Poll: RvR System Proposal

[dkabib]

I like it, but quickly identified 1 little problem.

What about players AFKing inside the zone just for those reward ticks?

That has been an issue since WAR/Live. Is that reason enough by itself to veto the proposal? Insofar as addressing it...

1. Do the same thing that happens to them now: AFKing players get ganked.
2. As per the "mailbox guards" answer, shorten the timer before AFKing players are disconnected
3. The mod team declares the behavior as an abuse of the system, and you can report them.

I know it happened at live, but considering that in here we would get ticks for every BO/Keep flips, it could be worse than some people just waiting for the big lock. I do see some changes can easily be made to fight that.

+1 for this. Congrats

[Genisaurus]

A feel that we should have an rvr system that promotes acctual kills, fighting and roaming instead of one that places a lot of emphasizes on keeps and seiges

i also feel that at the very least we should do 2/3 zones open

i dont know about others but i find keeps to be giant unfun cluster ****

Mailbox guard are not really afkers i do what can often be considered mail box guarding but that is only because im waitng for sc pops to grind out crests and the war camp is convienct b/c kill quests

the only way to " deal with xrelming" is to create ingame incentives

Under this proposal, RvR kills and BOs are each worth more VPs than owning both keeps, and the more RvR kills your faction gets, the less you need to sit in front of a keep; is that not allowing for enough incentive? 2/3 zones open is a reasonable suggestion though.

But for every player wanting more PvP instead of objectives...

What ruins this is the same that ruined the old lock system in retail.

When a zone is going to get locked, the other faction will just refuse any fight, they stop queing for scs, just kill you by boredom.

When the lock is only result of capturing objectives, the other faction doesnt have choice but to fight, in this system when the zone is going to get locked, best choice for the other faction is to not fight.

So any change should be aiming to promote fights between players, not completely remove them, this is a very bad change, there are reasons why this system entirely failed at retail.

...you have another who wants objectives to be the only lock mechanic.

If objectives are the only thing needed to lock a zone, it becomes possible for one faction to outnumber and steamroll the other, which leads to crossrealming. If you require multiple modes of play to lock a zone, you allow one faction to just quit. There is literally no compromise here, no system that could be designed to get the best of both worlds.

But ultimately, if someone is the kind of player who would rather "take the ball and go home" than play harder/better, then neither WAR nor RoR will ever be the game for them, no matter what RvR system you choose. From a design perspective, I don't see the value in designing your game around the kind of player you don't want playing it anyway.

Too many rewards for leeching, due to zone wide rewards. Too much Mathhammer, as it is unclear for the most part was is needed to lock a zone. No anti-zerg measures.
Total population per faction is no factor to determine numeric balance. The number of players inside an rvr lake has no effect on the proposed system.

I fully disagree.

PS: Working on something which would solve all issues if the devs can make it working. Anti-zerg, less keep centric, no leeching, pvp is rewarded and the realm has to work together.

I understand the complaint about "mathhammer," and I'll admit that it's valid; this system is a little obtuse. But rewards for leechers - Show me a system that can't be leeched. You can leech the current system by AFKing in front of a keep fight, you can leech any zone-flip system by AFKing in front of the warcamp, etc. It seems like a better move to punish/remove leechers directly than to design a whole system around getting rid of them. Just make the RvR lake start past the Warcamp guards, so they have to be gankable to leech.

I reject the claim that this system has no anti-zerg measures; it is an anti-zerg measure. Having lock requirements scale to faction population discourages one side from outnumbering the other, and having BO ownership make keep attacks/defenses easier encourages splitting a warband to cover multiple objectives.

Post your idea. Put it in a poll like this one, I'm honestly interested in seeing it. If we get enough proposals, we can have a master-poll, where the community can vote on which specific proposal they prefer, rather than saying whether they like or dislike any individual one.

[bloodi]

...you have another who wants objectives to be the only lock mechanic.

If thats all you got from my post, i am at a loss for words.

I don't see the value in designing your game around the kind of player you don't want playing it anyway.[/i]

So you want players that dont want to fight at all? That is what your design encourages.

And this is not something i deducted, is exactly what happened at retail.

[Genisaurus]

...you have another who wants objectives to be the only lock mechanic.

If thats all you got from my post, i am at a loss for words.

Don't pretend to be offended, you literally said that making objectives the only lock mechanic makes players fight, and making players fight is what you want.

When the lock is only result of capturing objectives, the other faction doesnt have choice but to fight, in this system when the zone is going to get locked, best choice for the other faction is to not fight.

Did I say that you wanted an objective-only system as the only option? No. I did say that you wanted an objective-only system more than you agreed with my proposal.

That is not "all" I got from your post, but it is one of the points you made. But while you're putting words in my mouth...

I don't see the value in designing your game around the kind of player you don't want playing it anyway.[/i]

So you want players that dont want to fight at all? That is what your design encourages.

