Time to open up three pairrings again?

[wonshot]

Hello,

With the changes oRvR have seen over the last few years we went into a two out of three orvr parrings being open at once system, I assume this was done when city sieges were becoming isolated from the campaign and fortress captures. One pairing being locked meant that pairings fortress could have an open gate for attackers to run through and queue up at the city entrane for attackers.

But you can teleport to city attack now right? So is there still a need for one pairring being locked.

What would improve or change if all three pairring would open up:
- More options. Not all zones are equally good or fun. If Empire is locked and its Cale + KV chances are the action will be pretty bad for the primetime
- "why should we open 3 zones people just zerg in one zone and the other zone is empty" Fair point but again options, in case of two three star keeps in one zone having the option to swap the action over to the other pairring is a nice change of phase to mix a stalemate or a wc-camp up.
- More and more quests for fasion shields, guildcoins etc. rely on specific zones to be open, this would help these situations.

Let me know if im missing some big important reason for why two parrings became a thing and we lost the option of having 3 parrings.
But as I see it, opening Dwarf vs Orc, Empire vs Chaos, and Elf vs Elf at the same time would just be a net benefit

[zgolec]

...and pushes for cities.

Fixed times for cities is prolly worst RoR decision ever made.

[Amakusa]

...and pushes for cities.

Fixed times for cities is prolly worst RoR decision ever made.

If you dont have a Job and/or a Family...

[Detangler]

Better to have 1 to 2 fixed cities a week and also a way to push for cities. Make the campaign matter more.

[Florian90210]

Leave normal city sieges on schedule, but add infiltration like event based on campaign. Or vice versa.

[zgolec]

...and pushes for cities.

Fixed times for cities is prolly worst RoR decision ever made.

If you dont have a Job and/or a Family...

Got both.
...and lil doggo.

Still universal crests and fixed city times was bad call.
Literally f***ed over cities, forts and realm pride.

[Martok]

Better to have 1 to 2 fixed cities a week and also a way to push for cities. Make the campaign matter more.

I agree. Make the campaign great again.

Leave normal city sieges on schedule, but add infiltration like event based on campaign. Or vice versa.

The infiltration event was the greatest thing ever and hopefully will repeat again soon. However if it became routine as part of the campaign then it would become dull, boring and omnipresent. Like Land of the Dead.

Still universal crests and fixed city times was bad call. Literally f***ed over cities, forts and realm pride.

Yeah. I remember that glorious period in the Before Time, the Long Long Ago, when Forts often offered up some of the best fights going. Cities were always borked.

[armathor]

A third front will help unclog the maps and avoid blobs.

Restore interest in the fort claim because currently no fort is a claim.

[Fenris78]

No. I was one of the people that saw all the downsides of three open pairings, and advocated for current system.

With 3 pairings open, people was too scattered across zones, in a bad way : zerg on the "best" open zone, the one people prefer to play on, and soloers/lemmings going for supplies on other zones getting stars up, only to see fake sieges trying to move warbands out of the overzerged zone, defend their keep and return on same map again.

Now it's always that situation, with the notable exception players are not always in the same two pairings, leaving the "worst" (being Elf or Dwarf one) never locked, and preventing crest bonus on zonelock for one third of the realm because they would never, ever push dwarf pairing for instance.

People is now less scattered on empty zones, and are still given the option to solo/small group on the less populated pairing, giving them the same option as before but with at least pretty much always "decent" opposition everywhere.

We still see "empty" pairing, but now it's only on low server pop, and it will not stay like this forever, bringing small groups and soloers a bit much of action, instead of letting them fight on the third, and always totally empty, third pairing wich was entirely useless, both for gameplay perspective and Fort/City taking.

Before you could just solo run supplies, or worse totally ignore one of the three map, and never push it, wich was a shame, and a malus to progression (warcrest loot) for many players.

So I dont agree on the third open pairing, since it will only get us back to worse situation than now.
Unless we decide to revert City scheduling, wich I think will not happening in a foreseeable future....

[Florian90210]

However if it became routine as part of the campaign then it would become dull, boring and omnipresent. Like Land of the Dead.

LoTD is best true RvR experience. Sadly one of the side prefer to siege empty keeps and play PvDoor.