Return of Reckoning

Hello!

After Arroswar post (viewtopic.php?f=15&t=46859), I had few more suggestions about ORvR, to make it -maybe- a little bit "deeper".

Point is this great game can't be a city rush for gear only. I mean, lets imagine you get your complete BiS armor and weapon (the "End game").

So what? When this long and hard purpose reached, what are you doing? You stop playing? You start another character? Imo, Warhammer Online can't be summarized to this.

War never stop. And fighting is the heart of this game, even naked.

So here are some ideas, from my sick brain. Take it as perfectible/enhancable suggestions. Nothing more.

I. Groups and Warbands.

Arroswar pointed the interest to "slow down" the campain. I agree this point, while thinking nonetheless that character speed/vs map size is probably not the issue.
In my honnest opinion, major issue who makes OrvR rythm so "fast" is the perpetual population imbalance, linked to the relative impossibility for the underpopulated faction to oppose a consistant resistant; leading to an open corridor with low resistance for domninating faction.
In such case, being outnumberred is a problem, and AAO doesn't replace any missing player.
In the other hand, having a silly thought (is it important to have such kind of thought), it appears that a single player could win versus 100 opponents, IF the player had to fight those 100, one by one.

This said, what am i thining about? About zerg ofc. (i don't like this word. 6vs1 is a zerg at some point), but more generally the way the game has always been designed, giving the possibility to players to gather inside a warband : 24 players.

Tell me. What needs 24 players in ORvR? Taking a BO (1 man)? Moving a Ram (1man)? Moving a siege weapon (1 man)? hitting a door (4 mens)? Moving a supply (1 man)?

In fact, taking a keep and locking an area asks more than a single group, for the rest... 4 ppl can do the trick.

In conclusion, the warband size is maybe disproportionnate compared with specific objectives. Common objective are faction related and involve the whole faction. (For exemple, i have never seen a warband splitting for real on 4 BOs. Na. It moves like a single block).

So what?

As an intersting solution/test, reducing warband classic/PU size to 2 groups (12 players max) and set aside 4 groups warband for (the guild level you want) Guild/Ally warbands only (atleast it could justify to have a guild...).

What does it change? No so much in fact, but probably enough to make things a little different in term of imbalances population management, acting as a lift.

> It "splits" a faction in smaller blocks and encourages communication, focusing on a scaled objective, without depriving the possibility to gather with other groups for common objectives (or "zerg" (but it should be slightly harder in term of focus))
> It "reintroduce" in a emphasized way 6mens in ORvR, and justifying in extenso the fact to have a full BiS character and continue to play it, for fight and fame (not the purple one).
> It gives the possibily to find scaled and enthusiastic fights (thats the point no?). 6 vs 12 is always better than 6 vs 24...
> As a bonus, it may open the way to WB scenarios (12 players).
> As a bonus (bis) it may helps to enter cities more efficiently.
> It could invite players to join Bigger guilds, and guilds to recruit more players to create the game in a different way


II. The Empty tome tactic slot. (not the more precise idea of the list)

At some point, this slot has never been usefull but in PvE on former official server. Sad.
What about making it usefull as a "passive" and unique class based ability?
This idea is not super precise for me, but i had in mind as an exemple, to give to witch elves/Witch hunters the abilty to reveal enemies on the minimap (like 500 radius) (if you played on original, that was the gutter runner ability), or the abilty to extend its own stealth to his group (with conditions OBVIOUSLY, like staying motionless, and not using ability).
This ability could be stackable (extended radius, longer timer....) on the base of number of player of the same classe inside the group.
This exemple was obvious for me, cause stealth mode is quite useless when you play in a warband/full group.

III. The Guild Standard.

Who use his glorious standard in the lake? almost no one. Saaad.

