Return of Reckoning

"Yet another big wipe on the obvious predictable night at Stonewatch. Why? Simply because the population reduction on the Fortresses is far too great, and it's totally counterproductive! Evening at Kadrin Valley: 600vs300, Stonewatch: 240vs190. What's the point of reducing so much and putting the brakes on a motivated offensive? I suspect the big guilds of the Order have understood this and knowingly put themselves in defense on every T4 map. It is urgent that the GMs understand this and act accordingly.

I propose the following: If MAP -1 (Ex: Kadrin Valley), the ratio of forces in play is 3 to 1 player, then MAP +1 (Fortress: Stonewatch), max ratio = 3 to 1 player max.

Why? As it stands, Attacks with almost equal parity lose each time, it's absolutely impossible to enter (body block, very high stuffed fire mages, which favors defenders over attackers, and I think the big organized guilds do it deliberately on the Order side, abandoning zone animations as well as Keep attacks when they are sometimes more numerous on zone, it's still, you will admit, stereotypical to say the least?

Fortress confrontations therefore remain in a totally unbalanced state, and are not "logical" at all given the zone that led to its opening: an offensive thrust on zone (superior population) is systematically slowed down afterwards by a limitation of population in the fortress and which leads irremediably, by its limitation, to a WIPE.

It's really sad as a situation because, apart from the Destruction that tries to animate the Maps, it is very frequent to see the players of the Order deliberately and passively waiting in their Keep to defend, then losing, and then moving to the Fortress and finally winning the Defense (by balance of forces). Isn't there a systemic problem?

If we leave the Fortress populations as they are now, i.e. at almost equal parity, without taking into account the previous offensive thrust, I fear that nothing will change, the Defenses will systematically win, the animations on the contested areas will always be on the same side, and will irremediably lead to such a predictable defeat. Worse, I think that in the long run there is a risk of weariness and abandonment. I don't imagine for a second that this is the situation the GMs want?

Thank you for your reading.

END"

Naabak

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

Maybe what they should do is introduce Fortress mechanics on every zone to avoid the typical Destro Zerg. Every zone starts with a cap of 100/100 if both sides reahc it then it becomes 150/150 and so on tha twill make people spread more around all the zones and avoid the stupid zergs.

Just because you wanna showhorn the 3-4 WB's of FMJ + PnP Warband + TUP WB on every zone.

Although I agree with what you are saying, the devs ~2 weeks ago released a patch note which suggested they are dynamically changing and reviewing fort capacities to test it. Secrets yesterday also removed a cap on a Shining Way attack to test out the functionality of the Orcapults to determine whether or not these could stay in the game as a tactical solution to the population queries.

I know it looks like they're leaving the figures stationary and just looking the other way, but these guys have done this for years' now, if they've said they're monitoring it a few weeks ago, I'm pretty sure they will be looking into it, without publicly mentioning each and every step of development.

Maybe what they should do is introduce Fortress mechanics on every zone to avoid the typical Destro Zerg. Every zone starts with a cap of 100/100 if both sides reahc it then it becomes 150/150 and so on tha twill make people spread more around all the zones and avoid the stupid zergs.

Just because you wanna showhorn the 3-4 WB's of FMJ + PnP Warband + TUP WB on every zone.

There are order guilds who do this just as well.

I take the Kadrin Valley case (600vs300) then Stonewatch (240vs190) in the evening.

I also add that 300 players of the Destruction and 50 of the Order, who contributed to the T4 zone considered and closed, find themselves not having a reservation on the said Fortress. This is both unfair and very frustrating.

Naabak.

Nope theres no order guild that tries to showhorn 3-4 WBs on every zone, nor there are some guilds that cant seem to play apart from each other and you always see them in a blob mass.

Fortress are supposed to be easier on the defender and cities are not supposed to have 3 times a day.

drah wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:09 pm I take the Kadrin Valley case (600vs300) then Stonewatch (240vs190) in the evening.

I also add that 300 players of the Destruction and 50 of the Order, who contributed to the T4 zone considered and closed, find themselves not having a reservation on the said Fortress. This is both unfair and very frustrating.

Naabak.

So yes, I agree with you, it is frustrating when you don't get a reservation due to the extensive amount of players. But those without reservations are then given 45 minutes to take another zone. What happens instead, is 90% of players AFK at the zone line waiting until <15 minutes to see if a reservation pops up. Then finally deciding to do something if they don't get in, regardless of the 100-200 person queue.

If we take into account 600-300 for example, and let's say half get in to the fort. Prioritising those level 40, and those with highest of contribution, that still leaves a 300v150 playing field, which is enough to strategise another fort push and guarantee a second fort, if not pushing to a city.

Don't get me wrong, I'm somewhat agreeing with your initial statement, I do think fort capacities do need to be reviewed moving forward, but we've already been told they are being, and with new introductions such as the orcapult we may even see new strategies being developed to support taking keeps regardless of population.

Korsario wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 11:10 pm Nope theres no order guild that tries to showhorn 3-4 WBs on every zone, nor there are some guilds that cant seem to play apart from each other and you always see them in a blob mass.

Fortress are supposed to be easier on the defender and cities are not supposed to have 3 times a day.

There are definitely order guilds with organised warbands running and demolishing pugs in T4 RvR, to say there isn't mass Order zergs during peak hours, especially close to an IC push, is just incorrect.

You're correct, fortress' are designed to be defended - I'm not arguing that. I also agree cities do need to take longer to reach, but they don't happen 3 times a day as they are.

Judging from the messages on this post, as well as a previous thread of yours I commented on, I feel like you are finding reasons to point fingers at Destruction RvR players. It really is the exact same for us when we play the lower number count against Order.

Same problem at Reikwald just now :

Population at zone lock at Reikland : 500 vs 350. Ratio = 1,43.
Population at zone Reikwald : 240 vs 220. Ratio = 1,09.

It's just totally impossible to take a fortress with such a low ratio.

Conclusion :
Gentlemen of the GMs, it's time to do something to make the Fortress more representative of the previous zone lock.

As a new player the fortress population/queue stuff is easily the worst part of the game, right in front of level 16s queuing with 39s for SCs.

That last Reikwald was messed up. There is no way that was intentional. 150 max defenders is around the sweet spot IMO. 200+ defenders makes defending very easy, especially when it had a messed up ration of ~ 240v260