Broken endgame

[Eversoris]

I highly agree with the 40/40 restriction on forts, i don't want to see a lvl 17 char rolling for Invader when they don't even have a single piece of Anni.

Give it some time.

Also, it would be better to add 50RR restriction due to the massive people joining at once.

[Nekkma]

Have you not once considered that maybe - just maybe - Forts are still in their preliminary stages, and so, are subject to constant change? That the live iteration of Forts (blob v blob - something you are vehemently against, I believe?) isn't really desired here - hence the new approach to them?

Talk about jumping the gun.

To be fair, Forts are not something new and the thing he is complaining about was present on live server as well. Forts are a vital part of the endgame campain and as such close to a serverwide event. Player caps are very likely neccessary. Alot of people have viewed Forts as the saviour or RvR when in reality they got removed from live servers for very good reasons. If forts conceptually are "endgame keeps", which seems to be current idea, then they are very likely to cause the issues OP is complaining about.

[DanielWinner]

Yesterday in DW there were around 300 people in the zone and do you know what happened when they entered a keep? Lags were so bad so I couldn’t even switch a stance on SW or use any skill... so yeah, fortress should have limited population because even now it can be super laggy with current cap until server becomes stronger/more stable/etc

ok, limit but why only one open,
how rest of ppl can get invader if they will never enter the fortress, coz there is only ONE limited fortress?

Probably just for the testing purposes. As you can see the set itself is not finished same as all the mechanics are not polished/working as intended yet so it speaks for itself: devs don’t want people to get a lot of invader any time soon.

If fortress could be made into instances, it would be better, I believe.

[peterthepan3]

Have you not once considered that maybe - just maybe - Forts are still in their preliminary stages, and so, are subject to constant change? That the live iteration of Forts (blob v blob - something you are vehemently against, I believe?) isn't really desired here - hence the new approach to them?

Talk about jumping the gun.

To be fair, Forts are not something new and the thing he is complaining about was present on live server as well. Forts are a vital part of the endgame campain and as such close to a serverwide event. Player caps are very likely neccessary. Alot of people have viewed Forts as the saviour or RvR when in reality they got removed from live servers for very good reasons. If forts conceptually are "endgame keeps", which seems to be current idea, then they are very likely to cause the issues OP is complaining about.

Forts on RoR are new: there's a reason things are being done differently with Forts compared to how they were on live (which you yourself acknowledge). Be pissed off, be angry, but bear in mind that they've only been out for 2 weeks or so and are subject to constant change. Having a fit about their current state serves no good when it's apparent to most that they won't remain completely as they are.

[bctakhy]

-Limited attakers/defenders are fine and even needed to make it playable.
-Things that sux is play pre fortess zone/zones and not be able enter, butdont think it is easy fix that.
Maybe a option is make only leader of WB with atleast 3 groups of ppl who meet req can enter can que for enter and also port all ppl from that WB (that will fix the mass camp of the portal with none on BOs).

I think all know by this time what is the problems, now is time to drop ideas on this first phase of forts instead the whine about system.

[Nekkma]

The forts are conceptually the same as see it, i.e. not new. If that is the case, then alot of the orgiginal problems will be present. The popcap sucked on live but forts without it sucked even more. A version where Forts retain their function as the last bastion, something it seeems the rorteam is striving for, then these issues will persist.

[saupreusse]

just for curiosity, are fortresses a separate rvr zones or their share the same cpu thread of their originating tier ?

they share the same cpu thread on the server machine.

[Urdeg]

R40/RR40 is not at all an unachievable landmark for your characters progress. I actually like that some endgame content is completely gated from lower levels

[Valarion]

I wouldnt worry about it too much. Forts were intentionally released prematurely just so we can all enjoy it sooner rather than later.

If you change your mindset and simply call yourself an alpha software tester, none of this should bother you.

[wonshot]

So heres an idea;

Keep the limmit on forts as they are, because lets be real the limmits are there for a good reason. Anyone who tried forts on Live without the limmit knows how much of a shitshow it was.

Now there will be players who are left out from this content, and there will be players who do not want to take part in this campaign (im thinking sc heroes and 6man groups here)

How about when forts open up, special scenarios become a 2nd part of the fortresses or zonelock mechanic (old victory point system spring to mind)
This would give the "leftover" players a chance to help assist their realm, while not being able to directly support the fortress siege. And it would be a great way to avoid actually balancing all classes to "have to be" warband viable or even bringing the correct specs for such a largescale fight as Fortresses are. Now the coerrectly optimized warbands go fight in the fortress, and all the whitelions and WEs go brawl out out with the loldps healers in "fortress" scenarious that will some-how be linked to fortress or campaign (ram/oil damage buff for 2hours if your realm has been succesful in the scenario)

That would solve warband class balancing, give smallscalers something to do, leftovers will still be involed in their realm-wide push, and devs get to work on a new scenario, or use an old one, and have one more thing they can add on their roadmap.