Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69

Thread: Discussing crowd limiting

  1. #21
    Originally posted by Metalline
    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).
    What needs to be done is add a new org command, /org alliance. Basically a command, availible to any member of the Controller's defending organization, to offer a temporary alliance to that organization during the battle. To prevent abuse:
    1. Make accepting the temporary alliance explicitedly consential via a dialog box that says "xxx offers you a temporary alliance. Do you accept?".
    2. Make leaving the alliance up to the individual in question (same way a person can leave a team at any time).


    Now any individual can join in the defense of any org's towers. RP consequences, such as the attackers noticing the individual and taking it out on the individual's org isn't FC's worry .

    Then you can tally allies when determining who to deport.

    Later on it would be possible to enhance on that feature, such as creating a chat channel where everyone can communicate, while keeping allies separate from the main org chat (like a tower vicinity channel or something). Or allowing for Org to Org alliances between Org Leaders, allowing each org to access the other's grid egress points (sorry, but sharing tower bonuses would likely throw balance into a tizzy).
    Last edited by Kuroshio; Dec 4th, 2002 at 06:34:19.
    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

  2. #22
    Jeez...

    You have to log
    1)damage done inside the area
    2)heals done to others in the area
    3)assign weight to buffing others

    Just log damage done to towers and you've given any attacker a very nice advantage.

    Also people outside the defenders org, but in team with one of the defenders should be flagged as a defender.

    And never drop gas to 5% unless a org from the same side use a shield disabler on a tower.

    And read my lips: *ITS NOT READY FOR LIVE!!!*

  3. #23
    For got to make this one sticky yesterday. Sorry 'bout that.

    I also changed the subject to avoid limiting it to Mort and PW. The thread was split out from the original one to have test info easily available. Any discussion is bound to be a long thread, and finding test impressions in a 10 page thread is more work than needed.

    Now, for the discussion...

    Alliance suggestions duly noted. I'll see how the plans are on that.

    Blackwing, everything can be changed. It's 'just' a matter of resources.

    schma, trust me, we see a lot of problems with crowd limiting, and that's why we try limiting the test areas, and want your feedback before considering turning it on all over the place.

    I basically see two big problems with balance:

    1. Small organizations trying to defend. They won't get enough defenders to fill the limit, and their allies will be kicked out before the attackers.

    Possible solution: An alliance system, allowing defenders to invite other organisations to join in the defence.

    2. Large organizations defending. These will have their full share of defenders, plus towers, while any attackers will be limited to less, and stand no chance of winning.

    Possible solution: Give attackers a higher percentage of the total limit. E.g. 45% defenders and 55% attackers, with the difference being used for the 'delta' score.

    Any thoughts on that? Note that none of the suggested solution have been discussed with coders or designers yet.

  4. #24
    Originally posted by Cz
    I basically see two big problems with balance:

    1. Small organizations trying to defend. They won't get enough defenders to fill the limit, and their allies will be kicked out before the attackers.

    Possible solution: An alliance system, allowing defenders to invite other organisations to join in the defence.
    Brillent idea!

    Could I also plead that when these alliances are sent out, a "<Tower area> Tower Defenders" chat channel is automatically created with all the defending people having access to it?

    Out of all the tower wars I have been in so far, the biggest problem has been communication between defenders (lots of them). The only solution to date is to have one person create a temporary chat channel and invite all the defenders into it. Ever tried doing that with 100+ people on your screen?

    Pretty please could you implement something like this?
    edict
    Clan Archdeacon

    "Nothing worth while is ever easy"

  5. #25

    Ping

    Why not base the warping on ppls ping ?
    My ping rises if my system can't handle all the data on screen.

    If I have a high ping for some time, I get a server-disconect. I would like to be warped to a safe place before I ld and able to run back.. loading the graphics and enter battle again. If I ld in a battle, I get in a crashloop cause my system has to load in all the graphics at ones ( I am still in the middle of the place that killed my system ).

