Poll: RvR System Proposal

[Penril]

But everyone is just shooting the idea down instantly without discussing possible ways to re implement it so it doesn't have the same problems as before. Which seems to be a theme in a lot of these threads for a lot of things.

How about YOU start with a suggestion? After all you are the one that wants that system back. How would you make it work?

[Jaycub]

But everyone is just shooting the idea down instantly without discussing possible ways to re implement it so it doesn't have the same problems as before. Which seems to be a theme in a lot of these threads for a lot of things.

How about YOU start with a suggestion? After all you are the one that wants that system back. How would you make it work?

I already have. No one wants to read. And I don't have all the answers that's why I have been asking for a discussion to take place.

[Penril]

I already have. No one wants to read. And I don't have all the answers that's why I have been asking for a discussion to take place.

What suggestion? all i found from you was this:

if it was possible for the server to check the amount of people in que after not having a scenario pop every ~10-15 minutes it could reward the realm who has drastically more people in que with SC VP. As in if one realm had 50 people in que and the other had only 5, etc...

Which:

1) Doesn't address any of the problems i mentioned
2) Only rewards the zerg realm (they will OF COURSE have way more people Q'd for SC's than the underdog realm).

[Jaycub]

I don't consider people getting yelled at/flamed a problem. That is a community/player problem not a game design one.

And I don't see how it only rewards the zerg realm, it only works if NO sc's are popping meaning that one realm is purposely not queing in order to stop a zone flip. If one realm was zerging that hard SCs wouldn't make that big a difference on VP anyways.

[navis]

I think that if they adjust the value for the sc win accordingly, and with the option to hold for a lock... It should be pretty good and they can tweak the values later.
Maybe something along the lines that if you do good in the SC you help your realm but if you do poorly nothing hurts your realm?
cheers

[Penril]

I think that if they adjust the value for the sc win accordingly, and with the option to hold for a lock... It should be pretty good and they can tweak the values later.
Maybe something along the lines that if you do good in the SC you help your realm but if you do poorly nothing hurts your realm?
cheers

2 factions. In an SC, one wins and one loses. Maybe you won't get directly penalized for losing, but the other team (winners) will help their realm with VP's, which translates to the losing side hurting their realm.

[Razid1987]

But if you want my opinions here, I think that rewards should always come from participating and winning. Not losing. You get exp, rr, inf, and medallions from killing players; you get exp, rr, and inf for taking keeps and BOs, and defending keeps. That covers participation. What do you get from winning that you don't get from participating? More medallions, but that's it. If you participate and lose the zone lock, you still get something.

The problem I think, is that medallions are currently the only way to get set gear. I think set gear should be added back to the loot tables for players and keep lords, and that should be the primary way a player gets that gear; medallions should only serve to supplement that primary means of acquisition.

Scenarios are different, because emblems are the only way to get SC weapons, and always have been. participating in SCs should still give emblems, whether it's as player loot drops or as a consolation prize.

At first I was disagreeing in regards to the losing side not getting any rewards in form of medallions/emblems, but now that you mention it, the implementation of set items drop would indeed make it far less time consuming to get them, which I fully support. I saw the system in it's current state, which is far from optimal. But if set items were to drop from keep lords, emblems for losers would indeed be overkill.

[Jaycub]

I think that if they adjust the value for the sc win accordingly, and with the option to hold for a lock... It should be pretty good and they can tweak the values later.
Maybe something along the lines that if you do good in the SC you help your realm but if you do poorly nothing hurts your realm?
cheers

That could work well, and would probably be the easiest way to incorporate scenarios into the campaign.

The main thing is to have scenarios be a part of the campaign, but in such a way they are not so central to the zone flip / VP total that abuse such as boycotting ques can have a negative effect on the campaign as a a whole.

I would anyways like to feel as if playing scenarios have some sort of impact on the game, even if it is a very small one.

[Razid1987]

I don't consider people getting yelled at/flamed a problem. That is a community/player problem not a game design one.

And I don't see how it only rewards the zerg realm, it only works if NO sc's are popping meaning that one realm is purposely not queing in order to stop a zone flip. If one realm was zerging that hard SCs wouldn't make that big a difference on VP anyways.

Lol, yes it would make a huge difference. I remember sitting in Dragonwake for HOURS because Order boycut SCs. We simply couldn't flip the zone. Was so fun sitting afk waiting for nothing to happen. We had all BOs, and all Keeps. And we had max VP for kills in the zone, too. We ONLY needed SC points, and we pretty much just got blocked.

If you include SCs in the VP then you NEED those VP points to flip a zone. No SC pops = no SC wins = No zone flip.

Everything about including SC is just broken. Just keep them out please. It doesn't work. People abuse that system so badly.

[Namtih]

Whats about Siege Weapons ? Cant they help, slow down a Keep fight a little bit ?
Or is that non implementable Stuff at the Moment ?