Keep Lord

[megadeath]

And we had 3 at the start and 4 at the keep siege.

Is it your?

we managed to get the pugonauts to follow us and finally kill you lot

Are you really this dense?

[lastalien]

As Haojun mentioned, 9 out of 10 times we end up on the attacking side, despite having mostly fewer numbers simply because Order. Refuses. To. Attack. And people wonder why Destro is not playing the game.

I'm surprised such a one-sided in the coverage of the issue. We have absolutely the same problems. I do not know who defend the current RVR system, but a few days before, when I started this thread with a very similar issue when we pressed through the defense with the same number of defense and attack, you tried to put me as the noob , who can not engage in PvE. Now, when you are faced with a similar problem, once it appears that an abused and humiliated Destro, constantly experiencing difficulty due to the fact that the order is bad and does not want to play with the challenge.

Lol

And your RVR ends Keep attack only due to the fact that we go to sleep and our realm has not enough numbers to go into the field.

Change your prime time. lol

[Tiggo]

as i remember on live you even had to have PVE armor with pve mitigation on it to tank the lord!

It wasn't a certain pve armor. All armor either pve or pvp of Annihilator tier and above gave wards. But not sure whether it was already required for keep lords in t4.

could be it was for fortress lords yes. i just remember "let linus tank he is lost vale" cause he had all lost vale items very early

[Tiggo]

on topic:

bringing people out to the lakes wont be done by weakening the lord but by increasing the importance for keep take what is hapening in the lake. like more buffs for holding bos etc.

if its 2wb vs. 2wb it should be difficult to take the keep. Defenders always have some advantage, but i agree it should not be impossible of course.

playing with pugs against npc mechanics is ALWAYS difficult cause with 48players you have 48 people who can **** the whole thing up by taunting etc. BUT i think rather then simplifying everything all players should encourage PUGs to learn and adapt and make them better alltogether.

we are in the unique position to not having to cater to "casuals" by making the game easier and easier and i think thats a good thing. It sets us apart from the modern games which get easier and easier all the time ...

[faiden]

A keep should be hard to take as rank 5 not as rank 0.
A rank 5 keep has resources to feed upon while it decreases in rank unless resupplied
if you are rank 0 you are starving and should get debuffed because of this is this not logical thinking?
If we cut off all resupply the keep should not stay thesame.

[zumos2]

on topic:

bringing people out to the lakes wont be done by weakening the lord but by increasing the importance for keep take what is hapening in the lake. like more buffs for holding bos etc.

if its 2wb vs. 2wb it should be difficult to take the keep. Defenders always have some advantage, but i agree it should not be impossible of course.

playing with pugs against npc mechanics is ALWAYS difficult cause with 48players you have 48 people who can **** the whole thing up by taunting etc. BUT i think rather then simplifying everything all players should encourage PUGs to learn and adapt and make them better alltogether.

we are in the unique position to not having to cater to "casuals" by making the game easier and easier and i think thats a good thing. It sets us apart from the modern games which get easier and easier all the time ...

Which is never gonna happen and you should know that.

[Tiggo]

A keep should be hard to take as rank 5 not as rank 0.
A rank 5 keep has resources to feed upon while it decreases in rank unless resupplied
if you are rank 0 you are starving and should get debuffed because of this is this not logical thinking?
If we cut off all resupply the keep should not stay thesame.

fair suggestion.

[Buran]

It's the system which should make keep defence unviable with larger numbers after a certain timespan. As long as that is not the case, you will see the current stalemates as a result.

U can not balanced this for all numbers of people. For example: u can not to take keep easy with 300 vs.300 like 50 vs 50. Ofcouse it is hard to know that sometimes numbers stronger than you. But i think that the right way to not afraid numbers, becouse community based on the search for solutions and the benefits of cooperation players. U are looking for solutions simplifying the attack, and at the same time forget that the defense has a reverse side. This must be balanced! Because nobody wants to loose without the chance to win. This is the main reason of xrealm and only community of players make it less. But u want to break community with changes which would brake the play with WBs, with GUilds and allyances. Do not to suprise when, after wipe u would not see people at RvR.

[Thayli]

It's the system which should make keep defence unviable with larger numbers after a certain timespan. As long as that is not the case, you will see the current stalemates as a result.

U can not balanced this for all numbers of people. For example: u can not to take keep easy with 300 vs.300 like 50 vs 50. Ofcouse it is hard to know that sometimes numbers stronger than you. But i think that the right way to not afraid numbers, becouse community based on the search for solutions and the benefits of cooperation players. U are looking for solutions simplifying the attack, and at the same time forget that the defense has a reverse side. This must be balanced! Because nobody wants to loose without the chance to win. This is the main reason os xrealm and only community of players make it less. But u want to break community with changes which would brake the play with WBs, with GUilds and allyances. Do not to suprise when, after wipe u would not see people at RvR.

I disagree. I think we can all agree that stalemates are the most boring and potentially frustrating thing in this game when it comes to RVR. There are 3 solutions on how to solve keep siege being the stalemate that it currently is:

1) Have the defence grow in power as time goes on
This is sort of what we're seeing indirectly now. After a few tries, the attackers lose numbers while the defenders gain as people log in on the winning side for easy rewards. There is just no system that ties into this. I'm personally not a fan of this one since this will mean that a keep will most likely be unsiegable and RVR will end up staying in the same zone for ages.

2) Have the attack grow in power as time goes on
This to me is the right option. Of course it should be tied into the resource system. All this simply means is that if your keep is rank 0, the attacker's keep is rank 5 and they hold all BO's, you will hit a diminishing return if you defend with large numbers as time grows. The counterplay to this is that you can have a chunk of those people leave the keep, capture a BO and return a resource. The point here is that idling in the keep for defence is no longer viable for long durations and you will get a penalty, but you can remove/prevent this penalty by actually participating in the RVR lake, as people damn well should.

3) Have other means of capturing the zone.
We were theorycrafting about this yesterday on the guild Teamspeak. One of the suggestions that popped up is why not be able to flip the zone by holding all BOs for an hour or so, without taking the keep (credit to roadkillrobin for the idea). To me this feels more like a bandaid, instead of a true fix to keep sieges. Maybe this could be implemented alongside?

It is not the goal to make one side stronger than the other completely. It is about decreasing the chance of a stalemate as time grows. Think of it like this: you know those zombie survival games, where you defend against horde after horde that repeatedly grows in power each round? Option 2 basically should simulate that very effect. Yes, that means that given enough time, a keep is undefendable. The distinguishment would be in how long you could defend it for. The upside is that this would completely prevent stalemates, which is the overall goal here.

[lastalien]

3) Have other means of capturing the zone.
We were theorycrafting about this yesterday on the guild Teamspeak. One of the suggestions that popped up is why not be able to flip the zone by holding all BOs for an hour or so, without taking the keep (credit to roadkillrobin for the idea). To me this feels more like a bandaid, instead of a true fix to keep sieges. Maybe this could be implemented alongside?
.

Nice Idea