    Warping ppl on what they are doing is stupid. No way FC can know what reason ppl have in a battle. For all you know they walk around as a decoy. It can be a strategy, that you can't use anymore :/

    If my ping is bad I turn down my graphics. Mostly problem is solved.
    This way you force ppl to not max graphics and PvP. Well.. so be it. Atleast the PvP battles can be bigger and all will have a decent ping during the fight. Just means the low system users ( even with low graphics ) get warped a lot ( but else they ld in time .. so imo a not to bad choice )
    Johndoo, can I have essence pls ?

  6. #26
    Originally posted by Cz
    ...
    2. Large organizations defending. These will have their full share of defenders, plus towers, while any attackers will be limited to less, and stand no chance of winning.

    Possible solution: Give attackers a higher percentage of the total limit. E.g. 45% defenders and 55% attackers, with the difference being used for the 'delta' score.

    Any thoughts on that? Note that none of the suggested solution have been discussed with coders or designers yet.
    Whoa there, Cz...Beofre someone at Funcom start putting their thumb on one side of the scale, I think people need to run out there and get their butts kicked a few dozen times first. People are currently making it harder on themselve to attack towers.

    Strategically speaking, the defenders are already in a tougher position than the attackers. They have no choice but to defend their holding. And have no chance to organize a defense. They can only react to attacks. It's not the defenders fault their attackers haven't figured out how to attack as a group

    So tipping the crowd control system in favor of one side over the other while everyone is still green would just make it necessary in the future to do it again.
    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. #27

    about temporary alliances

    sounds like a good idea for to form a quick and dirty defenders channel.

    only problem would be as to what rank can propose and accept the allegiance?

    for this to work, every org member should be able to accept an invitation - if it is limited to the leader it is pointless.

    maybe again the top 3 ranks or something like that.
    sept 03 - the day ao was keeled by sl.

    gone now. byebye.

  8. #28
    Originally posted by Cz
    [...]
    I basically see two big problems with balance:

    1. Small organizations trying to defend. They won't get enough defenders to fill the limit, and their allies will be kicked out before the attackers.

    Possible solution: An alliance system, allowing defenders to invite other organisations to join in the defence.

    2. Large organizations defending. These will have their full share of defenders, plus towers, while any attackers will be limited to less, and stand no chance of winning.

    Possible solution: Give attackers a higher percentage of the total limit. E.g. 45% defenders and 55% attackers, with the difference being used for the 'delta' score.
    [...]
    To 1. :
    Sounds good, but why only 'other organisations'? I would more like to see "others", so you can invite even unguilded ones or some of different guilds.

    To 2:
    Sounds good too, but can the 'delta' score also be a more calculated? E.g. if the attackers approx. level exceed the approx. defenders level by lets say 20 lower the 'delta' score to 0 and the other way boost it to 10. (the numbers are placeholders of course )

    At all I would like to see some kind of 'attackers' / 'defenders' tagging, so everyone can be invited into one group of them, so that they are kind of 'secured' in warping around trough the whole playfield. (so add suggested point 1 (alliance system) also to point 2; I think that will also solve the problem that the support professions will get warped away)
    Last edited by Haxar; Dec 4th, 2002 at 23:02:46.
    Apocalypse 'Redux' Now

  9. #29

    Re: Ping

    Originally posted by JohnDoo
    Why not base the warping on ppls ping ?
    My ping rises if my system can't handle all the data on screen.
    [...]
    Eh sorry to soak your suggestion John, but I think the ping 'result' is only viewable on the clientside, while the Crowd Control is/would be on the serverside only. I doubt that will work together.
    Apocalypse 'Redux' Now

  10. #30
    I had a similar idea to Kuroshio's with "/org ally", except I would suggest a more permanant condition.

    Towers are friendly to allies in all gases.
    Allied orgs could be listed in your information window.
    Your guild receives a message when an ally is being attacked.
    Anyone defending whos not allied "may" be moved.
    -Zindel- Novice 200 Opifex MA
    -Clematis- Apprentice 180 Opifex Fixer
    -Bushwhacker- 135 Atrox Enforcer
    General of Mecenaries of Kai [TaG]

  11. #31
    Normally yes.. darn..

    Must be a way to see it on the server as well. Since there is a constant check up ( ie. if you sit down ).
    Johndoo, can I have essence pls ?

