Poll: RvR System Proposal

[Genisaurus]

And i dont see rewards for loser side (rp medal)... because fight during 1 hour lose the lake and get anything ? So peeps are gonna to do same things like now.

Fighting and win its always fun
Fighting and lose isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun
Fighting and lose again isn't fun !!!!!!!! O **** win nothing for all our effort it's boring i stop Orvr.

Why destro and order (sometimes) stop to do Orvr t2 because they are zerged and they win nothing for keep them motivated to def other lake.

AAO would also fix this. If you lose repeatedly with a AAO system implemented, it is in fact your own fault then. You are playing badly (As a faction).

But having said that, I'm not a fan of losers getting nothing, because it's never your own fault (as a single individual) that you lost. Therefore it makes no sense that you should be punished for it. Rewards should however be bigger for the winner by a large margin. Something like 3:1.

Really, determining whether there should be a consolation prize is outside the scope of designing an RvR system, because at best, it gives no incentive to participate in any meaningful way. That is why it is not included here. At worst, it allows for some fraction to fester the thought, "No point in fighting, I'd rather just leech my reward for losing. It might take me longer to get X, but I'll get the same gear/stats/whatever as everyone else eventually." A consolation prize for losers is a different discussion for a different thread.

Spoiler:

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.

[skutrug]

[*]Capturing a BO grants a 1x reward (Exp, RR, Inf) to all players in range of the BO, and [bold] prevents the BO from being attacked for 15min.[/bold]

(A) Unless my english is not allowing me to understand properly, this looks like an artificial lock on a BO for 15min, meaning that the group can rejoin the keep zerg - It is not necessary: Take it out...
(B) I fully support the 2/3 zone open, because when a keep bugs (and I have seen it several times on the current system), all RvR stops.
(C) I still support scenario counting because when one side is hopelessly outnumbered, their only chance to delay until reinforcement is to do scenarios, and it should count - No one forces anyone to do them, each side just need to find some "scenario swat teams" and send them into battle. Perhaps it would foster some love for the scenario players if their skills were indeed needed for the benefit of everyone.
(D) We have had numerous threads complaining of low population in T1 - making T1 locks count toward T2 would indeed encourage T2 players to keep alts in T1 and benefit the new T1 players by bolstering their numbers with seasoned players - One could leave enough time between the T1 and T2 lock for character swapping.

[Genisaurus]

[*]Capturing a BO grants a 1x reward (Exp, RR, Inf) to all players in range of the BO, and [bold] prevents the BO from being attacked for 15min.[/bold]

(A) Unless my english is not allowing me to understand properly, this looks like an artificial lock on a BO for 15min, meaning that the group can rejoin the keep zerg - It is not necessary: Take it out...

This is the same lock that has always been in place, to my knowledge. It does let a group leave the BO and rejoin a larger force, but eventually someone is going to need to come back and defend it. If a group has to hold a BO for the entire duration of combat in a zone, it would get very boring.

(B) I fully support the 2/3 zone open, because when a keep bugs (and I have seen it several times on the current system), all RvR stops.
(C) I still support scenario counting because when one side is hopelessly outnumbered, their only chance to delay until reinforcement is to do scenarios, and it should count - No one forces anyone to do them, each side just need to find some "scenario swat teams" and send them into battle. Perhaps it would foster some love for the scenario players if their skills were indeed needed for the benefit of everyone.

This whole proposal is to stop one side from being hopelessly outnumbered at all, by making too painful/difficult to lock a zone if their faction makes up too large a proportion of the players in RvR. Under this system, the more outnumbered you are, the easier it is to accumulate VP. If you are too outnumbered, you don't even need to own a single keep to lock, you could just take 2 BOs and get enough kills.

(D) We have had numerous threads complaining of low population in T1 - making T1 locks count toward T2 would indeed encourage T2 players to keep alts in T1 and benefit the new T1 players by bolstering their numbers with seasoned players - One could leave enough time between the T1 and T2 lock for character swapping.

