suggestion about... about...

[turlututuhu]

I don't Know what RoR staff have planed for the RvR design but I know they like to read all our suggestions and especially mine suggestions beCAUSE I HAV THE GUD PLAN !
This is not a serious suggestion, this is just an idea.
(respectfull for all the code and the work done to design the currant RvR who is enough fun, so here just some little ****)

Have fun reading !


(all T2 maps for the three pairings have to be locked to unlock the Capital)
( In case of : "If the T1 maps are taken into account for the unlock of the Capital" : when all T2 maps are locked at the "time T" only the T1 maps who are locked at this "T time" are taken into account for the Capital (take T1 maps into account give some spicy and is not crucial and the T1 players can be interested to participate a little for the campaign outcome and that will prepare them for the T2))

To orient the campaign progression to >>> the enemy Fortress you must have at least 2 points out of the 3 available from the first 3 open maps of your pairing.
As example if the realm of Order win BV/MoM and BFP/BD they are sure to orient the campaign to Black Crag even if the realm of Destruction lock Thunder Mountain.
If Order lose Black Crag Thunder Mountain reopened and the Realm of Order lose the 1 point that it won before (the point is "brought back into play").

This «system», just «to try» to encourage all differents characters level to participate to all maps campaign since the firts maps (BV/MoM as example), these first maps can be decisive to orient the campaign progression to the Fortress you want (as player) and win an appropriated amount of medallions and bags (and in future reach enough points to open the Capital) and have more fun in the conflict management.
(this suggestion because I have read an other topic this morning where a player was saying how empty was the first RvR maps today, if I don't misunderstanding him... and only Fortresses was populated viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34244 If you think he is wrong fo me his findings are not totaly wrong)

In past, lock a map was only about "keep take" you was disagree (RoR staff, all or some members...) about this and you have make the Battle Objectives into the account for the map lock. This brought more chilli

Spoiler:

... (spicy) to the conflict, is a nice thing (for me).
Today only the Lock of Thunder Mountain + Black Crag open the BP Fortress (as example), Barak Varr/MoM and BFP/Badlands are not taken into account, they are useless in term of conflict strategy, they are only steps (what realm have locked these maps have no impact for the campaign outcome).
Do you think this first T2 maps have to be more importants ?
Future RvR design, strategy, campaign don't need this sort of suggestion... I don't know... Because I don't know about the future RvR design so I don't know if my suggestion or future suggestions are welcome.
Sorry to waste your time if it'is the case.

This suggestion is not perfect or probably not good but who know... that can give a good idea to any of you (not the idea to ban me from the forum I hope...).





(never look at the two moons of Warhammer right in the eyes, theirs reflections are most dangerous !)

Spoiler:

(love troll)

[colintgallagher]

I would love anything that leads to a more strategic mindset when it comes to fighting on multiple fronts.

If the zone progression somehow lead to a 'tie' of some sort, instead of a fort there could be some kind of 'battle' instance with anyone who contributed across the zone eligible. Open map, no BOs, just a fight. Rezzing only, maybe a limit of 1 per character, releasing will exit the instance for you. Maybe top contributors across the zone could get some kind of 'champion' buff.

Just firing of suggestions as well, love where your head's at Turlu!

[Secrets]

I'd prefer things to stay the way they are. Adding unneeded complexity is a dumb idea. It's hard enough to understand the current system.

[Natherul]

as secrets said, This system would only cause confusion amongst players and give little gain.

The system we have is fine enough for campaign progression

[Dalsie]

This is really interesting.
Definitely worth thinking about, and really detailed effort on the explanation

[Alfa1986]

The idea of ​​scoring points is interesting, but it would be better if it would be as a weekly competition. for winning a T2-T3 zone 0.5 points, for winning a T4 zone +1 point, for winning a fort +2 points, and according to the results of the week, that fraction that scored the most points would receive bonus rewards.

[OndeTv]

Quick thoughts (with no bias for or against the suggestion itself):

- A points system would help achieve the staff goal of city sieges being very rare (when implemented). However, this could be achieved simply by requiring 2 or 3 forts being captured first as well.

- I do not think that using T1 in the system would be a good idea. T1 is where new players (and in some cases old players) start to learn about their character. Also, some people do not have any T1 characters "left" (all careers past lvl 15).

[turlututuhu]

Thank you all.

As I have say above, today whatever the realms who lock Barak Varr/MoM and BFP/Badlands (as example) this has no impact on the campaign progression.
This mean for a small number of players whatever the realm they play : more fastest these two firtest maps are locked for a specific pairing more fastest the way to the Fortresses is opened (most of us have seen some players behaviours who tends to minimize the defence of these maps and let them taken by the enemy Realm to see the Fortress coming more fastest, in order to have more chance to optimize theirs characters with the Invader or a new gear).
With the suggestion above if your realm lose the two firstest maps of a pairing it is really penalized, it lose all chance to go to the enemy Fortress (rewards and bags...) but it is no more penalized for the Capital calculation (only 2 points lost).

Here my last suggestion about... about... this two firstest maps of a pairing, this to include them in the strategy, for the T2 campaign.
I think for this one don't need to open 9 zones at the begining of the campaign, only one by one like today can work (lock BV/MoM open BFP/Bd...).

[Natherul]

it is true that it does not matter who captures the first two zones in a pairing since doomsday.

However your proposing a system that will be hard for players to understand which own its own in an issue.

IF we are to redesign the campaign then it absolutely needs to be a system thats easily understood by players and has to be a system that the team believes in. Until that point the current campaign will stay.

[mogt]

you are right natherul.

at the moment the system is clear and easy to understand.
the problem are the players, we see this so many times, all zones are open and where are the most players yeah in 1 zone, and that is the mistake , this mistake come from the players and NOT from the system.

the players must learn to split with multiple attacks, but how many times, they wrote, we want easy way and we dont want split, if the players dont learn to split and fight, we never get a solution. it is easy to say the system is broken, but the campaign problem are a playerbase problem.

i hope the system how it is, stay. the players want all easy mode,but that is false.