new invader farming

[xcact]

I think a very simple band-aid for the crossrealm situation could be extending lockout timers to 8-24 hours for characters that flag for RvR in t4 zones. The key word here is "band-aid."

Obviously a long-term solution would have to be more elegant, and should incentivize pushing zones. Personally I really like the idea of somehow integrating city stars and offering some sort of endgame benefit for one faction while the opposing faction's city raking is under 3 stars, or alternatively, converting captured forts into PvE/sancturary areas where players can access special PQs or vendor NPCs and obtain exclusive rewards - maybe move the Sov/Invader vendors here? (although that seems a little drastic).

[Pesteavino]

Easy solution , give 1 invader for locking /defending a zone, and give invader /warlord gear for locking /defending forts.

Just need to make playing all the time with the same character be worth.

Other option is cumulative locks on the same zone , if you lock, Praag,CW,Fort =triple bonus on rr and crests

[Ruscour]

Lockouts can't be viewed as the only solution, absolutely. They're too easy to bypass (ESPECIALLY ATM WHERE THEY AREN'T EVEN ACCOUNT BOUND, you can just change VPN location / restart your router and the xrealm lock is gone ON THE SAME ACCOUNT WHAT ON EARTH).

Incentive structure needs to change so that you always want to win. I'm sure the people xrealming don't value progression on both of their characters equally.

[cjimaras]

True fact 1.5 hours ago
DW zone - Order 300+ppl - Destro 150 ppl. Order won the zone.
Caledor zone - Order 130 ppl - Destro 547 ppl. Destro won the zone.

Either revert the invader change either increase lock out to 3-4 days.
The game will die very soon.

[Yaliskah]

I think hiding behind "this is what community wanted" is not the right approach. We tried, it didn't work as intended, lets admit the mistake and go back to what have worked.

I beg your pardon? I'm hiding behind nothing (as posted in the first page). But there is a moment where you will have to consider "your" feedback as equal than other feedbacks, and accept that at some level we can't do everything and its opposite.

This change is appealing, and i'm still convinced it is a good change. Of course it needs some adjustments. Asking to throw last zone to go in fort/city is certainly not a better one imo.

But in the end of the day, point is i don't play in the same time XXX characters switching side because they are more interested about 4 tokens than playing the game.

For the record, ORvR mechanics haven't changed. Reward have. Draw your conclusions.

We can fix the game in some limits, but certainly not some "players" behaviours. You and i have to deal with it.

[courtsdad1]

I think hiding behind "this is what community wanted" is not the right approach. We tried, it didn't work as intended, lets admit the mistake and go back to what have worked.

I beg your pardon? I'm hiding behind nothing. But there is a moment where you will have to consider "your" feedback as equal than other feedbacks, and accept that at some level we can't do everything and its opposite.

This change is appealing, and i'm still convinced it is a good change. Of course it needs some adjustments. Asking to throw last zone to go in fort/city is certainly not a better one imo.

But in the end of the day, point is i don't play in the same time XXX characters switching side because they are more interested about 4 tokens than playing the game.

For the record, ORvR mechanics haven't changed. Reward have. Draw your conclusions.

We can fix the game in some limits, but certainly nopt some "players" behaviours. You and i have to deal with it.

Well said.

[jtj5002]

I think hiding behind "this is what community wanted" is not the right approach. We tried, it didn't work as intended, lets admit the mistake and go back to what have worked.

I beg your pardon? I'm hiding behind nothing. But there is a moment where you will have to consider "your" feedback as equal than other feedbacks, and accept that at some level we can't do everything and its opposite.

This change is appealing, and i'm still convinced it is a good change. Of course it needs some adjustments. Asking to throw last zone to go in fort/city is certainly not a better one imo.

But in the end of the day, point is i don't play in the same time XXX characters switching side because they are more interested about 4 tokens than playing the game.

For the record, ORvR mechanics haven't changed. Reward have. Draw your conclusions.

We can fix the game in some limits, but certainly nopt some "players" behaviours. You and i have to deal with it.

I think the entire point of this thread is that we should make changes that reward good player behaviors (pushing zones, push for fort/city), not bad behavior (throw zones for invaders, throw zones for forts, throw zones for cities, xrealm trolling etc)

[Mistdancer]

I think hiding behind "this is what community wanted" is not the right approach. We tried, it didn't work as intended, lets admit the mistake and go back to what have worked.

I beg your pardon? I'm hiding behind nothing (as posted in the first page). But there is a moment where you will have to consider "your" feedback as equal than other feedbacks, and accept that at some level we can't do everything and its opposite.

