high lvl pulling mobs on low level.. Am i a whiner?

[Khamuk]

well even tho funcom says this is wrong i actualy think its a Good Idea on the enforcers part 2 low lvl people are attacking my base well the first question to be asked is Are 2 People suppost to be able to take out a Notum COntroller The answer no. Is training bad well first off lets take a trip down memory lane yes you rember the time when people actualy hunted. Did people train then yes and most definently did you learn to deal with a large train of mobs yes you learned very quickly lest you become rollerrat fodder. So to the issue is it wrong to train mobs on someone attacking your tower I say most definatly not. He took advantage of his enviroment to kill you. and if you were outside buffed would you admit it proberbly not. In my opinoin when attacking a tower the pvp range should expand on the defenders side a example would be QL 50 controler pvp range to attack is 35-60 PvP range to defend is 35-90. FC has to realise with towers they must expand there PvP ranges because there just to short I think a lvl 75 tower was effecticly 10 lvls or so either way at the moment this is just to small in my opinoin. Solution break PvP in larger ranges or make Towers defendable by all

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Khamuk
well even tho funcom says this is wrong i actualy think its a Good Idea on the enforcers part 2 low lvl people are attacking my base well the first question to be asked is Are 2 People suppost to be able to take out a Notum COntroller The answer no. Is training bad well first off lets take a trip down memory lane yes you rember the time when people actualy hunted. Did people train then yes and most definently did you learn to deal with a large train of mobs yes you learned very quickly lest you become rollerrat fodder. So to the issue is it wrong to train mobs on someone attacking your tower I say most definatly not. He took advantage of his enviroment to kill you. and if you were outside buffed would you admit it proberbly not. In my opinoin when attacking a tower the pvp range should expand on the defenders side a example would be QL 50 controler pvp range to attack is 35-60 PvP range to defend is 35-90. FC has to realise with towers they must expand there PvP ranges because there just to short I think a lvl 75 tower was effecticly 10 lvls or so either way at the moment this is just to small in my opinoin. Solution break PvP in larger ranges or make Towers defendable by all

Not quite valid. Someone their level would not have survived a train that big. They'd have died on the way and the mobs would have returned to where they belong.

Tactically speaking, the Enforcer's actions were brilliant. But the rules say "No training". He knew that and should have found another tactic.

[Canto]

Originally posted by Jaesic

cookie cutter application of rules is necessary unless you have a justice system in play that allows for trial of each individual case.

I disagree because the proper application of the rule against training is to prevent griefing. Well how do you define "griefing?" Purposefully acting in the game with the intent of ruining someone's gaming fun? OK then if that is a suitable definition then attacking a tower in and of itself may be griefing. No? obviously not, because that is the whole focus of NW. So because an action that would normally be prohibited in the game at large is the very point of a certain aspect of the game, the definition of griefing that grounds the rule against training must be different in NW. Please tell me how you would define griefing in NW such that training mobs in defense of your tower would fit into that definition.

Please tell me how to define "griefing" in NW period. IMO, the cases where training mobs in NW would be legitimately considered griefing are so remote that the default position should be that such training is not griefing.

Remember that in tower wars, the trainer of mobs has just as much to lose as the trainee. What if that enforcer had trained the mobs just as defenders of the proper level showed up and the mobs attacked the defenders instead of the attackers? What if there is a crat in the attackers who charms the trained mobs to attack the towers themselves?

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Sanskrit


I disagree because the proper application of the rule against training is to prevent griefing. Well how do you define "griefing?" Purposefully acting in the game with the intent of ruining someone's gaming fun? OK then if that is a suitable definition then attacking a tower in and of itself may be griefing. No? obviously not, because that is the whole focus of NW. So because an action that would normally be prohibited in the game at large is the very point of a certain aspect of the game, the definition of griefing that grounds the rule against training must be different in NW. Please tell me how you would define griefing in NW such that training mobs in defense of your tower would fit into that definition.

Using a mob to attack someone that game mechanics normally prevent you from attacking would be exploitation, I imagine, if there was a more tangible gain than keeping your base intact (credits, XP, items). However, the 75% gas zone and PvP level limits were implemented to prevent higher level players from harassing lower level players that had no means of defense. Going around the mechanics in place to prevent harassment and doing something which those mechanics were put in place to prevent is harassment.

Originally posted by Sanskrit
Please tell me how to define "griefing" in NW period. IMO, the cases where training mobs in NW would be legitimately considered griefing are so remote that the default position should be that such training is not griefing.

