oRvR feedback openletter from organized warbands

[Detangler]

It would be very nice if defending keeps and forts did things beneficial to progression so you don't find yourself torn between having fun with a nice keep defense and getting rewards with losing that keep because it'll push to fort.

No reason to defend a fort from a city push when everyone in the game wants royals. Could make it so the defending side of a city push (just before sieging a city) gets to roll for Royals on a successful defense. Attackers will only get Invaders - but they open the city should they win to get the chance at Royals. Should give people a reason to defend against their city being sieged - because it will benefit them and hinder the other realm.

If you implement this idea though you MUST find a way to make forts more interesting/fair tactically. Seems like destro struggles to push in most the time cause Black Orcs are too big to squeeze past, lol. There has to be a way to split up the nascar nature of fort sieges.

They tried this idea with invaders back before cities. It just lead to sides giving away middle zones so they could take the next zone and get an invader.

Before they implemented forts, keep sieges were fun. People defended to the last, no one threw zones, and it was all about realm pride. Gatelocking gear behind certain types of RvR only leads the playerbase to try to unlock that type of RvR as soon as possible - joining overpopulated side, throwing a zone, being "that guy" with the siege ram, etc.

My suggestions

- lower city and Fort token rewards a bit OR increase orvr token rewards. Let the players choose how they want to get their gear. No more solo queue pubstomps - they won't bother cause they can just go fight in the lakes while you wait at the city gates hoping for a pop.

- make BOs mean something during sieges. Spawned NPC defenders in keeps for defending side, additional siege equipment ammo and damage for attackers - something besides just more boxes to run.

- implement Trippie's suggestions. The playerbase always wants more shinies. Shinies at keeps would be fun. Half the reason WoW was so successful was because they understood this early on and catered the hell out of their game to collecting **** so your Tauren has the coolest threads on the block.

[Duukar]

This game puts way too much weight on winner takes all. I’ve said this for over a year with terrible reception from devs and established long term players. It applies to everything and I’ve warned about the snowball effect we are seeing right now.

Simple fix —— the rewards for winning and losing everything should be FAR more even. Literally winning should give 100% rewards and the loser should get 90% rewards. SCs Forts Cities all of it.

Then you don’t have incentive to hop to the winning side to get loot. The snowball effect is real.

You would almost be stupid to play destro. Words I’ve heard spoken in trusted Discords.

Really what’s the harm to loosen up this winner takes all system that drives inequity.

[Caduceus]

I've always felt that in ORvR players are not encouraged (and in some ways discouraged) from fighting hard and engaging with the other faction.

The result is avoidant behavior and "throwing".

[abezverkhiy]

This game puts way too much weight on winner takes all. I’ve said this for over a year with terrible reception from devs and established long term players. It applies to everything and I’ve warned about the snowball effect we are seeing right now.

Simple fix —— the rewards for winning and losing everything should be FAR more even. Literally winning should give 100% rewards and the loser should get 90% rewards. SCs Forts Cities all of it.

Then you don’t have incentive to hop to the winning side to get loot. The snowball effect is real.

You would almost be stupid to play destro. Words I’ve heard spoken in trusted Discords.

Really what’s the harm to loosen up this winner takes all system that drives inequity.

There must be additional controls cause 90% rewards to losing side may translate into slacking.

On population balance - I remember about a year+ ago the situation was opposite, too many Destro and too few Order. And before that Order was dominating. And even before that Destro had numbers. I am sure in 6 months permanent 5 stars on Altdorf and 1 star on IC will be more like a distant memory.

People move between sides all the time. Personally I do not like it, I play Order only but I am a minority. Let them move if they like, bloody xrealmers without flag and allegiance)))

And yeah, rvr is a bit boring. I wish there would be something to demotivate zergs and spread ppl all around doing things

[Elvicof]

As long as it is the easiest way to win most players will find safety in numbers and thereby you have zergs. This is fine and this should be a thing, but the options to break from the zerg and seek fight elsewhere is where the let down is atm.

But atm the options to split the zerg is lacking this could be achieved by making BO matter during the siege not just something you control before (for resources) and after (for lock), but holds no meaning during the siege itself, this just leads to all players herding to the keep. Cant even go to another zone as noone will show if the keep isnt 2*.

The other thing that is lacking is the ability to wipe zergs with fewer numbers. This would also lead to more organized grps breaking from the zerg simply because you wouldnt need safety in numbers.

Unfortunately MMO's these day every player regardless of time and effort have to be able to achieve the same, which leads to the fall of MMO's. The constant hunt for loot is ridicouless imo, but that is the fault of playerbase and if they somehow realized that killing other players and having fun was the endgame not the shinies in city, then we would be in a better place.

[Collision]

Zone lock are too easy, maybe bring back some kill count condition like on live ? 3 city on 24h have to stop.

