Old saves or the Oldest saves?

[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]

Originally Posted by _Nel_

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]

Originally Posted by _Nel_

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...ts&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]

Originally Posted by _Nel_

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_]

Originally Posted by PT_DaAr_PT

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.

Originally Posted by Awrath

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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]

Originally Posted by _Nel_

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.

Originally Posted by _Nel_

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.