A potential solution to RVR

[xanderous]

So with the current state of competative RVR we appear to have hit somewhat of a downward spiral in regards to several disadvantages that really disenfranchies the community so i'll be laying this out with possible sollutions that i think would resolve if properly implemented.

Even with good morale set ups, it's still very difficult to take down enough players when one side is throwing constant numbers at you, when that happens its not about playing smart, it just becomes a numbers game. I would like to add that the system that removes contribution for changing characters is not a solution either because the state of the factions wll be already at their disadvantages, people won't log those factions toons with that in mind, they will just stay on the side that has the most success.

Introduction: Now hear me out because i don't want this to sound like its coming from an emotional response to my own experiences when playing in RVR lakes, its constructive feedback, I'm not interested in things like realm pride, i like both factions and have a great deal of fun when playing in warbands. Now from what i have come to see recently is when one side is dominatng with drastically higher numbers. Typically people like to take advantage of the current AAO system, more renown, higher contribution, (in theory) good stuff, but this is not a particularly good fit in regards to ecouraging players to the take a leap against an opposing oppisition, this is not something i care much for, while motivated by trying to attain higher values in those areas is intriquing for progression, it is at the expense of fun when it turns into a demoralsing grind with restrictions based on success rate in batles.

Now to create an example of why i think there needs to be a change implemented to resolve this i will list some scenarios that highlight what my issue and i believe is a common problem to how the current RVR is functioning.

Example: Lets say one faction is dominating the other, to toss a random number out there, 100 order vs 50 destruction in Barakvar - Now due to the size of the map there is very little room to move about to avoid such high numbers, this results in a sittuation where the faction with less numbers are constantly forced into fights, they simply aren't going to be able to hold a battle objective, perform kiting statagies or just generly evade focus from enemy warbands resulting in a easy lock for order. The zones were not made for these current level brackets that we can now operate at level 40's.

Problem: There is no mechanic, presently in the game that can used to effectively restrict a 2-3 warband push when one faction is severaly outnumbered, this is a really big issue because when it becomes a numbers game and the numbers aren't avaialble to put up a fight, you have to change stratagy, there has to be another option beyond simply trying to fight extreamly higher odds when kiting and picking battles goes out the window as an option.

Suggestion 1: Players of faction 1 that are outnumbering faction 2, will have their wounds reduced to compensate for their ability to deal out more damage due to their higher numbers.
Advantage: This would allow for significantly effective moments such as when organised wrbands perform morale bombs to devistate the higher population of players who are simply running together in their big clumps, forcing those players to think about their positioning and also remove the mentaility of feeling safe in those big clumps.

Suggestion 2: (If possible) When one faction is outnumbered, apply a slow debuff to all players of the high population, this would only take effect when too many players are gathered together, an example being, lets say a warband is chasing another warband but there is a group +12 allied players helping them pursue, resulting in having their movement speeds reduced, this would help outnumbered warbands kite and avoid being mowed down by overwhelming numbers.

Suggestion 3: (This one is not going to get much likes i know) Place a cap on the amount of players who can enter one RVR zone, ok so this needs some explantion, at present al zones are unlocked and can be taken, the problem is if the amount of players on one side is too high then the result is an easy lock, opposing side gets disenfranchised and hopes for a bag when they lose the zone.

If we placed a cap on how many players can enter one rvr lake for that zone, specically scaled it so that one faction does not heavily outnumber another, the scaling players would most likely be needed to be teaked to find that sweat spot but i really think this one would have several advantages beyond just combat. These advantages would be...

Less over populated zones,
Increased performance and reduced lag
zone populations would be spread out evenly
Better odds at winning rewards for both sides based on reduced amount of players competing for them in a single zone

Now of course there are disadvantages one of the obvious being If a player could not get into that rvr zone then they would be forced to go to one of the other zones to fight in. Perhaps your guild wb is in a zone already and now you can't join. Also puts into question how would this be enforced, do we turn players into chickens when they try to enter, port them back into their warcamps, apply a damage over time on them when flagged for rvr in that zone. Would really be up to the people in charge to decide what would be most efficient.

