Exactly!Quote:
Originally posted by Warlock
Land control battles should only be effected by the players in the correct range - because players outside that range mess it up.
:D
Exactly!Quote:
Originally posted by Warlock
Land control battles should only be effected by the players in the correct range - because players outside that range mess it up.
:D
Dhurdahl, you forgot 4:
Thinks the intention is noble, but the proposal by Cz is not going to accomplish its goals and will unduly hurt all members of all organizations, regardless of that organization's level distribution or size.
define low lvl please?
at lvl 10 ..50 etc if you restrict access people will make twink alt for fun to just wipe them from the face of the planet..i know of people who are planning this already an low lvl base will stand no chance these people will just come in and wipe the floor with them..as it stands at the moment the current system encourages each side to get organised make alliances with each other ....actually interact more and dare i say it make friends.... rather than sit in missions all day..... lvl 10-200 players can meet and become friends with those who in normal circumstances they would never see...
and as to defending your base warloc try asking for help ..our bases depend on the assistance we get from our guilds alliances and we help those who help us...we get more action and more fun that way.. even can rp it a bit with others its great....restricting lvls will screw this up .. and as said before the twink guilds will own the low lvl bases then....or just grief em..so you'll get no base at all
also dont forget that NW is new..there is only so much pvp and running from 1 base to another and assisting low lvl players etc... give it a month or 2 when most who want it have the game and see what developes....am sure it will clam down alot
but i repeat again......dont nerf content add it........................
oh and the lower lvl towers are too weak atm and their effects too small..I've seen omni take bases down in almost seconds
i was looking at planning the base out in a way to aid defence etc but realised when i experimented with them that the effects so so low as to be pointless.. nano delta/heal delta did little +20 to def etc.. kinda useless in the whole scheme of things so i'm just going to wack em down anywhere i can fit em and use ones that buff the skills i need.
Good analyzis Dhurdal, but it lacks in a few departments.
You forget that it is the extremes that rule this world. It only takes 1 org of twinked players of a tight level range to wipe out a huge amount of towers every day at Rubi Ka. That is with the change proposed. If you look at http://ymera.com, there is 3 or 4 orgs that have enough players to stand a chance against a twinked guild.
Wrong. The bulk of their players will either be too high or too low.Quote:
Small/Medium Orgs with highlevels
1. Hinders everybody to partisepate in tower defence/attacks. Thier bulk of members should be able to help out though.
It leaves that kind of org very vulnerable to attack from any level. Its already a pain to defend a level 100 tower. In my opinion, a concentrated attack by a maximum amount of players in the level 100 range would have any chance of succeding EVEN with high levels helping in the defence.
A variant of (2) is needed. Its a compromise. And you can't look at it from the perspective of the high level player or the low level player. Look at the org statistics on Ymera.com, the typical org have a very wide level range...
So while Cz is right that the majority of players are low level, don't forget that many of them is sleeping toons, those that don't quit will become +150 in a month or 3 and a lot of them is in orgs with high level players and the change *will* hurt them too.
At the moment I dont feel its a question of endorsing the proposed solution or finding fault with it. The core issues atm is that there is a very vocal group of players here who think its totally fair for high level intervention to trash a low level tower battleQuote:
Originally posted by Jynne
Warlock, you're generally a fairly intelligent person, but it seems that you're not seeing the consequences of your position. I honestly feel like I'm trying to save you from yourself here...
The limits you are endorsing and the concepts you are arguing for, as you state them, will simply ensure that other guilds around your level can (and therefore will) have high-level help, but that you will not.
So rather than keep arguing the ridiculous notion that being in a guild with no high level players makes you somehow smarter and more deserving than the rest of Rubi-Ka, why not start trying to address the issue at hand: developing a limitation system that doesn't screw me, Dudicas, Snublefot, and Hypos, and that doesn't Georg and the other uberguilders - and that doesn't screw you either.
Maybe that kind of system is impossible - I think it is, or at least I think perfection is impossible. In that case our goal has to be modified to read, "screw as few people as possible" - and unfortunately, that is where you're going to find yourself being hammered, because frankly... organizations such as yours are always going to be an underwhelming minority on any on-line game. I am sorry for that.
