Return of Reckoning

rly ? U want siege bo tower in ostland ? or Beer bo in bfp. I think it will be harder then cap a keep. So BIG XXXXXX NO.

wachlarz wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:35 pm rly ? U want siege bo tower in ostland ? or Beer bo in bfp. I think it will be harder then cap a keep. So BIG XXXXXX NO.

Yes, I would like to see more towers, houses, breweries, caves, crypts etc. as BO's on the lakes. Ostland, in particular, already has one BO in a crypt, Crypt of Weapons, which, in my opinion, is already a really good example of a good BO design. The second BO in Ostland could also be moved inside the crypt right next to it, which is even better with two entries to it. So in an effort to improve the battlefield design, each particular BO should be considered individually.

Your only argument against my idea is that you think that defendable BO's will be even harder to cap than keeps. However, this may or may not be the case and we don't know unless we give it a try. A mere assumption is invalid unless it's supported by reliable test data.

Elymas wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:20 pm

wachlarz wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:35 pm rly ? U want siege bo tower in ostland ? or Beer bo in bfp. I think it will be harder then cap a keep. So BIG XXXXXX NO.

Yes, I would like to see more towers, houses, breweries, caves, crypts etc. as BO's on the lakes. Ostland, in particular, already has one BO in a crypt, Crypt of Weapons, which, in my opinion, is already a really good example of a good BO design. The second BO in Ostland could also be moved inside the crypt right next to it, which is even better with two entries to it. So in an effort to improve the battlefield design, each particular BO should be considered individually.

Your only argument against my idea is that you think that defendable BO's will be even harder to cap than keeps. However, this may or may not be the case and we don't know unless we give it a try. A mere assumption is invalid unless it's supported by reliable test data.

U play a week in this game ? its pvp or rvr game. its not android zombi turret survive game. I dont wanna see 5 kobs bodybloking entrance 50 slayers,100 engis and 150 Bw aoe in one small place farming poor lemmings. Test data U have in all prime time keep sieges.

wachlarz wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:09 am

Elymas wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 7:20 pm

wachlarz wrote: Fri Apr 23, 2021 5:35 pm rly ? U want siege bo tower in ostland ? or Beer bo in bfp. I think it will be harder then cap a keep. So BIG XXXXXX NO.

Yes, I would like to see more towers, houses, breweries, caves, crypts etc. as BO's on the lakes. Ostland, in particular, already has one BO in a crypt, Crypt of Weapons, which, in my opinion, is already a really good example of a good BO design. The second BO in Ostland could also be moved inside the crypt right next to it, which is even better with two entries to it. So in an effort to improve the battlefield design, each particular BO should be considered individually.

Your only argument against my idea is that you think that defendable BO's will be even harder to cap than keeps. However, this may or may not be the case and we don't know unless we give it a try. A mere assumption is invalid unless it's supported by reliable test data.

U play a week in this game ? its pvp or rvr game. its not android zombi turret survive game. I dont wanna see 5 kobs bodybloking entrance 50 slayers,100 engis and 150 Bw aoe in one small place farming poor lemmings. Test data U have in all prime time keep sieges.

And the alternative is what we see right now, people dont fight after the keep is lost. Both sides expect the fighting to be over, when we on Live saw some of the best battles after keeptakes simple because that was the moment when all of the BOs had equal value and fighting + strategy was for once in play instead of just blobbing up and useing sheer numbers.

As I said in my original post here, if the fear from the devs is that this will lead to too strong one-way entry point funnel spots. Then I am sure more can be done to avoid this.
- Add a portal to open a backdoor to apply a 2nd entrypoint.
- Move the flag outside of the too defendable BOs.
Like we have seen in reikwald fort the devs have the tools to move a BO flag. So why could the souther BO in Reikland not just have the flag on the outside. You still have fences, a fountain, the building to provide some Line of sight and make chokepoints for the defenders without it being a single doorframe.
Same for the Eataine BO house, move the flag outside if the doorway is an issue.

