[DISCUSSION] RVR - likes/dislikes/possible improvement?

[Acidic]

Hi
Adding a point system for the lock sounds good.
I also like the -/+ model , always gives me a warm feeling to stop others
I specially like adding other objectives that are not nessasaraly at fixed points to reduce the rinse repeat nature , if these have enough value it will produce splintering of a Zerg to do these sub tasks

[Asherdoom]

you know what i wish to improve in RVR here? Look my signature :3

[Bozzax]

My .2$


Domination locks forces the zerg to defend the entire zone thus spreading them out. The underdog can pick fights where it has a chance to win instead of making last stands or idle at WC to get looser rewards.

[th3gatekeeper]

@The gate sy i should had said it may became.

As you alredy see most of changes enforced the zerg to some extend tought i think some changes gone into a good direction, they were good changes and not really propped aimed to spread ppl (as blob/zerg to some extent should be allowed or encourage but just in x or y situation which is the problem) i just think that a system like road wrote about may enforce the zerg even more because it' realy fast wipe a wb then move from point A to point B and C just staying on the flag for few sec cap all then move again. The only exemple in which i think such system is SW battlefront so i don't really know how this will traslate for a zone son big in war with out a respawn limiter. You need just the zerg to hold two of the main acces point to rvr like in kv or 1 big blob at doom in tm and dosen't really matter which system you use for me. One big blob will arise. It' also basic strategy of any war to send all the free troops towards the main site of battle because if you win that you can then spread back to the rest of the original positions. Unless you wanna try a guerrillia war which may be good in the long run and not in the short term.

I think a zerg will appear in ANY situation we can manufacture. The question to me is more how do we lessen the impact of the zerg. Im not sure what the respawn limit has to do all this TBH, many games are structured around unlimited respawn in a FINITE period of time. This is the problem right now, there is no definite end, you can have people running around one RVR zone all day going back and forth.

I have done more SCs than RVR, but I have also done a fair share of RVR too. I look at all the SCs and the 3 best ones (IMO) are: Reikland, Nordenwatch, and Gates of Ekrund. Why? Because "zerging" is LEAST impactful on these maps. Sure a zerg happens and it has advantages. Move as a blob from 1 to the other and cap it, but often times just 1 or 2 guys running around the SC can "back cap" the nodes while the zerg is too focused on kills. Think of the most common maps in which you see spawn camping? Battle for Praag comes to mind... Why? Because there is only ONE flag open at a time, the other are locked. BFP could be amazing if ALL flags were open at any time (IMO).

This is the direction I would love to see RVR go. Where all BOs are open at ANY time. The "progression/defense" of capping a node would come with NPCs. I think the NPCs should all be "beefed up" a little and made stronger so the NPCs were a more formidable defense.

But this would be a good first step (not having lock timers). The only problem there is on the current system it becomes VERY hard to lock a zone without lock timers. So this is where I think you do need to have "limits" on time. This is where the "points system" should come into play. BOs earn you points, kills earn points, killing a Lord earns points, so you dont HAVE to hold all 4 BOs to win in RVR.

I think that add 1 bo in each zone would benefith the rvr and with not even bo numer you can link something to force ppl to controll 3/5 bo for exemple. ( For exemple an alternative lock system or sort of keep attack supply line etc).
That would also increase the rvr area.
Some zone would benefith more than other and some zone would get more fair flag allocation that way.
Think the only ugly one would be TM ( tough ugly dosen't stay for bad. This is true at least for me and my immaginary new flag location).
Some zone need physic fixes because for base they encourage zerg or they are too much with out cover to hide etc.
I'd say worst one be BC and best one be praag which have lots of alley etc.
More flags, physic zone fix and rvr area increase may be better suited to help with the zerg problem rather than a meccanic rewamp.

I agree with this. Adding 1 more BO would be a great idea. Im not necessarily saying to revamp the entire RVR mechanic. All I am saying is rather than leaving it open ended, you give "points" for every RVR action and each realm works up to a # of points as the "goal" RATHER than having to kill the keep Lord then hold all 4 BOs.

[Tesq]

Well i belive that till a campaign system is implementrd the single zone rvr will never be complete, i for now just strongly feel for the de-bolster as the cross tier solution for the game.
Btw @gate i dont think the currently lock & keep lord should go rather also alternative way to lock be implemented.

Spoiler:

bit ot but what happened regard aza? I found like 1-2 post not really complete and i don't want to missunderstand anything, maybe someone can pm me?

[Azarael]

bit ot but what happened regard aza? I found like 1-2 post not really complete and i don't want to missunderstand anything, maybe someone can pm me?

Check my recent post history.

[th3gatekeeper]

bit ot but what happened regard aza? I found like 1-2 post not really complete and i don't want to missunderstand anything, maybe someone can pm me?

Check my recent post history.

AZ! We miss you!

[th3gatekeeper]

Well i belive that till a campaign system is implementrd the single zone rvr will never be complete, i for now just strongly feel for the de-bolster as the cross tier solution for the game.
Btw @gate i dont think the currently lock & keep lord should go rather also alternative way to lock be implemented.

