[DISCUSSION] RVR - likes/dislikes/possible improvement?

[Tesq]

Late reply, but here is the sugestion I designed a while back.

Spoiler:

Nu(V)enons RVR system.

Imagine the basic function of RVR pretty much work like a modified version of Nordenwatch. RVR lakes pretty much becomes a point race.

The idea here is that lakes can flip by several play styles working together.This will stop the forcing of multiple warbands in one area as RVR zones are too big to just roam around as a massive blob with this system.

BO: Remove timers. To capture a BO you only need to stand in close proximity to the flag for X amount of time, (around 20 seconds should be sufficient) without any hostile players contesting the same area. (Imagine Nordenwatch cap mechanic) To prevent solo roamers 4 Champions and a Hero spawns for the realm flipping the flag as soon as it's fully captured. A flipped BO rewards your realm 10 points/second while subtracting 1 point/second for the enemy realm.

Keeps: The main change from current mechanic is that a keep resets back to original owner 10 min after it has been taken. You may pick up rams anytime you like and for the sake of opportunity doors can once again be attacked by attacks that uses STR baseline. Doors are immune to Int and BS based attacks. 10min after a keep has been taken, the relevant mighty entity (Gork for Greenskin Keeps, Khaine for Elf Keeps etz)takes interest in the fight and blast the keep area for 50 000 damage to prevent any enemies from camping inside the taken keep area.
Killing an enemy keep lord will reward the attacking realm 100 000 points and subtract 10 000 points from enemy points.

Kills: Kills awards your realm 5 points and subtract 1 point from the enemy points.

Flipping the zone: The realm that first manage accumulate 500 000 points gets the win.

This mechanic can be easily tweaked for every different RVR lake so each zone can have its individual flavor. For example, one zone can have strategically placed and hard to obtain orbs that can be gathered in specific locations spread over the map that grants players buffs for when they score kills will award 50 points and subtract 10 instead. (Was thinking of something like Orbs of Molten Core in Thunder Mountain) Another zone can have the strength of Keep Lords spawning on BO’s rather then the standard Hero, while the Keeps em self is fairly easy to capture and and a much weaker lord. This would also be represented in the realm score in those zones. Such a mechanic can rewards BO’s with 50 points/second while subtracting 5 and Keeps for 50 000 points and subtracting 5000 when the keep flips. I'm pretty sure a creative game designer can come up with some interesting ways to tweak those numbers in interesting ways to make ORVR much more dynamic.

this could work in theory but we dont know in practise, i also tough about something like this, but the only nearer experience about a system like this based onto hold and cap battle objective is star wars battlefront for me.
That system worked for a pvp game but it have 1 element which warhammer or any mmorpg dont have, it have a limited number of players respawn.
A system which encourage mobile flipping force that just need to hold to cap with no respaw limit will be a circle of infinite of brainless lake skirmish aroud the 2-3 BO eachother nearest flags (think about TM)

The currently system encourage enough both the fight into the zone ( in the sense of the feeling of the importance / the epic scale required to take the zone ) and the active role of the ppl. These were two of the main problems in live about zone/keep capture.
Outer funnel death + usefull lords are actually making keep what they suppose to be.
But it's all pretty linear and programming limitation of course may have something to doi with it (we cant have ppl and even professional ppl programming 24h all the day). We as majority don't even know what ppl working on the project are even capable of (at least not me ) so is even hard suggest something when you cant think without having under your eyes what can/ can't be done.

-for sure the keep siege could be made more complex (not longer or harder just more various)-->this require implementing more stuff
- the lock for a zone need to be reduced-->tabletop always offer different winning condition (at least on war40k ((wasn't much into fantasy)). So alternative way to lock should be offered.
-mini-rvr into the rvr should be also made viable; things such skaven dungeson failed because the minimal importance offered regarding the zone(and the multiple zone being active). That was a good try as for thinking something out of the box but really bad implemented.
Relics for exemple were another good idea really bad implemented-->if both these idead could be implemented into the singel zone as for exemple a minigame for the relics etc. or the keep fall mean also loosing the relic etc(aka must move the keep away from relic before the keep fall etc).