I'd really like to see some ways for you guys to get some action in NW; I think my posts on implementing a 'buff level' and cancelling buffs based on that when you attack someone in a LC area is a good start, if not a good complete system.
But - to counter you using the utilitarian argument - setting up the system to shield the 5-10 guilds of "true newbies and lowbies" that don't have high level help, just isn't doing the greatest good for the greatest number.
EDIT: Anyone of any level is allowed in Camelot, unless things have been changed. Depending on what your faction is, there are level limits for who can enter the raffles that the opposing lizard-killer conglomerates hold to distribute the loot. Those limits are player-determined, player-enforced, and only apply to the loot distribution from Tarasque.
Now assuming everyone finally agrees that this _isnt_ right you can go about discussing a solution, however while you are still battleing against the fundamental issue no one will look objectively at any proposals (because its just a nerf!)
Snub accuses me of not looking at the bigger picture - I am. I see lots of people who wouldnt normally PvP get the booster to get themselves some towers, scope out an appropriate level area they think they can take and subsequently build on and get smacked silly by the defenders who have high level 'insta-heals' among other things. Or get smacked silly by attackers (assuming they find a free zone - which is unlikely) who just keep healing and healing and healing.
These people will feel they have been ripped off (there is already a thread like this here) and wont bother with PvP or towers again. Tower battles will evolve into the same big guilds fighting the same big guilds over the same locations and the rest of us will go back to the mission treadmill. All the players who asked for more PvP or the game to be made more PvP orientated will still be unhappy because it will only be the same opponents only the zones will change.
How do I know this?
Because I am that person. I have never PvP'ed before and am due to get my booster today or tomorrow and during the week decided to participate in a few fights to see how it all panned out
In all bar one case the target never dropped below half health due to outside help - and we havent even got to attacking the towers at this point! In the other case the guy under-estimated us (was 2 on 1 but then I'm an Eng so he probably figured it was 1 and a half on one) and terminated rather than die - lame.
Unless something changes I am never going to set foot in the tower shop (since I dont have any money the vehicles are not an option) and will never attend another tower battle again - there just isnt any point.
Even if I had high level support (lets say for arguments sake we recruit high level players, or I join a different org) the whole thing is still 'souless' because I wont be winning the battle on my own merits, it will all be down to the 'out-of-level' doc who keeping me alive. So you may as well just make the whole thing a free for all and be done with it.
Cz has already confirmed what I suspected in that the lower level players constitute the larger proportion of the player base and as such it is these players who should be 'protected' from this kind of problem.
Moving on - the reason I havent suggested anything is very simple, I dont really know where to start. You cant restrict the whole game to buffs within your level ranges (well you could but it wont go down at all well) and as such you will always be able to 'outside level' buff _somewhere_ before proceeding to the combat.
You cant cancel outside buffs on entering the zone (as has been suggested for the arena) because that would cancel outside buffs from within your level range, and you cant base it on buff QL as MP/Traders/Agents are able to cast buffs much higher than their level under normal circumstances.
You cant really assign level reqs to all nanos as again this wont go down well (and you'd need to add an upper limit which has its own problems - see later), and will either be too generous (to take into account MPs/Traders buffs) or too restrictive (for the same group). Youd also somehow need to deal with level 130-149 ish players that can cast the top end nanos, as these players should be prevented from casting on the 150+ players yet are using the exact same nanos that the 150+ players are using, at which point the upper level req is pointless.
