Forts with overstacked attackers

[bradbury111]

[...]
Lets say last zone is taken by 200+ attackers and you couldnt hold keep with less then 100, why rest of defenders would prolonged their missery and spend another hour holding undefendable fort?

Because at the end, whom have partecipated to fort have access to an ending campaign merchant selling the spoils of war: cheaper pots, cheaper piece of gear, random items from previous events etc...

[Sulorie]

Was always wondered, why amount of attackers in fort isnt caped at amount of defenders + a bonus? Is it to push campaign ahead so free rewards are given to people choosing to attack empty forts? Wouldnt it be better to at least priotise amount of defenders and give attackers a decent fight for reward?

When one sides refuses to defend, then hardly anybody can attack?
People often take uncontested keeps, while their enemy takes their fort without much resistance.

[Asderas27]

Who cares about forts in 2023 ?
Entire RvR Campaign is pointless now anyway.
Just farm your kills and get your gear and move on.

[Detangler]

Defenders are capped based on number of attackers so taking a keep is still possible.

Attackers are only limited by the overall fort cap of 120-whatever or more (dont remember exact number). Attacking realm players can have zero previous contribution in zone and walk in just fine as long as the upper limit is not reached.

Why do attackers have only the upper limit? to prevent griefing defenders. Imagine a coordinated defending realm decides to just not show up for fort. If there's only a few defenders, those hundred + players that just took a zone would not be able to join the fort. Then this realm retaliates because that realm "did it to them." It would quickly snowball to making forts a complete mess.

You and I both know exactly how this server behaves. It would take a day, 2 days tops before this would happen.

[Phantasm]

Well instead of not wanting to have exploitable fort system based on amount of defenders we got expoitable fort system that let you log off on killing lord and crossrealm to opposite faction to full participate on already lost fort. Sad but true.

[Ninjagon]

Current cap system for forts is correct.
Why?
Because there are so many arrogant and/or profiteers organised WB leaders there, who just chose to NOT fight in the forts (usually defender side).
And there comes that "120" attackers vs "60" defenders debacle in EU primetime...
It is the same cowardly behavior like hiting surrender macro, befor the scenario even started.

[Phantasm]

Current cap system for forts is correct.
Why?
Because there are so many arrogant and/or profiteers organised WB leaders there, who just chose to NOT fight in the forts (usually defender side).
And there comes that "120" attackers vs "60" defenders debacle in EU primetime...
It is the same cowardly behavior like hiting surrender macro, befor the scenario even started.

Current fort system promoting xrealming to the winning side.



If you dont see a problem here i dont know what I can say.

[Scottx125]

Who cares about forts in 2023 ?
Entire RvR Campaign is pointless now anyway.
Just farm your kills and get your gear and move on.

They still provide more crests than not doing forts. Yes the campaign as it is, is currently pointless. Considering everything is scheduled. But the rewards for doing a keep/fort/city are still worth while.

I don't think the current system needs tweaking, people need a reason other than crests to want to hold a fort. This goes back to the RvR campaign. All that happens if you lose a fort is the chance of getting Altdorf or Destro increases/decreases. There should be tangible in game consequences for losing forts. Such as losing access to dungeons in the cities. Getting fewer rewards. Maybe defending a fort provides a buff for those who took part for an hour or two boosting stats, maybe call it "Hero's of Order/Destro" - "Successfully defended the fort against the encroaching enemies, drive the enemy before you 10% damage dealt -10% received". Something like that. Would be great as well for sides who defend when heavily outnumbered.

Another idea is to have the forts etc change based on the team difference between the two sides. If the defenders are much weaker, NPC's in the fort respawn faster and become stronger, same with the lord room. Perhaps if the defenders are outnumbered more than 50% the inner postern gets blocked up. Actually giving them a chance to defend.

[Avanos]

I suggested before placing a cap of 20% more of attackers to defenders based on the number of defenders that enter.
Ex: If 40 people enter to defend the fort, 48 attacker slots will be open. If the number of defenders decreases, current attackers will stay in the fort but new ones cannot enter. If the number of defenders increases, so will the number of attackers - to the current cap of 168/135.
This would make it balanced/fair in my opinion.

X-realming aside, the current system would be considered a non-issue/intended mechanic/low priority.

[Everdin]

I suggested before placing a cap of 20% more of attackers to defenders based on the number of defenders that enter.
Ex: If 40 people enter to defend the fort, 48 attacker slots will be open. If the number of defenders decreases, current attackers will stay in the fort but new ones cannot enter. If the number of defenders increases, so will the number of attackers - to the current cap of 168/135.
This would make it balanced/fair in my opinion.

X-realming aside, the current system would be considered a non-issue/intended mechanic/low priority.

It was mentioned before, what if the defenders decide not to show up?