Return of Reckoning

Posted: **Thu Nov 28, 2019 11:19 pm**

I was just thinking the same thing the other day as there were only 6.5 warbands in the fort on our side and numbers were nearly equal on the other. Sadly the sky never fell and I wasted some antianxiety medicine for nothing.

Now if we could just get people to listen to those WB leaders...

Posted: **Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:25 am**

People arent stopping rvr, after a fort people take breaks/log alts to do other crap. The only issue with the game's campaign is a little bit of a content drought being maxed out not needing to do T2-T3-T4 areas they just wanna push the last zone IE CW/Reik as an example..... to complete fort because the entire server is looking for invader.

Posted: **Fri Nov 29, 2019 4:11 am**

I was and still am in big favor of the fort changes allowing everyone in. It will make alot more sense once cities are out imo. The only problems I have are that its still way too hard to take a fort with even numbers with a bottom floor funnel. There should be more ways to fight besides one tiny doorway. And the other problem is that you can get steamrolled too easily with high number disadvantage, which will make city pushes happen too often imo. Maybe there needs to be a scaler to make forts harder to take for attackers if they outnumber by too much.

Posted: **Fri Nov 29, 2019 5:35 am**

atm, the main problem now is how to smooth out the situation when one of side has a much greater numerical superiority (for example 60 vs 150)? and I have only two suggestions in this regard: to enable the less number side to use aoe cannons; for the more number side, introduce a debuff that prohibits resurrection in battle.
only naturally there should be additional conditions different from simple % ratio of players. it makes no sense to introduce these changes when in the zone of 10vs50 or 15vs3, there should be some initial level of number, for example, when one side reaches a number of 100-150 people.

Posted: **Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:10 am**

T2 an T3 maps are fun to play but in term of mechanics progression (for the campaign strategy and outcome) they are less crucial (and not crucial) than the two last maps (for Dwarfs = Thunder Mountain to Black Crag. For Greenshins TM to KV) so a little less important/stimulating, because they don't affect the progression mechanics TO THE Fortresses (the outcome of the campaign).
That give probably a reason to some or many players to not invest time in T2 and T3 maps.
+ when you are playing RoR to optimized your character(s) and they are full Vanquisher and genesis you don't have a reason to play this maps.
I don't know if it's a good suggestion but make 30 Vanquishers medaillon = 1 Invader meadillion will give more intensive on all maps if it's not already done...
I have another suggestion and I will post it in the appropriate section.

Posted: **Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:03 am**

turlututuhu wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:10 am when you are playing RoR to optimized your character(s) and they are full Vanquisher and genesis you don't have a reason to play this maps.

What i understand : When geared/optimized, you don't play anymore cause "no reason to play", meaning, it is all about gear in the end, fight, PvP/RvR is just secondary.

So what is the purpose of playing if finally when a character is " complete" you don't play it anymore, thus justifying its "optimization"?

If the purpose of the game is just " optimize/gear a character, and stop", i can't understand complains about how "difficult" it is to level and gear up a character.

I don't blame anyone for the motivation he can have to play this game, but if purpose is to put a nice geared character in a window display in the end, maybe playing the doll would be more appropriate.

I already posted my 2 cents in a very general answer here.

Posted: **Fri Nov 29, 2019 8:05 am**

Vanq for invader medallions sounds like a nice incentive, but it needs to be super high so you cant get full invader that way, maybe 50 vanq for 1 invader medallion. 4 invader for a fort raid is then much much quicker to obtain than 200 vanq in lakes.

Ultimately what do we do once people have full invader in 6 months time? Maybe city raids will be here by then

Posted: **Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:42 am**

turlututuhu wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2019 7:10 am T2 an T3 maps are fun to play but in term of mechanics progression (for the campaign strategy and outcome) they are less crucial (and not crucial) than the two last maps (for Dwarfs = Thunder Mountain to Black Crag. For Greenshins TM to KV) so a little less important/stimulating, because they don't affect the progression mechanics TO THE Fortresses (the outcome of the campaign).
That give probably a reason to some or many players to not invest time in T2 and T3 maps.
+ when you are playing RoR to optimized your character(s) and they are full Vanquisher and genesis you don't have a reason to play this maps.
I don't know if it's a good suggestion but make 30 Vanquishers medaillon = 1 Invader meadillion will give more intensive on all maps if it's not already done...
I have another suggestion and I will post it in the appropriate section.

I am not sure if you really understood the campaign mechanics because EVERY zone leads to the Fortresses. You cannot have a Fortress without someone locking T2 and T3. So lets say everyone has full Vanq and Genesis and there were 2 Fortresses, the campaign resets, nobody will ever do something again, because they don't need the zone for Fortress...
Tbh I don't understand this whole "my class is equipped, no need to play it anymore" bullshit. The only reason I need to play is WAR. And for that and for Fortress every zone matters.

Posted: **Fri Nov 29, 2019 11:47 am**

Yaliskah wrote: Thu Nov 28, 2019 8:15 pm RvR is dying after fort changes.

Lets take a look.

Now players are waiting for forts, doing SC.
Weeks ago players were complaining because :
a. No Sc were popping > Problem solved
b. 70% of players were **** during Fort doing :
-b1 : Clicking like crazy cow on portal (and not doing RvR) and complaining about bad design. > Problem solved
-b2 : Waiting desesperately for SC and complaining about matchmaking. > Problem Solved

So now, you tell me, we would never have solved 70% players issues, because it (we) killed the RvR ?

When we "force" players to do things, they complain about the lack of freedom (br... doing PvE!!!, brrr... too explensive Sc weapons, brrrr too long to lvl...), and when they are free to make their own choices, it is still not good .

If players don't go in RvR (who haven't changed), i guess reason is not a direct consequence of Fort access, but more a consequence of path of least resistance to have stuff doing 0 efforts.
Some don't wanna play, we all have to deal with it. Some just want a shiny character. I blame a player choice.

Good point is RvR is less zergy.

Premades should be happy.

Yaliskah is totally right, now system is a lot better, elastic and more egalitarian then before!

Posted: **Fri Nov 29, 2019 12:02 pm**

I would like to see more motivation after r80 to play ..

Return of Reckoning

RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.

Re: RvR is dying after Fort changes.