Poll: RvR System Proposal

[Bignusty]

Tssss there always same peeps on each pols , your new system orvr will be a fail there already a pol for it and your VP is not supported:http://www.returnofreckoning.com/forum/ ... 4&start=30.

Because an dev write on it VP is better so a dev choose to make a VP system pol. the communoty arn't listened but always same peeps here are listened.But you dont care about other peeps dont agree whit that.

[Vigfuss]

I'm curious about how many SCs normally run at a given time. It could be almost a non factor if both sides win an equal number of SCs. More likely the underdog will win more SCs assuming the more organized players stay to fight the zerg.

At prime time I would say anywhere from 2-5 SC's running at once in the 22-26 bracket, and during NA/offtime it's 1-2 SCs at a time in that bracket. 12-21 is the deadest bracket in the game, usually T1 has pretty good pops 24/7.

T3 is inevitably going to attract a lot more players to the game, I wouldn't be surprised if we see over 1k players soon. When t3 is finished and smoothed out you will see a lot more.

If the underdog realm gets its crap together you could rack up 2 to 5 VPs every 10 - 15 mins and the other side will lose the same amount. More likely it will be half that amount because there will always be a pug SC, and a PM or two on the zerging realm as well. Normally the underdog gets faster pops because more zerging realm players are queuing. Considering that a good PM on the underdog side will make a difference.

[Tesq]

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

noooooooooo.... how would you describe attacking a keep ( door is at 50%) with good fight and then bam!! loose 1 flag and door start repair with no sense and reason!
This system would work only if 1 side always zerg the other, if both are balance (yea it can happen...) this would ruin the keep siege.

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.

you "think" that you cant take keep in time, even ppl that support the currently system thought the same way and look; it only work when there are 3 wb on each side, but that would still work even with flags give vp, at least there would be more enoyable fight, wipe moral push/ counter morals etc and rush to flags, desperate flag defense, loose a flag atm means nothing loose a flag when you you need 30 sec to lock after 2h of heavy fight that is pure fear

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?

cos i push for a aao and an "anti-aao" system that directly impact the renow /exp earned when you outnumber ppl instead change the whole siege system and it make a lot more sense and dont run the enjoyable thing in war big balanced fight that last very long.

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?

english and all eruopean language use latinism so open a dictionary and learn what malus mean.

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.

ye and it's even need an anti -aao (malus ) system

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?

i would rage cos it's **** stupid, and i would go do sc or farm other side until they unlog and then start siege, cos i would **** hate that i am fully prepare, geared and organized to shut down that door but we lost 1 flags and door is not **** attackable for a not ********************** sensed reason, it's quite the same as sc vp block lock cos 1 premade own all of yours pugs.

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.
It wont .....ppl would gank with aoo and not protect flags pure aao encourage only premades to re roll and gank cos they know very well they couldn't win vs zerg and pugs would never leave zerg cos they do not have a premade to support their action and even if they had a premade they would gank,.....not a theoryhammer all happened alredy on officials.

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 could support the idea to make keep attackable but have a very high door life that can requrie imba ammount of time to be taken down with out rams etc and so sappers could be used to build rams etc (something near GW2 style). That would interact with siege system with out ruin the fight at keep (and ramps i so damnit dreams gate sof ekrund ramps.)

separate in the meaning that each it's a single BO with it's vp and can be taken indipendently by other bo possession's

[Tesq]

the only way sc could be add to the vp system it's to make hard lock if 1 side have the underdog

do you remember underdog meccanic, the too much winning side recived a "malus" to the vp needed to be able to lock the zone.

The opposite side of the underdog could require also some vp from sc that way if one side totally roll stomp farm the other for long period of times things could became more hard, but we are talking about like when 1 side have an underdogs of -3/4.

@oldplayer, please if you wanna make ppl farm pq and loose renow and also make zerg actuallly work in pve instead in rvr and all of this seems good to you, you may eventually fight 90% of ppl in game on this point; you are the first one that told he want get pq in the vp system and also THEY DO NOT WORK so think better and suggest things that can be done.

@genisarius a lot better but i dont understand

<=55%

what does it mean? that only the outnumbered faction could lock via dominion? that should be the zerg faction, if 2/3 zone open outnumbered faction could steal flags here and there make both vp and dominions impossible and make small skirmish happen.
Cos viceversa the outnumnbered faction would never be able to lock via dominion.

i like so far the changes i would support the test that way, but still 2 zone open .....i would like 3 but i understand the population and keep trade concern but with a skirmish based vp system, renow/exp/medallion removed when aao and gave at lock only, that would totaly make keep trade+ zerg useless.

