RVR needs more time fighting away from the keeps

[Annaise16]

Have you really missed all the discussions in which I say that something like this is what we are planning?

I mean, I was under the impression that everyone knew at this point. Do people still not know?

I'm waiting on a UI, the end of crossrealming and some means of moving the siege weapons that don't have wheels. Then it's go time.

I know that the current system is temporary but I have not seen anything on what the new system will be. My post was simply a reminder that whatever the new system is, one focus of it should be to provide more opportunity to fight in the lakes away from keeps.


On a separate topic, if you develop a way to stop cross-realming, it would be cool to have "world boss" style mobs spawn in the rvr lakes. It would be a way to keep the stronger side engaged in doing something interesting and rewarding if the weaker side was unable to put up much of fight when contesting the zone. At the same time ,the weaker side could try to disrupt the fight, and so it would hopefully lead to more rvr.

The boss would be a "lord" level mob like the lotd world boss or the lord level bosses that spawned for some of the live events. The boss should have a fair amount of aoe damage along with one-shot ranged single target kills. This would help thin the attacking side and give the opposition a chance to steal in and get some kills to disrupt the fight. The fight would be on a timer so that the weaker side would have a chance to prevent the stronger side from killing the boss and getting the loot reward. The boss could spawn when one side is the first to reach a preset level of resources in a zone while, at th esame time, controlling all 4 BOs. The spawn would have a cooldown of a few hours across all of tier 4 to stop people from zone hopping to try to trigger spawns in alternate zones simultaneously or in quick succession.

Of course, this idea is similar to the world boss in lotd and the skaven dungeon instances in the 2010-2013 version of rvr. The difference between those ideas and this one is that those "contested" boss fights took toons out of the contested rvr zones, which resulted in less rvr. By having the boss spawn in the contested rvr zone, this idea aims to have more toons entering the zone and taking part in rvr.

The main problem with this idea is that it, once again, encourages zerging, which encourages cross-realming. That's why the cross-realming problem would need to be dealt with before you could introduce this type of system.

[njin]

how many rvr actions are in t4 / t3 / t2 / t1, ratiocinate gm team...

[Ninepaces]

Have you really missed all the discussions in which I say that something like this is what we are planning?

I mean, I was under the impression that everyone knew at this point. Do people still not know?

I'm waiting on a UI, the end of crossrealming and some means of moving the siege weapons that don't have wheels. Then it's go time.

I must admit az after the conversation we had in the SC thread when it became apparent you dont truly understand orvr what you''re going to implement really worries me. But, I am trying to be optimistic it will still be about wb level clashes.

[drmordread]

You can not have a different capture mechanic for each zone or pairing. All have to be the same. If you have different ones, then good luck organizing a city push. PUGs will go the easiest mechanic (less effort) and organized groups to the harder one. That is assuming that the harder one has a bigger reward. If the rewards are the same, everyone will just fight over the same easiest mechanic zone.


Another thing; People talk about zerg busting, AZ has even created a new rvr system to bust zergs involving cannon and mega damages from them.
All that needs to be done is three things (imo)
1- City siege. Once city sieges are available people will have to fight over two zones(pairings) at the same time if they want to push city. Zerg busted automatically. If they do not, then the smaller side will win and push city.
2- Reinstate BO rewards and or BO deff ticks. People will not only fight over BO's but the zerg will break up to do so. (I know that the current system that is being worked on makes BO's valuable for giving siege resources but that is another topic)
3- Reinstate medallion drops in SC's as well as larger RR rewards. If the winning side of an sc gets 600 bonus even at rr41 or higher, then more people will do sc's and less people will be zerging/defending keeps.
AND..added bonus ... People will stop fighting only at keeps.

There are ways to bust a zerg, get people away from keeps, already inherent in the system. The problem is people are too lazy to do them and want an RvR system to do it for them.

[navis]

Why do people ask the devs to fix what is essentially a player problem?

You simply cannot only provide a sandbox and expect players to play with imaginative currencies to play with. Motivation is required above when is only a glorified arena warzone. There is little mechanic to the Objectives (known) currently but it does work decent enough.
What's missing is reason to guard the BO's, IMO all they need is a renown boost and the whole system would be better.

Also, increase the BO defensive effectiveness the closer to the End-zone, much more effective especially underdog'd

[Penril]

-Capture the flag, we have it. Four as a matter of fact per zone. they are called Battlefield Objectives, (BO's for short).

BOs are not CTF. The closest to a CTF design in RvR was capturing the enemy relics from Forts. Relic runs were pretty fun when you actually had opposition, specially if they layed ambushes.

[Azarael]

Have you really missed all the discussions in which I say that something like this is what we are planning?

I mean, I was under the impression that everyone knew at this point. Do people still not know?

I'm waiting on a UI, the end of crossrealming and some means of moving the siege weapons that don't have wheels. Then it's go time.

I must admit az after the conversation we had in the SC thread when it became apparent you dont truly understand orvr what you''re going to implement really worries me. But, I am trying to be optimistic it will still be about wb level clashes.

Thanks for your opinion. If I could please or reassure everyone, then I wouldn't be human. If there's something specific you'd like to bring up, feel free to do so.

I'll add that I didn't even bother responding to you when I saw that you thought that saturation of keeps is not a problem. I quit the game over the absolute joke that Fortresses were, with hundreds upon hundreds of people packed into the middle and top floors of the fortress. If you have respect for that absolute puke of a piece of game design, then we have irreconcilable differences.

[Ninepaces]

I did in the sc thread.

Also I think it would be mutually beneficially if you did a bit of orvr with our organized wb while in teampseak to experience it from our eyes. (if our guild leader is ok with it ofc)