Multiple things that need to be achived at the same time need to be offered, some may have more importance in the short term as capture the keep, some may have more importance in the medium term as hold both relics in the zone and move them in next one, offering the enemy a chance to reclaim 1 or both. And in the end some things should definetly have a greater impact on the campaign (which is for emulator limitatio not exsistent). But definetly all should be viable at the same time and players decision should matter regard short, medium, long achivement inside teh single campaign.
If even a little of campaign progression would be introduced i have to say that the system would not be that bad at all (maybe keep lord should be shorted as first thing first)+(some/those different achivement based on short, medium, long should be add)

warhammer online also had some general /global problems that need to be solved first to make rvr and campaign work

1-population issue in every tier
2-number disadvantage

number 2 on ror seems be less a problem than what was in live tough aao feels sometimes like incorrect, if you look at what moba offer, minions approach could be used in war too( this would make you more as an elite troop also and as would make rvr lake more alive).
Tough it dont need the full directed or simple minded as league of legend for exemple you can force the pvp to be stabbed by some pve influence (as keep lord does).
About number 1 for me the solution is de-bolster, it always was. It should be put at a good use by someone that have the skill to programm about it. Fill all tiers (which with 1 zone restricted are just 4 zones x 4 tiers) should be the aim of the campaign system which shoudl make easier or harder the final part of the cmapaign (aka city siege).
-Then as someone pointed out rvr lakes are small, 1 flag in every zone could alredy make the zone more various and interesting.
-Another good idea was the rewamp of battle of praag; something like this should be done into rvr zones as well for those zones which dont offer tactical manouvres (aka a full series of bridge for BC if that would ever be possible please).

[th3gatekeeper]

That system worked for a pvp game but it have 1 element which warhammer or any mmorpg dont have, it have a limited number of players respawn.
A system which encourage mobile flipping force that just need to hold to cap with no respaw limit will be a circle of infinite of branless lake skirmish aroud the 2-3 BO eachother nearest flags (think about TM)

Tesq, I have respect for you. I am curious when you said this.

Why do you need limited respawns to make this work? Currently RVR is just a giant "blob" moving from 1 BO to the next, capping, the sitting until it "locks" for a few minutes them moving to the next one.

The "lock timers" encourage warbands to have ZERO defense because they just can zerg BOs once locked, they can leave the BO without any fear of losing it for several minutes.

A system that has no lock timers, encourages warbands to leave behind a defense to defend the BOs, not just hop from BO to BO.

Also, I think all you really need to do is to modify respawn time as well as location. If you removed the warcamp as a possible respawn point and anyone that dies in an RVR lake respawns at their keep, this creates a much longer "run back" to the BOs. Respawn timers can be adjusted accordingly as well. Maybe each death adds +1 second to your respawn. Maybe respawn is based on the number of BOs you own, etc etc.

To me, this actually encourages fights across the ENTIRE lake, because all 4 BOs are available for capture at any time. It would completely change the tactics for RVR - just like in Scenarios. You need both an "offensive" group and a defensive group. If 1 team zergs a node, they leave the others open and often lose the other nodes.


I think what you CAN do as a form of progression on BOs is have more Champions spawn over time to increase that BOs defenses. Maybe a champion spawns every 1 minute up to a limit of like 20 -30 champs or something. So the longer you hold a BO, the more "defensive" it gets and requires a larger opposing force to capture... Stuff like that. But bottom line, having lock timers on BOs encourages zergs. removing lock timers creates strategy in attacking BOs.


Based on this, I would like to modify ONE of my points.

- BOs generate 1 point/sec.

What I think it SHOULD be instead is a BO gives a "temporary" 2,500 points to whoever owns that BO.

