Return of Reckoning

FrzrBrn wrote: Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:04 pm The problem on live was that scenarios and PQ's were required to lock a zone. If somehow they just contributed rather than being mandatory, then it might be a little extra incentive for a 6-man to hit scenarios rather than just roam the lakes. This contribution could be a bump to the amount that a resource turn-in contributes to ranking up the zone's keep, for example.

if it will not be required, then nothing will change, this is not required right now. there are several options for binding scenarios to the siege process.

1. Bind with resources recovery. 1 winning scenario gives 1 resource on BO.

2. Bind with receiving buffs and bonuses.

3. Bind with getting keep's stars. (alternative to getting keep's stars, 1 winning scenario = 1 usual resource).

4. the final battle (after then the lord down, realm still need to win the scs to block the zone, for exp take the huge map like the battle of Praag, each wb for 1 sc with different mirrors, attackers need to win although 1 sc, if they lose all then process siege is down without lock).

5. bind with influence points in the zone (ancient system).

Alfa1986 wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:17 am 4. the final battle (after then the lord down, realm still need to win the scs to block the zone, for exp take the huge map like the battle of Praag, each wb for 1 sc with different mirrors, attackers need to win although 1 sc, if they lose all then process siege is down without lock).

No - Never ever No No No - don't do it. Adding the scenario wins/loses into the lock system was weird as mythic did it. Don't need to try it again. Especially not when we have some - let me say - strange situation between the oRVR and the scenario community.

sioding wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:26 am

Alfa1986 wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:17 am 4. the final battle (after then the lord down, realm still need to win the scs to block the zone, for exp take the huge map like the battle of Praag, each wb for 1 sc with different mirrors, attackers need to win although 1 sc, if they lose all then process siege is down without lock).

No - Never ever No No No - don't do it. Adding the scenario wins/loses into the lock system was weird as mythic did it. Don't need to try it again. Especially not when we have some - let me say - strange situation between the oRVR and the scenario community.

ok) I do not insist. if no then there is no object for discussion.

but my opinion there was nothing weird, it was simply not tuned up properly. If any organ does not work, it atrophies, in other words, if part of the content is excluded from the general, then this part of the content becomes dead (questing, public quests, unlocks, and, to some extent, the scenarios, have some life in the dungeons due to better equipment on currently in the game now).

the conflict with part of the community is completely other. people just like / are used to / want to see a simple dead match, not a sprint race. the whole system of domination was proposed to make scenarios as a conveyor for the production of emblems for premades, but it turned out the other way around)))). Pugs are now more likely to earn emblems than before, many true wariors dont like it.

sioding wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:26 am

Alfa1986 wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:17 am 4. the final battle (after then the lord down, realm still need to win the scs to block the zone, for exp take the huge map like the battle of Praag, each wb for 1 sc with different mirrors, attackers need to win although 1 sc, if they lose all then process siege is down without lock).

No - Never ever No No No - don't do it. Adding the scenario wins/loses into the lock system was weird as mythic did it. Don't need to try it again. Especially not when we have some - let me say - strange situation between the oRVR and the scenario community.

Making SC play more of a role in the overall scheme of things isn't a bad thing whatsoever, and would only be considered as such by people who are scared of getting into balanced number fights.

the SC influencing the rvr campaign only made sense when you had to be into a specific area to queue for a specific scenario for that specific pairing.

so basically not at all like it works now.

sioding wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:26 am

Alfa1986 wrote: Tue Aug 20, 2019 6:17 am 4. the final battle (after then the lord down, realm still need to win the scs to block the zone, for exp take the huge map like the battle of Praag, each wb for 1 sc with different mirrors, attackers need to win although 1 sc, if they lose all then process siege is down without lock).

No - Never ever No No No - don't do it. Adding the scenario wins/loses into the lock system was weird as mythic did it. Don't need to try it again. Especially not when we have some - let me say - strange situation between the oRVR and the scenario community.

There was a problem on live where single instances could block an entire realms RvR progression. Since matchmaking isnt good enough to keep high end teams on one realm from fighting low end teams on another realm, you cant have a system that needs 100% wins.

You could do some trivial connection though. Like you need 1 scenario win as a realm to lock the zone or something like that.

You don't have to make scenarios or PVE mandatory to flip the zones, but rather add bonus points/resources/time that make it easier to flip it if your realm performs good. And likewise a way to delay the flip if opposing realm performs good. However, renown should imo be rewarded to anyone contributing to the realm, not just the players doing the ORVR. That was the main issue with the live version. If you decided to do scenarios as a way to help lock the zone cos warband disbanded then you would also give up on the zone renown and inf rewards.

the fort system destroy PVE and SC

1hour pop 1 sc and no one do PVE when the zone before the fort
I almost give up SC que now. I have try waiting an hour many times to pop 1 SC. This make me boring