101 players in T2)
   1. Order needs 56 VP to lock, Destro needs 76
   2. Destro will probably hold all of the Objectives, meaning they still need 76 - 56 = 20 VP to lock the zone
   3. Order needs 7 kills for 1 RvR VP, Destro needs 16. Both sides will need to do better than this to beat the decay rate.

Rationale:

1. Why is a scaling design necessary?
   • As the community has seen in recent days, one of the biggest problems that hinders RvR is crossrealming. Forcing RvR to happen in one zone at a time means that is it possible to be forced to fight an overwhelming foe. Regardless of personal opinions or reasons why, once one side starts doing particularly well it becomes more advantageous to join them, rather than trying to beat them. It's simple economics, and crossrealmers are behaving in a rational, if not particularly noble manner. It is impossible for RoR to implement an enforceable and fair system to prevent this.
     
     A capture mechanic that scales with faction population on the other hand, disincentivizes crossrealming seamlessly and smoothly. The more players one side has over the other, the harder it will be for them to lock a zone. If a faction is facing a strong, coordinated enemy, they cannot switch to their side to reap the rewards of a zone flip - doing so will actually push the zone flip further away.
2. Why is AAO not included in this proposal? Wouldn't AAO fix the crossrealming problem on its own?
   • This proposal is entirely independent of the presence or lack of AAO. To put it simply: AAO is the carrot used to encourage the underdog realm to put up a fight, or to encourage players in the bloated faction to switch sides for better rewards; this proposal is the stick used to beat the overpopulated side back into an even distribution. You can have both, just one, or neither. I would like to see AAO be implemented alongside this proposal, but this proposal should and will remain independent of AAO, and does not require it. Personally, while I think AAO is a nice and elegant reward for the underdog faction, I do not think it will be enough on its own to prevent major imbalances.

[dkabib]

I like it, but quickly identified 1 little problem.

What about players AFKing inside the zone just for those reward ticks?

[Libra]

Yes to the suggested proposal!

[Evildoor]

Not voting since i'm not an active RVR player.
Side note - if you want to make SCs affect the locks, i think the SC players should get the lock rewards. Right now (unless some changes were made and i missed them), if you want to lock T1 and there are not enough kills in RVR, you have to queue for SCs, and if the lock happens during one you miss the rewards.

[Coryphaus]

A feel that we should have an rvr system that promotes acctual kills, fighting and roaming instead of one that places a lot of emphasizes on keeps and seiges

i also feel that at the very least we should do 2/3 zones open

i dont know about others but i find keeps to be giant unfun cluster ****

Mailbox guard are not really afkers i do what can often be considered mail box guarding but that is only because im waitng for sc pops to grind out crests and the war camp is convienct b/c kill quests

the only way to " deal with xrelming" is to create ingame incentives

[Genisaurus]

I like it, but quickly identified 1 little problem.

What about players AFKing inside the zone just for those reward ticks?

That has been an issue since WAR/Live. Is that reason enough by itself to veto the proposal? Insofar as addressing it...

1. Do the same thing that happens to them now: AFKing players get ganked.
2. As per the "mailbox guards" answer, shorten the timer before AFKing players are disconnected
3. The mod team declares the behavior as an abuse of the system, and you can report them.

Just to start.

Not voting since i'm not an active RVR player.
Side note - if you want to make SCs affect the locks, i think the SC players should get the lock rewards. Right now (unless some changes were made and i missed them), if you want to lock T1 and there are not enough kills in RVR, you have to queue for SCs, and if the lock happens during one you miss the rewards.

Did you read the proposal? That's one of the first things in there. Scenario players get zone locks.

[bloodi]

What ruins this is the same that ruined the old lock system in retail.

When a zone is going to get locked, the other faction will just refuse any fight, they stop queing for scs, just kill you by boredom.

When the lock is only result of capturing objectives, the other faction doesnt have choice but to fight, in this system when the zone is going to get locked, best choice for the other faction is to not fight.

So any change should be aiming to promote fights between players, not completely remove them, this is a very bad change, there are reasons why this system entirely failed at retail.

[Sulorie]

Too many rewards for leeching, due to zone wide rewards. Too much Mathhammer, as it is unclear for the most part was is needed to lock a zone. No anti-zerg measures.
Total population per faction is no factor to determine numeric balance. The number of players inside an rvr lake has no effect on the proposed system.

I fully disagree.

PS: Working on something which would solve all issues if the devs can make it working. Anti-zerg, less keep centric, no leeching, pvp is rewarded and the realm has to work together.

[Penril]

I like it, but would remove SCs from contributing to the zone lock.

[Evildoor]

Not voting since i'm not an active RVR player.
Side note - if you want to make SCs affect the locks, i think the SC players should get the lock rewards. Right now (unless some changes were made and i missed them), if you want to lock T1 and there are not enough kills in RVR, you have to queue for SCs, and if the lock happens during one you miss the rewards.

Did you read the proposal? That's one of the first things in there. Scenario players get zone locks.

Oh, i looked through it, but missed this point. My apologies.