Poll: RvR System Proposal

[Tiggo]

So, the above changes in question seem very reasonable. If I may add, would it be possible to include zone announcements just like when door / keep / lord is being hit?

Something to let us know how many VPs have been accumulated?
It would coordinate the factions in a way where priorities are addressed accordingly.

you mean besides the zone anouncement already in the game telling when door / keep / lord is being hit?

and as i mentioned: yes there needs a good gui for infos.

[Tiggo]

I'm seeing a lot of the same points, and I think the proposal could be modified to support them with no problems:

1. Keep 2/3 zones open at once
2. Remove scenarios from the VP calculations (probably increase the point cap from RvR to compensate)
3. Reduce the value of some rewards, and only share capture rewards within range of an objective.

But there's still the problem as previously pointed out, "What if the opposing faction just doesn't participate, and denies a zone lock by sitting in the warcamp doing nothing?"

To that end, what if the VP cap method was supplemented by another old system? If, and only if, a faction has <=55% population, they can automatically lock a zone by holding every objective (Keeps and BOs) for a period of time, but losing a single objective resets that timer.

This does two things. First, it allows one faction to continue to cap a zone even if the enemy refuses to fight back, and thereby deny the RvR VPs which would otherwise be required. Second, it still prevents the enemy from crossrealming over to the winning faction at the last minute just to ride a "free" zone lock. If one faction does massively outnumber the other, they can still lock a zone by accumulating enough VP through RvR.

If there is enough support for this, or alternative suggestions, I can amend the proposal on the first page. Incidentally, the poll is setup to allow changing of votes if the above changes make the system more or less agreeable to the community.

i like this!

[Genisaurus]

Reduce the value of some rewards, and only share capture rewards within range of an objective.

With capture reward you mean the zone lock?

No, I mean Keep captures and zone locks.

If BOs increase the regen rate of the door, and there isn't a requirement to "hold X BOs before the keep is attackable," then keeping and taking BOs can make or break a keep assault/defense. If the defenders can reclaim 2 BOs behind the backs of the attackers, maybe the regen rate of the door will outpace the attacker's damage, letting the defense succeed. If it increases the speed with which the doors close again, it shortens the time to the defense reward and prepares the keep against another attack.

Those who volunteer to either steal BOs back or keep them from the defenders should share in the rewards of the greater keep assault/defense. Otherwise, you'll just have the same zerg and AFKers at keeps that we have now, with no greater strategy.

[Tesq]

Reduce the value of some rewards, and only share capture rewards within range of an objective.

With capture reward you mean the zone lock?

No, I mean Keep captures and zone locks.

If BOs increase the regen rate of the door, and there isn't a requirement to "hold X BOs before the keep is attackable," then keeping and taking BOs can make or break a keep assault/defense. If the defenders can reclaim 2 BOs behind the backs of the attackers, maybe the regen rate of the door will outpace the attacker's damage, letting the defense succeed. If it increases the speed with which the doors close again, it shortens the time to the defense reward and prepares the keep against another attack.

Those who volunteer to either steal BOs back or keep them from the defenders should share in the rewards of the greater keep assault/defense. Otherwise, you'll just have the same zerg and AFKers at keeps that we have now, with no greater strategy.

i dont get why you propose to totaly make impossible keep siege, i dont think that something that totaly block a siege it's something good for a rvr game.
If you wanna hit something hit the zerg not the keep siege.

Keep siege are fine you do not need to rework them. The problem it's population itself, find a way to break zerg without touch keep meccanic please.

The only results to make flags heal keep door would be more zerg to the offensive side to fastly crush before any flag get captured, or as def 1 BIG zerg that take 1 flag by 1 and cos it cannot be countered the attackers would not even able to win the regen rate. It's not even right that when 1 side totally outnumber the other one the last one is able to totaly BLOCK the siege. This is an extreme solution that do not fit well in the game.

The solution must be found around how rewards are give, via scaling vp value, via meccanic that avoid afk from fight or punish zerg itself. Also yea a double system would be better than a single one, also 2 keep to capture are better than 1 = lock.

maybe a soft timer and a hard timer (so to have 3 system to lock a zone but make it more long would even being better.

[Razid1987]

i dont get why you propose to totaly make impossible keep siege, i dont think that something that totaly block a siege it's something good for a rvr game.
If you wanna hit something hit the zerg not the keep siege.

I disagree. Getting through a good defended keep can be near impossible with all the lag, bodyblocking and bombing.

Keep siege are fine you do not need to rework them. The problem it's population itself, find a way to break zerg without touch keep meccanic please.

