City siege aditional Rewards

[zulnam]

Cities not being part of the main campagin loop while they should be the ultimate goal of a functioning campaign is something that has been plaguing the RvR experience as a whole and brings many more problems with it:
- no campagin goal means people wont advance zones
- this means zones end up being zerged for hours during prime time
- overall reduced realm pride and feeling of accomplishment because nothing really matters - our only god is the god of zerg.

I agree that cities should grant unique rewards to players, like:
- gold bags containing sov set pieces
- bags containing a city currency that can be spent on arbitrary high RR sets and weapons
- unique skins that have not yet been reserved, or the art team can go wild and put in some really nice back pieces or hats as they already did for LV/Events.
- unique specular dyes
- gold and liniments, crafting mats ...

HOWEVER:
I still remember why city was put on a schedule, because the old system did not work for all timezones. Usually what would happen is that EU would be a huge stalemate while NA would be pushing cities left and right while EU was asleep. This meant that most EU players could never participate in city fights.

So what would a system require that works for most players?
- It should be easier for high pop times (EU) to push cities.
- Low pop times should be less prone to empty zone trading.
- to achieve this, keep sieges and probably fortress sieges have to be overhauled. Bombling and I have both made good suggestions to keep sieges/BO mechanics in the past.

So while I agree with everthing that's been said, I belive we first have to build a stronger campaign/RvR foundation before we put city back into the campaign.
That's why I am advocating for changes to zone-scale-RvR before tackling the big beast that is city.

Im kinda fine with city to be like lotd event. But main problem, when i even have 6 man for it, im usually dont get in. Only people who can get real fun from city is org 24 against org 24. In pugs case, its just boring one way stomp and standing afk. Maybe separate city i lnto pug vs pug solo que and 24 vs 24 guild figths, instead of mixing them together. All those 6 12 man que is making them bad. At this point im usually just ignore them.

About rewards, maybe ranked medal slot for win would be good. Wont ruin balance and its extra 50 crest from sc event. In crest terms city are ok by me. Maybe 1 guild coin for win in solo city would be good also, cos it hard to farm them in some guilds.

City queues are split into premade v premade then pug v pug, but if there is no premade on the opposite side the premade will get put with pugs.
At the moment there are very few premade groups of more than 6 doing city.

I also believe that playing around with citiy queues could be beneficial:
- If the queue system can match full premade(s) vs premade(s): Super, best case scenario
- If the system has to fill up free spots with pugs, maybe the overall city pop should be increased in these cases.
I honestly believe that more players on both sides will result in more equal fights in pug cities, because unique skill of players matters less.

i think this is a very sensible take.

+1

[Martok]

I still remember why city was put on a schedule, because the old system did not work for all timezones. Usually what would happen is that EU would be a huge stalemate while NA would be pushing cities left and right while EU was asleep. This meant that most EU players could never participate in city fights.

That was the reasoning? Quite telling, actually. That aside, pushing zones and forts to trigger a city was actually fun. You know, fun. As in the supposed purpose of playing a video game, to have fun. As in allowing the player-base at large input in dictating how particular zone fights were going to progress and toward what goal, all of which infused the system with a quality known of as fun. And now you say all of that had to be taken away for the (supposed) benefit of one segment of the player-base. Makes perfect sense.

[saupreusse]

My friends also have a very good idea (the best, in my opinion) to play cities in a knockout system like a soccer championship:
The team that loses stage 1 goes on to stage 2 against the losing team from another instance. The same applies to the next stage.
There would be no reason to leave the instance because in the next stage there would be a chance for an even fight.

This is a really nice idea

[Stinksuit]

My friends also have a very good idea (the best, in my opinion) to play cities in a knockout system like a soccer championship:
The team that loses stage 1 goes on to stage 2 against the losing team from another instance. The same applies to the next stage.
There would be no reason to leave the instance because in the next stage there would be a chance for an even fight.

This is a really nice idea

One issue I can see happening with this is people start to throw 1st and 2nd stage just to get "easy/free" win at 3rd stage since thats the stage that ultimately means you either win or lose the city..

One work around would be to give better rewards from 1st and 2nd stage versus 3rd.

[Alubert]

My friends also have a very good idea (the best, in my opinion) to play cities in a knockout system like a soccer championship:
The team that loses stage 1 goes on to stage 2 against the losing team from another instance. The same applies to the next stage.
There would be no reason to leave the instance because in the next stage there would be a chance for an even fight.

This is a really nice idea

One issue I can see happening with this is people start to throw 1st and 2nd stage just to get "easy/free" win at 3rd stage since thats the stage that ultimately means you either win or lose the city..

One work around would be to give better rewards from 1st and 2nd stage versus 3rd.

You can change the scoring in City.
Instead of determining which side will win in City through the winner of stage 3, you could count the winning side through victories in all stages 1, 2, and 3.

[Stinksuit]

This is a really nice idea

One issue I can see happening with this is people start to throw 1st and 2nd stage just to get "easy/free" win at 3rd stage since thats the stage that ultimately means you either win or lose the city..

One work around would be to give better rewards from 1st and 2nd stage versus 3rd.

You can change the scoring in City.
Instead of determining which side will win in City through the winner of stage 3, you could count the winning side through victories in all stages 1, 2, and 3.

Its definitely a interesting idea and could work well if certain things are taken into account. For starters the thing i mentioned about people throwing stages to win the last stages with easier opponents.

Im sure there can be good solution to this, maybe make it so throwing stage 1 and 2 won't be worth to just win the last stage or just treat each stage as individual wins. Im not sure but its a good idea that could work really well.