Re: Xrealm thoughts
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2026 7:20 pm
I understand what you mean, but the problem is thinking that players themselves have to balance the game and keep it evenly matched.Bankei wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2026 12:42 pmI wanted to add my opinion here. KPI, thank you because you're trying to put forward ideas. I wanted to address a couple of issues since i don't think the numbers always tell the full story:kpihuss wrote: Tue Aug 18, 2026 1:12 pm- 18-hour lock (minimum, 1 week ideal).Jajcek12 wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2026 8:17 pm So what are conclusion?
Any proposition?
So its subconcious turnback to campain when one side push forts to city and dominate lake for time required to push to city ? Hours/days ?
Current system ballance itself around resolved sieges , i would start thinking from this point. Few hours to take keep ,depend on timezone.
Players decide to : stop , continue, xrealm when siege resolve.
Current system gives player possibility for independent participation in microcycle of lake fights without regret that he must participate in few hours "think tank"how to push/throw city. And since win/lose cycle is short there is not long "one side" domination time.
I belive its more fitting how players invest their time in game those days.
- New random events to help the underpopulated side (NPC patrols between BOs, better castle upgrades).
- Incentives for the overpopulated side to lay siege and fight from a disadvantageous position.
- Extra resource generation for the underpopulated side to upgrade their castles before the overpopulated side upgrades theirs.
- Cap maximum players on oRVR like on forts, or add a delay system to respawn or get inside of the RVR zones to overpopulated side.
I would rather have a reward system for playing one side that builds up slowly and maybe maxes out over the week. If I have characters on both sides, it's a bad player experience to be locked out for a full week. The reward system would fall flat because people swapping from BiS to BiS won't really care about the bonus. The lockout system would make players quit immediately.- 18-hour lock (minimum, 1 week ideal).I love this idea, dynamic PvPvE events are really cool. I know they tried adding one and it broke the entire server, but I hope to see more of this in the future. I don't think these events should be based on population though. Most of the time, Order is outnumbers but still outperforming/outkilling Destro. So, in fact, what would happen is that Order gets the advantageous events and the kill gap becomes even bigger. I think dynamic events should be based on zone trends. Such as: did a faction just get their progress reset? Small event to try and catch up. did a faction just get rolled and is now down 100+ kills in the zone? little funnel event on a BO or something. Both sides would get bonuses for participating, disadvantaged side would get a lot more. The idea is to help momentum even out after a major event happens in the zone. I think AAO is a poor measure of that.- New random events to help the underpopulated side (NPC patrols between BOs, better castle upgrades).Hopefully this will be addressed in the campaign rework. But compared to fighting in a zone, sieging is very boring. 30 minutes of setup for maybe 10 minutes of funneling? it's not fun- Incentives for the overpopulated side to lay siege and fight from a disadvantageous position.https://maartenson.net/ror_campaign_timeline.html Destro is the overpopulated side and already attacks far more than Order. Order has a much higher success rate. Again, population isnt' the issue here, veterancy and gear. By giving the de facto under populated side more ability to level their keep while dominating a zone in kills will effectively kill the campaign and oRvR.- Extra resource generation for the underpopulated side to upgrade their castles before the overpopulated side upgrades theirs.This will cause the overflow players to log off immediately. It will split warbands, friends and groups. You already have locked zones: Scenarios and Cities- Cap maximum players on oRVR like on forts, or add a delay system to respawn or get inside of the RVR zones to overpopulated side.
Overall, I think these are good ideas but the issue isn't population, nor is it xrealming. The reality is that Order over performs with less players due to having more veterans and stable players while Destro have more news players coming through. Addressing it as a "population" issue and not a veterancy issue will effectively kill this game. The one reason this game can continue to exist is because new and returning players keep trying it
The game already has mechanisms that allow the disadvantaged side to compete on more equal terms, such as sieges. And saying, “I’m going to play the disadvantaged side to balance things out” actually prevents the game from flowing naturally: one side should be at a disadvantage, while the other has the advantage. The side with the advantage can then take the initiative in RvR by launching sieges and attacking zones.
But when people step in to “balance” things, what we end up with are ENDLESS fights in RvR, camping WCs or simply moving from one WC to another, because everything is so evenly balanced that nobody wants to take the risk of attacking and pushing the campaign forward.
What the game needs is not an attempt to achieve perfect balance, but rather to always have a slight imbalance so that the game keeps moving instead of becoming stagnant. At the same time, there should be tools that scale proportionally with that imbalance—not to completely balance the sides, but to prevent the game from becoming one-sided or getting stuck.
And this is especially important during EU prime time—which isn’t my usual playtime, although I do keep an eye on it from the shadows—where we regularly see maps with 200+ players on each side spending three hours, literally, just going back and forth from one Warcamp to another.
And yes, I think we can agree that sieges can sometimes be boring, but they can also be not only a lot of fun, but extremely rewarding when they succeed despite being very difficult.
That’s why I think these new PvPvE events could introduce new siege dynamics—new siege weapons? NPC reinforcements for the defenders that attackers have to intercept? New keep upgrades?—that add an extra layer of fun to the game and give players more reasons to create real movement across the maps.