Close all posibility to inc a keep postern with a pve tag.

Bring back the tools (like 5s aoe stagger etc) for a 6man/12man to fight 24+ (or a wb vs zerg). I know it will bring some frustration but for me it's the best way to stop a brainless zerg.

No more SoR, or a least the keep under attack/ram information, to give capacity of small scale players to ninja a keep, to bring back scouting and small fight who come with it.

[Ishmahel]

But atm the options to split the zerg is lacking this could be achieved by making BO matter during the siege not just something you control before (for resources) and after (for lock), but holds no meaning during the siege itself, this just leads to all players herding to the keep. Cant even go to another zone as noone will show if the keep isnt 2*.

I agree that BO must totally be of more uses during a siege, but this is not the solution to Zerg. If a Realm have a population 20/40% higher than the other one is easy for them to split up and go cover the BO while sieging. So for the defending side nothing is changing. If the attacking side is the one undernumbered the thing goes even worse. While i agree with the point of having BO meaning more, this wil again advantage the most populated Side.

The other thing that is lacking is the ability to wipe zergs with fewer numbers. This would also lead to more organized grps breaking from the zerg simply because you wouldnt need safety in numbers.

In my point of view this is because the strong Balance is dictated from healers. In this game Healers are VERY strong and resilient. To kill one healer (comparing same gear and same skills) you need a couple of char. This in my opinion result in zerg beeing a solid Wall and destroy the opportunity of "flash flanking assault" . Hitting the rear of a formation to kill caster/healer and try to disrupt a warband even while outnumbered. "Mabouvering" is less important, if you cant achive you objective in 10/15 secondsa (time need for the frontal line to realzie that there is an inc on the rear and change the front).

[Elvicof]

But atm the options to split the zerg is lacking this could be achieved by making BO matter during the siege not just something you control before (for resources) and after (for lock), but holds no meaning during the siege itself, this just leads to all players herding to the keep. Cant even go to another zone as noone will show if the keep isnt 2*.

I agree that BO must totally be of more uses during a siege, but this is not the solution to Zerg. If a Realm have a population 20/40% higher than the other one is easy for them to split up and go cover the BO while sieging. So for the defending side nothing is changing. If the attacking side is the one undernumbered the thing goes even worse. While i agree with the point of having BO meaning more, this wil again advantage the most populated Side.

Even outnumbered you could make it work, might not change the outcome of the siege, but if you could get some fights over a BO as outnumbered instead of standing on the walls just to be run over. There would be a bigger incitiment to enter the zones and maybe just maybe some would change side as there were some fun to be had on the outnumbered side.

[Ishmahel]

Even outnumbered you could make it work, might not change the outcome of the siege, but if you could get some fights over a BO as outnumbered instead of standing on the walls just to be run over. There would be a bigger incitiment to enter the zones and maybe just maybe some would change side as there were some fun to be had on the outnumbered side.

I see your point. So basically (i'ts an idea that popped now in my brain, onyl to brainstorming here) you could "feed" the Siege bringing resources from BO to the Keep (to increse it's defence). Or bring resource to a "siege warcamp" a point in front of the keep where the siege is mounted. And doors and progression on the siege is basically a war to who bring more resource on the two point. Those point should be near each other (like fort and a camp in front of them) to have people fight around them, encircle the fort or the camp and so on.

[tvbrowntown]

Even outnumbered you could make it work, might not change the outcome of the siege, but if you could get some fights over a BO as outnumbered instead of standing on the walls just to be run over. There would be a bigger incitiment to enter the zones and maybe just maybe some would change side as there were some fun to be had on the outnumbered side.

I see your point. So basically (i'ts an idea that popped now in my brain, onyl to brainstorming here) you could "feed" the Siege bringing resources from BO to the Keep (to increse it's defence). Or bring resource to a "siege warcamp" a point in front of the keep where the siege is mounted. And doors and progression on the siege is basically a war to who bring more resource on the two point. Those point should be near each other (like fort and a camp in front of them) to have people fight around them, encircle the fort or the camp and so on.

I had an idea like this where resources/minions would frequently be sent from your home keep to the BOs - sort of like in MOBA games. When your "minions" encounter theirs they fight each other for the BOs. Your job isnt to take the BO but to help them fight for it. They would be visible moving on the map for everyone to see. Allowing for constantly moving combat, ambushes, etc. At Rank 1 keep they are weak. at Rank 2 they attack with a Ram (players no longer use it) Rank 3 they bring canons for players to use or spawn a Lord that moves along the RvR Lake towards the keep etc.. Etc. Players would also be able to buy bombs, etc. to directly attack BOs, etc. I have it all written down and could draft up a more coherent version/presentation if anyone is interested.

One thing to note about this is that you will always have 2 sets of attacks coming towards BOs or keeps; which could help split a zerg.