Return of Reckoning

Hello. I wanted to make a suggestion for balancing the realms without need for a lock. I believe that most of what is needed is already in place, and all that is needed is a little bit more stick to the carrot that is currently in the game.

I would suggest two changes:

1: the side that is zerging loses contribution and realm points equal to the amount of AAO the other side has. If the smaller side has 60% AAO, then the zerging side loses 60% of their realm points and contribution. Anything over 100% AAO and the zerging side doesn't gain anything.

2: Allow each player to gain contribution for 1 character on each side towards a single zone. I feel that players will be more inclined to switch sides if they don't lose contribution. If they will lose contribution, they'll just keep on the side they are on. This can particularly affect North America as there is usually just a single zone open so players would have to face losing all their contribution or continue to zerg. I think that the system will work better if players aren't facing a disadvantage towards switching sides (such as losing all the contribution they have earned thus far).

With a system like this, players won't lose contribution because players decided to zerg their side suddenly. If you played under AAO, and then the enemy side gains AAO a couple hours into the fight, you don't suffer in the long term, and thus can't be griefed.

This will also prevent players from PvEing a zone down. In order to gain contribution and realm points (including big ticks for taking a keep and zone, but I think these are already tied to contribution anyway), players need to partake in RvR in zones with enemy players. And if there aren't enough players on the other side, they can freely jump to the disadvantaged side to help out.

If players want to zerg a zone, or sit in empty zones, or fight against overwhelming odds, let them. They just won't get anything except special bags and little to no realm points for their 'efforts'.

I am not trying to be mean or negative, but

1- why even play if your contribution is taken away? What is my incentive to log in?
2- If you log out and enter a zone on a different character your first character already loses all contribution. (Or so it was explained to me)
3- Secondary zones. Instead of complaining of PvE'ng a zone, learn how to use this to an advantage to break up the zerg. This is one reason they were created. Especially when Forts and City Siege come into play, the empty zone may be the only way available to stop a zerg from farming your forts and city. If you know how to use it right.

As to the current scene where the destro zerg seems to be a daily thing, I have a suggestion.

Order needs to learn that ranking up their keep is more important than flying around the zone ganking solo players or pugs sitting on a BO. Not saying you can't do both, but Order really needs to learn that there benefits to keep rank.

drmordread wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 10:47 pm I am not trying to be mean or negative, but

1- why even play if your contribution is taken away? What is my incentive to log in?

You will get contribution....just not by playing the side with overwhelming odds. There is a reason why a lot of the fighting has one side dominating the other in numbers, or one side will just go to pve a zone down and ignore where the enemy is...because it is rewarding to do so.

2- If you log out and enter a zone on a different character your first character already loses all contribution. (Or so it was explained to me)

Which is why I suggested this....

2: Allow each player to gain contribution for 1 character on each side towards a single zone.

If players are punished or discouraged from switching sides to balance out the game, they won't do it.

3- Secondary zones. Instead of complaining of PvE'ng a zone, learn how to use this to an advantage to break up the zerg. This is one reason they were created. Especially when Forts and City Siege come into play, the empty zone may be the only way available to stop a zerg from farming your forts and city. If you know how to use it right.

You are describing how the system currently works, where it is easy for one side to dominate the other. Discouraging that by reducing contribution and rps is what I'm suggesting. There won't be overwhelming zergs if players don't gain rps or contribution by doing so. There needs to be a method to discourage players from fighting overwhelming odds.

I am thinking of that change... It would discourage what little relm pride is left and encourage way more x-relming. Also those players that only play one faction will most likely take a break from the the game because... Why bother if thier side isnt gaining anything causeing lower population on a given night, week, month and so on.

On the other side of the boat, those of us that do enjoy 100%+ aao because of the challenge vs reward would lose interest in rvr all together too... Hmm as is those that are on the zerging side may lock the zone but as thier gains are not as great rp wise per kill.

I think those changes would effect the game in a negative way, its hard to say though.

first off we tend to lock topics as OP is answered or addressed. Feel free to open a less specific thread if you want to keep the discussion rolling.

These suggestions wont happen because:
1. Would only negatively affect the playerbase and especially as AAO is something that you directly can control (also what if you only want to play one faction, something we actually encourage if the sides are equal in numbers).

2.AAO is in it self a bonus for the lesser faction, meaning that if you can secure kills your reward is already better, and switching character to another one is something that should be a conscious choice you make. If you want gear on a toon, play on that toon.

locking