So if Order owns 3 BOs, thats 7,500 points + 3 points/sec.
Destro owns 1 BO = 2,500 points + 1/sec.

Destro takes a BO, Order loses 2,500 points. Destro gains 2,500.

So the BOs not only give a "temporary" boost, but also a permanent 1/sec gain. So it would encourage "timing" your BO captures. So if 1 side is at 95,000 and owns 2 BOs. They merely just need to cap other 2 BOs and they win (with the temporary 5k points). OR they cap 1 BO (2,500) and then earn 2500 via 3 BOs ticking at 3/sec (1/sec each).

So this becomes important when attacking a keep. If Order has 50k points and 3 BOs... if they kill the Lord but LOSE their 3 BOs. They would +50k, - 7,500k = 42.5kk Net and be at 92.5k. Now they have to capture back the 3 BOs OR just "tick points" on their current BO. So in theory they dont HAVE to cap the BOs, but they could wait and earn more points and cap only 1 or 2 BOs and win.

Something like that would work well.

The other nice advantage here, if 1 side "steamrolls" the other and there is zero defense in a RVR lake. If Destro 4 caps the BOs AND kills the Lord, thats 60k Points right there. BOs earning 1/sec *4 BOs means you could win doing this and holding those BOs for 41 minutes (assuming supplies double BO gain). So it does speed up a complete "shut out." and you could in theory lock a zone in about 45 minutes MINIMUM.

The "average" I would guess would be in the 4-6 hour range from start to finish though and some might last as long as 8+ hours.

[Telen]

I just dislike the amount of zerging. When changes were originally discussed the concept for the future was to reduce it yet every change has enforced it. Any changes that did try to reduce it were then moaned about and rolled back. It seems that at this point everyone that doesnt either gank or zerg has been driven from the game and those left dont want anything else. All the game has degraded into is a few high rr premade ganking in the lakes and totally ignoring the campaign and the rest in a big blob or trying to get to the big blob. What needs to be done is enforce splitting and only reward campaign involvement.

[th3gatekeeper]

I just dislike the amount of zerging. When changes were originally discussed the concept for the future was to reduce it yet every change has enforced it. Any changes that did try to reduce it were then moaned about and rolled back. It seems that at this point everyone that doesnt either gank or zerg has been driven from the game and those left dont want anything else. All the game has degraded into is a few high rr premade ganking in the lakes and totally ignoring the campaign and the rest in a big blob or trying to get to the big blob. What needs to be done is enforce splitting and only reward campaign involvement.

While not AS jaded as you seem to be (lol) I am leaning towards how you feel. I personally feel lock timers on BOs are a massive part of this. You move as 1 blob to a BO, crush everything in your path, cap it, sit on it till it locks, move to the next one. The past "anti-zerg" mechanics were things designed to hurt big blobs but ALSO were being used by the zerg... So ultimately it never worked all that well and I think it was part of what killed Az's motivation.

The culprit I see is lock timers on BOs. The problem with merely removing lock timers on BOs is that would be kinda boring PVP and because nothing was really "earned" by owning it for say 5 minutes... when the other side comes and caps that BO back with a zerg. What did it net you?

This is why I think a system where BOs "tick points" towards an end goal would be ideal. You cap a BO, it ticks points just like an SC. So if you own it for 5 minutes, you just had 5 minutes of "points" you earned for your faction. So capping a BO, even for a few minutes, was largely worth while if it progresses towards a goal...

This is where the idea came from (in our discussion in game) to turn it into an accumulation of points mimicing the old LIVE % basis where each aspect of the game gave you a % and you needed (I forget now) 75% to win. Which turned into

"What if BOs tick points, turning in supplies ticks points, downing doors ticks points and killing a Lord ticks points" stuff like that. BOs are the "slow and steady" points. Supply turn ins are the "small boost" of points and the Lord kill is the "BIG boost" of points that all lead/accumulate towards the zone lock at some finite objective of points.