The game mechanics to prevent a higher level player and to prevent PvP were in place before the Notum Wars existed. The circumstances do not change the fact the higher level player found a way to kill lower level players in a zone he would normally be unable to attack.

Originally posted by Sanskrit
Remember that in tower wars, the trainer of mobs has just as much to lose as the trainee. What if that enforcer had trained the mobs just as defenders of the proper level showed up and the mobs attacked the defenders instead of the attackers? What if there is a crat in the attackers who charms the trained mobs to attack the towers themselves?

Show me the level 199 player that is at risk from newbie level rollerrats. Please...I need someone to laugh at . To be in danger from those mobs, he'd likely have to:

1. Have Auto Attack turned off
2. Be dressed entirely in social clothing
3. Be wielding something like food, with 1-1 (1) damage
4. Be away from keyboard
5. Be facing enough rollerrats to overwhelm his natural heal rate

Tough set of circumstances to meet there.

As for the rest, newbie level rollerrats would present the same risk to level 150+ players as it did to the 199 player: none. A Crat could only neutralize 1 rat that way, leaving the rest to harass the attackers (that's why he brought more than one). And it still would be sidestepping game mechanics put in place to prevent a high level player from causing damage to a low level player.

[____________Julekake]

Originally posted by Kuroshio

Given the particular situation, I'm curious as to why the level 199 enforcer didn't train a bunch of level 10 - 20 players on Tha Smurfy and friends. How do you 'train players'? Simple: you go to the city, find a bunch of newbies, and lead them back to the base with a trail of credits. Sheesh, level 199. He coulda 'rented' a brigade of n00bs to counterattack for him for about 50k-75k apiece at that level

i suggested that to the person at the time. that may be what she might have been trying to do the 2. time i came back when she wasnt there.

Originally posted by Khamuk

Are 2 People suppost to be able to take out a Notum COntroller The answer no

why isnt that supposed to happen. sure. if we can survive taking it down without outside hot's and such i say we should be allowed to do so. i spent 1800 bullets on the controller. and i still cant see why 1 omni nt was the only one to show up during the 1 hour+ we was there to battle us. no omni should have a problem taking a trip back to omni 1 and recruit a group of lowbies to kill us. the base was aprox 3 mins outside Reet's, so you wouldnt even need a yalm to get there fast.

and by the way. from. aprox 50% of the tower health i was the only one attacking it.

oh well. flame on.

[Jeevez]

Originally posted by Tha Smurfy
if we can survive taking it down without outside hot's and such i say we should be allowed to do so.

I agree. But do you mean that its an exploit to be outside buffed?

Hell man - take all the buffs you can squeeze into your NCU! That is not exploiting but well in line with game mechanics and intentions!

Epoz

[Revelator]

Originally posted by Epoz
I agree. But do you mean that its an exploit to be outside buffed?

Hell man - take all the buffs you can squeeze into your NCU! That is not exploiting but well in line with game mechanics and intentions!

Epoz

Yeah, outside buffs are completely allowed, and everyone knows this.

But I'll add this: If you attack self-buffed (or at least buffed within your own xp-gainable team), you are in fact totally beyond reproach in any way, even if you are using every other twink trick (not exploit, but trick) in the game.

You can question the fairness of an outside buffed super-twink taking down your tower solo, but someone doing it self-buffed (or as stated, with team buffs from an xp-gainable team) can not have the word 'unfair' slung towards them in any serious way.

[____________Julekake]

i dont consider outside buffing an exploit. if some omnis had showed up and killed me being outside buffed, i would have gotten buffs from my friends and headed back.

i tend to always go into fights with 100 ncu free.

so. guess ill get a outside hot for next battle.

i tend to loose to traders. and lvl 25-30 fixers with ga.

[Snuble]

Sanskrit: Why even try to argue what Cz says here? Perhaps he shouldn't be so diffuse about it?

Training NPCs on a player in order to kill that player *is* griefing. Done by a high level player against a very low level player makes it even more a case of griefing.

If this lvl 199 enforcer or anyone in the guild do not have players in a level range that can defend their towers, have noone to blame but themselfs.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Kuroshio


Not quite valid. Someone their level would not have survived a train that big. They'd have died on the way and the mobs would have returned to where they belong.

Tactically speaking, the Enforcer's actions were brilliant. But the rules say "No training". He knew that and should have found another tactic.

The only bone I have to pick, Kuro, is that until only yesterday when Cz posted it the rules did not say "no training."

