Forts with overstacked attackers

[Avernus]

1. I don't think the current system needs tweaking, people need a reason other than crests to want to hold a fort. This goes back to the RvR campaign. All that happens if you lose a fort is the chance of getting Altdorf or Destro increases/decreases. qThere should be tangible in game consequences for losing forts. Such as losing access to dungeons in the cities. Getting fewer rewards.

2. Maybe defending a fort provides a buff for those who took part for an hour or two boosting stats, maybe call it "Hero's of Order/Destro" - "Successfully defended the fort against the encroaching enemies, drive the enemy before you 10% damage dealt -10% received". Something like that. Would be great as well for sides who defend when heavily outnumbered.

3. Another idea is to have the forts etc change based on the team difference between the two sides. If the defenders are much weaker, NPC's in the fort respawn faster and become stronger, same with the lord room. Perhaps if the defenders are outnumbered more than 50% the inner postern gets blocked up. Actually giving them a chance to defend.

1. So, if your side got nighthammered (read. your side is losing badly while you are sleeping/at worc/etc) enjoy your downsides while you didn't even had a chance to do something? No, ty.

2. Sounds like "stomped the enemy at fort - get even more benefits for stomping!" And stat buffs...its for sc stomping right? No, ty.

3. Unless said npc gonna have a strong debuffs/damage you can use them as morale boosters, thats the plan, right? No? Oh...

[Scottx125]

1. So, if your side got nighthammered (read. your side is losing badly while you are sleeping/at worc/etc) enjoy your downsides while you didn't even had a chance to do something? No, ty.

2. Sounds like "stomped the enemy at fort - get even more benefits for stomping!" And stat buffs...its for sc stomping right? No, ty.

3. Unless said npc gonna have a strong debuffs/damage you can use them as morale boosters, thats the plan, right? No? Oh...

Everything you said is wrongly interpreted, including the modification of my comment into bullet points . The first point I made was to incentivise people to hold forts when they DO have the population, obviously some sort of mechanic would be needed to ensure any outnumbered side has some extra benefits to fall back on. My second point, was not for attackers, but defenders. My last point, yes. They would be extremely tough champion/hero level NPC's. They wouldn't be just mobs for the meat grinder, they'd be real threats.

[Svartypops]

Every competitive MMO has this problem. I've played DAoC, WoW (vanilla Alterac Valley), original WAR, GW2, and now I'm in RoR.

My solutions are always 1. Dynamic handicapping, and 2. Rewards for losing.

1. Dynamic handicapping means you get buffs, bonuses and better guards when you're outmanned etc.

2. Rewards for losing. I know there are some people who don't understand this, but the players get to CHOOSE whether they win or lose. That's what this xrealming thing is about. Even if you couldn't just switch to the other realm, a goodly number of people would create second accounts and do it anyway. So again, players CHOOSE whether they win or lose - which means rewarding winning is proper BS. That's why I advocate for rewards being similar whether you win or lose.

I know the true solution is perfect balance of players, but players want to win for the dopamine hit - why reward them for it as well?

[Phantasm]

Problem are people that hoping one realm to another and ride on dominant side. I guess buff for staying same realm with growing bonus over time up to some maximum will outweigh gains of joining wining force, instead of staying and defending. People are seeking crest drops these days so that could be nice incentive.

[Avernus]

Rewards for losing. I know there are some people who don't understand this, but the players get to CHOOSE whether they win or lose. That's what this xrealming thing is about. Even if you couldn't just switch to the other realm, a goodly number of people would create second accounts and do it anyway. So again, players CHOOSE whether they win or lose - which means rewarding winning is proper BS. That's why I advocate for rewards being similar whether you win or lose.

I know the true solution is perfect balance of players, but players want to win for the dopamine hit - why reward them for it as well?

Problem are people that hoping one realm to another and ride on dominant side. I guess buff for staying same realm with growing bonus over time up to some maximum will outweigh gains of joining wining force, instead of staying and defending. People are seeking crest drops these days so that could be nice incentive.

Does that mean that if know that my realm is screwed at the particular fort fight i can go and get something for being afk loser (i have no intention to feed enemy zerg after all) ?

Your suggestions sounds like things that people can exploit. And i know that if they can do this - they most certainly will.

[normanis]

give more medals for city or balance city than ppl choose city instead of pve fort. also bring back respawn into keep if u dont whant pve keep. or dont complain if ppl choose easy way to get bags (less effort more bags. in pvp game. lol)
punish zergs (u dont need brains to see wich side dominate just look at ror home page) and what side log . and bring back objective control for lord . ppl will say oooo 24 hour kv . its pvp game not pve.

[Ninjagon]

Simple solution idea:

All fort winners (attackers or defenders) will get unique 10% bonus to renown for 2 hours.
Losers will get 5% for 1 hour.