You _could_ develop a 'stealth level req' based on the above that only applies to PvP zones but I suspect the programing and balancing needed to do something like this is huge so we certainly wont see this anytime soon (and we need it now) - this still has implications for Traders and MP's unless it differentialtes between self cast and outside buffs
As I eluded to earlier (but I think everyone missed it) you could tie the crowd control (which yes is really intended for lag control) into the system so that players out of the range are prevented from entering the zone (even when not full) - but this system isnt fair on players who are just there to observe, and as you stated before does not stop players leaving the PvP zone to get buffed (although anything that prevents healing by 'outside levels' whilst in combat is a good start)
Essentially the system at its most basic level needs to compare the level of the caster with the level of the recipient and deny casting in a PvP zone if the 2 are in different PvP brackets. Now you could go one step further and allow 'outside level' players to cast nanos that a character of the correct level range could cast (for those of you outside the range that want to 'help')- but you still havent addressed the fact that the other side still cant attack that player directly (so while the heals would be lower, you still cant stop them healing and given their nano pool and ability to recharge since they are not under attack, the correct level characters may as well be invincible) so this isnt really an option either. However the system also would really need to cancel these same nanos on entering the zone (thus preventing 'pre-fight buffing' - unfortunately this would require the system to keep track of every nano running on every player and what level character cast it - I cant see that happening.
The final problem with a system that tracks what nanos came from where is do you cancel all outside level buffs on entering a zone. A lot of Engineers for example get buffs to cast a decent bot before they play, and cant guarantee the caster is will be in the correct level range (so their buffs would be flagged as 'outside level' and thus be cancelled) - now to be fair the player should have done his maths and still be within OE rules without the buffs so the cancellation of this kind of buff shouldnt be much of an issue. You also need to look at the title caps (when a pet class is likely to need outside buffs) compared to the PvP ranges. Title caps may also need to be considered (depending on the system) as one level you may need a large outside buff to get a reasonable pet and the next level you can self buff it - all within the same 'zone range'. This also has implication for Agents since they may buff while in FP and then change profession before the fight start (or during) at which point their buffs would be considered 'outside' (although the level would be correct)
At this point in time I'd say that 'outside' healing is the biggest problem (and even came up in the beta IIRC), while other 'outside buffs' may also greatly unbalance gameplay enough to warrant inclusion in a system like the one we are discussing I can only comment on what I have experienced and at this point in time that is outside healing.
That only applies to hardcore gamers.Quote:
Originally posted by Snublefot
So while Cz is right that the majority of players are low level, don't forget that many of them is sleeping toons, those that don't quit will become +150 in a month or 3 and a lot of them is in orgs with high level players and the change *will* hurt them too.
8 months and I'm level 60 - I'm probably the typical casual gamer and casual gamer probably = the 'current' low level gamer.
Warlock is representing a core concept which really shouldn't be ignored: PvP should not be high level content only. The problem is how to reasonably implement this, and how to balance this with the desire of high level chars to help their friends. Personally, I feel that telling the players that they shouldn't have friends outside of their level range is just silly.
Out of the options I've seen so far, I like Illith's the best. Give the defender the OPTION of placing towers that would limit the abilities people would have in that area. If the owner wants all nanos capped at QL60, then so be it. An attacker would have to find that tower and kill it to get rid of that restriction.
I'd take that solution a step further and let the defender opt for towers that cancel certain types of nanos. Let the all NT guild put up a few towers that cancel high level heals, health buffs, crit buffs and such, but not put up a tower that effects nukes. Let the all fixer guild put up a tower that stops nukes, but not put up one that stops HoTs. Let the all MA guild put up a tower that stops high level roots and snares.
[COLOR=sky blue]Here's a new idea: level scaling[/COLOR]
How about if we cancel all PvP level restrictions in a land control area, but introduce a "scaling factor". If a level 200 goes into a level 50 combat area, he gets scaled to a factor of 25%. His attack rating, damage inflicted, amount healed, AC, run speed, nano resist, evades and so on are all cut down to 25% of their normal values. Then all profs at all levels could come and compete. The level 50 char would be on close to an equal footing with the level 200. A level 20 char could come in, but would not be boosted. Only chars higher level than the combat area would be scaled in this way. If the high level char leaves the combat area, the scaling would stay in effect as long as he is in combat (so he'd better not flee out into another PvP area).
Using this "scaling" concept, a couple level 50 chars might be able kill a level 200. Who knows, Kinkstaah might end up congratulating Warlock on the good fight they had.
This level scaling concept would only apply in land control areas. Perhaps give the defending guild the option of a new control tower type that has this effect. And DEFINITELY warn the high level players that this rule is in effect so they know what they're getting into.
