oRvR overhaul

[PlagueMonk]

Creative ideas @plaguemonk. I believe there was discussion from or with the devs regarding orcapaults as well

Aren't those an actual thing in the Warhammer game/lore? I do recall an Orcapult being in the original trailer for WAR (see below), before the spiffy and slick, longer version.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JglnSrfJtyQ

As for the OPs suggestions......I dislike tying the BOs into damage on the doors. What does holding essentially a supply depot have to do with damage to doors? There needs to be at least some logical connection else it just becomes a mechanic to be that and only that.

As for the logical connection with the supply depots... How does your siege get any reinforcements or ammunation without having a supply train/route? I am glad they tied the siege weapons - besides rams - to supplies, but there actually has something to be done to rams also.
The other day in KV order held 2-3 BOs during the entire siege and where running supplies like hell. Every BO had at least 2-3 runners for supplies and you know what that did to the siege? Not much because the ram still hits harder than controlling most of the map and running supplies. In fact supplies are obsolet once you hit 2 Stars and start a siege.
As for another logical thing. How do you think would a siege work if you don't control the land in which the siege happens? Probably pretty badly because of reinforcements coming from the land. Maybe another idea could be that every BO the defender holds spawns lord mobs running from the BO to the keep to defend. Probably with a timer a little larger than supply spawn timer. OFC the lords need to be harder/more powerful the more attackers are in the zone so there will be no critical mass after which attackers doesn't need to care about BOs.

The BOs have to be involved during the whole time a zone is open and not just for the first 15 minutes and then everyone is just standing around waiting for a siege to happen to stare each other down from/up the walls.

Well that's just my opinion. You can be ultra creative and rationalize it any way you like but unless it's a pretty simple and straightforward connection, people won't get it.

The other problem with this idea is, it deters smaller forces from trying to take on larger ones. If you HAVE to hold the BOs, then you most likely will not have the needed forces at the keep sieging. This promotes zerging and only if you have a larger force would you be able to hold everything. Again just my thinking.

[Lithenir]

Spoiler:

As for the OPs suggestions......I dislike tying the BOs into damage on the doors. What does holding essentially a supply depot have to do with damage to doors? There needs to be at least some logical connection else it just becomes a mechanic to be that and only that.

As for the logical connection with the supply depots... How does your siege get any reinforcements or ammunation without having a supply train/route? I am glad they tied the siege weapons - besides rams - to supplies, but there actually has something to be done to rams also.
The other day in KV order held 2-3 BOs during the entire siege and where running supplies like hell. Every BO had at least 2-3 runners for supplies and you know what that did to the siege? Not much because the ram still hits harder than controlling most of the map and running supplies. In fact supplies are obsolet once you hit 2 Stars and start a siege.
As for another logical thing. How do you think would a siege work if you don't control the land in which the siege happens? Probably pretty badly because of reinforcements coming from the land. Maybe another idea could be that every BO the defender holds spawns lord mobs running from the BO to the keep to defend. Probably with a timer a little larger than supply spawn timer. OFC the lords need to be harder/more powerful the more attackers are in the zone so there will be no critical mass after which attackers doesn't need to care about BOs.

The BOs have to be involved during the whole time a zone is open and not just for the first 15 minutes and then everyone is just standing around waiting for a siege to happen to stare each other down from/up the walls.

Well that's just my opinion. You can be ultra creative and rationalize it any way you like but unless it's a pretty simple and straightforward connection, people won't get it.

The other problem with this idea is, it deters smaller forces from trying to take on larger ones. If you HAVE to hold the BOs, then you most likely will not have the needed forces at the keep sieging. This promotes zerging and only if you have a larger force would you be able to hold everything. Again just my thinking.

Well I disagree. And tbh my thinking with the lords coming for backup from BOs wasn't really creative, I just remembered actual sieges in earth history that failed because the besieged keep/city got help from outside. So for me it's just a logical thing to think.

And for the zerg thing I also disagree because it actually splits the zerg. If the defender isn't able to reach the keep in large numbers they can focus on the BOs and really slow the siege down (ram dmg idea) or they can attack with the lords coming from the BOs. So the attacking zerg has to split up and therefore is weaker right in front of the keep.

