[Proposal] Local Overpopulation Pressure (LOP) – A Soft Anti-Blob System for Open RvR

[Alubert]

You put a lot of effort into coming up with and preparing this, but I really don't like the idea.
It wouldn't affect me much because I'm a small-scale player.
We already have a similar solution on LoD, and it's terrible. Absolutely the worst content in the game. It doesn't solve anything because it's still the biggest blob fight in the game. Only a memory remains of the coolest content in the game (live server).

This should be solved by rewarding the weaker side and not rewarding the side that zergs, but it should never affect player statistics. Never.

[Grublix]

No, just no. Punishing the players for stacking their numbers in the game that is oriented for mass PvP is not the way to go.

I don’t see this as punishing players for mass PvP — large fights are a core part of RoR and should remain so. That’s why the proposal explicitly avoids hard caps and excludes keeps, forts, and cities, where mass combat is the point.
The intent isn’t to stop people from grouping up, but to address extreme open-field stacking where numbers become the only meaningful factor and other playstyles disappear. Even then, the approach is about reduced efficiency and rewards, not access denial or forced separation.

Mass PvP still happens. You can still blob. It just wouldn’t be the most efficient option everywhere, all the time.

If mass stacking is always the safest, fastest, and most rewarding choice in every situation, then open RvR naturally collapses into a single moving mass. This is an attempt to introduce trade-offs without removing what makes the game RoR.

[Grublix]

You put a lot of effort into coming up with and preparing this, but I really don't like the idea.
It wouldn't affect me much because I'm a small-scale player.
We already have a similar solution on LoD, and it's terrible. Absolutely the worst content in the game. It doesn't solve anything because it's still the biggest blob fight in the game. Only a memory remains of the coolest content in the game (live server).

This should be solved by rewarding the weaker side and not rewarding the side that zergs, but it should never affect player statistics. Never.

I sadly never played on the live servers, so I don’t have first-hand knowledge of what LOTD was like back then.
That said, for me LOTD is enjoyable in terms of intent and structure — you go into it fully expecting a large-scale blob fight, and in that context it works. From my own discussions with others, the main thing that diminishes the experience isn’t the content itself, but the server limitations and resulting lag.
I completely agree that if a change like this were to meaningfully increase lag, I’d rather see no change at all. Performance has to come first. At the same time, I don’t have insight into the server’s capacity or how feasible a system like this would be in practice — that’s very much in the hands of the devs.

At this stage, it’s less about a specific solution and more about whether the incentive structure can be addressed safely without impacting performance.

Thank you very much for your feedback!

[Gugly]

No, just no. Punishing the players for stacking their numbers in the game that is oriented for mass PvP is not the way to go.

Stacking numbers is fine to a point, 40% is okay. I am not suggesting stopping people having five WB's in a zone. Just not Five WB's v's One WB. You are missing the fact that it's the same players just swapping for easy mode. Blobbing is just dull. It's just running simulator with occasional standing afk or pressing a few AoE skills and steam rolling solos and small groups because who like to actually try?

[Serjekk]

As a final point, please pick a side... WTH is it with the x-realming mentality? To balance the fights?? Yeah? No! Whoever thinks that must be delusional! It’s human nature to take the path of least resistance and join the currently dominating side. It’s up to game mechanics to disincentivise that. Most people opt for easy fights, rather than good fights or fairness.

My suggestion for this is simple and has been effective in other games.

The current system does NOT work at all. Players can swap whenever they want after they've been active in the lakes for a set time and can build contribution. It is a terrible system. The best way to disincentivize x-realming is to stop rewarding the players who do it. Stop riding on the successes of others!

What should happen is we let players swap all they want, but they don't get rewarded for doing so. If you want to x-realm, then feel free to do it. But you won't receive ANY Renown or War Crests for the first hour after doing so.

[Aethilmar]

While I appreciate the effort, this still doesn't achieve your stated goals.

First of all, the campaign is almost completely pointless now so making control better for small groups does almost nothing.

Second let us assume that one side is in "severe" malus by blobbing with 3 warbands and the other is trying to be optimal and keep their forces at 1 warband size. How much rewards will each side get in this case?

