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

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Dhurdahl
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!

And if those level 7 players have a high level fixer HOT on them, constantly being refreshed by a fixer you can't touch because he's staying in the 75% zone?

The ONLY way this will work, is if higher level players can't buff lower level players at all. Ever. Anywhere. I think that's going to kind of, oh, I don't know, wreck the whole damn game won't it?

[Dhurdahl]

Originally posted by Jynne
And if those level 7 players have a high level fixer HOT on them, constantly being refreshed by a fixer you can't touch because he's staying in the 75% zone?

The ONLY way this will work, is if higher level players can't buff lower level players at all. Ever. Anywhere. I think that's going to kind of, oh, I don't know, wreck the whole damn game won't it?

Yepp only way to stop that is to stop highlevel char buffing low levels, and that is a BAD BAD idea. As you said, would wreck lots of stuff.

As I undertood this change is that both the high and low char needs to be in the 75% (without PvP flag) to be able to buff.

Im willing to take the "risk" of fighting lowlevel chars with highlevelbuff since it's a big big improvment from what we have today.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Dhurdahl


Yepp only way to stop that is to stop highlevel char buffing low levels, and that is a BAD BAD idea. As you said, would wreck lots of stuff.

As I undertood this change is that both the high and low char needs to be in the 75% (without PvP flag) to be able to buff.

Im willing to take the "risk" of fighting lowlevel chars with highlevelbuff since it's a big big improvment from what we have today.

Check the Iron Law of Exploits. Low level characters with high level buffs will become the rule for low level tower pvping.

It really isn't hard to find a few nice players from your own side who will be happy to buff you up to go gank a few enemy towers. In fact, it'll be even easier than it is to find someone to buff you up to go arena ganking.

[dropcid]

Don't know if this has been brought up, but make sure you take crat speeches (and any other area buffs) into consideration when you do this, otherwise they will become useless for NW.

-D

[Ulltima]

Originally posted by Jynne
The ONLY way this will work, is if higher level players can't buff lower level players at all. Ever. Anywhere. I think that's going to kind of, oh, I don't know, wreck the whole damn game won't it?

Good point. How about this:

Any nanoprograms that cannot be cast by anyone on your team (or, if you are not on a team, by you without considering profession restrictions) are suppressed (read: do not work) when you enter an enemy land control area. Another option is to switch the word "suppressed" with "terminated", meaning that those buffs end permanently.

Thoughts?

[Dudicas]

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?)

So be it. Because this is exactly what is happening now and we are dealing with it.

Let me provide an example from my own guild. We have roughly 100 members and our average level is ~90. We have a QL75 tower and a QL100 tower. We put up those level of towers because we felt that we would have the best chance of holding that land due to our average level. Our guild is largely consisted of Mains due to our recruitment policies. We have a very large weakness also do to the homogenous nature of the professions in our guild. We have about 5 characters over level 150. I'm one of those and though I would love to have a higher level controller so that I could get much better benefits, I know that it better serves my guild for us to have a lower controller. Therefore I have one QL75 personal tower and two QL100s. Are you going to tell me that I have to stand by and watch as a swarm of twinked out alts comes in and destroys my QL75 tower because I happen to be one of the higher level members of my guild? Do I have to leave my guild and go join a "uber guild" now just so I can enjoy this new aspect?
Our guild is here to roleplay and interact with the world, we don't have level restrictions due to that fact, but does that mean our lower level members should be restricted from joining in on the fun with towers, just so the higher level people can put up some high level towers? The way I see it the higher levels are sacrificing for the good of the lower levels, don't punish them for doing that.

Originally posted by Cz

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.

So far that I've seen higher levels haven't gone out to help just so a lower level could "gank a tower". All the higher levels go out there because they know there will be higher level defenders show up that they can fight. And why would we WANT a QL10 controller? The bonuses for owning a piece of land that low must be pathetically worthless.

Originally posted by Cz
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?

