Why multirealming is bad

[Hollow-Ichigo]

Originally Posted by VandaMan

Ignis is the nicest cuz I'm there, so fuck you

I Agree, van is the nicest piece of ugly ass shit ever to grace the sandy pile of period blood that is Ignis

[Manuka]

Originally Posted by Linuxmage

It is worth noting that plenty of players that went off to have a go at GW2 did come back to us.

Confirmed.

Originally Posted by Linuxmage

Additionally, a sequel to DAoC is finally in the works, to be called Camelot Unchained. However, it is likely to be 2014/2015 before we even see a Beta.

I think its pretty sure that this project is dead, cause they have only 27 hours left to fund raise about $120.000.
EDIT: I was mistaken, nice finish

Originally Posted by Linuxmage

I am personally of the opinion that unless NGD finds a considerable investor to throw at this game and does something to increase the quality of gameplay in CoR, it will shrink.

Imo NDG already showed with the last years features what is within their limited power for a stronger focus to mass market attraction, but more often this(streamlining by investor demand) could cripple the game finally.

BBT: To counter misusage just include a lets say 12 hour lock for realm switch to at least prevent the hopping of multi realm account players(merge). Note that this does not solve the problem of multi accout players!

[learntoplay]

Haven was good at the start - people actually did stuff. Then they went to just camping their own save.. Which was countered for a brief period by Team Death matches, which were awesome. Now, however, people don't even do those.. they just log in, sit at their own save then zerg anyone who comes to their save looking for a fight.

It's honestly a very boring server to play on. Put on a constant boost, won't get the extremes of 10 people grinding together (which is the case for 2hr boosts), but will always have 2-3 at least in grinding zones so I can go fight them and get them to bring people away from their cs to me and I can fight those too.

Hell, even revert the Warmaster quest so that the kills don't need to be at the fort - this may make people go around the warzone to fight rather than staying at 3 very distant parts of the map all day.

Multirealming? Meh. Multirealming has helped me see just how bad the server is. When people do eventually leave their cs it's darkness 5, confuse 5, mindsquash 5, kick 5 etc etc all day from zergs (who are probably on their way to their own fort which has been captured by very bored other realm after an hour of sitting doing absolutely nothing).

I'm bored. ^^ Bye \o/

[errei]

fuse haven with piranha please =D

[Checkit]

Originally Posted by errei

fuse haven with piranha please =D

No. Piranha is an awesome server wherr players love to fight fair. Haven is full of pussies who just run from fair figjts. I don't want piranha ruined. Send haven to ra where the population overshadows playstyles.

[LucianDeathshield]

Originally Posted by Checkit

Haven is full of pussies who just run from fair fights.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Extol]

I think the key is, they need to make a reward to the realm that defends the noble and gems successfully. This would make it so people wouldn't be tempted to log into the winning side, it would give a reason to fight for the underdog, like 50% xp/gold/drop boost for defending realm for a week if nobles alive and no gems left gate so if a realm is devastated all they have to do is protect noble, so the more underpop the realm is, the easier it gets to acheive said goal.... something along these lines, maybe not exactly like that but my main point reward the successful defense and it will balance people desire to switch realms day to day.

[VandaMan]

Originally Posted by Extol

I think the key is, they need to make a reward to the realm that defends the noble and gems successfully. This would make it so people wouldn't be tempted to log into the winning side, it would give a reason to fight for the underdog, like 50% xp/gold/drop boost for defending realm for a week if nobles alive and no gems left gate so if a realm is devastated all they have to do is protect noble, so the more underpop the realm is, the easier it gets to acheive said goal.... something along these lines, maybe not exactly like that but my main point reward the successful defense and it will balance people desire to switch realms day to day.

Rewarding successful defense sounds nice, but I think this would actually result in discouraging offense, rather than encouraging defense. If you know your enemies are rewarded for successfully defending from your invasions, very few will want to attempt them unless they have a huge advantage in numbers.

[Kitsuni]

Originally Posted by VandaMan

Rewarding successful defense sounds nice, but I think this would actually result in discouraging offense, rather than encouraging defense. If you know your enemies are rewarded for successfully defending from your invasions, very few will want to attempt them unless they have a huge advantage in numbers.

The key here is to add more variation so that a realm can't receive the same reward (i.e a defensive bonus) twice in a row. Instead they would have to work towards building a successful offensive after a successful defense, otherwise they would lose their advantage. Like a perpetual game of tug-of-war.

For example, what if successfully defending your gems meant that you could counter-invade without capturing all the relics? And if the other realm was also successful in defending their gems, they would gain the same right. Meanwhile the third realm is benefiting from noble kills. Something that was once rare and mundane becomes a common occurence and an all-out war, with very little "turtling", as players would constantly be pressed to push their advantage.

And to keep it from becoming boring, the worst-off realm could gain additional offensive advantages, eliminating the current "Alsius Vs Ignis" deadlock that Syrtis is suffering from due to their low population and/or low morale. Players usually don't play simply because they have no chance of winning...

But what if that wasn't the case, even when outnumbered?

[Extol]

Yeah, Kitsuni is on to something, look any correction you do has the potential to be an overcorrection. It's like driving, say you run off the road into the ditch on the right side, if you over correct you will end up in the left ditch, but sometimes thats what it takes to find the middle road..... you know what I'm saying? So yeah if they made the reward for defense too good, it would hurt the desire to go on the offense, at which point either decrease the defense reward or increase the offense reward just a little. It would take time to tweak it, but it could work if implemented correctly.