Reaction to recent Gaute Post

[Treonaut]

15 active people and 5 sometimers. Many lower characters who try hard <70. All good close virtual world friends and some real live friends too. Many old-timers. Some <115 some >180. People always on until lately boredom has people gone for days. We are dead if we buy the booster and still the booster is one reason the finger doesn't press cancel. So my concern that I can fight other guilds with 15-25 people with average 140 levels and both of us have fun over and over and over and nobody cancels. My heart pounds to think of this. But to be destroyed instantly is the opposite.

[__________Typothetae]

Thanks, Shubalubdub, for addressing my post above. However, I want to make sure no one believes I will be completely satisfied with an answer that doesn't come from FC. However, I will be very happy if any of you wish to address these issues with your own thoughts, wishes or expert opinions.

I'm still very concerned about the 'going to war' concept.

Gaute writes:

"the consequences of attacking an area controlled by someone else. If you are in an organisation with your own towers, these will enter a state of war! This means that they will instantly be attackable by anyone else on the other sides."

Obviously, this means that attacking ANY Controller makes ALL of your controllers vulnerable. However, it is unclear what the area of vulnerablility is, and what/who is vulnerable.

It seems clear that Controllers can/will be placed in areas that are not currently PvP areas. So, when Controllers in the area enter a 'State of War' what happens? Do the controllers actively attack the 'other side?' [Who is the 'other side' is addressed below.] Or, do they only respond when attacked? Is everyone on one of the sides vulnerable? And is the area of vulnerability limited to the sphere of influence of the towers, or does it extend farther?

I understood what Gaute wrote about an unaffiliated player getting 'flagged' and being 'attackable' after attacking a Controller. But it is still unclear about what happens to Guilds when they attack: does that same idea extend to ALL guild members of a guild that attacks? This is extremely important! If ALL guild members become 'fair game' then attacking becomes an issue that affects an ENTIRE GUILD! We guild members need to understand the implications before we attack. The current information in this area is incomplete.

As far as 'Sides' are concerned, this needs to be clarified. FC, please let us know what happens when a Clan guild attacks an Omni controller. What are the 'sides' in this case? And what is the area of vulnerability? Also, we need to know what happens when a Clan guild attacks a Clan controller. What are the 'sides' in this case? And what is the area of vulnerability? Just near the Controller? In Tir? [I am NOT advocating Clan attacking Clan, I just want to know the facts!] Please don't neglect answering the other side of these questions also: who is vulnerable when someone attacks you! And what is the area of vulnerability?

[A note to Pumpkin: No one is destroying you, whether you get the Booster or not. If you don't get the Booster, then AO goes on as it always has. If you get the Booster and attack, THEN you will be destroyed...that is your choice, no one is forcing you. Also, Americans (me included) don't always think bigger is better. But, usually we have the guts to acknowledge that 'better' IS better. In all out war, bigger is better. In guerilla warfare, smaller may be better. Socially, smaller and intimate may be better, but big wild parties might also be better. If you feel bad because some guild is stronger than yours, it is probably because that guild IS better than yours, else you wouldn't feel so badly. Don't be so defensive! Be happy with what you have, or, if you aren't happy, re-examine what you want and go get it You say you have nothing against big guilds, yet you say they are ruining the game. Get consistent, get a life, be happy.]

Typothetae
'Defender of Truth and Justice'

[engelstein]

I love how Pumpkin wants to penalize large guilds for being large. Way to go! Of course, just because a group has the advantage in numbers and levels, they need to be penalized so that small groups have a chance.

You know what I think? MoK, for example, isn't going to mobilize the entire guild to take out some dinky guild's tower. Where's the challenge? If you want to get an edge in PvP, you gotta take out the other large guilds' towers. If, say, Redemption has no towers, then 1. they're gonna be easier to take out at Tara and 2ho, and 2. they're gonna have a harder time taking out MoK's towers.

And of course, you can just build towers out of a high-level guild's attack range. They have to use lowbie twinks to attack, and you can use your highlevs to defend.

Typothetae, I wanna know too I don't think any real information has been posted by FC to answer your questions, but here's what I see as far as tower warfare:

Your guild buys a tower and places it. You can have one per PF, and you can't place a tower that's outside a PF's level range. You also can't have more than five.