Training lizards in lagalot, for example, was called a tactic and given approval by a GM. The rule was - at least as far as I understood it for the past year - that training in 75% zones wasn't kosher because you're killing a player in a non-PvP zone. But training someone who's in a PvP zone was called a PvP tactic by a GM, not griefing. Remember Blizzaro?

In this particular case... training mobs was still a tactic, but the enforcer was unattackable by his victims due to PvP ranges. So it becomes a much more gray area... you could claim he was killing players he wasn't allowed to attack by training mobs.

On the third hand, if he could have attacked them, he'd have butchered them without having to train mobs and the result (dead attackers) would have been the same.

[Snuble]

But what she also could have done, was to log in an alt that actually was within the attackers level range.

And might be slaugthered instead.

Sorry but in within any ruleset, even if the current level ranges are too narrow, should a lvl 199 be able to attack a lvl 20. Its insane enough that he could have teamed with a low level and kill them...

[edit] Typo, Bleh!

[________Groundeffect]

Training mobs into the area to do a job that the guild can't do is griefing. If the guild owning the towers couldn't field the appropriate people (under the current PvP rules) to defend that particular base, they should suffer the consequences and lose the base.

Claiming that the 199 enf was "billiant" or "creative" is laughable.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Laroche
Training mobs into the area to do a job that the guild can't do is griefing. If the guild owning the towers couldn't field the appropriate people (under the current PvP rules) to defend that particular base, they should suffer the consequences and lose the base.

Claiming that the 199 enf was "billiant" or "creative" is laughable.

Oh come on...Laugh a little, guy. It's kinda funny if you look at it the right way. Tha Smurfy sought and got resolution so it's not like she's stuck hanging. So giggle a little.

[________Groundeffect]

[ButWalruz]

Cutefix plz power level to 150. So I can kill you for trying to blind me with that text .

-BW

[Dyrshin]

A lot has been said, 4 pages, of this subject. However, I could not sit here and not voicemy opinion. I must agree that a high level org seeking a low level area should have low level alts or members to defend their towers. Someone, including the original poster if I am correct, suggested an idea that was agreed upon by most of you, since it was not argued against, i am assuming no one opposed it. That idea was to hire a bunch of low lvls to help the 199 enf to defend her tower. What is the difference between hiring low lvls to help you out and training npcs of the appropriate level to defend when you cannot?

Does the difference lie in how much more powerful an npc is compared to the same level attacker(s)? If this is the case, then you cannot argue that it was griefing if the high lvl enf trained lower lvl npcs, low enough to give the attackers a fair fight, but maybe succeed in numbers.

Is the problem that there could be too many npcs? Well, then would it be griefing if the high lvl enf got too many low lvl players to defend?

One good point that can be brought up to your advantage is that the high lvl enf is not supposed to kill the low lvl players, and through training, he did so. However, As Jynne stated, GMs considered doing this in Camelot (25%), a valid tactic. So why is it different in a tower battle?

If FC is now changing their policy that training anywhere, camelot included, is not allowed, then, although I disagree, the 199 enf was at fault in griefing. However, if FC still stands firm with that decision of it being OK in camelot, being a 25% zone, then training in any 25% zone where battle over anything between players is allowed, should be allowed.

Concluding this, it sucks for the attackers to have almost died to a wave of roller rats, but it was the enf's temporary defenders that helped him out, npcs or not.

Added statement: If a group is killing something in a 75%zone (mob boss or whatever it my be), and someone trains npcs to kill the team that was there first, with the sole purpose of stealing their kill, then that I find griefing (or whatever the bannable offense may be called). There are thin lines everywhere, and sometimes its easy to say if something can be done, then why not this, but as thin as lines may be, they have to be there in order for mas chaos to be avoided.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Dyrshin
A lot has been said, 4 pages, of this subject. However, I could not sit here and not voicemy opinion. I must agree that a high level org seeking a low level area should have low level alts or members to defend their towers. Someone, including the original poster if I am correct, suggested an idea that was agreed upon by most of you, since it was not argued against, i am assuming no one opposed it. That idea was to hire a bunch of low lvls to help the 199 enf to defend her tower. What is the difference between hiring low lvls to help you out and training npcs of the appropriate level to defend when you cannot?

Does the difference lie in how much more powerful an npc is compared to the same level attacker(s)? If this is the case, then you cannot argue that it was griefing if the high lvl enf trained lower lvl npcs, low enough to give the attackers a fair fight, but maybe succeed in numbers.

Is the problem that there could be too many npcs? Well, then would it be griefing if the high lvl enf got too many low lvl players to defend?

