Return of Reckoning

Wam u say that we shouldnt zerg. I agree on that 100% but how many times did TUP came to our clashes vs 7th riping their effort? The day u were in order & p&p had event i wasnt there to see how u reacted tbh but i ve been told that nvr p&p had a clash with u in a fair fight (both sides intercepted there). So same counts for TUP. U shouldnt leech others or destroy other guild vs guild fights too cause this is a form of zerging.

Also lately im playing vs pugs at NA hours. when i log on sorc which is a game changer class im having party over pugs. Then a dozen & more order switch to destro. Following then this politics of low population side i switch to bw so i can have fun. Wipping destro pugs now again suddenly destro drop population and and order grow up. Try it sometime i know u have a sorc and reconsider who destroys the game the toxic xrealmers maybe who choose the winning side? As for guild i fully RESPECT when u switch to order, cause i know that this side is weaker for ur members than ur destro one yet u do that sacrifice for a better rvr experience. But again u need to respect that many guilds prefer one side.

Also tbh i dont even care if order guilds are more than their population & i dont even care if most order guilds cant even gather their pieces and run proper wbs. I wont be weak bcs enemies tend to be weak this is wrong policy..

And being out of the topic rn all guilds how do u think will react to the new city siege? I believe zerg pushes will be the meta just to push siege. Since the last 2 patches tragic nerfs who push destro to run only sorc/mara compositions (who are way behind than BW in damage matters) the picture will be like this: order having stronger dpses and lower numbers will farm destro zerg while defending & destro zerg being more and more organized will win the zones in the end..

Wrong me here but i see nothing else for the future just org zerg pushes & massive zone giving and "tanking" for city sieges.

Ototo wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:02 pmNot how it goes. Actually goes the other way around:
* Who gets more kills, the underdog or the upperdog? Clearly by a mile long the upper. And who has highest renown? Due to AAO rewards the under.
* The realm lockout is currently abused to create locks on time (part of my suspicion about yesterday constant calls for "too soon", "stop", and "not still" when a non-zerged zone was about to be conquered). It should be increased to 8 hours.
* The full thread is about people unhappy cause they can't play empty instances.

Those who know how to play get the kills. There will always be an underdog regardless. People are upset about empty instances because there is such a case in the first place. Think about that. If there are no people to fight on the other side, what could possibly resolve it (at least partially)? Allow those from the overpopulated side go play their chars on the other one. What a crazy idea?

Samejima wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:11 pm Having gear progression linked to campaign progression is interesting in theory but makes for flawed game design.

Yes I agree completely. Have been saying something like this since forts but to no avail. Devs sadly can't see this underlying issue.

It totally destroyed the game for the more casual player also. And yes I am a casual player and of course I'm annoyed. I said enough times that I don't have a single piece of invader on any character, yet spread over 3-4 characters I could probably buy a couple pieces for one of them. And now that city gear is not only tied to invader, but the way to get is the same, I will literally make ZERO progression virtually every time I play. And I do mean big fat ZERO. So why the hell should I even play anymore? And I know what people will say, 'buhu if you want gear you have to play for it, those that put in effort will get their gear'. Well duh. And those that can't play so much but still put in effort when they can? 'Buhu such is life, find a way to grind late na times or say goodbye to gear, the lower lvl stuff is fine anyway'. If you can't see a problem here that's sad, and if devs can't see a problem it's really sad. I love the game, been here for almost 4 years, and now that the gear I waited for all that time is here, I'll never have it. Sadface.

Wam wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 10:02 am

Alfa1986 wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:44 am Unfortunately, this problem cannot be solved at all. in order to get new equipment you need to arrange a city siege, the fastest way is when one side refuses to fight, and the other without resistance to capture all the zones and the fort. the system encourages that one side to simply give up until the city siege sets in to obtain royal crests for new equipment, becouse there is no an opportunity to get it another way.

if people payed close attention to state of realm and the numbers... you already saw this behaviour previously with t2 being dead, t3 being dead, t4 middle being semi active, and if one side gets momentum and servely outnumbers the other , the numbers just keep going up and up and zerg to fort for invader farm... forts use to kill server pop when campaign reset, no progression for people they avoid t2/t3...

I've seen 100+ people appear on destro just because they got a sniff that potential fort was on the cards and destro had momentum...

Cities will magnify this as like you said end game gear is behind a wall, but that is the way it is... and people will be bitterly disappointed if they always pick to play the side with the most numbers when there is little opposition...

its like some people here never played on live or are totally ignorant of the issues of Tilted servers and are too blinded by how shiny new loot is.

