Proposed design: If you can't be attacked, you can't assist with buffs and healing

[Snuble]

ffs Warlock, can you try to write shorter? Its a pain reading everything you post...

Subway. Bad concept. Why? Look at the Subway twinks made for the very purpose of exploting the level limit. Subway introduced loot usable by high level toons. So anyone that wanted stuff was forced to create an alt. Or buy from the ones that created twinks to own the bosses. The debate have been hot on level reqs in a skill based game. Its a bad concept, and most agree on that.

Take a level 50 MOB and a level 50 player in combat - add in a level 100 player also fighting the MOB. Who much of a difference is the level 50 players actually making?

Wrong. In the tower context, the lvl 100 player need the lvl 50 player to attack the level 50 mob. No lvl 50 player, and the level 100 player got nothing to do there.

I completely understand you wanting to help defend your guild property at any level - but it just cant work like this.

You just don't get it do you? Its NOT just the defence of lvl 60 towers (that my org will probably never own), but it scales all the way up to lvl 150 towers. And as Jynne says, the system is already exploited pretty heavily by the players that you want to give even more power.

Its also a fact that most orgs will find it very difficult to defend *any* base at all, regardless of level of the base, if that change goes trough. And while you didn't propose the change, you do see the advantage for yourself, and argue from that point of view. Your *not* a typical player, and your not in a typical org, the same majority of players and orgs that will find the NW experience *very* frustrating if the original design is implemented.

At least, while a lvl 200 player should not be able to gank a lvl 100 tower, the same lvl 200 player should be able to attack a lvl 100 toon. What I say is, increase the PvP able level range at all levels, and leave the PvTower the same as now. And let the towers attack any player of level below the QL of tower. Then we can talk about no buff if you cant attack.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Snublefot
ffs Warlock, can you try to write shorter? Its a pain reading everything you post...

Subway. Bad concept. Why? Look at the Subway twinks made for the very purpose of exploting the level limit. Subway introduced loot usable by high level toons. So anyone that wanted stuff was forced to create an alt. Or buy from the ones that created twinks to own the bosses. The debate have been hot on level reqs in a skill based game. Its a bad concept, and most agree on that.

Wrong. In the tower context, the lvl 100 player need the lvl 50 player to attack the level 50 mob. No lvl 50 player, and the level 100 player got nothing to do there.

You just don't get it do you? Its NOT just the defence of lvl 60 towers (that my org will probably never own), but it scales all the way up to lvl 150 towers. And as Jynne says, the system is already exploited pretty heavily by the players that you want to give even more power.

Its also a fact that most orgs will find it very difficult to defend *any* base at all, regardless of level of the base, if that change goes trough. And while you didn't propose the change, you do see the advantage for yourself, and argue from that point of view. Your *not* a typical player, and your not in a typical org, the same majority of players and orgs that will find the NW experience *very* frustrating if the original design is implemented.

At least, while a lvl 200 player should not be able to gank a lvl 100 tower, the same lvl 200 player should be able to attack a lvl 100 toon. What I say is, increase the PvP able level range at all levels, and leave the PvTower the same as now. And let the towers attack any player of level below the QL of tower. Then we can talk about no buff if you cant attack.

Ok short version :-) (dont complain if I have to come back and explain myself because of lacking detail though)

You say the subway is a bad example.... Actually its a very good one, it shows that people judge a system by how exploitable it is rather than the intended goal. People should ackownledge the goal was admirable and look at closing the loopholes - not ask for the whole thing to be scrapped.

Now we agree on level reqs generally being bad in a skill based game (and I for one was and still am against level reqs on nanos) but look at it from another angle - you cant base tower battles on a single skill and its level as the classes are so variable in this regard even if every character of each profession were identical. If you say characters with more than x in skill y cant participate your likely to cut out legitimate players of the MP and Traders classes, also depending on which skill you base it on players of a much higher level may 'get through' given their low ability in a single skill.