If the first suggestion is something RoR team is interested to explore, maybe Giving some interest to the guild standard could be something giving a plus. It would be interesting when the guild standard is held in the lake making that the group/warband (around the standard ofc) become visible by other groups/warbands of the faction on the minimap (inverted gutter runner mechanics), making information/organisation/strategy more efficient. We see where the ram is. SHowing where a standard (or dots around) should be possible i guess.


Dunno if anyone gonna care about it, but i'm glad to share ideas when got some.

Voila.

XoXo

Yali.

Glad to see someone is finally talking and thinking about the elephant in the room "oRvR speedrunning for loot" and how the current systems are not promoting fighting, coordination nor strategy.

As you mention many of the important related tasks to zonelocks are one-man jobs. Oil pour, ram spawning, running a box etc.
After we had the introduction patch of Rams being visable on the maps, nothing really changed as a result. Instead of the enemy realm having a visual marker of the enemy location to ambush or attack the ram. The players just used it as an even earlier invitation to go hug the walls and prepair for defending the keep.

Making the Ram being more of a pay-load objective requireing allies to push it forward and enemies to come stop the push could create action, ambushes, clashes and hotspots breaking out not only at the Ram's location but also near, at supplyline leading to the ram and behind the ram-group to cut off stragglers. In theory. Because it depends on the implimentation and systems.

As you mention the standards are basicly being used for RP farm in a funnel, or 6man groups ressing their allies without being on a Healer archtype. These banners used to be the key to guilds clamining keep with a rather indepth system tied to guild ranks, rewards for keep upgraded and standard tome tactics. All of this is not implimented and focused on in RoR making guild ranks, and to some extend guilds not feel important to be a part of.

RoR already have flags functioning as Battleobjectives. Why cant we for example stick our guild banner down on a BO and claim it. And those 3 buffs are spread in a wide area (most of Matyrs square platz in praag) for the realm controling the area. Or something like this. Not only would that make a small goldsink, create some more pride in claiming and holding BOs, but also make it feel more rewarding captureing a BO if you get to steal an enemy guild's banner, get the tick from the banner + flippin the BO. Just spitballing ideas at this point.

Running all mounted on horses with same speed, or everyone following a banner-boy would not only make it be a big bone for the roleplay aspect of the game, to imagine a dwarven regiment with their banner come around a corner in praag only to clash with a greenskin regiment and in the end the victorous realm claim the banner after the clash. Pretty epic nerdgasm moment.

Loot and progression needs to be tied into oRvR as this is the main progression loop for fresh 40s, inexperienced players, soloers, pugs and everyone else. Thats the big beautiful madhouse for everyone where everything goes. But the sence of making fighting feel good and those enjoyable moments of winning a close battle, coming out on top being outnumbered, or having better strategy to lock a zone... Are just some of the reasons why oRvR has felt like a re-roll hamsterwheel for a long time, because none of the systems are set up to actually make the content rewarding apart from purely progression in terms of rp or bags. The fun is simply not promoted with current systems, and its a shame.

Speaking from an order perspective. I don't necessarily think making fewer bigger groups is the answer. The guild I run with rarely splits to 2 BO's and runs boxes, and we do that as 2 groups of 12. 4 groups of 6 is frankly too risky, especially when the groups are built to support the warband as a whole, rather than being a focused 6 man. 6 man groups have their place in ORVR atm as kiting groups, but ofc that's limited to a select number of classes that can kite well.

But you'll never get rid of the issue where a 6 man group, unless it's kiting. Will never be able to take on a 24 man. Making fewer large groups won't fix that IMO, in fact it'll cause more problems in terms of balance. Overnight AOE healers would suddenly become far more powerful, and certain classes would face overpopulation issues such as KOTBS (currently nice to have at least 1 for the buffs per group, now you'd only need 2).

I agree zerging needs to be discouraged. But zerging isn't generally a coordinated thing in the first place. In most cases it's literally 2-3 organised WB's following each other, or 1 WB being followed by tons of pugs, some of which are in adhoc WB's.