Again all I can say is So Be It. Even if there isn't someone stronger than you, you'll eventually get nerfed anyway. I just don't want this to end up being some sort of political fiasco where only the guilds that focus on doing nothing but tower battles get to have any enjoyment out of it. I don't want to have to go recruit a bunch of level 75ers and say okay you can't level, we need you to stay at this level so you can defend the tower. This is supposed to be something that is a side by side, parallel addition to the game. Its not supposed to be either you play NW completely or you can't play at all. If you start throwing more and more rules on it then only the rules mongers will get to play it.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Ulltima


Good point. How about this:

Any nanoprograms that cannot be cast by anyone on your team (or, if you are not on a team, by you without considering profession restrictions) are suppressed (read: do not work) when you enter an enemy land control area. Another option is to switch the word "suppressed" with "terminated", meaning that those buffs end permanently.

Thoughts?

I'm level 167. I'm a Doctor. I don't meet the requirements to cast RRFE. Or sloughing field. And probably for PNH. Does that mean I have to team with people who do? Spend IP in skills I don't want? Or lose the advantage of those buffs entirely for notum wars, when they are quite appropriate for my level?

[Snuble]

I'm behind Jynne on this one.

Why won't people place towers in their own level range.
a) because most are in orgs with players spread from 1 to 200 (okay, more then a few don't actually got a level 200 player).
b) there is a limited number of high level fields. you take what you get.

My org, VotC is among the largest when it comes to numbers, we got a large number of active players, but look at the average level. Its 80ish. Okay, when you substract the alts, we might have a average of about 100. Now, we do have a QL100 tower. Get a QL 150 tower, and its open to attack from level 200 players. Sorry, but we just can't defend against that with most players in the 120-150 region, and quite a few in the sub 100 range.

Unless you really want the "subway-org" culture to spread, *do not* continue that idea.

[_______________edict]

Originally posted by Dhurdahl
Im for the hard line... aka if your not in the PvP range you shouldn't be there.. end of story.

...and I agree with this 100% too.

If you (ie, not your team) are not within the PvP range of the players defending/attacking - no healing/buffing or whatever.

We had some interesting fights yesterday that went on for 20-40 minutes with no one dying due to outside intervention

We all had a laugh about it, but it was a little silly.

Question - Will this include any buff or just the high level ones? Ie, could an 150~ enforcer buff his lowest essense on the low level attackers/defenders? or would it exclude all and any buffing? (guess it would have too, but thought I would ask )

[Gibbet1]

Hate to say, it, but the only way to prevent this exploit (and it is an exploit) without creating even more lag (due to yet more complicated lines of code) is to prevent any nano's being cast by a high lvl char on a char outside of their teaming range (at least downwards).

Whilst i know that in some ways it will cause a lot of people to moan, as you would then not be able to uber twink any char, in some ways it might be a good idea?

Look at it this way, it would prevent the issues being discussed here, it would also prevent uber twinking and therefore level the playing field somewhat between new players and old players?

It would make it harder to lvl chars at lower levels and slow down some of the i can make it to 150 in 4 weeks brigade. You would still be able to twink any char with buffs within the range and any equipment that they might be able to equip, you wouldn't screw up teaming at higher lvl's (as you do by making nano's self cast only).

I know its a controversial idea and i will almost certainly get shouted down, but before you do, think about it?

I've been guilty of twinking chars at low lvl's and as such it will make my life more difficult as well, but on balance i'm not sure it would actually be a bad thing?

It would need to be very carefully implemented, with all the aspects considered, but apart from preventing uber twinking, i can't really think of any major downside?

Over to you CZ, i suppose it boils down to how badly (or possibly possitively?) it would affect FC's bottom line?

Would people leave? or would they take it in the way it was ment, i.e to prevent this problem and even the playing field in pvp rather better?

Not really too sure, but bracing myself for the tirade of shouts

[mulps1]

At the moment alot of guilds assist each other, all coming to help when trouble comes their way. This is actually fun as all can participate, the word goes out on clan/ omni channels and all come to help who can making battles alot of fun, adding the abiltiy to form alliances to get help fast from guilds would help smaller guilds get the help they need and add another aspect to the game


This change will be bad as attackers will be able to get buffed outside the zone but defenders cant really leave it.
When you defend, you basically warp there as fast as you can so not aways able to buff.. then you get your buffs there if you do this it will make it v unfair on the defenders as they then cannot get the buffs they need..or they will have to get them before they go to the base and that will be too late....
Combat is already too restricted with the lvl ranges. In a laggy battle targeting a green player attacking a friend and then having to wait 20 seconds to find out you are unable to help is really frustrating.. doing the same with nanos would make it even worse
When you target someone you should only get a red bar if you can attack them and a different colour one if you cannot.

