Return of Reckoning

I'm seeing a lot of the same points, and I think the proposal could be modified to support them with no problems:

1. Keep 2/3 zones open at once
2. Remove scenarios from the VP calculations (probably increase the point cap from RvR to compensate)
3. Reduce the value of some rewards, and only share capture rewards within range of an objective.

But there's still the problem as bloodi and others previously pointed out, "What if the opposing faction just doesn't participate, and denies a zone lock by sitting in the warcamp doing nothing?"

To that end, what if the VP cap method was supplemented by another old system? If, and only if, a faction has <=55% population, they can automatically lock a zone by holding every objective (Keeps and BOs) for a period of time, but losing a single objective resets that timer.

This does two things. First, it allows one faction to continue to cap a zone even if the enemy refuses to fight back, and thereby deny the RvR VPs which would otherwise be required. Second, it still prevents the enemy from crossrealming over to the winning faction at the last minute just to ride a "free" zone lock. If one faction does massively outnumber the other, they can still lock a zone by accumulating enough VP through RvR.

If there is enough support for this, or alternative suggestions, I can amend the proposal on the first page. Incidentally, the poll is setup to allow changing of votes if the above changes make the system more or less agreeable to the community.

I love that Genisaurus. Sounds perfect to me.

Don't remove scenarios from the VP calculations.

SC's need a purpose, and a reason to actually win instead of farming kills.

No matter what the map most 6 mans and myself included play it like a deathmatch because after we have emblems there is no reason to try to win, it is just more fun and at that point to farm people.

If you really wanted to force people to properly play the SC and try to win instead of turning it into a PUG farming sim you need to only reward RR/XP at the very end for the scenario.

Like some of the similar systems implemented by you guys in ORvR each kill made in the scenario would contribute towards a pool that is split between all players. The multiplier of that pool that you receive is based on the points scored, and a further bonus for winning.

The pool is SHARED by factions so if one team does nothing but farms 100 kills at the spawn while the other realm actually tries to win and succeeds they will end up getting more RR at the end of that SC. It also creates an environment where balanced SC generate more RR for both parties.

If your 6 man is too lazy/bad to properly play an objective based scenario in this type of system... MT and Toranroc are in the pool. This will also "sort of" promote premade vs premade in the death match scenarios while solo players will probably gravitate towards the objective based scenarios where they have the best shot at getting rewards.

With objective based scenario you mean pve circle capping? Good groups will never go for caps, as long as enemies are nearby.

When the pool is split among all players, it sounds like everyone is rewarded the same. This would reward leeching.
Scenarios ARE deathmatches, just with alternate win conditions to end it before the timer runs out.

Genisaurus wrote: Reduce the value of some rewards, and only share capture rewards within range of an objective.

With capture reward you mean the zone lock?

Sulorie wrote:With objective based scenario you mean pve circle capping? Good groups will never go for caps, as long as enemies are nearby.

When the pool is split among all players, it sounds like everyone is rewarded the same. This would reward leeching.
Scenarios ARE deathmatches, just with alternate win conditions to end it before the timer runs out.

Good groups don't go for caps because there is no point, this gives it a point.

The split rewards encourage playing the scenario correctly instead of turning it into a DM. You can already leech easily, RR is split pretty evenly among everyone already... on your team at least. The pool is both sides combined, so even if you didn't score a single kill but won 500-0... but had 50 kills scored against you... you will get a majority of that RR. This is so people actually play the scenario correctly and try to win. If you want to just play DM then que for DM scenarios like MT/TorAnroc.

This combined with tying it into the campaign/zone locks will make SC have a purpose outside of farming RR.

All sc are deathmatch as avoiding the enemy does not and should not offer rewards. It's an end condition to finish the sc before the timer runs out.
No rewards for cowards!

Jaycub wrote:Don't remove scenarios from the VP calculations.

SC's need a purpose, and a reason to actually win instead of farming kills.

It does have a purpose: People love SCs, AND SC weapons.

Sulorie wrote:With objective based scenario you mean pve circle capping? Good groups will never go for caps, as long as enemies are nearby.

Stop calling it PvE. It's not. *facepalm* And wrong. The "good" groups are the guild wbs, and they ARE the ones that will keep on fighting most of the time, unlike a zerg. If you are in a guild that gives up at the sight of players, then you aren't in a good guild. So calling it a good group makes no seanse.

Sulorie wrote:When the pool is split among all players, it sounds like everyone is rewarded the same. This would reward leeching.
Scenarios ARE deathmatches, just with alternate win conditions to end it before the timer runs out.

Wrong. We are talking about a system that would only reward the players who are active in the ORvR lakes, for examle near a BO. If you compare that with now, people can just stand afk in the wc leech zonelock after zonelock. This is a vast improvement.

Sulorie wrote:All sc are deathmatch as avoiding the enemy does not and should not offer rewards. It's an end condition to finish the sc before the timer runs out.
No rewards for cowards!

I don't even... How are you a coward to realize you can't beat your enemy? That's just NOT being blind or too arrogant to see it. Also, holding the objective and avoiding the enemy is in itself a strategy. If the enemy can't keep up and get the objective back, then guess what? Then they deserve to lose.