Now im with you in that RvR objective having more meaning would create a nice game of cat & mouse small scale RvR, but since we don’t have that atm isnt it better to at least have a system which when all the zones are locked down rvr wise will open up new zone where RvR can take place. When defending a keep or a fortress the outnumbered side has the advantage of huge walls & gates which can be manned with numerous war machines, they may not be able to compete in the open field with a larger force but they can stop even the largest zerg dead in its tracks with a organised defense.

Fair enough, I keep hearing this is a way to get VP but I have never seen it happen for Order on my server. Is there a place I can go to read more about this, such as what the trickle speed is? I know we’ve held a whole zone before (not controlled, but owning everything in it) while we took another zone and when we went back to the first zone the bar hadn’t moved.

My guild has attempted to take over (control) zones before and it always seems like we only get half way there (as in slightly over the Destro tick on the way to the Order tick) and we run out of things to advance the bar. Maybe this will change because of the lower amount of VP that you need to capture a zone.

Ideal plan to take a zone, given what I understand of the system:

1. take keeps as early as possible in prime-time
2. defend keeps and, where possible, BOs, during prime-time (needs a lot less numbers than attacking)
3. play and win the high-value scenarios by stacking them with organised groups
4. repeat a few days running, being delayed only slightly by 2AM ninja attacks.

To defend a zone:

1. take keeps back
2. if you can’t, take BOs back.
3. if you can’t, organise a scenario-winning group
4. if you can’t, prepare to defend your fortress

Given tuning, I can’t see any reason why that wouldn’t work: no part of it is obviously un-fun for either side., no-one has to keep fighting at unfavourable odds without hope of reward.

Well, off the top of my head, I would say slowly trickle victory points for holding all objectives and keeps in a zone.

Given that the majority of players are in the more populated side of a server, I quite understand why this seems such an attractive change to so many. But if you make the underpopulated side feel powerless to even attempt to stop you, as you would if the simple fact of not reaching some artificial level of scenario signup meant losing victory points, then you kill your enemies will to fight. Great in real life. Not so much fun in a game.

Let the war be settled in battle, not by headcount.

If players in those queues join a launched scenario or leave the queue, the victory points towards zone control will be forfeit.

I think this is the real change. I was hearing about VP earnings and scenarios yesterday (before the patch, or the patch notes) and people were saying that you got VP for queuing and not getting an answering queue from the other side.

That quote says that VP earnings for simply queuing for a scenario are not permanent.

Victory points towards zone control will be granted if a realm has enough players in the queue to launch the scenario and the other realm doesn’t.

If Order queues up and Destro doesn’t, Order gets VP points toward the zone.

A few things can happen then:
1. Destro queues enough and a scenario pops. Everyone (Destro and Order) joins the scenario and have at it.
2. Destro queues enough and a scenario pops. Not everyone joins, i.e. they leave the queue.
3. Destro doesn’t show up, order gets tired and leaves. Effectively leaving the queue.

If players in those queues join a launched scenario or leave the queue, the victory points towards zone control will be forfeit.

1. Players join a launched Scenario. VP earned from queuing are forfeit.
2. Players leave the queue. VP earned from queuing are forfeit.
3. Players leave the queue. VP earned from queuing are forfeit.

The benefit of this that I see is that a side takes all of the Objectives and all of the Keeps in a zone with no contest from the other side, but it doesn’t give them enough to capture the zone. Obviously, if there’s no contest then there probably aren’t players of the opposing side present. How are you to get more VP if you’ve taken all the objectives and keeps, scenarios won’t pop (no opposing players) and no opposing players to kill in the lake?

I see this as a way to finish off a capture of a zone when no resistance is met.

It doesn’t need to be any kind of conspiracy. Pretty sure the way it works is:

1. Of the various scenarios, one will tend to give most exp/renown, sometimes by a big factor (Tor Anroc gives 10 points per kill, BlackFire Pass 1, and exp is directly proportional to points for the losing side).

2. Due to the maths of the way queues work, 20% of people picking their preferred scenario will make that pop first 90% of the time (try working this out by moving round poker chips if you don’t see why).

3. Once you have won the open field battle, captured all keeps and BOs, the best way to advance zone control further is to win scenarios, especially the 18-player one tied to that campaign (Thunder Valley, Reikland Hills, and Gromril Crossing).

4. Those scenarios will never pop unless there are 18 players on the defending side queued for them.

5. There will never be 18 players on the defending side queued for them, unless they organise to do so, as the most popular scenario will have spawned long before and taken them out of the queue.

6. Organising a defence to do so is (was) stupid, as it risks defeat and gains nothing.

With the change, organising a scenario defence sounds like it will make sense, so will sometimes happen, sometimes not, depending on servers and guilds and players: game on.

The risk is, as always, that there will be some other unintended consequence. Balancing this kind of feedback system is economics, not science.

Be that as it may, as it is clear that one side will get enough players for a scenario in the affected tiers before the other side does, even if it is only tier 4, I stand by my criticism.