[Tesq]

Your reading comprehension skills are outstanding.

No but what you are telling me is that if I want to do RvR I have to do it your way - That's not something I take kindly.
RvR in case your reading comprehension skills are lacking, means Order versus Chaos - Scenarios, open warfare, Zerging, are all part of it, and I do not want to be restricted in my reward by your opinion of what is "proper playing".

no you are wrong

RVR = oRvr + sc ("Close rvr")

oRvR = zone lock
cRvR = sc

winning x sc in the time you lock a zone alredy reward with more renow than actually oRvR and also give sc weapons you dont need any other incientive to play sc imo.

P.s you can also leech lock for even more renow, you're welcome...not really something that need incentives.

[Genisaurus]

@genisarius a lot better but i dont understand

<=55%

what does it mean? that only the outnumbered faction could lock via dominion? that should be the zerg faction, if 2/3 zone open outnumbered faction could steal flags here and there make both vp and dominions impossible and make small skirmish happen.
Cos viceversa the outnumnbered faction would never be able to lock via dominion.

The "lock via dominion" option would only be available so long as the fight is close to even. This prevents one side from just refusing to participate in RvR because they don't want to feed VP to the winning faction. You can fight and win, or you can fight and lose. Not fighting so that your opponent can't win is not an option.

If on the other hand, one faction outnumbers their opponents by too much (having more than 55% population ratio), then they have to fight for a zone lock. This is going to be a hard fight, because it's an unfair fight, and it's an unfair fight because at a 60:40 ratio, there's at least some crossrealmers in there trying to be lazy.

Winning via VP should be the chosen route 90% of the time, either because it's the most fair and fun for everyone, or because one side has a massively unfair advantage and the VP win is harder for them. For the 10% of the time when your opponent refuses to fight an otherwise fair fight, you can lock via dominion.

[Ryzom]

Finally you have your way and the the opinion of some players is not important, why you do a poll if you know what' you are doing soon ....

[Genisaurus]

Finally you have your way and the the opinion of some players is not important, why you do a poll if you know what' you are doing soon ....

Because everything about your post is wrong.

[mirrorblade]

Finally you have your way and the the opinion of some players is not important, why you do a poll if you know what' you are doing soon ....

Some ppl had wrong answers, posts

1 Developers did create, work with our games, so they had +1 vote
2 somebody want to change the order zerg (thanx)
3 100-150 vote not relevant, we have more thousand players, but about 10% read the forum, want to change the system
4 For all never had a perfect system!!!!
5 first poll, lot of players played the last system 1.4.x and didnt know before systems,that system was a child game with only had a few tactical things and support the zerg, and second poll is very different, had a good specification(wall of text) had more tactical options, more logic, you need to look the vps!

+1 extra idea: loosers get xp/rr when stop the lock( when reset the 1 hour dominination time)

PS: we want to create a good game, so thinking, see the bigger picture not only the little

Raza

[Tesq]

Spoiler:

@genisarius a lot better but i dont understand

<=55%

what does it mean? that only the outnumbered faction could lock via dominion? that should be the zerg faction, if 2/3 zone open outnumbered faction could steal flags here and there make both vp and dominions impossible and make small skirmish happen.
Cos viceversa the outnumnbered faction would never be able to lock via dominion.

The "lock via dominion" option would only be available so long as the fight is close to even. This prevents one side from just refusing to participate in RvR because they don't want to feed VP to the winning faction. You can fight and win, or you can fight and lose. Not fighting so that your opponent can't win is not an option.

If on the other hand, one faction outnumbers their opponents by too much (having more than 55% population ratio), then they have to fight for a zone lock. This is going to be a hard fight, because it's an unfair fight, and it's an unfair fight because at a 60:40 ratio, there's at least some crossrealmers in there trying to be lazy.

Winning via VP should be the chosen route 90% of the time, either because it's the most fair and fun for everyone, or because one side has a massively unfair advantage and the VP win is harder for them. For the 10% of the time when your opponent refuses to fight an otherwise fair fight, you can lock via dominion.

K seems interesting to me. But what if one side totally dont fight, dominion system was put to avoid ppl that block the lock with without fight play.

This is the only hole in the VP system that was fill with the dominion system, if the dominion system would have a very few timer like 20-30 min other side would be forced to play, and at least refuse to fight would not be an option.