Page 6 of 14

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 3:24 am
by Kacia
you gotta think though if we have 500 online how many are in the zone, how many are in the capitol cities how many are alt altaholics in t1 how many are sitting in camp doing nothing.....I doubt that all 500 will be in the lakes at the same time.

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:27 am
by Nameless
imo remove bos lock timers, if one realm want zone they should coordinate and divide their resourses so there are defenders on the key points aka BOs instead of gather all on same place. That need some effort and coordination within the realm but hey that make the game even more fun. The feeling you are part of the realm that WAR provided at the earliest days was pretty awesome

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:31 am
by magter3001
Nameless wrote:imo remove bos lock timers, if one realm want zone they should coordinate and divide their resourses so there are defenders on the key points aka BOs instead of gather all on same place. That need some effort and coordination within the realm but hey that make the game even more fun. The feeling you are part of the realm that WAR provided at the earliest days was pretty awesome
You need some sort of lock on BOs otherwise it would be impossible to do anything in RvR. Think Forts in old WAR and how people couldn't experience city sieges because of them. ;)

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:38 am
by dkabib
I don`t know if forcing everyone into the same zone is the ideal way to go, but good stuff into this!
It may end up favoring the winning side, we need a little more incentive to get there and defend.

Is Against All Odds a possibility?

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 4:43 am
by Nameless
you dont have progression, locking zone doesnt provide nothing but some renown and exp so why not make it more harder. It is ok to put all at one zone but there should be mechanic to disperce these ppl around the mab instead of makeing blob at lockable 3-4 key points. Without timers theere cant be only one big zerg

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:21 am
by satori
Azarael wrote:
- The Keep Door is only attackable if your faction holds three or more of the battlefield objectives in an area.
if you wanna spread out the zerg i suggest also removing the lock-timer on BOs so there will be constant fights around them giving smaller groups something useful to do :)

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:30 am
by sancra
Azarael wrote:
[Open RvR]

Open RvR has been reworked again.
Excellent change, something was needed to avoid easy BO/Keep farming. Fights are coming !
Azarael wrote: I take responsibility for any bugs and failures in the implementation - but not for the direction of this update.
No need to apologize or explain, anyway there will always people to be unhappy...

Many thanks for your reactivity in implementing features in this game.

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 5:41 am
by Sulorie
Azarael wrote:
- The reward for taking a Keep has been restored, and further amplified. You will receive the rewards for one tick of any Battlefield Objective the opposing realm controls when you take a keep, in addition to its basic reward.
Could you explain this a little bit further?
It sounds like you are rewarded for BO the enemy controls.

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:00 am
by Kacia
I believe the realm capturing the keep is the opposing force he is referring to. Technically if I am playing destro and we are taking an order keep we are an opposing force and we would then get the extra ticks as an opposing force. Order would be the defenders. Or vise versa.

Re: Changelog 09/09

Posted: Thu Sep 10, 2015 8:25 am
by Tamarlan
Azarael wrote:It means that while the implementation is mine, the ideas behind it are not, so don't blame me for any gameplay-related failures.

I really don't want to be responsible for the Open RvR design, so I will be listening to community feedback and propositions for what to do.
In general I really like the approach to involve the community in RvR related decisions. Personally I am a bit surprised that you didnt let the community vote on different proposals for such essential changes.