Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 383

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

  1. #61

    Jynne wants to Rule! But there must be a better solution...

    I agree with some of what Jynne points out. However, I disagree with allowing players beyond a certain level range being allowed to assist or defend low-level bases. Why? Because it is very easy for a skilled, high-level player to make a low level alt to build a controller and towers in a level 10 area. Then, that player never needs to ever use that char again? The player just logs his high-level player to defend the level 10 tower? That is ludicrous!

    Following is Jynne's horror story, but I would argue that any org that doesn't have a decent defense force in the appropriate levels SHOULD lose the base! Else what is the level range for?

    quote from Jynne's post:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Org Chat] Jynne: Well folks, we just lost our Nascent Nifty Notum Drilling Field base.
    [Org Chat] Someone_Else: What happened? I thought you were there helping defend it Doc?
    [Org Chat] Jynne: The attackers were under level 100 from a twink org, so we had to just sit there and watch them fight our towers. Level 200 chars from the main org stood outside in the 75% zone and gave them HE, mochams, RRFE, and some other buffs; when they got hurt they ran out for a bit and a high level doctor CH'd them. We couldn't touch the people doing the buffing, and we couldn't touch the people attacking our base.
    [Org Chat] Someone_Else: Boy that's a crock. I wonder if EBgames.com takes returns on these booster packs?
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Why should high-level orgs be able to defend every level base? That will mean a dominance of high-level land control since the low- and medium-level guilds will never be able to destroy a low- or medium-level base protected by only only high-level players.

    However, there is still the problem with zone boundaries that Jynne point out. This is a serious problem and the current Disgrace Period will not solve it. I suggest that helpers be tagged (read the three possible solutions below).

    Many posts above suggested solutions, here's some possibilities base on many of their great ideas.

    Possible solutions:
    1) Make all attackers' participation in Land Control mean they give permission to enter full PvP mode. Full PvP mode would be like being PvP flagged. If you want to run, you have to run away for 3 hours, not just one minute. If a player doesn't want to PvP, don't attack! This would increase the consequences of attacking.

    2) Anyone who assists a PvP tagged player is PvP tagged themselves. So, even if you don't attack, assisting an attacker is the same as attacking. If you don't want to PvP, don't assist in an attack! This would greatly diminish participation by attacking out-of-range players while giving defending out-of-range players something to do if the attackers resort to assists from out-of-range players (hunt them down!).

    3) Any attacker who enters an attackable area is attackable by all towers (not players). This should help solve the lowbies 'spying' and buffing for higher levels.

    So, the three suggestions, along with keeping the existing PvP rules where high-level players cannot defend towers effectively may help balance this situation.

    I suggest all three be implemented. I do not suggest preventing help from high levels as Cz proposed, just tag them. That would create some interesting side fights, while the appropriate levels battle over the land. But, if the defending org has NO high-level players, and can't encourage anyone else to take out the high-level assister who is tagged, the balance still seems to be toward the high-level orgs.

    One last thing: If attackers are Tagged, doesn't if follow that each of the Controllable Areas could be smaller? Then, there could be more of them! What is the point of making the Controllable Area so big? Attackers really only have to clear a small path anyway. A bunch of land is being wasted on these giant parcels. And there isn't enough land to go around.

    Typothetae

  2. #62

    Crowd Control

    As if my last post wasn't long enough....

    With regard to Crowd Control:

    When you implement Crowd Control, I would suggest you consider level ranges.

    For example: A level 60-90 area is under attack. 7 level 70s and 4 level 150s represent the defending org in the area. 8 level 80s and two level 10s represent the attackers.

    What will happen when a level 80 wants to join the attack? You gonna prevent that? I say, kick one of the level 10s that are attacking and allow the level 80 to enter.

    Same with the defense. If another level 70 wants to join the battle, kick one of the level 150s defending and allow the appropriate level player to enter the area.

    I have no idea if this is possible, but the alternative is sickening. A bunch of out-of-range players, unable to fight, preventing defense and offense. Yuck.

