Old saves or the Oldest saves?

[Torcida]

Hi guys I was wondering, many people are happy with the revert of the central saves. Atleast on Horus, I heard that on RA the people are absolutely Not satisfied with the central save they want the old 3-save system, I am curious if this is also the case in Horus.

[Seher]

I actually like one central save more. It makes gathering groups easier and could at least in theory create smaller battles at the secondary forts (just smaller groups with WM ports there).

I think it has potential, more than the 3 save system. In its current state it's pretty much even though, at least for me.

[UmarilsStillHere]

I prefer the 3 save, sure it can be a bit annoying to die at Imperia forgetting that you're saved at Efe... But I think the 3 save system was better for war in general, it kept the flow of things faster.

Its a pain running back to Algaros from CS if you all get killed.

[Southbound]

I liked the old old saves best.
3 saves, non-capturable

Pretty much feel like Umaril is describing.

However, I don't want to "bitch" about the current 1 central save system.. cause it's simply 100 times better then the capturable savesystem!

Ty NGD for reverting to 1 central save!

[Vroek]

I suggested a single central save early 2010, to reduce or remove the constant save vs save fights and the tedious alga vs trelle fights that was going on 24/7 on RA.

Dont really think that will be an issue on horus, but i still prefer the single save over three.
Then again, i was never against NGDs capturable saves. I opt to get them back.

[_Nel_]

I voted 3 non-capturable saves, because attackers have fort for their defense, and defenders have altar to res faster. It's the fairest solution for both side.

The trelle/alga ping-pong on Ra is only a Ra and a map issue. Nothing related to save system.

[Kittypretty]

I prefer 3 saves for a few reasons.

1: It makes it harder for players (higher level) to grind without being killed and having a long trip back where they may be killed again by a gank party. At least with a save bind nearby, it lessened frustration to lose time either in game or using boosters, without the long ride back (possibly being killed on route LOL yeah its happened to me more than once) I had alot of fun just helping players grind to 60 on beach, but now, I find it more troublesome. There is no good reason why there isn't saves at all the fortifications at least. I know you want to promote the WM skills, but give us a choice at least, don't force us into a single linear play style/tactic. that just limits the fun and the element of surprise, strategy by alot.

I would suggest even more saves but thats pushing my luck, to accommodate even more grind zones, and more points of entry, instead of just one save to co ordinate an attack from (teles mix it up of course..but I miss the old days when players had to scout, watch bridges, follow enemy movements and report back) now it simply is tele here, and gone. To me that is just boring. whats the point of a pretty large war zone if you can simply bypass so much of it? I would like more binds closer to bridges even, that are neutral, so whoever captures those, can fortify a forward position easier.

(of course this is moot, now that NGD will move forward with teleports, there is no goin g back to the old , run around the warzone, instead it is limited to small hotspots and teleporting armies. That to me isn't as fun or as challenging to pull off a strike on all 3 forts with just your own speed and misguidance, forcing enemies to fortify what fort/castle they think you will be going for, was a good guessing game, now it is simply too easy to warp past any incoming troops, bypass the challenge of open field fights without meeting up ever except at a fort/castle usually.)

I also dislike the save because it promotes even less equality between those players who cant have horses (be it by not affording them, or being in a country that doesn't support the payment system yet.) They often find them selfs straggling behind if they miss teleports, or there is none available. Especially for lower levels who don't live as long, this can be discouraging to run there and find out the fort your realm held has just fallen, or you arrive after all the action has ended and the realms already moved on ahead.
Either that or they die quickly, because not many people wait for them, or because of their level. Its not fun to run back to die again and again, it makes a low level player find something more rewarding to play quite quick.

I have a horse on one character, and no horse on another (WHY ngd has disallowed an account wide horse is beyond me, do we really seriously need to buy horses for each character?? and why not bring back day/month gold horse for those who CANT afford to buy xim for whatever reason. those helps ALOT during early questing too, I'd rather not feel like I have to buy something in a game to enjoy it just as fully, as if i did. sadly Ro is not one of these games anymore, the old "premiums wont affect warzone" was long debunked, with credit card instant epic geared players grinding 500% faster. Defeats the purpose of an MMO to me to not have to even work for your items. Maybe if the drop rate was improved, maybe if epic bosses dropped one random magical item (normal gear) for all, then players would have less of a gap and could trade with others more frequently. (but thats off topic sorry)

There is no need to have this gap now that players can teleport armies, and have a spell that is far worse than the old taxi ever was. (why did you remove it again? I know, but it seems very hypocritical now in retrospect)
All i want is a fair chance for new players/players who cant use xim or dont choose to buy it, to have a means to getting around the wz faster that doesnt involve wm spells or buying xim. So yeah I feel the difference when playing one, to be left behind alot, to the point where I don't even bother going, not that I don't wan't to, but it is often more of a waste of time than not to go, and find the same typical scenarios i described. I only go on the character that has a horse, and sadly because im expected to shell out more for another horse I guess, which I won't. it delegates me to missing out on most fights unless there is a tiny window of opportunity with a tele, which is so fast I dont even know half the time where im going, or it'll disappear.



so in short I guess, I want binds that are easier for players to grind around, easier ways for players to get around without using xim, or teleports if they have to use that option, or choose to.

I know the focus is rvr, but getting there is also a struggle, and its not made any easier by constant running back and forth. It is enjoyable as a group looking for enemies, but not so much for the person just wanting to level. I dont think any real thought has been even addressed by NGD about that. The mob spawns and zones are too small, not at all defendable, and across the map.


to be clear about my vote though, I liked when it was 3 saves, and none of this capture nonsense. simply 3 binds near each fort (maybe some needed tweaking and a slight move, back to previous areas due to ease of farming (the old old alg/samal binds etc)

[Vroek]

The trelle/alga ping-pong on Ra is only a Ra and a map issue. Nothing related to save system.

