Need a balancement in RVR

[dossey]

Reading this single topic, I'm not sure what can be done.
Maybe because its pvp centric and game play experience has changed in 20 years to more variety based, not stuck in one realm/spec., fast Levelling, quick play. I'm not sure.
Alot of this has to do with differing opinions on what the game should be.

Time based, the more grind the better you are. Equality for everyone like many newer games.
Skill based in game.
Skill based out of game. AutoHotkeys, scripting
Realm balance class for class.
8 man vs,
solo,
zerg, duo.

2 users vs 4.
2 beats 4 = bad. Unfair for 6 reasons.
4 beats 2 = bad. Unfair for 4 reasons.

Such a myriad of ideas on what is fair.

[Megrim]

At some point it is time to confess ,that daoc is the way it is and can ´t be imrpoved on the main game structure. You ´re right about the point, that the game is very old and misses some of the modern game mechanics escpecially graphics, quest system etc. but the main part RvR, with it ´s massive PvP Experience is still one or maybe the best of all online games with RPG Background.

That being said, the game itself will never have a 100% game balance that is felt this way by the players, there might be a choice to give a game each side the same RA´s, skills, classes etc. but how boring would it be? A counterstrike in RPG look? Please no.... As you said, ask 10 players how the perfect Daoc might look like and you get 10 different responses, so the best is to provide a server where everybody is mainly ok with and not only a niche of players.

Imho Eden or even other Shards can ´t do much for the game improvement, they are good, when the shard is well setup and fun to play with less bugs and deliver a good, balanced setup to play, and imho Eden is a good and fun server to play at.

Too many changes may lead to even more playerloss, when the players feel the game experience became worse for them, Uthgard 2 is a good example for that.

Imho game changes should be minor and atm for Eden, bugfixing and adding of some extra content might have priority over changes that might have impact on RvR or classes.

[RussellAdams]

Im opening this post for a serious discussion on balancing the number of players in RVR and on this topic I would like any answers to stay on topic.
This would be the first server that puts into practice a balancing of the players present in RVR (in my memory in normal servers, I don't know if it was put into practice in the shards because I haven't played much in the shards).

Why this balancing?
Because it is not possible to see a BG of 180 people and 2 other BGs of 40-100, so a balanced confrontation is impossible.
This leads other players to log into the realm that currently has a larger BG, and this makes the situation even worse.
The BGs in RVR are very important, because they help form groups without spending hours finding the right classes to make a party of 8 or 4 (and maybe at the first rel you have to find replacements for those who leave the group).
Certainly an 8 vs 8 battle is much more technical and requires perfect knowledge of the classes to attack first, however many players do not have much time available and it is very convenient to enter the game, join the BG and participate in the fight.
How can I balance the number of players in RVR?
The simplest solution (even at server level) is to limit the number of players in a realm to a percentage by taking into account the realm that currently has fewer players than the other 2 realms and adding a percentage between 10 and 30 percent maximum of the realm that has the fewest players.
For example if on ALB there are 100 players in RVR, the other 2 realms cannot join RVR if they have 120-130 players already in RVR (percentage to be established and test).

What can players who can't get into RVR do?
1) queue up to enter RVR
2) play in PVE zones
3) go to one of the 2 least populated realms in RVR with no realm change cooldown.
What happens if a player gets disconnected from the server or crashes while playing?
You should guarantee the server 5-8 minutes of time to keep his place in RVR, so that he can be reinvited from the same group or in other groups.

In my opinion this is the only solution to keep the server alive, otherwise we will see only one realm running in RVR taking defenseless castles ... and the players no longer logging into Daoc.
It's an important decision by the Eden staff, but in my opinion it's the only one that can save the server and make the game more attractive from the RVR side.

Hello everyone and have fun

P.S. translated with Google

A lot of the issue is this game was meant to incentivize realm loyalty. Eden allows for you to realm-swap. That deletes the sense of 'well, I've worked hard being a part of this realm, let's see what we can do to fight back..." into "I'll just log and play the winning team today."

Not only is this obviously bad for the game and was never intended, but it wrecks the community when Bob the Ranger is also Timmy the Scout. Why fight for a people you don't feel any loyalty to?

Age old issue with this.

[Sokrachtes]

Its simpel, just count the player in NF in each realm and give an extra rp bonus to the underdog´s procentualy to their numbers.
If a realm has 50% less rvr player (maybe even only count the lvl 50 so the player that are questing there do not get included) it gets a 1.5 rp multiplicator to quests and kills so it even makes it attractive to bg a char on a new realm.

No use in changing the realm hopping and disable that, I play only in Albion but who can stop me in creating two more accounts?...
The only problem I see is you can join the winning side who is just raiding one keep after another, and switch back to reraid.

Its just too easy to do, so there should be a high defense bonus, the less towers/health/guards one keep has the more rp you get there.

[Gabryx]

I think the simplest thing to do on the server side is to limit to a percentage (10-15%) calculated against the underpopulated realm, when the realm exceeds for example 50 players in the frontier, so that in the quiet hours there is no limitation .