Maybe certain nanos should be treated differently those that prolong the life of a player in combat ie heals and absorbing sheilds etc.. make it so if you CH above your lvl range then you are open to attack from those people or if its below the lvl range make it possible to use towers that are designed for this.
They can debuff them harder or do alot of damage to them, make a tower that stuns such a person for 30 seconds and leave them open to attack from all lvls .... a tower that stops CH or higher lvls from casting into lower ranges but is only a lvl 50 tower etc , so that defenders cant get CH or outsde support either but if they are in a guild where they feel they cannot get the help then its an option they can take etc ...work this into the game to make people use tactics..make it fun ... attackers have to target those towers first etc ..so can get the support they need.. ..

dont do things that remove content from people ..work with what is happening to inprove and add depth to the game.

High lvl players making lowbie twink alts to attack the lower lvl bases will always beat the defenders, atm the ability for all lvls to participate give those people who do not play alot or are not in bigger guilds a chance of holding their tower. So you will hurt the people i think that you are trying to help, the addition of lots of different tower types that are designed to help guilds effect how higher and lower lvl players can be involved in the battle will add to the game but above all give people the freedom of choice to choose how they want to defend their areas, using such a blunt instement to try and change things will only result in different problems and more unhappy people so is a fruitless excercise

for me this change as it stands would mean i am unable to defend my guilds base in any form, so i either cannot participate in NW or i have to leave my guild neither is a good option i think.

oh and to stop low and high lvl spies well that is pointless to be honest as you can just make a clan alt to spy etc so doing anything to try and prevent that is just a losing battle

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Zifa
Hate to say, it, but the only way to prevent this exploit (and it is an exploit) without creating even more lag (due to yet more complicated lines of code) is to prevent any nano's being cast by a high lvl char on a char outside of their teaming range (at least downwards).

Whilst i know that in some ways it will cause a lot of people to moan, as you would then not be able to uber twink any char, in some ways it might be a good idea?

Look at it this way, it would prevent the issues being discussed here, it would also prevent uber twinking and therefore level the playing field somewhat between new players and old players?

It would make it harder to lvl chars at lower levels and slow down some of the i can make it to 150 in 4 weeks brigade. You would still be able to twink any char with buffs within the range and any equipment that they might be able to equip, you wouldn't screw up teaming at higher lvl's (as you do by making nano's self cast only).

I know its a controversial idea and i will almost certainly get shouted down, but before you do, think about it?

I've been guilty of twinking chars at low lvl's and as such it will make my life more difficult as well, but on balance i'm not sure it would actually be a bad thing?

It would need to be very carefully implemented, with all the aspects considered, but apart from preventing uber twinking, i can't really think of any major downside?

Over to you CZ, i suppose it boils down to how badly (or possibly possitively?) it would affect FC's bottom line?

Would people leave? or would they take it in the way it was ment, i.e to prevent this problem and even the playing field in pvp rather better?

Not really too sure, but bracing myself for the tirade of shouts

The first line in your signature says, "Why nerf? stop nerfing people for the sake of PvP."

Now re-read what you just wrote.

[_______________edict]

We are just talking about buffing characters in LC areas right?

I would hate to think that high level players could not longer buff SFA, Riot Control, Mochies and that sort of thing!

[Jynne]

Originally posted by edict
We are just talking about buffing characters in LC areas right?

I would hate to think that high level players could not longer buff SFA, Riot Control, Mochies and that sort of thing!

The problem is, Edict, that if you limit it to the LC areas all you do is ensure that the attacking people have high level outside buffs, and the defending people don't.

Why? Because the attacking people can get a soldier friend, a doctor friend, an enforcer friend, or a fixer friend to stand at the edge of the LC area, or whatever assembly point they have, and buff them. But the defending people need to, umm, be defending their base. Inside the LC area. So the defenders, inside their own assembly area - aka their base - can't get the same buffs.

