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

[Kuro]

Originally posted by edict


This is very true, something I hadn't thought of. And people standing on the PvP borders is bad enough as we all know! Our wars often turn out just being a chat, because the attackers have all lined up on the PvP border

Soo what is the solution? Ban healing people outside of your PvP limit only? (IMHO, its the outside healing which is the worst)

Remove from the NCU of each attacker/defender any buff which has come from a high level player? How the heck do you know that?

RP explanation:
Being in close proximity to a notum mining controller leaves a 'residue' of notum around your body. This interferse with the nanobots in the suppression gas, making them ineffectual in preventing hostility towards you.

Regular explanation:
You heal/buff someone currently that's currently flagged for PvP, you pick up the old Neutral PvP flag when in 75% or greater gas zones (aka, you can't initiate attacks but anyone can attack you).

I'd almost suggest that the flagging happens to everyone, allowing attacks anywhere for a short time period (always wanted to have a running lightfight down the streets of O1E). But that's my insanity and wouldn't wish it on others.

[Coldstrike]

I got an idea that I think is going to piss a lot of people off, but also will be good for the game balance as a whole in the long run.

How about making it so that a buff or heal will have no effect if used on a character that is "too low", let's say someone who is 50% of the QL of the buff or heal? Havent really analyzed all the aspects of this, just something that popped into my head when I saw this thread.

[Kuro]

Originally posted by Coldstrike
I got an idea that I think is going to piss a lot of people off, but also will be good for the game balance as a whole in the long run.

How about making it so that a buff or heal will have no effect if used on a character that is "too low", let's say someone who is 50% of the QL of the buff or heal? Havent really analyzed all the aspects of this, just something that popped into my head when I saw this thread.

The twinkies are gonna hate you

[__________Typothetae]

I see two conflcting goals that are affected by any solution to this problem. Those conflicting goals are 1) and 2) below. And I see a third goal that is but a pipedream.

1) Keeping Orgs together, allow interaction.
This is the area where I agree with Jynne most, and the area that could suffer the most if the idea Cz proposes is implemented. We all want to help our Org. We all want to help our guild-mates. If we are not allowed to help our guild-mates, and if we don't have enough people in or Org in our own level to own a controllable area, we will not be able to play Notum Wars and to participate in Land Control without changing Orgs. So, unless we change Orgs, we won't benefit at all from Notum Wars. Yuck.

If Notum Wars is popular, and if it is as fun as FC and all of us hope it will be, Cz's proposal will shatter guilds and splinter them into level-specific guilds. My Org might be able to survive, but many members will leave to join guilds that have multitudes in their own level range. However, many members may flock to our guild who are at levels where we are strong. That is not the aim of our Org. We want to be diverse and to keep members of all levels. We can adapt, but we really don't want to.


2) Allowing lower level guilds to own land.
This is the area where I am most disgusted with Jynne's views. I am disgusted with the attitude 'if you aren't strong, you can't expect to win.' Sorry, this is completely short-sighted and not in line with any computer game any of us has ever played. When you start playing any game, at level 1 you are NOT confronted with the END BOSS! Yes, you are weak, so you start with weak adversaries, and you build your skills until you can handle harder opponents. This is the nature of computer GAMES! Computer games would be very short and unpopular if the 'gee, you aren't strong therefore you die mentality' prevailed.

Also, when you play a computer game that isn't MMORPG, you are not confronted with the decision to join an organization that will allow you to 'always' win, or to go with a weaker organization where you may stuggle. Is AO really about winning at all costs? If so, then AO will become a game of a few strong Orgs who play Notum Wars, and many other Orgs who ignore Notum Wars and PvPing altogether.

So, this is where Jynne's arguments becomes absurd. Jynne! Why don't you join an org that has enough strong members of all levels to defend ALL their bases without your help? Why are you whining that a 'stronger' org can take your low-level bases unless you help? This is sarcasm and probably not fair to Jynne...but do you get my point?