Warlock, I have 1 high-level character. I have 7 others all under level 70. Of course there are more low level characters in the database. That doesn't mean that they don't belong to people with high level characters also. Your argument is fallacious. Look:
Even if everyone currently active on Rubi-Ka had at least one level 150+ character, there would still be more 'low level characters' than high level ones in the database for the following reasons:
1. The biggest reason - people quit before they get to high levels. They get to level whatever and stop playing; they aren't active anymore. But their character stays in the database; many people don't cancel their accounts, and I think the database doesn't wipe your characters after you cancel anyway, excepting, possibly, if someone else wants that name.
2. Most high level players have 4-7 additional characters on their account, at low levels, that they don't play as much, are PvP-twinks, subway twinks, low-ql mission farming twinks, or that are used to team with lower-level guildmates for fun. Alternatively, people start out as profession X, level to 30 or 50 or 80, decide they don't like it, and start over. But they don't delete.
Now, if Cz were to come here and say, "We've filtered the character database to exclude all low-level characters on accounts with a high-level character, and also to exclude all accounts that haven't logged in within the past four weeks, and to exclude all accounts in cancelled status" and make the assertion that the majority of players are low level, I would modify my position.
But as it is, bear in mind that his statement is including people who don't play, people who've cancelled, and the twinks of high level people.
And, as Hypos has said, repeatedly: If you really want to make things totally fair for the newbies, then the only way to do it that isn't exploitable anyway is not to let them interact with anyone who's high level at all. Ever. No mochams for you to get your robot out with. No essence or IC for armor. No SFA for implants. No trading - don't even let us assemble implants for you. If high levels are allowed to interact with low levels at all, then there's always going to be an unfair advantage for the people who have high level alts, friends, or guilds. Good luck getting anyone to play, if that ever happens.
Don't shoot yourself in the foot here, Warlock, and don't shoot the other newbies while you're at it. Accept the fact that sometimes you're the pigeon, and sometimes you're the statue. Adapt to the game.
Someone said earlier, give it time. People will get tired of being on alert all the time and doing nothing but tower camping and suppression camping pretty quickly.
PS - if you really consider yourself a 'casual player' then why do you expect to be able to own a piece of the game world?!
The burden should be on you to find a way to manage rather than on Funcom to nerf everyone else down to your level.
On the novel idea of level scaling - essentially enhance or reduce different level players to be around the same level - to make battle fair. This goes against the basic premise of the game - PROGRESSION. High levels have earned their status as high level. Low levels should aspire to be high levels. Level scaling in combat will just frustrate the people who have spent a lot more time and effort becoming more effective, they've progressed.
Now we all agree there are far many more low level players than high level players, even taking into account inactive characters and alts. So why not let the players who have earned the levels and skills use them in combat to aid lower level players? It's combat! It's not meant to be fair! I don't understand why its so important for it to be fair at lower levels. Do not stifle the very essence of the game for the sake of a fairer combat mechanism.
It brutal, its unfair, its war - it's exciting. Suffocate it with rules and dilute the high level players abilities and it will very much reduce the pleasure gained from it.
Ack. That's a good point. You have to be online to defend it.Quote:
posted by Jynne
PS - if you really consider yourself a 'casual player' then why do you expect to be able to own a piece of the game world?!
<-- still hoping for a comment on the "level scaling" idea in my last post. It should allow low level chars to compete, and still permit high level chars to take part fully - not just in healing/buffing but also attacking.
[edit] woot! got a comment from spelk. a negative one though :(
So far most of the proposals to help low level combats have amounted to nerfs of high level characters.
This would create a contradictory game mechanic: In order to become stronger, you must level. But if you are high level, you must be weakened.
If high level people were prevented from interfering in low level battles, there'd be very little point to attaining higher levels. It wouldn't give you an advantage over people who haven't advanced, it would just make you always be fighting people within the same relative "strength percentage" as yourself, using bigger numbers.
So why advance? Why have levels at all? Levels aren't fair.
