T2

[Tesq]

I always thought that "play as monster" is bullshit and doesn't belong to order side as example, so it doesn't belong to big part of Warhammer. Its implementation always failed, rats were atrocious.
So playing as keep lord, maybe its not a good idea at all. So Mythics only screwed T4 with monster-play.

yea i think too it was a faillure....... They didn't tryed to make ppl more involved in it. Make a player able to be the lord is what i think could be a good start and is totaly different from play as monster as they introduced in 1.4.0
You dont use a npc, your char became the lord until you die there is a lot of difference and you gain some buff for doing that, so keep def do not just end when ppl open the last door or end on the 3rds floor with pots.....

[Telen]

Tesq, if I may offer a piece of advice:

Can you possibly be more concise when posting? The length of your posts is on the verge of becoming a meme!

Many of us got used to scanning through tesqs epic posts to get the gist of what he was saying on bw forums

[Sulorie]

How should i post less if the implication and motivation are big? i try btw.

P.s. you should try to read indeed not like it take more time than read 5 smaller post from others and it's not like write less is equal to give better solution.... i try to explain what i would do and why...... if ppl just tell i think Y with not reason and don't calculate the conseguence of what they suggest i shouldn't and not be the one to get lol at
T2-t3 is complex matter not like make 1 change can solve all problem. Thus ppl that contiuosly make fun of me or anyother and offer no better reason to counter my/others post are not only the cancer of this game but of the whole humanity and they are always been.
They have no motivation so they make fun of other ppl.

Your whole deck contains only one single card:

Spoiler:

On a serious note, your use of color doesn't make it easier to read.

[Ototo]

But this time Tesq had actually REALLY interesting to say, probably cause there are no class balance implying chosens . Im gonna sum u the important part taking out of the multiple examples that made the post so long:

1*Rotate not the full tier, but a de-boolster, so the tiers stay basically untouched, but rank 40s can only enter 1 zone, and locking that zone contributes VP for the purpose of locking the access to city raids.

2*Implement a Victory Points system that counts all the RoR world instead of just t4.

3*Reward in a weekly basis the progress done all along the RoR world to a realm.

I think its an interesting idea, but got struggled off in the amount of examples.

[Tesq]

The VP system should not consider all tiers just t2-t3, t1-t4 remain the same.
T2-t3 make capital more easy/hard depend who have the advantage in lower tiers. They are added value to the capital lock. It's possible go into city even just lock two t4 pairing.
The reset are one once capital is done (only t4 as normal) and weekly ( t2-t3 vp contribution) to prevent 1 realm to gain too much advantage. But if the capital is def it's impossible conquer it with no contribution from t2-t3. So ppl are force to go to t2-t3.

There will be more chance to go into city during the week-end but there will be more ppl to balance the fight cos ppl do not work on week-end.
Also if more ppl could join in the moment where is more easy drop the gear there is less gear gap between casual and others.

[ficklefetus]

I think Tesq offers some very intriguing ideas.

particularly that of;
- reviving zones throughout t2 & t3 and keeping them relevant
- making city sieges exceedingly more difficult after a straight t4 lock scenario -or- (most likely of a case) less frequent of an occurrence

a de-bolster (debuff) effect is also a very interesting idea as it would engage t4 players with the lower tiers.
- guild mates, regardless of their level spread, would have the chance to play together
- lower tier players are given a "purpose" in contributing to their realm's success as a whole
- it would create much more exciting battle experiences from t2 entry through to endgame
****HOWEVER, unless I missed it in deciphering Tesq's explanations, I see some very challenging issues with de-bolstering an endgame t4 player down to, t2 for example, while keeping the native t2 players feeling they have any relevance to the fight.

there are some other issues that come to mind, but one in particular is the fear that this may encourage zerg-like tendencies. for example, what happens when an order heavy t4 locks t4 zones, and rolls into even a semi-balanced t3 ..or t2 zone? how the hell do you defend against that? how many will choose to resist it, or simply decide not to fight the tide and roll with it?

oh, and I don't like the idea of player controlled lords. not at all. I don't like the idea of handing significant power (specifically, realm control) to one, or even a few; doing so only diminishes the rest. just my opinion on that...

