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

[badlarry]

Excellent post, identified the core problem and explained desired outcomes and requirements without solutioning.

[Grublix]

Excellent post, identified the core problem and explained desired outcomes and requirements without solutioning.

Thanks, I appreciate that. The main goal was to frame the problem and desired outcomes clearly without over-prescribing a specific solution.

[Avernus]

I've played a game where a suggestion like this were implemented.

It led to the fact that unless you are GROSSLY outnumbered (like, 3-5 against 30+) it was more profitable to be in a team with a lesser player count, because its easier to kill your enemies while enjoying your own increased survivability.

The game is never going to be balanced around these floating damage reduction/increased damage taken numbers (yes, there is no direct things like that in OP suggestion, but reduced guard effectiveness is basically the same), it's already isn't that perfect.

Keep in mind, the only hope PUG has against organized WB is to zerg them. Instead, THEY will be obliterated for trying the only thing they can do to fight organized WB. Safety in numbers will not work anymore.

Yes, you can preach all you want about zerging being bad, but i don't think that a lot of players will actually enjoy these changes.

They'll just leave the project since scenarios are in really bad shape, the new mdps changes are questionable, to say the least, and now they will not be able to play safely after a hard working day because each time they play they are either obliterated because they are outnumbered, or they are obliterated for being the outnumbering side.

Yes, i'm talkng about randoms, they are indeed doomed to suffer from hardcore players no matter what they do - but if there will be no chance at all (like zerging org WB 3-1 and call this a "victory") these casuals are going to leave - and current server online isn't in a good shape...

P.S. I'm smallscale/sc player myself, who occasionally enjoyed zerg surfing solo/with a few friends.

Personally, you can play all you want with a reawards but don't you ever touch player's stats.

[M0rw47h]

Keep in mind, the only hope PUG has against organized WB is to zerg them. Instead, THEY will be obliterated for trying the only thing they can do to fight organized WB. Safety in numbers will not work anymore.

They could organize themselves as well, instead of herding cats.

[Avernus]

They could organize themselves as well, instead of herding cats.

Actually, no. The ones who are willing and able - already did. There is a reason that casuals are called like that.

[M0rw47h]

They could organize themselves as well, instead of herding cats.

Actually, no. The ones who are willing and able - already did. There is a reason that casuals are called like that.

Not willing to do something, because its easier to "solo" =/= not being able to do something.

[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.

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.

But, as other folks have already noted, we KNOW how this turns out. It is called Land of the Dead. And it is a series of gigantic blob fights with a few groups back capping.

And, one other thing your solution totally ignores is that the devs WANT it this way. Mass fights have been their explicit design goal and the objective of most of their class changes (i.e. making classes "warband viable"). So why would they make this change?

[Abe]

Wow well thought and presented proposal. Hope devs give it a look