tug of war mechanic

[Sovereign.1093]

imagine taking bloodlust, multiple items need cappong for it to take effect, now apply these to keeps. you need to be in multiple locations to take it. therefore splitting the enemies and allies in defense and attack.

wold solve over blobbing. now teams will be coordinating different locations.

[Dawdler.8521]

It really wouldnt solve much.

With an "all held to cap" design then defenders would just zerg one point indefinetly and wear attackers out because thats all they need to hold.

If we assume a "majority held to cap" design, then both zergs would just pingpong between a couple of points until they are enough to clear the random peeps on the last caps. Thats not even counting multiple guilds assaulting a keep. Perhaps blobs can spread out all over a keep, guilds wont be stupid enough for that, they'll just hold what they need. Which means that defenders have to abandon all keeps because they are faced with two impossible options on how to fight - one is to spread out and be 100% sure to loose against individual guilds at each capping point, the other is to zerg down one cap and loose the keep anyway cause majority caps held by other guilds win. Friendly guilds coming to help? You'd hope they wouldnt be stupid enough to also spread out and instead just 3v1 or something each spread out attacker. You just dont win by spreading out if the enemy is better organized and already entrenched.

But granted, it would make keep captures a little more active affair instead of everyone stacking the lord room and as such I like it.

[Sovereign.1093]

@"Dawdler.8521" said:It really wouldnt solve much.

With an "all held to cap" design then defenders would just zerg one point indefinetly and wear attackers out because thats all they need to hold.

If we assume a "majority held to cap" design, then both zergs would just pingpong between a couple of points until they are enough to clear the random peeps on the last caps. Thats not even counting multiple guilds assaulting a keep. Perhaps blobs can spread out all over a keep, guilds wont be stupid enough for that, they'll just hold what they need. Which means that defenders have to abandon all keeps because they are faced with two impossible options on how to fight - one is to spread out and be 100% sure to loose against individual guilds at each capping point, the other is to zerg down one cap and loose the keep anyway cause majority caps held by other guilds win. Friendly guilds coming to help? You'd hope they wouldnt be stupid enough to also spread out and instead just 3v1 or something each spread out attacker. You just dont win by spreading out if the enemy is better organized and already entrenched.

But granted, it would make keep captures a little more active affair instead of everyone stacking the lord room and as such I like it.

an iteration would be - you can't keep it unless all three capture points are manned. therefore you if you leave it to defend, then, you'll lose it. :P and lets say - no more siege in these capture points - but simply ppl going to it. or sieges are in the sense there to help attack or defend these areas.

[Turkeyspit.3965]

@Sovereign.1093 said:wold solve over blobbing. now teams will be coordinating different locations.

The solution to over blobbing is giving players a reason to care about winning.

The other day saw a blob taking down our T3 tower in EBG. At that time zone we were massively outnumbered, to the point where the enemy commander could have split the squad in half and still steamroll the number of defenders we have. As a server they could cap twice as many objectives in the same time frame. Why didn't they do it? Because winning doesn't matter.

One way to pull enemy pressure from one of your objectives is by attacking one of theirs. Attacking multiple enemy objectives should, in theory, force them to split their forces to respond to multiple threats at once. This doesn't work though, since for many, winning doesn't matter.

Easier to just stay fat, steamroll everything in your path, one objective at a time, without fear of getting stalled by defenders as you have overwhelming force. Is it the most efficient means to winning? Nope. You could build your warscore much faster by splitting into smaller groups.

But nobody cares about warscore as nobody cares about winning.

[Sovereign.1093]

some may care. =p