Reaction to recent Gaute Post

[Routeen]

Still digesting the implications -- I confess, it has me fairly excited... Nice post, and some potentially clever solutions to land control problems.

Plz dont let this go down the tubes in development

[Routeen]

Just had a small realization -- I dont know what the motivation would be, but small orgs are still vulnerable to bands of twinks, it would seem.

But I think the solution of making it not a casual action - i.e. you cant just go hellraising -- is really nice, and probably does a lot of work to minimize this.

[_______________Karrd]

Yeah, btw, let me tell you about the consequences of attacking an area controlled by someone else. If you are in an organisation with your own towers, these will enter a state of war! This means that they will instantly be attackable by anyone else on the other sides, or even within their own side - if that is what you tried yourselves!

If you are in an organisation with your own towers, these will enter a state of war!

hunh? When? Why?

This means that they will instantly be attackable by anyone else on the other sides, or even within their own side - if that is what you tried yourselves!

"tried yourselves"?

I think i re-read that paragraph four or five times to get the jist of it, and I'm still a little foggy on what he said...or what trying to say.

Does funcom have an American editor? Or was he reorganized
I dont mean to criticize, writing in foreign language isn't exactly easy.
In anycase, im sold.
Guild raid event anyone?

[Jynne]

Nothing is perfect... every system can be abused or exploited in some way. But I don't feel that the 'return on investment' for 'bands of powerful twinks' ganking small/low-level organizations' towers would be very worthwhile. The only motivation I can see - beyond pure grief - would be to clear land for the twinks' parent organization. But such an organization wouldn't have much of a reason to clear out low-level land, either. So I think that was as well thought-out as can be expected.

I also like the way that defenses can be built up with additional towers, and the other 'anti-ganking' (cost to attacker) measures mentioned.

However, I feel to some extent that - based on the information we have gotten now at least - the time and cost involved with actually removing a moderately defended high-level controller tower with a good-sized "little tower" complex around it will be prohibitive for anything but a major army.

In other words, I feel the strong static defenses involved will be a serious disincentive for small and medium sized organizations, regardless of level, to attack anyone else at all.

[Jynne]

Karrd - I think he meant that if you attack towers from your own side, your towers become attackable by your own side.

[Stabdude]

However, I feel to some extent that - based on the information we have gotten now at least - the time and cost involved with actually removing a moderately defended high-level controller tower with a good-sized "little tower" complex around it will be prohibitive for anything but a major army.

Actually - that might be what Funcom are striving for. PvP as it is now is much more of a mano-a-mano affair - with single players attacking other single players.

This is an attempt to bring back that wonderful message on the box cover - "Take part In the Conflict between The Rebel Clans and the Omni-Tek empire". It hasn't really happened, has it? Well - this is Funcom's (good) strike at trying to make it real.

Also - you have to remember that this will probably be patched to death within the first couple of months with adjustments of the power of the towers, the incentives for attacking them, the penalties and bonuses involved, and pretty much everything else you can define with an INT

[_____________Aurboth]

I would like to start by thanking Mr. Gaute for his article, which has given us good insight into the upcomming booster pack and the direction FunCom is taking Anarcy Online. And we should complement his grammar and spelling as well. On the other hand, there are so many points that can be brought up that I am hesitant to do so, as I am sure there will be many more people who will wish to point out the obvious problems in what he has described. For the purpose of this post, I will simply use the same structure as his article.

1) The QL of the towers. The first question is what kind of skills are need to make these towers. As it stands now, according to the last database I have checked, I am currently the highest level Neutral engineer. With implants and buffs, I am unable to make even program crystals above ql200. Since I have reached the title cap, I would assume that there is no one under level 190 with significantly greater abilities. If the towers are of the same difficulty, I don't foresee a great number of very high level towers. I think engineer items are about to become valuable again, good thing there is a pistol coming out, if it actually makes it to the patch. With up to 100 towers in an area, I hope people are actually able to fight with the massive amounts of combat graphics as well as the sheer number of people you would need to take down a tower that has both reflective shields and regeneration.