Jynne, you helped build a nice Controllable area for you guild mates. That is a good thing. But, once everyone has a chance to buy Notum Wars, if you don't have 10 or 20 lvl 10s to defend your level 10 base, the area really should be won by an org that DOES have 10 or 20 lvl 10s! Shouldn't it? This is a way to build comraderie among players with similar levels, and that is also a wonderful thing. And it rewards players who are willing to take the time to develop and lead forces that are appropriate for the task at hand....controlling a lvl 10 area. Why should the dedicated lvl 10 commander be thwarted by players 10 or 20 times their level. Jynne, YOU talk about being discouraged! That is horribly selfish. Think about the 20 level 10s that are discouraged!

So, I would say that Jynne and others who profess the same type of argument are only hurting the chances of coming up with a solution when they bring up such arguments. Cz and FC will not be swayed by such ridiculous rhetoric. This problem is how to balance Org unity and multi-level participation with allowing lower-levels to protect their bases. Lets not lose sight of that, nor should we castigate those who wish to protect the low levels from higher players.

3) Allowing all levels in all orgs to play all aspects of Notum Wars.
This isn't going to happen. The rules of the game cannot be perfected so that everyone will be happy, period. As the rules stand, some orgs/players benefit and some orgs/players are at a disadvantage. Any rule change will only change the winners and the losers. So, the issue is how to change the rules so that the game is the most fun. Good orgs will handle the changes, crummy orgs will complain and fail.

Solution:
I believe it is a mistake to take one specific problem and try to solve it without considering many other issues. It is obvious to me that this issue will change dramatically depending on how Crowd Control is implemented. Apparently, Crowd Control IS GOING TO BE IMPLEMENTED!

So, CZ! FC! Implement Crowd Control, then ask for input on this issue! I would like to compare everyone's views on this issue before and after Crowd Control. I bet we will see some surprising turns in the debate.

I will say that disallowing high to low-level buffing sucks if it is done game-wide, not just in Control Areas. But, I do like the idea of PvP flagging attackers. [Attacking is way out of hand, isn't it? You can run to the Area boundary. You can get outside buffs. Attacking is easy, defending is arduous.] I like enabling a waiting period after disrupting a shield! All reasonable, and simple, solutions. Lets keep it simple, by all means. Because, when you implement the next 'fix' you don't want to make it too hard to reverse yourselves....lol.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Typothetae
I see two conflcting goals that are affected by any solution to this problem. Those conflicting goals are 1) and 2) below. And I see a third goal that is but a pipedream.
<snipped some >

2) Allowing lower level guilds to own land.
This is the area where I am most disgusted with Jynne's views. I am disgusted with the attitude 'if you aren't strong, you can't expect to win.' Sorry, this is completely short-sighted and not in line with any computer game any of us has ever played. When you start playing any game, at level 1 you are NOT confronted with the END BOSS! Yes, you are weak, so you start with weak adversaries, and you build your skills until you can handle harder opponents. This is the nature of computer GAMES! Computer games would be very short and unpopular if the 'gee, you aren't strong therefore you die mentality' prevailed.

My point of view is that if you attack someone who is stronger than you, then you should have a lower chance of winning. I mean, that's logical right? Or else what is the point of leveling up and getting strong? So that I can watch my base be destroyed by people I could wipe off the face of the game in one hit, if only I were allowed to hit them?

Also, when you play a computer game that isn't MMORPG, you are not confronted with the decision to join an organization that will allow you to 'always' win, or to go with a weaker organization where you may stuggle. Is AO really about winning at all costs? If so, then AO will become a game of a few strong Orgs who play Notum Wars, and many other Orgs who ignore Notum Wars and PvPing altogether.

So, this is where Jynne's arguments becomes absurd. Jynne! Why don't you join an org that has enough strong members of all levels to defend ALL their bases without your help? Why are you whining that a 'stronger' org can take your low-level bases unless you help? This is sarcasm and probably not fair to Jynne...but do you get my point?

