Improving RvR zone

[Telperien]

Is it possible to make BO holding by having at least 6 players within, lets say 100ft around BO flag?
I mean growing control, like damage bonus around engi turret? When players leave BO 100 ft area, controling BO would go down, lets say within 2 min. So, no locking timer, no capturing flag, etc.

[Tiggo]

would you want to be one of the 6 people not fighting at the enemy keep but standing around to hold a bo?

[boog]

How would that improve ORvR?

That requires 18 people minimum to hold 3 BOs or an entire WB to hold all 4. Which would mean u would have to expect 6 people to take a keep or only allow a zone to flip with 2 or more war bands. Plus people missing out in ORvR skirmish and allowing defending war bands of enemy realm to roll over Bo groups.

This would create stagnation where only a realm with far superior numbers would be able to lock zones and otherwise people would just play musical chairs with BOs and keeps would rarely if ever be captured. Or so I see it.

[Nameless]

remove BO lock timers and guards and bring limitation to be able to attack keep only if u keep +3 BOs. So if u want to attack keep you need to place someone to guard BOs.
With 15 min lock timers as it is currently, the zerg just go around and cap BO ofter BO without any reson to split.
May be add BO lock timers that occure only for the realm with AAO. 100% AAO -3 min, 200% AAO - 5, 300% AAO - 8, 400% AAO - 15 min.
So the outnumbered side wil have some control over the orvr if overnumbered relam just zerg and dont split

[Telperien]

How does the "fighting at the keep" looks like? Mostly ppl afk waiting for door going down. Even when door are down, only entrance where 2 people side by side would fit is blobed/funneled/rift ping ponged and everyone in the back wait for a opposite side crash:)

Besides, do you really think that 24 ppl in a zone is enough to take a dominance over Realm vs Realm zone?

Its not keep vs keep game but player vs player. Only because there is nothing to do in a zone when BOs are locked do you think everyone should stand at the sieged keep? Thats zerg mentality and thats the current and from live problem. Why dont bring meaning of possessing battle objectives?

Many players would have better impact on zone lock when defending/attacking open field BO than sieged keep with small entrance, I would love to be that player:)

[Tiggo]

thats why the fight for the keep needs to get better.

[bwdaWAR]

The reason why there is any action at BOs at all is often exactly because there is a potential for a 15 minutes lock timer on them. The weaker defending force holds it just long enough to lock before being wiped by the slowly reacting zerg (or tries to at least), opening up the possibility to prevent or at least delay the destruction of the door by taking a second. That lockdown timer benefits the weaker faction as much if not more as the stronger one.
As for why people just sit in the keep waiting for the door to go down... that's because defending a keep is the easiest action possible in the lakes. That is why those endless staring at each other from behind tanks spamming Hold the Line situations develop - because the defenders are too strong for the attackers, and they have absolutely no reason to leave the keep. It has nothing to do with BOs being on a lock or not, it's about that being much easier to do than fighting a numerically superior force, divided or not, outside the keep.

[YUKO]

thats why the fight for the keep needs to get better.

Precisely!

[boog]

I like how u didn't address how your proposal improves RvR or counter any of the other points people have made about how this system would work.

Yes 24 people is enough to capture a zone it isn't dependent upon how many people are attacking a zone whether how many people are defending a zone. 2-3 people could take a zone if no one hindered them.

It's not a player verse player game it is a realm verse realm game. It is Zerg mentality yes to stand at the keep door to seige the keep. A way to fix that would be if people were more interested in defending BO's but your system would make it so minimum 3/4s of a war band would be necessary to sit on BO's to claim a keep and then assuming there is no one defending it leave whatever is left (which sometimes outside of peak hours it is hard to fill a war band) leaves 6 people to take, assuming there is only 1 war band. Which then leaves the defending realm able to form a war band and overwhelm a BO and halt the keep seige and then move when the zeroing realm comes to the next BO and halt it eve further. As I said before it would be musical chairs except the chairs never get removed.

