Porting Chain – Ingame Player Vote

When we put in NF, we were discussing how the porting chain should be broken and we decided to put it in like it is now. One missing tower may break the complete chain. This has different pros & cons.

Pro:
- every single tower is important
- even one single group can have some impact on rvr
- breaking the chain can split the action aka less zergy

Con:
- at low population times action is splitted even more aka less action for all
- taking a single tower stops the action in its tracks, forcing the invading realm to go back and retake a tower over and over again
- groups / solos that have no interest in the siege game play are kind of forced into it frequently

Or in summary: the current system has a strategic element to it at the cost of inconveniencing many. After some month having NF on Phoenix we were discussing this topic again and we would like to know what do you think about it. Thats why we are starting an ingame vote today (after the next reboot). You will have the following options:

1) Leave it as is: taking a tower breaks the supply chain
2) Taking a tower only breaks the teleport to the keep, taking a keep breaks the supply chain

If you want to vote, just type /vote ingame and you will get additional infos on how to vote. Please remember that you only have one vote per account. All accounts that have atleast one lvl 50 rr 3 toon on it are allowed to vote. The vote will end at the end of the week.

Mon 2 Sep 2019 11:19 AM by Strikejk

If number 2) wins, I advocate to reset the relics when the change goes live. This is because this change will have a big impact on how hard it will be to take (and retake) relics in the future and I believe we should all start on an equal footing for that.

Mon 2 Sep 2019 11:36 AM by Ceen

Strikejk wrote: ↑
Mon 2 Sep 2019 11:19 AM
If number 2) wins, I advocate to reset the relics when the change goes live. This is because this change will have a big impact on how hard it will be to take (and retake) relics in the future and I believe we should all start on an equal footing for that.

Who cares about relics?

Mon 2 Sep 2019 12:37 PM by Sepplord

Ceen wrote: ↑
Mon 2 Sep 2019 11:36 AM
Strikejk wrote: ↑
Mon 2 Sep 2019 11:19 AM
If number 2) wins, I advocate to reset the relics when the change goes live. This is because this change will have a big impact on how hard it will be to take (and retake) relics in the future and I believe we should all start on an equal footing for that.
Who cares about relics?

Strikejk, for example

Mon 2 Sep 2019 2:38 PM by Armmondo

Keep it as is

Mon 2 Sep 2019 3:03 PM by Mithr

Keep it as is and add more charge on the Siege Pots 5 or 10

Mon 2 Sep 2019 3:20 PM by Danya1997

Keep as is

Mon 2 Sep 2019 3:29 PM by shintacki

I don't know how any reasonable person could think the way it is now is good. Losing every meaningful port because one tower gets taken is ridiculous, especially because we're nearing a population during certain timezones where there aren't even enough guilds around to claim all the towers. /vote 2

Mon 2 Sep 2019 4:23 PM by chryso

Wow, that bot went to a LOT of trouble to post that on here.

Mon 2 Sep 2019 8:09 PM by Layuth

Please change it. Tired of seeing all ports cut because ONE tower has been taken. Then the docks are guarded by unskilled noobs in mass.

Mon 2 Sep 2019 9:10 PM by Cadebrennus

Strikejk wrote: ↑
Mon 2 Sep 2019 11:19 AM
If number 2) wins, I advocate to reset the relics when the change goes live. This is because this change will have a big impact on how hard it will be to take (and retake) relics in the future and I believe we should all start on an equal footing for that.

Elaborate please

Mon 2 Sep 2019 9:11 PM by Cadebrennus

Layuth wrote: ↑
Mon 2 Sep 2019 8:09 PM
Please change it. Tired of seeing all ports cut because ONE tower has been taken. Then the docks are guarded by unskilled noobs in mass.

Good point about the jerkoffs at the docks.

Mon 2 Sep 2019 9:12 PM by Tsol

It's totally unfair for the low population to defend itself any other way. It's an awesome tactic, to slow the raiders. Bg's can send a fgrp and take it back in minutes. Giving a chance for the defenders to defend. If it causes grief to the raiders not having port/ or insta port to join the raid- thats just making it easy mode for the players. It takes blood and tears to raid, especailly in a bg. Nothing is easy when you raid/ why should you make it easier? Option 2 is only for the easymodders, a proper Bg anyway don't die that easily if they know what they are doing, and Vote1 is just a speed bumb for the zerg/Bg
I vote 1 : Keep it as it is
*I would just like to add, u can add temporary buffs or mini relics on towers when they are taken- for example for 20min a realm has an extra 3-5% buff for 15min if this tower is taken- or when 1000 albs die from Mids, mids get an xtra 5% Af buff or something for an hour . small bonuses that can/may make a difference for the people that are very keen in seeking new strategies and grouplay for the realm!

Tue 3 Sep 2019 12:11 AM by Isavyr

I think it's inconsequential. You have two choices--allow small-men to have some level of control/demand action (#1, status quo), or have more consistent RvR without ports being easily disrupted (#2). Both are desirable.