    Typothetae

  3. #63

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

    Originally posted by Cz


    Basically, the design idea goes like this:

    When...
    - in a land control area (not other PvP areas), and
    - a shield disabler has been used (starting the battle), and
    - you or your target are PvP enabled (no longer in the grace period)
    ...you are not able to buff or heal anybody who is not within your PvP range.

    You don't have to use a shield disabler if you are guilded and have bases. If you force the scenario so that you MUST use a shield disabler then you will hurt those that don't need to use them. Please correct that (and) statement please. It should read..


    - in a land control area (not other PvP areas), and
    - you or your target are PvP enabled (no longer in the grace period)
    ...you are not able to buff or heal anybody who is not within your PvP range.

  4. #64
    Originally posted by Sent


    Bump!

    I'd also like to see a solution to "lowlevel spies". Simpy not allowing them into a highlevel base while it's attackable would work.
    Doing that would create an internal split in somme orgs and be bad imo.

    An org wants to get the most out of the towers they have availible. So of course they're going to place the highest QL towers they can to get the most bonuses. Now lower level members of the org are already excluded from participating directly in the battles because of the PvP level restrictions. So how do they contribute? By spying.

    If you remove them from the equation, you completely remove all but the highest level members of an org from participating in an aspect of the org. That's not good.

    Speaking for myself, as a person with a low level crat alt, I wouldn't mind if Funcom dropped the level restrictions during tower initiated PvP. Yeah, I know my crat would last 2 seconds on the battlefield (or however long it took someone to target me and hit 'Q'). But someone's got to be Ensign Expendable. And in those 2 seconds it took someone to target and shoot me, they were not targetting and shooting another member of my org.

    More over, I remember a couple times when I'd been overwhelmed by grey mobs much lower in level than my Trader (running into roller rat nests or crossing the border into the Mutant Domain in Lush). Before Funcom took away the suicidal tendancies of grey mobs. It'd be interesting to see a bunch of low level org members sacrificing themselves to buy time (maybe taking 1 or 2 people with them)
    History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave. - Edmund Morris

    The first faults are theirs that commit them, the second theirs that permit them. - Unknown

    Did you ever get the feeling that the world had an abundance of idiots? And that God had arranged for you to meet every single one of them before you died? - Kuroshio

  5. #65

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

    Originally posted by Drabin


    You don't have to use a shield disabler if you are guilded and have bases. If you force the scenario so that you MUST use a shield disabler then you will hurt those that don't need to use them. Please correct that (and) statement please. It should read..


    - in a land control area (not other PvP areas), and
    - you or your target are PvP enabled (no longer in the grace period)
    ...you are not able to buff or heal anybody who is not within your PvP range.
    Actually, I think they need to make the shield disabler's force a an attack window on towers. Regardless of whether or not the attacker is in an org. Then put a tower 'grace period' before the next shield disabler can be used on that collection of towers (say an hour or 2, barring the automatic recycle of the gas levels).

    Then the proposed design would work as stated.

    Plus it would create a new situation for attackers: Planning and implementing a well coordinated attack.
    History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave. - Edmund Morris

    The first faults are theirs that commit them, the second theirs that permit them. - Unknown

    Did you ever get the feeling that the world had an abundance of idiots? And that God had arranged for you to meet every single one of them before you died? - Kuroshio

  6. #66
    Originally posted by Jynne
    I'll emphasize it again.

    You should always be able to defend your own towers against any attackers, regardless of your level. If you are in your guild's area, you should be able to attack anyone of any level whose 'side' according to the suppression gas would aggro your towers. You should be able to heal and buff anyone of any level whose 'side' is considered friendly to your towers.