We have one server, dev's will do their best to keep it as fairly balanced as possible without it being tilted... tilted servers kill the game... Zerg fan boys need to understand that. Server health comes before loot. If you tilt the server, you kill the one sides community (both sides need each other, and underdog needs more zergers to swap sides... the more that swap sides the more people will get a instance and the shiny loot they crave)... what good is your loot if you have no one to fight against and use it versus? Common sense and logic seem to be missing when new loot is applied.

I'd like to see t2-t3 used for something else besides t4, many a nights we've logged on and had to push all the way from t2 (4 extra flips) and simply ran out of time before it got ridiculously late. Simply takes too long to go t2 to endgame so of course everyone logs.

Maybe it is time to split t2/3 off from t4 again.

EU primetime benefits from this for sure, as of late the comparitively small zones (cf. large rvr lake in Dark Age of Camelot) are heavily overpopulated reguarly and the server is tested of its limits.

Lets see the flaws of city sieges so far
City Sieges Cons-Flaws
1:Promotes the same playstyle as forts did if you cant zerg lose zone to get access to defence without effort cause all those 2-3 hours you may put as a guild to get into city siege can be wasted and thats a lot effort and devs said they care for all playstyles

2:So far contribution favors only dps no chance so far for healers to get gold bags or tanks as far as we know so it means dps with sov sets will be against healers like doks with their best set be onslaught cause new healing set gives AP (seriously if you didnt had any idea for a bonus put a placeholder not a meme one that makes no sense ) and wb setups will be bw/sc nothing else will come even close to their dmg pressure and dont get started with that class had that many kills etc that means nothing we talk about pure dmg pressure not the ability to kill enemies with 5% life

3:As The Tup leader said promotes switching sides and xrealming but not every guild is "hardcore" as you to have a full roster to switch a side some people invested on a few chars or even on one side and if they are even tanks/healer wont get that sov set anytime soon compared to dps but anyway this can be fixed ( at least for guild vs guild not solo ones everyone should had the same chance for a bag they go in as a guild not random people ) and we have seen zones flip pop in just a few mins a failed siege and then suddenly you miss 40 people or more from the zone and you get zerged and will happen a lot

4:Having to push 2 forts for a chance to get into a City siege requires a lot of time and maybe not even be able to push zones or get 1 fort and lose next one then we get to a point that most guilds will end their event and zones will be ready for NA to be zerged from one side as they did with forts so we get back to 1 zerg to get into that city siege and not waste your 2 hours

5:Class balance . this in an RvR game and yet we get changes based on an solo ranked queue that lots of people abusing to get in with friends and premades is it time at least to try make more classes for example in order to be RvR 24vs24 viable than having only the BW to be the optimal and the only one to be able to win with a destro wb of the same level ( pug vs pug there is no point to talk about balance people can play whatever but dont whine after its a pug) So either make more Classes viable or Nerf the top classes to make more setups available at least try to do changes and test things

City Siege Pros
1!!!! Hooray new sets !!
2: We may see proper fights Guild vs Guild without pugs following them around trying to zerg


You worked a lot to make those sieges available we get it maybe not all but we do but at least let people enjoy them and not try to push zerg meta again but this is not only your fault but the community plays a bigger role on that one let people AWARDED from their effort and not the lose zone or zerg playstyle

Collateral wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:56 pm

Ototo wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:02 pmNot how it goes. Actually goes the other way around:
* Who gets more kills, the underdog or the upperdog? Clearly by a mile long the upper. And who has highest renown? Due to AAO rewards the under.
* The realm lockout is currently abused to create locks on time (part of my suspicion about yesterday constant calls for "too soon", "stop", and "not still" when a non-zerged zone was about to be conquered). It should be increased to 8 hours.
* The full thread is about people unhappy cause they can't play empty instances.

Those who know how to play get the kills. There will always be an underdog regardless. People are upset about empty instances because there is such a case in the first place. Think about that. If there are no people to fight on the other side, what could possibly resolve it (at least partially)? Allow those from the overpopulated side go play their chars on the other one. What a crazy idea?

Samejima wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:11 pm Having gear progression linked to campaign progression is interesting in theory but makes for flawed game design.

Yes I agree completely. Have been saying something like this since forts but to no avail. Devs sadly can't see this underlying issue.

