New xRealm Lockout

[Wam]

lockout is tricky, its open to abuse eitherway

There are way too many bandwagon/fairweather players out there for sure but of course people will go for easy gains its in their nature but to the extent they do... i.e (tonight a 100+ destro show up out of no where... after true destro have been fighting AAO for awhile before that in every zone)

A core amount of people are order only, a core amount are destro, a minor amount swap to underdog... I'd potentially consider swapping too if me and the majority of my guild wasn't locked... the majority of people seem to log in mostly for forts and grinding end gear and then bandwagon onto a realm which appears to have momentum.

It doesn't help that order is very defensive minded and throws zones too many times just to game the system and get easy rewards by default.
I think dev's try to find right middle ground and limit the potential abuse... because there was/is a issue of people swapping to defenders and seeing those numbers spike pre fort, throwing a zone playing passively.

Players are ultimately to blame, player mentality... Dev's cannot really fix that, maybe if there was alternate way to grind invader via kills it would make it less of a issue with the fort wall / locking end game/gear content, but pretty sure players would still game the system and dev's would have to keep a eye on kill trading more if that happend as some people go to any length.

If order was more aggressive and tried to push zones, maybe bandwagoners would swap sides... i would like destro to be underdog again = more action. Being locked in the same side with fairweather bandwagoners is not ideal who diminish your work, rewards, action and fun. (100 people do not just show up out of no where on one side during middle primetime EU) But it is how it is, hard to change how community behaves... (my problem is only with bandwagoners not core players who have a bit more integrity (bandwagoners probably same people who use to x realm to always defend forts, not the core people you always see on either side)

[Aethilmar]

There are plenty of folks on Order who are "aggressive". But even when things are going well, we are sieging and looks like we will cap the zone there seems to be these sudden influxes of "surprise" warbands from Destro. They come in, start putting up a fight or even wipe us and then suddenly the numbers shift and shift hard with those 100 random PVE heroes piling on. Now we are fighting seasoned Destro warbands and a bunch randoms and AAO is in the 40-60% (or higher) range.

Given that, why would Order spend so much effort taking zones when we have learned the hard way that all our efforts will be shat on by the pop imbalance at any given moment? The good news for Order is the folks playing here are adventurous and take it in stride and with good humor (mostly). But the lesson is clear. Play for fun. Don't bother with zones because you will get roflstomped at some point. Kind of liberating actually.

That said, if you want the imbalance to switch back it will honestly take a couple of major guilds switching permanently or at least for a while.

[turlututuhu]

It could be great to not be able to switch to the others side since the start of a campaign to the end (T2 maps opened >>>to the>>> City seige).
Or to encourage players to not switching realms.

Outnumbered or not, I try to not change to the other realm before the lock of the map I choose and start to investigate my time.
In past I was switching to the underpopulated realm but I think and I have experienced it is not a good idea to play a war game that way, for my self and others players I play with.
Thing seems to equilibrate themself with time, too many switch from players for the good or the bad seems (for me) to unbalance things more and more and disengage players away from the RvR event (less intensivty).
Game become more intesiv that way (for me), good intensivity in a game need determinated players.

A thing I noticed, there are some guilds who are checking for the realms population before to choose the realm they will play (and the realm where their "nemesis guild" or there "friendly guild" play this day, to play with or to not play against).
Surely a real competitiv guild do that.
Some "open WB" leaders do that too.

But start a campaign and achieve it is the real purpose of a war game.

[xpander]

Maybe a good idea would be to give some kind of debuff (like the quiter one or chicken) like theres no real lock but if you enter a RvR lake with say Destro character then you are counted and flaged for say 4 hours and when you try to enter to RvR with your Order one you will get a chicken. In this way PvE would still be usable.

Just throwing in some random ideas. Ofc people like to game the system anyway and get most out of the situations

[Sollessa]

I don't know. It seems a bit much and it can screw with people doing something as simple as checking the auction house or something on multiple characters. What if a friend or SO suddenly wants to play the other side when they get home and you can't because you're locked out while you were just running around in PvE stuff. I think the lockout should only affect people that enter a open world PvP area. If they enter one of the open world PvP areas they get locked out from joining the other side for a period of time. You can even make it a few hours but then the lockout becomes workable and only affects the people the lockout was targeted at.

[Acidic]

Saw someone post the suggestion of lockout based on campaign “ (T2 maps opened >>>to the>>> City seige).”

This would get my vote (opps don’t get vote)

The ability to swap sides to ride AAO should not be allowed imo, chose a side for campaign and stick with it

X-realming is a pain a destroys the effort of attackers and defenders when there are obvious population jumps , obviously there are other causes than pure swap sides but while it’s possible to game by encouraging a side to attack then swap to farm AAO on siege defense you know it’s wrong.

One of the standard methods of pushing a campaign in any situation is to demoralize the enemy so they log /don’t compete . Right now with oil buff and 24 hit cap it’s easy to defend choke points and giving the ability to swap sides and farm this destroys the work of the organized play that caused the other side to give up.

[BeautfulToad]

Xrealming can be monitored by devs. As an EU player, I have not seen any real evidence that xrealming is a serious problem affecting the game, affects the result of rvr, or ever was a serious problem.

[Arbich]

Xrealming was a problem when forts were open for all. As forts have a limited number of participants now again (and it will stay like this?), the lockout timer should be removed.
Lockout timer make it more complicated to test some stuff and in result report possible bugs. The lockout timer kicks in when you login (doesn't matter which side you were playing the day before). You have to consider some drawbacks before logging to the underpopulated realm (which should always be encouraged)

[Jabba]

Is it possible to have the lockout only apply to joining the more populated side?

Eg. Destro have more people.

You log into destro first, no lockout, can swap to order. When you swap to order, you get lockout and can't rejoin destro for 90 mins.

You log into order first, it works as it does already, can't swap to destro for 90 mins.

[Sulorie]

The lockout timer kicks in when you login (doesn't matter which side you were playing the day before).

I am aware, that it works this way but I was under the impression, that this isn't exactly how it is supposed to be.
Afaik all statements about this by devs made me think, that you only get a timer, when you swap realm, no matter how often you restart client.