Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 69

Thread: Discussing crowd limiting

  1. #1


    a) is it possible to change this?

    b) is it possible to make it so people can recruit others into their team while the team is under attack?

    it is hard for a small / medium sized guild to defend their tower.

    usually it ends up being a "help we are under attack at xyz" spam in ooc and lft.

    say i board my plane and zip on over i will not be able to join the defenders team and count as other thus making both a defence and offence extremely difficult to coordinate.
    unless we have bully guilds there dishing it out, most people who attack/defend will be of several smaller guilds.

    i think it would be more fair to somehow evade this since i see the largest portion of the battle groups will be (at least while nw is still fairly new) the "others".
    sept 03 - the day ao was keeled by sl.

    gone now. byebye.

  2. #2
    I suggest that in addition to moving people that damage towers to the end of the deportation list, you also move anyone that launches any sort of attack to the end of the list. That way, those trying to help the defending org will not be deported before attackers.

    Scenario: small guild is under attack from large guild. small guild has formed allies. Under the rules as stated, the allies of the small guild would be the first to be deported out. The small defending guild is protected as they are defenders, and the large attacking guild is protected as soon as they attack a tower.

    I also wonder if these rules make a guild that can bring 40 people in defense effectively invulnerable. 40 defenders + towers against 35 attackers doesn't sound like a fight most attackers would want to get into.

    Also, what happens if the deportation point is over the crowd limits? Are the deportation points arranged in such a way that they are never in a spot that would be subject to crowd limiting?
    Heals - they're not just for tradeskills anymore
    Hypos omni doc RK2 <-- stupid enough to have thought that going past level 150 would help her be a better doc
    Phlair omni mp RK2 solo char
    Nerfbat omni enf RK2 awarded the hammer of braveness
    Shadow Ops

  3. #3
    Please change it to count being teamed with one of the defending org's members as being one of the 'official defenders' or else allies, friends, and helpers will be the first to get pushed out, and attackers can just have people in Yalmahas fly back and forth across the land control area, staying in the 1-minute grace period the whole time, to cause the defending org's allies to get warped away.

    Please please please talk to the devs and make sure they understand that players will figure out ways to exploit their rules.
    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.

  4. #4

    Re: Testing crowd limiting in Mort and Perpetual Wasteland

    Originally posted by Cz
    Controlled areas
    In a land control area with an operating controller, we differentiate between defenders and others. "Others" are everybody not belonging to the organization owning the controller.

    This does not sound good at all. One thing that NW has done very well is UNIFY the factions. I can not tell you how nice it is to hear about a base being under attack and then seeing members of each faction unify together for a cause.

    In this scenarios, here is what I see happening. A base is attackable. Opposing faction orgs combine forces and plan an attack. They are wise and limit it to 40. Attack begins. The org being attacked has 10 people logged in. They all rush to defend their base.

    By the rules you stated, you now have 10 defenders, and you can not get any more seeing as tho that is all that org currently has available to them.

    So, what do you have. You have a 40 vs 10 battle. Not exactly Notum Wars. Just a small skirmish that members from both factions, regardless of org, can not all attend. No unity or alliances are allowed in this scenario.

    Of course I am hoping I misunderstood the logic and that org with only ten members logged in can actually get help.

    How I would do it is: 40 clanners/40 omni limit with 5 delta.

    Omni attack clan base. Clanners from org owning base come in. Fellow clan allies also come in. All clanners are considered defenders. Priority for defenders being removed form playfield would be. Anyone not in owning org goes first. If someone from owning org tried to grid in and cap is reached, then someone not in org is pushed out.

    Note: I am not forgetting about neutrals. In fact, I would think the existence of the neutral faction makes this all the more difficult for FC to implement.

    I would even say do it something like this:

    Clan base is attacked by omni: 35/35/10 (clan/omni/neutral)
    Omni Base Attacked by clan: 35/35/10 (omni/clan/neutral)
    Neutral Base attacked by clan: 35/35/10 (neutral/clan/omni)
    Neutral Base attacked by omni: 35/35/10 (neutral/omni/clan)

    Gives neutrals a chance to help either clan or omni when omni or clan attack one another. Gives Omni a chance to either help neutral or clan when neutral are attacked by clan. Gives clan a chance to either help neutral or omni when neutral are attacked by omni.

    As for omni helping clan or clan helping omni in these scenarios, stranger things have happened. Besides, neutral can shoot first now and who knows what their role will ultimately be.

    Sorry for the long post, I just hope its logical because I am not gonne re-read it.

    One Notation: This would only apply for 25%, not 5%.
    Last edited by Aulis; Dec 3rd, 2002 at 19:36:21.
    Warboc - 218 Adv
    President of Defiance

  5. #5

    putting the neutrals in

    will be challenging to say the least.

    unless the chat channels are extended it will be extremely difficult to even get the WORD around that one of their bases is under attack to clan or omni allies.

    or has the policy about the org towers channel been lifted?

    if so, will the channels be changed so that neutrals can be heard by both factions - it would sorta make sense if they were.
    sept 03 - the day ao was keeled by sl.

    gone now. byebye.