Basically this turns having a wide range of different-level characters in your org, into a liability to the org and to all the characters in it, and it makes your base work against you instead of for you in terms of defending it.

[Darkbane]

And the only way round that would be for running nanos to record the level of their caster, and on becoming PvP enabled after entry into a LCA, terminate all those cast by a player outside the LCAs level range/controller's PvP range. Then the high levels can buff them all they like outside the 25% zone, but the buffs would end once they became PvP enabled.

Then at least both sides would be on the same footing.

EDIT: Oh, and Jynne... keep poking holes in these ideas, your doing a great job

[_______________Hypos]

The only way to truly implement this form of "fairness" is to remove all forms of player cooperation from the game.[list=1][*]I have spent many hours out a the claw camp trying to get GA and NS for other guild members. How can this possibly be fair to players that don't have high level friends willing to do that?[*]A lower level guildee once lost a huge amount of credits and items because of a game bug. I gave him a lot of money to help him recover. How can this be fair to other chars that are effected by bugs?[*]As a low level and very, very poor doc, some of my teammates gave me money so I could buy nano rechargers. Nano rechargers are an enormous advantage in mass PvP. How could this possibly be fair to players that don't have such thoughtful teammates?[*]I give people treatment buffs so they can get better implants in. How can this possibly be fair to people that don't know high level docs?[*]The other day, I got a wrangle to get a better weapon equipped. How can this be fair to people to people that don't know friendly traders?[*]Sometimes, I get outside buffs to make blitzing easier. This means I get credits faster than someone who doesn't have these outside buffs. How can that be fair?[*]A guild crat let me follow him through smugglers den, hoping we could get MKII armor. How can this be fair to anyone that doesn't know a high level mezzer?[*]I've been reeted before to make entrance to smugglers den easier. How can this be fair to people that don't know high level Advs?[/list=1]If you truly believe that "fairness" requires low level chars to stand on their own, then every single one of these things should be made illegal. The only way to truly implement this type of "fairness" is to throw out all forms of player cooperation.

That would totally and completely stink.

[edit] fixed a spelling error

[Kuro]

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?)

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?

My org is my family and our base is our home. It's only right that any member of the family be able to defend their own if they so choose.

But why should the attackers be restricted to level (at least until the lowbie does something that can be considered as hostile)? In my opinion no matter how strong you make the towers and their defenses, base owners will always be at a disadvantage.

• Their investment is stationary, giving the attackers the advantage of knowing where to attack
• They have no choice but to defend their investment, while the attackers have the advantage of choosing when to attack.

Towers can be taken through a simple war of attrition because 2 of the major requirements to fight a war of attrition are automatically fulfilled.

Therefore, if we want to do battle, even if the enemy is protected by high walls and deep moats, he cannot but do battle, because we attack what he must rescue. - Sun Tzu

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Darkbane
And the only way round that would be for running nanos to record the level of their caster, and on becoming PvP enabled after entry into a LCA, terminate all those cast by a player outside the LCAs level range/controller's PvP range. Then the high levels can buff them all they like outside the 25% zone, but the buffs would end once they became PvP enabled.

Then at least both sides would be on the same footing.

EDIT: Oh, and Jynne... keep poking holes in these ideas, your doing a great job

Well, this system would cancel people who had lower-ql buffs cast on them by higher-level characters, yet leave higher-ql buffs if they were cast (via mochams, wrangles, and specialized implants - ie, by twinks) by lower-level characters.

First example - if we consider it "unfair" for a person to get RRFE from a level 190 soldier before going out to take on a base, but "fair" for them to have Lesser Deflection Shield (or whatever a level 50-ish reflect shield is called), why would it be "fair" for someone to get Lesser Deflection Shield from a level 50 soldier, but "unfair" to get Lesser Deflection Shield from a level 190 soldier? Same low-level nano, right?

Second example - it's "unfair" for someone to fight in a LCA with RRFE from a level 150 soldier who can self-cast it. But if a level 100 soldier put in some great implants, and got a wrangle and two mochams, and was somehow able to cast RRFE - that would be considered "fair." Same buff, though.

Honestly, I don't see a way that this buff limitation can be implemented without its being A - of trivial effectiveness, B - a disgusting advantage for an attacking force, or C - a game-breaker for everyone and everything that isn't Land Control.

