Fortress siege + gold bag rolling feedback.

[Collateral]

One way to prevent people from giving up zones entirely could be to reward invader medals in the final zones before forts. That way you still have a reason to fight for the zone, while making some progress towards invader gear. You can't blame people for choosing the path of least resistance. After all, it's in the design of the game, so it's only logical.

[wargrimnir]

One way to prevent people from giving up zones entirely could be to reward invader medals in the final zones before forts. That way you still have a reason to fight for the zone, while making some progress towards invader gear. You can't blame people for choosing the path of least resistance. After all, it's in the design of the game, so it's only logical.

I can see it from a perspective where that would be yet another reason to not fight for the zone at all. Faster flip, faster medallions. Same problem.

[Xergon]

One way to prevent people from giving up zones entirely could be to reward invader medals in the final zones before forts. That way you still have a reason to fight for the zone, while making some progress towards invader gear. You can't blame people for choosing the path of least resistance. After all, it's in the design of the game, so it's only logical.

I can see it from a perspective where that would be yet another reason to not fight for the zone at all. Faster flip, faster medallions. Same problem.

Yes, its player mentality problem, not easy fix for it.

Maybe good try would be CONTRIBUTION Reservation slots (which Natherul said should work but it doesn't) maybe 24 slot is too few, 48 should be proper amount (half of 96) for invaders and 36 for defenders.

[Collateral]

One way to prevent people from giving up zones entirely could be to reward invader medals in the final zones before forts. That way you still have a reason to fight for the zone, while making some progress towards invader gear. You can't blame people for choosing the path of least resistance. After all, it's in the design of the game, so it's only logical.

I can see it from a perspective where that would be yet another reason to not fight for the zone at all. Faster flip, faster medallions. Same problem.

That's why you should reward player kills, not a zone flip. It promotes fighting at least to some extent. Maybe make a quest like we used to have for conq medals. Each end zone has a quest to kill x amount of players for y amount of medals.

[wargrimnir]

One way to prevent people from giving up zones entirely could be to reward invader medals in the final zones before forts. That way you still have a reason to fight for the zone, while making some progress towards invader gear. You can't blame people for choosing the path of least resistance. After all, it's in the design of the game, so it's only logical.

I can see it from a perspective where that would be yet another reason to not fight for the zone at all. Faster flip, faster medallions. Same problem.

That's why you should reward player kills, not a zone flip. It promotes fighting at least to some extent. Maybe make a quest like we used to have for conq medals. Each end zone has a quest to kill x amount of players for y amount of medals.

Which would be farmed endlessly. Hard pass on that.

[Gangan]

Spoiler:

I can see it from a perspective where that would be yet another reason to not fight for the zone at all. Faster flip, faster medallions. Same problem.

That's why you should reward player kills, not a zone flip. It promotes fighting at least to some extent. Maybe make a quest like we used to have for conq medals. Each end zone has a quest to kill x amount of players for y amount of medals.

Which would be farmed endlessly. Hard pass on that.

Maybe it could be turned it in at your lord, during a fortress-def? Only kills in last zone before the fortress should count, only for defender and all three zone should have a separate one^^

Like " Hey, you didn't stop the enemies, but at least you tried. Here's your Good-Noodle-Star "

[bloodi]

A system that encourages you giving up till you can put your enemies in a position where they are at heavy disadvantage? Great stuff.

A system that encourages attakcing the enemy for kills but then it would actually give gear in a consistent manner? Hard pass.

[saupreusse]

But you get Medallions for loosing, should be fine when gear are purshable

So does the faction that gets the bags but one of the factions has to push the campaign so they can attakc a fort and get farmed in it while giving the opposing faction BiS gear.

If you folks cant figure how this encourages not pushing the campaign and you rather lose, so you can get into fortress defenses, well,i really dont know what to say.

Somehow now people who refuse to defend till they have an almost an insurmountable advantage via the fortress are now the ones who should be rewarded because "they deserve it"

I dont get how no one answered you, because this is exactly the problem. No one will want to attack a fort and push campaign when you can also wait for theenemy to attack andget easy bags. This system rewards losing the campaign and i really dont see how a losing realm deserves the treasure in the end.

[mubbl]

Spoiler:

But you get Medallions for loosing, should be fine when gear are purshable

So does the faction that gets the bags but one of the factions has to push the campaign so they can attakc a fort and get farmed in it while giving the opposing faction BiS gear.

If you folks cant figure how this encourages not pushing the campaign and you rather lose, so you can get into fortress defenses, well,i really dont know what to say.

Somehow now people who refuse to defend till they have an almost an insurmountable advantage via the fortress are now the ones who should be rewarded because "they deserve it"

I dont get how no one answered you, because this is exactly the problem. No one will want to attack a fort and push campaign when you can also wait for theenemy to attack andget easy bags. This system rewards losing the campaign and i really dont see how a losing realm deserves the treasure in the end.

i want to attack a fort and push the campaign, but a certain problem orcure: immense blobbing of enemys in a zone so ram lags out, dev say srew you go start somewhere else, take the less rewards(no enemy in zone,aao malus) and prepare another full campaign lock (cool story: 2star ram=15min waiting on bo). and everything goes back to "i wanna play my st in large scale, i dont wanna adapt i just want to blob...omg gtdc op".
How the "losing" realm deserves the treasure in this enviroment?....hmmm maybe, because the attackers cant take the last step for some of the mentioned reasons? its a basic of i won the battles but not the war.

[bloodi]

I dont get how no one answered you, because this is exactly the problem. No one will want to attack a fort and push campaign when you can also wait for theenemy to attack andget easy bags. This system rewards losing the campaign and i really dont see how a losing realm deserves the treasure in the end.

Well i kinda got a reply, "this never happens and if it did, i would delete the gear of the people who did that".

Except it happened a lot since forts were implemented and unless we star deleting all gear in the game, everyone is culprit of it, order and destruction.

In the first 4 forts that i was part of, it was 3 attacks of order and 1 destruction, i didnt see a single piece of order gear posted in any discord till order defended, where they could actually farm contribution by killing destruction over and over, basically pushing the campaign and forcing 3 attacks made destruction richer.

And is simple to fix, just make the realms roll on separate tables, dont mix them up, you cant just reward only the side who won in a fight that is asymetrycal, one side gets advantage and while that still exists, the incentive and benefit of giving up will always be there.

And no, people wont change, is the system that has to work around the fact that people are shitty, not the other way around.