Old or new campaign system

[Tanski]

Putting any power in players hands results in path of least resistance. When forts were introduced, players would push fort and switch sides to defend, resulting in lockout implementation. With the weekly initially, all rewards could be obtained by zerging and pvedoor, which is exactly what happened .


Not kissing a$$ here, but I think the recent changes devs have made are great considering player behavior .

Saying the guilds have power anyway is kinda a joke cause half of them xrealm, not saying that’s good or bad it’s just what happens . Most say the play for aao but only only a couple actually do.

[Grock]

Would have liked an option to vote for "neither".

Same dumbed down theme-park system with a lack of tactical or strategic options that have an actual effect on the outcome of the campaign. It just turns out that responsibility for operating the park has moved from sub-contractors (the guilds) back up to the parent corporation (the RoR team).

With LotD out of the way, they will just need to reinvent "Wrath of Heroes" and the game's reincarnation cycle will be complete.

Do you have any solutions to that, that don't involve building a whole new game on custom made game engine for 10 years?

EDIT: Now tie lockout timers to city sieges. You are stuck to a side for RvR until the next city siege if you switch sides.

Would make more sense to get rid of lockouts entirely since zone throwing, door pushing and citylogging should no longer be an issue

[Akalukz]

Spoiler:

Would have liked an option to vote for "neither".

Same dumbed down theme-park system with a lack of tactical or strategic options that have an actual effect on the outcome of the campaign. It just turns out that responsibility for operating the park has moved from sub-contractors (the guilds) back up to the parent corporation (the RoR team).

With LotD out of the way, they will just need to reinvent "Wrath of Heroes" and the game's reincarnation cycle will be complete.

Do you have any solutions to that, that don't involve building a whole new game on custom made game engine for 10 years?

EDIT: Now tie lockout timers to city sieges. You are stuck to a side for RvR until the next city siege if you switch sides.

Would make more sense to get rid of lockouts entirely since zone throwing, door pushing and citylogging should no longer be an issue

You would think that, but is very apparent, possibly because of how quickly a zerg side can get the weekly RvR event done.

[Shogun4138]

Cities and lotd on timers take away the fluidity of the game. We cannot manifest our own destiny. Makes the game like work with lunch hours. Clock me out.

[Aethilmar]

Would have liked an option to vote for "neither".

Same dumbed down theme-park system with a lack of tactical or strategic options that have an actual effect on the outcome of the campaign. It just turns out that responsibility for operating the park has moved from sub-contractors (the guilds) back up to the parent corporation (the RoR team).

With LotD out of the way, they will just need to reinvent "Wrath of Heroes" and the game's reincarnation cycle will be complete.

Do you have any solutions to that, that don't involve building a whole new game on custom made game engine for 10 years?

EDIT: Now tie lockout timers to city sieges. You are stuck to a side for RvR until the next city siege if you switch sides.

Would make more sense to get rid of lockouts entirely since zone throwing, door pushing and citylogging should no longer be an issue

There are multiple options and whole essays to be written on each. But, in short, the pre-"currency unification" campaign was designed to manufacture flips in order to create a progression system for access to increasing rewards which culminated in "The City". It had some rough edges most due to a dogged insistence to "earning" the flip through the narrow proscribed path to victory but generally speaking it evolved into a system where the defender was, by design, in a losing situation at 40% or more AAO.

However, the flipping for specific rewards requirement is no longer necessary since the reward path has been flattened out (mostly).

Now, if they want (and if the engine allows it ofc), they can adopt a more dynamic reward system (ala GW2 for instance) where the goal of the map campaigns is not necessarily to flip the zone but to engage in various tactical and strategic goals that offer various levels of micro reward that may actually culminate in a larger rewards (e.g. the RvR weekly). A concrete example (and also cribbed directly from GW2) is to keep score instead of flipping zones. And at the end of the campaign (i.e. one week) biggest score wins, it goes in the Book of Grudges, reset and start again.

There are, of course, other systems to steal from as well as a more traditional player driven campaign from before (hopefully with some tweaks).

