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

[Snuble]

So why take away the fun from the typical orgs then? Why push pillows under the low level twink guilds? The guilds that are friend guilds will eventually be either disbanded or consist of a very broad level range.

The guilds that will get out on top of the proposed system, are the same that come out on top today... The change *will* ruin gameplay for the typical guild with some high levels and some low levels. The design *sounds* fair, but its fair with a catch, and no longer fair for the majority of players in AO.

Still behind Jynne on this one.

[Dudicas]

Originally posted by Jynne
No, organizations should attack and defend towers in line with their own power.

We aren't pvping one-on-one. This isn't a duel. It's not even a duel between two orgs, it's a war. They say War is Hell, not War is Fair.

Plain and simple. What else has to be said? Why is this discussion still going on. If you want fair, one-on-one fun, go back to your playpen, erm sandbox, erm arena(yeah thats what they call it here).

[Jynne]

Anyway, I think we've kind of argued this out.

I feel it's time for a comment from Funcom about what the Devs are currently considering, what kind of feedback they're looking for, and what philosophy they are using to develop pvp-guideline limitations by.

The original proposal by Cz is simply going to hurt more than it helps; I think even the people who strongly believe that newbies should be strongly protected will agree that the first proposal won't accomplish that.

/me tosses the ball into the designers' court

[freejack13]

*runs around screaming at various people uselessly*

*realizes that no matter what the players say Cz and the Devs will do whatever <u>think</u> is best anyway*

*screams and rants uselessly anyway*

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Jynne
YES!

That's exactly my point!!

It's not fun for me to see my base pounded and be unable to stop it, because the people doing the pounding are too low level for me to fight back against!

See, if I build a base over QL 150, it gets destroyed by an uber guild. So I don't. They're stronger, I accept that - I recognize and work within my own org's limits.

Now you're trying to tell me that if I stay within my own org's limits, I should lose to a newbie guild? It might be fun to them, but it's sure not fun to me. I paid the same $20 they did.

If the base is of the correct level for your to defend then you can attack the enemy.

If you're trying to say your guilds level-spread allows it to have towers lower/higher then you can 'defend' (in the sence that you cant directly attack the enemy because they are too high/low) then defending it is down to the players of the correct level and not you - sorry but thats how it should be.

Sure its your orgs tower, but you have to draw the line somewhere - if you dont have enough players of that level range, dont build it

You are basically saying you cant defend a tower of your QL due to uber-guilds, so youll take it out on those lower than you - I know this, its call poo rolls downhill, or my dad bigger than your dad.

Your suggestion only promotes elitism and rewards the guilds with the largest playerbase, and the highest level, the little guy doesnt stand a chance, and I'm reminded of all the concerns I raised in the booster about this very thing. May as well cancel my booster order now before DR ship because, in your system, I wont ever keep or take a tower unless I sell my soul to an uber guild and rely on the higher level players

Are we having fun yet? Please spare me

-edit-
Typos

[Snuble]

Warlock:

So what if the tower that your ORG is suited to defend is a level 100 tower? What should the 10 players from 140 to 180 do then? Change org??? Now, remeber one thing Warlock, the typical org is not one with 500 players. Its neither Apocolypse with all players above 150. Its not Apocolypses children with all member below 150. The typical AO org is 50ish active players, spread all over the world and from lvl 50 to 180. Think about that!

And do you really think that you could take on the big orgs anyway? Thats what they are, *big*. And don't forget that while the 10 big orgs hold 50 areas amon themselfs, there is still 250 left for the rest to fight about O_o

[Dudicas]

Originally posted by Warlock


If the base is of the correct level for your to defend then you can attack the enemy.

If you're trying to say your guilds level-spread allows it to have towers lower/higher then you can 'defend' (in the sence that you cant directly attack the enemy because they are too high/low) then defending it is down to the players of the correct level and not you - sorry but thats how it should be.

Sure its your orgs tower, but you have to draw the line somewhere - if you dont have enough players of that level range, dont build it

You are basically saying you cant defend a tower of your QL due to uber-guilds, so youll take it out on those lower than you - I know this, its call poo rolls downhill, or my dad bigger than your dad.

