A potential solution to RVR

[NoRKaLKiLLa]

Punishing players for outnumbering the other faction makes any small engagements completely unfair and makes the bigger faction reliant on zerging in order moor to be at a disadvantage when fighting a group of equal numbers. This would make the premades with AAO completely unstoppable, and the zerging faction stick together like glue. The team told us before this is not something they're supportive of. There exists diminished rations which is a form of punishment already but is dependent on a factions inability or unwillingness to do anything but sit and wait in a keep- which can easily be negated by... Leaving the keep.

Last year the AOE target cap was completely removed for melee aoe abilities and given a damage buff which multiplied by the number of enemy targets being hit, but subtracting by the number of friendly targets hit. This very effectively punished mindless zerging and bunching up in a single spot. A 6man was able to almost effortlessly wipe pug warbands who didn't have the mental wherewithal to not stand in one spot. Instead of paying attention and moving out of this single spot, players refused to adapt and instead took to the forums and complained enough that Aza said screw it, and quit.

No matter the mechanic, the way to maximize your time spent vs. Your rewards received (rp, gold bags, medallions, satisfaction from killing an enemy player) is and always will be establishing voice communications, making a balanced premade (or warband), and playing the field to your advantage. The great thing about this game is that you're not forced to do one thing in the lakes. They're relatively large and there's ALWAYS an alternative to throwing yourself into a wall of enemy players.

[Scrilian]

You make it sound like it's somehow the players fault for not accepting the god awful, poorly implemented and thought through new aoe system, taking it to the forums and making their voices heard.
Don't try to fool us, as someone who, I have no doubt, benefited greatly from this bullshit and abused it to it's fullest, being marauder and all. It was done away with for the better, no matter how misty-eyed about it you got.

[NoRKaLKiLLa]

I'm not into fooling anyone- I thoroughly enjoyed the change that allowed me (and anyone cognizant enough to read patch notes and communicate even the most basic strategies) to single handedly wipe warbands who focused all their dps and brain power on a point on a map.

The changes suggested in the OP would be brutally exploited, again, by anyone thoughtful enough to imagine how best to use the changes to their advantage, and the forums would be inarguably flooded with players complaining about being absolutely dunked on by those premades that do more than join pug warbands and spam aoe dps/heals and pray they outnumber the enemy.

[xanderous]

No matter the mechanic, the way to maximize your time spent vs. Your rewards received (rp, gold bags, medallions, satisfaction from killing an enemy player) is and always will be establishing voice communications, making a balanced premade (or warband), and playing the field to your advantage. The great thing about this game is that you're not forced to do one thing in the lakes. They're relatively large and there's ALWAYS an alternative to throwing yourself into a wall of enemy players.

While i appreciate where you are coming from, you say that voice communication is what makes or defines a warbands ability to win, I actually agree with this statement. The problem is that a 24 vs 24 with everyone on coms is a totally different scenario to what can put players at extream disadvantage. For example if you are running a 24 man guild wb and you have the support of a 24 man pug warband vs an enemy guild warband, of course your going to be able to use a wide variety of stratagies to ensure a win vs the one with lesser numbers. You could use the pugs as a distraction to perform flanking manuvers, have them camp on battle objectives, while your warband roams, more numbers on the field means more eyes, also increased your odds at taken the enemy by surprise.

The great thing about this game is that you're not forced to do one thing in the lakes. They're relatively large and there's ALWAYS an alternative to throwing yourself into a wall of enemy players.

If you wish to stop a zone from being locked by the enemy, you have to fight over Battle objectives and keeps which means there are places on the map that need to be contested, i would say thats being forced to do one of two things.

[roadkillrobin]

@NoRKaLKiLLa.
The AoE changes went against almoast every damn combat mechanic in the game.
It put mdps in front of tanks not to soak AoE hits. It made tanks turn 180 degrees with their backs towards their enemy to defend mdps with HTL (even tho it didn't work at the time but noone noticed)
It made Sorcs/BW Backkash for more damage then they dished out.
It made keeps unplayeble as attackers as you couldn't get trough stairs/doors or anything without getting hit for 5k/gcd.
It just didn't have any regards for the rest of the enviroments in the game other then to punish zergs. It was horrible.

[adamthelc]

I dont mind the faction imbalance per se. My problem is with huge zergs and how the faction imbalance effects it.

I think the wounds debuff is interesting but I dont think it should apply to the whole zone. I think its should apply to localized areas where a faction population is very high.

That way you dont punish a side for having more people. You punish them for not using a better strategy than just put all you players in 1 spot.

I also dont think it should only apply to the side with highee numbers in the zone, but if the outnumbered side cant come up with putting all of their players in 1 spot they should suffer the same penalty.

If both sides concentrate all of their people in one place at least there will be a lot of deaths on both sides.

[Fallenkezef]

I dont mind the faction imbalance per se. My problem is with huge zergs and how the faction imbalance effects it.

I think the wounds debuff is interesting but I dont think it should apply to the whole zone. I think its should apply to localized areas where a faction population is very high.

That way you dont punish a side for having more people. You punish them for not using a better strategy than just put all you players in 1 spot.

I also dont think it should only apply to the side with highee numbers in the zone, but if the outnumbered side cant come up with putting all of their players in 1 spot they should suffer the same penalty.

If both sides concentrate all of their people in one place at least there will be a lot of deaths on both sides.

Why punish a valid tactic? The zerg exists because the zerg works. "punish for not using a better strategy* this is complete bull, any strategy that works and achieves victory is by definition a "better strategy".

Sure, let's force pugs to go up against organised, guild warbands on a one on one so they can be easy kills......

[Plaguewall]

I have a crazy suggestion, how about the renown gained from a zone is inversely proportional to the amount of time spent in a zone.
Get in zone, rank keep, fight like crazy, big renown.
Meander around zone, leave flags uncapped, bludge in warcamp, take five hours....not much renown.
The idea is that each BO or keep has a pool of renown, for the BOs it leaks (resulting in ticks that increase with continuous time held) but even if the BO is not held that renown continues to decline over time, rendering them worthless after a couple of hours (they still generate resources though).
Keeps would start with a pool of renown, that starts to decrease once a keep attack is initiated. If a keep is successfully defended, the defenders are rewarded with that mini-pool of renown, denying it to the attackers. A counter offensive could therefore net a tenacious defender with both a defence renown reward and a later offense reward. (If one side ragequits a dying zone)

This would encourage attackers to hit hard and fast, to get the most from BOs and to move to the next zone. An outnumbered or defending realm would benefit from being able to "steal" the BO's or defend a keep.

An issue I could see is the end result of a dead zone, at which point I'd say call it a draw and no-one gets anything if BO's aren't taken or Players at BO's get a final reasonable sized tick if the BOs are held.

[NoRKaLKiLLa]

My point is any drastic change made that fundamentally changes how the oRvR functions will be taken advantage of by the adaptive minority and endlessly complained about by the reluctant majority.

[Fallenkezef]

My point is any drastic change made that fundamentally changes how the oRvR functions will be taken advantage of by the adaptive minority and endlessly complained about by the reluctant majority.

Path of least resistance v creative thinking.

Happens in every game.