  12. #32
    Originally posted by Zindel
    I had a similar idea to Kuroshio's with "/org ally", except I would suggest a more permanant condition.

    Towers are friendly to allies in all gases.
    Allied orgs could be listed in your information window.
    Your guild receives a message when an ally is being attacked.
    Anyone defending whos not allied "may" be moved.
    Permanent alliances, rightfully belong as an option between org leaders. By making it temporary, like joining a team, the command can be given to anyone in the org to get allies into the battle.

    Alliances between orgs would be nice, but I'd rather have the temporary alliance now, with permanent alliances added later when it can become more meaninful.
    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

  13. #33
    Permanent alliances, rightfully belong as an option between org leaders.
    I fully agree Kuroshio, org leaders should be the only ones capable of establishing permanent alliances. (forgot to add that).
    -Zindel- Novice 200 Opifex MA
    -Clematis- Apprentice 180 Opifex Fixer
    -Bushwhacker- 135 Atrox Enforcer
    General of Mecenaries of Kai [TaG]

  14. #34
    Just posted this elsewhere but realized it was appropriate here so pardon the repetition...

    I claim we should be allowed to have cross faction alliances as well.

    My idea is along this line:

    Each controller carries a 'friends list'. Each name added to the list stays there for 30 min after which time it can be refreshed.

    If you attack a controller you are banned from the friends list for 30 min.

    You can add yourself to the friends list by bringing up a controller menu and declaring yourself an ally.

    If you declare yourself an ally then the following happens for 30 min:
    1. The towers will not attack you.
    2. You can not be tab targetted by owners of the tower or others on the friends list.
    3. You can not buff or heal those not on the list.
    4. You can not attack the towers nor friends nor owners.

    If you are not on the friends list then:
    1. The towers will attack you.
    2. You can be tab targetted by all those on the list.
    3. Once you attack anyone on the list or in the owning guild then you are automatically banned from the list for 30 min.
    4. If you buff or heal someone banned from the list, ie. an attacker then you are also banned from the list and come under attack.

    You might also have only a short time to add yourself to friends list before towers open fire...this prevents 'spys' from lounging around in the zone.

    Crowd control then can be simplifed to;
    1. First remove those that haven't either been banned from list or those not actually ON the list.
    2. Next balance between those obvious enemies that have either attacked or healed or buffed attackers, ie banned from list. And those that have declared themselves allies.

    I'm sure there are some things missing here but...
    This way Neuts, Clans and Omni can all aid one another if they choose.
    Last edited by Nelida; Dec 5th, 2002 at 01:49:56.

  15. #35
    What about kicking out those who are outside PvP-range for the towers/controller before others?

    Let's say my org defends a ql 50 tower. We got enough defenders there to fill up our "quota" and the delta kicks in. Then we have a chance our lvl 50s gets transported away and me and the other 150+ are left there without any chance of defending our towers.

    Same goes for attackers too of course.

    Get rid of the mass lvl 150+ PvP at ql 50 areas. We got enough areas to fight other places.

    -Af.

  16. #36
    I totally agree with Afelia on this one. Tower battles tend to attract a whole lot of people outside the range who are just looking for other people outside the range to fight. Since they cannot attack the towers or attack people attackign the towers, they should be removed before 'primary' combatants. This would also reduce the problem of powerful guilds bringing in the big gun healers against a lower level guild.

  17. #37

    Yes, Remove those who cannot Fight

    YES! the last two posts seem to be part of a much better crowd control solution than what is currently being tested.

    Other than being tagged as a Defender [with Allies please], then those who are closest to the level of the area should also be moved toward the bottom of the warp-out list.

    The person who is farthest away from the middlepoint of the Control ARea level should be placed first on the list of those to be warped out. Then, the battle will have a chance to be more like it was intended...a battle between similar levels.

    Of course, keep the total limit and the delta concepts, just move the right people out. Please don't move out the people who should be fighting.

  18. #38

    Progression

    Why make this conflict so complicated? So bogged down in rules and forced warps that it loses its very identity as chaotic war.