Your suggestion only promotes elitism and rewards the guilds with the largest playerbase, and the highest level, the little guy doesnt stand a chance, and I'm reminded of all the concerns I raised in the booster about this very thing. May as well cancel my booster order now before DR ship because, in your system, I wont ever keep or take a tower unless I see my soul to an uber guild and rely on the higher level players

Are we having fun yet? Please spare me

You don't read a damn thing before you rant do you? The whole point that Jynne and the rest of us are trying to make is IF THIS GOES THROUGH then you will have to sell your soul to an uber guild to get any action.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Warlock


If the base is of the correct level for your to defend then you can attack the enemy.

If you're trying to say your guilds level-spread allows it to have towers lower/higher then you can 'defend' (in the sence that you cant directly attack the enemy because they are too high/low) then defending it is down to the players of the correct level and not you - sorry but thats how it should be.

Sure its your orgs tower, but you have to draw the line somewhere - if you dont have enough players of that level range, dont build it

You are basically saying you cant defend a tower of your QL due to uber-guilds, so youll take it out on those lower than you - I know this, its call poo rolls downhill, or my dad bigger than your dad.

Your suggestion only promotes elitism and rewards the guilds with the largest playerbase, and the highest level, the little guy doesnt stand a chance, and I'm reminded of all the concerns I raised in the booster about this very thing. May as well cancel my booster order now before DR ship because, in your system, I wont ever keep or take a tower unless I see my soul to an uber guild and rely on the higher level players

Are we having fun yet? Please spare me

Under your system an org of 30-40 people with levels spread from 30 to 180 will never be able to own any towers, because they will never have enough characters in the right level range to defend it.

So in your system, poo doesn't roll downhill, no. It just piles up all in the middle. Great idea! Really!

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Snublefot
Warlock:

So what if the tower that your ORG is suited to defend is a level 100 tower? What should the 10 players from 140 to 180 do then? Change org??? Now, remeber one thing Warlock, the typical org is not one with 500 players. Its neither Apocolypse with all players above 150. Its not Apocolypses children with all member below 150. The typical AO org is 50ish active players, spread all over the world and from lvl 50 to 180. Think about that!

The players out of that range should find themselves something else to do (heres an idea, find a tower from the attacking org of their level and attack it). They have no business in the defence because they _technically_ cant do anything about it (they are just abusing a game mechanic to gain an unfair advantage over the otherside, who must either accept defeat or abuse the same mechanic to restore parity). Other than being very boring for everyone this completly removes any skill needed by the 'correct' level characters since the outside buffs tip the balance heavily. Basically it turns into a high level fight (assuming both sides have high levels) otherwise its just a easy slaughter.

Orgs that have spread themselves too thin (i.e. dont have adequate numbers of the appropriate level range to defend all the towers) derserve to lose their towers because of bad planning (greedy land grabbing hiding behind a game mechanic). My guild of approx level 60's wouldnt even think of building a tower of level 20 (for example) if we didnt have enough level 20 players to defend it on their own.

To be honest if beacon warp in Camelot is considered an exploit, players helping players of a different PvP range should also be considered an exploit

No correct level characters = no attack/defence.

Sorry I dont understand why you guys cant see this.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Jynne
Under your system an org of 30-40 people with levels spread from 30 to 180 will never be able to own any towers, because they will never have enough characters in the right level range to defend it.

You comment earlier was to tell everyone to level up, mine is to tell you to ensure you have a decent amount of people in the same level range as the tower if you dont want to lose it

Difference is mine can be done now, yours requires a significate time investment before being able to participate, in which case the booster should include in the system reqs

The Notum Wars requires a character of level 150 or higher

Guess I better cancel then....

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Dudicas


You don't read a damn thing before you rant do you? The whole point that Jynne and the rest of us are trying to make is IF THIS GOES THROUGH then you will have to sell your soul to an uber guild to get any action.

Assuming for a moment you are correct, nothing changes since the uber guilds will win under either system (sheer number of players)

Once crowd control is enabled in all zones the number of high level players (under the current rules) will determine the winner. Take the High levels out of the equasion and now its down to 'equal' numbers of players of the correct level range

(I said 'equal' since I personally think the crowd control will need lots of balancing)

-edit-

Im not ranting, I didnt use the word damn :-)

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Warlock


You comment earlier was to tell everyone to level up, mine is to tell you to ensure you have a decent amount of people in the same level range as the tower if you dont want to lose it

Difference is mine can be done now, yours requires a significate time investment before being able to participate, in which case the booster should include in the system reqs

The Notum Wars requires a character of level 150 or higher

Guess I better cancel then....

The requirements didn't include: "Must join an uberguild if you're over level 150," either.