[Tesq]

You have right is not out of downside.

1)the first one is the bolster : dev need to start with that. It need to get spread over 3 different brakets

rank stats, equip, renow

these 3 brakets need each of them their proper de-bolster, and particualy difficult are those renow thing that buff by % so these need a specific attentions. (but bolster/de-bolster is something that need anyway a fix from the original war so is still something that need to work on)(btw it's not hard see if a de-bolster and t2-t3 player are equals statswise so you just need to de-bolster for the correct ammount, renow regen stuff / ap / and % need a better look at)


2)about t2-t3 balance fight, only 1 zone at time can be de-bolster so 2 zone are free from other players. In the case t2-t3 zone get lock too much often and t2-t3 player fight only in de-bolster zone and have not good fight (even if this wont be the case cos that's just why we are speak of how make t2-t3 not empty after t4 out) 1 zone by weekly rotation can be make immune to the bolster.
So each week only 2/3 zone can be de-bolster.
De-bolster ppl can fight and lock into 1 zone at time, t2-t3 player can fight and lock 2 zone at time, 1 safe t2-t3 zone and 1 de-bolster zone (Or even 2 safe zone at time if when de-bolster move the zone unlock itself).
You can even increase the range and make t2 player able to go to t3 and this make 4-6 zone to them to fight over, so there so much things to lock that i find hardly belive we cannot found a good way to make them happy.

3)About keep lord that is a personal whish, but for me make it related to keep claim (guild lv 40) and a lot of money make it out of abuse.

4) maybe the worst, how much t2-t3 VP should make city difficult, this is something that require playtest on live. Also the underdog system. Just to be sure to not make ppl always fight in t2-t3 or either completly ingore them as i happened with relics.

But for me this system, would make even inrelevant things like renow books and t4 gap as if you struggle on t4 simply earn some renow in t2-t3.

[khandman]

Here's a few ideas from me. Only thinking about T1 and T2 atm.

Make a zone contested after a certain number of units from both sides are within the warzone. PQ areas can record how many people are within it so the same could be possible for warzones. Say once 12 units from each side are within the warzone, it becomes contested and points can be captured etc. The warzone will remain in that state until it is then locked for the normal 15-20 minutes or what ever. The warzone will then not unlock again unless the unit quota from both sides is met.

This would help reduce the cases of zones being capped with no one from the opposing faction in them.

Could also make lair's for the contested warzone area only spawnable during those times.

T2 zones could follow the same mechanics of a unit quota from each side, but as one of the others mentioned in the previous posts T2 could be more like a round robin. Once Emp T2 has been capped, Dwarf becomes available for becoming contested. Once Dwarf has been locked, Elf could be the same, and then back round to Emp.

Could perhaps make it like if the T1 and T2 zones become locked by the same faction, both Tiers could remain locked for a longer time to encourage conflict in the other tier zones. Instead of say 20 minutes each have then lock for a full hour or maybe 2.

[khandman]

Just to quickly add to my last post.

Once a warzone becomes contested, if the unit count from each side drops below the quota, the warzone remains open until it is locked.

Also perhaps slightly lower the amount of victory gained from caps or scenario's.

[Bozzax]

Remove all renown rewards from pve zone cap
Add defense small ticks for all defenders every x seconds
Add AAO
Block back stair with guards when outnumbered
Move keep lord cap flag to top floor when seriously outnumbered
If we are affraid PUGs will get no renown at least require them to be in combat and let kills reward anyone 100feet range
Done

Never got why you were rewarded renown for not doing RvR. Having players zerging avoiding fights taking empty keeps or standing leeching and getting renown seems wrong