The main point i want to adress with this proposal, is that players are staying afk looking at a timer instead of going out into orvr and fighting.
Right now if you wipe at the keep defence you barely have time to go out and setup a laststand on a BO while the attackers flip the keep. Let alone if you have put yourself in an outnumbered last stand BO possition, to change to an other BO if the outnumbered realm just spot you and ignore you by capping the 3 other BOs.

promoting pvp and involving the entire map, must be possible and in everyones interest?

So these are probably the two most defendable T4 BOs. Move the flag outside and they are not different than Manor in praag, or Bel BO in Eatain. Some entrypoints but with like 3-4 different ways enemies can come from and a bit of line of sight cover.

and even IF we should face a situation where a realm have bunkered themselves into a last stand and the realm who succesfully have taken a keep are unable to execute the 4/4 BO lock. They can still swap zone and keep the laststand defenders "hostage" in their last defensive position while progressing other zones. You know, spreading the action out and involving a little bit of strategy. Because the people on the BO will then loose more territory in other zones.

The action you find after a keep has been taken is some of the more active in terms of Region chat, coordination between guilds, and solo zergsurferes having someone to follow behind and get involved into battles.

Here is my suggestion for how the flags can be moved outside of the House-BOs https://imgur.com/a/j6E9GQ4

Why U want fights in locked zone ? New zone, new fights. All U write U can make in new zone. if U want more fights dont push too keep. Roam. Play small party not only in wb.

wachlarz wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 9:15 am Why U want fights in locked zone ? New zone, new fights. All U write U can make in new zone. if U want more fights dont push too keep. Roam. Play small party not only in wb.

Just from opserving how players play, i Tend to watch newcomer streamers, watch old veterans, read ingame advice chat and get a general feel for how most of the community feel on a subject. Right now only really fresh 40s are interested in the box running part of a zone from when it opens, more people get involved when a keep reaches two stars and a siege is about to happen, and after the keeptage pretty much everything goes on standby.

So we go from the peak of action, into a full on afk break. I just think the potential is waste. And it has nothing to do with what size of group or if your solo. The system just doesnt promote or allow much action after a keep is flipped. So would even bother with having any BO restrictions after a keep take if we will just accept and allow the zone to be overwith after the keep has been taken.
If the most players are active at the keeptake, why not keep that activity going for the duration of the zonelock by extending this last phase of a zone duration.

You make it sound like im trying to promote something that will just benefit myself. But this system would benefit all roamers and pvpvers.
If all the warbands are fighting at a laststand BO and for example order are about to loose a zone, if they send their bigger warbands to one BO and destro have to answere this by sending their more organized forces to this location, that will open up the rest of the map for smallscale fights, ganking soloers relocationg to other BOs and spreading the action out. Isnt that what 6man groups and gankers want, more people being spread out over the map and not one big blob being all together?

wachlarz wrote: Sat Apr 24, 2021 8:09 am U play a week in this game ? its pvp or rvr game. its not android zombi turret survive game. I dont wanna see 5 kobs bodybloking entrance 50 slayers,100 engis and 150 Bw aoe in one small place farming poor lemmings. Test data U have in all prime time keep sieges.

Yes, I've played this game a lot and seen plenty of different scenarios of these types of situations. Not once has the defender been able to withstand the attackers forever, even at the most defendable BO. What you described is a coarse exaggeration of the situation, and the likelihood of that scenario ever happening being close to 0. Keeps are being conquered on a daily basis, so I don't see how the test data from keep sieges is countering my idea here. If the defenders are not able to win by zerging inside the keep, they will not be able to win by bunkering inside a single BO either.

No, you had your chance to stop the opposing force at the outer door, inner door, and lord.

good idea to split destro zerg byt will never happen.
point to control battle objects if ppl still like zerging
zone before fort , ppl already moving to fort when destro on inner/lord. (would be good fix portal in wc camp) it force ppl do domething. byt at moment is who first reach fort u have spot, rest can log or afk ;(