Dont be silly, it was nothing but a save system issue.

Alsius had to fight syrtis with either fort ping pong or save camping at both sides, simultaneously they had constant fights between meni and imp save.

While there was hardly any action between syrtis and ignis, PB was more or less dead and only some tendencies of save ping pong between shana and efe saves, but nothing comparable to the two fronts alsius constantly had.

[Torcida]

they had constant fights between meni and imp save.



How is this in any way a problem?

[PT_DaAr_PT]

How is this in any way a problem?

Ping Pong fights, they naturally get boring after a while.

[AariEv]

I liked the old old saves best.
3 saves, non-capturable

Pretty much feel like Umaril is describing.

However, I don't want to "bitch" about the current 1 central save system.. cause it's simply 100 times better then the capturable savesystem!

Ty NGD for reverting to 1 central save!

My exact same feelings,

Voted for the 3 save system (uncaptureable), btw

[_Nel_]

Dont be silly, it was nothing but a save system issue.

Alsius had to fight syrtis with either fort ping pong or save camping at both sides, simultaneously they had constant fights between meni and imp save.

While there was hardly any action between syrtis and ignis, PB was more or less dead and only some tendencies of save ping pong between shana and efe saves, but nothing comparable to the two fronts alsius constantly had.

And what's the problem exactly ? Too many fights ?
Cool, we exactly need this on other servers : Horus, Raven, Muspell, Niflheim, Nemon and Piranha.

Alsius has 2 fronts to face up, while Ignis and Syrtis have only 1 because few saves are too close to each others ?
So I guess it's a map issue.

Sorry, but I don't understand what is bothering you here.

[Torcida]

Ping Pong fights, they naturally get boring after a while.

depends on if it is a fair fight or not

[_Nel_]

Ping-ping or pong-pong = not fair.
Ping-pong = Both win, I guess it's fair.

[Arziel]

Ping-pong in the bridges are boring... i like more fight in the Forts!!
Now i like 3 saves... less easy to take stronger and easier to be near places lvl up.

[Vroek]

And what's the problem exactly ? Too many fights ?
Cool, we exactly need this on other servers : Horus, Raven, Muspell, Niflheim, Nemon and Piranha.

Alsius has 2 fronts to face up, while Ignis and Syrtis have only 1 because few saves are too close to each others ?
So I guess it's a map issue.

Sorry, but I don't understand what is bothering you here.

Call whatever you like, im sure there was more reason to it that just save position and the map, but it definitely not only a map issue, especially since the original save position didnt have as bad effect on game even if they had some side effects as well.
Best and easiest fix was to remove the secondary saves, if you want them back, yes there probably need to be huge landscaping work.

How is this in any way a problem?

The border between ignis / syrtis was more or less dead, and alsius have to "suffer" constant war often by larger realms at two fronts, it put them under a huge strain at all times. Even if you killed you opponent, they was back with in a few minutes, it only fueled the situation. If you let them be, they went zerg style on a save, camped the gate or went for grinders. Alsius was turned in something of playground.

This was both lazy and repetitive behavior that turned the quality of fights down, a little like the save vs fort fights do, but with the small difference that they never end.

[Kitsuni]

We don't need old saves back. What we do need is captureable bridges and minor forts to allow more ground to be held incrementally.

[isgandarli]

We don't need old saves back. What we do need is captureable bridges and minor forts to allow more ground to be held incrementally.

Captureable bridges? How do you see it?

[andres81]

Captureable bridges? How do you see it?

what about a flag (as always)? xD

[Kaixo]

With the old saves you had different grinding zones near, and war zone was populated.
You could go to Meni and there were a lot of lvl 30-40 players grinding, the same in orc's camp, Shaana's beach, teleport entry and exit, etc.
If you wanted to hunt in Syrtis you could save in Shaana and go to swamp and fight the other partys coming to Ignis, or you could have a bridge war always in Meni, people that wanted wars gathered at Samal, and alternated pinos, herbred, algaros, trelle...if you wanted to hunt in Imperia you saved in Meni.
The good old times.

Now warzone is empty but the central save has 20 guys watching the skies, if you die you come here, another few minutes to return to where you were, if you are grinding it's horrible, the only safety is in the central save that usually is leagues away and enemies usually have horns (but that's the problem with warmasters).
Less wars, etc, but a lot of this is also due to warmaster's quests and the unbalance generated with the expansion.

[Nekudotayim]

Personally I can live with both systems. I am still trying to figure out, what's so special about the central save system and why people avoided to play RO while the central save system was gone.

[Quincebo]

Its a pain running back to Algaros from CS if you all get killed.

And what about the running from gate to the fort every time??
i dislike that too

[HidraA]

=))))This thread made me to laught a lots =))))

"Wee don't like like new saves put back even one central save back..."...after old central saves aare back..."wee like more oldest saves than old saves ..wee want them back..." =))))))))

[Psynocide]

There needs to be a "Better than nothing" or "It's a step in the right direction now move onto something more important, we're fine with this" option.

Honestly, give us an inch and we take a mile.

[NotScias]

I prefer the unique central save more.

I remember almost no one was using efe/alga saves because to get to efe it's almost as fast by rezzing at gate then using teleport and saving alga was always a pain if you didn't save back to cs after the battle, and anyways most of alga battles were short (usually just a small group of players, so no need to save at all)

[UmarilsStillHere]

And what about the running from gate to the fort every time??
i dislike that too

As do I, which is why I preferred the 3 save system :p

[PT_DaAr_PT]

I prefer the unique central save more.

I remember almost no one was using efe/alga saves because to get to efe it's almost as fast by rezzing at gate then using teleport and saving alga was always a pain if you didn't save back to cs after the battle, and anyways most of alga battles were short (usually just a small group of players, so no need to save at all)
This, basically.