[PlagueMonk]

Spoiler:

As for the logical connection with the supply depots... How does your siege get any reinforcements or ammunation without having a supply train/route? I am glad they tied the siege weapons - besides rams - to supplies, but there actually has something to be done to rams also.
The other day in KV order held 2-3 BOs during the entire siege and where running supplies like hell. Every BO had at least 2-3 runners for supplies and you know what that did to the siege? Not much because the ram still hits harder than controlling most of the map and running supplies. In fact supplies are obsolet once you hit 2 Stars and start a siege.
As for another logical thing. How do you think would a siege work if you don't control the land in which the siege happens? Probably pretty badly because of reinforcements coming from the land. Maybe another idea could be that every BO the defender holds spawns lord mobs running from the BO to the keep to defend. Probably with a timer a little larger than supply spawn timer. OFC the lords need to be harder/more powerful the more attackers are in the zone so there will be no critical mass after which attackers doesn't need to care about BOs.

The BOs have to be involved during the whole time a zone is open and not just for the first 15 minutes and then everyone is just standing around waiting for a siege to happen to stare each other down from/up the walls.

Well that's just my opinion. You can be ultra creative and rationalize it any way you like but unless it's a pretty simple and straightforward connection, people won't get it.

The other problem with this idea is, it deters smaller forces from trying to take on larger ones. If you HAVE to hold the BOs, then you most likely will not have the needed forces at the keep sieging. This promotes zerging and only if you have a larger force would you be able to hold everything. Again just my thinking.

Well I disagree. And tbh my thinking with the lords coming for backup from BOs wasn't really creative, I just remembered actual sieges in earth history that failed because the besieged keep/city got help from outside. So for me it's just a logical thing to think.

And for the zerg thing I also disagree because it actually splits the zerg. If the defender isn't able to reach the keep in large numbers they can focus on the BOs and really slow the siege down (ram dmg idea) or they can attack with the lords coming from the BOs. So the attacking zerg has to split up and therefore is weaker right in front of the keep.

Except....you are also splitting the smaller force as well. If the smaller attacking force has say 50 people vs the zerg's 85, that means IF you split things evenly each BO it would be 10 vs 15. Those are not good odds. There is also the additional problem of herding cats. Trying to coordinate all of one side into roughly even groups to go hold 4 BOs plus the keep is a nearly impossible feat. have you not seen how difficult it is to even hold the fortress BOs? All most can do is Nascar around like mindless idiots. People also tend to give up at the drop of a hat so if things are not working they will give up. I see all sorts of stumbling blocks to such an idea.

[sighy]

Spoiler:

Spoiler:

Well that's just my opinion. You can be ultra creative and rationalize it any way you like but unless it's a pretty simple and straightforward connection, people won't get it.

The other problem with this idea is, it deters smaller forces from trying to take on larger ones. If you HAVE to hold the BOs, then you most likely will not have the needed forces at the keep sieging. This promotes zerging and only if you have a larger force would you be able to hold everything. Again just my thinking.

Well I disagree. And tbh my thinking with the lords coming for backup from BOs wasn't really creative, I just remembered actual sieges in earth history that failed because the besieged keep/city got help from outside. So for me it's just a logical thing to think.

And for the zerg thing I also disagree because it actually splits the zerg. If the defender isn't able to reach the keep in large numbers they can focus on the BOs and really slow the siege down (ram dmg idea) or they can attack with the lords coming from the BOs. So the attacking zerg has to split up and therefore is weaker right in front of the keep.

Except....you are also splitting the smaller force as well. If the smaller attacking force has say 50 people vs the zerg's 85, that means IF you split things evenly each BO it would be 10 vs 15. Those are not good odds. There is also the additional problem of herding cats. Trying to coordinate all of one side into roughly even groups to go hold 4 BOs plus the keep is a nearly impossible feat. have you not seen how difficult it is to even hold the fortress BOs? All most can do is Nascar around like mindless idiots. People also tend to give up at the drop of a hat so if things are not working they will give up. I see all sorts of stumbling blocks to such an idea.

There is a difference between pop advantages and zergs. One is that a side bluntly put has more bodies to work with, while zergs are more of the everyone moving around in a large blob scenario. Making the BOs essential for offensive play forces the zerg to split up, in a way where the individual parts are more vulnerable, in exchange for certain advantages while offensively sieging losing them, if the BO is taken by the defenders. The forces are never gonna be evenly split, but it does open up the possibility to jump the 15 at each, with a 24 for example.

[Lithenir]

Spoiler:

Well that's just my opinion. You can be ultra creative and rationalize it any way you like but unless it's a pretty simple and straightforward connection, people won't get it.