  6. #6
    I see on serious problem here.

    If members of the same faction are in a zone, and they are being seen as 'others' this limits them from being able to help thier fellow omni/clan defend thier towers.

    Example: A smaller guild who ha strong alliances to the other major guilds sets up towers, and gets attacked by say 40-50 people of the opposing faction (an relativly easy number that the clans typicaly amass.)

    When thier omni allys come to thelp they have not attacked the towers, so they get deported first, and the defending guild is left with 10 against 40, because they dont have thier own 40 (members of thier organization) to defend.

    I thikn that we may need to make this so that anyone teamed with a member of the control towers organization, should be considered a defender, as this is what they are doing. It would seem that the code to tell this is there, and I think that this will be a significant issue as we move forward with crowd limiting.

    Just my thoughts on the matter

    215 Solitus Soldier RK1
    Advisor Midnight Reveries.

    Do politics exist? Yes.
    Who's involved in them? Anyone who wants to be.

    If you spend your time worrying about what everyone else is doing in their lives, you'll miss what's happening in yours.

  7. #7
    Originally posted by Cz
    . . .
    In a land control area with an operating controller, we differentiate between defenders and others. "Others" are everybody not belonging to the organization owning the controller.
    . . .
    Please change this so the "other" category does not include people of other organizations helping defend the area. If it is not changed it give the attackers an unfair advantage.
    Johnathgalt Rimor Clanner

    wtb crusader chant

    Succeeding at my job is like winning a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie.

  8. #8
    I can see a problem with this as well for smaller organizations that aren't able to throw together 40 people to defend their holdings. It is already bad enough to babysit the towers for 6 hours a day, now the tower owners also have to keep an army at the ready?

    Too many advantages go to the attackers.
    Charles 'Kithrak' Houston - Equipment
    Administrator, Omni-Admin
    Bringing the politics of Rubi-Ka to life!

    "He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster....when you gaze long into the abyss the abyss also gazes into you..." -Friedrich Nietzsche-

    "By denying support to the possibility of peace, the Council of Truth is guranteeing an outcome of war."-Administrator Houston-

  9. #9
    I got affected by this "crowd control" and i must say i didnt liked it how it worked.

    A tower in Belial Forrest near the Wine Whom-Pah was under attack. (Ok, i know "Discussing crowd limiting in Mort and Perpetual Wasteland", but it happened there too )
    Some peeps decided to defend the tower (wasent "their" towers, was very "mixed"), "cleared" the threat and "secured" the area. After a while the attackers came back with a decent backup. Result was that many defenders got warped a) a bit back or b) really far away from the tower. (Of course also some attackers got warped, but if they already outnumber the defenders...)

    I know its not (yet ) how the defenders are defined, but please change this somehow so that also "different" people can be tagged as defenders.
    Last edited by Haxar; Dec 3rd, 2002 at 21:27:52.
    Apocalypse 'Redux' Now

  10. #10

    for the record :

    posted by Cz in the crowd control thread (my first post is a spin off from that thread):

    Teaming with a defender doesn't make you a defender.

    I failed to get the exact time between the checks, but I believe they are approx 1-2 minutes.

    __________________________________________________ _

    that`s how it is so far.

    i suggested that teaming with a defender changes you from "other" to "defender" and teaming with a person should be possible while the team is under attack as well.

    provided we really get the change that teaming with a defender changes you to defender as well it would be wise that you can recruit people into a team while said team is fighting as well.

    while teaming with a person might merit slight abuse (like dropping killed people to recruit fresh warm bodies - if you want to call that abuse) i think organizing the fights is much to difficult elsewise.

    additionally defenders are usually organized while they pour in and while a battle is already in progress.
    sept 03 - the day ao was keeled by sl.

    gone now. byebye.

  11. #11
    Why was this spun out of the main thread?
    Heals - they're not just for tradeskills anymore
    Hypos omni doc RK2 <-- stupid enough to have thought that going past level 150 would help her be a better doc
    Phlair omni mp RK2 solo char
    Nerfbat omni enf RK2 awarded the hammer of braveness
    Shadow Ops

  12. #12

    Wink hmm i guess

    they want one thread with the results of what they chose to implement and one where we whine and condense our ideas.
    sept 03 - the day ao was keeled by sl.

    gone now. byebye.

  13. #13
    Heals - they're not just for tradeskills anymore
    Hypos omni doc RK2 <-- stupid enough to have thought that going past level 150 would help her be a better doc
    Phlair omni mp RK2 solo char
    Nerfbat omni enf RK2 awarded the hammer of braveness
    Shadow Ops

  14. #14
    Im not sure how many of you have NW yet or have participated in an actual tower defense or attack, but there is one factor that alot of you are ignoring which will add a dimension to what is being suggested.