And this is not something i deducted, is exactly what happened at retail.

I specifically said that I don't want to see people playing any game, whose idea of strategy is essentially to flip the table and walk away when they start losing. I said that there's no point in designing a system around that kind of player, when they're never going to be happy anyway unless they are winning.

If my system "encourages" players to quit playing once they start losing, then it does so no more than the current system "encourages" people to crossrealm when they start losing. If it's a side-effect, that's a valid complaint, but the expectation in design is that players will act decently.

[bossabe]

WHAT IF ... you would make the keeps neutral on zone unlocking then , to capture a keep , WB have to go in and kill the npc (pve) who owns it (with a boss on top of course) then , they cap it and it become theirs , then , they go to next one and do the same . when both keeps are controlled , the zone is theirs... Unless they get hijacked by opposite factions in the process ?

[bloodi]

Don't pretend to be offended, you literally said that making objectives the only lock mechanic makes players fight, and making players fight is what you want.

No, i said that the current system makes people fight, not that i want it to be the only system forever but if we are going to compare, the current one is leaps and bounds betters, because it makes people fight instead of encouraging the opposite

Did I say that you wanted an objective-only system as the only option? No. I did say that you wanted an objective-only system more than you agreed with my proposal.

Yet you had to do it saying this?

...you have another who wants objectives to be the only lock mechanic.

This is clearly not putting words in my mouth at all uh?

I specifically said that I don't want to see people playing any game, whose idea of strategy is essentially to flip the table and walk away when they start losing. I said that there's no point in designing a system around that kind of player, when they're never going to be happy anyway unless they are winning.

If my system "encourages" players to quit playing once they start losing, then it does so no more than the current system "encourages" people to crossrealm when they start losing. If it's a side-effect, that's a valid complaint, but the expectation in design is that players will act decently.

No, your system doesnt encourage players to quit playing, your system encourages that no one plays if a faction is winning, is not only one side getting steamrolled, is both sides unable to do anything because one side refuses to go to any fight and your system makes that the best choice.

And again, this is not something i theorize, is the same old retail system that failed horrible for the reasons i am pointing out.

Did you play at that time? If so what makes you feel going back to it is a good idea?

[Genisaurus]

...you have another who wants objectives to be the only lock mechanic.

This is clearly not putting words in my mouth at all uh?

Would it have been better if I had said, "... supports an objective-only lock mechanic?" Look, I think we both understand what the other is saying; we're bickering over word choice, and I think we'd both agree that it would be more constructive to drop it. For my part, I apologize for being aggressive.

I specifically said that I don't want to see people playing any game, whose idea of strategy is essentially to flip the table and walk away when they start losing. I said that there's no point in designing a system around that kind of player, when they're never going to be happy anyway unless they are winning.

If my system "encourages" players to quit playing once they start losing, then it does so no more than the current system "encourages" people to crossrealm when they start losing. If it's a side-effect, that's a valid complaint, but the expectation in design is that players will act decently.

No, your system doesnt encourage players to quit playing, your system encourages that no one plays if a faction is winning, is not only one side getting steamrolled, is both sides unable to do anything because one side refuses to go to any fight and your system makes that the best choice.

And again, this is not something i theorize, is the same old retail system that failed horrible for the reasons i am pointing out.

Did you play at that time? If so what makes you feel going back to it is a good idea?

I did play at that time, and I did see it happen very rarely. In my experience, there were always some people at least willing to queue for scenarios, or who would hide in the lakes and try to catch stragglers from the zerg. While I understand that it is possible, I find it hard to believe that an entire faction would mutually agree to deny themselves all avenues of advancement, no scenarios (which are more fair than RvR), no RvR, no nothing, just to prevent the more successful realm from winning. Even if Order is zerging, I could still win a scenario or two; those are at least even numbers. I know it is possible, and I know it has happened in the past, I just think it's rare, and I disagree that it's the most logical option for players.

Besides, wouldn't making it harder for a zerging faction to lock by increasing the VP requirements to lock, and reducing the requirements for an underdog to lock, reduce the incentive to deny them by just not playing ?

Ultimately, I don't think there's a system that prevents "not playing," but also prevents one zone from picking up overwhelming numbers with crossrealmers, and zerging with no opposition. If you require anything other than PvE objective-capping, the underdogs will always be able to deny that goal by not participating, whether it's scenarios, or RvR kills, or whatever. If you require only objectives, it will always be possible for one zone to win by sheer force of numbers, and it will always be a more "logical" option to just join the winning team instead of defending.

This is probably just going to come down to a difference of opinion/priorities, and that's fine.

[dave2278]

Would adding medals in BO help?
It's a suggestion?

[Nameless]

do it, test it and then discuss

[Malo]

I like the idea, though I would personally prefer 2 or 3 zones unlocked instead of just the 1. There are some zones, looking at you T4 Dwarf, that I would really prefer to avoid.