I know the problem scales, but I have to base an example on something - instead of just stating the obvious why not tell me where the 'model' falls down at higher levels (bearing in mind I am only identifying the problem - not suggesting any particular solution)

Ok you've _almost_ given me something to work with here. What exactly is the problem with level 100 players attacking a 200 base (I'm assuming your example was a 200 base) that requires you to be able to kill them? I personally dont have an issue with towers attacking all players lower than them (which would help address the 149 players healing those over 150 asuming they were in range

[__________Typothetae]

This thread started many days ago. Wow, many LCAs have been won and lost during that time. And we all have had new experiences in Land Control conflicts. I wonder if these experiences have changed anyones views. They have mine.

I have always been against Cz's initial proposal for this thread. Now, I'm pretty sure that any changes to the current rules need to be delayed. Why? Because everthing is still new and until we play for a month or two, it is really difficult to see what is fun about the current rules and what is not fun. For example: I was initially dismayed that it appeared so difficult to defend LCAs. Now, I am almost relieved that we lost some LCAs. Defending multiple towers (each for 6 hours a day) could drive a person insane. [Hence the obscure humor in the title of this reply.]

Further, I'm wondering if it won't be more fun, in the long run, to enjoy the ebb and flow of tower destruction and creation, rather than trying to bend the rules into a form that allows me to more easily hold a given area. I have come to realize that if I hold, for example, my 152 lvl tower that is 25% during my normal playing times (evenings), people in other time zones in my guild of my level may not be able to enjoy NW in the same way I am.

Bases get destroyed, people form attack forces, liberate an area, put up controllers, hold them for a few days...and they fall. Maybe that is for the best.

In the long run, I predict that we will find it is very difficult for even the strongest Orgs to hold 5 LCAs constantly. So, my second-tier guild (just below Uber, I like to think...hehe) will likely have to settle for a few LCAs standing at any point in time.

What I have seen is that the fun is in attacking, since everyone can participate regardless of the times they play and regardless of their level. Somewhere, some base is going 25%, and if you are determined you can find or recruit an attack force.

People are enjoying this!

Now for the important main issues raised in this thread. I think they boil down to:

1) 150 PvP range limit: This is an oddity that is extremely frustrating especially for those just above 150. The weirdness of being level 151, putting up a level 150 tower and not being able to defend it against more than half the attackers is bizarre. How can this be fixed?

2) The PvP border issues. I am not a PvP specialist, but from reading the Forums, these issues have existed from the beginning of AO. People run out of the PvP area and get buffed. People get buffed by those outside the battle. If these issues were easily fixed, they would have been fixed already. I am absolutely against creating some artificial limits that only apply to LCA PvP. At least I am right now. We shouldn't jump the gun until we play for several more weeks.

So, have anyone's ideas changed? Have I missed the mark on the important issues?

[__________Typothetae]

Originally posted by Snublefot
ffs Warlock, can you try to write shorter? Its a pain reading everything you post...

Your *not* a typical player, and your not in a typical org, the same majority of players and orgs that will find the NW experience *very* frustrating if the original design is implemented.

Hey, Snub! No one is forcing you to read anyone's posts.

I think your tone reflects that you are being hot-headed and taking this way too personally. That is your choice, but I find it much easier to ignore your hot-headed, poorly worded outbursts than Warlocks thoughful, well-written replies. What good does it do to make silly criticisms?

Snub! I really like the analysis you did earlier in this thread. Looking at the levels of all the orgs, and placing them in categories was a great idea. And, I think that kind of analysis can add to this discussion. Good job.

However, if you look at your own analysis, how can you say that Warlock is not a 'typical' player and that he doesn't belong to a 'typical' org? I believe Warlock said he belonged to a 'small' org. So if your numbers are correct, Warlock and his org ARE typical.

Snublefoot's numbers:
Large orgs -- 48
Medium --81
Small --211

However, I'm not ready to say that the views of the typical AO player should be adopted. Every thoughtful view should be considered. Whether someone is 'typical' is really not the issue. Being knowledgable and being committed to making the game more fun is much more important.

Don't you agree, Snub?

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Warlock
Ok you've _almost_ given me something to work with here. What exactly is the problem with level 100 players attacking a 200 base (I'm assuming your example was a 200 base) that requires you to be able to kill them? I personally dont have an issue with towers attacking all players lower than them (which would help address the 149 players healing those over 150 asuming they were in range

The problem with relying on the towers to 'take care' of lower level players attacking them, is that the towers are unreliable. The turrets don't do enough damage-per-second if the other team has a doctor healing them, and the turret fire can't be directed onto the doctor specifically.