The other problem with this idea is, it deters smaller forces from trying to take on larger ones. If you HAVE to hold the BOs, then you most likely will not have the needed forces at the keep sieging. This promotes zerging and only if you have a larger force would you be able to hold everything. Again just my thinking.

Well I disagree. And tbh my thinking with the lords coming for backup from BOs wasn't really creative, I just remembered actual sieges in earth history that failed because the besieged keep/city got help from outside. So for me it's just a logical thing to think.

And for the zerg thing I also disagree because it actually splits the zerg. If the defender isn't able to reach the keep in large numbers they can focus on the BOs and really slow the siege down (ram dmg idea) or they can attack with the lords coming from the BOs. So the attacking zerg has to split up and therefore is weaker right in front of the keep.

Except....you are also splitting the smaller force as well. If the smaller attacking force has say 50 people vs the zerg's 85, that means IF you split things evenly each BO it would be 10 vs 15. Those are not good odds. There is also the additional problem of herding cats. Trying to coordinate all of one side into roughly even groups to go hold 4 BOs plus the keep is a nearly impossible feat. have you not seen how difficult it is to even hold the fortress BOs? All most can do is Nascar around like mindless idiots. People also tend to give up at the drop of a hat so if things are not working they will give up. I see all sorts of stumbling blocks to such an idea.

You bring two totally different and unimportant things to the table.
First of all, the smaller forces almost never attack. And if they get outnumbered during the siege it doesn't matter which system we are playing with it is lost either way. It's mostly important for the smaller forces to defend their keeps or lets just say, to have a chance. Right now it's just zerg vs door without any chance to slow the siege down except for the 2 mins the oil is up. BOs don't play any role after reaching 2 stars.
Also in your excample.... 85 people aren't really a zerg. The zerg is a huge mindless blob which can't be trained or organized and that's fine as the zerg only throws in body after body at the enemy.
There is also no need to coordinate everyone into even groups but it would give small scale parties a real reason to participate into oRvR except for the farming of soloers.
Second fortress has absolutely NOTHING to do with oRvR so please keep it on oRvR.

[wonshot]

Except....you are also splitting the smaller force as well. If the smaller attacking force has say 50 people vs the zerg's 85, that means IF you split things evenly each BO it would be 10 vs 15. Those are not good odds. There is also the additional problem of herding cats. Trying to coordinate all of one side into roughly even groups to go hold 4 BOs plus the keep is a nearly impossible feat. have you not seen how difficult it is to even hold the fortress BOs? All most can do is Nascar around like mindless idiots. People also tend to give up at the drop of a hat so if things are not working they will give up. I see all sorts of stumbling blocks to such an idea.

Im not sure if I understand why the BOs each have to be defended evenly?
In a zone like, lets take Etaine as an example. Some of the middle BOs will need more attention than the Far West/Eastern BO but they still hold the same value in my suggestions sure. But the simple thing that my suggestion leans on, and we dont have much of right now. is zonewide intell and coordination.

Yes there is a trend of picking the easy road for the players on this server, but should that stop any creativity and ideas. I agree it needs to be involved in what you can expect the playerbehavior to be. But right now I for one find the zonelocking and siegemechanic to be catering and maybe even part of the reason why the playerbehavior is so predictable atm.

I dont know about others, but on Live some of the zonelocks I remember foundly would be when you were against all odds and managed to upset a bigger force by stalling a zonelock with a ninja BO cap on the far end of a zone making the zerg play to your music. Yes eventually they would lock those zones but you could actually play as underdog, making it appealing to not just log on the zerging dominating side and have some fun fights as reward. An other trend that have been festering for too long on RoR, that rewards are NEVER the fight but has to be a progression source instead. Bring back fighting as a real reward.

IF a realm has 40% or higher aao should that automatically mean they have no chance, i think thats a big mistake and pushes the winnerjoining mentality (important to note that Winnerjoining and Crossrealming is Not the same!)

So lets take Thundermountain zone as an other example, one side is heavily outnumbering and the enemy keep is taken.
Now with the current system the dominating realm only need the 3 center BOs. The outnumbered realm will maybe attempt to gather their full force at one of the 3 center BOs, or attempt a ruin retake. Leaving the dominating force in a possition where they can easily react to when the underdogs are spotted and paint the BOs with rather ease in their colors.

If all 4 BOs were required atleast, the underdogs could use the distance of the 4th far BO to make the zerg spread out thin opening op options for making a little stall and get some fights even when they are outnumbered heavily. I would call it playing the game for fights, and not just playing for zonebags and "rewards".