Return of Reckoning

teizeman wrote:i see many shunning the pve aspect of VP, lock downs and all.
i dont remember if it was addressed before, and i forgot, but is this game, when its done, only gonna be pvp, like PQ's and all those things arent comming back?

like is it not gonna be the same game, or close to it, as the origional?
cause eventhough, WAR had the only pvp i was interested in, i would be sad to see all the pve aspects dissapear, or left behind.

i liked the fact there were more factors to lock down and all, felt like every one participated. those who love pvp, those who love pve, those who loved both all help in one way or the other.

If you look at any pq you will see that 99% of them dont work past stage one, to implement the pve requirement when considering that many of the pqs dont work, our player population size is so small that it would detract players from rvr and lastly the devs want to focus on pvp first before fixing pve elements so you can see why making pqs a requirement for zone locking would be a bad idea

With all respect,
Multiple zones resource carriers that rank keeps (patch 1.4.0 – 1.4.8) was the WORST RvR system WAR ever had!

Blorckever wrote:

Genisaurus wrote: ... Me ...

71 for 60% VP for large and 61 for 40% for outnumbered .... 10 VP points under ? it's nothing than the % why not 71-51 will be more nice i think .

The formula can be toyed with, but considering how easy it is under my proposal to get VPs from scenarios and RvR, it seems unnecessary to shift things that much. All being an underdog does is makes it harder to take/hold objectives. Premades can pick at the edges of warbands, and scenarios are always even fights (though not necessarily balanced). At 60:40, the underdog could actually flip the zone without taking the enemy keep, so long as they played well.

Blorckever wrote:You never see now the 70%-30% it was just this night to farm soldier's .

Be that as it may, the example still shows how the sliding VP system is flexible, and discourages massively lopsided fights by making zone flips increasingly more difficult.

teizeman wrote:i see many shunning the pve aspect of VP, lock downs and all.
i dont remember if it was addressed before, and i forgot, but is this game, when its done, only gonna be pvp, like PQ's and all those things arent comming back?

like is it not gonna be the same game, or close to it, as the origional?
cause eventhough, WAR had the only pvp i was interested in, i would be sad to see all the pve aspects dissapear, or left behind.

i liked the fact there were more factors to lock down and all, felt like every one participated. those who love pvp, those who love pve, those who loved both all help in one way or the other.

PQs are going to be difficult to get working again, because almost every PQ will require it's own unique scripting (programming, not dialogue) to work the way it used to. With about 2.5 PQs per story chapter on average, that's... 330 PQs. 330 things requiring their own unique implementations, that gave poor rewards and everybody hated in Live anyway.

They will someday come back, and might even be improved. But you'll have to forgive us if they are the absolute last thing on our list of priorities. Dungeons would be easier and faster to implement, and gave decent rewards. Expect to see those long before PQs, but again, they're still low priority.

Coryphaus wrote:

teizeman wrote:i see many shunning the pve aspect of VP, lock downs and all.
i dont remember if it was addressed before, and i forgot, but is this game, when its done, only gonna be pvp, like PQ's and all those things arent comming back?

like is it not gonna be the same game, or close to it, as the origional?
cause eventhough, WAR had the only pvp i was interested in, i would be sad to see all the pve aspects dissapear, or left behind.

i liked the fact there were more factors to lock down and all, felt like every one participated. those who love pvp, those who love pve, those who loved both all help in one way or the other.

If you look at any pq you will see that 99% of them dont work past stage one, to implement the pve requirement when considering that many of the pqs dont work, our player population size is so small that it would detract players from rvr and lastly the devs want to focus on pvp first before fixing pve elements so you can see why making pqs a requirement for zone locking would be a bad idea

oh i do understand the predicament and problem with pq's and all that, as it is atm. but was just wondering if the game would include it eventually. or if it would come aound to having more people joining the game.

but as it is atm, yeah then i would agree that including pve would be a bad thing.

Im in favor of VP without PQ's. The game was designed from the ground up with SC's and oRvR being fun and engaging, I wouldnt toy with that part of it.

We cant hope to get PQs working. I think that is out of reach.

dkabib wrote:We cant hope to get PQs working. I think that is out of reach.

key word: without.

Would be great to get more votes on this one so bump.

I will be really pleased if RvR system develops this way.
By the way, have you been thinking about lock length? I think 45 - 60 min could be just enough.

CarlistRieekan wrote:

Spoiler:

Genisaurus wrote:

Coryphaus wrote:If you guys prioritied kills then people would stay in thier faction even when facing a Zerg

An system that down plays the "importance" of keeps is best

Good Idea or Best Idea:

All zones open, zones lock on VPs. When zones unlock, each realm owns a keep, BOs are uncontested. Keeps can be attacked at any time. Zone locks prevent any objectives from being attacked for (15 * tier) minutes.

VPs to cap: 66 + [(realm pop% - 50%) /2]

Scoring:

1. Keeps are worth 12 VPs each, BO's worth 8 each. Total VPs for objectives: 56
2. Scenarios award 1 VP for each win where the winning team has > 250 points. Losing a scenario with < 250 points loses you 1 VP. Scenario VPs are capped at 15, and decay at a rate of 1 VP every 30min.
3. RvR kills award 1 VP every (Your Tier Population / 10) kills. RvR kill VPs are capped at 25, and 1 VP every 30min

Examples:

1. Let's say the realm population ratio is 50:50. Both sides need 66 VPs to win.
2. If one side massively outnumbers the other, let's say 60:40. Larger side needs 71 VPs to lock the zone, the underdog side only needs 61.
3. A worse imbalance, 70:30. Larger side needs 76 VPs to lock, underdog side needs 56.
4. One side crossrealms almost entirely. Now the ratio is 90:10. 86 VPs are needed to win, which is almost impossible to get with so little opposition. The underdog side could lose every SC, lose every battlefield objective, and the zerging crossrealmers would only have 81 VPs.

Some Scenarios:

1. 50 (72):50 (72) - Both sides need 66VPs to cap. If both sides can hold onto 1 keep and 2 BOs, they each have 28VPs. Both sides need to get 7 kills for 1 RvR VP, or 175 kills (and another 7 every 30min) to max those out. Even having max RvR VPs only leaves them both with 53 VPs each... They don't have to take the enemy's keep, they just have to take a third BO and win some SCs, or take both BOs.
   • - One faction can't leave a contested zone and try to take an empty one - not enough points granted through objectives.
2. 60 (86):40 (58) - Order needs 71 VPs to cap, Destro needs 61. Order will probably hold all of the objectives, but that leaves them with 71-56= 15 VPs left to cap. Can they win 15 SCs in 30min? Maybe, but their numbers won't help much. Meanwhile Destro gets 1 RvR VP every 5 kills, where Order needs 8 kills. so their small skirmishes picking at the 3 order warbands help them more than Order's zerging, if Destro can play smart. Order will still probably take the zone, but they have a harder time of it, and Destro has a fighting chance.

I will be really pleased if RvR system develops this way.
By the way, have you been thinking about lock length? I think 45 - 60 min could be just enough.

If i remember correct T1-T3 Lock was 30min and T4 1 or 2 hours.