I'm not whining that a stronger org can take my low-level bases. I'm stating that under the proposed rules, an overall weaker org can take my low-level bases only because myself and the other strong players in my org wouldn't be allowed to do anything to stop them. Your second statement is just as absurd as you say I am: You are telling me to join an org where I don't have to participate in defending the bases, and cutting me out of participating in NW at all!! Even if I wanted to leave my org - and after being in it for an entire year, that is hardly likely - I'd just be joining an org I still couldn't play as part of! Think!

Jynne, you helped build a nice Controllable area for you guild mates. That is a good thing. But, once everyone has a chance to buy Notum Wars, if you don't have 10 or 20 lvl 10s to defend your level 10 base, the area really should be won by an org that DOES have 10 or 20 lvl 10s! Shouldn't it? This is a way to build comraderie among players with similar levels, and that is also a wonderful thing. And it rewards players who are willing to take the time to develop and lead forces that are appropriate for the task at hand....controlling a lvl 10 area. Why should the dedicated lvl 10 commander be thwarted by players 10 or 20 times their level. Jynne, YOU talk about being discouraged! That is horribly selfish. Think about the 20 level 10s that are discouraged!

I'm amazed that anyone actually thinks really new players under level 70 or so will get all into tower-building, attacking, and defending unless they are part of a larger org with a spread of levels across its membership. They can't afford it in terms of credits, and they'd have outleveled their base by the time they logged off! The only people who are going to be doing a lot of land control under level 70 or so are twinks and the low levels in a guild like mine where the high levels give them extra money and expertise to help them out with it.

So, I would say that Jynne and others who profess the same type of argument are only hurting the chances of coming up with a solution when they bring up such arguments. Cz and FC will not be swayed by such ridiculous rhetoric. This problem is how to balance Org unity and multi-level participation with allowing lower-levels to protect their bases. Lets not lose sight of that, nor should we castigate those who wish to protect the low levels from higher players.

The problem is how to balance org unity and participating in the battles against the advantages that attackers already have - preparation and timing - without adding a third and highly decisive in pvp advantage of being the only ones who can reasonably use high-level outside buffs to help them. A 91-point damage shield on level 30- players can kill off any people who are attacking them even if they don't shoot back!

3) Allowing all levels in all orgs to play all aspects of Notum Wars.
This isn't going to happen. The rules of the game cannot be perfected so that everyone will be happy, period. As the rules stand, some orgs/players benefit and some orgs/players are at a disadvantage. Any rule change will only change the winners and the losers. So, the issue is how to change the rules so that the game is the most fun. Good orgs will handle the changes, crummy orgs will complain and fail.

Read the signature. Iron Law of Exploits. More rules = more exploits and more exploiters. Don't make Notum Wars into a battle of the better exploiters and more clever rules-manipulators. That will ensure that the attacker, who always has time to prepare for their rules manipulation, will beat the defender, who doesn't, every single solitary time. This proposed change is a defense nerf - as if defense were too strong, and didn't need massive boosts for bases under ql 201.

I snipped out the rest of your post, but you're right - there is no easy way to do this, because almost all the options are either ineffective or just plain suck. So why not leave it as it is? Everyone deals with the limits and the outside help. And the 'guild of true newbies wanting a base' is going to turn out to be more myth than reality. I absolutely assure you of that.

[_______________Hypos]

posted by Kuroshio

And you split my org across a bunch of different servers and completely destroy interaction between players.

Only if they wish to be split up. Part of my suggestion was:

Any char can progress to the next server at any time by typing in a command

So if your lower level chars all wish to play on the server with the higher level chars, then they may. If, however, they wish to play on a lower level server where they'll be shielded from potentially unfriendly high level chars, then they can do that too. I'm not forcing your org to split up.

[__________Typothetae]

Well, Jynne...nice, thoughtful reply.

The rules will change! And with Notum Wars, the rules did change. Now, the apparent intent of the game designers is not being fulfilled by the current rules.