It totally destroyed the game for the more casual player also. And yes I am a casual player and of course I'm annoyed. I said enough times that I don't have a single piece of invader on any character, yet spread over 3-4 characters I could probably buy a couple pieces for one of them. And now that city gear is not only tied to invader, but the way to get is the same, I will literally make ZERO progression virtually every time I play. And I do mean big fat ZERO. So why the hell should I even play anymore? And I know what people will say, 'buhu if you want gear you have to play for it, those that put in effort will get their gear'. Well duh. And those that can't play so much but still put in effort when they can? 'Buhu such is life, find a way to grind late na times or say goodbye to gear, the lower lvl stuff is fine anyway'. If you can't see a problem here that's sad, and if devs can't see a problem it's really sad. I love the game, been here for almost 4 years, and now that the gear I waited for all that time is here, I'll never have it. Sadface.

Glad to see there are other folks out there who realize the economics of gear progression being solely tied to campaign progression is a bad idea. Couple of years ago they indicated they weren't going to go vertical on the progression, but they did anyways. Combine that with limited opportunities to actually get the gear and what happens next is predictable. As a matter of fact, it is happened before and it will happen again.

Natherul wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:42 am this was already discussed way before the release. We said we wont allow empty instances to be made so you cant get free loot.

This means that zerging on one side will mean some people wont be able to enter as there wont be any opposition for them.

Natherul, what does this actually means? My interpretation is to don't play the game if we are winning. Both realms have Zergs at EU Prime time, one zerg wins, one looses, the winning Zerg continues to play and taking zones. That's WAR in a nutshell.

What is a Zerg, how do one side gets a zerg running? I'll tell you how but you know how it works already. One side wipes the enemy side and by doing that the winning side gets their Morale UP and the loosing side gets ther Morale DOWN and quits playing, by QUITTING you are giving up the zones, you are letting the winning side continue to take over keeps and forts, this is how WARs work. Now, is that a Zerg? or is that just a bunch of players not having anyone to fight against and thus taking zones quick to reach enemy city. All of this possible because the winning side WON all the fights and broke enemy's morale. Are we getting punished for winning wars?

One can't use the argument of Zerging should not be awarded, in fact, that should be awarded because they WON all the fights and they have the RIGHT to claim rewards. We stopped Order from pushing our keeps, we wiped them over and over again, then we moved foward towards City Siege, it's what this game wants us to do. Or should we think by your proposal Nath: "Let's not continue winning because we won't have rewards".

There's a reason of why we don't have OPPOSITION, we killed them over and over again to the point of Order quitting and giving up the zones. So...which side should be PUNISHED?...

The side that GIVES UP? or the side that worked hard for winning? Ain't it logical? Why rewarding the side that gives up and punish the side that won all the fights to reach City Siege?

See the logic in this? The SYSTEM we are playing by right now wants us to GIVE UP so we can get to play in City Scenario. Is this what Devs want?

And as im reading the replies to this post im noticing a lot of "INFAMOUS XREALMER PLAYERS" encouraging everyone to Xrealm. What is this nonsense? The self proclaimed Guild Leader Wam is advicing us to xRealm, the ultimate xrealmer player that leads guilds in both realms and switches side to his own convenience. The "Most Characters in BOTH realms, Xergon" wants us to make character in both sides?....HA HA HA!

This behaviour should be punished with BANS, encouraging the server to xRealm? Ain't this what Devs are against? What is going on? really, why do we have to deal with xRealm guilds?

What happened to REALM PRIDE? What happened to the way this game should be played? What happened to HONOR, DIGNITY, ALLIANCES, FRIENDSHIPS, LOYALTY? Where are this values at? All lost for some rewards?

If this system continues to run like this, there won't be a good reason to DEFEND zones. This system is making players QUIT the game.

We really need a FIX to this issue.

adapter wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:01 pm

Natherul wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:42 am this was already discussed way before the release. We said we wont allow empty instances to be made so you cant get free loot.

This means that zerging on one side will mean some people wont be able to enter as there wont be any opposition for them.

Natherul, what does this actually means? My interpretation is to don't play the game if we are winning.

What is a ZERG, how do one side gets a zerg running? I'll tell you how but you know how it works already. One side wipes the enemy side and by doing that the winning side gets their MORALE UP and the loosing side gets ther MORALE DOWN and quits playing, by QUITTING you are giving up the zones, you are letting the winning side continue to take over keeps and forts, this is how WARs work. Now, is that a ZERG? or is that just a bunch of players not having anyone to fight against and thus taking zones quick to reach enemy city. All of this possible because the winning side WON all the fights and broke enemy's morale. Are we getting punished for winning wars?

