[RvR] Encourage Team Play and Zone Locks

[Hargrim]

Go and hold your BOs Mr. Attacker.

Last time I heard there was a reoccurring complaint of BOs being pointless after Rank 3. Now they have one more point.

This sounds great on paper but always remember that zones should not require population disadvantages to get locked and thats what you are forcing with that change.

Doesn't it really cancel each other out? X players of defender realm cap BO and Y players of attacking realm try to prevent it? Where exactly pop disadvantage happen here?

[Asherdoom]

*politely ignoring OP*

Making bos important during sieges is just pointless. Having that extra 10 rounds of ammo or whatever makes no difference. Why? Because siege weapons don't have a huge impact on the siege, other than rams of course. You can have an entire siege without cannons, they are not mandatory at all. They help with bringing down oil, and that's really it. So I can't see how I would possibly bother with taking a bo during siege to get some ammo for cannons.

Also, why would defenders want to risk going out for a few rounds of ammo, or to make the ram a bit weaker? The best thing you can do to stall the attack, is form up a firm wall of tanks backed up by dps and healers. Use morale cycles, defensive or offensive, and push attackers back, until they either break through or completely shatter on your wall. Going out of the keep at those crucial moments would mean game over for you.

I like the convoys idea. But something would have to be done so that you can't just walk to the bo closest to wc and get supplies. Maybe do it so you can only transport supplies to the furthest point possible. So supplies close to wc have to go to keeps, and supplies close to keeps have to go to wc. When you pick up supplies, a message can pop up telling you where you have to take them, so players don't get confused. This would constantly change the supply routes, possibly making the zone more alive and strategic.

How about this, merging the convoy idea with my bo buffs idea. So you go to a bo, get supplies, and once you deliver them, your realm gets the buff for a couple of minutes perhaps. So if you want to keep the buffs active, you need to have a constant supply runs from those bos.

What about BOs that regenerate doors more than they do now ?

Excuse me why not implement the fact that siege weapons can do damage to keep door and increase their damage and ammo by 5/10%15/20% for each BO you are holding? also why not make siege weapon damage a little bigger? i see in case of defenses i barely do 300 damage about with defensive siege weapons to enemies... totally unworthy in manning.

[bloodi]

Doesn't it really cancel each other out? X players of defender realm cap BO and Y players of attacking realm try to prevent it? Where exactly pop disadvantage happen here?

If i want the keep, i need a 6 man on each BO and 24 man on the keep, i know you can do it with more or less but just taking those numbers as a standard example.

So 2 warbands, now lets say we have equal numbers, the defender stations 48 man on the keep, you are not going past that.

So i send 48 to the keep, they go to the BOs, you dont get it.

The issue here is you are forcing only one side to split up, the attackers. The defenders can just react to the enemy and blob or split depending on what the attacker does and the only way for the attacker to circumvent that is either knowing the future or zerging them.

And all of this without taking into account that currently you already need more people on the attacking side than on the defending one to be succesful.

[Hargrim]

Excuse me why not implement the fact that siege weapons can do damage to keep door and increase their damage and ammo by 5/10%15/20% for each BO you are holding? also why not make siege weapon damage a little bigger? i see in case of defenses i barely do 300 damage about with defensive siege weapons to enemies... totally unworthy in manning.

Who said we won't do that? It's in the works.

[Hargrim]

If i want the keep, i need a 6 man on each BO and 24 man on the keep, i know you can do it with more or less but just taking those numbers as a standard example.

So 2 warbands, now lets say we have equal numbers, the defender stations 48 man on the keep, you are not going past that.

So i send 48 to the keep, they go to the BOs, you dont get it.

The issue here is you are forcing only one side to split up, the attackers. The defenders can just react to the enemy and blob or split depending on what the attacker does and the only way for the attacker to circumvent that is either knowing the future or zerging them.

And all of this without taking into account that currently you already need more people on the attacking side than on the defending one to be succesful.

You don't need to hold all 4 BOs all the time - you need to react to what oponent is doing. If defenders try to get BOs - send some people and kill them. If they blob at keep - blob at keep.

All in all, we will see how it goes. With current skill level of players I think it might be ok.