Back then I even felt the need to make alternate characters just to save at Meni. It was really frustrating having to go all the way from Orc Camp(where the old old samal save was) to Menirah's save altar, capture Menirah fort in less than 5 minutes sometimes and then waste more time to go back to samal save... and in some cases... "iMenirah Fort is under attack!"... thus repeating the whole boring process again...

I don't really see why more than 1 save altar in the war zone is needed besides grinding alts.

[_Nel_]

Call whatever you like, im sure there was more reason to it that just save position and the map, but it definitely not only a map issue, especially since the original save position didnt have as bad effect on game even if they had some side effects as well.
Best and easiest fix was to remove the secondary saves, if you want them back, yes there probably need to be huge landscaping work.

You still didn't explain what is the problem with old 3 saves non-deactivatable.

And please don't bring back the ping-pong issue or any lame pretext related to Ra.
More than 80% of people on Ra prefer the old 3 saves non-deactivatable, as all other servers.
> http://www.regnumonline.com.ar/forum/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=3732

[UmarilsStillHere]

...

You assume that every time you fight at Meni it only last 5 mins? I some fights there going for hours.

Sure its annoying to run there, save, fight for 5 mins, then run back to your main save.

But isn't it also, possibly more, annoying to run there, see its heavily camped, die, run back from CS, die, run back from CS, die then give up/rage quit from having to run so far all the time?

[PT_DaAr_PT]

You assume that every time you fight at Meni it only last 5 mins? I some fights there going for hours. (...)

Stopped reading your post there.

Quoting myself:
(...) capture Menirah fort in less than 5 minutes sometimes(...)


EDIT: Felt bad. Re-reading your post.

(...)
But isn't it also, possibly more, annoying to run there, see its heavily camped, die, run back from CS, die, run back from CS, die then give up/rage quit from having to run so far all the time?

Taking into account that we have now a better regroup point, our Samal save(now called Central Save) being much near our Secondary fort like all other Realms and now having a teleport to the bridge to stop incomming, it's definately way much better than before. In every fight you always die and run back a lot of distances, the difference now is that it's worth to do it because we're not scattered all over the place therefore not taking too much time to regroup like it used to happen before.

[Awrath]

I'm quite happy with the one central save, the reasons have been pretty much covered by others above my post, the main point being better regroups.

At the end of the day, what used to happen with the 3-save system from a Syrtis point of view, we would all run back to Herbred save from Algaros/Eferias and save there before moving on to war elsewhere, thus the only reason to use save altars at eferias and algaros was to prevent getting farmed, but since there's just one central save, everyone can move together now anyway (regroups being rare/failed regroups in Syrtis is no fault of save altar locations, just idiocy).

So, I voted for one central save altar \o/ much better than multiple saves that can be captured at least and IMO matches the old 3-save altar system.

[_Nel_]

Hey sir Awrath,

I know you don't like to grind and anyway never grind, but what about grinders with 1 single save ?

[PT_DaAr_PT]

I know you don't like to grind and anyway never grind, but what about grinders with 1 single save ?

I don't see how that is such a big deal. I've used to grind at our OC and Swamp with only 1 central save and I felt no need to complain about it. And those two places were pretty camped by enemies back then. It's practically the same but you may find more allies at CS to help you in case you get ganked by a group of Greeeeee

[Vroek]

You still didn't explain what is the problem with old 3 saves non-deactivatable.

And please don't bring back the ping-pong issue or any lame pretext related to Ra.
More than 80% of people on Ra prefer the old 3 saves non-deactivatable, as all other servers.
> http://www.regnumonline.com.ar/forum/poll.php?do=showresults&pollid=3732

Maybe you misunderstood something i said, I dont really feel i owe you any explanation but ill will try to be as clear as i can be this time.

The 3 save system with the original save positions worked fairly well (this dont mean i like to have it back), the previously active 3 save system was rubbish for game play especially alsius (RA), not so much for syrtis and ignis. I also clearly pointed out that it was unlikely to disturb horus in a similar way.
I didnt argue against a three save system, i answered the questions and argued against the disputed "facts" of my first post.

I think the current single save system is second best it allow some opportunity for offense by a lower populated realm in the current invasion system, the down side is that it an unfair system (alsius benefit from it).

A three save system will never allow a low populated realm to have decent chance to pull anything off offensively.

This leaves the latest system, with 3 saves that get deactivated. This by far the most fair system we ever had, down side is that zerg dont get their casual war or farm wars working, since they most likely will get the "bore tactic" if they dont split the zerg (god forbid).

Basically i feel people can search for casual wars and skirmishes without having a fort to farm from. Anything else is pure laziness and chronic zerg behavior that got imprinted in your head after all the years having such a play style. I regret to see very few share this opinion.

For the single save system to be more fair, NGD have to disable the resurrect at wall option. If you like to resurrect at the wall, there should be saves inside that you can actively use.

[Awrath]

Hey sir Awrath,

I know you don't like to grind and anyway never grind, but what about grinders with 1 single save ?

I agree that getting killed while grinding sucks, but in my experience (from a long time ago, before save guards) with the 3 altars, you are just food for the person on your grind spot as you, by resurrecting close to your grind spot, give them a reason to stay, whereas traveling from far usually means they'll be gone by the time you come back. Unless of course you get RP whores who actually find camping a grind spot and killing the same grinders over and over entertaining, well, they will continue doing so 3 altars or 1.

As Daar also mentioned, there is less grind killing than before anyway. I couldn't grind my knight 10 minutes without meeting a troll tard in the past, let these new grinders suffer a little and experience the dangers of the war zone!

