Return of Reckoning

With the latest addition of changes pushing the server furthermore into a direction of ubber pugging and casual play

- Rewrote the entire way we handle unlocking zones on the server in preparation for upcoming content releases.
* Only one pairing at a time is open.
* When a pairing is completed past a fort, a new pairing will open.
* The campaign is 'won' when 2 out of 3 fortress zones are captured in favor of a realm, and ALL zones will reset to T2 upon the campaign being won.
* There are currently no rewards for winning the campaign, but give it time...

It raises the question, is there really a spot for organized guild warbands on RoR anymore?
Most of the active EU guilds who are able to run guildwarbands in EU primetime (sorry NA correct me if I am uninformed and you have this sort of action aswel), often start around 19:30 CET or 20:00 CET. And as a natural result of when the playerbase is home from their daily irl activities and families are fed & in bed. "Raid time" has often collided as of late with an endzone or a Fortress.

Up untill today, that has been rather annoying due to the limmitation of reservations. A neccessary evil to prevent server lag in massve keep fights (proof #1 that the devs know about terrible performance when too many players are stacked)
So the usual move from guildwarbands was to tell their members to finish fort asap and stall the guild-raid, or simple pull everyone out of the fort and roam in the off-zone.

With todays change this is no longer a possibility, and with most EU guilds running only 3 days a week for roughly 3hours on these evenings this change will cut out such a big portion of the raid time having to wait for oRvR to open up again.
(first the scenario community felt forced to do PvE, and now the oRvR community is forced to do SCs? )
See proof1 above, and explain to me how this even makes sence of only having 1 zone available with all the action, when devs are fully aware of potential performance issues and crashes when overstacking players & action in one keep/zone.

Dont get me wrong, I honestly understand what you are trying to do here with the Forts and city sieges. And the pugging part of me was excited to play more, get involved with my Realm and push zones. But at the same time I have big concirns for how this change will affect organized guildwarband warfare. Because at first look, this is pretty much just a "log out call". It is hard enough to get a healthy roster together with 4 well rounded groups, run a good enough comp, and stay motivated to fight other organized forces and not just pug stomp, while own realm is yelling as you why you are not helping them pve down a door when you are roaming for the fights.

The last month or so, in EU primetime if action has been stalemated in a keepfunnel in one open zone, many (not all) but many of the organized guilds have swapped zone and roamed and prebuilt other zones in attempts to spread out the action.

Fortresses, and citysieges are sort of the "dream" on paper for organized warbands. If you could get instanced against an other guild, and use your hard earned gear, rank, and teamwork you have accumilated for this very reason.
But limmitations in reservations, relying on puggies because numbers matter to some extend to get there and now everything else gets paused if you log on at an unfortuneate time. You might aswel log out.

Is this really the direction the devs want, where casually pugging to obtain gear that will never be "fully used" and zerg-handholding is the only way to obtain victories? Because the trend has for far too long been people just reroll and gear out new toons in an endless cycle with no further purpose.

A concirned Warbandshitter
Previously DnD and now VII - Bombling, unskilled aoespamming feiry clown of Order

No offence, but you should know by now that organised play in general (be it warband or group-based) isn't held in the highest regard, and if changes end up having a negative effect on organised WBs, but look to be 'working' for the 'greater good' (however that is calculated, I do not know), then I doubt it will change.

Really empathise with what you're saying, bro. I'd hate to see yet more organised WBs leaving the game.

Mind you, you are drawing conclusions on something thats not finished. We are trying to figure out the cause of lagspikes and preparing for new content with how its supposed to unlock.

This is not a final solution.

Well, you can't find out what will happen with everyone in one zone by theorycrafting. The only way to actually find out what will happen is by doing the change.

The patch hasn't been live for a week yet and cities aren't even out, either. We are not going to make changes based on people reading the patch notes. We are, however, going to make adjustments based on feedback of people actually playing the game in its current state.

Seems fine if city is lvl restricted should really open extra t2 zone when fort is reached for the lowbys. if it isnt lvl restricted then 40s lead the charge to city siege through fort while lowbys got 45 mins prep time either way L2P will adapt by next week and go from there till more news comes out.

I've never supported the idea of narrowing the scope of RvR campaign in order to improve RvR gameplay whilst claiming that empty zone trading was a bad enough condition to warrant it. Being a pro-defender mentality it used to be fairly easy to stop small groups from taking zones, all that is needed is for smaller groups to be able to make a difference until (if) more defenders can come to help.

I don't oppose trying things out, of course, but I logged out this morning due to Fortress.

There are other solutions to try if this doesn't work out, too.

I wouldn't suggest removing all scenarios except one to promote more scenario pops, that is backward logic to me

I thought that RvR was at a high point before Fortresses were introduced because RvR was always happening and so were scenarios. When Fortress was introduced scenarios took a big hit during that time. My suggestion would make Fortress super hard to get to so it's only once or twice a week and let the gear be earned slowly from T4 RvR. When Live moved to a system like that most of the issues related to players zerging to get gear from Forts + City pushes disappeared and battles became more about fighting.. That was my perspective of it at least.

I would support all three pairings open at once type system but letting zones be locked by players actions, such as Fort lock or failed Fortress push (defenders win in end zone).

cheers

Secrets wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 2:28 pm Well, you can't find out what will happen with everyone in one zone by theorycrafting. The only way to actually find out what will happen is by doing the change.

The patch hasn't been live for a week yet and cities aren't even out, either. We are not going to make changes based on people reading the patch notes. We are, however, going to make adjustments based on feedback of people actually playing the game in its current state.

That is understandable but guild and warband leaders don't need to test this patch to know what having only 1 open zone is going to do during prime time. We have seen it before, and having no side zone option when forts are up is horrific for organized wb events.

It is extremely difficult if not impossible to get an entire wb into a fort. Contribution is just not reliable, and the actions that give contribution of against the nature of what organized wb's do in zones to get locks. A lot of guild wb's ignore forts rather than having the people split, and or losing session time for it.

If you are only going to have a wb up for 2-3 hrs, 1 hr of dead time is a lot. If the guilds can't play together they'll leave, or shrink. A lot of people don't care about us wb guilds, but we are a huge part of the active server pop at this point. Hundreds of players a night. This is an important issue for us.

Guild and wb leads cant give system/code information while this test can, i for one welcome further server stability even if we have to adapt alil to guildband game plan for a short while bring it! Tired of dcs winning forts and buged zones plus a city siege that actually works?? Yes please! Ea/mythic should be ashamed of theirselves both fort/citys were trash and exploited/farmed

Typical post patch whine thread on an alpha server.

This is clearly to experiment with getting ready for city sieges, not some conspiracy to harm organized play. If it doesn’t work, they will change and adapt.

Op please just wait it out, moderator please lock this shameful excuse for a thread.

Maybe It truely is just my own perspective that is wrong, because ive NEVER looked at zonelocks for their rewards in terms of bags or RR.

So hearing others say they would not go to the available off zone in T2 if T4 mainzone was a stalemate of a funnel. That just sound so allien to me. How did the game go from being so player-kill driven to be all about lootbags?!

T3 Highpass is a decent zone, but also a zone I perfer to get overwith because I know Praag is next in line after a lock. I tend to play Highpass a little more objective focused, so I can get faster to praag and ignore the objectives and roam forever. As an example.

But then again I am from the Era of Victory points, I dont fear giving someone my killingblow because some addon will give me a negativ score, I feared death because it could give my realm a disadvantage.

#MakeKillingMatter and get organized!