Return of Reckoning

mikke wrote:I don`t know why xrealming is still allowed and probably this information is not needed, but I decided to write my solution for xrealm issue.
No development needed (or minimal efforts). Any system administrator might do the work.
Easy to implement and switch off.
1. Add realm flag for user account (destroy, order, none). Create new one or just use any vacant account attribute. Let call it UARF.
2. In beginning user account got flag = NONE. User may play for any ream.
3. When user logs on his toon, the user account gets UARF by the toon realm flag. So, if I log on my choppa, my UARF = DESTRO. Another way – every time generate acceptable for logon toon names.
4. Server got scheduled script, which set UARF to NONE in 4 hours (or any time u decide).
5. If user logged in order toon with DESTRO account flag, the server will kill the session during some time. I believe it might be several seconds – the server just needs to check active toons for matching with its UARF.

Instead of disconnecting the user why not just apply a debuff which applies a inverse curve of contribution and rewards(rr/xp/inf)? That is why people want to utilize cross realming primarily. The other option is that the debuff would be to only be applied if the Realm is not the dominating one.

navis wrote:

mikke wrote: Instead of disconnecting the user why not just apply a debuff which applies a inverse curve of contribution and rewards(rr/xp/inf)? That is why people want to utilize cross realming primarily. The other option is that the debuff would be to only be applied if the Realm is not the dominating one.

People still can have 2 accounts.

The solution is very simple.

Whatever the AAO for the Zone is; 20%, 40%, 100% (like last night) simply increase the lock timers for the BOs, the strength of the keep doors, the difficulty in killing the keep lord (damage and defenses) by the same exact amount.

If a bunch of freenown thirsty xrealmers swap over to get the zerg-lock, make it more difficult for their side to complete the PvE portion. It gives the underdogs more time to challenge on keep defense, more time to use guerrilla tactics on the BOs, and more of a chance to reform at the keep and wipe them while they are on the keep lord.

Luuca wrote:The solution is very simple.

Whatever the AAO for the Zone is; 20%, 40%, 100% (like last night) simply increase the lock timers for the BOs, the strength of the keep doors, the difficulty in killing the keep lord (damage and defenses) by the same exact amount.

If a bunch of freenown thirsty xrealmers swap over to get the zerg-lock, make it more difficult for their side to complete the PvE portion. It gives the underdogs more time to challenge on keep defense, more time to use guerrilla tactics on the BOs, and more of a chance to reform at the keep and wipe them while they are on the keep lord.

It is not, timers are cancer, my reduction of them was almost universally seen as a step in right direction.

Hargrim wrote:

Luuca wrote:The solution is very simple.

Whatever the AAO for the Zone is; 20%, 40%, 100% (like last night) simply increase the lock timers for the BOs, the strength of the keep doors, the difficulty in killing the keep lord (damage and defenses) by the same exact amount.

If a bunch of freenown thirsty xrealmers swap over to get the zerg-lock, make it more difficult for their side to complete the PvE portion. It gives the underdogs more time to challenge on keep defense, more time to use guerrilla tactics on the BOs, and more of a chance to reform at the keep and wipe them while they are on the keep lord.

It is not, timers are cancer, my reduction of them was almost universally seen as a step in right direction.

The increase in lock timers on the BOs would only apply to the larger force. It would force them to split up to cover all the BOs.

Ive had cancer, timers aint got sh!t on cancer.

Luuca wrote: The increase in lock timers on the BOs would only apply to the larger force. It would force them to split up to cover all the BOs.

Ive had cancer, timers aint got sh!t on cancer.

Current theory is that no timers done by the way of T1 disperse zerg better than timers that just increase the pointless waiting at BO to cap it.

Jaycub wrote:Can someone against xrealming tell me there argument as to why it's bad, specifically how it is negatively effecting you?

Are you against xrealming to underdog side as well? And if so why?