Maybe, maybe, maybe, if each buff were assigned an arbitrary "buff level" that is attached to the nano itself, instead of using the caster's level, it could be balanced. If the time and effort were taken to really look at the way people actually use buffs and play the game, and the "buff levels" were set up to be reasonable.

I don't trust Funcom to do that reasonably though. Look at the skill requirements and level limits on all the new stuff they've been adding lately. The reason so many people are thinking the designers are smoking weed, is because all these requirements are bloody high.

[Cz]

Originally posted by Jynne
Attacking is a choice. Attacking is a choice. Repeat after me, attacking is a choice.

If that's gonna be an argument, remember that taking control of an area which you will have to defend is also a choice.

And please, talking about money back in every second post is really not very constructive. I'm not going to even discuss it, so please leave that for some other time.

Originally posted by Darkbane
EDIT: Oh, and Jynne... keep poking holes in these ideas, your doing a great job

Yes, indeed. Getting a lot of good points here. (From others too, and for both sides.)

Heading home now. Back tomorrow for more reading.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Cz

If that's gonna be an argument, remember that taking control of an area which you will have to defend is also a choice.

Cz, I want to take control of an area I have to defend. That's the whole point behind my arguments - I want to be able to actually go defend the areas my organization takes control of! I'm saying that the fact that I'm a level 167 character in an organization with an average level of around 65 shouldn't preclude me from defending our bases with my guildmates

If you're planning to attack someplace, you can go and look at the owner organization's roster on the web. Say you're a low-level organization, and you want to take a ql 50 base owned by another org. You check their roster, and if you see that they have a number of players who are higher level and would crush you, you have the time to go look for some higher level people on your own faction to come help you. That's what I mean by attacking is a choice. You have time to prepare for it, to figure out how much force you'll need, and to bring that much force. EDIT: If you don't do this, and don't plan... then heck you deserve to be spanked when 5 level 200s boil out of the controller through the grid and kill you so hard you have to reclaim twice.

On defense, you don't have time to prepare for it like that. So the defenders should have the advantage of being able to defend with whomever and whatever is at hand inside their own base, even if that means level 200 characters are insta-killing level 1s. The attacker has the opportunity to prepare and exploit the rules and limits on pvp ranges and levels. The defender doesn't. The only way that limits can be imposed in a way that doesn't translate into a massive disadvantage for organizations with a wide range of member levels trying to defend their bases, is if the limits don't apply to them.

And please, talking about money back in every second post is really not very constructive. I'm not going to even discuss it, so please leave that for some other time.

I bought the booster under the impression that I'd be able to build bases and defend them. That's the game-play addition the booster brings - and it is a good one. I love it. I am happy that I can build bases and defend them. I used to hate PvPing, now I think it's a blast, all because of these towers.

But I will not be happy when I can build bases, and then am prevented from defending them by changes to the rules for defending bases, after I have already spent my money to pay for the ability to build bases. The money-back comments are a barb, a jab, and they are intended to be. This is your customer talking: Don't freeze me - and the many, many other people in my situation - out of the action.

Yes, indeed. Getting a lot of good points here. (From others too, and for both sides.)

Heading home now. Back tomorrow for more reading.

I'm not saying that this can't be balanced. But what I am saying is that the limits you listed in the original post, as you described them, are game-breakers for organizations with a large spread of levels and will very much hurt the gameplay and enjoyment - and customer satisfaction - of the many players who, like myself, happen to be over level 150 but aren't in an uber-guild.

I understand entirely that you don't want low-level bases belonging to truly low-level, new-player filled organizations to be easily and completely overrun by low-level characters with high-levels backing them up. That's why limiting the attackers from healing and buffing lower-levels, while leaving defenders to defend however they can, will work:

If high level people are defending the base, other high level people can come attack them per the normal rules - covering their low level people to fight the low level defenders and the towers. But if no high level are defending, then the high level attackers won't decide the battle through healing and buffing. And if high levels are defending a base with only low levels attacking, it is normal, natural, logical, right, and fair that the low levels should lose. Leveling up is a time and effort investment. It should never be a liability.