In my opinion, there are bigger issues hurting RvR. People have trouble finding each other, and action is largely zerging, and these are interconnected. Since the objectives have a chain-teleport quality, the top of the chain is often where action is focused. This is positive, as it allows people to easily find fights. However, this also has the nature of creating zergs. This is especially reinforced by the fact that most objectives take too long for less than a FG, and that zerg-busting abilities are weak.

I hope more small-man objectives will be introduced--ones that are actually relevant to the war. Furthermore, I dream that the map has its effective size reduced by creating mob clusters that impede visible group movements, and thus create natural corridors along roads. These two ideas will help make action predictable, yet open to small groups.

If the server does #2, I only hope that towers are made weaker to facilitate small-group captures, and bringing it down to the level of its effectiveness (now only removes teleport from one keep, instead of a chain).

Tue 3 Sep 2019 1:12 AM by Hodge

Vote 2 or 3. make the chain break if all towers and keep of one keep group (eg all towers and keep for boldiam) are taken by another realm (they do not have to be taken by same realm). Is 3 possible?

Tue 3 Sep 2019 8:34 AM by Nunki

Tsol wrote: ↑
Mon 2 Sep 2019 9:12 PM
...
*I would just like to add, u can add temporary buffs or mini relics on towers when they are taken- for example for 20min a realm has an extra 3-5% buff for 15min if this tower is taken- or when 1000 albs die from Mids, mids get an xtra 5% Af buff or something for an hour . small bonuses that can/may make a difference for the people that are very keen in seeking new strategies and grouplay for the realm!

While I really like the idea of certain buffs achieved by certain actions, I would recommend to only focus those actions and bonus on Tower/Keep-Raiding.

Our 8x8 community would be quite demotivated if one side would have essential buffs like +5% AF.

Buffs like Increased/decreased:
- ram/siege weapon dmg/speed
- oil dmg/hp
- gate hp
- guard hp/dmg
would only effect raiding and still give an incentive to raid (for example towers in enemy fz) in order to slow down the enemies progress.

Example: In case that towers don't break port anymore.
Albs fz is completely red. Alb zerg starts raiding in Midgard.
Midgard starts raiding towers in Alb fz, resulting in debuffs as listed above, which slows down the raiding process of Alb.

Major problem in the following case:
Hib fz is mostly red and Albs keep raiding.
Hib decides to move to Alb fz in order to bring action to Alb and slow down the Alb raiding process.
Hib would have to raid towers in Alb while having a huge debuff, due to the fact that Hibs don't own their own towers, while beeing the underdog.
Possible solution: Only apply debuffs if the realm owns more than 18 towers (realm is in advantegeous situation).

Wed 4 Sep 2019 8:52 AM by falcon

Hard choice, 75% of my RP done in bold spire nged tower... but of course for interest of game (and zerg !) I vote 2, I play RVR not GvG (4 peoples should not have possibility to block all pleasure of full realm...)

If u can TP 30s near a big keep attack = more action (and need bigger zerg ^^) = more big battles <3

(I understand few people prefer small ridiculous battle in arena, games like guild wars perfect for them :p )

Wed 4 Sep 2019 12:42 PM by boundy

1 all the way.. its what makes the frontier challenging!!

Thu 5 Sep 2019 5:30 PM by Delegator

So I see that option 2 was implemented, but I don't see the vote results anywhere. Is the tally posted somewhere? I checked announcements, completed votes, this note, etc.

Thu 5 Sep 2019 5:33 PM by Sepplord

Delegator wrote: ↑
Thu 5 Sep 2019 5:30 PM
So I see that option 2 was implemented, but I don't see the vote results anywhere. Is the tally posted somewhere? I checked announcements, completed votes, this note, etc.

Are you sure? The vote was supposed to go until the end of week

Thu 5 Sep 2019 6:33 PM by Delegator

Sepplord wrote: ↑
Thu 5 Sep 2019 5:33 PM
Delegator wrote: ↑
Thu 5 Sep 2019 5:30 PM
So I see that option 2 was implemented, but I don't see the vote results anywhere. Is the tally posted somewhere? I checked announcements, completed votes, this note, etc.

Are you sure? The vote was supposed to go until the end of week

Just going based on the servernews today...

Thu 5 Sep 2019 6:59 PM by

gruenesschaf

While it was announced as going until the end of the week, the vote is pretty clear, the results are:

716: Taking a tower only breaks the teleport to the keep, taking a keep breaks the supply chain
253: Leave it as is: taking a tower breaks the supply chain

Mon 9 Sep 2019 5:20 AM by coufourier

je vote pour .........(1)

tel quel , pas de nouvelles modifications..... comme à l’origine de NF ......

Mais remettre en place la monture du cheval personnel.... ?

Mon 9 Sep 2019 6:32 PM by Andwell

I'm disappointed with the outcome, but I suppose a change in favor of zerg convenience winning the support of the masses is no real surprise. Ah well