Proposed design: If you can't be attacked, you can't assist with buffs and healing

[Dudicas]

Originally posted by Jynne
I think we'd find that by factoring in mochams or especially mochams + wrangles, most characters are 'theoretically' capable of casting at least some of their best buffs at level 125, depending on the profession and their implant QL and layout.

If that is true, and I believe it is as well, then wouldn't it be easier to just drop the pvp level cap down to 125?

[_______________Hypos]

Remember, FunCom's idea of the "proper" level a char should be to use a nano is nothing like the players' opinions.

/me points to the many outcry posts about odd level reqs on nanos.

I mean, goodness gracious, we can't have any charmed leets stomping into a QL10 base, now can we?

[Illith]

looks like i didn't insult enough ppl to get noticed so my idea was just discarded even though i think it will help out most of the post arguments.

first if i can set up a tower that will terminate any buff above a ql i decide, and will make it impossible to cast a nano of higher ql. then there will be no uber outside buffed twinkes attacking. and no uber heals. simply becaurse i protected my towers from it.

why should a lvl 200 doc bother come heal her mates if she can only use a ql 50 heal. and if she did 2 ppl on 1 would probarly be abel to kill the target anyway,(lvl 40 tower might use a ql 50 hard cap). and FC. wont even have to work out what is uber buff and what isn't they allready did. back when they set ql on nanos.

in jynne's guild case they would have to make a choice. do they want there high lvl members work to there fullest. or put a restriction on the attackers high lvl ppl.


i have seen post about putting in new restrictions on pvp rules around these towers. there are no need for restrictions if u can put in a new tower type. as simple as that.

[_______________Hypos]

Sorry we didn't discuss it more before, Illith. Sluggermulps paid attention to you but the most verbal of us were already tied up in an argument. For what it's worth, you got as much attention as my "split the servers by level" idea.

I think the idea has merit, Illith. As a doc, I could still go and help my buddies, I'd just have to figure out what nanos I could still cast. A level 200 healer would still be an annoyance, would still be a better healer than a level 50 healer; just not to nearly the same extent as now.

Of course implementing this as a tower also means that an attacking force could try to identify and destroy that tower. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe this would become part of the strategy of attacking. But once that tower is down, then we're back to where we are now. Is there a way in the game now for players to support a particular tower to make it harder to kill? I don't know of one. Perhaps that would be a nice addition to go along with this. Make it a nano for engies.

I can see this as an acceptable compromise between the "save me, save me" side and the "kill them, kill them all" side.

Would you view this as also limiting casting between high level chars? If so then, a high level healer that showed up to try to help would get slaughtered by any high level damage dealer. Imagine if a level 200 enf attacked a level 200 doc and the doc could only use QL50 heals. Heh, then I guess lots of profs would get a taste of what it feels like to be a trader. But that would have the overkill effect of barring healers from the area under pain of an ugly death, which doesn't sound like what we're after here.

I see another potential problem with this. Limiting the ql of nanos seems to be particularly hard on MPs and traders who can naturally cast higher level nanos than others their level. It also may restrict nanomages from getting a casting advantage. You know, all the arguments that people gave against level reqs would apply here, I think.

I'm guessing this would also have to apply to pets. Heck, might even want to limit the ql of weapons and armor this way. That might be going too far, but it would address almost all aspects of twinking. Then the non-twinked could get a reasonably fair fight. Still not perfectly fair (because of implants, NCU and other items that are immune to OE), but reasonably so.

[Warlock]

Ok I'll try and cut to the chase here

Last Night
Me (Engineer) and fellow guild Fixer (both level 60)
Target level 46 (IIRC) Fixer - the important thing here is he was the lowest level we could possible attack
Very few other players of an attackable level (think about 2, both lower than us)

So we engage (including my bot) - this guys hitpoint NEVER drop below the first bar, as soon as they get to the first bar DING back to full again, while slowly he is able to whittle our hitpoints down (since we are having to heal ourselves) until one of us is dead, he then just moves to the second one - time consuming but an assured victory. He also has plenty of time to get some backup since he is in no danger or dying.

