Page 1 of 1

Battlefield Objective 2.0 - active BO's... ideas RvR

Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 1:27 am
by navis
Hi, I was thinking a bit on reasons why I dislike some of the current variations of BO types through different versions. A bit of review here first.

- edited to make my ideas more apparant. thx -

WHY - because most of the time BO are Cap and run either with or without NPCs.
I don't think RvR should be about a single person capping the flag and crossfingers that some good RvR will happen along the way (skirmish), BO need a more real function and it really should be that way.

-----


Renown rewards are given with large ticks moderately spaced during the RvR gameplay session. The goal is to have large success or determined in 2 minute (small cap) and 5 minutes (long cap). The idea is to keep players at a area until a success or failure is determined in order for the final victor to be rewarded the most.

If nobody is near the BO then the BO automatically fades to "neutral' green after around 2 minutes unless it is in a already locked state (like the zone being not contested)

Stage -1 when players enter the Bo area the Bo becomes in a 'building' stage for that realm. After 5 minutes a timer expires and then creates the BO fully owned for that Realm, renown tick is given and all renown earned by fighting at this area is doubled and rewarded to the players for the victory... During this whole building stage the BO will indicate this on the MAP and WAR Story page.

Stage 2 - now the Bo is 'fortified' there is extra buff added for the players who defend. Stage 2 will stay indefinately as long as any player of that realm remains in the area of the BO. If a stage 2 BO is being guarded it will be indicated on the BO as a active battle area as long as one opposition enemy remains in that same area. Once a enemy is engaged in a locked BO the enemy can receive a large renown bonus for any kill there as well perhaps extra chance for PvP token drops as well.

IF Stage two battle is active for more than 2 minutes it will become a stage 3 BO - heightened battle areas and will be indicated on the map and war story as such.. During this time Renown and token chance drops are increased for the realm to be rewared. Incentive is given for enemys to attempt to win the upgraded BO and even more RR and token chance is given as this RvR activity continues. The enemy also has a timer engaged of 5 minutes once stage 3 begins in order to win more renowns from kills active in that BO.

At any time when the BO is captured by the enemy a large reward is given to them - very little for stage 1, more for stage 2 and the most for stage 3 BO "heightened' stage.

so you can see this could be fun, IMO, thx for reading.. Un guarded BO doesn't reward anything, only defending the BO gives rewards and capturing a defended BO gives big rewards. :D :D

/cheer

Re: Battlefield Objective 2.0 - active BO's... ideas RvR

Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 11:54 am
by mirrorblade
no thx, i dont like this.
Dont want resource carriers, dont want see pve stupid thing, i dont want defend and kill carriers...

Re: Battlefield Objective 2.0 - active BO's... ideas RvR

Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2015 4:55 pm
by navis
mirrorblade wrote:no thx, i dont like this.
Dont want resource carriers, dont want see pve stupid thing, i dont want defend and kill carriers...
it's easy to say that you didn't RTFP.

Re: Battlefield Objective 2.0 - active BO's... ideas RvR

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:55 pm
by Libra
Hahah resource carriers were a joke and even suggesting it is purely lame.

Re: Battlefield Objective 2.0 - active BO's... ideas RvR

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2015 1:16 am
by navis
Well thanks anyway. I have no idea why you guys are talking about resource carriers!
I think you were reading the review section or the part I mentioned the resource carriers, something thrown away that could be saved would be foolish.
When I say that something could be used in a different way, I mean that it could be totally outside the box.. redesigned...
But really, things like sappers and rc carrier are fine but the usage is not.