The Сampaign is not rewarding.

[nat3s]

Spoiler:

Look since I am eu player myself I know you guys. And still I am not wrong.

If you have too many defenders split your forces and siege another zone at the same time. If you are as awesome as you think you should be able to hold most defenders in their keep so other people can take mostly undefended zones.... But wait for that to happen you would have to sacrifice potential rewards. Guess that option is out also...

And btw for a fort to have 300 defenders the attackers would need 400 players since fort defenders cap is at 75% of the attackers. The last forts I have seen had 240 attackers and 180 defenders.

Splitting forces is one tactic of many that the organised guilds are continually using to try to break the deadlock. You are pointing out the obvious.

If guilds are already doing the, not very mind-blowing and entirely obvious suggestions from your post, and still EU prime is not seeing cities, can you now accept that the problem is not the players, rather the system? It is definitely not the case that US TZ guilds are magically much more organised/skillful (good though they are).

Is it really? Then why am I seeing the things I mentioned all the time...
I give you that there should be more ways to get into keeps other than postern and main gate. More things like catapults to get over the walls or cannons actually damaging the walls to break them.

But still the system is fine. You get invader and royals from zone locks also and as mentioned earlier it's about the best gear in the game. It shouldn't be too easy to get the best in the game.

I'd be totally fine if the approach they took was to nerf how easy it is to progress the campaign with a low pop so US TZ sees a city every few weeks similar to EU. What I dislike is this notion that it's totally fine to let one timezone have daily city farms and get easy mode Sov (which devalues it). At current rate EU players are looking at roughly 2 years for a set of Sov unless they no-life it and play during antisocial hours.

Of course if US TZ only had a city every few weeks you'd see that timezone decline too. Players won't stick around for an unreasonable grind, the pop has literally fallen off a cliff recently.

[nat3s]

Spoiler:

Look since I am eu player myself I know you guys. And still I am not wrong.

If you have too many defenders split your forces and siege another zone at the same time. If you are as awesome as you think you should be able to hold most defenders in their keep so other people can take mostly undefended zones.... But wait for that to happen you would have to sacrifice potential rewards. Guess that option is out also...

And btw for a fort to have 300 defenders the attackers would need 400 players since fort defenders cap is at 75% of the attackers. The last forts I have seen had 240 attackers and 180 defenders.

Splitting forces is one tactic of many that the organised guilds are continually using to try to break the deadlock. You are pointing out the obvious.

If guilds are already doing the, not very mind-blowing and entirely obvious suggestions from your post, and still EU prime is not seeing cities, can you now accept that the problem is not the players, rather the system? It is definitely not the case that US TZ guilds are magically much more organised/skillful (good though they are).

Splitting forces may be an obvious tactic but its execution is tricky. You have to anticipate what the masses of low effort players are going to do who aren't under your control and plan accordingly. You also haveto take strategic risks. If you start a siege and midway through you see that there is a 99% of taking the keep, you might want to divert alot of people to starting a siege somewhere else, so much that you lower the chances of taking the first one by alot,to say 75%, but perhaps your chances of taking the second are 50%. The net result of that strategy is you gain .26 more keeps ( .99 versus 1.25). Of course the issue is that you may lose the first one or both; there is a significant chance of it. It doesn't mean the strategy is bad but most people would prefer not to take that kind of risk. I never see order do this.

By the way, I've been in city warbands in the last two months that have defeated ones with significant numbers of pnp. And bombling's group is not top tier. They have weak leadership, nonideal warband composition, and are insufficiently selective in the pugs they take. The best order city warbands are fenryl's (montague) and bolded's (knights of order).

-Hagger, Runepriest

Another totally obvious series of suggestions which, given you're making them, suggests you are unaware of the coordination that takes place to try to bring cities to players like you.

The simple point here is that it is easy to progress to a city with low pop, it is much much harder during EU prime. That is irrefutable, just look at the frequency of cities in each timezone.

[axelpl85]

Friends from US time zone.
You dont seem to realize our problem. Its not that we want freebie royals and the content is too hard for us to manage.
Problem is what you have in your primetime we consider easymode. not because players are worse, but because numbers allow pushing the zones.
When a fort is being defended by 250+ players, attackers only get in because we let them. In smaller scale a geared organized warband usually holds against larger pug, but in large scale anything will melt in the doorway.
Many players from EU log in because US zone push is a lot easier and for me and many more its a welfare.

