Fort defence rewards

[BeautfulToad]

There will be more rewards for the RvR campaign in general, based on the underdog side, but first of all Triumphant Emblems are for ranked, let's get that out of the way of RvR.

Secondly, you're basing your info on off-peak hours, in the EU primetime, the forts get defended as needed. Surely there could be some throwing here and there, but in general it's better than how it was. We keep saying that it's a player-driven campaign, players are the main decision makers and warband leaders have more impact than they believe they have. Less rewards in fort for the losing side makes throwing more painful, do not blame the devs for that, blame the people who made throwing more trendy.

I don't disagree with any of that. I don't think throwing is a problem.

My only point is that the Q&A said that rvr is still the centrepiece of the game. Yet the best gear, the only leaderboards, etc are all stuck behind 6v6, in which you need Sovereign Gear to compete (which you get from rvr), and so attention should be given on increasing the prominence and perceived importance of fort and rvr battles in particular.

This, in my view, would likely entail slightly increasing rewards, especially for top performers. To my mind, of equal (or more) importance is improving notoriety of individual players and also guilds (through seasonal leaderboards, automated announcements, etc) that perform well in these battles, or maybe lead warbands to victory.

To put it simply, if you want to be "famous" in ror, you go a class and pick a meta specifically suited for 6v6 ranked solo, and you don't head to the lakes to gank, lead warbands, heal, and siege, etc. If orvr is the centrepiece, it should really be the other way round.

[Mordd]

Playing some game modes just for the sake of the rewards and not participating in a 30 minutes defense because it has 2 medallions less than usual is one of the issues in the player-driven campaign. Let's consider such threads are causing a domino effect, players who initially wanted to defend won't anymore and you're kind of dooming your timezone's fort win-rate.

Nevertheless when there were more rewards for the loser side, throwing was occurring more often. At least in the EU prime-time, throwing is drastically less in forts now. Just 2 days ago, the last fort was fiercely defended and a 5 stars city has been denied. It has also happened several times.

The bags for defending a keep have been requested and provided, you can read some people asking to throw outer gate in order to win a bag roll. These people could potentially make the whole community lose such implementations of bags which is one of the reasons why throwing or pushing to throw are against the rules.

If you're going to play just for the sake of maximizing rewards wherever you go, you'll end up leaving out of frustration sooner or later.

Play the game to enjoy it first and to gear up second. You can do both perfectly.

Your entire argument makes zero sense. Before you only got a bag roll and a royal if you won, be that attack or defense. But you at least got a decent reward as the average joe for just showing up. So the population would show up filling in the bodies needed for the good organized WBs to defend. But the organized WB really only got their better reward if they defended. Now they just have to do better than the average pug WB to get a bag, they dont actually have to try and win. So I cant see how this would make throwing less. For the good WBs it would encourage throwing more. You still get a reward for throwing. But the randoms have very little reason to show up now. The relog timer on forts did far more at least in NA time to stop people from just zerging to city and then reloging to the side they want city on.

In NA when its going to be a heavy loss, why even go to just be farmed by the high pop side. I am playing for fun and being farmed is NOT fun and is even worse now as even less people show up.

At high pop times this may work ok, though is still backwards, rewarding the organized players for a loss and screwing the rest. At low pop times where the fort is not filled on either side it exasperates the population imbalance.

[GamesBond]

There will be more rewards for the RvR campaign in general, based on the underdog side, but first of all Triumphant Emblems are for ranked, let's get that out of the way of RvR.

Secondly, you're basing your info on off-peak hours, in the EU primetime, the forts get defended as needed. Surely there could be some throwing here and there, but in general it's better than how it was. We keep saying that it's a player-driven campaign, players are the main decision makers and warband leaders have more impact than they believe they have. Less rewards in fort for the losing side makes throwing more painful, do not blame the devs for that, blame the people who made throwing more trendy.

I don't disagree with any of that. I don't think throwing is a problem.

My only point is that the Q&A said that rvr is still the centrepiece of the game. Yet the best gear, the only leaderboards, etc are all stuck behind 6v6, in which you need Sovereign Gear to compete (which you get from rvr), and so attention should be given on increasing the prominence and perceived importance of fort and rvr battles in particular.

This, in my view, would likely entail slightly increasing rewards, especially for top performers. To my mind, of equal (or more) importance is improving notoriety of individual players and also guilds (through seasonal leaderboards, automated announcements, etc) that perform well in these battles, or maybe lead warbands to victory.

To put it simply, if you want to be "famous" in ror, you go a class and pick a meta specifically suited for 6v6 ranked solo, and you don't head to the lakes to gank, lead warbands, heal, and siege, etc. If orvr is the centrepiece, it should really be the other way round.