But, as it stands now, the campaign is just a big blah. If you like running around and just fighting (which I do) it is fine but it lacks any extra oomph from before ... Order/Destro pride is even more meaningless now and it was pretty tepid already. I hope this is just an intermediate phase but with no roadmap it is hard to tell. *shrug*

[Albais]

I understand that the new system with its scheduled cities during prime time gives more people the chance to participate, and it most likely also leads to better fights since guilds can set up warbands in advance. This is why my head tells me to support this new iteration. It's more convenient, (probably) also more competitive, and as the poll currently shows, clearly the more popular system.

However, my heart still mourns the loss of a unique feature of this game. Pushing keeps and conquering forts just felt more meaningful to me when they directly opened the way for sieging the enemy capital. It's how the map is structured, and it all felt complete and coherent: you take zones which eventually leads to assaulting a fort, which if you manage to take at least one other fort leads to sieging the enemy capital.

This is also the story that quest texts and tome entries tell to players on their way through the PvE chapters. Especially when doing the quests in Empire zones, one really feels the sense of danger and urgency of the approaching Raven Host and how they threaten Altdorf. It was nice to see this reflected in the actual mechanics of the campaign. To know that if I see for example Reikwald fall, that there is a real risk of Altdorf being sieged as a direct consequence. I liked this agreement of game mechanics and story.

But of course I recognize that this perspective is less important than improving access to and quality of the gameplay itself.

[Grock]

There are multiple options and whole essays to be written on each. But, in short, the pre-"currency unification" campaign was designed to manufacture flips in order to create a progression system for access to increasing rewards which culminated in "The City". It had some rough edges most due to a dogged insistence to "earning" the flip through the narrow proscribed path to victory but generally speaking it evolved into a system where the defender was, by design, in a losing situation at 40% or more AAO.

In the previous campaign & reward structure late stages of campaign gave the most important rewards creating a situation where everything before them didn't really matter much, disincentivizing players from actually engaging in normal RvR and instead encouraging making path of no resistance as the best strategy for gear progression, some organized guilds went as far as to swap sides to push the campaign for the enemy in order to get a defence on their main side.

Reducing "loser rewards" in an attemt to force losing side to defend in that situation would've just created a snowballing xrealm effect of people swapping to the winner side to get actual character progression instead of being stuck in one place for weeks

However, the flipping for specific rewards requirement is no longer necessary since the reward path has been flattened out (mostly).

Now, if they want (and if the engine allows it ofc), they can adopt a more dynamic reward system (ala GW2 for instance) where the goal of the map campaigns is not necessarily to flip the zone but to engage in various tactical and strategic goals that offer various levels of micro reward that may actually culminate in a larger rewards (e.g. the RvR weekly). A concrete example (and also cribbed directly from GW2) is to keep score instead of flipping zones. And at the end of the campaign (i.e. one week) biggest score wins, it goes in the Book of Grudges, reset and start again.

There are, of course, other systems to steal from as well as a more traditional player driven campaign from before (hopefully with some tweaks).

But, as it stands now, the campaign is just a big blah. If you like running around and just fighting (which I do) it is fine but it lacks any extra oomph from before ... Order/Destro pride is even more meaningless now and it was pretty tepid already. I hope this is just an intermediate phase but with no roadmap it is hard to tell. *shrug*

Current campaign is score-based as well though? Have you missed it? City sieges aren't random they are based on which side won more pairings in the previous 3 days
Seems to me that its pretty close to what you described, except for the lack the "campaign conclusion" reward (personally i'd prefer two separate rewards: 1 for campaign itself and 1 for winning/defending the resulting city siege)

In any case i dont see how that is less theme-parky.

[Morradin]

Over all I like the current system. But I also would like 3 pairings open again.

[Scottx125]

I prefer the new system, but we need a way of reducing zerging. So 3 zones open, and perhaps a way of masking the numbers of players in a zone to allow the side with fewer numbers to more easily split the numbers of the bigger team. There should also be a population buff for the side that is heavily outnumbered like in LOTD up to 200ft.