Only one open zone during EU prime

[Archimediss]

Its a sad state of affairs if you need a cheat to win at a game instead of improving your player skills .And yet its being done what sort of people are they that they need this sort of thing ? But as for open zones 3 would at least give the lesser number side an option to employ strategy instead of tunnel vision , or thats what i hope for

[Kpi]

only available for a few players = another myth and yes it is cheating when an addon lets you make thing that you can not do without, doesn't matter if it was available for all.
memories are no facts, can you show some data to prove this?

About number there are not public data, but you can check youtube with 2020 videos, for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBXzbXU ... nUnderhill

900 players only in RVR with 3 zones open. This numbers don't show SCs, PVE, Tier 1 and people AFK in Altdorf/IC

[inoeth]

a youtube video, really? wow
at this point i am not sure if it's worth debating with you...
2020 corona pandemic made people play video games alot, now you can do other things again, naturally player numbers drop now. what has that to do with NB? right nothing.
provide actual evidence or stop your propaganda plz

[Ninjagon]

This RvR desigh with only 1 open zone is just very wrong. It takes all the fresh air, global strategy and fun away from players.

Solution is simple:

Faction X wins a fort 1 -> pairing 1 locked, then
Faction Y wins a fort 2 -> pairing 2 locked and pairing 1 opens again, then
Faction Y wins a fort 3 (or fort 1) -> unsheduled CITY, then
All 3 pairings will be open again.

Open RvR should always have a purpose (city).

[Kpi]

a youtube video, really? wow
at this point i am not sure if it's worth debating with you...
2020 corona pandemic made people play video games alot, now you can do other things again, naturally player numbers drop now. what has that to do with NB? right nothing.
provide actual evidence or stop your propaganda plz

It is funny, because you are asking evidence to me and i'm showing it, but u are not showing anyone for defend your point of view and you're underestimating the ones I'm showing you (Like flat earthers ). The player numbers are not public available, and the only source to check the 2020 numbers now are videos. The team can stop this rumours showing the numbers, but they don't do it .

By the way, I have some numbers for city sieges before and after this patch, before the patch usually was 15-17 city instances between 22:00-01:00 (and i remember sometimes with +20 citys, but i have not in my notes), and after the patch the number of instances decreased to 12-14. I stopped to recopilate numbers in siege siege 3-4 weeks before the scheduled citys and the last one was 7 instances (Now there are 4-5 instances, but it is because people are not queueing for city)

Of course, the covid pandemic have a big influence of the player numbers, but it is not the only way to affect the number of players online. The banning of addons that were allowed in the game since the game was released in 2008 motivates players to leave the game and not come back, as is the case. As I told you, I can tell you the name of many players who stopped playing with the NB ban. Probably, you do not know any player who returned to play because the Nb was banned. And lost players is bad for all.

For my part, I do not want to talk more about NB in this post, it is not the place to do it.

[Kpi]

This RvR desigh with only 1 open zone is just very wrong. It takes all the fresh air, global strategy and fun away from players.

Solution is simple:

Faction X wins a fort 1 -> pairing 1 locked, then
Faction Y wins a fort 2 -> pairing 2 locked and pairing 1 opens again, then
Faction Y wins a fort 3 (or fort 1) -> unsheduled CITY, then
All 3 pairings will be open again.

Open RvR should always have a purpose (city).

Unscheduled citys with better rewards and scheduled city in the same campaign can be a good idea to the campaign, so the players will effort for push to city and maybe the zerg mode ends

[inoeth]

a YT video is no evidence dude and it also does not prove your claim regarding NB.
ok tell me the names of all the players, how many do you know 3-4 ppl? and how can i be sure that the numbers are correct? come on are you serious?
have you ever worked scientificly? seems not, otherwise you would know that correlation does not imply causation. and i also doubt that there is even a correlation. that's only made up by upset NB noobs

and again, provide data.

[Sulorie]

This RvR desigh with only 1 open zone is just very wrong. It takes all the fresh air, global strategy and fun away from players.

Solution is simple:

Faction X wins a fort 1 -> pairing 1 locked, then
Faction Y wins a fort 2 -> pairing 2 locked and pairing 1 opens again, then
Faction Y wins a fort 3 (or fort 1) -> unsheduled CITY, then
All 3 pairings will be open again.

Open RvR should always have a purpose (city).

While we had stalemates during EU prime the population got loop sided during low pop hours and most cities happened at those times.
Why reward them? It's not like it took effort to zerg down your opposition, while most players were either sleeping or at work.

[Kpi]

have you ever worked scientificly? seems not, otherwise you would know that correlation does not imply causation. and i also doubt that there is even a correlation.

I think you don't understand me.

I'm not saying that ALL the players who have stopped playing are because of the NB Ban. I am saying that there is a percentage of players who have stopped playing because of the NB ban. In a game SO SMALL like ours, each player is important, and the loss of players must be avoided at all costs.
Did this measure cause a percentage of players to stop playing? Of course.
Was it the main cause of the reduction in the number of players? Maybe.
Some players returns after NB was bypassed for a few? Of course.
More players will return if NB was free for all again? Yes.

If when you go to play, you go from a regular group of 15 guild players before the NB Ban, to 10 after the NB ban, those players may no longer want to continue playing and a percentage of those who remain will go to another game with your friends.

Losing players creates a snowball effect of fewer and fewer players, so reducing player loss (however small) is important to keeping the game alive. And the Ban NB was not a friendly move for many veteran players who quit playing taking other players with them.

that's only made up by upset NB noobs

And what happen with noobs? Only "Pros" can play RoR? We need noob and pro players in the server to keep it alive.

and again, provide data.

I have posted some data up, but i still waiting yours

This RvR desigh with only 1 open zone is just very wrong. It takes all the fresh air, global strategy and fun away from players.

Solution is simple:

Faction X wins a fort 1 -> pairing 1 locked, then
Faction Y wins a fort 2 -> pairing 2 locked and pairing 1 opens again, then
Faction Y wins a fort 3 (or fort 1) -> unsheduled CITY, then
All 3 pairings will be open again.

Open RvR should always have a purpose (city).

While we had stalemates during EU prime the population got loop sided during low pop hours and most cities happened at those times.
Why reward them? It's not like it took effort to zerg down your opposition, while most players were either sleeping or at work.

Why reward them? Because they won the campaign

[inoeth]

yo what data? you posted a YT video of a zergy rvr day... that's nothing.
what data should i provide? i did not make a wild claim, you did so it is your duty to prove the story. I can't prove something that doesn't exist.
but yeah all of a sudden it's only a "small percentage" xD