Old saves or the Oldest saves?

[_Nel_]

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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]

Originally Posted by _Nel_

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]

Originally Posted by Umaril

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_]

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by bois

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.

Originally Posted by bois

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.

Originally Posted by bois

... 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]

Originally Posted by _Nel_

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.

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?
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_]

Originally Posted by Vroek

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.

Originally Posted by Vroek

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

Originally Posted by Vroek

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?
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