2&3) The QL type. I guess this would eliminate putting the controllers in adjacent areas. How that would allow an organization to be more focused, I could not say; it almost mandates putting the towers far away from each other. It will also make all those organisations that are eliminating the lower levels think again, as in order to attack the lower towers of a person, you would have to use the lower level characters.

4) the advantages. Let's be honest here, they look amazing. If nothing else, it will get millions of credits out of the system. Who in their right mind would not want to give everyone an extra 25hp/level, using his example. Of course, anyone in their right mind would need to join a organization just to keep the things leveled out. It is a good thing that the majority of people who do PvP have guilds, I would hate to think about a difference of 750 hps between two otherwise equal characters. It does show one thing -- FunCom, regardless of what they have stated in their previous releases, does not intend people to be able to achieve the maximum benefit of playing this game on your own. I am not going to say I agree or disagree with that position, but I will point out their continued hypocrisy.

5) attacking levels. This is obviously an idea to protect the lower level people from the higher, and ties in with the idea that an organization would be required to place different ql's of towers in order to get the best benefit. I will question now whether they are using the same level system as in the rest of PvP, as everyone knows how well that has worked in the past. The other question this brings up is not just the attacking level, but the defending level. Will this mean that the level 190 player cannot defend a lower tower against a level 74 player? If so, I envision a whole new wave in character recruitment and creation. On the other hand, a smarter organization could take advantage of the idea that their lower level towers could not be attacked by the stronger characters, especially if they act to support the lower levels. An easy example, one high level engineer continuously boosting five lower character's AC by over 600 points, without even using more than 6 NCU spaces, may be very effective.

6) Sheild disablers. A nice idea in theory, and yet another way to remove credits from the game. And it is a good thing, without it I am sure that an organization would become very confused about who their enemies are. Oh wait, if you attack even someone on the opposite side as you, everyone becomes your enemy. Only one thing -- the way it reads now, I am not sure if there will need to be more than one bought, ever. Once the first person attacks, no one would need a disabler to attack their towers, and anyone who uses that will also become vulnerable to attack. So, as long as you can keep your members in total agreement, you are protected as long as you NEVER attack anyone else, and as long as not one will spend money to attack you. Of course, once you have attacked one tower, the only thing it will cost you is money, unless there is a time limit on the state of war that was not mentioned. That would make it, well, Anarchy. I would like to know who can actually by the disablers for a guild, that may become very important to some groups.

I look forward to continued information from the Anarchy Development team. I also look forward from the people who intend to continue playing and are on whom the team should be focusing. I believe this will be an interesting thread.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Slapster


Actually - that might be what Funcom are striving for. PvP as it is now is much more of a mano-a-mano affair - with single players attacking other single players.

This is an attempt to bring back that wonderful message on the box cover - "Take part In the Conflict between The Rebel Clans and the Omni-Tek empire". It hasn't really happened, has it? Well - this is Funcom's (good) strike at trying to make it real.

Also - you have to remember that this will probably be patched to death within the first couple of months with adjustments of the power of the towers, the incentives for attacking them, the penalties and bonuses involved, and pretty much everything else you can define with an INT [/B]

Agreed on most points... I don't think the 'ease' of defense is a bad thing, really. It will give mid-size, mid-level orgs a good chance to defend against stronger foes, and realistically, building defenses should be a big help. It's what defenses are for

But I do see potential issues with the aforementioned mid-size, mid-level orgs essentially being perpetually prevented from attacking anyone, without forming an alliance to do so. They don't have the resources to overcome their equals, and can't even think about beating high level towers.

[Treonaut]

This looks really bad for organisation with 15 members and great for the organisation who already has 300 people.

Now everybody has to leave their organisation and go join the group that don't need anymore people anyway.

To fix this, the bonus your tower gives needs to be divided (diluted) by the number of people in your organisation. If you have 500 people in your organisation, the benefit must be spread out. Otherwise, you have the terrible effect of the snowball that rolls down hill and eventually cannot be stopped. 500 people getting 1000 extra hitpoints is not right compared to 15 people getting 1000 extra hitpoints. Half a million extra hitpoints provided by one tower against 15k hitpoints provided by the other tower. And they probably cost the same to make.

It isn't right this way.

