Delay Cities To Peak Hours

[nat3s]

I say again. Do not push zones in prime time. Let it "die" in prime and let NA players do theyr part of the job(T2-T4 fort zones).

You misunderstand, late US TZ can clear a campaign from T2 to city in a few hours. It matters not what state EU prime leaves things in... But nice try at protecting your honey pot!

[nuadarstark]

Yeah when you have t2-t4 zones with 150 attackers and 50 defenders (because other side is attacking different map), you can breeze through the campaign extremely fast.

[Onykz]

My solution would be:

Make zonelocks T2-T4 reward the winning faction with ”1” per lock

Make endzone locks reward ”2” per lock

Make forts reward ”3” per won fort

Have city sieges at a set schedule (as proposed earlier), perhaps six per week, allowing players to que for three in total per week.

When cities happen add up the 1’s, 2’s and 3’s to give increased rewards to the faction who locked more zones throughout the campaign in a given week.

My estimation is that this would make every zonelock/keepfight T2 to fort worth fighting for, regardless if a new player or seasoned veteran.
Also gives everyone a chance to participate both in ORvR and cities regardless of timezones.

Thoughts?

[M0rw47h]

What about making invader and royal from ranked aswell?

There would be no oRvR.

You don't get those from this oRvR anyways

I do, from purple/gold bags on multiple characters.

[growill]

What about delaying city sieges to different times unrelated to when forts actually get pushed? It would help the problem and at the same time be kinda lore-friendly. It still makes sense if the invaders actually prepare for the siege instead of rushing it right away (actually it would almost make more sense imo)

Say at 7.00am the last fort locks and city will start.
Next day forts lock again at 7am but city will start at 10am
Next time forts will lock at whatever time and city will start at 1pm

and so on

In the meanwhile t2-t3 maps become playable again maybe dunno