Return of Reckoning

Have a non-xrealming premade on the bigger side to deal with premades on the underdog side. You still have the zerg.
I still don't see how this system actively supports the underdog.

Sulorie wrote: sides have equal skill but different numbers,

Sulorie wrote: I still don't see how this system actively supports the underdog

The attacker normally is the larger force as it takes greater numbers to capture a keep. Giving all 4 BOs and Keeps equal value and making losing ONE upset the campaign does some important things.

1. splits the larger force into smaller ones all over the map
2. gives the defender a chance to find even fights that upsets the lock all over the map
3. larger forces can fail ... think about it this is really important!

Easy to understand domination system http://i.imgur.com/tEVeRDd.png

Imo BO control should support, slow down or stop a siege but never be a mandatory condition to lock a zone.
Even with virtually 600 % aao the underdog could push a BO or keep with even numbers, with 400% they have the advantage and should win the fight and set back the lock timer.

Sulorie wrote:Imo BO control should support, slow down or stop a siege but never be a mandatory condition to lock a zone.

IMHO it is important organisation and tactics matter and locks are earned. Even denying locks as underdog was insanely rewarding/fun

Sulorie wrote: Even with virtually 600 % aao the underdog could push a BO or keep with even numbers, with 400% they have the advantage and should win the fight and set back the lock timer.

Attacker had groups defend/delay fight on all BOs. Reinforcements was rushed in to aid/recap as "defendera" hit them. The "defenders" also needed to hold BOs long enough to get the timer reset (avoid insta recap).

It is a "cat and mouse game" where either the "cat" get the lock or tire http://i.imgur.com/tEVeRDd.png

Bozzax wrote:

Sulorie wrote:With domination you mean holding all BO + keeps for a certain time to lock a zone?

If yes, why shouldn't all players switch to the bigger side to guarantee a lock?

You actually point out key selling point and the biggest difference to an accumulating VP system

The Zerg quite often gave up as an well organised smaller forces could deny the lock. Other times the attacker managed to organise enough and earn it.

we shouldnt work on systems denying anything but on system everyone can win.

The secondary win condition should force the zerg to go for the keep win, with the obstacles in my suggestion, furthermore solve stalemates with even realms and shouldn't be exploitable.

Tiggo wrote:

Bozzax wrote:

Sulorie wrote:With domination you mean holding all BO + keeps for a certain time to lock a zone?

If yes, why shouldn't all players switch to the bigger side to guarantee a lock?

You actually point out key selling point and the biggest difference to an accumulating VP system

The Zerg quite often gave up as an well organised smaller forces could deny the lock. Other times the attacker managed to organise enough and earn it.

we shouldnt work on systems denying anything but on system everyone can win.

You mean like like rewarding renown for dying in RvR?

Sulorie wrote:The secondary win condition should force the zerg to go for the keep win, with the obstacles in my suggestion, furthermore solve stalemates with even realms and shouldn't be exploitable.

So zerg wins by blobing up and zerging?

even if you make flags important, the zergign side still have the advantage even more if the zerg is total side, if you make unlock keep too hard an lock a zone too hard ppl will zerg by default.

Best is think to a system that "nor only" make flags important regard somethin but also make easier and "possible" for zerg side lock and still do not block keep siege

Bozzax wrote:

Sulorie wrote:The secondary win condition should force the zerg to go for the keep win, with the obstacles in my suggestion, furthermore solve stalemates with even realms and shouldn't be exploitable.

So zerg wins by blobing up and zerging?

In this system zerging isn't helping anyone. It is easier for the underdog to take and hold flags, due to different timers based on aao. The bigger side has to split in order to hold their flags.
If the 2nd win condition is about points, generated by owned BO, then the underdog could earn more points in the same time frame per BO than the zerging side.
If this would lead to a win for the underdog in the long run, then the zerg has to push for the keep in order to win the zone.
If both sides are equal, fight a lot skirmishes but are not in the position to attack the enemy keep, then this could lead to a winner as well.

@Tesq, stop pulling your all the time.