[bloodi]

You don't need to hold all 4 BOs all the time - you need to react to what oponent is doing. If defenders try to get BOs - send some people and kill them. If they blob at keep - blob at keep.

All in all, we will see how it goes. With current skill level of players I think it might be ok.

But Hargrim, attacking a keep is already a handicapped situation, you are just putting the attackers in even more of a handicap, you gave the defenders another option and the attackers get the same ones.

You already need more people on the attacking side for it to be succesful, now the attackers need to split up while mantaining enough numbers on the keep to gain control of it while they endure the keep lord phase.

So what is the point of the change? How does make anything better besides making attacking, which is already harder than defending, more difficult? What is the point of that?

[Hargrim]

But Hargrim, attacking a keep is already a handicapped situation, you are just putting the attackers in even more of a handicap, you gave the defenders another option and the attackers get the same ones.

You already need more people on the attacking side for it to be succesful, now the attackers need to split up while mantaining enough numbers on the keep to gain control of it while they endure the keep lord phase.

So what is the point of the change? How does make anything better besides making attacking, which is already harder than defending, more difficult? What is the point of that?

Point is to make BOs matter during whole campaign. I think that buffs alone won't do it, but if you can propose something, all the better, maybe we can implement it. Also, I (and not only me) will play the game while this change is active and if it doesn't work it can be changed. As everything (or most) other things.

[bloodi]

Point is to make BOs matter during whole campaign. I think that buffs alone won't do it, but if you can propose something, all the better, maybe we can implement it. Also, I (and not only me) will play the game while this change is active and if it doesn't work it can be changed. As everything (or most) other things.

I know it can get changed, i dont think i argued otherwise, i however argued that while making Bos matter is a good intention, the way to helll is paved with them.

We already tested enviroments that benefitted the defenders and all we got was people xrealming to the defending side and people getting baited into attacking keeps over and over, was not fun at all.

If you want BOs to matter, there needs to be a grace period where after taking control of them, you can concentrate your forces on the keep, at least on the current lord and keep state.

So if the idea is to take control of all bos then be able to attack the keep, cool, if you need to have the attacker on a handicap for them to matter, it doesnt add anything but an extra hurdle for the side that already had more of them in their way.

[Collateral]

What bloodi is talking about is what I also believe should not be done, but I suppose I didn't make it clear enough.

Making bos important during sieges is not the way to go about it. First as I said a dozen times now, they serve no purpose UNTIL the siege itself, which is simply boring and shallow. That's why I thought about something that would make the game more strategic and interesting before the keep siege itself.

I think bloodi pointed out fairly precisely why the idea of bos having an impact on the siege is not a good solution. It just seems to me that too much attention is put on the sieges. If you make the system like "more ammo for cannons" or "more door regen", it only matters in sieges. So why would people care about them during the campaign? I realize that sieges are the biggest zergs there are, so it's no wonder the devs want to disperse the population during those times. But I have a feeling that bos won't help with that. Like bloodi pointed out, it will just cripple one side most likely.

I have no problems with trying out anything, so if you guys have something in mind definitely put it out there for people to test.

[Yaliskah]

via Imgflip Meme Generator


Hi all. It seems this post takes some distance with the OP.

About future ORvR deployments, i think there is no surprises.
All is here since months, and nothing in the general pattern haven't changed since day 1 conception : viewtopic.php?f=2&t=22943

So, unless you have a crystal ball i haven't, your opinion worth mine . You know mine. Have been very clear about it.

What i see :

Holding BO : Wait hammer : worst idea ever : it works
Merging tiers : Probably need some refining for lowbies, but it works
Lock conditions : 5star lock : stupid :It works
Bag roll (not contribution system) : Need refining but nobody complains comparing old system
Multipairing : You got it. What are you doing with? nothing except complaining about zerg. (which is probably the biggest 2017 joke for me).

Is actual ORvR good : yes it is ok. I want it better, and finally great/perfect. Nothing less.

Am i stupid? Of course i am. Who could hold this project for 4 years and continu except stupid ppl?

Try, test, make feedbacks and and see.

And in the end, if it is a fail blame Yali.
If it is a win, praise the team.