    You CANNOT participate in the fight whatsoever if you are outside the level ranges. IE: a lvl 70 cannot participate in a fight on a lvl 125 tower, etc. etc.

    This will automaticly restrict who can participate. Any people out of lvl range will presumably be warped out under these rules regardless if you belong to the org tower. Maybe not?

    Certainly adds a complicating issue.

  15. #15
    How can everyone see the problems with this, and not Funcom?

    My guess is some lead came up with this before he got his morning coffee, fell in love with the idea, and none of the others had the balls (or energy) to actually go through it step by step and show him the flaws. That's just how bad it is.

    a) it promotes _massive_ guilds -- you need enough members that you'll have at least 40 suitable defenders online during the 5(6?) hour opening at every tower every day.

    b) it ruins alliances, and the work alot of guilds have put down in finding suitable alliance partners.

    c) it ruins what was finally appearing: the main conflict. Clan vs. Omni is now happening after one and a half year. Anyone who ever was in the battles in Stret West during beta have waited for these regular, omni vs. clan, mass mayhem, outdoors battles.

    d) you're testing this solely in clan/neutral controlled areas. I know Gaute (or lead designer, can't remember which one.. maybe both) has his heart in Omni-1, but seeing the flawed crowd control being tested out against clan/neut defenders only is just a bit more su****ious than I can accept.

    History tells us Funcom likes to patch first and appologize later, but someone (Cz, please?) should stop this testing from going live tomorrow with the current flawed logic.

    - schma

    :: schma ran out of cookies on the 4th of march, 2003 ::
    :: Hitched a ride back with the aliens ::

  16. #16


    How about a server upgrade? Anyone with a decent machine can handle all the comotion, but it seems the servers cant...

  17. #17
    people who are in the same faction as the defenders should not be warped out unless we're reaching the absolute cap. I just flew to help defend another org's tower complex and could very well have been warped out because I wasn't in their org. There is no way they could get 40 people from their guild up to Mort but have worked hard to make reciprocal alliances to help them.

    The attacker already has the advantage of assembling 40 people at an unknown location and storming in all at once without any fear whatsoever of getting warped out of combat. the least you could do is ensure that the 40 friends of the defending guild who came to help are allowed to do their job.

    Now what about the level 10 member of the attacking guild who is flying around in his Yalm? Not only can't he be attacked, he can't even be ejected from the lc area.

    This is a bad change put forth with good intentions. So many smaller guilds have recently felt like they are part of the world again. It's offered renewed hope in the game. It's brought together the smaller guilds into alliances and fostered a sense of brotherhood amongst the mainstream populace.

    I'm thinking that this may need to be put off until true temporary alliances can be formed during times of distress from which you can truly determine who is a defender of a particular installation. I don't think the current plan works well at all considering that people friendly to the controlled area can be ejected against their will by just bringing in more hostiles.

  18. #18


    that is kinda the point.

    given that the defender will be scrambling all kinds of people (please turn recruited others into defenders) to get to their tower the defenders will be organizing as they arrive.
    (recruiting while fighting would ruxor)

    another thing i noticed only now and i really like:

    the system apparently does not differ between the faction of the attacker/defender !!!

    i remember another post (up there ^) asking about neutrals and what happens to them while instantly assuming 40/40 meant omni and clan.

    credit where credit is due funcom apparently thought about brother wars where bully clan or omni guilds want to "assimilate" smaller ones - if i understand the system correctly it can handle that.
    Last edited by Blackwing; Dec 4th, 2002 at 01:55:16.
    sept 03 - the day ao was keeled by sl.

    gone now. byebye.

  19. #19

    another interesting thread

    said thread discusses military roles of the past and how these should be brought into ao.

    regardless of what you think of tactics or nemesis classes one question remains that is not directly limited to crowd control but still extremely important:

    how do the groups communicate?

    if people are not in the same guild there is only ooc chat.

    if you use ooc chat you automatically discard the neutrals.

    so maybe a battle channel (how to gain access to this since it would be a tad difficult to differ who is teamed with whoma nd should hear) or some chat bot types where you can log onto.

    i like the idea of an automatic chatbot the most - ao has the really nifty possibility of opening and inviting people into private chatrooms.

    this could be expanded so that it does not get dropped if the person who opened the chat client goes ld and that there is an automatic log on for people you team with...

    no idea how this could be coded or even realized it is just an idea that ran over me now lol.
    sept 03 - the day ao was keeled by sl.

    gone now. byebye.

  20. #20
    Please implement support for extending the definition of "defenders" to include alliance memebers!

    About the cap - is it possible to fill up a controlled area with 80 attackers temporarily, if it is or becomes empty of defenders? If the delta is 5 and the check frequency is 1-2 minutes, it would take 8-16 minutes for 40 defenders to get back in (assuming the first returning defenders are still alive after that long).
    Metalline, blessed with tradeskills and thunder - and irony

Page 1 of 4 1234 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