You need players to fight alongside your towers, the towers are mobs that do much less damage and have much more hitpoints compared to their level. But they're still just as dumb as mobs are, and they won't even move to chase people if they run out.

[Valoren]

Originally posted by Jynne
Of course I'm going to stop anyone who tries to beat my younger siblings up, what are you a crack head? They're my family - I'm just supposed to watch as some punk-arse snot punches them out and do nothing? Damn, am I glad you aren't my older brother!

No offense, You should not be helping at a low level battles. I don't care how you feel you need to protect your siblings. This is not real life, it's a game. The attackers low level fun should outweigh your need for protection. Your siblings can take care of themselves, if they can't then you need to help them equip better stuff, or recruit more people of that level to compensate.

If i was a low level going to take a tower and i saw a high level insta full healing the defenders. I would just leave. What would be the point. Take a moment and put yourself in the attackers shoes, it makes the battle pointless with you there.

Your just causing more lag/framerate problems for them anyways. And with crowd control when they get it working. Wouldn't you be taking up a slot that another low level person in your guild could be filling?

If you *must* do something, then buff them up before they goto the area? How hard is that?

I like Cz's proposed fix. As long as it applies to attackers and defenders, i don't see the problem.

I've read your arguments and I think at this point your going back and forth over the same things you have already said. I completely understand exactly what you are saying. I just don't agree.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Valoren
No offense, You should not be helping at a low level battles. I don't care how you feel you need to protect your siblings. This is not real life, it's a game. The attackers low level fun should outweigh your need for protection. Your siblings can take care of themselves, if they can't then you need to help them equip better stuff, or recruit more people of that level to compensate.

I wasn't the one who brought that example up - but even if my hypothetical little brother were doing well, unless that younger brother asks me to stay out of it, and especially if that sibling asks me for help, I'm not going to let someone cause him pain or injury. Likewise, if my lower-level guildmates ask me to help, I'm going to. If they ask me to stay out of it, then I will. But you are taking away their choices and options.

If i was a low level going to take a tower and i saw a high level insta full healing the defenders. I would just leave. What would be the point. Take a moment and put yourself in the attackers shoes, it makes the battle pointless with you there.

Yes, that's the point. Attack organizations that are stronger than yours and you shouldn't expect to win. You aren't fighting one person in my org. You aren't fighting one level range of my org. You are fighting my whole org - that means everyone in it.

Your just causing more lag/framerate problems for them anyways. And with crowd control when they get it working. Wouldn't you be taking up a slot that another low level person in your guild could be filling?

If you *must* do something, then buff them up before they goto the area? How hard is that?

Harder than you apparently think. I've been fighting, where have you been?

I like Cz's proposed fix. As long as it applies to attackers and defenders, i don't see the problem.

Cz's proposed fix breaks more than it fixes and hurts more than it helps. It'd probably be okay for people under level 80 or maybe 100. It'd break the whole tower battle aspect of the game for people who are over level 100.

I've read your arguments and I think at this point your going back and forth over the same things you have already said. I completely understand exactly what you are saying. I just don't agree.

And I understand what you are saying. I don't agree. If everyone would agree to disagree, we can stop going over this.

[Snuble]

Typothetae: The typical org got toons of all level ranges. The typical org do not have enough players in any level range to successfully attack or defend any tower with the change outlined by Cz.

Another thing, I'm not pretending to be very good at the english language, and spelling is something that happen to other people, both english my native language. If you got problems with that, I suggest we take that discussion in PMs. I do read everything, because *not* doing so, and to participate would be hmmm... rude.

Please remember that the PvP level limits where introduced with 14.7. There where raised concerns about them in Beta discussion. There is concerns about those ranges in the current discussion on this very forum. The current PvP ranges should perhaps be reconsidered. They should certainly not be taken as an universal standard in this discussion.

If the PvP range of a given level is widened, that would give the *typical* org a better chance defend themself, and more important more people inside that org would have the chance to participate.

[Quool]

Don't do it Cz, the fix is worse then the original problem.