Keep in mind that high level chars are currently locked out of combat with low level chars. They can help with buffs, but it's really the healers that are most effective at it. This change would allow any prof of high level char to step right in and do combat with the low level chars. I think it will expand the way high level chars can interact.Quote:
posted by Spelk
On the novel idea of level scaling - essentially enhance or reduce different level players to be around the same level - to make battle fair. This goes against the basic premise of the game - PROGRESSION. High levels have earned their status as high level. Low levels should aspire to be high levels. Level scaling in combat will just frustrate the people who have spent a lot more time and effort becoming more effective, they've progressed.
I do feel that low level chars should be allowed to participate. And that this participation really only counts if they feel they can effect the outcome. This change allows chars of all levels to participate. Perhaps the scaling can be adjusted so that high level chars are still a bit more powerful.
The main goal I'm trying to reach is to let all players participate. Let the high level players interact and help out. But don't let them totally control the outcome.
I think we need to seek out a compromise position. In addressing this contradictory game mechanic, let's consider the following possibility.Quote:
posted by Jynne
This would create a contradictory game mechanic: In order to become stronger, you must level. But if you are high level, you must be weakened.
A level 200 interacts with a level 50.
In the current rule set, the level 200 can perhaps buff and twink the level 50, but that's about it. This still results in high level chars determining the outcome of low level combats. This is no fun for the low level char.
Under the "protect the lowbie" rule set, the level 200 would preferable have no influence on low level combat at all. This is not fun for the high level char.
Under my level scaling concept, the level 200 would interact with the level 50 in every way possible including rooting, nuking and smaking him with a bronto burger. This is potentially fun for both chars.
Now to address your contradictory game mechanic, perhaps we dont reduce the level 200 all the way down to level 50. Perhaps reduce the level 200 to level 70 or so. A level 70 can be beaten by a couple level 50s, but a group of level 70s would still be more powerful than a group of level 50s. So while we are reducing the strenght of the level 200, we're still permitting him to be stronger than the level 50 - thus maintaining the advantage of levelling. In fact, this idea increases the power of some profs by permitting them to take a more active role in their low level friends' combat. The healing power of a level 200 doc in this situation is nerfed, true. But now the doc can also attack, debuff, and DoT the opposition.
I think this option still allows everyone to have fun while still allowing the high level people to be more powerful.
Jynne,
Personally I don’t like the idea of having buffs cancelled, let people keep their buffs but make them “pay” for the privilege of getting that ql142 buff stuck on their lvl 50 character by having them only able to fight people further up the PvP scale. I think we both agree that this should be the case. How something like that is implemented is going to be down to FC. The main point is that these “over buffed” characters and the people buffing them are not doing anything that is “illegal” but “twinking” the lowbies. so a twinked lowby should have their PvP spread sutably “twinked” in response and the buffers should not be allowed to getaway with what they are doing without some risk either, so they somehow need to be hauled into PvP too so that the defenders/attackers are able to respond to their actions.
Tiggy :D
2. Most high level players have 4-7 additional characters on their account, at low levels, that they don't play as much, are PvP-twinks, subway twinks, low-ql mission farming twinks, or that are used to team with lower-level guildmates for fun. Alternatively, people start out as profession X, level to 30 or 50 or 80, decide they don't like it, and start over. But they don't delete.
Exactly Jynne, so use those alt when someone lower than your main attacks or when you want to attack a lower lvl base. Many in my guild are bringing in their alts and leveling them to match our bases.
Heals and super high lvl buffs are the main problem and should be solved first. Twinks and slightly high lvl buffs are a problem but they don't ensure victory ( especially if the base has skill reduction towers ).
PS - if you really consider yourself a 'casual player' then why do you expect to be able to own a piece of the game world?!
Because if he doesn't get a chance then Funcom will be lose a great many casual gamers which are of great importance to them since this isn't a niche game that goes for hardcore PvPer ( like shadowbane ). If you want the kind of game where high level player can gank low level players and PvP in general has few rules then Shadowbane would be excellent choice. However AO is a game for many playing styles and those they needs to be restrictions to protect the weak.
I really do not like the idea as stated. It needs more work.
For me it would mean currently, it would mean, I could not help out in battles above my level.
Because people are not restricted as to what they do, just outside the land control zone to buff or heal, people will hop or grid in just after getting buffed outside. How are you going to stop that? What if they are buffing defenders in a different zone and they grid into the controller? That's all you will force people to do.