Heck, you could even add a 5th BO (if possible) as sort of a "mid" objective halfway between both Keeps or something...

There is A LOT you can do with this idea of earning points and progressing towards a "finite end" to flip the zone.

I am not saying my proposal is the best. Ive only been chewing on it a few days and still making "small tweaks" like I think it a good idea to give a temporary small "boost" of points for merely capping a BO. So not only would capping a BO for 5 minutes award you with 300 points over the 5 minutes (1/sec for 5 minutes) but it also gives a temporary 2,500 points PLUS supplied generated and turned in for maybe another 300 during that time. etc.

So this ALL adds up to the goal (100k) to cap the zone... The numbers might need to be tweaked, but it really sounds like a FUN version of RVR that has something for all types of players. This would likely spread out the players in RVR lakes much more than now.

[dansari]

Absolutely. In theory it works exactly like Nordenwatch, which is probably all around the "fairest" scenario to play because you can break up groups easier.

[Tesq]

@The gate sy i should had said it may became.

As you alredy see most of changes enforced the zerg to some extend tought i think some changes gone into a good direction, they were good changes and not really propped aimed to spread ppl (as blob/zerg to some extent should be allowed or encourage but just in x or y situation which is the problem) i just think that a system like road wrote about may enforce the zerg even more because it' realy fast wipe a wb then move from point A to point B and C just staying on the flag for few sec cap all then move again. The only exemple in which i think such system is SW battlefront so i don't really know how this will traslate for a zone son big in war with out a respawn limiter. You need just the zerg to hold two of the main acces point to rvr like in kv or 1 big blob at doom in tm and dosen't really matter which system you use for me. One big blob will arise. It' also basic strategy of any war to send all the free troops towards the main site of battle because if you win that you can then spread back to the rest of the original positions. Unless you wanna try a guerrillia war which may be good in the long run and not in the short term.

I think that add 1 bo in each zone would benefith the rvr and with not even bo numer you can link something to force ppl to controll 3/5 bo for exemple. ( For exemple an alternative lock system or sort of keep attack supply line etc).
That would also increase the rvr area.
Some zone would benefith more than other and some zone would get more fair flag allocation that way.
Think the only ugly one would be TM ( tough ugly dosen't stay for bad. This is true at least for me and my immaginary new flag location).
Some zone need physic fixes because for base they encourage zerg or they are too much with out cover to hide etc.
I'd say worst one be BC and best one be praag which have lots of alley etc.
More flags, physic zone fix and rvr area increase may be better suited to help with the zerg problem rather than a meccanic rewamp.

[roadkillrobin]

Not sure how you're thinkin there, if the blob zergs 1 BO at the time the people splitting up is able to take 3 at a time and will score much more points.

[Tesq]

I think about TM for exemple and how is easy controll 3 flags with 1 big zerg.
Just have to stay above doom.

Doom is off limits, palik and headwall are the only flipping stuff enemy can try to snatch and they will be ista recapped + you just need to log in out to recap the grom flag with an alt in the pve camp.

This pretty much sum my worry for a system like SW battlefront with out respawn limit and no log in/out controll over the players.
Not all zones may had such problem but the case still worry me

[roadkillrobin]

Well I also sugested adding other objectives to the maps that altering the point system, in the case of TM i sugested adding orbs that you could pick up, spread over the maps while under the orb buffs, increased the kill score points by x10. And the idea was to add those orbs to less visited ORVR area. And another thing about TM, is that its one zone were 2 BO's is really easy to defend with lesser numbers due to the tunnels inside the mountain wich make you able to hold out longer against larger numbers and will make you able to accumulate more points compared to a BO like Martyr Square for example, wich you can easily surround it.

[Tesq]

Aye i agree on multiple things to do in the same window of time tough i dont really know exatly what should be done, i'm neutral i can give some tough/ feedback pre and post implementa but just that