[_Nel_]

I don't see how that is such a big deal. I've used to grind at our OC and Swamp with only 1 central save and I felt no need to complain about it. And those two places were pretty camped by enemies back then. It's practically the same but you may find more allies at CS to help you in case you get ganked by a group of Greeeeee

I did it too: syrtis OC, PP2, PB, StoneHenge and finally Golden Falls. It's just boring to have to run/ride half of the map to be back to your grind spot because you got gang-banged by 10 enemies.

Finally I decided to restrict my grind sessions only if I was able to play at GMT morning (from 08:00 to 12:00) because there were almost no grind-killer. And if exceptionnally there was 1 group killing me twice, I logged off for ~20 minutes or more, using the boring strategy.

I agree that getting killed while grinding sucks, but in my experience (from a long time ago, before save guards) with the 3 altars, you are just food for the person on your grind spot as you, by resurrecting close to your grind spot, give them a reason to stay, whereas traveling from far usually means they'll be gone by the time you come back. Unless of course you get RP whores who actually find camping a grind spot and killing the same grinders over and over entertaining, well, they will continue doing so 3 altars or 1.

As Daar also mentioned, there is less grind killing than before anyway. I couldn't grind my knight 10 minutes without meeting a troll tard in the past, let these new grinders suffer a little and experience the dangers of the war zone!
I grinded my knight with the "3 saves deactivatable" system and it was really much better against grind killers. At least we could group with other few grinders to do 1, 2 or more rushes to finally kill them all, depending on how many they were. I didn't have to plan grind sessions like I did with the 1 single save system, only to avoid grind killers.

The big problem with the 1 single save is if you get killed more than once, your grind partners start to get tired and tend to go afk at cs or log off, they don't want to ride again over there, because that gives enough time to those you previously killed to join back their hunt party.

The 3 save system with the original save positions worked fairly well (this dont mean i like to have it back), the previously active 3 save system was rubbish for game play especially alsius (RA), not so much for syrtis and ignis. I also clearly pointed out that it was unlikely to disturb horus in a similar way.
If I understand correctly:
- original 3 saves sytem was fairly well.
- the previous 3 saves system was rubbish for game play.
This leaves the latest system, with 3 saves that get deactivated. This by far the most fair system we ever had, down side is that zerg dont get their casual war or farm wars working, since they most likely will get the "bore tactic" if they dont split the zerg (god forbid).
- the previous 3 saves system was the most fair system we ever had.

There is something wrong here that leaves me in a state of uncertainty.

Basically i feel people can search for casual wars and skirmishes without having a fort to farm from. Anything else is pure laziness and chronic zerg behavior that got imprinted in your head after all the years having such a play style. I regret to see very few share this opinion.
Don't be so sure, we practiced for 4 months these casual wars and skirmishes on low populated servers (I mean all servers, maybe except Ra during prime time), and that doesn't suit to anyone: boring as hell, no one online, nothing to do, too hard to get back one of your fort (because of lemmings behaviour*).
And I didn't even try to translate spanish comments in the poll I linked in one of my previous post. But I think they point out exactly the same flaws as on all other servers.

*the longer is the distance between the fight and the res location, the less chance to get a proper regroup, leading to this extreme : everyone dies one by one as lemmings.
Don't ask me why, it's just an empirical observation that corresponds pretty well to the reality in game.

I think the current single save system is second best it allow some opportunity for offense by a lower populated realm in the current invasion system, the down side is that it an unfair system (alsius benefit from it).
Sorry, but it's wrong, this argument cuts both ways. The lowest populated realm may benefit occasionally, but the largest populated realm will have much more opportunities to benefit by this system, since it's much harder to take back a fort.

A three save system will never allow a low populated realm to have decent chance to pull anything off offensively.
Same as above, that cuts both ways. If it's easier to defend for a high populated realm, it's also easier to defend for a low populated realm.

All in all, I think it's better to let a low populated realm to have a good defense instead of a possible good offense. That keeps their spirits up.

[byakurai]

I prefer 3 saves, because there is action in all the map.

[Vroek]

Same as above, that cuts both ways. If it's easier to defend for a high populated realm, it's also easier to defend for a low populated realm.

All in all, I think it's better to let a low populated realm to have a good defense instead of a possible good offense. That keeps their spirits up.

It is still far easier to achieve defense rather than offence.

If you remove the chance to achieve a victory, the whole system will be perceived as flawed and pointless for a low populated realm.

With the current invasion system it still possible to achieve defense, by holding the castle, guarding the gate, keeping gems safe or keeping the noble alive. That will keep morale up as well. Getting invaded can be fun now, but in long run you want to be able to achieve things on you own.

I rather have the chance of one victory and ten defeats, than no chance and five defeats.


Don't be so sure, we practiced for 4 months these casual wars and skirmishes on low populated servers (I mean all servers, maybe except Ra during prime time), and that doesn't suit to anyone: boring as hell, no one online, nothing to do, too hard to get back one of your fort (because of lemmings behaviour*).


I always had fun when there was enough people around and there were many reasons for the dwindling numbers.
It was alot to take in for all players, new saves, new forts, balance issues (as always), the lvl 60 cap, the war master skills.
Horus certainly didnt try to create their own fun, we still went with every single man, upgraded fort to lvl 4 and stood there with our 3to1 zerg wondering why none came to fight us.

[HuntShot]

I voted the central save system,

as many said before me, it really helps regrouping.. especially if you're part of the most underpopulated realm in RO.

Besides that, with the oldest saves we almost had no chance to beat a big group of greens who wanted to capture alga back. They kept spawning and spawning... What a nightmare, big up to NGD!!

[bois]

I played with oldest 3 save system, 1 save system, new 3 save system. The last 3 save system was the worst.

The oldest 3 save system operated in an era of slower game, level 50 cap, older forts, and before Warmasters and all the changes that brought. It worked then and it can work now.

The one save system for what it is worth , works.

