New RvR system vs Old RvR system Poll

[Penril]

I see the votes now are almost equal, 40/42, lets see it trough the day.

49/63

[Ossos]

i agrre with grobbok, just emulate the game like he used to be, the more "creative" you go, more problems you will have to fix in future.

[Azarael]

Argue the point instead of trying to paint me as a tyrant. None of this was my idea, though I do think it's a step up.

[Penril]

i agrre with grobbok, just emulate the game like he used to be, the more "creative" you go, more problems you will have to fix in future.

Obviously there is a problem with implementing the BO resource carriers and ranking a zone to 4; otherwise that would be the system we would be using.

So i guess the point of this patch was trying to make BOs important once again, and stopping with the constant keep flips every 5 minutes. So far, it is a success.

[Azarael]

Penril is correct. I thought that would have been obvious, but apparently it's not.

[Toldavf]

2 zergs fighting each other atm its kinda dull and I've nowhere else to try rvring. The new system doesn't make people rvr all they want to do is sit in the keep and farm. If we want to get people out and moving maybe make the bo's more important instead of locking a zone so it isn't used.

[Coryphaus]

Penril is correct. I thought that would have been obvious, but apparently it's not.

And its defiantly working... the problem becomes when its zerg v zerg and then nothing happens and the game stalemates ....

though i cant think of anything to change the situation

[Azarael]

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.

It's not the defender's fault at all - it's the system's fault. If the system fails to adequately reward defenders for defending, they won't defend, and that's exactly what we had before.

Those objectives are only meaningful to the goal of promoting PvP if they actually do so. Otherwise, they are just free XP/Renown/Inf on a timer. They didn't.

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.

The definition of player versus player does not include taking undefended BOs and keeps, which is PvE. It becomes PvP when defenders show up to deal with it. If those defenders don't care, and those objectives are just being swapped for points, that's PvE.

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.

I mentioned that specifically.

[Luuca]

I won't disagree that that is strategy. However, it's exactly the strategy we wanted to avoid in the first place - zone hopping to avoid the fight.

40v20 is not a fight. It's a slaughter.

How did a 6-man and 2 pugs out of group, hold STK from 24+ order and wipe them a second time after more destro showed up last night? It's impossible, right?

[Penril]

I won't disagree that that is strategy. However, it's exactly the strategy we wanted to avoid in the first place - zone hopping to avoid the fight.

40v20 is not a fight. It's a slaughter.

How did a *censored* and 2 pugs out of group, hold STK from 24+ order and wipe them a second time after more destro showed up last night? It's impossible, right?

This is your first warning.