RvR is dying after Fort changes.

[lordnavar]

I noticed that ppl stopped playing rvr. They all q scenarios and wait for a fort to open. (today for some mins there was only 8 ppl in the RvR lakes destro and order combined)
With the previous fort system rvr lakes was full.

My opinion is that previous system was better because ppl was trying to get contribution.

[wonshot]

RvR is generally dead when there are no pug warband leaders. is my experience.

[OndeTv]

I would say those are connected though. I have posted my hypothesis before, but i'll gladly post it again. Lets look at the "campaign cycle-of-life":



First the old fort version, before it was open and with the aoe cap at 9:

Fort battles happened many times each day and rvr lakes were generally active both in EU and NA time
^
Fort battles were somewhat balanced in numbers, guaranteeing fights to be winnable for both attackers and defenders with the right effort
^
Desire exists throughout the population to attack forts
^
Desire exists throughout the population to push the campaigns
^
Warband leaders desire to push forts and make warbands to advance the campaign



Now, the current version of the campaign with open fort and 24 aoe cap:

Fort battles happen much less often
^
Fort battles have no guarantee of any numbers balance. Balance is further skewed due to increased chokepoint issues from the 24 aoe cap. Perceived as a waste of time to push during high(er) population.
^
Very little desire exists throughout the population to attack forts
^
Less desire exists throughout the population to push the campaigns
^
Warband leaders generally do not desire to push forts and make less warbands due to this



At least, that is how i see things being connected.

[Jastojan]

I noticed that ppl stopped playing rvr. They all q scenarios and wait for a fort to open. (today for some mins there was only 8 ppl in the RvR lakes destro and order combined)
With the previous fort system rvr lakes was full.

My opinion is that previous system was better because ppl was trying to get contribution.

I agree with this. It is noticeable. Open zones look dead much more often.
Another very important note:
I remember that days when defenders in last zones before forts (like Eataine, Reikland or Chaos wastes...) were not motivated to def the zone and many players were complaining about it... because successful defenders had no motivation to def because of not adequate reward... defenders just left the zone to attackers and then they all moved to fort for their invader marks (at least). These days were full of hate because one side of defenders wanted to def (low lvls, low geared players mainly - huge part of ppl) and the other side (with contribution mainly) wanted to give it up and move to the fort...
Thankfully devs decide to change the reward system and if defenders are successful and won the zone before the fort, then they can get the invader mark!
Now it makes no sense to try to def - AGAIN. But what is even worse, now it realy does not make sense even to play the whole zone because you can go to get your invader marks/eq for free...
Now the question is, and I asked it many times, what is the philosophy of these changes (and the whole project)? Because I miss the point. One time devs made change to get ppl motivated to play the game (playing the game the way it was designed for) and make the WAR. Not only waiting for the fort or collect the reward. And another day after... devs decide to make forts free for all. What is NOW the motivation to play open zones? For me it is clear - I dont like forts I like open zones, but this is me. I saw dead zones many times and then forst were full of ppl... what a magic, isnt it?
I think some changes are not as good as they look on the paper. Maybe the idea was generous but he result is not as good. I think it is destroying the battles before forst slowly.
This is only my point of view.
Another result of "free forst" is that even fort battles are less balanced when it comes to numbers of players.

[Toggle]

Today isn’t a great day to measure RvR participation, at least for the NA population. It’s a holiday for us. That being said, I love the new fort system. When I was leveling, there wasn’t anything I hated more than a fort opening up. It literally killed the game for me. I had nobody to play with and there was nothing going on. Now I know that no matter what is happening in game, I can participate on whatever characters I feel like playing at the time. As a result, I log in more often, play more of my toons, and I’m more willing to swap to a needed class to fill a slot. Just my two cents.

[Alfa1986]

I’m sure that many hardcore players almost for a year while there are forts managed to collect an inv set and they just don’t need forts as a motivation to get the best equipment in this game. at the last fort in which I took part, the order severely stomped destro (2 k kills versus 1k) with a ratio 150 * 200 in favor of destro. this suggests that with good organization, defenders with even less power can easily win the fort from the attackers.


if we compare the two fort systems, the new system turned out to be much more complex, with many different development options depending on the initial conditions the battle (the time when the fort occurs NA- EU (prime time or low pops), the level of characters and their strength on both sides, organization quality battles, the strategy chosen by the faction, the quality of managing people through a general chat, the quality of overall coordination of actions, the quantity of premades or organised WBs from both side etc.). None of this was necessary at all in old system, because the battle came down to the fact that two crowds gathered at the main gate and for 30–45 minutes spammed aoe button.

[adapter]

RvR is generally dead when there are no pug warband leaders. is my experience.

This is true, RvR tends to be "inactive" when there are no PUG WB Leaders, in a way, warhammer orvr system works properly when there's players willing to lead pugs. The more active this players are, the more RvR looks good.

[turlututuhu]

Good leaders have sowing good seeds, wait a little.
Old leaders who was running the OPEN WB play less today or if they log in they run the battlefield in closed groups because theyare surely bored to repeat every days the same things... "follow... I kick...".
Play with only half a WB, not optimized is unfun and so weak against what is going on on the RvR and what is required to be competitiv.

Warhammer players have take too much fortresses ... a little indigestion, two days, one week and they will be back to test the new mechanics.

[Yaliskah]

RvR is dying after fort changes.

Lets take a look.

Now players are waiting for forts, doing SC.
Weeks ago players were complaining because :
a. No Sc were popping > Problem solved
b. 70% of players were **** during Fort doing :
-b1 : Clicking like crazy cow on portal (and not doing RvR) and complaining about bad design. > Problem solved
-b2 : Waiting desesperately for SC and complaining about matchmaking. > Problem Solved

So now, you tell me, we would never have solved 70% players issues, because it (we) killed the RvR ?

When we "force" players to do things, they complain about the lack of freedom (br... doing PvE!!!, brrr... too explensive Sc weapons, brrrr too long to lvl...), and when they are free to make their own choices, it is still not good .

If players don't go in RvR (who haven't changed), i guess reason is not a direct consequence of Fort access, but more a consequence of path of least resistance to have stuff doing 0 efforts.
Some don't wanna play, we all have to deal with it. Some just want a shiny character. I blame a player choice.

Good point is RvR is less zergy.

Premades should be happy.

[courtsdad1]

I was just thinking the same thing the other day as there were only 6.5 warbands in the fort on our side and numbers were nearly equal on the other. Sadly the sky never fell and I wasted some antianxiety medicine for nothing.

Now if we could just get people to listen to those WB leaders...