Because both systems have their different benefits and pitfalls they both are equal in my view.
However, this is a small to almost non issue at the moment and there are much bigger fish to fry. Why? because they both work. Period.
It can be debated for intellectual purposes and nitpicked at but really, it is time to move to other pressing matters.
Because there is not a third option, I will not vote as both are pretty equal in my eyes if you list the pros and cons of each system.

Time to press on. The majority asked for it, we got it and that is the end of the story for this round. Fin.

[_Nel_]

It is still far easier to achieve defense rather than offence.
No. If you have to run/ride half of the map to try to defend your forts/castle, that gives enough time to your enemy to get reinforcement.
Defense for the defending realm is harder if your saves are far from your forts/castle.

If you remove the chance to achieve a victory, the whole system will be perceived as flawed and pointless for a low populated realm.
No. Getting back one of your structure is the first victory in this game. Keeping as long as you can an enemy structure is a bonus.
A good defense is a victory.

With the current invasion system it still possible to achieve defense, by holding the castle, guarding the gate, keeping gems safe or keeping the noble alive. That will keep morale up as well. Getting invaded can be fun now, but in long run you want to be able to achieve things on you own.
Camping your structures is not a solution, it tends to make the game deadly boring. You are in your building waiting hours for a potential enemy who won't even come. Camping kills the gameplay. It's better to have a situational solution, as a save near each of your structure, to give you a key to quickly reply to your opponent. This solution leaves you free of your movement to do something else, as hunting, attacking, grinding... in one word: playing.

Getting invaded is felt by most people as the worst thing that may occur to a realm, especially with boats and noble. You didn't succeed to take back your forts in time, it's the first failure, spirits a bit lower. Now you have to defend gate + boats at the same time, 2 entry points that make everyone confused, which one is better ? spirits a bit lower. Whole enemy army took boats, now you have to defend gate + noble, which one is better ? a quick half of 10k WM coins or half of a dragon wish for your enemy ? still confusing, spirits lowering. And I can continue deeper, the scenario will become worst after each step.

Getting invaded is not fun for an underpopulated realm, especially if it ends up to a malus to your realm because you are invaded too often.

And the experience showed us (during purple fever and first state of WM teleports) if one realm invades other realms too often, that ends up easier to a malus to another realm, whose fault is it ? no one, it's only because the XP bonus is still running and people doesn't want to vote for the same wish once again.

I rather have the chance of one victory and ten defeats, than no chance and five defeats.
A system that gives you a good defense will provide you your wish of one victory and ten defeats.

I always had fun when there was enough people around and there were many reasons for the dwindling numbers.
It was alot to take in for all players, new saves, new forts, balance issues (as always), the lvl 60 cap, the war master skills.
Horus certainly didnt try to create their own fun, we still went with every single man, upgraded fort to lvl 4 and stood there with our 3to1 zerg wondering why none came to fight us.
Seriously you're speaking chinese to me, mixing up everything with anything. You're stating one thing, then something else, and now it's the fault of players if this game became less fun with deactivatable saves... I mean seriously, try to keep one way and be unchanging in your reasonings, your arguments will be felt thiner.

[Vroek]

Seriously you're speaking chinese to me, mixing up everything with anything. You're stating one thing, then something else, and now it's the fault of players if this game became less fun with deactivatable saves... I mean seriously, try to keep one way and be unchanging in your reasonings, your arguments will be felt thiner.

I dont think you come close to proving me wrong with a single statement/argument i previously made, but i guess that not up to me or you to decide.
This whole post of yours is weak and downright funny at times. You just cant answer “no” to some of the statement I made above, it just hilarious when you do though. Keep em coming!

[bois]

3 save old system resulted in many 1 structure farms which went on and on because one side (usually the invaders) outnumbered the home realm. Remember all the whining about this ? If the home realm was stronger and /or better organised, they evicted the invaders quickly and moved on to other targets or, in some cases want back to sleep at their save or main fort.
In many cases an outnumbered realm did what ? They eventually camped their castle. This usually happened after many lemming runs and several frustrating hours later in some cases. Quite often you would only get your fort back because players got tired and logged or left the fort on their own or got their RP quota filled. Remember this ? This is the legacy of the old 3 save system.
Now, this ends much faster because players are less inclined to Leeeroy Jenkins over and over because there is a cost to it. that cost is constant running back from distance. This results in better organisation and better fights sometimes. If they are really outnumbered , they just don't go, or camp Castle resulting in the fort campers getting bored much quicker and either trying for invasion, splitting forces between 2 or 3 structures or just abandoning the forts altogether and going after another realm. Its not perfect but it is better.

Invasions result from one of 2 conditions.
1. Poor communication and terrible organisation from the defending realm if they have sufficient defensive numbers.
2. They don't have sufficient numbers to repel the invasion.

No amount of saves will save you from those 2 conditions.

In terms of the new invasion system, it is up to senior members of the defence force to determine the realm policy. The policy usually is :
Defend gate/ gems first and the noble second. If you have lots, you can try to defend noble. Else concentrate defence at gate.
Because of the amount of warmasters around and the quality of wm gears it is logical to have gems and gate at much higher priority.
If a Realm is confused, it is because it lacks leadership and direction at that vital moment, plain talk, bad manners.

I agree that more binds would benefit grinders but I addressed that core problem in another thread. The core is around group grind policy and formulas. That must become more palatable. Too many times players are either forced or prefer to grind solo in a collaborative game. Strength comes in numbers. You think coward gank teams are going to press on groups regularly ? Unlikely. If you have numbers then you don't get ganked as much, hence easier grind and you don't need to run back every minute. Move to another grind spot if you favourite is infested.

[Kittypretty]

edit..nvm, wont bother.

Currently its hard to find a good grind party, cuz everyone waits for the xp bonus lol.

