Return of Reckoning

It does not matter. The fact that a majority voted for 1.0 - 1.2 rvr system gives a clear message that this specific poll should be ignored, and that most forum voters dont play RvR.

Would not be a bad idea to let people that are most active in organized RvR help decide which course to take regarding RvR campaign in T4

Rebuke wrote:It does not matter. The fact that a majority voted for 1.0 - 1.2 rvr system gives a clear message that this specific poll should be ignored, and that most forum voters dont play RvR.

Would not be a bad idea to let people that are most active in organized RvR help decide which course to take regarding RvR campaign in T4

What? As someone who played in one of the top RvR guilds in Europe I can tell you that those were far better than the later revisions. Resource carriers were terrible, and (along with the terrible gear imbalanced caused by rr100) caused most of my guild to quit over a very short span of time.

Only change I'd like to see is remove PQ contribution (since they're slightly broken) and since we have such a whide array of SC's, only make Empire/Chaos SC's count for Emp/Chaos pairing, Elf themed for elf pairing and dwarf/gobbo for that pairing (which is almost how it worked on live).

Vayra wrote:

Rebuke wrote:It does not matter. The fact that a majority voted for 1.0 - 1.2 rvr system gives a clear message that this specific poll should be ignored, and that most forum voters dont play RvR.

Would not be a bad idea to let people that are most active in organized RvR help decide which course to take regarding RvR campaign in T4

What? As someone who played in one of the top RvR guilds in Europe I can tell you that those were far better than the later revisions. Resource carriers were terrible, and (along with the terrible gear imbalanced caused by rr100) caused most of my guild to quit over a very short span of time.

None of the options are perfect. The RvR campaign system needs an entire overhaul. However the sheer dependabilities (pve, sc's, lower tiers) of 1.0 - 1.2 on locking a zone and casual "I dont want to invest time and effort in organizing a decent 24 warband" of 1.4.0 are things to completely forego. Also having played in a RvR guild on live does not warrant you know your stuff. I see RvR leaders from live, playing on RoR, still proposing shield walls during keep defenses. RoR is not a copy of WAR, and neither should the RvR be.

ppl will still gona pve if they want and anyway just pve run anything on your map to increase your rvr vp are senseless .
Sc are different if 1 side is zerging the other can have a close eviroment to earn some vps which they are use to balance the skirmish counter that the zergins side is probably owning.

That said options are pretty much there, carrier can be used in more dynamic ways but when the lock system shifted to 1.4 a lot was lost.
-2 keep for attacker to take in later zone
-while keep was resetting after being conquered you could try to re claim it
-underpopulated side that could basically block the lock re cap 1 flag while the overpopulated side had to spread all over.
-patrol system

the best would be take pre 1.4 lock system+ add carrirer from 1.4 and use it as a base for build the new one rvr campaign system.

Designing a new RvR system should not be done on the forums, it requires mature and well thought discussions done in TS/Vent/Skype/whatever.

The end goal should be: a system where every composition (24 man, 12 man, 6 man, 3 man fugly chu man etc.) can contribute towards the campaign and have a satisfied feeling after a zone lock.

Rebuke wrote: Also having played in a RvR guild on live does not warrant you know your stuff. I see RvR leaders from live, playing on RoR, still proposing shield walls during keep defenses. RoR is not a copy of WAR, and neither should the RvR be.

That wasn't even an effective tactic on live, so I'd argue anyone proposing that were not good leaders on live either.
I see that from time to time as well on destro, and always try to point out how bad a tactic it is. Though I do like it when order uses it, as it makes my job as a sorc so much easier.

Rebuke wrote:Designing a new RvR system should not be done on the forums, it requires mature and well thought discussions done in TS/Vent/Skype/whatever.

The end goal should be: a system where every composition (24 man, 12 man, 6 man, 3 man fugly chu man etc.) can contribute towards the campaign and have a satisfied feeling after a zone lock.

the main word is fun

-lots of thing to do
-you can decide what do
-anything you do have an impact here or there in the long way.

promote this 3 things and rvr will work, regardless party composition; ppl will found their place if the system is fun.

Agree with what Eiger said. Rvr should not revolve around excessive numbers being the main factor in winning a zone.

"The end goal should be: a system where every composition (24 man, 12 man, 6 man, 3 man fugly chu man etc.) can contribute towards the campaign and have a satisfied feeling after a zone lock.[/quote]

Completly agree with that ! !

Rebuke wrote:

Vayra wrote:

Rebuke wrote:It does not matter. The fact that a majority voted for 1.0 - 1.2 rvr system gives a clear message that this specific poll should be ignored, and that most forum voters dont play RvR.

Would not be a bad idea to let people that are most active in organized RvR help decide which course to take regarding RvR campaign in T4

What? As someone who played in one of the top RvR guilds in Europe I can tell you that those were far better than the later revisions. Resource carriers were terrible, and (along with the terrible gear imbalanced caused by rr100) caused most of my guild to quit over a very short span of time.

None of the options are perfect. The RvR campaign system needs an entire overhaul.

No.

Only one VP would need to be deducted from the total to lock a zone (64 instead of 65), but even that is debatable. It would make sense, though, because of the low population T4 might have on RoR, but that is not a problem otherwise.