Poll: RvR System Proposal

[Razid1987]

You are not as smart as you think. To know it better is no trolling. Same with recognizing flaws in suggestions.

Lol, keep it up. You talk so much, yet I have not seen you say anything constructive so far. All you do is shoot ideas down. And who on earth said I thought I was smart?

[Bignusty]

DISCLAIMER: While I may be a dev, this proposal does not reflect the opinions of the dev team as a whole, nor does this poll represent an official development direction.

1. One zone is open for capture at a time, as per the current system
2. A zone locks when one faction accumulates enough Victory Points (VP)
3. When zones unlock, each realm owns a Keep, and two Battlefield Objectives (BO).
4. Keeps can be attacked at any time, there is no requirement to hold BOs.
5. Each BO held increases the door's HP Regen, and reduces the amount of time before the door closes after an attack.
6. Zone locks prevent any objectives from being attacked for (15 * tier) minutes.
7. Capturing a BO grants a 1x reward (Exp, RR, Inf) to all players in range of the BO, and a 0.5x reward to all players in the zone, and prevents the BO from being attacked for 15min.
8. Capturing a Keep grants a 2x reward to all players in range of the Keep, and a 1x reward to all players in the zone.
9. Defending a Keep will grant a 3x reward to all players within range of the keep and a 1.5x reward to all players in the zone, after the previously breached door closes.
10. Locking a zone grants a 6x reward and Medallions to all players in the zone, and all players in a scenario

VPs to cap: 66 + [(faction pop ratio - 50%) / 2]


Scoring / Max VP:

1. Objectives: 54/56
   • Keeps are worth 12 VPs each, BO's worth 8 each. Total VP for objectives: 56
   • In T1, each BO is worth 18 VPs, so the total VP from objectives is 54.
2. Scenarios: 15
   • +1 VP for each win where the winning team has > 250 points.
   • -1 VP for losing a scenario with < 250 points.
   • -1 VP every 30min for both factions.
3. RvR Kills: 25
   • +1 VP every (Faction Tier Population # / 6) kills.
   • -1 VP every 30min for both factions

Some Examples:

1. 50% (72 players in T2) : 50% (72 players in T2)
   1. Both sides need 66VPs to lock.
   2. If both sides can hold onto 1 keep and 2 BOs, they each have 28VPs.
   3. Both sides need to get 12 kills for 1 RvR VP. Both sides will need to continue to get >12 kills every 30min to beat the decay rate.
2. 60% (86 players in T2) : 40% (58 players in T2)
   1. Order needs 71 VPs to lock, Destro needs 61.
   2. Order will probably hold all of the Objectives, meaning they still need 71 - 56 = 15 VP to lock the zone
   3. Order needs 14 kills for 1 RvR VP, Destro needs 9. Both sides will need to do better than this to beat the decay rate.
3. 30% (43 players in T2) : 70% (101 players in T2)
   1. Order needs 56 VP to lock, Destro needs 76
   2. Destro will probably hold all of the Objectives, meaning they still need 76 - 56 = 20 VP to lock the zone
   3. Order needs 7 kills for 1 RvR VP, Destro needs 16. Both sides will need to do better than this to beat the decay rate.

Rationale:

1. Why is a scaling design necessary?
   • As the community has seen in recent days, one of the biggest problems that hinders RvR is crossrealming. Forcing RvR to happen in one zone at a time means that is it possible to be forced to fight an overwhelming foe. Regardless of personal opinions or reasons why, once one side starts doing particularly well it becomes more advantageous to join them, rather than trying to beat them. It's simple economics, and crossrealmers are behaving in a rational, if not particularly noble manner. It is impossible for RoR to implement an enforceable and fair system to prevent this.
     
     A capture mechanic that scales with faction population on the other hand, disincentivizes crossrealming seamlessly and smoothly. The more players one side has over the other, the harder it will be for them to lock a zone. If a faction is facing a strong, coordinated enemy, they cannot switch to their side to reap the rewards of a zone flip - doing so will actually push the zone flip further away.
2. Why keep only one zone open?
   • Deciding whether to restrict the fighting to one zone or multiple is tough. With the current population being what it is, having multiple zones open makes it too easy to avoid fights and just cap BOs or trade keeps every now and then. While this system would give more rewards for a zone flip, I personally do not think that the reward alone will be enough to incentivize focusing on taking a whole zone instead of trading keeps.
     
     On the other hand, even keeping one zone open might incentivize simply trading keeps within that zone. This is why the rewards for successfully defending a keep are greater than the rewards for taking a keep - to help convey a higher priority on protecting your faction assets rather than mindlessly trading them back and forth. Similarly, because BO ownership is important toward protecting or weakening a keep, players trying to secure and protect BOs share in some of the rewards of a keep capture. Mindlessly zerging a keep gives your opponents more ways to defend.
3. What happens if one faction doesn't want to "come out and play" in the lakes, and only queues for scenarios?
   • Under the proposed system, it will be possible to lock a zone without any RvR kills so long as one faction does well enough in Scenarios and holds every objective. This remains true until the RvR'ing faction outnumbers the other by more than 10%; if they have more than 60% of that tier's population, it will be impossible for them to lock a zone without facing some opposition.
     