[bois]

Hence this is the area NGD should target for improvement. Better party box designs, larger parties (maybe up to 12), better tools for conjurers and everyone in general, and a better formula for dividing XP among party members in the area.

[Kittypretty]

There have been suggestions though, but I think they don't really take player input in consideration anymore.

I'd like conjurer xp fixed, its hard telling new players who as "why" when i tell them this is how we have to support..

I'm glad the mana is real time in party (or at least close, it was a major pain when it updated so slowly)

I'd like to click on a party member in tab, and have my focus switch on him, have buffs displayed on members so I don't waste spells, just many things, but I think they get overlooked for more rvr and eyecandy factors. but it is these things, issues that either retain players or lose them.

Mob placement and a way to find grind parties is my priority at the moment, they are horrible spawn rates and spots for the majority of space to work with.

[Phlue4]

I prefer the 3 save, sure it can be a bit annoying to die at Imperia forgetting that you're saved at Efe... But I think the 3 save system was better for war in general, it kept the flow of things faster.

Its a pain running back to Algaros from CS if you all get killed.

Nothing more to add..

[_Nel_]

I dont think you come close to proving me wrong with a single statement/argument i previously made, but i guess that not up to me or you to decide.
This whole post of yours is weak and downright funny at times. You just cant answer “no” to some of the statement I made above, it just hilarious when you do though. Keep em coming!
Each time you point out only one side of the problem and totally skip the other side. I don't know if it's on purpose you say: look in this case underpopulated realm can win once, leaving unsaid the overpopulated realm can also do the same but in a much better way, reducing to nothingness all previous efforts made by the underpopulated realm. You also said 3 deactivatable saves system had a downside: less farm. For an underpopulated realm, farming is a problem, less farm is not a downside. :facepalm3:

At least bois is much more demonstrative than you and pointed out a good argument against non-deactivatable saves.

3 save old system resulted in many 1 structure farms which went on and on because one side (usually the invaders) outnumbered the home realm. Remember all the whining about this ? If the home realm was stronger and /or better organised, they evicted the invaders quickly and moved on to other targets or, in some cases want back to sleep at their save or main fort.
In many cases an outnumbered realm did what ? They eventually camped their castle. This usually happened after many lemming runs and several frustrating hours later in some cases. Quite often you would only get your fort back because players got tired and logged or left the fort on their own or got their RP quota filled. Remember this ? This is the legacy of the old 3 save system.

I agree about the 1 structure farm, it's not the best aim to give to Regnum, but you know as much as me that on low populated servers if you remove fort battles, there is almost no action at all. However, there is something good with the oldest 3 saves: you can choose your farming location. A fort is too hard to get back ? Go to another one less heavily camped. You are not forced to adopt the rotting strategy and camp your castle, you can also get a fairer fight somewhere else.

Lots of people already suggested for years to create few outposts through the warzone (some ruins/trenches/wood walls, no door, 1-2 guards and one capturable flag) to make more varied the war activities. Those outposts would be only used to say: "hey we are here and want to fight".

But sadly, NGD wants us to only focus on invasion. The 3 deactivatable saves was exclusively designed to this, removing fort farm and making invasion easier.
They succeeded on the first point, no fort farm anymore, but invasion was not enough easy to give to a not-so-populated-realm the availability to make a successful invasion. And anyway, people in game doesn't care much about invasion (too much involvement and time), they just want to fight, nothing else.
All in all, the 3 deactivatable saves system leaded to: 1/ no fort farm and 2/ no invasion. Thus made people less inclined to play and then destroyed activity on all servers.

About camping castle and lemmings runs, the 3 deactivatable saves has only worsened those behaviours: camping castle occured faster and lemmings runs was even more useless. As the lemmings run cannot be avoided, it's preferable to make it a bit more useful.

Now, this ends much faster because players are less inclined to Leeeroy Jenkins over and over because there is a cost to it. that cost is constant running back from distance. This results in better organisation and better fights sometimes. If they are really outnumbered , they just don't go, or camp Castle resulting in the fort campers getting bored much quicker and either trying for invasion, splitting forces between 2 or 3 structures or just abandoning the forts altogether and going after another realm. Its not perfect but it is better.
I think it's only a matter of tastes. I saw too much people leaving the game because of this to believe it's better or more popular.

Invasions result from one of 2 conditions.
1. Poor communication and terrible organisation from the defending realm if they have sufficient defensive numbers.
2. They don't have sufficient numbers to repel the invasion.

No amount of saves will save you from those 2 conditions.

In terms of the new invasion system, it is up to senior members of the defence force to determine the realm policy. The policy usually is :
Defend gate/ gems first and the noble second. If you have lots, you can try to defend noble. Else concentrate defence at gate.
Because of the amount of warmasters around and the quality of wm gears it is logical to have gems and gate at much higher priority.
If a Realm is confused, it is because it lacks leadership and direction at that vital moment, plain talk, bad manners.
Agree with everything. I would only want to add that the amount of saves reduces the sufficient defensive numbers required to prevent a vunerable realm gate.

... Move to another grind spot if you favourite is infested.
Hehe, not as easy as it would seems to be, too few grind spots in warzone, especially for the last levels before 60.

[Vroek]

Each time you point out only one side of the problem and totally skip the other side. I don't know if it's on purpose you say: look in this case underpopulated realm can win once, leaving unsaid the overpopulated realm can also do the same but in a much better way, reducing to nothingness all previous efforts made by the underpopulated realm. You also said 3 deactivatable saves system had a downside: less farm. For an underpopulated realm, farming is a problem, less farm is not a downside. :facepalm3:


It matter of opinion what you think is important or not, im not writing a manifest, i simply trying to nail down my thoughts on the subject.
You on the other hand are far more interested in picking my post apart, than actually trying to see my point of view.
This is fairly obvious when i read your counter arguments, it never "yes, but there is another side to it". Its always "No, this how it is".
Why dont you make a post of your own and let me pick it a part? :D
I dont even know what you think, i only know you love to disagree with me.