Now stand there and tell me this is right and fair and why I should bother to turn up again? I'm incredibly curious

[Snuble]

Well Warlock, you've heard of something called "XP" right? Thats what gain you "levels". And when you "level" you get stronger.

Notum Wars, fun for the players that don't value friendship and jump to another org as soon as it is personaly beneficial. Is that how you want this game? A bunch of self centered players? Sound fun huh?

The course you argue Warlock, leeds to level camping, griefing and will keep the typical AO org from ever defending a tower. So while *you* would have fun *now* , your effeciently diggin your own orgs grave and keep a lot of other players from participating in the game.

[Snuble]

And your last post Warlock, I read more like this:

Wha Wha WHa couldn't kill wha wha wha high level wha wha not fair.

Sorry about that, but its something about narrow minded people that bring out the worst in me.

[Warlock]

<sigh> if your only counter argument is for me to level up, then we go right back (again) to the point where all the towers may as well be level 150+ and to hell with the lower levels because they dont matter.

If I level up I wont be able to attack THIS tower, and right now THIS is the tower I want to kill (because THIS is the level range I can build at and defend), essentially your telling me I have to level up and attack a higher level tower or level up to just heal low level players at THIS tower, or join a guild with a bigger level base

NONE of these is fun - and I'm suprised you even tried to defend what is obviously a stupid situation.

So you dont mind it high level MOBs turn up and heal the ones your fighting in missions and buff them so youll never kill them, never get XP and never level - this is exactly the same principle, yet its obvious how stupid it is

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Snublefot
And your last post Warlock, I read more like this:

Wha Wha WHa couldn't kill wha wha wha high level wha wha not fair.

Sorry about that, but its something about narrow minded people that bring out the worst in me.

I think its pretty reasonable of me to complain that 2 level 60's cant kill a level 46 yeah

If this were PvM we wouldnt have having this conversation - I dont see why that logic cannot be applied to this

On the flip side you guys are

whaa whaa whaa I cant defend my guilds tower thats a lower level than me, whaa whaa whaa I want to ensure victory against my enemy by stacking the odds completely aginst them and unbalancing the game

[Snuble]

No warlock, its not reasonable to complain about it when that level 46 fixer got 5 level 50 friends that help heal her right? Now you could attack those (and die). Now where is the diffrence when the fixer got a level 100 doc friend that heals her instead?

The solution Warlock, is for you to form an aliance with someone that can help *you*. Not go out and scream *nerf* the others. And no you didn't use the word nerf, but what you argue is to take away something from other players so you can do better in the game, and that is the freaking definition of a nerf.

And to be honest, it was a mistake from funcom to include towers below level 150 in the game.

If you want my *wha wha* its more that I could see myself forced to leave my current nice org where I have friends and join one of the Uberguilds which people joined out of self interest. Now, my *wha* don't include a nerf, your does.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Snublefot
No warlock, its not reasonable to complain about it when that level 46 fixer got 5 level 50 friends that help heal her right? Now you could attack those (and die). Now where is the diffrence when the fixer got a level 100 doc friend that heals her instead?

The solution Warlock, is for you to form an aliance with someone that can help *you*. Not go out and scream *nerf* the others. And no you didn't use the word nerf, but what you argue is to take away something from other players so you can do better in the game, and that is the freaking definition of a nerf.

And to be honest, it was a mistake from funcom to include towers below level 150 in the game.

If you want my *wha wha* its more that I could see myself forced to leave my current nice org where I have friends and join one of the Uberguilds which people joined out of self interest. Now, my *wha* don't include a nerf, your does.

The Fixer didnt have many same level allies (certainly no healers) - thats kind of my whole point. I cant win because I dont have high level friends and he did. Thats pure and simple unfair

No your solution requires something in addition to buying the booster (allies, levelling up etc) - thats why its not acceptable (been here already). Once you have purchased the booster you should have the same chance at land control as everyone else - you shouldnt have to go to any other lengths

This isnt a nerf, IMO the current system is exploitable (i.e out of level range healing is an exploit) and I'm asking for it to be made fair

[Illith]

Originally posted by Hypos
Sorry we didn't discuss it more before, Illith. Sluggermulps paid attention to you but the most verbal of us were already tied up in an argument. For what it's worth, you got as much attention as my "split the servers by level" idea.

