City Change Suggestions

[titaniummushroom]

Yes I know, you're reading this and thinking oh god not another QQ about cities and scores. You're in luck! This isn't a QQ about city scores! The goal here, (and I'll be honest, im 4 in already) is to provide the devs with a general framework for some alterations to cities that might make them more appealing to a broader swath of players.

First off, let's talk high level game balance. The point of this post is not to discuss or propose changes to game or class balance but I feel it's necessary to set some conditions. First off and foremost, let's be honest. As much as many of us (myself certainly including) piss and moan about balance, it's a really tough thing to do. Props to the dev team for at least giving it the good old college try and for the most part, doing a good enough job that the server is more or less fun for most people most of the time. Having said that, we all should admit we will likely never achieve perfect balance and that the entire concept of balance is a relative one.

With that out of the way, let's talk high level meta. I don't want to get into the idea of destro is OP, order is OP blah blah. Just some high level, general observations. First off, order aoe dmg (read BW) is seriously hardcore. Order is at their strongest when they can funnel destro into a small window and blow them away. There are setups in 6v6 that diverge from this but we're not talking about that (yet), we're just talking zergy warband play at the moment. In contrast, the destro melee ball is a thing of doom. Combine the absurdity of gtdc with a little bouncing and you have yourself an almost guaranteed city victory.

Why do I bring this up? Most players have played enough to know that order actually does decently well in forts in the current meta. Conversely, destro tends to dominate the city scene. This is because the final aspect of forts is all about that final canalized fight, whereas cities tend to be far more open. I may later suggest some changes to forts to account for this imbalance but I actually think that is a tougher nut to crack than cities so I'm focusing on cities for this post.

I think some relatively easy changes to cities would look something like this, and based off the fact that cities are three stages.

Stage one, add some additional objectives that all occur simultaneously. This would emphasis that WBs break apart and move around as separate 6 man groups. It also adds a layer of WB strategy. Does the WB stay together and try to manage 1 obj at a time or do they split into 2 or 3 or 4 6mans and attempt to cover multiple objectives simultaneously? The reason I suggest this is that, at least for stage one, it adds a (potential) 6 man element to the SC rather than the current meta which is zerg stage 1, zerg stage 2 and zerg stage 3. It also allows for smaller level group play, strategy of reinforcing or holding, and opens up the sc to more classes to be viable.

Stage 2, for defenders, make some of the objectives involve canalizing features at some points, and open features at other points. This can already be managed because the bosses are mobile. This may add an element of strategy to killing one boss versus defending another and play to the various strengths and weaknesses of each realm. While the maps currently have this, there is no means of either team to manage the movement of the boss in such a way as to take advantage of this. I think each side should be able to "stop" or "go" their respective boss(es) at various points to take advantage of the maps which is something risky in and of itself but adds another tactical element to the zone.

Stage 3, generally i'd say leave as is. The glorious final battle should be somewhat zergy and while i do feel this tends to favor destro, i also think it's appropriate given the overall scenario. Later I may try to think of additional ways to make more classes viable for the SC *as order you hardly see WH, Engi in city because they kind of suck) and generally you just see the meta 2/2/2 setup which is the most effective and horribly boring but i'm tired and need sleep.

feel free to flame, critique or provide constructive feedback.

[adapter]

Stage one, add some additional objectives that all occur simultaneously. This would emphasis that WBs break apart and move around as separate 6 man groups. It also adds a layer of WB strategy. Does the WB stay together and try to manage 1 obj at a time or do they split into 2 or 3 or 4 6mans and attempt to cover multiple objectives simultaneously? The reason I suggest this is that, at least for stage one, it adds a (potential) 6 man element to the SC rather than the current meta which is zerg stage 1, zerg stage 2 and zerg stage 3. It also allows for smaller level group play, strategy of reinforcing or holding, and opens up the sc to more classes to be viable.