Not being able to attack is a major bummer, I would accept some type of debuff on higher level characters, such as Snublefot and Hypos suggested, in order to participate in a lower level conflict.

One source of problems: Guilds were pure roleplay with almost no game effect (basicly just a chat channel). Now they have a significant game effect. No self respecting guild would consider itself "just a chat channel", but no one wants to give it up, either. Now there is the very real consideration players give to changing guilds, not for any RP value, but for the guild advantages from having appropriate QL bases and guildmates in the right level range.

Another problem, excuse any errors here(I'm sure the exact levels are inaccurate), but support from higher level players is built into the game, and expected in almost all instances. A ql 10 base for example, can't be placed by anyone under level 15, but a level 10 opponent could come along and the level 15 couldn't attack the level 10. Also, without higher level intervention, most Type I bases are virtually invulnerable, the only areas of that level are Omni Forest and Tir County, how is a group around level 10 suppose to get to a base to attack it without help from higher levels? They would be insta killed by the guards at the whompas, and don't have the comp lit for the grid.

Higher level people have more power, the power to control the environment around them, and the ability to help or hinder those less powerful then them. I believe each player should have the ability to do good or evil, and that ability should grow with levels, however, all actions should have consequences.

This is a MMorpg, so numbers should count, 6 level 100 players should be able to attack a level 200, and be a serious threat.

Another aspect of towers seems to be completely ignored, and that is RP. My guild wanted to have an Omni Base in Tir County, not because of any "guild advantage", but for the pure RP/psychological value of it. We were defeated the next day by superior(in numbers) group of clanners of mixed levels, but the base served it's purpose(we had a lot of fun, well, some didn't enjoy losing it, oh well).

What could be a greater challenge to a level 200 Omni then obtaining and holding a base in Tir County, so close to the heart(if it has one) of the enemy?

Actual low level players are not going to get involved in tower contruction, it is too expensive, they level too fast, and is virtually impossible for them to get to an enemy area without higher level intervention.

All players want to be involved in large battles, and getting rid of the level restrictions is one of the ways all can participate, lower level people could do recon(with real threat of death), diversionary attacks, or just act as cannon fodder. If I had to bet on who would win level 200 vs level 200 with 5 level 10 friends with him, I would bet on the level 200 with the 5 lowbie friends.

Why is the influence of higher level players on lower level players considered a bad thing? Like all populations, a certain percentage will abuse their power, but, most would take up the responsibility to defend their less powerful colleagues and gain more influence and friends as a result.

[__________Typothetae]

Snublefot writes:
"The typical org got toons of all level ranges. The typical org do not have enough players in any level range to successfully attack or defend any tower with the change outlined by Cz. "

Hmmm, how is everyone doing with things as they are?

I was looking at http://www.ymera.com (thanks for the link, Snub). It seems to me that CURRENTLY only the top 50 or so orgs stand much of a chance at attacking or defending a Control Tower of any level. I'm assuming here that an org with 100 listed chars will have a hard time mustering a force of 30 at any particular time (particularly defending!). With 10 chars in the controller/tower attack range and support by 20 chars, there is a reasonable chance for success. This is pretty much true for defending too. Of course situations vary. This is only a rough estimate to explain the logic behind my statement.

So, is that a good thing? Lets see, 50 orgs time 5 possible LCAs = 250 pieces of land that might be absorbed by the largest orgs. How many LCAs are there? Uh, roughly 27 zones times 8 (a rough average from glancing at the LCA status map) = 216

I would argue that if we make Defending too easy, all the top Orgs will have 5 LCAs and there will be little, if any, for the other two-thirds of the players. Not good. Plus it will discourage attacking, which is the main fun of NW for all levels and playtimes anyway.

The way things currently stand, and adding the 'dormant' LCAs to the equations it might look like this:
50 Orgs times 4 LCAs (maybe a little high) = 200 LCAs controlled by the top orgs
27 Zones time 10 LCA (a guess at the new LCAs) = 270 LCAs total

So, leaving things as they are, and not increasing the ease of defense will likely allow at least 70 LCAs that won't be gobbled up by the top orgs. That's not too bad. But it seems pretty low still. So, I have to say I kind of like the way things are headed. No changes appear to be needed.