This change is appealing, and i'm still convinced it is a good change. Of course it needs some adjustments. Asking to throw last zone to go in fort/city is certainly not a better one imo.

But in the end of the day, point is i don't play in the same time XXX characters switching side because they are more interested about 4 tokens than playing the game.

For the record, ORvR mechanics haven't changed. Reward have. Draw your conclusions.

We can fix the game in some limits, but certainly not some "players" behaviours. You and i have to deal with it.

1) No. Not every feedback is considered equal to every other piece of feedback. Some are more nuanced, less biased, more well deliberated, more based on facts rather than just projections and/or desires. Feedback is subject to criticism also.

2) Asking to throw last zone is a bannable offense. Xrealming en mass to get 4 invader tokens and make a complete ridicule & mockery out of the game in the meantime, isn't. If you are going to thoroughly compare the two, you need to also compare how they are treated and viewed by the rules. Saying that this is a good change on one hand and then on the other putting it on par with the practice of throwing zones, is, to say the least, unconvincing and self defeating as an argument.

3) We know that the orvr mechanics have not changed and that the rewards have, and we have drawn our conclusions. They are presented here in this thread.

4) Nobody is asking for pedagogic behavioral changes of playstyles. What is discussed here is safety nets that nullify or limit exploitation and alternative approaches to make the rvr campaign more relatable and wholesome. Right now, with this patch, it is not Realm versus Realm. It is Realm versus Xrealm.

[Omnipwn]

This change is appealing, and i'm still convinced it is a good change. Of course it needs some adjustments. Asking to throw last zone to go in fort/city is certainly not a better one imo.

But in the end of the day, point is i don't play in the same time XXX characters switching side because they are more interested about 4 tokens than playing the game.

For the record, ORvR mechanics haven't changed. Reward have. Draw your conclusions.

We can fix the game in some limits, but certainly not some "players" behaviours. You and i have to deal with it.

I know this might be shocking, but a lot of players' goals are oriented around gear. Which is used a measure of status and obviously increases your capabilities in game. To put it simply gear is a thing players want (big surprise!). To get gear you need tokens, to get tokens you need time and effort and luck. If the game is structured in such a way as to reward more tokens in less time with less effort, players will take it. This is basic game theory.

The reason people are faction swapping is because the rewards are asymmetric and the time between 'last zone' defenses is long enough that you can character swap. If you have an order character and destro character who can both use the invader medallions the most effective method to get the gear is the swap between them and take the easy defenses. This should've been obvious pre-implementation, the faction lockout is insufficient and altogether ineffective.

An easy solution to this problem is to change the rewards to something like: 2 invaders on T4 zone lock. This will obviously incentivize players to lock zones. Consequently we'll see more forts (since pushes won't inevitability get crushed at the last zone), and therefore more cities (approximately back to pre-patch frequency).

[castlecreeps]

I think hiding behind "this is what community wanted" is not the right approach. We tried, it didn't work as intended, lets admit the mistake and go back to what have worked.

I beg your pardon? I'm hiding behind nothing (as posted in the first page). But there is a moment where you will have to consider "your" feedback as equal than other feedbacks, and accept that at some level we can't do everything and its opposite.

This change is appealing, and i'm still convinced it is a good change. Of course it needs some adjustments. Asking to throw last zone to go in fort/city is certainly not a better one imo.

But in the end of the day, point is i don't play in the same time XXX characters switching side because they are more interested about 4 tokens than playing the game.

For the record, ORvR mechanics haven't changed. Reward have. Draw your conclusions.

We can fix the game in some limits, but certainly not some "players" behaviours. You and i have to deal with it.

1) No. Not every feedback is considered equal to every other piece of feedback. Some are more nuanced, less biased, more well deliberated, more based on facts rather than just projections and/or desires. Feedback is subject to criticism also.

2) Asking to throw last zone is a bannable offense. Xrealming en mass to get 4 invader tokens and make a complete ridicule & mockery out of the game in the meantime, isn't. If you are going to thoroughly compare the two, you need to also compare how they are treated and viewed by the rules. Saying that this is a good change on one hand and then on the other putting it on par with the practice of throwing zones, is, to say the least, unconvincing and self defeating as an argument.

3) We know that the orvr mechanics have not changed and that the rewards have, and we have drawn our conclusions. They are presented here in this thread.

4) Nobody is asking for pedagogic behavioral changes of playstyles. What is discussed here is safety nets that nullify or limit exploitation and alternative approaches to make the rvr campaign more relatable and wholesome. Right now, with this patch, it is not Realm versus Realm. It is Realm versus Xrealm.

Pretty well said. This last patch has really made me not want to play.