    AO is an RPG based around progression. Progression of your character, from level 1 onwards. You gain skills, you acquire equipment, you shape your character into something/someone unique.

    War is brutal, chaotic and very rarely controlled by strict rules.

    Limiting the people who can partake in the war, at the numbers level is justified on a game performance level - too many people and the players will be lagged out so that the battle is no longer possible.

    Limiting the people who can partake in the war based on your level (or amount of progression) is ludicrous.

    These two mechanisms are being implemented on the basis of combat "balancing". So that the struggle for the towers lasts longer, and that each player at whatever level of progression they are at get a reasonable combat experience. Now this sounds like a very good idea. But, you are missing the point that the whole game is based around progression. Combat (with mobs and other players) is affected by a players progression.
    WHY should battles for the towers, be based on a different schema - where the advantages gained by character progression are nullfied by quite complex and stringent rules?

    There are a multitude of situations you can envisage whereby one group of players will be at a disadvantage to another group. Trying to compensate for every injustice that takes place in a battle, by artificially limiting players, and warping them out of the battle area - just seems wrong, and will cause a lot of frustration amongst your players.

    You will completely destroy the thrill of being in combat if your straight-jacketed rules hamper free combat in any way.

    The towers exist in areas open, thats their beauty - they are not in mission rooms where the entry and exit is clearly defined and can be controlled with a mission key. To wrap layer upon layer of suffocating rules around the battle for a tower, will completely ruin the 'feel' of the conflict.

    Let all levels defend and attack a tower. If player progression truly is a sign of dedication and commitment to playing in the AO world, then let it be a part of the combat mechanics. Level 200's will slaughter level 50's. These towers are designed to be very expensive, very sought after commodities. Then let the lower levels strive to become part of it, rather than restrict the whole battlefield to please a proportion of your players.

    Throwing players out of an area (based on all sorts of complicated rules) will just plain frustrate people. I'd wager you cannot come up with a 'totally fair' algorithm to decide who stays and who goes.

    Rather than taking the thrill out of combat, and trying to balance it to be fair (because combat isn't fair) - balance the professions better - so that they can work together better in combat.

    Progression is everything. It's why we are here. It's why the clanners want the Omni's out, and the Omni's want rule over the clanners. It's why I want to be able to tweak my skills and further my character and take part in more exciting conflicts and battles.

  19. #39
    Wouldnt an easier way to handle alliances be to treat all players of you faction as allies unless a state of war exists? (i.e. have used a shield disabler on your towers?)

    This sorts out the 5% zone problem as well as the crowd control

    Just a thought.

    -edit-

    Just remembered what else I was going to say

    In theory the attackers should have a higher % of players allowable to compensate for the presence of towers - however do you differentiate between a full base and just a controller? ITs easy to see that a full base is harder for the attackers than just a controller so the 'perfect' system would scale the number of the attackers vs the number of towers/type (would need to be very well balanced though to prevent the defenders from realising the base it so big they only get 6 defenders in the zone - or something like that)
    Last edited by Warlock; Dec 6th, 2002 at 17:37:52.
    Dont you think I look like Geordie from Star Trek?
    <-----------------------------------------------------------
    Actually I look more of a cross between him and Picard don't I?

  20. #40
    I really only see one way for the smaller orgs to survive.

    Permenant allicence's. Orgs that are allied with you can.

    a.) exit to your controler via the grid.

    b.) will not be attacked by your towers

    c.) will always be flagged as deffenders.

    d.) Do NOT make this "agreement" time out. If for example, our org leader is not on during an attack, and cannot re-establish the alliance.

    e.) Create an "alliance" channel for ewach org you are allied with. A little cumberson on the chat, and more spam, but there has to be SOME way to always communicate to the other faction, without having to find someon online from then to spread the word among your "allies" that your towers are under attack

    f.) Always have attack msg's go out to you, and all your allies.
    Nitsobar - lvl 219/13 Doc - Equipment - Perks - History
    MrBruce - lvl 204/6 MA - Equipment - Perks - History
    MsHackalot - lvl 123/9 Twink Fixer - Equipment - Perks - History

    Veterans of Synergy Factor


    Click to email me

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 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
  •