I think the idea has merit, Illith. As a doc, I could still go and help my buddies, I'd just have to figure out what nanos I could still cast. A level 200 healer would still be an annoyance, would still be a better healer than a level 50 healer; just not to nearly the same extent as now.

Of course implementing this as a tower also means that an attacking force could try to identify and destroy that tower. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe this would become part of the strategy of attacking. But once that tower is down, then we're back to where we are now. Is there a way in the game now for players to support a particular tower to make it harder to kill? I don't know of one. Perhaps that would be a nice addition to go along with this. Make it a nano for engies.

I can see this as an acceptable compromise between the "save me, save me" side and the "kill them, kill them all" side.

Would you view this as also limiting casting between high level chars? If so then, a high level healer that showed up to try to help would get slaughtered by any high level damage dealer. Imagine if a level 200 enf attacked a level 200 doc and the doc could only use QL50 heals. Heh, then I guess lots of profs would get a taste of what it feels like to be a trader. But that would have the overkill effect of barring healers from the area under pain of an ugly death, which doesn't sound like what we're after here.

I see another potential problem with this. Limiting the ql of nanos seems to be particularly hard on MPs and traders who can naturally cast higher level nanos than others their level. It also may restrict nanomages from getting a casting advantage. You know, all the arguments that people gave against level reqs would apply here, I think.

I'm guessing this would also have to apply to pets. Heck, might even want to limit the ql of weapons and armor this way. That might be going too far, but it would address almost all aspects of twinking. Then the non-twinked could get a reasonably fair fight. Still not perfectly fair (because of implants, NCU and other items that are immune to OE), but reasonably so.

well the pet is a nano so the mp would loose his pet. the enforecer would loose his essence and mongo and rage etc. it's the same for all buffs. not just heals.
if you want your better buffs agains the enforcer run out of the land control area and you get your abilites back. but will have to buff up again.

you can build more then 1 of these towers though. so taking out 1 tower should not allways be enough. and yes, if you can take out stratical point in a defence then you deserve the advantage.

now i forgot a part that i had in my first post. the lower lvl ppl helping at the battle. i don't want them taged so a lvl 200 can alpha wast them. set them at the same lvl as the tower. i think i called it pvplvl.

as to the unfair advatage of items yes. but there really isn't anything that you can do about it. some ppl just are better at making credits then others.

but if you take away the buffs/healing over a sertain ql. you'll get rid of all the whines i couldn't kill xxx becaurse he had help. becaurse lower ql heals just won't help if you gang up on one.

[Snuble]

Do you really think before you flap your mouth?

What is keeping you from gaining high level friends and leveling? Its not your god give right to take on *that* tower and *that* player. Go find yourself someone without high level friends and a tower owned by an org similar to yours. Oh, there ain't org like your? My bad, we need to change that huh? Screw the rest, let them change so you don't have to huh?

http://ymera.com/1/guild_bymembers.html

There is guilds sorted by members. Your change will promote your guild above the rest at you level range, call that fair?

[Darkbane]

So, unless you have a posse of high level friends, don't buy NW cause it will be no fun? Is that what your saying?

Notice that last word... 'fun' - NW is quite simply no fun for lower levels if high levels get involved. I'm not sure what the answer is, but at the moment, NW is not working as intended at lower levels.

Perhaps it simply isn't possible to have NW work at lower levels without causing other problems. Perhaps guilds themselves need to change if they want to control land. Perhaps there is a workable solution.

Keep arguing though, its a fascinating discussion...

[Snuble]

I know your able to think Darkbane, so while low levels do have their issues here, is the issues worth breaking the game for a lot of other players?

Where is the fun having to watch you 10 level 50 guildies beeing killed by 40 twink players from the twink guild ApocolyseDivisionLevel50?

As long as players like Warlock argues from his point of view and refuse to look at the actual picture and balance of things, I will argue *my* issues without looking further then my own org and its needs.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Snublefot
Do you really think before you flap your mouth?