Hey, Snub...

I didn't mean to imply that all of your posts are hot-headed or poorly worded. They aren't. Your writing is good. Your posts are valuable. That is one reason I pointed out that I am less likely to take the time to read your thoughts if you begin with a cheap shot and then follow with LARGE BOLD LETTERS. Hey, that has RANT written all over it.

You are passionate, and that is wonderful. I myself am guilty of being hot-headed on occasion, so I don't hold it against anyone.

[Dhurdahl]

Ive started to think that we need a change in the QLs vs type type regardless if we get this change or not.

Why? well at certain QLs there is a very big range in levels that can attack..

While still keeping 7 Tower Types...

Type	QL	New QL
1	10	10
2	50	45
3	100	85
4	150	125
5	200	175
6	250	225
7	300	275

This change would result in a couple of things...

1) No change for low levels
2) No major change for high levels, they might loose out on the TT4 though, but TT6 is much easier to build so there should be more of those instead. At QL175 they wont run into the lvl150 PvP problem as they do today.
3) Midlevels, major change. It thigtens up the PvP action abit, and it removes some of the problem with beeing too low for ql150 and too high for ql100. No major change at the low span.

The TT 4 and 5 QL numbers might be raised a little more depending on what level range you want to promote.


A PvP change as suggested might need some other changes to make it really viable, this could be one of them..

This belongs in Suggestion in reallity....

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Quool
Actual low level players are not going to get involved in tower contruction, it is too expensive, they level too fast, and is virtually impossible for them to get to an enemy area without higher level intervention.

Thats a very dangerous asumption to make - the low level towers are affordable by low level characters (youll also notice nearly all fo the low level areas have been taken)

You'll notice that all the low level areas are hard to get to for low levels of the opposing factions - This does unfortunately force intra-faction warfare among the low levels (dont know if this was by design) but as it stand if put the low level further out and the players will find it impossible to get there.

If they level too quickly, why bother to give them weapons, armour, nanos etc, the levelling argument applies to everything at the low end, why make towers an exception?

None of this however is a reason to make towers 'high level only' which to be fair is what it _technically_ is at the moment anyway. The booster included the client, why? So someone new could buy the whole package and jump right in, under these circumstances you cant suddenly tell all the low level players "Sorry you cant actually have a base until you're level 'x'"

Originally posted by Quool
All players want to be involved in large battles, and getting rid of the level restrictions is one of the ways all can participate, lower level people could do recon(with real threat of death), diversionary attacks, or just act as cannon fodder. If I had to bet on who would win level 200 vs level 200 with 5 level 10 friends with him, I would bet on the level 200 with the 5 lowbie friends..

You cant be seriously suggesting this! Remove the restrictions and all you will have is a gank-fest, not because it has any purpose just because people like to grief.

While large battles may be a cool concept, the game just cant deliver - the need for a crowd control system proves that (and even if the cc system was on the cards eveyone would still be complaining about the lag)

Originally posted by Quool
Why is the influence of higher level players on lower level players considered a bad thing? Like all populations, a certain percentage will abuse their power, but, most would take up the responsibility to defend their less powerful colleagues and gain more influence and friends as a result.

Well I'll go back to my earlier points...

Why were higher levels not allowed in the subway, why do higher levels want Camelot locked down so lower levels cant enter? Why can you petition high level characters continually killing the same lower level spawn? The answers are all the same, but I'll let you work it out.

[Snuble]

Why were higher levels not allowed in the subway, why do higher levels want Camelot locked down so lower levels cant enter? Why can you petition high level characters continually killing the same lower level spawn? The answers are all the same, but I'll let you work it out.

Since Warlock as usual don't answer his own questions, and his style of argument usually is to answer with questions, I'll answer the three questions for him.

Answers.
1. Because Funcom decided to place loot usable by the high level players in there.
2. Because low level players would get killed if going there when noone else is around, and the low level toon at Tara is a potential ninja looter.
3. You can, and if the high level player is there for loot usable to him or can be sold, your petition won't go anywhere.

