Spoiler:
Collateral wrote:No need to get passive aggressive. I said I didn't think about all possible iterations of that kind of system, or the flaws it might have.Hargrim wrote:But you are aware that BOs give you renown tick when you fight around them? And you are aware that they are designed in such a way to always tell you where the action can be found?Collateral wrote: It's because playing the objectives gives you NOTHING. How can't people understand this? Why should our wb stand on a bo and defend it and get a couple rr ticks, while we can roam around hunting other wbs, where rr gain is exponentially higher? I personally don't care about bags, never did. The reward is in the organisation itself. The more organized you are, the more people you kill = more rp for all, more medals for all. Bags are just icing on the top (more often it's not really the case though, like aura pointed out).
I completely agree that the game is about the realms and massive battles across maps. That's why I also think guilds play a big role in realm identity (or at least they should). When you see the bitterstone, you instantly know who they are and what they fight for. Ofc, not all guilds are, or should be racial, but being in a guild only increases your sense of realm identity imo. You can have banners and guild colours so your enemies instantly recognize you (which was also a part of warfare throughout centuries, and more or less still is).
All that guild stuff is fine and dandy, but my question is why those guilds should even play the game? Fun is definitely one of the reasons, and it's why I (and obv many others) play the game. But over time this just gets lost. When you grinded out every zone, killed every opponent, the shallow rvr system becomes boring.
Hargrim asked me if guilds would be holding bos if they gave some buffs. Why would they have to? People already stand on bos (I honestly have no idea why) for whatever reason. The system is 'stand on bo, increase keep rank, go to siege'. And that's it. The ENTIRE system. I just don't see any depth in it, just my opinion. We roam the lake, spot a bo that's burning, go there, kill stuff, move on. The bo itself gives us nothing, zero. It's the players we killed. And when we move on there's always someone who will stay behind. And if those bos gave buffs now, I think people would be even more incentivised to stand on them. If they already stand on them while they give you almost nothing, surely they would guard them if they gave buffs? Or am I wrong?
And at that point the guilds come in. People will have to organize in some way if they want those buffs, for at least as long as they can have them. You will actually have to protect bos if you don't want the other realm to gain boosts. You are roaming the lake and one of your bos gets attacked? Better go there and help you allies. This could also help those stupidly designed zones like eataine, where the entire zones just turns into a giant ping pong table. You want to have a slight edge over the enemy? Move your ass and cap bos. Then defend them.
Maybe this is a completely bogus idea that would never work, but it's all I have to offer to this discussion (I didn't even think about it super hard). Pugging, 'muh 6man', 'muh guild wb' has no meaning if the system is plain boring. None of those arguements are worth anything. I think that if the system changes in some way where every one of these groups of players benefited from it and actually played towards objectives of the system itself (where they would get rewarded in that process), no one would be complaining (or at least complaining would be minimal).
But please, give some ideas how to add meaning to BOs. The first idea you gave give you nothing as a guild or 6man - you just benefit from the pug holding BO.
Yes the pugs will be holding bos, like they already do (and they themselves would get buffs as well don't forget about that). But guilds would be fighting for them. There is information that an enemy wb is moving to your bo? Try and get there before them, or intercept them, maybe ambush them even. Extra renown ticks I never even noticed honestly. I don't know how much more they give you, you never told us any formulas. So I can't possibly know how much more renown fighting on bos gives you. Personally we never went "oh man fighting on bos gives us so much renown, better stand here and wait for the zerg to arrive".
Let me ask you this. What if all wbs in the zone were standing on bos? Cuz that's what they should be doing no, if fighting gives you more renown? Who would then fight for bos? If we stand in the north, and enemy stands in the south, who will move first? Then why are wbs not standing permanently on bos? Cuz it's damn boring, and the risk is simply too great. As I said, an entire zerg might be coming your way, and no matter how much more rp/xp you got, it wouldn't matter cuz you would get crushed. And that's why we don't stand on bos. Boring, risky and unrewarding.
Well, each def / takeover tick is several 100s of renown if there was good fight around it, sometimes more. Not sure why you miss it, but you can check them in combat log, they are described there with BO name included.
Was there a point to your 2nd rhetorical question? It was me who asked you for ideas how to change the 'no point to hold BOs' for WBs, not to list me reasons why you are unwilling. The one idea you came with is okeyish, but doesn't give any incentive when you think about it.
And again, BOs are designed to disperse the forces through the zone first and foremost.