What is keeping you from gaining high level friends and leveling? Its not your god give right to take on *that* tower and *that* player. Go find yourself someone without high level friends and a tower owned by an org similar to yours. Oh, there ain't org like your? My bad, we need to change that huh? Screw the rest, let them change so you don't have to huh?

http://ymera.com/1/guild_bymembers.html

There is guilds sorted by members. Your change will promote your guild above the rest at you level range, call that fair?

Buying the booster doesnt buy me high level friends therefore it shouldnt be REQUIRED!

All other issues aside the booster is purchased for this purpose - since I'm paying for it, that should be enough to give me a fair chance.

How would you like it if you could play AO, but you could only reach level 200 if you had high level friends - bet you'd have something to say about that wouldnt you!

IF towers were something thrown in to the main game, then I could accept your system, since I'm paying for it however I want the an equal chance to win - so in my previous example that fixer should have died horribly as he was outnumbered by higher level characters.

There will be no areas owned by guilds without high level members as the guilds with high level people will already have taken over since the defenders would have had no chance

I really dont see how this promotes my guild above any other - please explain that one? e.g I have 40 level 60's defending, you have 40 level 60's attacking (current crowds control proposals) of course I have more of a chance because I have towers, but the fighting between the teams is fairly based on their level.

you getting my point NOW?? because I'm getting tired of re-phrasing the same thing, because it seem to me you guy may as well ask for all the PvP restrictions to be dropped since you always end up fighting against someone you cant actually hurt, so it would just be easier to allow them to kill you themselves, you save a lot of time and agro

[____________Travesty]

I'll keep my comment fairly simple:



The pvp system is frelled.

[Jahve]

What about limiting buffs and heals within LC areas to the ql of the tower and or the lvl of the character.

Buffs over a certain ql are terminated when entering the LC area. Heals and buffs over that same ql cannot be cast inside the area.
This only applies when the tower is open to attack(25% or lower suppression)
Pet heals are also affected by this.
Pets are not affected, but the buffs on them and supporting them are.

The effect of these changes will be(i think):

-Low lvl chars cannot be supported by big heals, HoTs or other buffs, making things more 'fair'.
-Attackers and defenders can still use high lvl support crews, but their support will be limited by the tower and or by the lvl of the characters they support.
-The support crews can still battle among themselves, but will have a lesser effect on the outcome of the low lvl battle for a tower.
-Low lvl suppoters (read 125 Doc with CH supporting lvl 200's) will not be affected by this though.

Again... Just a thought.

[Snuble]

How would you like it if you could play AO, but you could only reach level 200 if you had high level friends - bet you'd have something to say about that wouldnt you!

Playing the same game as me? From the last 1000 BS missions I've run I think I recall running them with 5 other high level players. Or Tara raids. Or any other raid out there. Or someone to assemble your QL 200 implant sets. Or someone to buff you into the armor and weapons you use. The proposed system favours large guilds with a tight level range on their members. Thats not how orgs is assembled in AO.

Did you look at the link I posted? Did you see the member distribution on 95% of thse guilds? The change *you* support Warlock will leave those guilds unable to defend against your 40 member lvl 60 org. They will be unable to defend against the 40 member lvl 100 org and they will be unable to defend against the 40 member 160+ org. You know what that means? Either those orgs will split, *or* they can forget about having tower of *any* quality. And all statistics show that your guild 1) will break in the next 3 months or 2) get a distribution of members like the other 95% of the orgs out there.

That change will probably not break the game, but it for sure won't make it any better either.

The pvp system is frelled.

Thats the one thing most agree on. But the change as proposed from funcom will be a change that leave the pvp system frelled, and as a side effect have some nasty effects on the social grids in this game. And thats bad.

[Dhurdahl]

Originally posted by Jahve
What about limiting buffs and heals within LC areas to the ql of the tower and or the lvl of the character.

This wouldn't work very well for casters... they are usually using much higher ql nanos the their level and/or the towers. Its that same situation as asking the solder/enf to drop thier weapons and instead use something they used 40 levels ago... aka not a good idea..

Ex. A normal lvl80ish NT is using ql125+ nukes selfbuffed.


So while it looks very tempting and easy, it wouldn't work so well.