[MORB]

I mostly understood the last paragraph, although there's one point of two that could use some clarification.

It basically explains what happens when you attack a tower.

If you do so, there's 2 possibilities:

- you're in an organisation which have towers: the towers enters a war state, which means that anyone on the opposite side can attack them (without needing a shield disabler I suppose).
If the towers you attacked were same side as yours, then people from your own side will be able to attack your towers.
The part which is a bit obscure there is what he means by side: the org which owns the towers you attacked, or the whole omni/clan/neutral factions ? I suppose faction because of the thing about attacking towers of the same side.

- you're in an organisation without towers, or not in an org: you become yourself flagged as a PvP target for 4 hours. For that duration, you can be attacked by people of the same side as the towers (same question about the meaning of side there), anywhere, even in 0% gas area. Two stars each side of your name will let people know that you are killable. Of course, if someone attacks you then, you can defend yourself.

[edit: that was only 2 possibilities. There's three kind of people: those who can count, and the others.]

[_____________arsiine]

great article. What happens when a LC owner logs? can he be jacked and not be able to protect?

[Bakira]

Does your org have to have a tower to attack a tower? I keep having visions of overcrowding, lol...

[secondkenlon]

The four hour +PvP flag. . .does that count only /played time?

It should. . .

[____________Dominata]

Thanks for the article Gaute. But it raises a lot of questions...


'The controllers have about ten times as many hit-points as the normal guard or defence tower. There's only one of these babies in the whole area, and you want to keep it alive as long as possible.'

I would like to know how big this area that he talks about is and also how many areas there will be in a zone where it will be possible to place controllers... What defines this area?

This part worries me...
'Now if the advantage buffing health was QL 300, it might buff health 5000 at level 200. This means that for each level you gained while a member of the organisation with the advantage, you would receive 25 additional hit-points!'

And about the advantages... To use Gaute's example, the HP advantage, will these be permanent or only temporary? If they are permanent you have a balance wrecker that will affect the whole game and I can only imagine the bickering it will cause when a smaller faction try to decide which two advantages to choose.

If the advantages are permanent FC are more or less changing the rules of the entire game when it comes to ability caps, if you want to stay competitive you have to buy the booster.
It was stated when the booster was announced that it would not be a requirement to be able to enjoy the rest of the game. However, if the advantages are permanent it will in effect gimp everyone who does not own the booster if they do not get the benefits in exactly the same way as the people who actually bought the booster.

Thanks for the article Gaute. But it raises a lot of questions...


'The controllers have about ten times as many hit-points as the normal guard or defence tower. There's only one of these babies in the whole area, and you want to keep it alive as long as possible.'

I would like to know how big this area that he talks about is and also how many areas there will be in a zone where it will be possible to place controllers... What defines this area?

This part worries me...
'Now if the advantage buffing health was QL 300, it might buff health 5000 at level 200. This means that for each level you gained while a member of the organisation with the advantage, you would receive 25 additional hit-points!'

And about the advantages... To use Gaute's example, the HP advantage, will these be permanent or only temporary? If they are permanent you have a balance wrecker that will affect the whole game and I can only imagine the bickering it will cause when a smaller faction try to decide which two advantages to choose.

If the advantages are permanent FC are more or less changing the rules of the entire game when it comes to ability caps, if you want to stay competitive you have to buy the booster.
It was stated when the booster was announced that it would not be a requirement to be able to enjoy the rest of the game. However, if the advantages are permanent it will in effect gimp everyone who does not own the booster if they do not get the benefits in exactly the same way as the people who actually bought the booster.

Will the towers only produce advantages to abilities and skills or will they also bring in creds? If not, there will soon be an end to both placing and attacking towers for any but the richest factions. Credit dupers paradise, most likely.


Do all members of an organisation get to enjoy these benefits equally, or do we need the booster to get the full effect? If not, what will the difference be?
As the leader of a faction will my members suffer in any way if I do not own the booster?
Will the advantages be permanent or temporary?
Exactly how expensive will the towers be?
How expensive will it be to attack them?
Do I need to start learning how to dupe creds to stay competitive?


Will I get an answer to my questions...?