In this case there is no other side, either you have no chance or you have a chance, i even put some number down so you could see what ratio i would find acceptable. Then of course its a matter of how severe the under population is, at some point there is no relief for the under populated.

I hate farming and what it do to the quality of war, its not my opinion that less farm wars is a downside of the system or for the underpopulated.
Its the opinion of most players (not the underpopulated), the main reason why people hated the deactivatable 3 save system (shouldnt have to explain this to you).
Did you even follow any of the 20 page long whine threads about this subject?

[_Nel_]

I dont take time state the obvious, in this case there is no other side, either you have no chance or you have a chance, i even put some number down so you could see what ratio i would find acceptable. Then of course its a matter of how severe the under population is, at some point there is no relief for the under populated.
Already answered post in previous posts. No need to rub in it once again.

I hate farming and what it do to the quality of war, its not my opinion that less farm wars is a downside of the system.
Its the opinion of most players (not the underpopulated), the main reason why people hated the deactivatable 3 save system (shouldnt have to explain this to you).
Did you even follow any of the 20 page long whine threads about this subject?
You should review your judgement about your mates and opponents, they are like you: they don't like farming and think farming is a downside.

I see you still don't have understood the downside of 3 deactivatable saves, it killed fort farms and good fort battles.
It's because of this last point that people doesn't like 3 deactivatable saves.

Edit: I did my reply before you edit your post

It matter of opinion what you think is important or not, im not writing a manifest, i simply trying to nail down my thoughts on the subject.
You on the other hand are far more interested in picking my post apart, than actually trying to see my point of view.
This is fairly obvious when i read your counter arguments, it never "yes, but there is another side to it". Its always "No, this how it is".
Why dont you make a post of your own and let me pick it a part? :D
I dont even know what you think, i only know you love to disagree with me.
You were the only one to play devil's advocate to defend the 3 deactivatable saves. It's entirely to your credit. Sadly, your arguments were far to be the best. I've nothing against you

[Torcida]

Since their is no clear winner in this poll I think NGD should keep the Central saves now untill lets say begin mid-November and then change them to 3 save system for 1 month also and then let the players decide which one was the best.

[HidraA]

Since their is no clear winner in this poll I think NGD should keep the Central saves now untill lets say begin mid-November and then change them to 3 save system for 1 month also and then let the players decide which one was the best.

poll is incomplete...:P

There is missing "I don't care option" and "new saves" also "i never vote on Torcida polls" :D

[bois]

Since their is no clear winner in this poll I think NGD should keep the Central saves now untill lets say begin mid-November and then change them to 3 save system for 1 month also and then let the players decide which one was the best.

Even if they did that, I think the poll would remain quite close to the result you have now with probably a 3% swing either way. Seems to be a stalemate.

In any case I don't think NGD will revert unless there is a riot against the current system on both RA and Raven. I am not sure Horus has enough population weight to be a swing factor here.

[Phlue4]

... I´d like to know your opinion about it.

If you ask me, there are no real battles at the Castles or at Meni/Trelle/Alga anymore, only mass gatherings which are quite boring ._.
To improve that, we need our 3-bind-system again and the HP of the fort / castle doors has to be increased greatly, that´s what I think.
This does not stand in contrast to the ports.

[Quincebo]

Normal fort fights at secondary forts(Alga, trelle & meni) are good for lower ammount of people.
But when defending against an invasion, it is very hard.
But wm teleports solves that imo.
And gate teleports and wm teleports to castle is enough as well imo

[bois]

Normal fort fights at secondary forts(Alga, trelle & meni) are good for lower ammount of people.
But when defending against an invasion, it is very hard.
But wm teleports solves that imo.
And gate teleports and wm teleports to castle is enough as well imo

Agreed.

The biggest challenge at the moment is realm organisation both on a defensive and offensive level. The tools are there but it requires coordination to get it right. Considering the variety and strength of personalities that exist in the game, this synergy truly is a challenge at the best of times.

Defending against a well organised invasion is hard. Defending when you are outnumbered is also quite challenging.
On a side note, I do believe that the mechanics surrounding levelling of forts (to 4 especially) should be weighted according to relative population sampling. Invasion vulnerable realms are usually severely undermanned. Why give the invaders a positive feedback loop of offering them the option of levelling captured forts to 4 when they usually outnumber the defenders 2:1 or greater ? Let the live players do the work instead of the system. Just a thought.

[GrindmasterNoob]

Simplest solution to realm organisation: bring back realm chat to WZ.

[errei]

Simplest solution to realm organisation: bring back realm chat to WZ.

complete agreed

[DemonMonger]

Central save works very well.

I would hate realm chat in WZ since now multi realmers constantly tell others of our banners / plans. All we need is for them to know what fort we are going to and where we are going to train for lvl ups / hunt for items.:bangin:

[Rising_Cold]

ive tried to follow this but its so huge.. from old saves to cs.. from teles to a wz chat?

but id hate it if i didnt leave my not so important (except for me) opinion ^^

Cs is great, guards that are a pain when they actually can shoot (whoever was the smart ass that put cs in the middle of a forest...!)
Cs is also nice to gather ppl, do some trading.. talking.. but it fails for wars
really, no binding coz agg/samal/herb is taken
hours.. feels like that anyway.. walks to trelle/imp

and whats with wm teles? the mornings im online.. alsius might have 1 wm online too
the evenings are better and in between.. (is there any1 online at that time.. goats/reds/gelfs?)
so im not sure if wm teles would be the solution to realm organisation or fast travel xD
well not for goats.. cant speak for gelfs/reds ofc.... :o


But back to saves, i like cs, guarded save, hard to camp.. keep it
but, but.. get a fort save (trelle/meni/alga) and castle save too, unguarded?
it would add the feature 'camp the save' horrible.. true, but also better ways to keep
lets say alga with a small group of goats. They can get back faster.

