Can we have the old campaign back

[Garamore]

Yep and prior they were full as people were pushing campaign - whole point of the post

[Whyumadbro]

Why not both? Timed for those uf us who need to plan ahead and player driven for those who want to push campaing - timed can be the instance coin flip and rvr driven can be a rvr map?

[Garamore]

Yep that would work. Unless you are jobless in the US or a vampire, you will still probably get to as many city sieges as you do now if it was campaign driven.

[Whyumadbro]

Yep that would work. Unless you are jobless in the US or a vampire, you will still probably get to as many city sieges as you do now if it was campaign driven.

yeah i just think if you have both - the camapaing makes sense and people with a small time budget can still plan and participate

[RORquest]

The old system was unrewarding for the majority of players in a zone and endgame content was unavailable for most due to time zones and successful fort pushes only during off-peak hours and considered bad back then. It got replaced by a new system which fixes many of the issues but introduces rather big new ones - it makes the campaign pointless.
The solution can't be to revert it all, because then we are back at the start with a still miserable system, where you have to set your clock to ring at night time to be able to participate in a city siege with almost daily sieges.

expect you dont have to do forts or citys for inv/sov gear anymore......................................................................

[Tesq]

You can rebuild the campaign as you want the issue is that the fights are not challenging, its either stomp or get stomped, which is very boring in both situations. Scenarios suffer from the same problem, the entire game suffers from it.

From what I noticed in scenarios this problem is way worse in tier 4 than in midtier, so maybe this whole unbalanced fights situation has to do with end game gear giving too much power

This likely have to do with ttk, we should nerf dmg and heal a bit so that durability matter more.
I think vanq meta was in good spot now ttk is a little lower, id still argue for ror history for vanq meta to be the best togheter with t3 cap devastator one.

[Scottx125]

You can rebuild the campaign as you want the issue is that the fights are not challenging, its either stomp or get stomped, which is very boring in both situations. Scenarios suffer from the same problem, the entire game suffers from it.

From what I noticed in scenarios this problem is way worse in tier 4 than in midtier, so maybe this whole unbalanced fights situation has to do with end game gear giving too much power

This likely have to do with ttk, we should nerf dmg and heal a bit so that durability matter more.
I think vanq meta was in good spot now ttk is a little lower, id still argue for ror history for vanq meta to be the best togheter with t3 cap devastator one.

I do think TTK is very fast. Especially in massive blobs. Though it's already known AoE is a bit of a problem, it's too powerful atm.

[Tesq]

You can rebuild the campaign as you want the issue is that the fights are not challenging, its either stomp or get stomped, which is very boring in both situations. Scenarios suffer from the same problem, the entire game suffers from it.

From what I noticed in scenarios this problem is way worse in tier 4 than in midtier, so maybe this whole unbalanced fights situation has to do with end game gear giving too much power

This likely have to do with ttk, we should nerf dmg and heal a bit so that durability matter more.
I think vanq meta was in good spot now ttk is a little lower, id still argue for ror history for vanq meta to be the best togheter with t3 cap devastator one.

I do think TTK is very fast. Especially in massive blobs. Though it's already known AoE is a bit of a problem, it's too powerful atm.

It's rater positionig being less inpactfull for defense purpose or to better say it more offensive impactfull due aoe cap not allow to soak dmg on tanks. So position 8 tank in front or back wont change a thing..
For paradox we could even increase aoe dmg to make it more bursty but reduces aoe cap and would be better

[Hanceth]

+1 for Garamore

The timed city change was a step back in the unique part of this game.
My experience is that the rvr campaign is shrinked and meaningless these days.

The core game is still awesome, but now it feels for me like ROR before the cities got reintroduced (2018?).
With the option of a timed "city scenario" for full warbands (which I cant assess as I rarely play these since the change).

There are issues in the old version, like game experience in different timezones, but thats still effective these days (e.g. rvr stalemates in EU prime time).
I am sure there must be better solutions than shrinking the rvr campaign, and a roll-back to the old rvr campaign version is an option to consider.

[Bozzax]

Zone domination system wo timed city is by far the best system used 2008-2023.

1. City has value and as endgame. It was an achievement and took realm coordination thus creating realm pride. Defenders enjoyed sabotaging the lock making crazy last stands to deny etc
2. Off hour cities wasn’t a thing. Can’t dominate zone with low pop.
3. Zerg was split and underdog could fight the weak spots (pick the fight with best odds). Reikwald was epic
4. Was No need to restrict zones at all mechanic had all play cat and mouse trying to outsmart the other side. A strategic game outside the one open zone boundary .. amazing

Yes sometimes there was stalemates and a bit of a tug of wars but tbh all iterations have much more glaring issues

This system got so much frag from broken BW aoe and broken balance pity really

Mind boggling we stick with the current iteration and continue to force defenders to fight back at fixed points where zerg is favoured

Timed cities is a 0/5 no one likes them i bet if you poll you get 90+% dissatisfaction. I bet a majority just ignore them