Ranked does not have THE best gear, it's one of the best, alongside Sovereign, Warlord and Invader for some classes. The same argument that is mentioned over and over again that RoR is no longer playable unless you become a hardcore ranked player is getting annoying to be honest. At the end of the day you're free to follow whatever path you choose and you're free to keep on getting frustrated, both the CM team and the Devs have done their part in explaining.

Ranked is a game mode that we wished to implement before continuing forward. The rest is mainly RvR. A lot of fingers have been pointed towards the devs for focusing on Ranked, yet everyone forgot everything that was done for RvR in the previous years, from small finetuning to large changes/releases. So again, Ranked was a milestone that needed to be completed. RvR remains the main game mode, but stop judging every single move done outside of RvR please - it's not helping and it won't shift the development focus, as you might have noticed (it's also written in the ToS).

Your entire argument makes zero sense.

Okey ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Eschatology]

You could always try removing or reducing the disparity between win/loss rewards and see if it encourages more participation. Rewards tied to wins could be largely cosmetic and tiered - think something along the lines of the weekend warfront or event tiered reward. I always fear that win/loss reward disparity in a gear-centric game further increases the power disparity, discouraging newer players from engaging in certain content and promoting toxic environments. Encourage more people to play all the content by making time spent feel worthwhile, even after a loss.

Understanding this could lead to zone/fort/city throwing to maximize rewards over time, tie the overall number of rewards for both sides to total kill/death or total renown gained in the zone.

Just an idea.

-Eschatology/Dummyhead

[CountTalabecland]

I have seen not shortage of people rushing to fill forts every time they happen.

This thread seems less than honest. "Lack of Defenders," is not an issue during the populated times of this server.

I understand why they don't raise losing rewards. Anytime throwing seems even remotely rewarding, people tend to do it. Keep defense bags based on contribution has actually motivated people to defend pre-fort zones for a chance for a good bag roll if they win, not just X3 Invader for being present and then go fort.

[Akalukz]

Could put in an ORvR event Defend xxx number of Forts (keeps) / Take xxx Number of Forts (keeps)

The RvR quests are meh compared to the 2 weekly scenarios events. Want an event slot items, 99% of the time you have to participate in a scenario. Want renown potions... event scenario...

[Mordd]

I have seen not shortage of people rushing to fill forts every time they happen.

This thread seems less than honest. "Lack of Defenders," is not an issue during the populated times of this server.

I understand why they don't raise losing rewards. Anytime throwing seems even remotely rewarding, people tend to do it. Keep defense bags based on contribution has actually motivated people to defend pre-fort zones for a chance for a good bag roll if they win, not just X3 Invader for being present and then go fort.

So in your world there is only one time zone. How myopic. NA prime time forts have been on average around 140 vs 70. It was actually worse before the realm timer on forts. So it would seem your post is "less than truthful" or just ill informed.

[Mordd]

Ranked does not have THE best gear,

Your entire argument makes zero sense.

Okey ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Actually for many classes a combination of ranked and sov is Bis, anyone can see it.
Nice job responding while actually ignoring what i wrote.

[BeautfulToad]

At the end of the day you're free to follow whatever path you choose and you're free to keep on getting frustrated

While a lot of people are frustrated at these things, I am not particularly bothered. I enjoy the game. Would it also be nice to look at some orvr stats in a leaderboard of some description? Yes.

All I am saying is that cosmetically, due to leaderboards and the nature of Solo Ranked, it appears as though ranked is where you go after you graduate from orvr. If you ask "who is the best player", you naturally will look at a list of people in the /leaderboard, not a leaderboard of orvr participants and people who have led warbands. I'm not saying that the ranked solo stuff is rubbish, a waste of time, etc. It's good, I just hope some of that stuff could be brought into orvr and forts.

If anything, you have done such a good job with Solo Ranked and while it might be tweaked a bit to open it up and encourage more to participate, it is technically really solid.

Could put in an ORvR event Defend xxx number of Forts (keeps) / Take xxx Number of Forts (keeps)

The RvR quests are meh compared to the 2 weekly scenarios events. Want an event slot items, 99% of the time you have to participate in a scenario. Want renown potions... event scenario...

+1

They have pve spawns once in a while, if I recall. Got a weird backpack thing a year or two ago. Having wierd orvr events like "no outer keep door" weekend would be funny or much more massive dangerous pve stuff roaming around the lakes for some kind, etc. But yes, this is exactly my point, and 100% correct in my opinion

[BeautfulToad]

So in your world there is only one time zone. How myopic. NA prime time forts have been on average around 140 vs 70. It was actually worse before the realm timer on forts. So it would seem your post is "less than truthful" or just ill informed.

The ror Q and were talking about increasing bonuses for outnumbered people, not just RR and XP bonus from AAO.