Time to open up three pairrings again?

[wonshot]

No.

Thanks for adressing the main topic, unlike the other posters who derailed and brought their own "topic-of-the-week" into whatever post was active.

As I understood your post, you think its a bad idea to have all 3 parrings open at the same because then people would bring the main fight to the deemed best zone, and the zones which were deemed the worst would never see trafic? If i understood you correctly, then we agree on the main argument for my case, that not all zones are equal and some of them are really bad for the "main fight" but serve fine as a Boxrunning / smallerscale map. Eatain for example have some of the worst heatmaps when its the main open zone, but when its just smallerscale there will be better spread out action on more of the map.

I argued that more options are better as the playerbase would then pick whichever zone is more fun for their scale, mostly warbands would go empire and fight there or T2 / T3 zones as they seem supperior than the Elf/dwarf T4 zones. But with more options comes more choices, we just seem to disagree if this is a net possitive or negative for the game.

If people want citysiege opening talks they can make a forum topic for that, only reason i mentioned forts is because the two parring system needed an open fortress for attackers to run to the gate of the enemy city to queue up. Something that has since then been granted a teleport option to and therefor I argue that we dont need a system where we are restricting to two out of three parrings open at the same time as this main reason have been solved with the teleport option.

[Fenris78]

It's specifically map design that lead to previous situation, where it was Praag / empire pairing only that was pushed, 7/7, while Elf and Dwarf pairing globally remained untouched by campaign progress (i.e. warbands who could push zones), leading to empty zones remaining empty and even some cases in which one pairing (generally Dwarf one, sometimes Elf one) stayed open (untouched ?) for days, because nobody wanted to push and lock these (less desirable) zones.

The scheduled city system was to blame here, because as soon that you dont have to lock two different pairings, you can simply push the same one again and again.

Locking one pairing was a good decision (and Devs would agree on that because that was their decision in the end), because now it "forces" players to fight on all maps, and lock another pairing to reopen the one they prefer (Empire one I guess), wich in turn leads to more rewards for all players.

I guess you would agree that it's somehow similar to "old" system, where pairings where locked after Fortress take, until two pairings were taken, allowing to invade City.
The downside was to force people not in city to play on one and only map, until City event was over.

Now, everyone gets to enjoy two options, with constant variations (one different locked pairing), allowing solo and smallscale to exist in the non-zerged zone, while blob adepts can still run Praag for 7 or 8 hours straight if they want.

That's why I personaly dont want a return to old system, wich will ultimately lead to same old issues.
Too bad for players who only enjoy one zone or pairing, but at least every map is now regularly played and conquered, no matter what, and everyone can enjoy double crests on their respective pairings.

[wonshot]

It's specifically map design that lead to previous situation, where it was Praag / empire pairing only that was pushed, 7/7, while Elf and Dwarf pairing globally remained untouched by campaign progress (i.e. warbands who could push zones), leading to empty zones remaining empty and even some cases in which one pairing (generally Dwarf one, sometimes Elf one) stayed open (untouched ?) for days, because nobody wanted to push and lock these (less desirable) zones.

The scheduled city system was to blame here, because as soon that you dont have to lock two different pairings, you can simply push the same one again and again.

Locking one pairing was a good decision (and Devs would agree on that because that was their decision in the end), because now it "forces" players to fight on all maps, and lock another pairing to reopen the one they prefer (Empire one I guess), wich in turn leads to more rewards for all players.

I guess you would agree that it's somehow similar to "old" system, where pairings where locked after Fortress take, until two pairings were taken, allowing to invade City.
The downside was to force people not in city to play on one and only map, until City event was over.

Now, everyone gets to enjoy two options, with constant variations (one different locked pairing), allowing solo and smallscale to exist in the non-zerged zone, while blob adepts can still run Praag for 7 or 8 hours straight if they want.

That's why I personaly dont want a return to old system, wich will ultimately lead to same old issues.
Too bad for players who only enjoy one zone or pairing, but at least every map is now regularly played and conquered, no matter what, and everyone can enjoy double crests on their respective pairings.

I understand and follow your arugmentaion. But im just not sure I fully agree with the approach of "we acknowledge that some maps are less fun for players, but we still want to force them to play it"
On top of the addition of making more speficic zones/scenarios/orvr tiers required for some content such as Guildcoin quests, and SM/BG shield quests lately then this seem to be a direction the game is heading towards and then it becomes too limmited for players to join and progress in these maps if we stick to the two out of three availability.

But agree to disagree!

[Martok]

LoTD is best true RvR experience. Sadly one of the side prefer to siege empty keeps and play PvDoor.

Both sides siege empty keeps and play PvDoor, a condition at times a direct reflection of the current size of the player base. In theory opening a third zone would be fine accept for the fact most often there would be no one to go run around there.

As for Land of the Dead my position has been consistent since the testing phase. LOTD is the greatest RvR zone in the game, rife with potential for amazing and exciting fights. However currently what tends to go on there is dull, boring, and omnipresent.

[Garamore]

Open 3 zones so I never have to play dwarf or elf t4 again pls

[Aethilmar]

Most of the responses to this were on point actually. Opening three maps without changing the campaign incentives does nothing except create yet another empty zone to be ignored.

For better or worse the devs have decided to embrace blob fights in a theme park instead of any kind of strategic goals to "win" a campaign round. There were multiple reasons why they went this way but I don't think it had the intended effects other than to make some super sweaty folks whose self-esteem lives or dies by the killboard results happy.

[Florian90210]

LoTD is best true RvR experience. Sadly one of the side prefer to siege empty keeps and play PvDoor.

Both sides siege empty keeps and play PvDoor, a condition at times a direct reflection of the current size of the player base. In theory opening a third zone would be fine accept for the fact most often there would be no one to go run around there.

As for Land of the Dead my position has been consistent since the testing phase. LOTD is the greatest RvR zone in the game, rife with potential for amazing and exciting fights. However currently what tends to go on there is dull, boring, and omnipresent.

LOTD usually starts in prime time when realms population about same. But order don't go to LOTD, they immediately start to siege empty keeps instead.
Can you elaborate exactly what's going on in LoTD and make it dull and boring except that one of the sides actively sabotage game mode by not queuing for it?