    Otherwise this level-bracket limitation on helping your friends plays out as a major and unfair advantage to attackers, and turns leveling into a liability.
    Aw...geez. I reply to another person saying I'd like to see all levels in an org being able to take the battlefield and what do I end up with? Agreeing with you

    But now seriously. I'm a grown man and I know the consequences of my actions. If I'm on my little lowly level crat and I'm out in Mort in the middle of the defense/attack of a high level tower, I promise I won't act:
    • Surprised if a trader eats me, Pampers and all.
    • Disgusted that I wasn't protected protected from harm out in the middle of a playfield I'd have no hopes of surviving on (even with help) in the middle of a huge battle
    • Pissed off if I do something really stupid, like attack one of the level 200 players and they convert my toon into free floating hydrogen atoms in a single shot
    Last edited by Kuroshio; Dec 4th, 2002 at 06:14:24.
    History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave. - Edmund Morris

    The first faults are theirs that commit them, the second theirs that permit them. - Unknown

    Did you ever get the feeling that the world had an abundance of idiots? And that God had arranged for you to meet every single one of them before you died? - Kuroshio

  7. #67

    I dont know?

    My problem is i am lvl 150 and my base was being attacked by a bunch of lower lvl omni's who where around lvl 100 they where doing what ever they wanted to the base and all i could do was try to re-enforce the one person on who could attack them. So if you stop me from doing that are you telling me i just have to sit and watch my towers get destroyed because i am to high to a lvl to fight them off?

  8. #68
    Problems and Solutions...

    1) PvP Flag:
    Flag all the attackers and defenders, then flag anyone regardless of level, who are casting nanos on any PvP flagged char regardless of whether the nano is a hostile or friendly one, including those pulse nanos such as Crats' speeches. This flag should last at least 30 mins or until the gas goes back up to 100% whichever comes first. Moving into different zones should not affect the flag before this period timedout.

    This would solve the problem of out-of-level-range chars assisting others way above AND below their level without any risk. It doesn't put in too many complicated restrictions so everyone can enjoy a good fight if they want to.


    2) New Faction Channel:
    Add 3 new Faction Channel, 1 for each faction. EVERYONE should be able to listen to thier faction channel if they choose to, regardless of where they are (including missions and shops). But ONLY the top 2 or 3 ranks in any Org. can talk in this channel.

    This would allow low level and/or small Org. to yell for help to the entire faction if the attackers are at a level that they can't handle/attack.




    The problem solving Fish

  9. #69
    This is a complex issue. FC intended low QL towers to be fought over by low level people and high QL towers to be fought over by high level people. However, guilds, generally speaking, consist of a broad range of levels. Providing a way for everyone in the guild to be able to contribute to offence or defence whilst maintaining a degree of balance between extremes of levels is the problem.

    As I've said, I see Jynnes point of view on this, though I also see that her example doesn't fit with FCs intentions on towers - high levels were not intended to be involved in fights over low QL towers. So, within the current framework, Jynne is correct, but the real question is whether the current framework is correct.

    It is my understanding that each LCA has a level range. That in and of itself could be used to restrict who can be involved in PvP in that area. That wouldn't solve the problems of guilds with lots of low level twinks however. Though any mixed level guild can help twink their low levels, newbie or not, so that might not be a big issue.
    "Do not try and catch the hamster... that's impossible. Instead only try to realize the truth... There is no hamster, only a deadbeat rollerat..."

    [Social] Means: I don't think we removed any bosses because of bad pathing...there wouldnt be any left if we did :P

    AO Character Skill Emulator and Character Parser and AO Implant Layout Helper

  10. #70
    Lets see...

    We will then have Darkbane the level 200. And because that toon is sort of useless in much of what his org is doing at any time he creates his twinks. Darkbane140, Darkbane100, Darkbane75, Darkbane50 and Darkbane10. (names just taken from the above poster and is not to be mistaken with my standpoint or darbanes standpoint on this issue!)

    All I can think is "omg what a mess that code will be..."

  11. #71
    Originally posted by Jynne
    I think that we have to bear in mind that these fights are supposed to be fun, so far they mostly have been fun (with the exception of the lagfests) and their purpose is for fun.

    Showing up to defend a guild and not being able to attack anyone isn't much fun. Showing up and getting warped away for not being in the right level range wouldn't be fun. Showing up and not being able to heal other Clanners who are dying won't be much fun either. Especially if said Clanners are my guildmates.

    I know that we don't want high level people to ruin low level peoples' fun, and that's important. But we also shouldn't make it so that high level peoples' fun gets ruined, either.