This would have to be scaled correctly based on percantage numbers of faction vs faction, i am not saying if there 12 players in the zone vs a warband that this should be an option, more so if say 1 warband vs 2 warbands.

I am also of the opinion that players particapting in a long rvr session of 2 - 3 hours in one zone should have a chance to roll for a bag even if zone does not lock, players should be rewarded, not punished for perseverance.

Share your thoughts...

[peterthepan3]

quality of play should have more bearing than quantity of minutes played.

[footpatrol2]

This is such a tough issue to satisfy the entire community. There are solutions but a lot of them are not popular with the community.

A option could be lift the aoe caps when you hit a certain AAO percentage? Lift AoE caps on all morale abilities.

[xanderous]

quality of play should have more bearing than quantity of minutes played.

What is defined as quality, good organised play, gear, stratagies, your reponse is a little vague to be interpreted as a reponse for my post, could you please elaborate or did you just read the last sentence of the post?

This is such a tough issue to satisfy the entire community.

A option could be lift the aoe caps when you hit a certain AAO percentage? Lift AoE caps on all morale abilities.

I had thought about this too but it would really need to be scaled to reflect the amount of players in the rvr lake, otherwise it could be abused.

[peterthepan3]

What is defined as quality, good organised play, gear, stratagies, your reponse is a little vague to be interpreted as a reponse for my post, could you please elaborate or did you just read the last sentence of the post?
.

Read all of it, agree with a lot of it (any incentive to promote less **** blobbing/zerging is met with a thumbs up from me, in general), just don't agree with the fact that being in position X for Y amount of time should automatically qualify one for a roll on BIS gear. This seems to be an argument brought up a lot in game, too, a la 'ive been here 3 hours, wheres my gold/purps wtf?' - yet in reality, a good & seasoned group can pretty much do the same amount of contribution in 3x quicker the time.

[xanderous]

Read all of it, agree with a lot of it (any incentive to promote less **** blobbing/zerging is met with a thumbs up from me, in general), just don't agree with the fact that being in position X for Y amount of time should automatically qualify one for a roll on BIS gear. This seems to be an argument brought up a lot in game, too, a la 'ive been here 3 hours, wheres my gold/purps wtf?' - yet in reality, a good & seasoned group can pretty much do the same amount of contribution in 3x quicker the time.

Thanks for reading, while i certainly am of the frame of mind, as someone who actually enjoys grinding, feel we already have that table, when it comes to the renown ranking system. I can even understand your thoughts on why you might feel that gaining a bag for playing for 3 hours is not fair upon reflection of your own time spent in the past gearing up your characters when you did not have access to such a method. I mean the top tier gear is basically the bragging rights of the game at present. I just feel there should be some kind of mechanic in place to encourage players to keep fighting if a zone is at a stalemate rather than people becoming disenfranchiesed which is what we see these days.

[peterthepan3]

fair point

[footpatrol2]

Time spent in zone in my opinion shouldn't be rewarded. I remember the mailbox warriors back in the day.

[xanderous]

Time spent in zone in my opinion shouldn't be rewarded. I remember the mailbox warriors back in the day.

Bags would be rewarded to active players, particapating in the war effort, not those who score a few kills then go afk at the warcamp, if it were up to me.

Anyhoo this subject really was really not the main focus of the post but an after thought, it was made to address how to effectively handle zone over populations.

[Scrilian]

Artificial systems of forced equalization is what this game needs less of.
The faction balance is a self regulating system, when it's left entirely up to the players - since most would quickly lose interest in taking empty keeps and fighting 10 to 1 - so they'd quit/join the opposition. Countless examples of such behavior, which is not limited to WAR alone.
Besides, the game already provides you with enough choke points, where you can fend off greater numbers, to a certain extent. All proposed solutions can and wll be gamed/abused to their fullest, resulting in some rather unwanted behavior, like mirror-hopping to find the one where your faction is dominating, or stuff like bombing wound-debuffed/perma-slowed pugs in an even more slaughter-fest fashion - rendering them unable to take down a premade warband with 3 pug wbs.
It's like throwing a wrench into the machine, where everyone would be worse off a result.