Motivating defenders to fight against the odds (Keep sieges, Forts, Cities)

[pvprangergod]

people only care about rewards if it is handed to them for free.

look at city instances, you are almost always guaranteed free royals (unless 1 star loss?)

but then look at group ranked, theres only a few established teams even though it gives great reward to a few classes along with nice mount.

[normanis]

ppl need carrot to do something.
there was good stuff previous, respawn in keep, defend fort free 1 royal, defend keep zone before fort - 1 invader. also was system what strenghten keep lords now its all gone. and that why 1 side zerg nonstop in usa prime time because 24 aoe cap dont work (it was addad so smaller team can counter zerg,) byt zerg started zerg more with bigger zerg.
p.s add some bonuses for roll if your faction in zone has 100aao or more.

[drbaker]

Defended 2 forts tonight and destro got steamrolled each time. From my experience of the game so far this seems quite normal. I am still low level and new to the game but it seems like it would be better to have more people defending than less. Both times I didn't get anything in terms of a reward as "contribution was too low". So it really makes you feel there really is no point even turning up as I got hardly any rr or xp as we got next to no kills. Perhaps the contribution mechanics are meant to make low levels avoid forts, but if that is the case just don't let low levels enter them. Either way it would help to maybe give lower levels more leeway on the contribution mechanics.

[Rubius]

Have not responded to this thread in a long time but just wanted to say thank you for all the feedback, both from those who agree and may feel differently! (All ideas are welcome.)

Defended 2 forts tonight and destro got steamrolled each time. From my experience of the game so far this seems quite normal. I am still low level and new to the game but it seems like it would be better to have more people defending than less. Both times I didn't get anything in terms of a reward as "contribution was too low". So it really makes you feel there really is no point even turning up as I got hardly any rr or xp as we got next to no kills. Perhaps the contribution mechanics are meant to make low levels avoid forts, but if that is the case just don't let low levels enter them. Either way it would help to maybe give lower levels more leeway on the contribution mechanics.

Yes; there are two factors in play here:

- If you don't cap enough flags or if you die too much and don't get enough kills, you just won't get anything for playing. (Even if you try to play the entire fort.)

- If you do get enough contribution and lose due to overwhelming numbers, you will get less than 25% of the currency / loot rewards of the winning side, even though you chose to fight against a much harder situation.

While I agree that motivating winning is good, and winners should get more, my point in this thread is that I feel a 400%+ difference between winning and losing on the currencies motivates players to avoid a close fight and instead to dogpile the side with more players.

AAO is a good incentive in the direction of helping to motivate, but it's mostly viable when you can roam and gank to avoid the huge blobs. In a Fortress situation, it's very difficult to do this, so this is why I've proposed slightly increasing the rewards for defenders in an attempt to help motivate more people to commit.

[Shogun4138]

Basically when anyone calls for a zone Defence or take and you have not been in said zone... You get nothing.

[Martok]

...the problem are egomaniacs that can't take dying in pixels.

Sad but true, and far too prevalent.

[Aethilmar]

Have not responded to this thread in a long time but just wanted to say thank you for all the feedback, both from those who agree and may feel differently! (All ideas are welcome.)

Defended 2 forts tonight and destro got steamrolled each time. From my experience of the game so far this seems quite normal. I am still low level and new to the game but it seems like it would be better to have more people defending than less. Both times I didn't get anything in terms of a reward as "contribution was too low". So it really makes you feel there really is no point even turning up as I got hardly any rr or xp as we got next to no kills. Perhaps the contribution mechanics are meant to make low levels avoid forts, but if that is the case just don't let low levels enter them. Either way it would help to maybe give lower levels more leeway on the contribution mechanics.

Yes; there are two factors in play here:

- If you don't cap enough flags or if you die too much and don't get enough kills, you just won't get anything for playing. (Even if you try to play the entire fort.)

- If you do get enough contribution and lose due to overwhelming numbers, you will get less than 25% of the currency / loot rewards of the winning side, even though you chose to fight against a much harder situation.

