Return of Reckoning

About the campaign design, that will be nice "for me" to have more strategy in players hands.
To reach a score for every maps controled to be able to go to the Fortress and to the Capital.
A system who give to every map a strategic importance is an assurance to have no or less "trade zone" because trade/give one map to the other Realm mean have less chance to go to his Fortress/Capital and be less rewarded.

I am pretty sure that the number of players who have stop to play day after day since the begining because of the presence of NB is more consequent than the numbers of "players" who have left because of the NB ban.

I also really like the recommended change here for keeping more than one zone open.

The reason the current system locks two pairings is due to a "Tie" in fort points, but it's still possible that a scheduled City happens during a Tie. If so, it randomly decides which city gets attacked - in fact, this happened just last week.

So, if the team would prefer to keep the current scheduled cities, but still make players happy, the solution is pretty easy:

- Always keep at least Two Pairings open for players to fight in.
- In the event of a tie on Fort points for cities, roll randomly to decide who attacks, like the system already does.

It's not a huge change from the current system, and ensuring that there's always two open zones would be great.

Yeah one zone sucks. Two is better, 3 is best. It's the only way to split up the zerg. I'd also say we need to remove SoR. So that it increases the response time of any zerg moving to follow WB's that leave that zone to go and push another zone. Or just make it so it updates once every 10 minutes or so to give people the time to get situation in another zone before the zerg realises and follows.