I know everyone can't be In some hardcore 6man or warband all the time or at all, but certainly even the lowest common denominator pug is benefiting from aao more than swapping to blob with the zerg, and there is even loser bags which are extremely generous relative to the winner bags. Not to mention contribution system hammering you for swapping late.

its a commitment issue. and spies.

xrealming to underdog? how many do that? i met some, not sure the numbers.
balancing population by xrealm is myth IMO.
aao hunters? they do it for their own selfish gains.
hunting rp is not always same with helping campaign.
you can't rely on them.

i don't care being underdog or not. i care players who fight together whether winning or losing.
battle brothers. is it role playing? idk.

i do play loosely when i'm on destro toons. maybe cuz their purpose was researching rotations.
i suspect some other xrealmers do same.
and spies who crashing wb.informers. very rare but exist.

all kind of suspect, paranoia, accusations, it's not healthy environment.

Hargrim wrote:

Luuca wrote: The increase in lock timers on the BOs would only apply to the larger force. It would force them to split up to cover all the BOs.

Ive had cancer, timers aint got sh!t on cancer.

Current theory is that no timers done by the way of T1 disperse zerg better than timers that just increase the pointless waiting at BO to cap it.

In T1 you wait at a BO to hold it.^^ I really hope the higher population with merged tiers results in more action, because in T1 it felt like a punishment to wait at a BO only to get zone control, while you miss all the action elsewhere.

Sulorie wrote:In T1 you wait at a BO to hold it.^^ I really hope the higher population with merged tiers results in more action, because in T1 it felt like a punishment to wait at a BO only to get zone control, while you miss all the action elsewhere.

True. I'm not a big fan of t1 system, and I don't think it will be good in t4. But we will see in time.

anarchypark wrote: its a commitment issue. and spies.

xrealming to underdog? how many do that? i met some, not sure the numbers.
balancing population by xrealm is myth IMO.
aao hunters? they do it for their own selfish gains.
hunting rp is not always same with helping campaign.
you can't rely on them.

i don't care being underdog or not. i care players who fight together whether winning or losing.
battle brothers. is it role playing? idk.

i do play loosely when i'm on destro toons. maybe cuz their purpose was researching rotations.
i suspect some other xrealmers do same.
and spies who crashing wb.informers. very rare but exist.

all kind of suspect, paranoia, accusations, it's not healthy environment.

Everyone I've met on this game has xrealmed to underdog to farm aao, especially keep defenses. Never once seen anyone go to winning side. There's no point if you are in a good group that can get kills, they only advantage you get is like what an extra gold bag spawn, and no AAO.

About commitment I thought about that, comparing it to professional sports teams. Obviously you won't see them changing teams mid fight or season, and looking into the psychology of why people root for teams and get engrossed in the roster.

However the problem I have with that is professional games have structure, WAR does not outside of 6v6 scenarios. It's a zerg/numbers game, people don't work together, and everyone's goal is not the same. I personally only care about rr gains, I've become pessimistic about bags in general and don't care. So whether I'm on the winning or losing side matters not, I just want the most kills in the lake. Now someone else's goals might be drastically different.

@Hargrim, i think the only way to approach that is to ask a series of questions. Then answer each and deal with any problems of each. Starting with the root and ending with a cohesive idea in theory that solves it that checks out logically.

The 1st question I guess would be "Is crossrealming really a problem worth fixing" then tons of follow up questions like "why do people crossrealm" to find the cause, then ask how to fix the causes, come up with systems find faults and answers in the system you create. It's something you do with a group of people.

You could internally do that, everyone commenting on everyone's answers and playing devils advocate. For instance let's say someone says instancing the lakes to 4 warbands a side would solve "x" or be a part of a system to solve "x". Then you would have to ask questions like how would you handle overflow, maybe you open new zones. Then you find that people will probably xrealm more because they can't play on one side since it's full.

Personally I think the key to getting people on one side is tying them to thier guild, using rewards handed out per season based on stats tracked like competitive games do today. And then heavily kneecapping loser rewards since people are "stuck" on one side. This will force guilds within the realm to have to actually care and work together to win if they are losing bringing back the realm in sorts. But again, a million holes in that idea that someone could question I would have a hard time answering.