And yes, my way requires a significant time investment. DOH! That's exactly WHY I should benefit from it!

Because I made the investment that investment has paid off and I am stronger than you are. If you put $100,000 into the stock market and keep reinvesting it over ten years, you're going to make lots more money than someone who puts in $10 and then pulls out after a week.

If you put the time and effort into getting to level 150 over the course of a few months, you should win a lot more battles than someone who only got to level 60 in two weeks.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Jynne
The requirements didn't include: "Must join an uberguild if you're over level 150," either.

And yes, my way requires a significant time investment. DOH! That's exactly WHY I should benefit from it!

Because I made the investment that investment has paid off and I am stronger than you are. If you put $100,000 into the stock market and keep reinvesting it over ten years, you're going to make lots more money than someone who puts in $10 and then pulls out after a week.

If you put the time and effort into getting to level 150 over the course of a few months, you should win a lot more battles than someone who only got to level 60 in two weeks.

So you have more right to control more land than me because you've been playing longer?

and there I was thinking I'd have to justify my elitism statement

if I pay the same monthly sub, I should have the same chance as you. This chance is provided because the areas I fight over are different to the areas you fight over. You however wish to impose yourself on my areas because you are unable to effect your own! Seriously you should be with me on this as it would give you more chance to control land of your own level!

You seem to be against the 'uber guild' concept (as I am) yet your argument makes their position stronger

"We [insert uber guild] took the time to recruit x number of players and you didnt so we should have an advantage over you"

Actually level 60 in 8 months - lets just say I have more to life than AO

-edit-

Oh and if you dont have enough players in the right range, time to find yourself some allies

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Warlock


So you have more right to control more land than me because you've been playing longer?

and there I was thinking I'd have to justify my elitism statement

if I pay the same monthly sub, I should have the same chance as you. This chance is provided because the areas I fight over are different to the areas you fight over. You however wish to impose yourself on my areas because you are unable to effect your own! Seriously you should be with me on this as it would give you more chance to control land of your own level!

You seem to be against the 'uber guild' concept (as I am) yet your argument makes their position stronger

"We [insert uber guild] took the time to recruit x number of players and you didnt so we should have an advantage over you"

Actually level 60 in 8 months - lets just say I have more to life than AO

I'm not against the uber guild concept. Why should I be? They put in the effort to get that strong, as an organization. They have the advantage, the pay-off. They always have. Except for the people at the absolute cap of the game - ie, the people who are level 200 and have all the nifty gear they'd benefit from - there is always someone stronger.

And every patch adds new nifty gear for those strongest people to try and get. It's the nature of the beast.

Our organization put in an effort to get its strength. That strength isn't evenly distributed across our characters, but it's still the results of our efforts, it's what we have. Your organization put in an effort to get its strength. Your strength is more evenly distributed, but it's still just what you have.

Your org is level 60ish. Does that mean that you should lose to some org that's level 50ish? And the 50ish org, they lose to a 40ish one?

That's what I mean by this creating a race to the bottom - except for those few people at the top. And all the crap would pile up in the middle - including on top of you.

[Dudicas]

Originally posted by Warlock

Assuming for a moment you are correct, nothing changes since the uber guilds will win under either system (sheer number of players)

Are you forgetting that an org can only have a finite number of controllers? The uber guilds will all be fighting over the finite number of 200+ areas? They don't want anything to do with our 100 and 75 towers, just like we don't want anything to do with 50 and 10 towers.

And again I must emphasize you are fighting the organization, not their towers. This is not a game of battleship, where you win if you sink all my ships. Its a game of capture the flag, where you win only if you take my base from me and my team without us pummeling you back out of our territory.

[_______________Hypos]

posted by Warlock

Orgs that have spread themselves too thin (i.e. dont have adequate numbers of the appropriate level range to defend all the towers) derserve to lose their towers because of bad planning (greedy land grabbing hiding behind a game mechanic).

What do you mean by bad planning? Does your guild actually try to control the speed at which your members level? What do you do, threaten to kick them out if they level faster than you want them to?

My guild is fairly small, and puts no restrictions on the rate at which chars gain levels. If they level, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine, too. We only ask that they stay within our guild's code of acceptable behaviour. It sounds like this falls under your heading of bad planning. Are you saying that all guilds should enforce leveling requirements and restrictions?

