That is sadly true, but you should try to please the biggest part of the crowd, however, if you ask me. I just think it's too early for people to realize the cons of the corrent system. Right now it's just new and exciting, so people don't see the full aspect.Renork wrote:Does it matter? People will whine regardless of what you do. It's impossible to please everyone.
Let's put this to bed. Yes, it was a worse system. Why was it a worse system? Because it promotes avoiding fights in favour of reaping permanent rewards that you don't deserve from battlefield objectives and keeps.No, you are precisely correct, and this is the point I've been trying to make for these thich headed elitists all day long. They are simply in denial. Avoid a force you cannot beat, and outmaneuvering them, wether you like it or not, IS STRATEGY.
The elitist will of course come up with degrading names, such as zonejumping and keep trading, to make it seem like it's a worse system, but it's really not. It's strategy.
Edit: And for those who don't know the defintion of strategy:
"Strategy is a high level plan to achieve one or more goals under conditions of uncertainty"
Souce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy
If you call mindlessly trying to keep trying to attack the same zerg/group/force/whatever again and again, without succeeding for "high level plan" then you need to go back to school.
I don't see how continue to fight a losing battle is any better. And how can you say they don't deserve it? They are taking the only RvR objectives that are available to them. It's not their fault that the number of player defending those BOs are zero. That's the defender's fault, not the attackers. But it's the attackers that lose as the underdog with the new system. If those BOs were defended, even by a single player, you would be perfectly fine with the old system. Even though it wouldn't practiacally make any difference.Azarael wrote: Let's put this to bed. Yes, it was a worse system. Why was it a worse system? Because it promotes avoiding fights in favour of reaping permanent rewards that you don't deserve from battlefield objectives and keeps.
I see taking BOs, whether they are defended by players or not, as PvP. I guess that's fundamentally where we disagree. If going into a RvR-lake and taking objectives isn't PvP or at least promoting it, then I don't know what is.Azarael wrote: My viewpoint is, and always will be, that if you're not PvPing you don't deserve the rewards. Any solution proposed which gives players an out to return to not PvPing to get rewards will be rejected.
It's not only that, but the unfortunate downside to the new system is that it encourages xrealming even more. A lot of people will just simply log off, and those who continue to fight are the real losers. The players that, by intent of this new system, should be awarded. They are not.Azarael wrote: Equally the current system is flawed. If one faction has overwhelming force, they'll be able to take a defended keep and keep on taking keeps after the unlock until they get bored. If the factions are relatively equal or slightly imbalanced, the game stalls on the keep attack, because of how hard and boring it is to try to push against a defended keep. Who knew that adding a tiny structure whose entire purpose is to give the defenders a massive advantage which can't be weakened over time would break a system?
True!turlututuhu wrote:Isn't fun to make barrier control in a game.
Marshes of madness is dead... Why open it ?
All players are running arround Mandred's keep, it's mad.
Open the game don't lock it, don't make control on peoples.
Why you want create that game in the way you want it? Why you change it? Why it can't be as old warhammer, with old rules?Azarael wrote:
My viewpoint is, and always will be, that if you're not PvPing you don't deserve the rewards. Any solution proposed which gives players an out to return to not PvPing to get rewards will be rejected.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Stonal and 8 guests