So maybe the intent was short-sighted. Maybe, the designers are wrong to place low-level potential land control above Org loyalty. Maybe they should leave things the way they are. I'm not sure. I do know that I will be loyal to my guild before changing my strategy. And, I think you agree with that. Org loyalty above all. You don't believe that being strong should be the main goal, so quit using that as an argument. You believe in community and your guild.

So, I repeat, Jynne, "why are you voicing the 'might beats right' mentality?" You just don't believe that, you are just trying to support your guild.

So, don't use ridiculous, destructive logic just to get your way. If you don't change your tune, Cz and FC will not listen to you. Never use the 'strongest of the fittest argument!' Ever! No one in entertainment will listen to you. You have to be much more subtle than that!

The rules will changes. And I bet you will change your tune if it benfits your org. I don't blame you.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Typothetae
Well, Jynne...nice, thoughtful reply.

The rules will change! And with Notum Wars, the rules did change. Now, the apparent intent of the game designers is not being fulfilled by the current rules.

So maybe the intent was short-sighted. Maybe, the designers are wrong to place low-level potential land control above Org loyalty. Maybe they should leave things the way they are. I'm not sure. I do know that I will be loyal to my guild before changing my strategy. And, I think you agree with that. Org loyalty above all. You don't believe that being strong should be the main goal, so quit using that as an argument. You believe in community and your guild.

So, I repeat, Jynne, "why are you voicing the 'might beats right' mentality?" You just don't believe that, you are just trying to support your guild.

So, don't use ridiculous, destructive logic just to get your way. If you don't change your tune, Cz and FC will not listen to you. Never use the 'strongest of the fittest argument!' Ever! No one in entertainment will listen to you. You have to be much more subtle than that!

The rules will changes. And I bet you will change your tune if it benfits your org. I don't blame you.

Umm... might beats right because it's mighty.

If I attack a stronger organization's base I expect I'd lose. Why is that so hard to grasp? If a stronger organization attacks my base I expect I'll lose. But if a weaker organization attacks my base, I expect to win. That's the whole point of there being differentials in strength.

Otherwise we'd be playing a FPS, not an RPG - here, there are ways to improve your character's power. It takes an investment in time and effort to do so, and you are rewarded for your time and effort by being able to do more damage, cast better nanos, and so forth. You advance. Advancement should not have penalties, and the current proposal by FC is imposing penalties on orgs that have members who advance.

Even if a whole org advances at once, they'd be constantly trying to 'trade up' their base for a higher-level one, even if they didn't really want to, because if they don't trade-up they'll have a base they can't defend against weaker attackers anymore. But then they'll hit a brick wall, that we call uberguilds - guilds they can't beat, because they aren't strong and large enough. And their current base is too low-level for them to defend against weaker players; they can't take a stronger guild's base - so umm look at what happens to your guild of level 50 players as they level up to 150? They get screwed.

Unity of the Rose is far, far weaker than, say, Legion - to pick an Omni guild. But by your logic, we should have a better chance of beating them in battle, especially if we attack their base, because... because we are so much weaker? That is just a contradiction. It's ludicrous. If we attack their base first, they should be able to come out with the kid gloves off and kill us so dead our alts all die too! They earned it!

Your position is that the weak should have a 'fair chance.' To that I say, if you want perfect fairness in chances, go play CounterStrike. Or play an offline game. Fair doesn't exist in an RPG with power differentials between characters. We earn our high levels. We should benefit from them. Deal with it.

[_______________Hypos]

I have to agree with Jynne. One of the few things I like about being higher level is that I can help out my guildees. No way I want that taken away from me.

There simply is no way to truly level the playfield as long as high level chars can help out low level chars in any way at all. That means no healing, no buffing and no trading. That is just too great a change to the current system.

[__________Typothetae]

Originally posted by Jynne
My point of view is that if you attack someone who is stronger than you, then you should have a lower chance of winning. I mean, that's logical right? Or else what is the point of leveling up and getting strong? So that I can watch my base be destroyed by people I could wipe off the face of the game in one hit, if only I were allowed to hit them? I'm not whining that a stronger org can take my low-level bases. I'm stating that under the proposed rules, an overall weaker org can take my low-level bases only because myself and the other strong players in my org wouldn't be allowed to do anything to stop them. Your second statement is just as absurd as you say I am: You are telling me to join an org where I don't have to participate in defending the bases, and cutting me out of participating in NW at all!!