[__________Typothetae]

The booster brings many interesting and exciting facets to AO. I'm excited about seeing how they pan out.

I enjoyed Gaute's article and I am anxiously waiting for more!

However, please clarify some of the points. I am as confused as some of the posters above:

1) Please explain the 'sides' you refer to when talking about going to war. Are the sides Omni? Clan? Neutral? Or, just the guild you attacked?

2) If someone attacks your controller, then everyone in your guild becomes vulnerable? So, if I happen to be in Omni Ent when my guild's controller is attacked by Omni, I am dead meat?

3) If our Clan guild decides to attack another Clan guild controller, then we will be able to kill other Clan members in Clan cities? And/or only when attacked first?

4) If Omni decides to attack our QL 100 controller, then all our controllers are at war? The QL 150 controller? the 175 controller? The QL 50 controller? And ALL our members are at war? At all levels? Everywhere? (except the grid...I assume from the article)

Looking forward to more info....

Typothetae

[engelstein]

Originally posted by Typothetae
The booster brings many interesting and exciting facets to AO. I'm excited about seeing how they pan out.

I enjoyed Gaute's article and I am anxiously waiting for more!

However, please clarify some of the points. I am as confused as some of the posters above:

1) Please explain the 'sides' you refer to when talking about going to war. Are the sides Omni? Clan? Neutral? Or, just the guild you attacked?

2) If someone attacks your controller, then everyone in your guild becomes vulnerable? So, if I happen to be in Omni Ent when my guild's controller is attacked by Omni, I am dead meat?

3) If our Clan guild decides to attack another Clan guild controller, then we will be able to kill other Clan members in Clan cities? And/or only when attacked first?

4) If Omni decides to attack our QL 100 controller, then all our controllers are at war? The QL 150 controller? the 175 controller? The QL 50 controller? And ALL our members are at war? At all levels? Everywhere? (except the grid...I assume from the article)

Looking forward to more info....

Typothetae

1. I think the side means the faction. So if your guild doesn't have a tower/you're not in a guild and you attack a tower, you're PvP-flagged for four hours and anyone on the side of the tower you attacked can attack you, no matter the current suppression level.

2. What he meant was that an attacker becomes vulnerable. If your guild attacks someone's tower, all your guilds towers become attackable, and you won't need a shield disabler. You still need a shield disabler to initiate attacks, though.

3. Presumably, if it's possible to attack a Clan controller while you're clan, and you do so, then you become PvP-flagged to all other clanners. But you shouldn't do that.

4. All of their towers are at war. Your towers aren't at war unless you attack someone.

[Fastjack]

Hmm... one thing that makes me wonder already though is this snip from the article...

No towers or controllers can be placed in an area outside the level range of that area. Every area in AO has always had a level range. This has been decisive in defining which monsters are created in the area and what auto content dungeons are assigned to what entrances.

If thats true/works.... then why do I seem to find alot of missions to the middle of no-where Wailing Wastes, at lv30-45? Or how about Avalon around lv60? The location of the missions I pull has always seemed to be much more dependant on which mission terminal I was using rather then the ql of the mission I was generating... Who's error is this, mine or theirs?

[______________Lirona]

I think it's a bit of both.

Yes, your level determines what zones the mission can be in. The assumption is that you can survive a higher level zone than you can hunt in by running like mad for your mission then running like mad for the zone wall.

The terminals, of course, determine WHERE you will actually end up. I suspect if your terminal can't send you to a place that's at your mission QL, it'll send you to somewhere reasonably close to your QL instead.

[phelsior]

Great post, Gaute, I enjoyed reading some more details on the booster. However there is something disturbing me ...

The problem I see here is when an all-european guild attack an all-american guild ... at daytime in Europe ... all the americans will be sleeping and unable to defend their tower(s). As far as I can see, its perfectly possible and a really big problem. Especially for small guilds that dont have people on 24/7

[Darkbane]

Lots of intresting info, but as usual leaving us with ten times the questions we had before we read it...

Are attack 'windows' still there?

The PvP flag thing is still unclear, I think we get the gist, but the devil will be in the details...



Guess we'll find out soon...