New Inferno Mission Instance...

[Cyberleet]

so if someone trivializes it with geared 220's to bring 160+ characters in it's fine.

Another case of us disagreeing.

If u don't pvp in with that lvl u certainly shouldn't pvm with it either. Thats my opinion.

Because your topic is a game suggestion and this thread became about it.

It is a pretty on-topic subtopic in this thread imo.

[DigitalBath]

Another case of us disagreeing.

If u don't pvp in with that lvl u certainly shouldn't pvm with it either. Thats my opinion.

I understand your argument there and yes, we have differing but equally valid viewpoints. It's a different philosophy in regards to pvp, lvling and its interaction.

No problem here.

It is a pretty on-topic subtopic in this thread imo.

Again I disagree. This thread's original topic is about the new inferno missions and their difficulty, not about redesigning lvling ranges or adding even more lvling content.

But again, the disagreement itself is opinion-based. Not something that matters that much.

[DigitalBath]

You know what? Greens in inf are often horribly equipped. The tradition of ost and teaming outside your range is imo, and based on my observations, NOT a consequence of low population, but a broken level/playthrough-system.

Game is too easy for veterans while being too hard on new players.

I disagree here, because my experience was different. But personal experiences vary. I did mostly bring semi-twinked toons to the table myself (e.g. my 160 soldier had 160-180 supple that I had laying around, jobe pistol and a 191 kmp when I brought it to inferno). Not everyone cares that much though.. but in the teams I'm in lately (past few weeks) people have at least a good weapon on and try DD'ing. That's decent enough for me, ymmv.

Yes, it is unfair when you use the situation now to judge how it will be then. I don't think it will be as bad as you predict, or claim. With my suggestion we get people from kitehill and inf and lootfarmers to do missions with. Thats more to team with. Less spreading but diferent level-arrangement. I think my suggested level-ranges will create a better gameplay-experience.

I disagree that changing that would change the population because there's no visible room for it. I don't see how the average level ranges would change that much or why 220's would care about stopping dual-logging to trivialize content on their alts after the new content becomes stale/old content. (low effort sk/xp per hour will trump anything over time)
I also disagree it would be unfair as gauging the active population in your level ranges seems to me like a logical first step. I understand you disagree, we'll move on that one too.

I know you won't see the evidence for this, but I'm sure Michi and whoever else is involved in AO right now (if anyone.. :|) has access to activity numbers across level ranges and can decide based upon it.

[Cyberleet]

Orgmates can send their twinks within the level to halp.

With my level-proposal many of these would be pvp-twinks waiting for bs to start. ^^

[DigitalBath]

I think I c were I shoe is pressing nao lol.


Good!

Orgmates can send their twinks within the level to halp.




No, but u would get more to play with within your own level-range and more stuff in the same encounter.



likely, probably, maybe...we don't know that yet

I would defintly get people from kitehill and lonley lootfarming if I get my will.

You would get no one from kitehill. You're not being realistic. People would kite something else. And forget about kiting being disabled in the game. It's not going to happen.
Those people want afk leveling. You can't expect them to want to work for their levels.. It's a different mindset.

Orgmates send in finished twinks to help other orgmates' alts level.. yeah.. not gonna happen. They'd rather finish research on their 220s

EDIT: I've edited a previous post quite a bit, read up if it interests you.

[Cyberleet]

Let me know what you think, then. I'm not a good game designer and I can already see some flaws in what I posted, but it should still be a better overall experience than segregation.

I actually advocate for less segregation.

It will always be some of it, but I want it to be a diferent level-segregation than how it is now.

[Tryptophy]

Yes, it is unfair when you use the situation now to judge how it will be then. I don't think it will be as bad as you predict, or claim. With my suggestion we get people from kitehill and inf and lootfarmers to do missions with. Thats more to team with. Less spreading but diferent level-arrangement. I think my suggested level-ranges will create a better gameplay-experience.

