Open question RE FvF

[oldmess]

How about limiting the number of players taking part based on the sum of their highest levels? So you might be allowed (for example) 10 x level 250, 20 x level 125, or 50 x level 50.

I'll assume you mean "highest combat level". Hate to count a master forager as a 250 if his highest combat skill is only 150.

Such an idea is possible, but to test whether that idea meets the sniff-test, we'd have to first find out if levels are balanced well enough for that. i.e. is a 250 exactly 2.5 times more powerful than a 100? 15 times more powerful than a level 20?

Maybe a simpler way to look at it: If I told you that you could have a single full team of 250's (any skill mix) or 2 full teams of 125's, which would you take? If the answer is obvious one way or the other, then it's not balanced. If it's not obvious, then it might be worth the time to investigate more fully.

Next, it can't be as simple as saying each side is limited to X people *unless* you scrap the guards. They add to the defense. How much do you count them in this balancing idea?

Last item to consider - Spires are going to unbalance things when they are created. Does this break or improve the situation if we combine it with your suggestion?

[rellis]

I disagree, limiting numbers is limiting gaming experience.

Perhaps if there was a way to gain honour points in OP battles. As in the amount of points you receive for killing an opponent is multiplied if the opposition have a much greater force present. Fighting a larger force brings honour in my opinion. not an ideal solution but its an idea.

Basically wat we need is a great big Kitin offensive to pour into our lands, one so great that to stand divided is to fall. Roll on some PvE content.

What i would love to see is a Kitin invasion so large that they would take an entire city like Yrkanis or Pyr. One which would take an enormous organised force of all homins to regain control.( Imagines a last bastion of forces held in the palace in pyr, Npc guards holding off continuos onslaughts as homins of all races fight from within the palace and outside to reclaim the city) .fractionally off topic i suppose

edit ** my dream scenario would have to go on for days/weeks at a time in order to be called content, an afternoon event just doesnt cut it in my opinion

[oldmess]

I disagree, limiting numbers is limiting gaming experience.

That's my gut reaction as well, but I wanted to ponder it a bit beyond just saying that.

What i would love to see is a Kitin invasion so large that they would take an entire city like Yrkanis or Pyr. One which would take an enormous organised force of all homins to regain control.( Imagines a last bastion of forces held in the palace in pyr, Npc guards holding off continuos onslaughts as homins of all races fight from within the palace and outside to reclaim the city) .fractionally off topic i suppose

Now we're talking! I'd like to see a large force of kitin begin a slow trek from the roots to one of our major cities. If we fight them, they stop and fight us back. If we wipe them, they respawn back a bit from where we fought. If they wipe us, they continue on.

If they reach the city, they seige it with some defined number of losses allowing them to take it or allowing us to push them back. (And let us heal the city guards so we're really working together)

Make it something that'll actually last a while and gives us multi-week problem to deal with and solve.

*yeah, way off-topic, but until we get some sense of the future direction from Nevrax, all we're left with on this topic is the same back and forth we've had for how many months now?*

[katriell]

This talk of "balancing mechanism" is disturbing.

If the Kamists/Kameutrals/Kamivans are outnumbered, then they should work to fix it instead of ineffectually whining on forums again and again, or asking the developers to fix it for them.

KoO seems to be making an effort, and although I don't always agree with their tactics, I have to appreciate that.

Some kind of balancing mechanism would perhaps be necessary if the entire game was based around the outposts conflict, if the war was a static feature with no intention of ever ending ( like DAoC and RFO(?) ). But it is neither. The game is dynamic and the war is an actual storyline element, so unless a sudden balancing action had a very good and appropriate roleplay explanation, it would be unacceptable.

[grimjim]

Some kind of balancing mechanism would perhaps be necessary if the entire game was based around the outposts conflict, if the war was a static feature with no intention of ever ending ( like DAoC and RFO(?) ). But it is neither. The game is dynamic and the war is an actual storyline element, so unless a sudden balancing action had a very good and appropriate roleplay explanation, it would be unacceptable.

There isn't anything to be done (on this server) really to correct it. It's a self-reinforcing phenomena. Some manner of balancing mechanism is necessary but it needn't necessarily be mechanical, it could be done through events and RP but it isn't particularly likely to come from the players so long as the conditions persist (and strengthen) that support the imbalance.

And this whole 'Kamineutral' thing is getting annoying, by and large the Karavan aren't hiring/engaging neutral assistance because they don't need to to ensure victory.

[grimjim]

Yeah, allright, but again. The situation is not alike on all servers...
So one may need balancing and the other not?
Who´s to decide?
Will it be judged by the amount of demand for it?
Ahwell, sort out your own problems, got my own to attend to.
Just wanted to broaden the horizon a bit.

That's why a dynamic balancing system is needed.
I'm wondering how much of this is to do with having more US players on this server and their playstyle compared to a more European one, since that's the only major difference between the servers.

[grimjim]

Personally, I'm kinda leary of spires because it puts the FvF back in as mechanic as well as RP/story and removes some of that freedom. But, more than that, what I'm looking for from Nevrax is a sense of whether this war is actually a story element that will end and move onto something else or whether it's just a distraction to keep us busy while we wait for the Ring.

The only positive side I can see is that it gives the factioned people a taste of what we neutrals have had to put up with for TP problems and thus we might get a little more sympathy, or some outcry that changes things

[ajsuk]

And this whole 'Kamineutral' thing is getting annoying, by and large the Karavan aren't hiring/engaging neutral assistance because they don't need to to ensure victory.

lol yeah... that must be it... uh huh.

[oldmess]

That's why a dynamic balancing system is needed.

There's an irony calling for a balancing system in a situation like this: Everyone says they want a game where the players actions affect the world. If I'm reading the various idea correctly, we want someone to come in and take away the effect the players actions have on the world and make it all even-steven.

Again, as I've stated, if this war is intended to be the permanent status-quo and the devs have no plan for what the story does if one side wins, then I might be willing to agree. If that's the case, then I'm extremely disappointed because I assumed we were living/affecting an actual story that moves forward.

Assuming there is an end-war scenario that's been planned, then we should push forward and move toward that so we can get this story moving. Balancing mechanisms would just delay that.

I'm wondering how much of this is to do with having more US players on this server and their playstyle compared to a more European one, since that's the only major difference between the servers.

Im not sure how we could quantify that; a forum poll would only tell you about the forum users and not the overall server. Regardless, does it matter? If it were true that US players are more PvP-positive, what then? Ban us? Give us our own server? (didn't we already have that?) What change do you suggest based on finding out whether we are or are not more aggresive?

[akede]

There is a great post out there somewhere with a hypothesis as to why the Euro and US servers differ. If I can find it I'll link it here. Wish me luck.