Changes to the Royal Continent for Better Faction Content

    • So the idea is that you would have 5 different guild/alliance owning one Royal Cities each, not one strong guild/alliance owning multiple cities, and by offering season points to the faction wars won to the city owning guild/alliance, it would give people more reason for doing faction, thus encourage more faction warfare.

      I like the idea for people who want to have some PvP fun with opponents who are also geared expecting a fight. Not like ganking (where most cases gankers would not be looking for a fair-fight to begin with) and not like big scaled ZvZ fights in Black Zones. In general, it opens up ideas that could encourage more faction warfare.
    • I don't see reason to restrict cities, noone is being stopped from forming 20 man squads and getting cities for themselves...

      This game supposed to be hardcore PvP game after all, i don't see reason to deny high end PvP content for the sake of turning game into casual farming simulator, and idea of restricting something doesn't go well with sandbox ideal of the game, players should be free to do whatever they want!

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Altiahad ().

    • GuessMyName wrote:

      Worst idea ever 20v20 is last content in this game for high skill players
      No one is saying take away the 20 v 20 content. They would still have to 20 v 20 for the city. And, once they have the city, they can now earn season points for it, and any outposts taken in that City's name. The City owners should have the option to offer silver as a reward for other players who faction flag for that city. and take the outposts. The reward silver would be in addition to the silver offered up by the game.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Ragu ().

    • Altiahad wrote:

      I don't see reason to restrict cities, noone is being stopped from forming 20 man squads and getting cities for themselves...

      This game supposed to be hardcore PvP game after all, i don't see reason to deny high end PvP content for the sake of turning game into casual farming simulator, and idea of restricting something doesn't go well with sandbox ideal of the game, players should be free to do whatever they want!

      Then there is no purpose to having any factions at all. If one guild/alliance can own all the cities, then they aren't loyal to any city. Kind of defeats the purpose of factions to begin with. And they can still fight for Caerleon if they want a second city.
    • Sounds like a good idea for the outposts giving season points, what about also making carleon the place to tag for any faction instead of tagging in the cities. That way ppl dont have to run 4-5 maps everytime they die to come back, ppl could just tag for X faction and come back right away to fight around caerleon. This would MAKE CAERLEON GREAT AGAIN and bring fun gameplay to royals.

      The post was edited 3 times, last by Lewke ().

    • Ragu wrote:

      Altiahad wrote:

      I don't see reason to restrict cities, noone is being stopped from forming 20 man squads and getting cities for themselves...

      This game supposed to be hardcore PvP game after all, i don't see reason to deny high end PvP content for the sake of turning game into casual farming simulator, and idea of restricting something doesn't go well with sandbox ideal of the game, players should be free to do whatever they want!
      Then there is no purpose to having any factions at all. If one guild/alliance can own all the cities, then they aren't loyal to any city. Kind of defeats the purpose of factions to begin with. And they can still fight for Caerleon if they want a second city.
      The idea behind one guild owning all cities removing the incentive for faction warfare makes no sense. It seems like this is an RP based idea instead of a practical one. By those standards someone “Lymhurst Loyal” can’t attack Fort Sterling? It seems like the argument for faction loyalty is a mask for an underlying concern which is that a complete monopoly of cities isn’t what you want or expected.
    • MEATCUP wrote:

      Ragu wrote:

      Altiahad wrote:

      I don't see reason to restrict cities, noone is being stopped from forming 20 man squads and getting cities for themselves...

      This game supposed to be hardcore PvP game after all, i don't see reason to deny high end PvP content for the sake of turning game into casual farming simulator, and idea of restricting something doesn't go well with sandbox ideal of the game, players should be free to do whatever they want!
      Then there is no purpose to having any factions at all. If one guild/alliance can own all the cities, then they aren't loyal to any city. Kind of defeats the purpose of factions to begin with. And they can still fight for Caerleon if they want a second city.
      The idea behind one guild owning all cities removing the incentive for faction warfare makes no sense. It seems like this is an RP based idea instead of a practical one. By those standards someone “Lymhurst Loyal” can’t attack Fort Sterling? It seems like the argument for faction loyalty is a mask for an underlying concern which is that a complete monopoly of cities isn’t what you want or expected.

      Thanks for the reply Meatcup,

      With one guild being able to own all 5 Cities plus Caerleon, the focus for season points would move from the Black Zone to the Royals. And all the outposts would be meaningless, as they are now getting season points from every outpost in the Royals. Not sure SBI wants that either.