It all comes down to this. I don't know how you can believe this. Plenty of people have pointed out the very obvious flaws in this logic. One point you made is that vets will log twinks in each range to help their orgmates out, do you really think people are going to make a lvl 209 twink just to help people level from 205-209? There are just not enough people in each level range, no matter what else you pull them away from doing, to make full teams in these ranges. Period. You answer Digital's convincing data with a vague suggestion that "I don't think it will be as bad" - I know that when I make important choices in life, I side with the person providing evidence and data over the person making vague and unsupported predictions every time.

I think you just want these new level ranges so badly you're willing to overlook the evidence that counts against you. That, or you're just trolling.

[Cyberleet]

I One point you made is that vets will log twinks in each range to help their orgmates out, do you really think people are going to make a lvl 209 twink just to help people level from 205-209?

I used BS-ranges as a reference for how I think the instanced pvm-missions should work. People already have the twinks then. Once Michi/FC works very cleverly on the loot-reward, to the xtent that twinks with complete research feels it is worth the time, then you get more people. Furthermore; it is a great way to get stuff for people who wants mmo-gameplay (teamplay) instead of playing a game that consists of solofarms and soloquests.

There are just not enough people in each level range, no matter what else you pull them away from doing, to make full teams in these ranges. Period.

Not period. This is where we disagree. The thing is that players is segregated too much and I want these missions to adress those matters. Take the introduction of le-missions for example. Once it was better xp-rate from LE-missions then regular AI-raids became a solofarm. Not due to low population, but due to segregation. Give us something that is better than kites and ost.

Secondly, if it is at a timezone with few players then I think these missions should adress it. So the missions gets adjusted for smaller teams. I also said (maybe in another thread) it should be more beneficial to team within your power-range. IE, you could team outside the level, but for a lesser xp-reward.

Kitehill steals players. Ost'ing steal players. Solofarms steal players. Nerf that and/or give good teamplay-alternatives.

I think you just want these new level ranges so badly you're willing to overlook the evidence that counts against you. That, or you're just trolling.

And I think people want the game to continue to be solofarms, mb-mayhem and veteranadvantage-online. I think they make up frivilous arguments to protect their epeen and their customs of multi-logging to powerlevel their chars. I am sincerly intrested in the gameplay-aspect and suggest changes and answer concerns. I want it to be fun to play and to have people to play with. I think I can have my cake and eat it too. It seems certain others simply doesn't want to get it to work no matter what.

I for one am not intrested in playing with ost's or greenies.

It's a bad gameplay experience to me. I think we can get it to work diferently. Kill kitehill but also give compensation.

[Anarrina]

I have removed a large portion of this thread due to the way it degenerated into a personal argument.

I would like to remind people that if you have a problem with someone else's private messages, you need to use the report function, not complain about it publicly. Complaining about it publicly without reporting the problem will be considered an unfounded accusation, and is more likely to end up with sanctions against you than the other person.

[Cyberleet]

What about bulluying, mobbing and abuse to revolt over others opinions and ideas?

You answer Digital's convincing data with a vague suggestion that "I don't think it will be as bad" - I know that when I make important choices in life, I side with the person providing evidence and data over the person making vague and unsupported predictions every time.

1: Digital tries to counter my suggestion with vague 'evidence' and unsupported predictions.
2: Note how the same person defended multilogging to babysit lowbies, kitehill and MB.
3: His data is not nessesarily an argument in his favor.

I think this is where the shoe is pressing and defintly where I disagree. I support mmo-gameplay.

I also don't see 'low population' as a valid argument.

[Psikie]

I support mmo-gameplay.

I also don't see 'low population' as a valid argument.

Huh? It's not an argument, it is the REALITY.

[Cyberleet]

Huh? It's not an argument,.

I think it is a strawman-argument to conceal a more ulterior motive.

it is the REALITY

I strongly distance myself from what Dig stands for.

To me the reality is that the population is not big enough to support both mine and Dig's gameplay-prefs/stands/whateveruwannacallit.

Am fully aware my ideas and balance-concerns conflict with established gameplay. I hope that stuff gets broken.

If you think kitehill and ost (including teaming with people outside reasonable levelrange) will increase the population, peace! I think not.