One good point that can be brought up to your advantage is that the high lvl enf is not supposed to kill the low lvl players, and through training, he did so. However, As Jynne stated, GMs considered doing this in Camelot (25%), a valid tactic. So why is it different in a tower battle?

If FC is now changing their policy that training anywhere, camelot included, is not allowed, then, although I disagree, the 199 enf was at fault in griefing. However, if FC still stands firm with that decision of it being OK in camelot, being a 25% zone, then training in any 25% zone where battle over anything between players is allowed, should be allowed.

Concluding this, it sucks for the attackers to have almost died to a wave of roller rats, but it was the enf's temporary defenders that helped him out, npcs or not.

Added statement: If a group is killing something in a 75%zone (mob boss or whatever it my be), and someone trains npcs to kill the team that was there first, with the sole purpose of stealing their kill, then that I find griefing (or whatever the bannable offense may be called). There are thin lines everywhere, and sometimes its easy to say if something can be done, then why not this, but as thin as lines may be, they have to be there in order for mas chaos to be avoided.

The difference lay between doing the work yourself and having an npc do the work for you. Work they were never intended to do. Uncharmed NPCs aren't our minions.

The further difference between Camelot and this particular situation would be training mobs in Camelot actuallty would entail some risk to the person creating the train. But the enforcer would be in no danger from anything short of 100+ roller rats.

The further difference between hiring a bunch of low level players and using NPCs is it would actually be appropriate for them to do so. An org hiring temporary defenses is fitting given the situation and the game itself.

[Dyrshin]

Kuroshio,

Work they never intended to do? NPCs are there to attack opposing forces. If they are in front of an opposing force (any force for that matter, if the npc itself is unallied), their job is to attack, therefore, they did exactly what they were intended to do, attack an enemy in front of them.


What is the problem exactly, that a high lvl pulled to kill low lvls, or that someone, reguardless of lvl pulled npcs to kill low lvls?
Whether the npcs being pulled are a threat to the trainer or not, the end result is still the same, no? If he was of low lvl and he died in the process, but also had the trained npcs kill the attackers, would it then be ok? The mobs in Camelot that are pulled as tactics, aren't they also "not doing what they were intended to do"?, by your definition. Although I stand by my first paragraph in this statement.

As to your third statement, "Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.", thats one definition of anarchy. Given the situation and the game itself (ANARCHY online), isn't someone using their environment fitting?

This thread is getting long and CZ posted already in it, I wouldn't be surprised if it was closed due to things being repeated (Although I enjoy reading the opinions of others). With that being said, I am not flaming you or anyone, and I want to make sure that you realize I am simply telling you what i think, and don't want to leave in bad terms with anyone =)

[____________Fakonamo]

Originally posted by Dyrshin
That idea was to hire a bunch of low lvls to help the 199 enf to defend her tower. What is the difference between hiring low lvls to help you out and training npcs of the appropriate level to defend when you cannot?

The difference is that the mobs arent necessarily low lvl.
You can train high lvl mobs on low lvls, or at least mobs that are significantly higher than the other players, but you cannot hire other high lvl (or mid lvl) players to kill the lowbies. Training mobs is a way for players to circumvent the game mechanics, not a legitemate tactic for PvP.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Dyrshin
Kuroshio,

Work they never intended to do? NPCs are there to attack opposing forces. If they are in front of an opposing force (any force for that matter, if the npc itself is unallied), their job is to attack, therefore, they did exactly what they were intended to do, attack an enemy in front of them.


What is the problem exactly, that a high lvl pulled to kill low lvls, or that someone, reguardless of lvl pulled npcs to kill low lvls?
Whether the npcs being pulled are a threat to the trainer or not, the end result is still the same, no? If he was of low lvl and he died in the process, but also had the trained npcs kill the attackers, would it then be ok? The mobs in Camelot that are pulled as tactics, aren't they also "not doing what they were intended to do"?, by your definition. Although I stand by my first paragraph in this statement.

As to your third statement, "Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.", thats one definition of anarchy. Given the situation and the game itself (ANARCHY online), isn't someone using their environment fitting?

This thread is getting long and CZ posted already in it, I wouldn't be surprised if it was closed due to things being repeated (Although I enjoy reading the opinions of others). With that being said, I am not flaming you or anyone, and I want to make sure that you realize I am simply telling you what i think, and don't want to leave in bad terms with anyone =)

Mobs were never intended to kill players at the whim of another player short of being charmed to do so. It really doesn't go any further than that.