    I'm level 167. I'm not in an uberguild, we have people from level 30 to level 168. Why should I have to level an alt to help my lower-level guildmates or defend a ql 75 or ql 100 tower? Why should I spend precious time logging out, waiting for AO to free memory, and then logging back in as a lower level character just so I can participate in the battle and defend what's mine? If it's my guild's controlled area, I should be able to defend it regardless of my level. I should be able to just walk up and kill a level 70 guy attacking my guild's turrets in three hits. If my being there and my being able to heal my allies there and butcher lower level people attacking it means that a lower level, lower power guild can't ever take the spot over... that is kind of the point!

    Why should a weaker (lower level) attacking force be protected from, and thereby be able to defeat, a stronger (higher level) force... on that stronger force's home ground? That's essentially what the current trend of pvp rules is going to create: a situation where victory will not go to the strongest fighters, or the most skilled fighters, but to the cleverest PvP-rules-manipulators.

    Please have the designers consider this. If you're fighting on a guild's home ground, everyone in that guild - and only that particular guild - should be able to attack you and heal and buff each other, regardless of the other pvp rules. These are our bases. Let us defend them.
    I agree with this, but wish to add that Funcoms developers need to look at this not as a single problem (Coz doing so is how nerfs arrise) but in two different avenues. I think FC needs to allow unlimited defence cababilities in so much that if your Org has 3 lvl 200 Doc's in it and they just happen to be camped @ the Mine with a lvl75 team they should be able to heal them. But only heal them, nothing else. As for attacking, FC's game director said that attacking a mine would be costly and perilous and would require a lot of thought.... So why should the attacking party be allowed to call in high lvl support? If a side wishes to assault a mine it should involve many teams (upto crowd control limits when applied) and should involve high risk for the attackers, yet good chances of resisting by the defenders. Leave the healers alone if there defending, but apply rules if there attacking, as the attackers do so by there choice. FC Make it as hard as you promised to take a tower.
    You know when you have been in the Shadowlands too long when you forget about Whompahs and the Grid and run everywhere

  12. #72
    Originally posted by imhotep


    Leave the healers alone if there defending, but apply rules if there attacking, as the attackers do so by there choice.
    I can only aggree with you on that. And please FC also let us lowlevlers defend a high lvl base in the future, just as it is now. Since NW i have never defended the base where the attackars havent been a wide range of levels. This is something i think makes a lot of fun. Its something thats unit the whole guild in a completley new way, which i absolutley love. :-)

  13. #73
    Cz,

    Kink proposition is good. Too much artificial restrictions will transform the PvP area in something too complex too have fun? The artificial crowd control is already something very bad even if necessary.

    The base question is : are players confortable with the fact of PvPing in an open environment, where huge level difference can exist ?

    What is an acceptable level difference anyway ?
    Is it ok to fight someone with +5 levels ? +10 ? +30 ? +50 ?

    If the system is totally open, PvP will be for 180+ players.
    Everyone else grinding xp in missions until then.
    If the system is too closed, then we can just have RK1-10, RK11-50, RK51-100, etc... to separate players in adequate playfields.

    DAoC adjusted the end-game playfield a few months ago by introducing newbie PvP zones with level limitations. We could just have *some* zones like in NL desert for 30-80 PvP, zones in VW for 50-100 PvP, zones in TLR for 80-130 PvP, etc... and zones opened for all in Mort, Belial or whatever.

    Just make things simple.
    "Donner à des millions une connaissance de l'anglais, c'est les rendre esclaves". (Hind Swarâj, ch. 18)

  14. #74
    This is getting more and more complicated!

    I can see something coming like EQ guild wars.

    Say Excalibur launched an attack on the Red Tigers towers, they have initiated a guild war, and the battle is just between those two orgs, no one else can join in the battle unless they are recruited by the orgs.

    If anyone is recruited during an war, that person cannot join in on the battle for at least 15 minutes, by that time, the attack could be over.

    Just my penny's worth to a discussion that is getting more and more complicated.