     I think this is a good thing. While it causes the RvR to temporarily stagnate, it incentivizes some of their players to switch back to the other realm and organize a defense, evening out the odds. Quite frankly, if one zone has >60% of the tier population, something is wrong, and that faction should not be able to steamroll over the other.
4. Why not have AAO? Wouldn't AAO fix the crossrealming problem on its own?
   • This proposal is entirely independent of the presence or lack of AAO. To put it simply: AAO is the carrot used to encourage the underdog realm to put up a fight, this proposal is the stick used to beat the overpopulated side back into an even distribution. You can have both, just one, or neither. I would like to see AAO be implemented alongside this proposal, but this proposal should and will remain independent of AAO, and does not require it. Personally, while I think AAO is a nice and elegant reward for the underdog faction, I do not think it will be enough on its own to prevent major imbalances.
5. Won't "mailbox guards" throw off the population numbers, and make it harder for a faction to lock a zone?
   • Yes. Yes it will. Mailbox guards are bad, and they should feel bad. In all seriousness, this is an actual concern, but it could be alleviated by having the server wait a shorter length of time before disconnecting AFK players, or by those players getting out and playing the actual game.
     
     If possible, a permanent solution would be for the population numbers to rely on a poll of only those flagged for RvR, updated every 5-10min. This should give reasonably accurate numbers..

So no rewards for the loser side medal and rp ?

[Natherul]

my humble pitch in is that I want it as close as possible to the system that was in live, meaning all zones are open until you lock them (cant remember the low tier zones, I can only remember T4).
AAO should be there the help motivate players to defend when they get zerged.

Also if im not misstaken I belive that each BO you had meant one less badass muppet to kill in the keep, which was also a system I liked really much.

[malabarak]

Maybe, I support this proposal with a change :

- Remove SCs from contributing to the zone lock, because when a zone is going to get locked, the other faction refuse any fight, they stop queuing for scs.
- Do 2 or all open zones in the same time because we want no zerg or just a little zerg. And with 2 zones, i hope a faction can attack and defend, not hiding behind this fortress.
- Too many rewards for leeching, due to zone wide rewards.

[mirrorblade]

I like it, but would

1. remove SCs from contributing to the zone lock.(premade sc parties had problems)
2. Two open zones ( dont want support the zerg, little groups can do something in rvr)
3. Display or show the actual VP and show how many need more to lock the zone.
4. dont want support leechers, so only the keeps and bos range get lock rewards.

[Sulorie]

You are not as smart as you think. To know it better is no trolling. Same with recognizing flaws in suggestions.

Lol, keep it up. You talk so much, yet I have not seen you say anything constructive so far. All you do is shoot ideas down. And who on earth said I thought I was smart?

I am happily the bad guy, when it is for the greater good.
I am not planning to spread my ideas until the whole concept is finished.

[Razid1987]

You are not as smart as you think. To know it better is no trolling. Same with recognizing flaws in suggestions.

Lol, keep it up. You talk so much, yet I have not seen you say anything constructive so far. All you do is shoot ideas down. And who on earth said I thought I was smart?

I am happily the bad guy, when it is for the greater good.
I am not planning to spread my ideas until the whole concept is finished.

"The greater good"? lol. Are you gonna keep derailing this thread for the greater good, too?

[Razid1987]

I like it, but would

1. remove SCs from contributing to the zone lock.(premade sc parties had problems)
2. Two open zones ( dont want support the zerg, little groups can do something in rvr)
3. Display or show the actual VP and show how many need more to lock the zone.
4. dont want support leechers, so only the keeps and bos range get lock rewards.

Maybe, I support this proposal with a change :

- Remove SCs from contributing to the zone lock, because when a zone is going to get locked, the other faction refuse any fight, they stop queuing for scs.
- Do 2 or all open zones in the same time because we want no zerg or just a little zerg. And with 2 zones, i hope a faction can attack and defend, not hiding behind this fortress.
- Too many rewards for leeching, due to zone wide rewards.

I like both of these ideas. But what could be the cons of such systems, I wonder?

[boindill]

WE DONT WONT THIS ONE ZONE FIGHT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE DONT WANT 600 PLAYER IN 1 ZONE AND HAVE BIG LAAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE WONT 3 OPEN ZONE AND FIGHT WITH LITTLE GROUPS TACTICEL FIGHTS .!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Koradrell]

WE DONT WONT THIS ONE ZONE FIGHT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WE DONT WANT 600 PLAYER IN 1 ZONE AND HAVE BIG LAAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

WE WONT 3 OPEN ZONE AND FIGHT WITH LITTLE GROUPS TACTICEL FIGHTS .!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think we all want this, but you don't need to shout and sound rude . WONT=WANT?