      Better to split the cities and have Caerleon as a bonus city if one of the other 5 can take it. Or, it can still be open to attack from any other guild/alliance. Now there's more urgency for factions to take outposts. That's also the idea behind the City owners being able to offer a reward for taking outposts for their faction.

      Not sure about this statement: "By those standards someone “Lymhurst Loyal” can’t attack Fort Sterling?"

      What leads you to believe that? Players still have to be faction flagged in order to attack another faction.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by Ragu ().

    • Ragu wrote:

      Not sure about this statement: "By those standards someone “Lymhurst Loyal” can’t attack Fort Sterling?"

      What leads you to believe that? Players still have to be faction flagged in order to attack another faction.
      We're talking about two different situations here.

      You stated that a single entity owning multiple cities (paraphrased) "Isn't loyal to a city".

      Yet, with this idea;

      I'm allowed to own one city, and I need at least 4x unique 20 man teams to contest before my city is at risk. Then, I can offer silver to faction outposts to increase my season points. If I own Lymhurst, but the team that owns Martlock is dogshit I can't take it because I only own one city. Essentially city ownership moves from winner take all, to weakest link.

      I guess I'm saying I empathize with the monopoly concern but I don't think your idea has enough embracement of competition.
    • sono contrario all'idea che qualcuno possa possedere una città reale, ma visto che funziona così come non aggiungo altro.

      Personalmente credo che combattere per una fazione debba essere una sorta di alternativa al combattere per una gilda e che gli sviluppatori sviluppano in questa direzione anche per dare un'alternativa ai giocatori solisti, che cercano di trovare nella fazione .

      Sarebbe bello e divertente vedere, e far parte, di piccoli gruppi di 5/10/20 individui che si combattono per il controllo di avamposti o altri elementi che si inseriscono in futuro. Con dovute ricompense sia durante il gioco, magari una maggiore raccolta di punti fazione se la zona in cui farmi e 'sotto il controllo della tua fazione, che a fine stagione. Si possono aggiungere degli aspetti particolari riscattabili con I punti di fazione come accade con I sigilli dell'arena.

      Si potrebbe creare una classifica dei punti di raccolta per ogni città dando poi una ricompensa alla città di vincitrice e di conseguenza ai giocatori di quella fazione.

      Unica postilla si deve limitare la possibilita 'di passare da una fazione all'altra.
    • MEATCUP wrote:

      Ragu wrote:

      Not sure about this statement: "By those standards someone “Lymhurst Loyal” can’t attack Fort Sterling?"

      What leads you to believe that? Players still have to be faction flagged in order to attack another faction.
      We're talking about two different situations here.
      You stated that a single entity owning multiple cities (paraphrased) "Isn't loyal to a city".

      Yet, with this idea;

      I'm allowed to own one city, and I need at least 4x unique 20 man teams to contest before my city is at risk. Then, I can offer silver to faction outposts to increase my season points. If I own Lymhurst, but the team that owns Martlock is dogshit I can't take it because I only own one city. Essentially city ownership moves from winner take all, to weakest link.

      I guess I'm saying I empathize with the monopoly concern but I don't think your idea has enough embracement of competition.
      Well, the whole idea centers around making the outposts mean something again. Especially since there seems to be a lot of faction warfare happening now. With the city owners having the ability to set their own silver reward, it would give the players even more of an incentive to faction flag up and go after them.

      Season points would give the larger guilds incentive to fight for the cities (Not that smaller guilds can't, just seems the larger, more experienced guilds, usually take them.) They could also fight for control of Caerleon, since it is not a faction city. So, the best team could still own 2 cities.

      If your feeling that the larger guilds wouldn't get enough competition from this change, they still have the BZ to fight in. Smaller guilds and solo players would get more action in the Royals if this were implemented. But, don't take my word for it. A lot of folks who commented felt the same way.

      Thanks for your input man, always appreciated.
    • MEATCUP wrote:

      @Ragu Faction is picking up because of the loot durability changes. If actual outpost content is increasing as well I would support some sort of mechanic changes, but I would be hesitant to make them season point based.
      Season points would motivate more guilds to want the cities and the capturing of the outposts. This drives a lot of the mega guilds and would have an immediate impact on Royal faction warfare.

      The more city owners want to take the outposts, the more silver they could offer as a reward. More silver = more players having an interest in taking the outposts.

      While I agree with you there may be other ways to drive up faction warfare, the offering of increased season points seems the most effective way.