Read the signature. Iron Law of Exploits. More rules = more exploits and more exploiters. Don't make Notum Wars into a battle of the better exploiters and more clever rules-manipulators. That will ensure that the attacker, who always has time to prepare for their rules manipulation, will beat the defender, who doesn't, every single solitary time.

1) All games are ALL ABOUT THE RULES! Period! If you aren't paying attention to the rules, then you aren't playing the game well, you will suck, and you will be beaten! More rules don't mean more exploits. Each and every rule means exploits. If you aren't taking advantage of the rules, you will suck. Period.

Simpler is better. But, if you are playing AO, simpler just ain't an option. It is the most complicated game I have ever seen.

AO superiority is a battle of the best 'legal' exploiters and the best rules manipulators. If you don't see that. You are blind. And that isn't going to change no matter how much you believe in your rhetoric.

2) You still don't get the point about 'stronger should win.' You are wrong. If that was the case, then none of us would have passed level 1. Terasque would have descended upon the Backyards and destroyed us before we levelled once! And we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is about balance. Lower levels should be protected from higher levels. FC isn't going to listen to your silliness if you don't agree to that.

3) Weaker overall organizations SHOULD be able to take your level 10 base if you don't have enough level 10 defenders. Why should a org with 100 level 10 attackers not be able to defeat an org with 20 level 200 and 2 level 10 defenders for a level 10 area? If you believe the level 200 defenders should be allowed to prevail, you just aren't going to be listened to. The argument is so absurd and completely out of line with gaming it should be and will be ignored.

I don't like the idea of splintering orgs by disallowing the whole org from defending a base, either, Jynne. So, lets come up with some solutions that don't stress the 'stronger overall org should win' mentality. That reasoning leads to only a few ultra-strong orgs. A few Uber-guilds domininating AO is not what you had in mind, right, Jynne?

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Typothetae


1) All games are ALL ABOUT THE RULES! Period! If you aren't paying attention to the rules, then you aren't playing the game well, you will suck, and you will be beaten! More rules don't mean more exploits. Each and every rule means exploits. If you aren't taking advantage of the rules, you will suck. Period.

Simpler is better. But, if you are playing AO, simpler just ain't an option. It is the most complicated game I have ever seen.

AO superiority is a battle of the best 'legal' exploiters and the best rules manipulators. If you don't see that. You are blind. And that isn't going to change no matter how much you believe in your rhetoric.

2) You still don't get the point about 'stronger should win.' You are wrong. If that was the case, then none of us would have passed level 1. Terasque would have descended upon the Backyards and destroyed us before we levelled once! And we wouldn't be having this discussion. It is about balance. Lower levels should be protected from higher levels. FC isn't going to listen to your silliness if you don't agree to that.

3) Weaker overall organizations SHOULD be able to take your level 10 base if you don't have enough level 10 defenders. Why should a org with 100 level 10 attackers not be able to defeat an org with 20 level 200 and 2 level 10 defenders for a level 10 area? If you believe the level 200 defenders should be allowed to prevail, you just aren't going to be listened to. The argument is so absurd and completely out of line with gaming it should be and will be ignored.

I don't like the idea of splintering orgs by disallowing the whole org from defending a base, either, Jynne. So, lets come up with some solutions that don't stress the 'stronger overall org should win' mentality. That reasoning leads to only a few ultra-strong orgs. A few Uber-guilds domininating AO is not what you had in mind, right, Jynne?

If the uber-guilds were going to dominate AO they already would.

They already DO dominate the QL 200+ areas. But they don't touch the QL 150- areas. Because they can only have 5 controllers total and the bonuses from level 150- towers aren't worth it to them. That balancing mechanism is already there. Stronger guilds want higher level areas because that is where the bonuses are. You'll never see high-level guilds dominating level 10 notum fields because it isn't worth their time!

