Permanent lockouts

[Gachimuchi]

Psoted this in a previus thread. Think it's a pretty solid lockout mechanic without actually locking people out.

Spoiler:

I don't think a week lockout is a sustaineble sollution. I actually think its more damaging then anything. Understanding the reason to why people Xrealming is key here. Im no expert in human behaviour but there are two main reason why people Xrealm. 1: Players who wants easy rewards 2: Players who gets bored when their side is dominating heavily and perfer fighting over Zerging. One of these types of Xrealmers(2) is actually equalizing the RVR and does something that makes the game a better experience for both realms while the other type of Xrealmer is just trying to leech (1) rewards. The chance that both these types of Xrealmers will just stop playing if they can't change realm is really really high. So my proposal is: If a player changes realm they will log in with a debuff that makes bag and loot rolls automaticly roll 1 and renown gain reduced to 1% for the first hour. 2 and 2% for the second hour etz. 100 hours later the debuff is cleared. This way Xrealmer 2 can uitilize AAO to reduce the renown debuff without stealing loot they didn't inherently work for but its also an incentive to stick to your mains while the Xrealmer 1 is just punished.

I like it. Or alternatively just tie it into campaign. If such a thing could be done.

[Afterlife92]

Psoted this in a previus thread. Think it's a pretty solid lockout mechanic without actually locking people out.

Spoiler:

I don't think a week lockout is a sustaineble sollution. I actually think its more damaging then anything. Understanding the reason to why people Xrealming is key here. Im no expert in human behaviour but there are two main reason why people Xrealm. 1: Players who wants easy rewards 2: Players who gets bored when their side is dominating heavily and perfer fighting over Zerging. One of these types of Xrealmers(2) is actually equalizing the RVR and does something that makes the game a better experience for both realms while the other type of Xrealmer is just trying to leech (1) rewards. The chance that both these types of Xrealmers will just stop playing if they can't change realm is really really high. So my proposal is: If a player changes realm they will log in with a debuff that makes bag and loot rolls automaticly roll 1 and renown gain reduced to 1% for the first hour. 2 and 2% for the second hour etz. 100 hours later the debuff is cleared. This way Xrealmer 2 can uitilize AAO to reduce the renown debuff without stealing loot they didn't inherently work for but its also an incentive to stick to your mains while the Xrealmer 1 is just punished.

I like this since I always like to play weaker faction at that time.

[kweedko]

Suggestion: Maybe it could work to make side switching possible everytime a city fight was going on. This way, everytime the campaign resets, you could switch to the other side and play there for as long as a city is taken again.

And after firs siege everebody gonna xreal to winning side to farm empty cities by cd

[Razid1987]

If it can reduce cross-realming by just some amount, it gets my vote.

I'm at a point where I think we should just try SOMETHING, instead of just keep talking (and talking and talking etc) about one suggestion after another, with people pointing out the flaws. We have talked about how to stop cross-realming for years. Enough talk - Let's put something to the test and see the results. If it reduces cross-realming, I'd argue it was a success. However, the population will probably take a hit from this, no matter how it's done, so I think "Oh noes, a lot few players around now"-kinda reactions isn't gonna say or do much. It's probably gonna happen, which ever way we approach this problem.

[roadkillrobin]

The thing is, alot of testing in the alpha testing stage can't be done if you don't allow Xrealming.

[Gachimuchi]

If it can reduce cross-realming by just some amount, it gets my vote.

I'm at a point where I think we should just try SOMETHING, instead of just keep talking (and talking and talking etc) about one suggestion after another, with people pointing out the flaws. We have talked about how to stop cross-realming for years. Enough talk - Let's put something to the test and see the results. If it reduces cross-realming, I'd argue it was a success. However, the population will probably take a hit from this, no matter how it's done, so I think "Oh noes, a lot few players around now"-kinda reactions isn't gonna say or do much. It's probably gonna happen, which ever way we approach this problem.

This isn't an all or nothing kind of deal. The reason nothing has been done about it(and still can't be done currently) is because the devs literally can't atm.

[Razielhell]

Suggestion: Maybe it could work to make side switching possible everytime a city fight was going on. This way, everytime the campaign resets, you could switch to the other side and play there for as long as a city is taken again.

I agree with saupreusse!
When cities get implemented we could have this system even if Server is still in Alpha Phase.
It wont affect that much testing/reporting bugs for both sides.
And maybe it could change once we leave Alpha and RvR system runs smoothly without any major changes on schedule.

[Tamarlan]

How is about increasing the incentive to stay on the loosing side instead of more restrictions? AAO as such is great for organized parties but nothing that prevents casuals from logging to the winning side.
An idea could be to slighty close the gap between winning and loosing the zone lock i.e. 60:40 ratio.

Real life is unfair enough ....

[zumos2]

I think it's a good idea to promote realm loyalty, but I don't think a flat-out realm lockout would be the best way of solving this. From an elitist blabla 6man peterpan PoV, people swap realms to face more challenges: for example, if group x and z are both playing on destro, group x may go to Order to get some decent fights and avoid pug farming. I think a flat-out realm lockout would mean that guilds would have to first decide which side they wish to affiliate with, so as to ensure there is some competitive play - as opposed to all the top guilds going on one side, and leaving side X at a huge disadvantage/very little competition.

This is why I really don't want to see full realm lockouts. The main reason realm lockout would be needed is for a better RvR system. So why not lock RvR rewards for an X amount of time when a player changes realm. X could be varying from hours to a full week if needed. This allows more competetive players to still fight each other in scenarios, while not messing up the RvR.

[saupreusse]

Suggestion: Maybe it could work to make side switching possible everytime a city fight was going on. This way, everytime the campaign resets, you could switch to the other side and play there for as long as a city is taken again.

And after firs siege everebody gonna xreal to winning side to farm empty cities by cd

Wouldnt be possible because it would be allowed AFTER the fricking city fight is over :^) dont find problems where there are none. and if you do i will deny them and say its ryans fault.