In EU time in large numbers defending a zone is counterproductive as a reward for successful defense is being denied only thing that interests you progress-wise. Current mechanics basically promotes zone throwing, giving up on purpose, city logging, xrealming.
These actions should be considered illegal, but in abovementioned 250+ defender fort its unlikely attackers take it unless defenders give up on purpose.

[Brickson]

I'm going a bit off topic here, but to be honest, I would be happy if people would stop embracing this kind of elitist idea that getting the best gear should be super duper hard and should take forever. I can see this making some sense for pve content where you're not fighting other people. But in pvp this results in players stomping others just because they had way more time to invest in the gear grind. I would like to lose a fight because the other person/group played better and not because they outgeared me. That's not fun for the stomped person and probably also not for some of the stompers.

So in my perfect world you would level up and get better gear till you're 40 to learn your class. After that something like conquerer would be top of the gear chain stat wise and every other set is just for appearence or different stat allocation to suit different playstyles. To have a fair foundation to compete with others.
For pve you could use the ward system to make higher dungeons require the previous wards to be able to deal or take enough damage to the mobs. This would give some kind of gear progression without negatively effecting other players.

But enough from my fairytale land....

[doxifera]

[/quote]
Is it hard to get? Yes and it should be!
[/quote]

No, its not.Its not hard, people already collect the fourth set, if you live in US or dont sleep/work

[Janner]

Splitting forces is one tactic of many that the organised guilds are continually using to try to break the deadlock. You are pointing out the obvious.

If guilds are already doing the, not very mind-blowing and entirely obvious suggestions from your post, and still EU prime is not seeing cities, can you now accept that the problem is not the players, rather the system? It is definitely not the case that US TZ guilds are magically much more organised/skillful (good though they are).

Splitting forces may be an obvious tactic but its execution is tricky. You have to anticipate what the masses of low effort players are going to do who aren't under your control and plan accordingly. You also haveto take strategic risks. If you start a siege and midway through you see that there is a 99% of taking the keep, you might want to divert alot of people to starting a siege somewhere else, so much that you lower the chances of taking the first one by alot,to say 75%, but perhaps your chances of taking the second are 50%. The net result of that strategy is you gain .26 more keeps ( .99 versus 1.25). Of course the issue is that you may lose the first one or both; there is a significant chance of it. It doesn't mean the strategy is bad but most people would prefer not to take that kind of risk. I never see order do this.

By the way, I've been in city warbands in the last two months that have defeated ones with significant numbers of pnp. And bombling's group is not top tier. They have weak leadership, nonideal warband composition, and are insufficiently selective in the pugs they take. The best order city warbands are fenryl's (montague) and bolded's (knights of order).

-Hagger, Runepriest

Another totally obvious series of suggestions which, given you're making them, suggests you are unaware of the coordination that takes place to try to bring cities to players like you.

The simple point here is that it is easy to progress to a city with low pop, it is much much harder during EU prime. That is irrefutable, just look at the frequency of cities in each timezone.

If this series of suggestions is 'completely obvious' then why is it I never see it happening on order? Like, never. And if it isn't happening on that side, I doubt it is on destro. Maybe your problem is you are too arrogant and condescending to learn how to play together with less focused and committed players toward achieving a goal. Maybe you just think you've figured it all out and don't see the complexities of the strategic maneuvers that are available.

Here's another example. Instead of getting together 10 warbands of highly focused and skillful destro to coordinate the campaign, why not spread those 240 people out among every single warband on destro side. Whenever a warband starts filling up in a zone you designate someone in your discord to start a new one as an overflow and rinse and repeat. This way you prevent pure pug overflow warbands from forming. So every single destro warband on the server has someone leading it that is coordinating with every other warband leader in discord, but each warband also has a significant amount of pure pugs. But all the pugs are now contained in a framework of coordinated leadership.

But watch you respond with some bs about 'oh that's totally completely very obvious we've already done that a million times.' Did you actually try hard to communicate with the pugs or just talk amongst yourselvs on discord? Did you make it incredibly easy for them to understand what's going on and be motivated to follow directions or you just assume they 'should' know and you shouldn't have to motivate them to play the game well?