[Jynne]

If you want to preserve the 'purity' of tower wars for low levels, without screwing mid-level orgs that want to stay together and still own bases, I propose the following:

1: Put in a level 75 limit for helping. Don't let people over the regular pvp-bracket for a level 75 help people who are under level 75 who is actively in combat; always let people get whatever buffs their NCU can take. And let anyone help someone who's over level 75 in combat.

2: Lower the "who can attack whom" cap to 125. If you're level 125 or better, you can be killed by anybody. A level 125 character is at their cap for 'core abilities' for title 4, and most are using QL 175 to 200 equipment and many of their best or near-best nanos. They're powerful enough to be a threat on a battlefield even to level 200s. Especially via debuffs or if they have mochams on (for casters).

3: Raise the limit of who can attack what towers, so that level 175 is the pvp cut-off for what towers can be attacked by title 6 players. Level 150 bases just evaporate when assaulted by title level 6 players.

That'll preserve the ability of high level people to participate in battles, fight off lower-level attackers at their bases, and still not be able to gank towers that are trivial to them. And it'll leave players under level 75 with a game that isn't 'interfered with' very much by higher levels, only through buffs - and as equally so for both attackers and defenders as possible.

[__________Typothetae]

OK, so you agree, Jynne. The rules have prevented the Strongest orgs from dominating because the rules, somehow, prevent them from completely dominating and destroying the low-level players.

And, you agree, it seems, that that is good. Some rules are good.

So, is Cz's proposal good because it makes the game more fun, or is it bad because it make the game less fun? Isn't that the only really important question?

Please don't resort to the 'stronger should prevail' argument.

I think Cz's proposal makes the game less fun because it destroys org unity. It make the game more fun because it allows players of all levels to have a chance to gain land. The rule change will make it more likely that a larger number of orgs will have land, rather than fewer orgs having land. So, I have to say that I support the rule change if I assume no other rules will change. However, many other rules will change. So, next week, I might change my position.

[__________Typothetae]

Jynne!

It is funny that you are pointing out the evils of level 200 players destroying 150 level bases, yet you still haven't admitted that your defense of level 10 bases is ridiculous.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Typothetae
Jynne!

It is funny that you are pointing out the evils of level 200 players destroying 150 level bases, yet you still haven't admitted that your defense of level 10 bases is ridiculous.

That's because attacking and defending are two different things. Attackers can always bring higher level people along. Defenders can't.

And it's not evil. I'm level 167. If I couldn't solo an unguarded level 150 base with no outside buffs, I wouldn't call it unfair to let level 200s attack that base.

[__________Typothetae]

But, still it is fair to allow a level 167 to buff and defend a level 10 base?

How can you be so self-absorbed in Jynne-world? If you don't start explaining how to make the game better for ALL players, not just those 167 level players name Jynne, your arguments are shallow and worthless.

Sure, defending is hard. I have made suggestions to make attacking more difficult and with harsher consequences. Yet, I'm not aiming my 'solutions' at a particular level group. You seem to be doing just that. Therefore, you are easily ignored if you didn't post 20 times in this thread. Therefore, I challenge you.

[__________Typothetae]

Originally posted by Jynne
Attackers can always bring higher level people along. Defenders can't.

OK, this has got to be wrong! I thought you are supporting the current rule that allow you, a level 167, to defend all your bases. But, above you say that defenders cannot 'bring higher levels along.' So, are you able to help your lower level bases now, or not?

If you can help your lower level bases, then the above quote is erroneous.

If the above quote is true, then why are we having this argument?

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Typothetae


OK, this has got to be wrong! I thought you are supporting the current rule that allow you, a level 167, to defend all your bases. But, above you say that defenders cannot 'bring higher levels along.' So, are you able to help your lower level bases now, or not?

If you can help your lower level bases, then the above quote is erroneous.