If the BOs have a value, you need to defend them WHILE you are attacking the keep. It's brilliant actually.

The only results to make flags heal keep door would be more zerg to the offensive side to fastly crush before any flag get captured, or as def 1 BIG zerg that take 1 flag by 1 and cos it cannot be countered the attackers would not even able to win the regen rate. It's not even right that when 1 side totally outnumber the other one the last one is able to totaly BLOCK the siege. This is an extreme solution that do not fit well in the game.

No, it wouldn't. Don't you get it? If you can't take a keep unless you control all BOs then controlling all BOs suddenly becomes your top priority. I love it. If you, in such a system, still stayed in one big zerg, you're an idiot.

The solution must be found around how rewards are give, via scaling vp value, via meccanic that avoid afk from fight or punish zerg itself. Also yea a double system would be better than a single one, also 2 keep to capture are better than 1 = lock.

I disagree. Rewards should guide players, not force them. We all saw how that went with the infamous 80:20 night.

[Tesq]

i dont get why you propose to totaly make impossible keep siege, i dont think that something that totaly block a siege it's something good for a rvr game.
If you wanna hit something hit the zerg not the keep siege.

I disagree. Getting through a good defended keep can be near impossible with all the lag, bodyblocking and bombing.

There is a lot of difference, if defenders def it's k but if defendere cut the siege just re-taking two flags it's not good imo.
I wanna keep fight, ***** it's an important part of war rvr, if i would small skirm i would roll into sc. Cut siege it's only a bad way to rewamp Orvr.

Keep siege are fine you do not need to rework them. The problem it's population itself, find a way to break zerg without touch keep meccanic please.

If the BOs have a value, you need to defend them WHILE you are attacking the keep. It's brilliant actually.

So tell me why a zerging side should spread when he can rush and kill door in few seconds? get flags then rush, giving no time to organize def, also if boths sides are unable to start a siege due to this system and take it until 1 door it's down ppl wil leave cos all effort seems uselss...... you will just make rvr worst FOR ALL instead solve the zerg problem.

The solution must be found around how rewards are give, via scaling vp value, via meccanic that avoid afk from fight or punish zerg itself. Also yea a double system would be better than a single one, also 2 keep to capture are better than 1 = lock.

I disagree. Rewards should guide players, not force them. We all saw how that went with the infamous 80:20 night.

yes in fact rewards guided the ass of all those ppl to try to get more keeps they could before order zerg re roll, rewards must be based on "how" you accomplish things and not based on accomplishing things only.

You need a malus/bonus system not give x4-6 rewards around

these considerations for fix rvr are based on the fact that there would always be 2 zergs, 1 more zergy than other and stronger but there would still be ppl on the other side, if the zerg is total ( i mean things get really sided )how this system prevent the zerg? -->answer: it can't.

PPl would just cap flags--->rush keep ---> if flags get's taken (with small timer for zerg is even faster re cap all, with bigger timer zerg cannot be stop for x time :/ )-----> repeat for second keep /lock if 1 keep

Also run when outnumber mean risk to be hardly kill and really no one like to be zerged to try to put up a fight he will simply swap side or do other. That's way 3 zone open are important, vp system it's important, a timer system it's important.

I could support the idea of carrier + vp system to make flags contribuite to something but keep siege and and flags must remain separate.

[warhammer1995]

i dont think this rvr system will solve problem,realm choose shuold be fixed.

[Namtih]

What did you say about the last implementet System on live, with carrier's on Bo's? Pro's i think was that the Zerg have to split to defend all. No one big Zerg all the time. Defenders need to tap Bo's also to regen the door, so no one big Zerg fight. Con's i dont know. Whaaagh

[Jaycub]

i dont think this rvr system will solve problem,realm choose shuold be fixed.

Accounts are free, people will just have multiple accounts. If you lock accounts to an IP or range, they will just use a VPN or whatever.

15 dollars a month wasn't enough on live to stop a good bit of cross realming either.

[Tesq]

What did you say about the last implementet System on live, with carrier's on Bo's? Pro's i think was that the Zerg have to split to defend all. No one big Zerg all the time. Defenders need to tap Bo's also to regen the door, so no one big Zerg fight. Con's i dont know. Whaaagh

contr:
-not really need to def flags/wait in tactic points, gank
-when keep 4 starts zerg to keep bother not about flags.
-carrier where easier killable near keep so no door heal really unlss mindless ppl are playing.(if keep under 2 stars even more easier).
-no way to re-capture the keep. ( no 5 min reset + clickable flag like pre 1.4))