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Dudicas
Are you forgetting that an org can only have a finite number of controllers? The uber guilds will all be fighting over the finite number of 200+ areas? They don't want anything to do with our 100 and 75 towers, just like we don't want anything to do with 50 and 10 towers.

If that were true we would not have having this discussion. Since the high level players would not be 'concerning themselves' with lower level tower conflict - This however is not the case, as only last night at a level 75 area there were a handful of defenders of the correct level backed up by lots of high level characters

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Hypos
What do you mean by bad planning? Does your guild actually try to control the speed at which your members level? What do you do, threaten to kick them out if they level faster than you want them to?

My guild is fairly small, and puts no restrictions on the rate at which chars gain levels. If they level, that's fine. If they don't, that's fine, too. We only ask that they stay within our guild's code of acceptable behaviour. It sounds like this falls under your heading of bad planning. Are you saying that all guilds should enforce leveling requirements and restrictions?

what I am saying is that if your guild builds a level 60 base, and only has 2 characters in the correct range to defend it you deserve to lose it, since you obviously didnt consider its defence when you built it - hence bad planning

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Jynne
Our organization put in an effort to get its strength. That strength isn't evenly distributed across our characters, but it's still the results of our efforts, it's what we have. Your organization put in an effort to get its strength. Your strength is more evenly distributed, but it's still just what you have.

Your org is level 60ish. Does that mean that you should lose to some org that's level 50ish? And the 50ish org, they lose to a 40ish one?

That's what I mean by this creating a race to the bottom - except for those few people at the top. And all the crap would pile up in the middle - including on top of you.

My guild is the same level because it is made up of RL friends that all play together - our similar level is a result of this, nothing more.

IF you can only participate in battle within the level range of the zone and IF the number of players are equal (crowd control) then if you get beaten by a force of 50's when your 60's then you got beaten fair and square

However IF the 60's are the defenders then the battle is in their favour by 2 counts (higher level and towers) so they _should_ win. I dont see how/why you automatically attribute this proposed change with always losing to a lower level team - since your defenders _of the appropriate level_ will always be able to attack a victory by a lower level team will have been rightfully won.

At this point having an adequate number of player in the correct range becomes an issue because of the crowd control system - if you dont have enough the enemy gets an advantage and therefore deserves to win (assuming he has enough firepower to take the towers out)

As it stands a numerically higher defender, with towers can be defeated by a numerically lower number of attackers who have high level support since the attackers can out buff and out heal the defenders - its a war a attrition the defenders cannot win. Once you add high level defender support into the equasion it becomes a stalemate only effected by who got the best high level players there. At that point you may as well save everyone alot of hassle and remove the low level players (since they are not actually making a difference), put the tower level up to that of the high level players (or get rid of them completely) and make it a free for all.

[Dudicas]

Originally posted by Warlock


what I am saying is that if your guild builds a level 60 base, and only has 2 characters in the correct range to defend it you deserve to lose it, since you obviously didnt consider its defence when you built it - hence bad planning

Look, my guilds average level is ~90. I am 160. We put up a 75 and a 100 tower. That is the two closest we can get to our average level. The whole point of the argument is that I shouldn't have to watch the towers that me and my guild put up be destroyed and not be able to do anything. We can't defend a level 150 any better than we could defend a level 100 if the only people allowed to defend it were those in the pvp range of it.

Get off your theoretical high-horse and look at it from the real perspective.

If your guild's average level is 60, your not going to put up a level 100 tower just because you've got 3 or 4 people over 100. Your gonna put up a 50ish, and if those 3 or 4 people can't help defend that QL50 tower, then they WILL be left out. Do you alienate and punish them because they are too high level? Do they kick out the low levels and recruit higher?

If they can't do anything that will allow people outside pvp range to be involved, then just leave it alone! The only reason that my guild would not be able to defend those 75 and 100 towers would be if the attackers brought in/got buffed/were twinked by high level characters. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY funcom can prevent any and all of that from happening. One way or another the attackers will find a loophole to take the advantage. I don't want to sit backand watch my guild get slaughtered by some twinks, when I could easily help them out and I'm even part of the reason the average level is as high as it is.

If you can't see the point we are trying to make and only want to bash our guilds "ability to plan" and make personal attacks on people like Jynne who is spending her own time and effort to voice the opinions of a great majority of the playerbase then I'm not going to be bothered with responding anymore, I'll respond when Cz gives us another set of questions or an update on how the developers have adjusted the proposal.