If the above quote is true, then why are we having this argument?

Defenders cannot know before hand that high level attackers may be present and therefore arrange for high level people from outside their organization to come. Attackers can and will know the composition of the org they are attacking, and can and should make such arrangements if they expect to be successful. Is that clear?

I haven't flamed you personally in any way shape or form. I'm not going to start; I'm also not going to bother replying to you again if you continue to make personal attacks against me. From where I'm sitting, you are being positively contradictory in your logic.

"Strength is weakness" - that is your position in three words. Now eat them

[__________Typothetae]

This is not meant to be personal, Jynne. It is meant to point out a far too prevalent mentality on these boards and in this game. I am sorry if you resemble it. And if you are too weak to handle the criticism, bow out.

Players agree with Jynne that they don't want to be prevented from participating in their guild's lower level battles. So, many players support allowing a level 167 to participate in level 10 battles. They don't want any rule changes.

However, some level 167 players also want to CHANGE the rules so they can attack level 125 level players. Hmm, I see a trend.

Also, some of the same level 167 level players are too weak to have their own level 150 level tower to defend. They prefer to complain when they fear they might not be allowed to defend a level 10 tower and never admit that it is ridiculously unfair.

So, I would say that any level 167 level player that isn't complaining about not being able to defend a level 150 tower should be listened to. A player that is concerned with defending a level 10 tower is just being absurd.

If a level 167 player would admit that being allowed to defend a level 10 tower is absurd, they might be considered more reasonable. If they are unwilling, they just seem selfish and comletely level-centered.

[Jynne]

Originally posted by Typothetae
This is not meant to be personal, Jynne. It is meant to point out a far too prevalent mentality on these boards and in this game. I am sorry if you resemble it. And if you are too weak to handle the criticism, bow out.

Players agree with Jynne that they don't want to be prevented from participating in their guild's lower level battles. So, many players support allowing a level 167 to participate in level 10 battles. They don't want any rule changes.

However, some level 167 players also want to CHANGE the rules so they can attack level 125 level players. Hmm, I see a trend.

Also, some of the same level 167 level players are too weak to have their own level 150 level tower to defend. They prefer to complain when they fear they might not be allowed to defend a level 10 tower and never admit that it is ridiculously unfair.

So, I would say that any level 167 level player that isn't complaining about not being able to defend a level 150 tower should be listened to. A player that is concerned with defending a level 10 tower is just being absurd.

If a level 167 player would admit that being allowed to defend a level 10 tower is absurd, they might be considered more reasonable. If they are unwilling, they just seem selfish and comletely level-centered.

Again. All your argument boils down to is 'Strength is weakness' - so I guess therefore you must be weak. What level are you? What kind of organization are you in?

You must be representative of the much more prevelant mentality on these boards that if someone else is stronger than you are, be it because they are higher level, better equipped, or of another profession, then they must be nerfed until you can beat them with nary a thought or attempt to adapt. It isn't fair or fun for you unless you will win, even if there's a good reason why you shouldn't win. Any good reasons why you shouldn't win, are actually reasons why you should.

You must be arguing against the ability of high level players to affect you, because you don't want to put in the time and effort required to become high level, or even the trivial effort of getting the help of other high level players from your own faction to improve your chances.

Yes, let's nerf people for leveling, because it doesn't give you a fair chance to own a QL 10 tower that you'll outlevel in 45 minutes. Let's nerf people in orgs who have various member levels, because that kind of org isn't the norm in AO, not at all. Every org is in a homogenous level range with a differential of no greater than 20%, and will always all level together to maintain that tight focus as well as be willing and able to upgrade their base every time they advance to the point where it won't be "fair" for them to keep the land they already have anymore.

Now, forgive me if I actually play AO and am a little skeptical that the game will ever, or could ever, work that way.

I'm sure the designers know my points and my argument by now. I'm just hoping they won't take your "strength is weakness" line seriously, or next you know, we'll start the game at level 1 with 10,000 hitpoints, then lose 50 every time we level.