[doxifera]

Try to get Sov when the City happens, at best, once a week, and it’s not always, and in addition to this, there is a high probability of not getting pop.You continue to push the campaign and melt from the players who have already collected 2-3 Sov sets...

[yoluigi]

They need to make it soo after your RR80+ you get more in bags (4 royal in gold,3,2,1 in white bags) or something I never do city's why? The reason they alwas popin the night after NA hours

[nat3s]

Splitting forces may be an obvious tactic but its execution is tricky. You have to anticipate what the masses of low effort players are going to do who aren't under your control and plan accordingly. You also haveto take strategic risks. If you start a siege and midway through you see that there is a 99% of taking the keep, you might want to divert alot of people to starting a siege somewhere else, so much that you lower the chances of taking the first one by alot,to say 75%, but perhaps your chances of taking the second are 50%. The net result of that strategy is you gain .26 more keeps ( .99 versus 1.25). Of course the issue is that you may lose the first one or both; there is a significant chance of it. It doesn't mean the strategy is bad but most people would prefer not to take that kind of risk. I never see order do this.

By the way, I've been in city warbands in the last two months that have defeated ones with significant numbers of pnp. And bombling's group is not top tier. They have weak leadership, nonideal warband composition, and are insufficiently selective in the pugs they take. The best order city warbands are fenryl's (montague) and bolded's (knights of order).

-Hagger, Runepriest

Another totally obvious series of suggestions which, given you're making them, suggests you are unaware of the coordination that takes place to try to bring cities to players like you.

The simple point here is that it is easy to progress to a city with low pop, it is much much harder during EU prime. That is irrefutable, just look at the frequency of cities in each timezone.

If this series of suggestions is 'completely obvious' then why is it I never see it happening on order? Like, never. And if it isn't happening on that side, I doubt it is on destro. Maybe your problem is you are too arrogant and condescending to learn how to play together with less focused and committed players toward achieving a goal. Maybe you just think you've figured it all out and don't see the complexities of the strategic maneuvers that are available.

Here's another example. Instead of getting together 10 warbands of highly focused and skillful destro to coordinate the campaign, why not spread those 240 people out among every single warband on destro side. Whenever a warband starts filling up in a zone you designate someone in your discord to start a new one as an overflow and rinse and repeat. This way you prevent pure pug overflow warbands from forming. So every single destro warband on the server has someone leading it that is coordinating with every other warband leader in discord, but each warband also has a significant amount of pure pugs. But all the pugs are now contained in a framework of coordinated leadership.

But watch you respond with some bs about 'oh that's totally completely very obvious we've already done that a million times.' Did you actually try hard to communicate with the pugs or just talk amongst yourselvs on discord? Did you make it incredibly easy for them to understand what's going on and be motivated to follow directions or you just assume they 'should' know and you shouldn't have to motivate them to play the game well?

Unless you've been part of a proper competitive guild and seen the massive amount of effort in terms of thinking up strats, practicing WB fights and learning how to play together effectively, to think you'll be able to magically come up with something that hasn't occurred to all these highly motivated and coordinated players, that you know better, that for me, is arrogance. But by all means step up to the plate, join one of the organised guilds and jump on comms and tell their leadership what they're doing wrong...

At the risk of repeating myself, city sieges happen daily in late US TZ when pop is low and happen monthly in EU prime where pop is highest. That's a problem and whilst I agree with you that sometimes skill and coordination is an issue, it's mostly a system design problem rather than a player problem. It's simply very easy to push a campaign when pop is low.

[doxifera]

Some trolls try to turn the discussion in a different direction, but the main problem is that most players (most players play quietly, do not sit on the forum and quietly stop playing) do not receive rewards for the campaign, while participating and pushing it, do not receive rewards because that the city happens when they are offline or don’t get pop, or low level (just are meat on the battlefield that does all the dirty work and don’t get anything for it).
The campaign is a concept - all realm troops gather, do their job and strive to conquer the enemy faction, but only a small part of the players who were online at the right time and were lucky enough to receive pop - receive a reward for this.