  15. #75
    Originally posted by Cz

    I don't think that helps the level 50s who just got attacked by another bunch of level 50s bringing three level 150s to heal them. They can't take on the level 150s anyway, so the PvP flagging doesn't help much (unless the high level cavalry arrives to take down the 150s).

    It shouldn't be a requirement to have high level friends around to take out any high level helpers the enemies might bring, should it?
    Exactly

    Last night our base was under attack, this was a QL 100 base, but most of the attacking clanners where lvl 150+ So they could assist the low lvls with buffs and heals, making it impossible for us to handle the situation by our own, since we had to log in lower lvl alts to attack those who could harm our towers... luckly alot of omni guilds came and helped us kill all the high lvl clanners, but its still stupid, that u have to get help from lvl 150+ people to defend and attack a lvl 100 base...
    Jamesdum President of Ragnarok
    Jamespond Member of Ragnarok
    Jamespond2 Member of Ragnarok

    Want to join Ragnarok?

    Quote on BrutalThug
    Because we have spy's in EVERYONE's guild so we can plan the attack while you sleep !! yeah ! hmm we clearly need to rename the guild to "nordic echelon"

  16. #76
    Originally posted by Darkbane
    This is a complex issue. FC intended low QL towers to be fought over by low level people and high QL towers to be fought over by high level people. However, guilds, generally speaking, consist of a broad range of levels. Providing a way for everyone in the guild to be able to contribute to offence or defence whilst maintaining a degree of balance between extremes of levels is the problem.

    As I've said, I see Jynnes point of view on this, though I also see that her example doesn't fit with FCs intentions on towers - high levels were not intended to be involved in fights over low QL towers. So, within the current framework, Jynne is correct, but the real question is whether the current framework is correct.

    It is my understanding that each LCA has a level range. That in and of itself could be used to restrict who can be involved in PvP in that area. That wouldn't solve the problems of guilds with lots of low level twinks however. Though any mixed level guild can help twink their low levels, newbie or not, so that might not be a big issue.
    That's why I'm saying this, Darkbane... I realize it can't be the intention of the designers to make leveling up into a liability or force people into uberguilds once they pass into the level 140+ range... but that is what this proposed change is going to do. I'm pointing it out.

    What I'm describing will happen as a result of these changes as Cz proposed them isn't what should be, but it is what will be. Any rules coded into the game will be exploited to the fullest, and in this case, all the good 'spoits' are in the favor of the attackers. It's help they don't need, since they already can pick the time of their attack, scout the towers before hand, buff up before hand, and usually have at least 5-10 minutes of freebie hits on the towers before they're engaged by even one person.

    Throw in the fact that towers under ql 201 are disgustingly easy, as in, I can solo them over enough time, and the preferred method for taking out a ql 150 base will be to send in level 120 twink teams with high level buffs.

    Throw in the fact that most 'really new players' aren't level 50s interested in land control, they're level 50s in team missions getting levels 51, 52, 53, and 54 by the end of their gaming session.

    Further throw in the fact that there are a lot of level 150+ people who aren't in an uberguild and who don't really want to be. Should these people be getting the shaft for the sake of other high level peoples' twinks?

    That's what this is coming down to... it's trivially easy to level up in this game, until you reach title 5, though the title 4 cap is pretty annyoing/boring. The only people who stay under level 100 are choosing to: ie, they are twinks created for a purpose. In this case, the purpose is tower attacking.

    Now why should I - and the rest of my guild over level 150 - be forced, no choice, to level a twink to fight them? Maybe we don't want to. Horror of horrors, we want to get our mains to level 200. I guess that means we shouldn't have spent our $20 on notum wars. Does EBGames.com take returns?
    Last edited by Jynne; Dec 4th, 2002 at 14:17:11.
    Taren "Jynne" Suitt, Level 216/16 Eternalist
    Knight of Unity of the Rose - Check out our AO Tools!
    The Doctor Guide to: Notum Wars Martial Arts Perks! Nano Controller Units
    The General Guide to: Auto-Combat General Perks

    Visit the Roses and check out the shops in our City, NE of ICC at 4500x1500 in Andromeda!