Your answer is many players would help improve your system but your system only requires many players to work, it doesn't promote many players actually participating. All it would take is 1-2 groups of the enemy from preventing anything from getting done either in BOs or at the keep depending on size of invading forces.

[th3gatekeeper]

Id like to weigh in on this and I think the OP is onto something but I would propose an alternate to his solution.

Rather than having each BO lock, I think a possible solution to this would be that a BO only "Locks" once ANOTHER BO has been taken.

So taking High Pass for example. Say a WB captures Feitens First. They must now hold and CONTROL it (as the OP suggested - leaving X number of players on it until next one is capped and then it locks) while another part of the WB leaves to capture another BO, say tavern. Feitens wouldnt "lock" until Tavern is captured. Once Tavern is captures and Feiten's locks. Now, the WB must take Manor or Tower for tavern to lock, so a group would sit in Tavern defending it until Tower locks, Then Manor.

Manor (or the last BO to be taken) would never lock until the zone is locked. Meaning you will need to defend a BO AND try to get through the doors. Say Manor was taken, it would instantly free up Tavern as well to be captured. So there MIGHT even be "worth" in having a scout or two that stays 2 BOs back just to see whats going on.

One of the liabilities with this is renown/influence range in WBs. I think that renown/influence gains would need to have NO range limit for the WB. So if a player was at Manor for instance, and the WB (Order) was attacking the Destro keep. Those defenders at Manor would get all the influence/renown/exp credit as they normally would if they were there. So they arent losing anything helping defend.

While Defense isnt "sexy" it is crucial for RvR. Also if you REALLY wanted you wouldnt HAVE to defend a BO as even if opponents capped (in this case) Manor, Tower would then open and you just need to then go to Tower and defend.

So this system would be a mix of both the proposal and the current program.


To add to that, to get people to avoid trading BOs all day, remove the renown/infl/exp for the cap itself and INSTEAD BOs are merely a multiplier of influence/renown gain - just like AAO.

So if the WB has all four BOs, maybe they get a 5% increase in renown/influence gain per BO or something. So just CAPPING BOs means nothing if there isnt anything/one to kill. If you kill players with all four BOs, instead of getting the 800 renown per BO cap (400 on front + back end) you would get a 20% boost to total renown/influence gained for kills AND the keep take. So this removes incentive to "trade caps" and puts the focus on taking the keep or taking BOs to then try and kill other players. Just taking BOs would mean nothing unless you plan to roam or assault a keep.

Either defenders will try and mess with the zerf by stealing BOs, causing an unravel of their progress (which a well coordinated WB, could actually nearly simultaneously cap all four BOs like Dominos if none were defended...). OR they will post up in a keep defense with AAO or something.

EIther way, it forces the offensive WB to play defense + removes any benefit of BO swapping.



The OTHER thing I know people will disagree with, but I would propose it, is once a zone is "locked" by an enemy faction it turns OFF that flight Master for that warcamp, meaning to get there you now need to RUN from a nearby zone. Once the zone opens, it re-opens the flight master. Thus doing big RVR battles actually holds some liability and inconvenience to players. Or maybe it doesnt lock it for the full duration of the zone lock, but some fixed time.

I think adding an inconvenience factor would be a benefit if the zone were locked, really giving incentive and punishment to do RvR... I know if I were on, seeing Highpass 4 capped and a WB on our keep, if I knew that flight master was going to be locked I might try and get a group of guys to run to the BOs real quick and try to take them to avoid it.... And it would be doable too since most of the time there might be a scout or small force defending ONE of the BOs. So we go in with AAO, kill a few players, cap a BO and hurry to the others (or coordinate to have a player ready to cap those one) so we can avoid a zone lock....

While eventually you would think the WB will just recapture the zone. It might be enough to deter them....

This also removes 3:00 of just standing around as well waiting for BO locks.... Not saying this idea is fully flushed out or perfect, just a few thoughts...