This proposed system scales with the number of people in RvR in each tier. If people log off a higher tier to play in a lower tier, it changes the VP required to cap the higher tier! This causes unpredictable behavior in flipping mechanics, and becomes far too complicated to balance around.

[navis]

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.

I feel it's a loss for "the old WAR" style game to lose the scenario VP contribution and rewards for Zone Locks.. The reason being is it is a way for more people to get involved in the 'war'.. I didn't think it was really called for but anyway this is still looking good.

Anyway the main thing about the Zone lock rewards in scenario is that players will abandon them to flock to the zone that is locking... This is kind of sad and the scenario experience is worsened because of that... although obviously it would be easier to implement the whole thing without this, though.

[skutrug]

Ok I got your point 2 loud and clear - this is why I voted in support of the idea - But I see no reason why scenarios should not count in the VP total. I was responding to a comment, not the original post that included scenarios.
Point 3 is unfortunate but understandable if there is a continuous and dynamic reassessment of the RvR population - no issue with it.
Point 1: We have the current experience of the 15min locks: a good warband takes both BO and the keep in less than the 15min timer. Players will get creative if they need to hold the BO, forming roaming patrols and leaving scouts - holding a BO impacts minimally the progression of RvR since they are not locking keeps anymore - I see no points in having this artificial timer and it prevents the defending side from sending strike teams to capture BOs and boost door regeneration. This system will not abolish zerg, zerg is too beneficial - at best it will reduce population in balance a bit - anything that contribute to separating the attacking team will be helpful.
In the end though, this is a minor detail of the proposal - let's check it out and see if Azarael rolls back the server after the first night - just in case, I will be testing it on my order characters

[navis]

I propose point 3 to be changed to any player that is flagged for RvR in that zone? (if possible)

imagine this situation - your cut-off from your keep or BO by a gank team that camps the WC. Your realm is about to take the zone but your stuck in the wc (but still flagged) because you are just cut off.. You have given the opposition VP and RR but you can't be eligible for the zone reward? I think this is something to consider changing.

thx

[vorod]

SCs should not contribute to zone lock, even my old guild would talk to all the other guilds whenever Destro was about to zone lock and coordinate a mass "no-queue" for SCs.

[Jaycub]

I feel it's a loss for "the old WAR" style game to lose the scenario VP contribution and rewards for Zone Locks.. The reason being is it is a way for more people to get involved in the 'war'.. I didn't think it was really called for but anyway this is still looking good.

Anyway the main thing about the Zone lock rewards in scenario is that players will abandon them to flock to the zone that is locking... This is kind of sad and the scenario experience is worsened because of that... although obviously it would be easier to implement the whole thing without this, though.

Too many people want SCs to remain some kind of separate minigame from the campaign for some reason. Even though it is just as big a part of the game to a lot of people are ORvR itself.

I'm not quite sure why. And even in OP's original draft the VP calculation for scenarios was a small fraction of the total points needed to flip a zone, yet people still hated the idea.

SCs should not contribute to zone lock, even my old guild would talk to all the other guilds whenever Destro was about to zone lock and coordinate a mass "no-queue" for SCs.

This reeks of awful game design, and something that can be fixed. No reason to through out scenarios because of this.

For example 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...

[Penril]

One side is close to lock a zone. Need a couple SC wins.

Ad chat says: "dont pug/solo SCs, we got some premades working on it".

Casual player says "but i can only play 2.7 minutes a day, i want to do SC NAO, you elitist pricks".

These players get destroyed in SCs, pushing back the zone lock for another 20-30 minutes.

These players get flamed to death in pm's and Ad chat.






SC's should NOT be mixed with RvR. Same with PQ's and any PvE content.

[Jaycub]

Again that is an awful reason to not tie a huge part of the game into the campaign.

And that scenario works both ways, with pugs queing on the losing faction and tipping the balance for the winning.