    Iron Law of Exploits: If it can be exploited, it will be exploited. However a rule is exploitable, the exploits become the rule.

  17. #77
    Good discussion, everybody. I'm gonna throw in a few words now. Just remember, they are questions, and I ask them to half-provoke answers from you to see what you think. Don't strangle me.

    Some say people should be able to defend their base, no matter how high level they are.

    Why?

    Is it too much to demand from players that they build only bases they can defend with characters in approximately the level range of the area? If you demand to be able to defend your level ~50 org-mates' controller when you're level ~150, how do you feel about attackers bringing along 30 level ~150 characters to assure your defeat? (And if you have enough high level people to stop 30 attackers of that level, why are you spending resources on a low level base instead of a high level one?)

    And how about the attackers? Should you really be able to assist your lower level friends on destroying a base that you yourself can't attack? Is it fair to a defending level ~50 guild with a QL 50 controller that the attacking organization brings along level ~150 characters for buffing and healing? Would you accept that you could never ever take down even a QL 10 controller, because the defending organization had 20 level ~150 characters to defend it?

    I think this is either both or none. We can't let only the defenders use high level people, and say attackers can't, or the other way around. By giving up the right to defend your lower level friends you also assure them the right not to be ganked by other higher level players.

    And there's always going to be somebody stronger than you. If you want to be able to fight lower level people, remember that higher level people will be able to fight you. And if you are on the highest levels, remember that the enemy can bring in more people than you.

    What say you?

  18. #78
    Im for the hard line... aka if your not in the PvP range you shouldn't be there.. end of story.

    By giving up the right to defend your lower level friends you also assure them the right not to be ganked by other higher level players.
    Perfect!

    And this is for your char, not the team PvP limit, that part hasto go! It fubars the PvP limits quite badly.

    That is the only way to really atract low level tower building. As it's today it isn't fun since must have a bunch of 150+ char standing ready to support your tiny ql10 tower in case the attackers have such support.....

    When I build a QL10 tower I want to be very sure that only 7-15 (or what now the limits are) can attack it or support it... otherwise it's no fun at all!
    Dhur the Ninja Pirate NT!

  19. #79

    Talking THIS IS MY POINT!!!

    Originally posted by Cz
    Some say people should be able to defend their base, no matter how high level they are.

    Why?

    Is it too much to demand from players that they build only bases they can defend with characters in approximately the level range of the area? If you demand to be able to defend your level ~50 org-mates' controller when you're level ~150, how do you feel about attackers bringing along 30 level ~150 characters to assure your defeat? (And if you have enough high level people to stop 30 attackers of that level, why are you spending resources on a low level base instead of a high level one?)

    And how about the attackers? Should you really be able to assist your lower level friends on destroying a base that you yourself can't attack? Is it fair to a defending level ~50 guild with a QL 50 controller that the attacking organization brings along level ~150 characters for buffing and healing? Would you accept that you could never ever take down even a QL 10 controller, because the defending organization had 20 level ~150 characters to defend it?

    I think this is either both or none. We can't let only the defenders use high level people, and say attackers can't, or the other way around. By giving up the right to defend your lower level friends you also assure them the right not to be ganked by other higher level players.
    This is my point exactly! As a low- to mid-level character, I don't want to run into a base and start wailing on a tower just to have a bunch of level 150+ Clanners walk up, taunt me for a while, then get bored and break my neck (which was exactly what happened one time) without breaking a sweat. That isn't fun for either side of the conflict. I got frustrated, and the 150+ Clanners would get simply bored of one-hit kills.

    However, as Cz put it, you can't do this sort of thing half-assed. It has to apply across the board; high-level and low-level characters need to have this limitation placed upon them. Let the 150+ PVPers stick with their own raids in DAV while the rest of us handle our own business in PM/Newland/Tir County/whatever.

    No, I'm not agreeing to be a "yes-man" or because I got "pwned" in that battle. (You know who you are ) I just want the chance to: 1) PvP against people within my PvP range, and 2) take down that level 75 tower without getting one-shotted by that 150+ Agent. This is supposed to be a PvP-centric game; let's give everyone a chance of participating - all professions, all levels.
    Yep. I'm back.
    Ph43r.