One can't use the argument of ZERGING should not be awarded, in fact, that should be awarded because they WON all the fights and they have the RIGHT to claim rewards. We stopped Order from pushing our keeps, we wiped them over and over again, then we moved foward towards City Siege, it's what this game wants us to do. Or should we think by your proposal Nath: "Let's not continue winning because we won't have rewards".

There's a reason of why we don't have OPPOSITION, we KILLED them over and over again to the point of Order quitting and giving up the zones. So...which side should be PUNISHED?...

The side that GIVES UP? or the side that worked hard for winning? Ain't it logical? Why rewarding the side that GIVES UP and punish the side that won all the fights to reach City Siege?

See the logic in this? The SYSTEM we are playing by right now wants us to GIVE UP so we can get to play in City Scenario. Is this what Devs want?

And as im reading the replies to this post im noticing a lot of "INFAMOUS XREALMER PLAYERS" encouraging everyone to Xrealm. What is this nonsense? The self proclaimed Guild Leader Wam is advicing us to xRealm, the ultimate xrealmer player that leads guilds in both realms and switches side to his own convenience. The "Most Characters in BOTH realms, Xergon" wants us to make character in both sides?....HA HA HA!

This behaviour should be punished with BANS, encouraging the server to xRealm? Ain't this what Devs are against? What is going on? really, why do we have to deal with xRealm guilds?

What happened to REALM PRIDE? What happened to the way this game should be played? What happened to HONOR, DIGNITY, ALLIANCES, FRIENDSHIPS, LOYALTY? Where are this values at? All lost for some rewards?

If this system continues to run like this, there won't be a good reason to DEFEND zones. This system is making players QUIT the game.

We really need a FIX to this issue.

I think you need to use more capitalization to really get your point ignored.

wargrimnir wrote: Sun Feb 09, 2020 7:03 pm
I think you need to use more capitalization to really get your point ignored.

Yes, i type like THIS to give you excuses to not take this issue seriously. Sorry for giving Feedback to try make this server a better place to play Warhammer.

What is a ZERG, how do one side gets a zerg running? I'll tell you how but you know how it works already. One side wipes the enemy side and by doing that the winning side gets their MORALE UP and the loosing side gets ther MORALE DOWN and quits playing, by QUITTING you are giving up the zones, you are letting the winning side continue to take over keeps and forts, this is how WARs work. Now, is that a ZERG? or is that just a bunch of players not having anyone to fight against and thus taking zones quick to reach enemy city. All of this possible because the winning side WON all the fights and broke enemy's morale. Are we getting punished for winning wars?

One can't use the argument of ZERGING should not be awarded, in fact, that should be awarded because they WON all the fights and they have the RIGHT to claim rewards. We stopped Order from pushing our keeps, we wiped them over and over again, then we moved foward towards City Siege, it's what this game wants us to do. Or should we think by your proposal Nath: "Let's not continue winning because we won't have rewards".

There's a reason of why we don't have OPPOSITION, we KILLED them over and over again to the point of Order quitting and giving up the zones. So...which side should be PUNISHED?...

The side that GIVES UP? or the side that worked hard for winning? Ain't it logical? Why rewarding the side that GIVES UP and punish the side that won all the fights to reach City Siege?

See the logic in this? The SYSTEM we are playing by right now wants us to GIVE UP so we can get to play in City Scenario. Is this what Devs want?

And as im reading the replies to this post im noticing a lot of "INFAMOUS XREALMER PLAYERS" encouraging everyone to Xrealm. What is this nonsense? The self proclaimed Guild Leader Wam is advicing us to xRealm, the ultimate xrealmer player that leads guilds in both realms and switches side to his own convenience. The "Most Characters in BOTH realms, Xergon" wants us to make character in both sides?....HA HA HA!

This behaviour should be punished with BANS, encouraging the server to xRealm? Ain't this what Devs are against? What is going on? really, why do we have to deal with xRealm guilds?

What happened to REALM PRIDE?

That's not how the zerg starts. That is a really nice perspective you have, but in reality people just log to the side that's winning to farm gear because that's what they have to do to get it. It has nothing to do with realm pride (I am not saying it does not exist, just that it is not peoples motivation to zerg).

I think you have the wrong definition of xrealming. Xrealming is to log to the enemy side to do something malicious to Help your realm. It is not going to play the other fraction to help out the population and encourage healthy fights.