(speaking out loud here, it should give new 'tactical' movements during trying to invade)


my opinion on wz chat.. it would be spammed, no use at all
/me selling....
/me buying...
and the kids will love it.. no need for a party lets spamm that chat
also.. will gms watch that chat too? if not.. free cussing :p

[bois]

Realm chat in WZ : no. Been discussed why and to death. In short it will increase drama and bring no substantial organisational benefits.

Communication channels available : Clan chat, private chat, Party chat. Some use mumble. I do agree that parties could be bigger. Maybe a maximum of 12 but the effects of a party stop at 8. 9-12 is communication benefit only.

Transport : horses, WM ports, local teleports. Local teleports are for defensive measures but if applied in a smart way, it can reduce transit time. I do agree that teleport doors can be placed strategically for 1 realm to get to the most distant fort on the map. For example, it is a rather long commute from Ignis territory to Algaros. A teleport door could be strategically placed to aid.

3 Saves: these are mainly for defensive purposes. After much observation, I think that having 3 saves does not encourage organisation or even better gameplay. It encourages farming and lack of tactical thought.

At the end of the day, to be successful you need organisation, players willing to listen, a touch of patience and a willingness to try different tactics. Players have become so used to one dimensional play that to even suggest something different is almost akin to heresy. The one save system gives players much more flexibility, if they have the tactical aptitude to use it and colleagues willing to take a leap of faith with them.

[Link-zeo]

For my they have to turn the 3 saves urgently, and the portal wm to fortifications 45min recharges, for a few wars to the big thing.
(The translator lasts):drinks:

[Phlue4]

http://ih3.redbubble.net/image.11395466.8663/fc,220x200,white.jpg


sorry xD

[esp_tupac]

I would prefer the old 3 save system simply cuz I don't like traveling from samal save (current central) to, say, efe or imper. 3 save system gets your troops in place faster as opposed to a central save system. However, there is one concern tho - in a less populated server like Haven, 3 save system further disperse the population and without a global chat in the warzone it can get worse.

[Orimae]

I played with oldest 3 save system, 1 save system, new 3 save system. The last 3 save system was the worst.

The oldest 3 save system operated in an era of slower game, level 50 cap, older forts, and before Warmasters and all the changes that brought. It worked then and it can work now.

The one save system for what it is worth , works.

Because both systems have their different benefits and pitfalls they both are equal in my view.
However, this is a small to almost non issue at the moment and there are much bigger fish to fry. Why? because they both work. Period.
It can be debated for intellectual purposes and nitpicked at but really, it is time to move to other pressing matters.
Because there is not a third option, I will not vote as both are pretty equal in my eyes if you list the pros and cons of each system.

Time to press on. The majority asked for it, we got it and that is the end of the story for this round. Fin.

Arty...the voice of reason..always spot on... :)

But i did vote..for the 3 old uncapturable saves.... why?... because (from a buisness point of view) it may generate more money for NGD....war banners..small amount of xim..but if they have to be used more to regroup people..what they are intended for... then maybe, just maybe, NGD can benefit from it. .Whats the point of using a banner if everyone is just going to go to the one spot all the time...throw up them banners! tell the wargroup where the main force is! dont forget to save here!!

Also, from an invasion aspect...the bloody boats..the sec a realm goes in danger the enemy group at the boats...the defenders are scrambling to get to thier gate... wont it be much better for Syrtis to defend the boats from efe save? (the wall is prolly the same distance pretty much, but if your killed by a pet/aggro mob/guard....you cant always pick wall... ) ..for Alsuis to defend from Trelle save? Ignis from Meni? it might add a new dimension to these troublesome boats... might...

[ieti]

The old 3 save config will benefit mainly Ignis. Which i like in fact. Meni will get alot harder to farm as it is now. Shaa and Imperia too. This will shift main fort action to main forts as it will be the same as you will go to main fort or to secondary or castle.

Attackers will save anyway before they come to fort.

Bye, bye sweet goat farming spot! :D

P.S. Hope they remove the leftovers from the save lock system. Boats need to go too. They make things too easy.

[bois]

I would prefer the old 3 save system simply cuz I don't like traveling from samal save (current central) to, say, efe or imper. 3 save system gets your troops in place faster as opposed to a central save system. However, there is one concern tho - in a less populated server like Haven, 3 save system further disperse the population and without a global chat in the warzone it can get worse.

It is a possibility that this could happen, for sure it has happened from time to time in the past. However, what I wrote before :
At the end of the day, to be successful you need organisation, players willing to listen, a touch of patience and a willingness to try different tactics. This will apply to any kind of save configuration or any warzone asset for that matter.

But i did vote..for the 3 old uncapturable saves.... why?... Well here's the funny thing. Horses were a nice revenue generator. At least I think so. Changing the saves to 1 helped to sell transport. But at the end of the day, that revenue source is going to decline . Based on the sharp discounts in mounts, I suspect that it has. So, now that they have bled that dry, it's a good time to revert. If NGD wanted to sell war banners, why not sell 5 packs and 10 packs of war banners, just sayin'.

Still, I am going to wait cautiously. For we may have 3 saves but we really don't know the exact configuration they are going to go with. If I were able to have a choice , I would go for the original 3 save system with minor adjustments in locations. Consider that there is no guarantee that the saves will end up in the same locations that we knew. Who could forget the challenges with the old Trelleborg save.
With modifications to invasions, this could also play a part. The company has perked my interest. (And fingers and toes crossed that they take their time and not muck this one up. A loyal fan base can withstand only so many gaffes.)