My comments.
1. Thats a bad game concept. If the subway was something that gave you items for a very limited use, or just was a way to level quickly, you wouldn't find any "high level" players in there for other purposes then sightseeing or griefing (that you are able to defend against by sending a petition OR talk to he players leader) Oh I forgot, thats player interaction, and you just don't want that do you Warlock?
2. Up to 14.7 low level was considered up to level 75. Now its up to 110 You never did see any large number of low level players there. In fact there where 1 (often with a certain known main infamous for ninjalooting at Tara) every 2 raids. The real reason some wanted a lvl 150 req on the castle was to get more loot for themselfs. Bad concept.
3. That issue is debated and most agree that if you can outdamage someone, and have a reason to outdamage that someone for personal gain, then there is no reason to petition anyway. To put it this way, if I was killing grey wolfs to get me a set of ttl3 bracers, and some low level petitioned me for killing those wolfs, I would have a very negative feeling towards that low level player. The griefer in your example is not the high level, but the low level for petitioning without reason.

[__________Typothetae]

Warlock,

Here is a tough job for you, or someone. I'd like to know if any CLAs are currently owned by smallish orgs. Or, if any orgs without significant high-levels own LCAs

Is there any easy way to check this? Or does it involve phsyically checking each base in game?

Of course the levels in any Org don't necessarily tell us anything about who is defending, or who hleped destroy the previous tower, but it would tell us if any smallish clans have CLAs. If they don't, then we have a problem.

If Clan is attacking Clan, then this should stop,, IMHO. Warlock, if you see this happening, you might notify a CoA allegiance member, since I was informed that they will defend any and all Clan CLAs, even if the attackers are Clan. (Of course if the Clan being attacked is already on the CoA 'blacklist' this may be an exception.)

[Snuble]

Now, finally got my NW package, and would like to list the selling points FC tries to get across:

• Organisation vs Organization battle
• Win side bonuses
• Control land and obtain game-play advantages by setting up notum-mining controllers
• Purchase and build towers that will attack intruders and defend you controller
• Service towers give bonuses you can use in both solo and team play
• Ground based fighting vehicles add new and exiting game-play
• Move around quickly and explore Rubi-Ka from above in the brand new Yalmaha flying vehicles
• Customizable in-game voice commands

Now, while you in *some* instances will find yourself outgunned by high level players, the *change* will leave a lot of the orgs (as in the #1 selling point there...) if not most out of the battle. In fact, there is enough selling points in there that does not concern towers, or the ability to place and do battle for them, to counter any argument you have about "not getting what you pay for".

Don't pretend this is a high level vs low level debate, because that change will have a negative impact on a very large amount of low level players.

I would like to challenge Cz to give us any number on how many of the low level players (as in below 75) that are active (like in not just a product of the 7 day trial gone bad) and are actual toons, not just storage space or placeholders. Just what is the toon vs account for the sub 75 toons?

[Cz]

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.

I'm sorry, but you seem to have a picture of the playerbase that is far from correct. When I say most players are low level, I base it on a database query which picks only the highest level character on each account. And this query also only includes active accounts. (So Jynne, please modify your position on that. )

The low level players are often very active - not at all sleeping toons, but will not reach 150 within the next 4-6 months, maybe not even a year. They spend their time in the game on other things than leveling, and much of the time they spend on leveling is not very efficient compared to the powergamers.

Those low level characters you see in organizations with high level characters are often twinks or alts, and not actual low level players.

Originally posted by Jynne
The opportunity to level came with AO.

Well, except for patch 12.6

LOL

Snublefot, I'm not entirely sure what you ask for in your last post. "Toon vs account"? See the start of this post for clarification on what I base my "low leves are in majority" statement on, and see whether that covers your 'challenge'.

[Cz]

That said, I think I'll be closing this thread soon. It's getting too long to allow much new input, and the people discussing (or sometimes quarreling ) here have made their points and mostly made up their mind.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Snublefot
Since Warlock as usual don't answer his own questions, and his style of argument usually is to answer with questions, I'll answer the three questions for him.

Answers.
1. Because Funcom decided to place loot usable by the high level players in there.
2. Because low level players would get killed if going there when noone else is around, and the low level toon at Tara is a potential ninja looter.
3. You can, and if the high level player is there for loot usable to him or can be sold, your petition won't go anywhere.