@Tesq,

I see what you are saying. So then this could easily be the solution.

To lock a zone requires 100,000 "points".
- 50k points for killing a Lord.
- BOs no longer have a "lock" timer or maybe reduce the lock timer to like 1:00... and give a temporary 10,000 points to whomever owns them and tick for 1 points/sec.
- Kills grant 20 points per kill.

Thats it.

So now, the system doesnt REALLY change much from what it is today.
Kill the Keep Lord, hold all 4 BOs and you will have 90k out of 100k assuming zero kills and you did that all instantly. So lets hypothetically say Destro has 200 Order kills (4k points), and has held 3 BOs (30k temp points) for 20 minutes (3.6k) and kills the keep Lord (50k).

Destro would have 87.5k Points/ 100k to lock. They would likely need to still cap the 4th BO (10k temp points) and hold it for ~10 minutes to lock the zone to get to 100k points.

But what this DOES do, is allows for alleviation during exceedingly LONG RVR fights.

If Destro and Order have been swapping BOs for 2 hours, each owning 2 of them on average this adds up to 14,400 points accumulated via BO ticks and lets assume over 2 hours there is 300 kills on each side (6k points).

So now Order and Destro are BOTH hovering right around 20k points each + for owning 2 BOs have a temporary 20k each. So the score would be ~44k to ~44k.

So NOW if Destro attacks the Keep Lord. They kill him getting 50k Points making it 94k to 40k. Now all Destro has to do is cap ONE more BO and they win (100k) rather than having to cap all FOUR BOs. OR, they can hold their position of owning 2 BOs and go for some additional kills as they are earning minimally 2 points/sec from the 2 BOs they own.

So for shorter RVR battles, it will play almost EXACTLY the same as today - Keep Lord + 4 BOs held for a few minutes to lock a zone.

For LONGER RVR battles, there is now some "alleviation" because for the past 2 hours both sides have been earning points making it eventually easier to win.

heck, if an RVR lake has been battling for 5 hours (36k points)... 2 BOs "average" on each side (20k temp points each) and assume 500 kills (10k points)... Each side would have close to 66k Points. So now whoever kills the Lord wins! Without having to hold all 4 BOs. If they LOSE all 4 BOs though, this would bring them back down to only 46k points so even just "zerging" the Lord would get them to 96k and they would need to recap 1 BO to win. So its not an immediate win just to zerg the Lord.

This provides a FINITE goal/end that you can progress to over time. So basically the longer the battle it "adjusts" itself so that it brings the "end" closer in sight...

But like I said, the game would largely play the exact same as it does now. It would still require the Keep Lord to be killed, it would still require BOs to be held.

Adding a 5th BO would make it even more fun. Like I said, I think lock timers are part of what adds to the zerg mentality. Look at the SCs with the most spawn camping. They are generally the ones that have 1 "objective" open at a time with the rest locked. The maps that have more objectives open at any time are generally the LEAST zergy with the least spawn camping... This is how RVR should be done. More objectives around the map.

Then having a "definitive end" that you can progress to over time, not a conditional end would greatly aid in some of the frustration of RVR ATM....

Right now you get enough supplies to level to 1, then you zerg their Keep, kill the lord, then run around playing "wack a mole" on the BOs. You try and hold all four but order zergs 1 BO and you have a super difficult time locking the zone because if you reallocate troops to counter their zerg 1 BO, you leave the others unguarded.

With a "points" system this is alleviated because eventually, through owning only 3 BOs for long enough and getting kills, you can lock a zone without needing to own all 4 BOs. So order (in this example) is forced to do more than zerg 1 BO to "contest the zone" as that will/can only last for so long.

So now you have an issue "why would they even try" and this is where I think AAO affecting points can help. If Order (in this example) has 200% AAO. They now can earn points much easier and when they DO cap a BO they are earning 3/sec to match Destros 3 BOs earning 1/sec * 3 BOs.

So it helps "catch up" and gives reason to "try" and fight back....

[Tesq]

ye, that pretty much sum my war40k games, i hold the objective or wipe everything; it's a good rappresentation.

basically hold the objective and win after 5-6 turns due Victory points or suppresse enemy HQ (aka keep lord in this case) and the rest and win by enemy annihilation.

I dont know what think about BO with sc style to take but i think it won't be bad try that secondary lock system.

uhm dont like much the chance of few ppl (very few ppl) winning thx to aao because a lot more are loosing time around, is right but lame by default due the "background" feeling. Must be mine hate alone, tough feel like the pulse system noise posted which i not really like much.

P.s.i hope that then it not became a ignore the keep stuff because feel like if you start siege, and if it require a lot of effort you may loose all the flags for a while then you may end wiping and giving even more point to the other realm; this would not encourage keep take imo.
I think that the 2 system even if you want a point system should not mix.

[NoRKaLKiLLa]

Again, you guys are spit-balling huge reworks of the entire system which, realistically, is not going to happen, while also posting in the wrong forum. Pick a small piece of the system to improve and take it to the suggestions/feedback forum. Exuberant hypotheticals posted in this thread aren't going to have an effect beyond further inducing your carpel tunnel.