I really like the idea of creating new objectives so both warbands would have to split and coordinate something out

[Spyked1106]

time to change city
not even city but Q system asap plz

[boomcat]

ill support everything that would refresh city gameplay !! we also have to imagine many are getting bored of the current style of citys.. its not like oh i got all gear in the game lets go in and use it in city

[Foltestik]

pls dont chage city to flag running and avoiding fights,

[knick]

Stage one, add some additional objectives that all occur simultaneously. This would emphasis that WBs break apart and move around as separate 6 man groups. It also adds a layer of WB strategy. Does the WB stay together and try to manage 1 obj at a time or do they split into 2 or 3 or 4 6mans and attempt to cover multiple objectives simultaneously? The reason I suggest this is that, at least for stage one, it adds a (potential) 6 man element to the SC rather than the current meta which is zerg stage 1, zerg stage 2 and zerg stage 3. It also allows for smaller level group play, strategy of reinforcing or holding, and opens up the sc to more classes to be viable.

only one who have to break up is the defender. so in the end a 6 man grp defending one objective against a full 24 slot attacking wb going from objective to objective? sound fun to me

[M0rw47h]

Stage one, add some additional objectives that all occur simultaneously. This would emphasis that WBs break apart and move around as separate 6 man groups. It also adds a layer of WB strategy. Does the WB stay together and try to manage 1 obj at a time or do they split into 2 or 3 or 4 6mans and attempt to cover multiple objectives simultaneously? The reason I suggest this is that, at least for stage one, it adds a (potential) 6 man element to the SC rather than the current meta which is zerg stage 1, zerg stage 2 and zerg stage 3. It also allows for smaller level group play, strategy of reinforcing or holding, and opens up the sc to more classes to be viable.

only one who have to break up is the defender. so in the end a 6 man grp defending one objective against a full 24 slot attacking wb going from objective to objective? sound fun to me

...but what if you let players slowly recap them?

[emiliorv]

Stage one, add some additional objectives that all occur simultaneously. This would emphasis that WBs break apart and move around as separate 6 man groups. It also adds a layer of WB strategy. Does the WB stay together and try to manage 1 obj at a time or do they split into 2 or 3 or 4 6mans and attempt to cover multiple objectives simultaneously? The reason I suggest this is that, at least for stage one, it adds a (potential) 6 man element to the SC rather than the current meta which is zerg stage 1, zerg stage 2 and zerg stage 3. It also allows for smaller level group play, strategy of reinforcing or holding, and opens up the sc to more classes to be viable.

only one who have to break up is the defender. so in the end a 6 man grp defending one objective against a full 24 slot attacking wb going from objective to objective? sound fun to me

To ovoid this you need to allow defenders to retake the lost objectives....but this could end in a nascar zerg running...

[Bignusty]

I loved the city invasion on live better then this Rve system

[Alfa1986]

1. set five champions and hero on each BO.
2. After capturing, BO is not available for capture for 5 minutes.
3. if two neighboring BOs are captured by the same faction, then it is not available for capture.
4. after 10 minutes from the beginning of the siege, 2 heroes appear in a certain place, upon killing which the team is given a buff (1-increase incoming damage by NPC ; 2- increase HP of NPC).
5. If 5 BO is captured, the team wins ahead of schedule.
6. the team that has control over a large number of BOs at the moment wins end of stage 1 (30 minutes).

edit

If we take into account the fact that in each city there are 5 BOs with the main BO in the center, then adding NPC to each BO will lead to the fact that the enemy team will not be able to capture the BO with lightning speed. Only 3 BOs will be available to attack at any given time. After capturing, BO becomes inactive for re-capturing for 5 minutes.
NPCs (heroes and champions) must have a large amount of HP. killing of an NPC (hero) must be at least a few minutes so that your team can retreat and have time to come to the defense of the BO.
Buffs.
The damage increase buff to NPCs is needed so that the weaker team has a "last resort chance". The buff to increase HP and NPC protection will also work.
Thus, if a strong team is not mobile and just wants to stand on one place and only defend it, it will lose. If the team does not move around the map and does not pick up buffs in time, then it will be much more difficult for it to defend the BOs.
these buffs will not affect the game process itself in any way, since they are not associated with players but with NPCs.