Again speaking from my general guild's WB evenings, we try to find good fights as that's what we're there for, however when you get zerging, eventually one side gets bottled up in their WC. The only way to break a zerging side out of the cycle is to try and force a siege.

I think the core of the problem is just zerging and lack of incentive to play the objectives, WB's don't tend to hold BO's, they most often leave it to pugs and then roam looking for fights. I therefore think the goal shouldn't be to break up large groups, but to discourage WB's and large numbers of players forming zergs and get them to actually fight for and hold BO's. First idea that comes to mind is a local AAO (within render distance) rather than a zone wide one. If you're locally outnumbered 4:1, you should get a major buff. The current 200% or 100% AAO buff isn't enough. I believe we need a community discussion on how many WB's should be able to fight another before stacking penalties are applied to the outnumbering side. I'd honestly say local AAO should be a 24 man limit, if you have more than that you end up with an exponential buff for the weaker side. In the case of a 24v24 situation, you'd want the buff to start having a noticeable effect once half the other group is gone (=>50% Local AAO), and an obvious effect when they're down to their last group(=>75% Local AAO). Simulating a type of last stand mechanic, making the last group feel as strong as they were when they started the fight outnumbered, as currently the less of your WB you have, the weaker and weaker you get.

That's my 2 pence anyway.

Oh, and unfortunately very few if next to no players fight for glory or fame, or their guild name. They just want rewards and the optimal way of playing. I think it all goes back to basic game design 101, it's better to reward a player doing something you want, rather than punishing them for something you don't want. But once you're BIS, have tons of gold and high renown. There isn't really any reward that interests you other than the fun of winning fights and competitive play between warbands / guilds. Perhaps looking more into warband on warband competitiveness could be an interesting avenue of thought? And NO, not ranked WB play. But something to encourage WB's to be competitive on a 1v1 basis.

reducing warband size to 12 is bad idea

pvprangergod wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:49 am reducing warband size to 12 is bad idea

I'm interested to have your arguments explaining why.

I have an idea to give a buff to the underpopulated side.
Keeps were a lot harder to take when xou could respawn inside them. I think the underpopulated realm should always be able to respawn inside the keep so they have a chance of defending

About grp size: i dont think this would change anything... Because all the guilds will just bring 2 parties of 12 while pugs will probably be even more uncoordinated.

About guild banners:
I would love to be able to do more with them. They should provide a lot more interesting buffs you can choose from and imo it might be a cool idea to be able to wear them while still being able to cast normally. Also it would be cool to be able to place them at objectives and keeps for a big area of effect. The tome tactic could also be transformed into a guild tactic slot that is enabled whenever a standard bearer is nearby or something in this direction... Just brainstorming.

Yaliskah, You have right !!

SO MUCH + 11111111

saupreusse wrote: ↑Mon Nov 22, 2021 11:59 am I have an idea to give a buff to the underpopulated side.
Keeps were a lot harder to take when xou could respawn inside them. I think the underpopulated realm should always be able to respawn inside the keep so they have a chance of defending

That way You will kill any fights in zone, solo ppl will go too closest enemy warbands jump to them and do suicide to get faster to the keep XD
What a PVP game, when killing enemy helping him to defend keep???
And after wipe any defenders will no take any offensive actions cos they have nice and warm positions in their keep, ALL together!

wonshot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 21, 2021 9:19 pm Running all mounted on horses with same speed, or everyone following a banner-boy would not only make it be a big bone for the roleplay aspect of the game, to imagine a dwarven regiment with their banner come around a corner in praag only to clash with a greenskin regiment and in the end the victorous realm claim the banner after the clash. Pretty epic nerdgasm moment.

With all respect for You, i will have any nerdgas for being a nameless ant soldiers who killing others nameless ants in accidentals battles.
Its Warhammer not Verdun, bro!
I understand for You as a leader of warband such fight brings a lot of satisfaction, but formy this is Fantasy Role Play PVP game not Toy Soldiers.