When someone wants to attack a tower, they need a "Shield Vulnerabilitizer" or whatever. This costs hella money, and if twinks want to attack a tower they need one too. Once your guild attacks a tower, all your towers enter a state of war and no one needs a "Shield Vulnerabilitizer" to attack them. If your guild has towers, no one gets PvP flagged. If you don't have a guild, or your guild has no towers, then when you attack a tower you get PvP flagged.

From here on I am just speculating.

When your guild attacks a tower, all guildmembers in that zone can be freely attacked by members of the guild whose tower you attacked. I'm not sure whether the aggressor guild may initiate combat with defenders; I'd prefer that they couldn't. If they could, then defenders could get slaughtered before they have a chance to properly organize.

I have a feeling that the rules governing PvP flags will be complex. I'd need some real paper to write down the set of rules I'd implement.

I'm not sure that I even addressed all your questions, but that's all right since I don't really know the answer to any

[Treonaut]

"You know what I think? MoK, for example, isn't going to mobilize the entire guild to take out some dinky guild's tower. "

Prove it. I think they will. I don't think good people are in AO for the majority. This whole thing will just make ganking on a new level.


You know what I think? Some level 200 player, for example, isn't going to go kill some level 75 player.

I will believe it when the rules make it so. Until then, this is a nightmare waiting to happen.

And I'll repeat again I don't want to penalize the large guild. I just want placing a tower to give same benefits for same towers. I don't want one tower giving a million hitpoints to one guild and only a tiny bit to another guild if they are the same tower.

and ps. I know a lot of guilds who are not going to buy the booster because of what I just said. No purpose to bother making a tower. Is that good for Funcom? So 10 guilds want to buy it and put towers up and fight each other. Sounds like the dragon all over.

[Aerinyi]

I don't think Pumpkin really means that big guilds should be "penalized" per se. I'm pretty sure what he means is that he'd like to see small guilds recieve some measure of protection from larger guilds in the event that larger guilds decide to run amok destroying other guilds' towers just to grief them. He's probably not a native english speaker, let's cut him some slack.

That said, I could do without comments like "I don't think bigger is better, that is what Americans think". That doesn't help your credibility here, it just makes you look like a snob.

[Gearbox]

Originally posted by Shubalubdub
You know what I think? MoK, for example, isn't going to mobilize the entire guild to take out some dinky guild's tower. Where's the challenge?

Oh, c'mon. Of course they will- if they have the chance.

Where's the challenge in grid camping? In arena ganking? Jerk-offs don't look for a challenge- they look for opportunities to grief others. No particular knock on MoK, but I believe any large guild will do this, given the opportunity.

[Treonaut]

I'm sorry. I'm just scared that this won't be fun. I say one last thing.

Would you like to go to a boxing tourney and see the heavyweight champion fight the flyweight? Is this worth your money? Should this be even allowed?

I think it would be an ugly thing to see.

But to see the flyweight fight the flyweight can many times be as exciting as the heavyweight championship of the world. I would pay to see it.

And to see the heavyweights fighting each other is a super spectacular sight. Even if I know they will punch my lights in one hit, I will respect watching their battle. Just so long as they are stopped by the law from fighting the smaller boxer.

That is all I have to say. I never said to put a penalty to the heavyweight who is to fight the heavyweight. They should be equal to fight each other.

But, ---> if <--- the heavy is going to be allowed to fight the flyweight, then the fight will only be enjoyable for both men and the people who watch if something is made to even the scales.

I hope you understand I don't want to penalize the big guy fighting the other big guy or even the little guy fighting the little guy.

[engelstein]

I think *you* people need to actually think. It is possible to create towers that highlevel people cannot attack. That it is actually *impossible* for them to attack. So WHAT if you can't create a QL 300 tower? Those are uber towers. Only a couple guilds are supposed to have the resources to maintain one (and I don't mean rare, just a LOT of money to create/defend). Make a QL 75 tower. Depending on how the level range works, *no one* above 100-150 would be able to attack it. Here is what you are proposing that uber guilds will do:

1. Make twinks
2. Level these twinks to 125
3. Buy shield disablers for the attacking party
4. Ubertwink these twinks
5. Come attack the towers of small guilds
6. Not get their asses beaten down by the small guild, which probably has a couple highlevel members

Point 6 may or may not matter, dedending on what the final cost of the disablers is.

Some people here, Pumpkin especially, are forgetting that griefing is not an organized activity. One person, maybe two, rarely more get together for griefing. That's why I'm not worried. The large guilds are large because they don't condone griefing.

