T2

[Tesq]

uhm the system i suggested mitigate that by make vp from t2-t3 relevant so unless they are plainning to never done capitals they cannot just swap relentlessly, ppl need to play more for the realm.

That said until t4 get implement my system would anyway have no sense and so i have no good idea about the problem of ppl swap side.It can be troublesome.
But i dont think all ppl have the time to build 2-3 char on both side. What we saw on war in 1.4.0 was even due to the easy way to level until rr 80 due to the renow bonus and the fact that powerlevel ppl were not banned and not discovered.
I think we will see this happen less here.Even if this slow progression towards t4 help somehow build more character on different side.
Maybe this is something that's better fix Computer side finding a way to not allow ppl swap side too much instead fix-it in game.
Being an rvr game somekind of measures should be taken at somepoint.

[Bozzax]

Maybe this is something that's better fix Computer side finding a way to not allow ppl swap side too much instead fix-it in game. Being an rvr game somekind of measures should be taken at somepoint.

Will be hard how you gonna block a guy with several rigs, several accounts and IP-tunnels

[Tesq]

It was alredy suggested in other threads, launcher should send the ID from computer/motherboard to the server, the server should then look at the history activity of the logged account x pc, that way from 1 pc you couldn't not immediatly swap to another account (let say if more member of the same family play war from the same pc 1h should be ok)

But as i alredy told i dont know how much this can be hard i have zero knowlodge in coding.

Multiple walls like IP check,Computer check and realm bind for x hours after swap should prevent that if it's possible make a system this way.

Those who would escape this would be ppl with 2+ computer, but just 1 error ( like IP or use of wrong account) and server could see that. Try to avoid the restriction mean perma Ban so i think ppl would think carefully before doing that. Also at that point we will run into a restric number of ppl , so few that they will hardly influence the game

[Telen]

How to avoid reluctance towards other (empty) zones? Make them a part of the system (system which brings reasonable benefits for players), do not exclude them from it.

If pairings had rolling unlocks then player would have to go to the other zones when they were open for cap.

[Mor]

I have no idea how long does it take for a zone to reset in T2/3 but I'm pretty sure you would have plenty of time to cap some other.

[Jayzboi]

I am really happy that Tesq is not a part of the team who fix the game

[magter3001]

I am really happy that Tesq is not a part of the team who fix the game

Well this game me a laugh.

Ty

[ficklefetus]

Tesq does have some good ideas.

someone else mentioned this too; t2-t3 has some great zones -arguably better overall than t4, but wasted once the majority of player pop levels out. as a t4 player on live, I would have LOVED to revisit those zones again.

why throw away good content that's already created?

[ficklefetus]

back onto OP's topic.... I suppose the challenge is: how do you discourage easymode PvE merry-go-round zone capping and the zerg mentality, encourage underdogs to defend/fight, and try to provide a landscape to the player for combat options ranging from solo -to- small skirmishes -to- larger scale rvr?

based off Telen's original thoughts, my humble idea is this:

- 2 of the 3 zones are 'active battlegrounds' - while the third remains dormant
- 1 of the 2 active battlegrounds is fully vulnerable; BOs and keeps for the taking
- the remaining active battleground has invulnerable keeps, and only BOs are available for the taking
- locking the primary active battleground causes:
1) the other active BG's keeps to become vulnerable
2) the dormant zone's BOs to become vulnerable yet its keeps do not
- should the dominating realm continue to lock the next (second) active BG:
1) the final BG's keeps become vulnerable
2) the previously locked BG's BOs become vulnerable
- should the dominating realm lock the third and final zone WHILE retaining control of at least 2 of the 4 BOs in the other active BG
1) the winning realm receives a great XP / INF / renown bonus and a loot roll based off contributions of taking BOs and keeps
2) the losing realm receives a loot roll based off contributions

incentive for taking and holding BOs might be that BOs award a resource that scales up defenses on controlled and vulnerable BO defense, whether stronger champions or simply spawning more of them. ~combats zerg as there is potential of losing a tier lock to even a small active group coordinating attacks on unprotected BOs in the BO only vulnerable zone.

AAO is great, but it doesn't provide much incentive to players if they feel their efforts are as effective and rewarding as throwing their body in front of a steamroller. To combat zerginess - predetermined numbers of total dominant population counts (in that tier, of course) may set off a stepping system of providing the underdog realm with a warcamp spawned champion (champions?) that will begin attacking BOs in the BO only vulnerable zone. Capturing BOs award a scaling XP and INF reward to underdog realm based on tier population ratio.

sorry for the length

[Mor]

why throw away good content that's already created?

Exactly. I'd rather devs do soemthing about those zones than rushing into T3. There is so much nice PvE and RvR in those zones to be wasted...