Return of Reckoning

3 issues I have to solve to finish it.

1) Prevent zerg, when keep door is open.
1.1) Zone lock rewards for ppl who hold BOs, instead of building a zerg at the attacked keep.
2) A 2 zone solution without keep trading.

Genisaurus wrote:I'm seeing a lot of the same points, and I think the proposal could be modified to support them with no problems:

1. Keep 2/3 zones open at once
2. Remove scenarios from the VP calculations (probably increase the point cap from RvR to compensate)
3. Reduce the value of some rewards, and only share capture rewards within range of an objective.

But there's still the problem as bloodi and others previously pointed out, "What if the opposing faction just doesn't participate, and denies a zone lock by sitting in the warcamp doing nothing?"

To that end, what if the VP cap method was supplemented by another old system? If, and only if, a faction has <=55% population, they can automatically lock a zone by holding every objective (Keeps and BOs) for a period of time, but losing a single objective resets that timer.

This does two things. First, it allows one faction to continue to cap a zone even if the enemy refuses to fight back, and thereby deny the RvR VPs which would otherwise be required. Second, it still prevents the enemy from crossrealming over to the winning faction at the last minute just to ride a "free" zone lock. If one faction does massively outnumber the other, they can still lock a zone by accumulating enough VP through RvR.

If there is enough support for this, or alternative suggestions, I can amend the proposal on the first page. Incidentally, the poll is setup to allow changing of votes if the above changes make the system more or less agreeable to the community.

Since your suggesting basically everything I said I love it! As a backup to flipping the zone needing to hold every BO is a great idea.

Tesq wrote:There is a lot of difference, if defenders def it's k but if defendere cut the siege just re-taking two flags it's not good imo.
I wanna keep fight, ***** it's an important part of war rvr, if i would small skirm i would roll into sc. Cut siege it's only a bad way to rewamp Orvr.

No one is talking about cutting sieges. What are you talking about? o.O

Tesq wrote:So tell me why a zerging side should spread when he can rush and kill door in few seconds? get flags then rush, giving no time to organize def, also if boths sides are unable to start a siege due to this system and take it until 1 door it's down ppl wil leave cos all effort seems uselss...... you will just make rvr worst FOR ALL instead solve the zerg problem.

Because they CANT kill the gate in time. That's the whole point. If you make it so you can't kill the gate before someone takes your BOs, then you HAVE to defend them. That way you get your long a$$ sieges that you love so much. How can you not like this? It's just a matter of destribution your forces. Some defend BOs, while maybe 50% take the keep. The same goes for the defenders of course. Or do you prefer the 600 person lag fest? This fixes multiple problems.

Tesq wrote:yes in fact rewards guided the ass of all those ppl to try to get more keeps they could before order zerg re roll, rewards must be based on "how" you accomplish things and not based on accomplishing things only.[/color]

It did, and that was wrong. That was the clearly a bad system. I hope we can agree on that. Warhammer has never given rewards for "how" you accomplished something. You talk so much about how you don't want to change how sieges work, yet you advocate this new idea now. How does that make any sense?

Tesq wrote:You need a malus/bonus system not give x4-6 rewards around

I have no idea what you are trying to communicate here. Maybe if you try in english?

Tesq wrote:these considerations for fix rvr are based on the fact that there would always be 2 zergs, 1 more zergy than other and stronger but there would still be ppl on the other side, if the zerg is total ( i mean things get really sided )how this system prevent the zerg? -->answer: it can't.

This is where I would say I disagree with OP and say that a AAO system is needed on top of the rest.

Tesq wrote:PPl would just cap flags--->rush keep ---> if flags get's taken (with small timer for zerg is even faster re cap all, with bigger timer zerg cannot be stop for x time :/ )-----> repeat for second keep /lock if 1 keep

Again, you make the assumption that you would be able to kill the keep door before someone could take the BOs. What if you couldn't? What if, while you are slamming at the keep door and it's at 40%, you suddenly lose a BO? What then?

Tesq wrote:Also run when outnumber mean risk to be hardly kill and really no one like to be zerged to try to put up a fight he will simply swap side or do other. That's way 3 zone open are important, vp system it's important, a timer system it's important.

Again, I think AAO would fix that problem.

Tesq wrote:I could support the idea of carrier + vp system to make flags contribuite to something but keep siege and and flags must remain separate.

Why? They aren't even seperate now. You need 3 or 4 BOs to attack a keep now. How is that seperate? They are all objects of the same Orvr lake. It only makes sense to let them be linked somehow. Anything else is just illogical.