My comments.
1. Thats a bad game concept. If the subway was something that gave you items for a very limited use, or just was a way to level quickly, you wouldn't find any "high level" players in there for other purposes then sightseeing or griefing (that you are able to defend against by sending a petition OR talk to he players leader) Oh I forgot, thats player interaction, and you just don't want that do you Warlock?
2. Up to 14.7 low level was considered up to level 75. Now its up to 110 You never did see any large number of low level players there. In fact there where 1 (often with a certain known main infamous for ninjalooting at Tara) every 2 raids. The real reason some wanted a lvl 150 req on the castle was to get more loot for themselfs. Bad concept.
3. That issue is debated and most agree that if you can outdamage someone, and have a reason to outdamage that someone for personal gain, then there is no reason to petition anyway. To put it this way, if I was killing grey wolfs to get me a set of ttl3 bracers, and some low level petitioned me for killing those wolfs, I would have a very negative feeling towards that low level player. The griefer in your example is not the high level, but the low level for petitioning without reason.

Well its not quite the answers I had in mind :-)

1. Because high level players would camp the MOBs in the subway until they, their alts, their friends, their guildmates, and everyone they have ever known all had all the stuff they wanted. They would then camp some more and sell it on ebay (assuming its no NODROP) - this already happens with crat suits etc.

2. Yes it was 75 because the PvP range was 75. High level players dont want ninja looters - actually ninja-looters work within the mechanics of the game (they are only seen as 'ninja-looting' by the people unable to distribute the loot within the timer period - not that I'm saying I agree with it doing this), in alot of respect this is the same as a ninja-healer. The bottom line is that the players of the 'correct' range are unhappy because there are players of an 'incorrect' range screwing the game up for them.

3. Ok this one comes down to you asking me to type shorter posts :-). I said 'continually killing' and I should also have said 'unique spawns'. For example a high level continually kills the lab director denying those present at a chance of killing him, and he does it again and again and has a nice lot of forms to sell (on ebay?) since they are not NODROP - while you can try and defend the high level player "he is earning money" etc etc this is griefing the lower level players (he could for example wait for them to finish if they were there first of come back later when no one is there.

Now as far as the 'selling points' go - do they say you must be in a big guild to win or even stand a chance? No. Does it warn you that smaller guilds are at a considerable disadvantage? No.

However I agree that Cz does need to come back here - we've been round the issues far too many times and whats needed is an 'official' statement regarding if tower combat is _supposed_ to occur between players inside a specific level range, or if its _intended_ that any member of an org can defend its territory.

At that point the relevant parties can go get their money back :-)

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Typothetae
If Clan is attacking Clan, then this should stop,, IMHO. Warlock, if you see this happening, you might notify a CoA allegiance member, since I was informed that they will defend any and all Clan CLAs, even if the attackers are Clan. (Of course if the Clan being attacked is already on the CoA 'blacklist' this may be an exception.)

Why should it stop? (not that I'm for or against stopping it) Thats what the 5% is for. I'll agree its not desirable, but unfortunately thats the only option available to low level players since they will never be able to make it to their 'opposite numbers' low level zone.

Also given that there isnt enough land for everyone this mechanism (intra-faction) is needed to give everyone a fair chance at land control.

[Darkbane]

Low level players helping high level players are probably not a problem, though some coding is needed. But the mechanism would operate something like this:

Player 1 casts a nano or use an item (eg 1st aid kit) on Player 2.

Is Player 1 OR Player 2 in a land control area?
Is Player 2 PvP enabled?

If answer to both questions is 'yes' then PvP enable Player 1 with a special PvP flag that marks them as attackable by any enemy for 15 minutes or until death.

If Player 1 was 120 and Player 2 180 fighting in a high level battle, then Player 1 would be able to be attacked by any of their enemies, regardless of their level (even that nice level 200 over there...)

As I said, needs a bit of coding, but should ensure that low level players getting involved in high level battles is a risky proposition.

That leaves the issue of high level players at low level battles. I'd prefer some form of land control area-wide debuff the size of which would depend on how much higher the high level player is than the QL of the controller for that area. This would at least affect nano skills and treatment/first-aid.