In the best case scenario the 1 warband (lets say made of elite Sov 80 folks) is going against a blob of sub-Sov folks. In this case the Sov warband will get full rewards for wiping maybe 1.5 warbands of enemy before they get overrun and the blob will get 60% of 1 WB worth of Sov folks.

In the average case scenario the 1 warband of sub-Sov folks will get annihlated and get nothing while the blob still gets 60% of the 1 WB worth of kills.

Bottom line is quantity has a quality all its own. You cannot combat malus your way out of the problem.

The real answer is making the campaign:
a) relevant and
b) requiring dispersion to achieve that relevancy.

Everything else will follow from that.

[Gugly]

[/quote] What should happen is we let players swap all they want, but they don't get rewarded for doing so. If you want to x-realm, then feel free to do it. But you won't receive ANY Renown or War Crests for the first hour after doing so. [/quote]

That is a really simple and effective way to stop those x realmers who only use one account. I like it. Sadly it won't stop those with two accounts.

Maybe a combination of that and a slightly softer version of either my suggestion or the Op's ideas would work. I just feel whatever the soloution is it's got to be simple and not relient on player discrection. We have proved incapable

It's also got to have little to no impact on the performance. Like others have said we don't want lotD lag in everyday play.

[nat3s]

Anything to stop blobbing, small scale and solo play has died over the last 1-2 years, a profound shame.

What once was a game of skill and knowledge around how to gear for small scale is jut a mindless zergfest now.

[Grublix]

While I appreciate the effort, this still doesn't achieve your stated goals.

First of all, the campaign is almost completely pointless now so making control better for small groups does almost nothing.

Second let us assume that one side is in "severe" malus by blobbing with 3 warbands and the other is trying to be optimal and keep their forces at 1 warband size. How much rewards will each side get in this case?

In the best case scenario the 1 warband (lets say made of elite Sov 80 folks) is going against a blob of sub-Sov folks. In this case the Sov warband will get full rewards for wiping maybe 1.5 warbands of enemy before they get overrun and the blob will get 60% of 1 WB worth of Sov folks.

In the average case scenario the 1 warband of sub-Sov folks will get annihlated and get nothing while the blob still gets 60% of the 1 WB worth of kills.

Bottom line is quantity has a quality all its own. You cannot combat malus your way out of the problem.

The real answer is making the campaign:
a) relevant and
b) requiring dispersion to achieve that relevancy.

Everything else will follow from that.

When I picked up RoR, the campaign was already largely in its current state, and my approach is intentionally aimed at being as minimal and non-disruptive as possible to the game as it exists today.

I agree with your hypothetical scenario: players should absolutely still be able to stack numbers to overcome dominant or highly geared warbands. That’s part of mass PvP and shouldn’t be removed.
What I’m trying to address isn’t the existence of blobbing as a tactic, but the fact that it has become the default, preset way to play, regardless of context. Right now, stacking is almost always the safest, fastest, and most rewarding option, even when there’s no strategic need for it.
The intent of the proposal is simply to reintroduce trade-offs, so that stacking remains an option, but not automatically the optimal one in every open-field situation.
The biggest potential flaw I see in my own approach is that blobbing might simply continue as it does now, with the only real outcome being that everyone receives fewer rewards. If that turns out to be the case during testing or evaluation phases, then I’d agree the change would ultimately be unnecessary and not worth keeping.

[OceanSoul]

Nothing wrong with blobbing, its really matter of gameplay preferences. You don't like blobbing, some people do like epic battles. And blobbing is not default state of RvR anyway, the default is a single WB (I've never saw someone actively recruiting for 2 WBs setup, its hard enough to make a single one). Blobbing happens either naturally, as a reactive measure or because of the lack of leardship (overflow pug-ish WBs that just follows a good one).

And punishing players is a bad design choice anyway. As people said here, you should think of making content that encourages splitting, making said content fun and rewarding.

Highly oppose every suggested point. Would've be magnitudes better if they've made the opposite - i.e. made blobbing fun and even more epic (something like scaling t13 morale skills by the factor of players they are affecting for example).