Dinfive, how am I supposed to "cut him some slack?" Pumpkin makes an argument, I make a counter-argument. Should I give up? Would that be enough slack?

The Heavyweight-Flyweight analogy is basically irrelevant.

You *are* proposing a per-capita penalty. You cannot deny this.

I really suggest going back and reading Gaute's article carefully, because he actually addresses many of the concerns you raise and I really don't feel like digging for quotes.

[Aerinyi]

Dinfive, how am I supposed to "cut him some slack?" Pumpkin makes an argument, I make a counter-argument. Should I give up? Would that be enough slack?

I was referring to people attacking him for his choice of words, specifically "penalizing" large guilds. That's not really what he was talking about, he was talking about helping to protect smaller guilds from being griefed by larger guilds. I thought I made that sufficiently clear. Disagree with him all you want, I don't agree with everything he has to say myself. Just counter his actual arguement, not some percieved arguement that he's not actually making. If you're doing that, then I'm obviously not referring to you.

[Gearbox]

Originally posted by Shubalubdub
Some people here, Pumpkin especially, are forgetting that griefing is not an organized activity. One person, maybe two, rarely more get together for griefing. That's why I'm not worried. The large guilds are large because they don't condone griefing.

Now you're just being ridiculous. Of course they will, if they can. If you're sitting there trying to say that a large guild won't steamroll over a small one just because they can, then you're either naive or you're in one of these huge guilds yourself.

EDIT- I just looked at your profile. Large guild- yep.

Now, I don't want to get in the middle of your little discussion with Pumpkin- and I don't think that benefits should be toned down for large guilds, either. They SHOULD be more powerful. That's the whole point.

I was only responding to your statement that large guilds would not grief smaller ones, given the opportunity. That's just B.S., and you know it.

[engelstein]

Originally posted by Blue Cat
Now you're just being ridiculous. Of course they will, if they can. If you're sitting there trying to say that a large guild won't steamroll over a small one just because they can, then you're either naive or you're in one of these huge guilds yourself.

EDIT- I just looked at your profile. Large guild- yep.

Now, I don't want to get in the middle of your little discussion with Pumpkin- and I don't think that benefits should be toned down for large guilds, either. They SHOULD be more powerful. That's the whole point.

I was only responding to your statement that large guilds would not grief smaller ones, given the opportunity. That's just B.S., and you know it.

You're saying "If they had the opportunity to grief, they would." Let's modify that. How about, "If they had the opportunity to conveniently grief, they would." The booster pack will make it inconvenient enough to mount an attack that large guilds will attack worthy targets. Gaute listed several impediments to griefing. Do you think they aren't enough?

Edit: and I know for a fact that anyone found griefing while in FO would get kicked out faster than a speeding Yalmaha.

[____________Dominata]

Of course there will be griefing only it won't be called by that word, it will be called "war" or "conflict".
Why would a big faction with lots of people and even more money not want to have the maximum amount of towers?
A big faction will be able to launch big forces against other towers and they will also be able to afford lots of defenses and buffs for their own towers.
Why should a big faction worry if their level 300 tower is being enabled for attack when they go on the offense? They will have it defended by the highest possible amount of defenses and they will probably also have people to spare for defense.
Griefing as such it ain't, but towers will be constantly camped and fought over considering there will only be a finite amount of towers allowed in each playfield. Big factions will have the upper hand and that is also how it would be in RL, sure, but it makes it kind of pointless to buy the booster for people who are in small to medium factions since they will neither be able to afford to build or defend their towers properly.
The booster seems more and more aimed at the big factions and the people who has been happily duping creds for a long time.

[Gearbox]

Originally posted by Shubalubdub
You're saying "If they had the opportunity to grief, they would." Let's modify that. How about, "If they had the opportunity to conveniently grief, they would." The booster pack will make it inconvenient enough to mount an attack that large guilds will attack worthy targets. Gaute listed several impediments to griefing. Do you think they aren't enough?

Nope- they seem pretty good to me, actually. It seems like they've been looking at the potential griefing problem closely.

I don't want to see large guilds penalized. Not at all.

All I'm saying is that I think you're full of **** when you say "large guild= good behavior". That's all.

=)

[engelstein]

Large guild = good behavior, just as much as small guild = good behavior, or guild = good behavior, period. I cannot recall any instances of guild-sanctioned griefing and can't really think of any set of circumstances which would lead to its occurrence, save for a griefer guild leader.

