Patchnotes 20/09/16

[dur3al]

What needs to be determined and tested by the community in the coming weeks, is whether one realm should be allowed to freely outnumber the enemy by as much as a 4:1 ratio. When we have no way to lock players to one faction, and no penalty to switching factions, then without a penalty the incentive is always, largely, to switch to the winning team. We have seen this over and over and over.

It's perfectly possible and reasonable to determine that a penalty for massively outnumbering your opponent needs to be there, but the numbers as they currently are are too great.

This actually gave me an idea to combat xrealming. How about that when you switch factions you just don't gain renown/exp/inf/rewards from orvr for 24h.

People who genuinely want to switch sides to help against the faction will gladly do it in a long course (if they faction is heavily zerging the opposing faction) and will take the 24h "ban" to fight the zerging faction throughout a longer period.
While the people who search for easy "daily" locks will be ****.

[Penril]

This actually gave me an idea to combat xrealming. How about that when you switch factions you just don't gain renown/exp/inf/rewards from orvr for 24h.

People who genuinely want to switch sides to help against the faction will gladly do it in a long course (if they faction is heavily zerging the opposing faction) and will take the 24h "ban" to fight the zerging faction throughout a longer period.
While the people who search for easy "daily" locks will be ****.

People with 2 accounts can easily bypass that.

I thought of something similar yet different several months ago... when you log in, you have a penalty to your renown/xp/influence for the first X minutes. After that, you receive a bonus ("loyalty" buff or something like that) which increases for every Y minutes you stay logged on that faction. This way, those who swap to the other faction to get a flip or something like that will receive crap rewards. Those who stay though will get nice renown/xp due to this buff (stackable with AAO ofc).

Those who genuinely want to switch sides to help (in other words, join the underdog) will be punished for the first X minutes, yes, but AAO compensates for that (they will have AAO if they are swapping to the underdog). You can't exploit this system by having 2 accounts.

[Theseus]

Hm, one question. Even if you have all bos, if you outnumber the oposing side, you get the debuff if both sides have more than 36 players in the field, did i get that right? If that happens, arent players forced to change zones, as there is no other way to avoid the debuff if there are more than the double players than on the posing side?

[Grobbok]

it is end for small organized rvr, now only big zerg count if you realm have debuff, and if you want have any chance to win fight you need join zerg
sorry, but this idea is created for add more ppl to zerg, not against zerg

[Geezer]

Hm, one question. Even if you have all bos, if you outnumber the oposing side, you get the debuff if both sides have more than 36 players in the field, did i get that right? If that happens, arent players forced to change zones, as there is no other way to avoid the debuff if there are more than the double players than on the posing side?

If you hold all 4 BO's then you get 200% supply, meaning you can field twice as many players as the other side without a debuff. So if the side with no BO's had 50 then the other side could have 100 without triggering a debuff. At least that's how I read it.

[Theseus]

Hm, one question. Even if you have all bos, if you outnumber the oposing side, you get the debuff if both sides have more than 36 players in the field, did i get that right? If that happens, arent players forced to change zones, as there is no other way to avoid the debuff if there are more than the double players than on the posing side?

If you hold all 4 BO's then you get 200% supply, meaning you can field twice as many players as the other side without a debuff. So if the side with no BO's had 50 then the other side could have 100 without triggering a debuff. At least that's how I read it.

Thats, how I read it too, but what do you do, the side with the bos have 106 people.

[Kopfmotorrad]

My 10 cents on this:

1. Sure, I will try this.
2. We struggle to get better gear and better talismans and more renown points to just change our chances in a fight by a handfull of attribute points. We rejoice when we have 2% more crit than last month.
That all seems utterly insignificant when damage dealt/received may be boosted/debuffed by such high percentages.
Why even use pots anymore....

Small, unbalanced fights? The effect isn't that great. If there's a 1 warband of Order controlling all 4 BOs, and 2 warbands of Destro with 0 BOs, the bonus damage and mitigation is only 15%, and that's a worst-case scenario.

Only 15 % ! .... only ... Thats like saying that 10 Renown Points dont make a difference.

Large, unbalanced fights? Let's say 1 warband Order vs 4 warbands Destro. Destro has 0 BOs, so this is another worst-case scenario. sqrt(96 / Max(36, 12)) = 63%. This is pretty big, but there's also 96 Destro players fighting 24 Order. Even if Destro had all 4 BOs in this case, the bonus to Order only decreases to 41%.

Does this example expect the single warband actually to fight against 4 warbands? Because it is more likely that the single warband with the massive Bonus will encounter another single enemy warband and absolutely flatten them.

[Geezer]

Thats, how I read it too, but what do you do, the side with the bos have 106 people.

Then you have to do the math where the extra 6 players cause a slight debuff.

[Theseus]

Thats, how I read it too, but what do you do, the side with the bos have 106 people.

Then you have to do the math where the extra 6 players cause a slight debuff.

Well ist obvious that they would cause a debuff you cant avoid. My question however is, what can those players do? Just stay out of the RvR lake? Change Zone? Thats the problem I see.

[Azarael]

There is a bug with the supply bonus for defending the closest zone to the fortress. It's not being applied because I put it between preprocessor directive tags by mistake.