I think perhaps it should only work one way. Lower levels could support but higher levels could not. But there is no real way to stop higher level support.
In lower level battles the higher level buffers will just park in Omni Trade or Tir, or Old Athen and treat people as they pop in and out of the battle. So proximity to the battle is irrelevant in that case.
The idea of flagging people as PvP might work since if people pop into the grind and then into Omni Trade they would now be killed by folks from their own side.
If lower levels could participate but higher levels could not, it might be fairer. Then the attacking guild would have to bring some lower levels to attack the supporting lower levels from the defender seems only fair.
Lets get some numbers on the table (I wont charge any fee from Funcom for this presentation, as its getting late and I really want to play the game instead...).
All numbers from http://ymera.com, from Rubi Ka 1, and updated last week.
Total number of guilds: 1682
# of guilds with more then 10 members: 818
# of guilds with more then 20 members: 514
# of guilds with more then 30 members: 364
# of guilds with more then 40 members: 256
# of guilds with more then 50 members: 206
# of guilds with more then 60 members: 167
For simplicity of discussion (and number crunching), lets use Dhurdals classification of orgs: Large, medium and small. I also exclude any guild with less then 20 members. I also remove any "dead" guilds (no level gain last week). That leave me with 27198 players in 340 guilds. (none of the dead guilds contained several lvl +150 players!)
#48 representing 10055 toons in large guilds: (+150 toons)
#81 representing 8485 toons in medium guild (75 - 150 toons)
#211 representing 8485 toons in small guild (20 - 75 toons)
I'll use the level ranges compiled by Ymera.com to simplify the analyzis. First I assume that 30 members of a given range is the magic number to defend against tower gankers. Probably even more as not all 30 will be online at any give time, and at low levels there is likely more then 1 toon for each account.
1-25: L 28 M 18 S 5
25 - 50: L 33 M 18 S 0
50 - 75: L 30 M 11 S 0
75 - 100: L 16 M 0 S 0
100 - 125: L 6 M 3 S 0
125 - 150: L 5 M 1 S 0
150 - 200: L 9 M 8 S 7
Large guilds: Out of 48 guilds
1 guild is represented in 7 out of 7 categories
4 guilds are in 6 out of 7 categories
15 guilds are in 5 out of 7 categories
17 guilds are in 4 out of 7 categories
7 guilds are in 3 out of 7 categories
2 guilds are in 2 out of 7 categories
1 guild is in 1 out of 7 categories
1 guild is in 0 out of 7 categories
Medium guilds: out of 81 guilds
0 guilds are represented in 7 out of 7 categories
0 guilds are in 6 out of 7 categories
0 guilds are in 5 out of 7 categories
0 guilds are in 4 out of 7 categories
2 guilds are in 3 out of 7 categories
14 guilds are in 2 out of 7 categories
23 guilds are in 1 out of 7 categories
42 guilds are in 0 out of 7 categories
small guilds: out of 211 guilds
0 guilds are represented in 7 out of 7 categories
0 guilds are in 6 of 7 categories
0 guilds are in 5 out of 7 categories
0 guilds are in 4 out of 7 categories
0 guilds are in 3 out of 7 categories
0 guilds are in 2 out of 7 categories
12 guilds are in 1 out of 7 categories
200 guilds are in 0 out of 7 categories
There is another solution to consider here.
BUFF CAPS.
In basic terms, the amount of buffing you can receive is capped directly by your character level. Let's put an example down to see what I mean.
Let's say you have a level 50 toon. Using a straight 20% margin (much like OE rules), he could receive up to QL60 buffs that still work fully. Buffs between QL's 61 and 70 (20% to 40% above the toon's level) would reduced in effectivness by 25%. QL71 through 80 buffs would be reduced by 50%. This scale would continue up to QL90 buffs, which wouldn't work at all.
Now, by using the above formula, a level 167 or higher character would be able to receive the full benefit of QL200 buffs.
Of course, it's assumed this would only apply for Land Control combat situations; you could still get that uber run buff from your friendly neighborhood fixer for PvM.
Thoughts?