T2

[perche]

the server dont have enough population yet for t4, t4 maps are big zones and need many more ppls, t2 and t3 are perfect atm.

[Tesq]

I think these problem cannot be fix if not force the meccanic and not the ppl.
Even with 1 zone with only 1 keep, one completly locked and 1 open with only flag, you force ppl to ghater into 1 zone , but what if one side totaly outnumber the other?
Multiple zone should help spred the zerg, but instead this became a way to easy get renow from an empty zone.

You need a flexible way to both make ppl spread the fight if there are too much zerg to one side and still be able to gather for mass fight if needed.
If you block other zone outnumbered ppl cannot spread the fight, or even if they do that, it dosen't matter in the end cos there are no conseguences.... you need a system like t4, where each zone is relevant to achive something. That way if you lock 1 zone but you loose 2 you loose something later due to less zone than your enemys.
So here you have 1 wb that can fight 2wb engage them in mutiple front. Slow them in first zone and conquerer other 2.

So the question is what can be the reason that force ppl to not want to lost 2 zone even if they conquered one?

T4 found the answer into capitals, seems that t2-t3 need to find his own way, an alternative to make ppl not want to loose those zone. Being some rewards or being access to something. This would force the fight but not the players as some of other restriction would make, still leave 3 zone open, still having some flexibility.
Well realms can still choose to get each one a zone and then mass fight in the 3rd one, but hey it's a ppl choice (most of time what happen in t4).

access to lair /dungeon istance/ gear/ etc dedicated to that single zone/or to those that controll 2/3 zone etc

[navis]

The Realm swap/account swap issue is mainly caused because of the rewards which are involved. Through most of all Mythic's Live years, it wasn't until near the end when they finally got the reward currencies in decent shape (one of the last patches, I believe).

Most people want to swap sides because of the winning rewards that occur at completion of Zone locks/Keep locks etc. I am generalizing a bit here so just understand that, there is always other minority players with different interest, also.

Eventually you can buy any good and fully competetive PvP gear with generic currency which can be interchanged. This is very good and players should not be affected so much that the RESORT to switching sides to achieve these gains. This is of course a huge issue and there are also many factors involved.

A directly related issue is the speed which players move through the Tier and if they can stay in a tier longer in order to "play for fun" because of how the players level-difference evens out when more players are able to achieve the proper gear and spec for the tier (ie the best PvP gear will good everything else). The overall currency balance changes a lot when this progression is altered... Not to much to worry about because 1.4.8 has a good system in place but I think RoR will maybe have a ad-hoc currency/reward system??

Anyway, my post is that mainly for good health of players within the Tier the progression/gear balance should be considered and also for healthy community to develop (within each Tier you should make sure that these players can indeed play for fun and not out of despararation

[ficklefetus]

I think the point is you are trying to direct a focal point of battle in which large scale rvr is likely to take place, while at the same time busting the effectiveness of a zerging army. while most here actually do appreciate and desire competitive battles, there is no denying that general player tendency is to join the easiest path to success.

- a single open zone forces a zerg
- 3 fully open zones create sparse, unorganized, maybe small scale skirmishes at best and a marauding zerg the most likely successful result
- 2 "active" zones funnel all available players, but still provides an overwhelmed and outnumbered group an alternative to a pointless head on collision with the zerg by capturing BOs and blocking a tier lock in the zone not occupied by the zerg. the zerg must choose to either stay together and capture keeps ONLY for the XP / Inf of a zone lock -or- split up and defend all the 'property' that they've captured in order to attempt a tier lock -the most prized goal.

folks generally will choose the easiest paths to win, but you take away the most prized reward from mindless zerging sheep and preserve it for those that choose to coordinate a balance of offensive and defensive strategy.

@ Tesq - you said t4 is able to accomplish things t2-t3 can't simply because of the city sieges. the idea I provided does essentially that same thing, except instead the primary goal becomes the reward of a tier lock (great XP/Inf/Renown and mega lootz) instead of unlocking the major city raid.

[ficklefetus]

on topic of locking players to a realm, I strongly disagree with doing so. it prevents players that would otherwise CHOOSE the losing side because they play for real competitive battles.

camping the spawn in SCs is NOT fun and if I didn't have the opportunity to switch to the underdog, I simply would log out and not bother playing.

[Sulorie]

on topic of locking players to a realm, I strongly disagree with doing so. it prevents players that would otherwise CHOOSE the losing side because they play for real competitive battles.

camping the spawn in SCs is NOT fun and if I didn't have the opportunity to switch to the underdog, I simply would log out and not bother playing.

Right

[Tesq]

You cant have the cake and had eat it , a temp restriction to swap it's sensed ( like 1h after you changed ) for change account on pc and swap side on the same account.
Btw about 2 zone im not sure it will end like you think, you either force ppl in 1 zone with that system due to only 1 keep being avaiable, so it's just like have 1 zone.

I would really like have t2 t3 t4 all have their after lock stuff so that player have to lock in a way the "system required" and so cant go for empty zone.

I don't need to be equip just something that force ppl to actually care for what they are fight for

For what i care tanquol incursion could be made a t2-t3 istance like capitals. Assumed we will play with sov as last set tanquol can be mvoed to t2-t3 instead being t4 related.
So for exemple who lock 2/3 the zone can go inside tanquol incursion.

But this is just an exemple it can be anything just use some immagination.

Btw we are forgetting something important, due the fact we are folowing a pre 1.4.0 system for the zone; skirmish is required to lock, so if no kill = no lock
PPl need to look for some kills before lock so they either have to spread and fight... empty zone are not possible with a a pre 1.4.0 system.

[Azarael]

on topic of locking players to a realm, I strongly disagree with doing so. it prevents players that would otherwise CHOOSE the losing side because they play for real competitive battles.

camping the spawn in SCs is NOT fun and if I didn't have the opportunity to switch to the underdog, I simply would log out and not bother playing.

I actually support the concept of realm pride, and if there were a way to lock players to a single realm, I would happily do so. Multiple players switching to the other realm in an attempt to balance SCs just creates the same problem in the opposite direction.

[KarlFranz]

I actually support the concept of realm pride, and if there were a way to lock players to a single realm, I would happily do so. Multiple players switching to the other realm in an attempt to balance SCs just creates the same problem in the opposite direction.

+1

[Morf]

I actually support the concept of realm pride, and if there were a way to lock players to a single realm, I would happily do so. Multiple players switching to the other realm in an attempt to balance SCs just creates the same problem in the opposite direction.

Agree realm pride is needed but it does get boring fast dominating sc's at which point i end up going afk and switching sides after.