[_________Kalashnakof]

I think gettin pissed that a group will have more power is innane. In RL someone who has alot of money generally has more influence then someone who is poor. It is inevitable that certain groups will be more powerful .

Though I think alliances can be a moderately balancing factor. My idea is there are 2 guilds, A and B, ait. A helps B attack one area which B puts a LC on and B helps A attack a area that A puts a LC on. They both help defend each others towers. In that case alliances work and help alot.

Also getting a guild that big takes alot of effort. You have to offer incentive for people to stay in the guild rather then others. You have to actively help new members and come to the aid of anyone who needs it. Doing all that should be rewarded.

When the booster comes out the 75-200 rule must be changed.

Remember that RK is huge and that uber guild can take only 5 areas. And it can only have 1 QL300. So 1 huge guild wont control the planet. Also a big guild that controls a e****ally good area will have alot of envy and rivals. So multiple guilds could attack different towers at the same time.

And why the hell would a small so-called "fun" guild (that doesnt expend the effort to recruit and maintain members and get items and money) expect to compare with a large guild (that does) Instead of bein a bittchboy and whining that the mean ole big guild will overpower how bout you build up your guild or accept that fact that you wont be able to be able to compete on the same level.

[Darkbane]

IGN has an article with a few new bits of info. Bonuses for the side that controls the most land being an interesting one...

[__________Typothetae]

Nice post, Darkbane, way to go!

The article appears to have some info that hasn't been made clear by FC. I hope the author of the article has good sources. The most interesting tidbit to me is a storyline twist:

"As the story goes now, the ICC is stepping in to rectify some of the notum situation on Rubi-Ka. They've decided to come on in and deregulate the whole thing. "

Once the Clan Council of Truth went away, I have been waiting to see what FC was going to do to throw Omni into turmoil. If the article's author is correct, FC apparently is preparing to nullify Omnitek's exclusive Notum lease. Whoohoo! Take that, you filthy exploiters, lol!

This movement of the storyline makes sense. The current situation on RK doesn't make much sense.

I am concerned that the new gameplay elements (controllers & towers) haven't made their way onto the test servers, yet. From what I hear, the next patch contains much of the new code needed to implement Notum Wars. But, I won't be very confident we will see Notum wars this year until we hear some positive feedback from the online testers who are using Controller and Towers. I hope that is soon!

Typothetae

[kaghelion]

Well being in a medium sized guild and being at mid level too, I can sort of understand the concern for the big guys ecentially mopping the floor with the smaller guys.

Oh, and unless they change Pvp rules the big all-lvl200-guild could probably still take on the low or mid-level towers.
They only need one or two lowlevel twinks to start off the affair, then they are teamed with 4 or 5 high levels(Lvl200 doc, NT?) taking on any guards from the opposing team.
Yeah, of course the guards have to attack the twinks first, but unless their towers can take the onslaught, they'd be forced too.
The rest just stand around and cast buffs and so on.

Of course we wont see one big guild having towers in half of Rubi-Ka, but they can (and probably will) make sure that the other side have a hard time.

The thing you can do after they have torn down your tower is to band up with other tower-less clans/departments and go after one of their towers.

[_______________Vydas]

Originally posted by Typothetae
I am concerned that the new gameplay elements (controllers & towers) haven't made their way onto the test servers, yet. From what I hear, the next patch contains much of the new code needed to implement Notum Wars. But, I won't be very confident we will see Notum wars this year until we hear some positive feedback from the online testers who are using Controller and Towers. I hope that is soon!

I've read various posts hinting that the booster is being tested by selected folks, so I'm pretty sure that is being done, just not on Testlive accessing it in the 'regular' way. It is all very hush hush, but that's not surprising nor inappropriate.

[Darkbane]

Originally posted by Kaghelion
Well being in a medium sized guild and being at mid level too, I can sort of understand the concern for the big guys ecentially mopping the floor with the smaller guys.

Oh, and unless they change Pvp rules the big all-lvl200-guild could probably still take on the low or mid-level towers.
They only need one or two lowlevel twinks to start off the affair, then they are teamed with 4 or 5 high levels(Lvl200 doc, NT?) taking on any guards from the opposing team.
Yeah, of course the guards have to attack the twinks first, but unless their towers can take the onslaught, they'd be forced too.
The rest just stand around and cast buffs and so on.

Changes to the PvP rules were strongly hinted at by the designer interviewed by GridStream last night...