While I agree that motivating winning is good, and winners should get more, my point in this thread is that I feel a 400%+ difference between winning and losing on the currencies motivates players to avoid a close fight and instead to dogpile the side with more players.

AAO is a good incentive in the direction of helping to motivate, but it's mostly viable when you can roam and gank to avoid the huge blobs. In a Fortress situation, it's very difficult to do this, so this is why I've proposed slightly increasing the rewards for defenders in an attempt to help motivate more people to commit.

Should "winners" actually get more? Should they get full zone rewards when it is 100% AAO for the other side? Should they get bag rolls when most of them mosey up to the keep, stand there waiting for two doors to be downed then hit the lord for 60-90 seconds?

The developers have a strong, lets call it "belief", that you should have to "work" for your rewards and have repeatedly nerfed anything that could be construed as getting something for just standing there e.g. renown ticks at flags before the current box system.

Yet their definition of "work" seems to be get so many people on one side that you can simply roll through the zones with little or no fighting and get full rewards and easy bag rolls. This is straight up why I have started advocating for folks in zone to not bother with keep defenses when AAO is 80% or greater and just gank. You will probably get more renown and more contribution while having a less frustrating experience.

But, of course, if they drop the zerg rewards then the population will decline even more. It takes a certain kind of bloody-minded thrill seeker to go after high AAO and most of the population don't have that mentality.

[Martok]

It takes a certain kind of bloody-minded thrill seeker to go after high AAO and most of the population don't have that mentality.

Ain't that the truth.

[drbaker]

Have not responded to this thread in a long time but just wanted to say thank you for all the feedback, both from those who agree and may feel differently! (All ideas are welcome.)

Defended 2 forts tonight and destro got steamrolled each time. From my experience of the game so far this seems quite normal. I am still low level and new to the game but it seems like it would be better to have more people defending than less. Both times I didn't get anything in terms of a reward as "contribution was too low". So it really makes you feel there really is no point even turning up as I got hardly any rr or xp as we got next to no kills. Perhaps the contribution mechanics are meant to make low levels avoid forts, but if that is the case just don't let low levels enter them. Either way it would help to maybe give lower levels more leeway on the contribution mechanics.

Yes; there are two factors in play here:

- If you don't cap enough flags or if you die too much and don't get enough kills, you just won't get anything for playing. (Even if you try to play the entire fort.)

- If you do get enough contribution and lose due to overwhelming numbers, you will get less than 25% of the currency / loot rewards of the winning side, even though you chose to fight against a much harder situation.

While I agree that motivating winning is good, and winners should get more, my point in this thread is that I feel a 400%+ difference between winning and losing on the currencies motivates players to avoid a close fight and instead to dogpile the side with more players.

AAO is a good incentive in the direction of helping to motivate, but it's mostly viable when you can roam and gank to avoid the huge blobs. In a Fortress situation, it's very difficult to do this, so this is why I've proposed slightly increasing the rewards for defenders in an attempt to help motivate more people to commit.

Oh okay, well thanks for the reply explaining the contribution thing. So it doesn't seem like there is any way that I would be able to get anything from forts at low level unless I make an order character. That's a shame as I am not sure if I would enjoy going order just so its easy to get rr and gear.

[Rubius]

Oh okay, well thanks for the reply explaining the contribution thing. So it doesn't seem like there is any way that I would be able to get anything from forts at low level unless I make an order character. That's a shame as I am not sure if I would enjoy going order just so its easy to get rr and gear.

If you join a warband, don't die too much, and get lots of kills (this is tough when very outnumbered) then you can still get some small rewards even for being on the losing side. Being in a guild group or making friends can help with this if you're new.

That said, yes - you will get significantly more rewards, and are much more likely to get rewards at all, if you pile onto the side that has a big number advantage already.

It takes a certain kind of bloody-minded thrill seeker to go after high AAO and most of the population don't have that mentality.

Very true!