  20. #80
    Originally posted by Cz
    Good discussion, everybody. I'm gonna throw in a few words now. Just remember, they are questions, and I ask them to half-provoke answers from you to see what you think. Don't strangle me.

    Some say people should be able to defend their base, no matter how high level they are.

    Why?

    Is it too much to demand from players that they build only bases they can defend with characters in approximately the level range of the area? If you demand to be able to defend your level ~50 org-mates' controller when you're level ~150, how do you feel about attackers bringing along 30 level ~150 characters to assure your defeat? (And if you have enough high level people to stop 30 attackers of that level, why are you spending resources on a low level base instead of a high level one?)
    Because guilds are spread across the level range, except for a few guilds at the highest end. Most guilds consist of players from level 10 all the way up to level 200. They don't exist as seperate guilds for 10 to level 30, then level 30 to level 50, then level 50 to level 70, and 70 to 100. My guild has maybe six active level 150+ players in it. That's not enough to defend a level 150+ base, not when level 200 characters can attack the smaller towers and kill them, with no danger to themselves, in 3-5 minutes at the most. Plain and simple. But now, we few high-level players in a medium-level guild aren't going to be allowed to defend a level 100 base that the rest of our guild could build towers at and probably could defend - if we could fight there - instead? Why should we be cut out of Notum Wars for leveling? Why should we have to leave our guild and join a larger org or a 150+ only org to participate? Why can't I have my money back if that's how FC wants us to play?

    Under your proposed systme, Cz, Unity of the Rose cannot own any towers because we won't be able to defend them with enough people of the right level range. So either fix it, or give us all our $20 back. Now.
    And how about the attackers? Should you really be able to assist your lower level friends on destroying a base that you yourself can't attack? Is it fair to a defending level ~50 guild with a QL 50 controller that the attacking organization brings along level ~150 characters for buffing and healing? Would you accept that you could never ever take down even a QL 10 controller, because the defending organization had 20 level ~150 characters to defend it?
    Attacking is a choice. Attacking is a choice. Repeat after me, attacking is a choice. If you allow us to defend our own bases it won't be fair to attackers who are weaker as an organization than we are. Umm... doh? Isn't that how it's supposed to be? Higher level is stronger. Stronger beats weaker. Hello, logic.
    I think this is either both or none. We can't let only the defenders use high level people, and say attackers can't, or the other way around. By giving up the right to defend your lower level friends you also assure them the right not to be ganked by other higher level players.

    And there's always going to be somebody stronger than you. If you want to be able to fight lower level people, remember that higher level people will be able to fight you. And if you are on the highest levels, remember that the enemy can bring in more people than you.

    What say you?
    "Strength is weakness." This isn't allowing us to use our strength to defend ourselves. Kinda like "Freedom is slavery." Or how about, "Get a mitt, and catch a clue."

    The high level players on the attacking end don't have to be able to damage our low level towers or low level players in order to ensure our low level players get killed. They just have to camp the edge of the 75% zone and keep the enemy's low level players buffed and healed. Our low level players will have the same no-chance of beating the attack if the attacking low-levelers have RRFE and cellular crashcart, as if the level 200 players were actually shooting them. It'll just take 15-30 more minutes longer to lose.

    Let's call this Jynne's Iron Law of Exploits: If it can be exploited, it will be exploited. However a rule is exploitable, the exploits become the rule.
    Last edited by Jynne; Dec 4th, 2002 at 15:31:34.
    Taren "Jynne" Suitt, Level 216/16 Eternalist
    Knight of Unity of the Rose - Check out our AO Tools!
    The Doctor Guide to: Notum Wars Martial Arts Perks! Nano Controller Units
    The General Guide to: Auto-Combat General Perks

    Visit the Roses and check out the shops in our City, NE of ICC at 4500x1500 in Andromeda!

    Iron Law of Exploits: If it can be exploited, it will be exploited. However a rule is exploitable, the exploits become the rule.

Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •