Patch Notes 13/10/17

[KikkL]

The only complaint I would say is, is the ruined keep+3bos for lock. It does go a little quick. The only way to prevent this lock is basically to recap the keep?
And also the rate at which a keep loses rank(if lose a bo or 2) is kinda fast.

What about not losing your keep in the first place? You had your ass handed to you in keep siege and you still want to 'win'? It's technically possible, but you need great organization, players on same skill level or higher numbers AFTER you lost the keep.

You can also prevet this by just keeping any 2 BOs at all times (one of them can be the keep ruin, but doesn't have to).

You shouldn't lose the keep that's true. But let's be honest, a keep take usually happens when the enemy has around 50-100aao. And then some stay at keep, the rest get closest 3bos.
Saying it should be ruined keep+4bos might be too much?
The new system is designed to split up the zerg. Holding 2 of the 5points to prevent a lock is very difficult facing a zerg.

That would create a 'let's just give them the keep' situation though. And hold 1 bo or sneak keep(in ruined keep+4bo). Maybe it does give the defenders a too easy defense? It just seems to go very quick after the keep is gone. Holding ruined+4bos is similar to holding 4bos 5star lock, in the sense that it usually takes a much dominate force to win.
But creating a situation where losing the keep to prevent lock(ruined+4bo) doesn't seem very war like either.

By the time the keep is gone enemy has already accepted defeat. Ruined+4bo gives them another chance? But is it being too gracious?
I would think holding the ruined keep to lock, should be a requirement not an option.
And if opposing realm happens to defend the wrong bo(ruined+3bo) the enemy wouldn't even know they were there.

[Yaliskah]

I try to understand and i don't . Your concern is about outnumber or mechanics?

So my questions to understand are these :

At equal number is the new mechanic bad? Why?
At unbalanced number is the new mechanic bad? Why?
At equal number was the previous mechanic good? Why?
At unbalanced number was the previous mechanic good? Why?

[szejoza]

Quick simulation
There's 100 vs 60 players, keep is taken therefore becoming a ruin
100 players need to spread out through 4 BO's (3 regular BO's+ruin to be exact), that's 25 men per BO. Now tell me how 60 players are not able to harras one BO and occupy the one that is left (considering the level of organisation, skill, gear, carreer composition is the same for both sides). This 60 people just have to divide into 2 forces of 30 men and do their job. And as I remember 30>25.

Yes, it's a simulation, real situations won't be even close to that, but that just shows how the system is supposed to work.
It's not the system's fault that one side is worse and lacks organisation

And if you have lost the keep accept the fact that you won't be winning the fight, you can postpone the lock and get the zone to draw but that's it, and it recquires organisation!

[Karast]

At equal number is the new mechanic bad? Why?
At equal numbers it would be an interesting system but so far it is rare to find equal numbers even at prime time.

At unbalanced number is the new mechanic bad? Why?
Right now zones lock far to quickly last night it was almost 15 min to lock a zone and they lock instantly once the keep falls. This gives the zerging side momentum for them to push the next zone, and the losing side is demoralized or shift to loser bag farming. Last night while trying to organize order to fight back in EU prime time, a great many told people to screw off as they ganked near BOs to grind contribution because they'd rather semi afk and get loser bags then try to hold a keep or take BOs. This further drained morale. In the old system you could try to rally the realm up by taking BO's while the enemy ranked up to hit the keep, or after a keep feel you could turtle down and get some kills in a funnel position to again build morale for going into the next zone, and slower locks meant the zerg would decrease to population shifts over time. Many people currently play both sides and they would rather zerg than be zerged, or semi afk near a WC and gank than actually try to fight. Setting up in a keep to funnel is not the best way to get bags or contribution but it is the only way to defend a zone, because BO's are meaningless to a zone zerg when the very map design breaks the intended mechanic by having so many BO's close together. Once they get rank 3 if you are not setup the keep will fall before you can do much of anything and even if you bunker down in the ruins or at a BO they can just ignore you and cap others.

At equal number was the previous mechanic good? Why?
At equal numbers the old system was largely a stalemate. But organized wbs could break through and take zones.

At unbalanced number was the previous mechanic good? Why?
In the old system you could actually fight back a bit and build up your faction, and you had enough time to call people to the zone in the hopes of defending them. I am not joking when I say zones are dropping in 5-10 min at times, and it is impossible to defend a zone unless if you get 2 WBs in an inner and funnel hard when you rock 100 + AAO, and in those situations they will just jump to the empty zone hit that keep and continue on.

I would really help to decrease the supply gain, and to increase the time need to lock after a keep take. The faster zones lock the more a faction will zerg.

[Karast]

Quick simulation
There's 100 vs 60 players, keep is taken therefore becoming a ruin
100 players need to spread out through 4 BO's (3 regular BO's+ruin to be exact), that's 25 men per BO. Now tell me how 60 players are not able to harras one BO and occupy the one that is left (considering the level of organisation, skill, gear, carreer composition is the same for both sides). This 60 people just have to divide into 2 forces of 30 men and do their job. And as I remember 30>25.

Yes, it's a simulation, real situations won't be even close to that, but that just shows how the system is supposed to work.
It's not the system's fault that one side is worse and lacks organisation

And if you have lost the keep accept the fact that you won't be winning the fight, you can postpone the lock and get the zone to draw but that's it, and it recquires organisation!

You are ignoring poor map design.

In a zone like TM or DW it is very easy to sit a zerg inbetween the 3 center BOS and then a the zerg doesn't need to split. The current BO placement is one of the things that is hurting this new system, also if you are trying to defend a keep without posterns you need 2 wbs minimum which means every in a 60 vs 100 situation. Which leaves plenty of guys to take the bos. So once the keep falls, the zone locks. But even if you have 60 how many are going to actually be playing to hold the zone? Many want the zone to lock to farm loser bags, so they would rather farm kills near a BO, than try to actually defend anything. They get more out of 10 zones locking than spending the night trying to hold the overall zone.

[szejoza]

stuff

I am ignoring poor map design, funnel points etc. because system is a general thing that needs to apply to every zone. Not every zone is mirrored, world isn't a nice playground with fair divisions for everyone. But if you are going to insist on using examples then what about Eataine? The manor (the westernmost BO) can be defended for years with lower force cause of the narrow entrance, and then you have siege camp to the east which can be harrassed all the time as it's easy to get there for both sides. Only 2 BOs in the middle are easy to zerg and run in between in short time. Reikland? Same situation, manor can be defended for years, quarry is easily accesible. Some zones got more open BO, others will help you utilise the environment in your favour if you have lesser force. Accept the fact that nothing is equal and look for a solution not in the system but in your strategy, if you are playing in a zone which doesn't favour defending BOs then do all you can to not lose a keep. The enemy still will be able to lock the zone with BOs only but remember, his forces will be spread then, and there isn't a single zone where you can zerg all 4 BOs efficiently (well, unless it's 200vs40 or smth like that )

[Nidwin]

When destro masses up at Reikwatch bo in Reikland and tell everyone they're ranking up the keep 3 stars while the order navy seals commando are swimming and farming the destro at Reikwatch, you realize that whatever RvR system is being put in place the true issue remains between chair and keyboard on a seemingly decent % of our playerbase. It took a bunch of level 16+ 30- volunteers to take the other bo's and try to hold them against the non navy seals order. Let's forget about what happened during keep siege then, except a big thank you to our destro healers who kept the chaos alive.

The system is fine but this is going to be a long and painful road to get the "between chair and keyboard" issue resolved.

[Wdova]

Is avoidance bug fixed? Is block/parry/dodge/disrubt chance 0% while under KD,Stagger?

Why should you be able to avoid attacks when lying face first in the ground or staggered, with all the new changes that is one of the few guaranteed ways to get kills . . ?

Maybe because I was facing this bug daily a week ago mainly with my BG. Knocked down knight, get infront of him to get to position fo knockback to lava, used knockback and it was blocked... Same scenario while later and it was parried.. so...

[Hargrim]

Can I get a vid of those 15 minutes locks? Also, which zones they took place in?

[Karast]

Can I get a vid of those 15 minutes locks? Also, which zones they took place in?

I will try to get some video from guildies if we have it but I have personally seen both TM, and BFP pop in 10-15 min over the last few days. Went 0-3 star in a flash and then zone locks as the keep fell. In one case with BFP it was almost an instant lock as soon as the zone openned, the keep wasn't taken and from what I could tell there was not time for des to get to 5 stars.