I would like to have all zones available for RvR. Just do not like to be tunneled.

I have updated the proposal on the first page with some of the most common suggestions. If this causes you to change your support for or against the proposal, you may change your vote.

Changelist:

1. 2 zones will be open at any time
2. There is no need to prevent objectives from being attacked after a zone lock.
3. Rewards for capuring or defending a Keep will only be shared with players within range of a BO.
4. Rewards for defending a keep have been reduced to be in line with attacking a keep
5. Increased the value of each BO in T1, to accomodate for reduced player populations.
6. Scenarios no longer contribute to VP
7. The maximum VP awarded for RvR kills has been increased.
8. Zone locks no longer reward players in scenarios (If scenarios won't contribute to zone locks, of course you won't get rewarded for them)
9. Added a supplemental lock condition:
   • If, and only if, a faction has <=55% of the population, they can lock a zone by holding all of the objectives in that for 1 hour. If any objectives are lost within that time, the timer will reset.

Looks good. But I still feel like a AAO system is needed on top of it.

Genisaurus wrote:I have updated the proposal on the first page with some of the most common suggestions. If this causes you to change your support for or against the proposal, you may change your vote.

Changelist:

1. 2 zones will be open at any time
2. There is no need to prevent objectives from being attacked after a zone lock.
3. Rewards for capuring or defending a Keep will only be shared with players within range of a BO.
4. Rewards for defending a keep have been reduced to be in line with attacking a keep
5. Increased the value of each BO in T1, to accomodate for reduced player populations.
6. Scenarios no longer contribute to VP
7. The maximum VP awarded for RvR kills has been increased.
8. Zone locks no longer reward players in scenarios (If scenarios won't contribute to zone locks, of course you won't get rewarded for them)
9. Added a supplemental lock condition:
   • If, and only if, a faction has <=55% of the population, they can lock a zone by holding all of the objectives in that for 1 hour. If any objectives are lost within that time, the timer will reset.

if Scen wont contribute to lock zone so anybody are going to queue for play scen for a long time because they cant win medal for devastator gears ...

Blorckever wrote:

Genisaurus wrote:I have updated the proposal on the first page with some of the most common suggestions. If this causes you to change your support for or against the proposal, you may change your vote.

Changelist:

1. 2 zones will be open at any time
2. There is no need to prevent objectives from being attacked after a zone lock.
3. Rewards for capuring or defending a Keep will only be shared with players within range of a BO.
4. Rewards for defending a keep have been reduced to be in line with attacking a keep
5. Increased the value of each BO in T1, to accomodate for reduced player populations.
6. Scenarios no longer contribute to VP
7. The maximum VP awarded for RvR kills has been increased.
8. Zone locks no longer reward players in scenarios (If scenarios won't contribute to zone locks, of course you won't get rewarded for them)
9. Added a supplemental lock condition:
   • If, and only if, a faction has <=55% of the population, they can lock a zone by holding all of the objectives in that for 1 hour. If any objectives are lost within that time, the timer will reset.

if Scen wont contribute to lock zone so anybody are going to queue for play scen for a long time because they cant win medal for devastator gears ...

I don't see that as a problem. Either you commit to the locking of a zone, or you play scenarios. You can't both have the cake and eat it, too.

Blorckever wrote:

Genisaurus wrote:I have updated the proposal on the first page with some of the most common suggestions. If this causes you to change your support for or against the proposal, you may change your vote.

Changelist:

1. 2 zones will be open at any time
2. There is no need to prevent objectives from being attacked after a zone lock.
3. Rewards for capuring or defending a Keep will only be shared with players within range of a BO.
4. Rewards for defending a keep have been reduced to be in line with attacking a keep
5. Increased the value of each BO in T1, to accomodate for reduced player populations.
6. Scenarios no longer contribute to VP
7. The maximum VP awarded for RvR kills has been increased.
8. Zone locks no longer reward players in scenarios (If scenarios won't contribute to zone locks, of course you won't get rewarded for them)
9. Added a supplemental lock condition:
   • If, and only if, a faction has <=55% of the population, they can lock a zone by holding all of the objectives in that for 1 hour. If any objectives are lost within that time, the timer will reset.

if Scen wont contribute to lock zone so anybody are going to queue for play scen for a long time because they cant win medal for devastator gears ...

SCs are a way of PvP, ORvR is a different way of PvP.

IMO keep SCs contribution OUT.
I only enjoy ORvR, and would hate to need SCs contributing.

Edited my post. Less complicated