wat ? it was, like, 20 posts ago, and yesterday :'(

For the last time, /rp off is not under discussion here, start ur own thread if you want to discuss it.

From my personal point of view battlegrounds are the reason no#1 for our problems of a low populated rvr zone especially off-peak times. Usually the sum of total players within our battlegrounds equals or slightly exceeds the number of players within NF. Often players argue that they do not encounter enemies within our main RvR zone and believe that a change to another zone might be the solution, but if you keep the player numbers (NF vs BGs) in mind a logical solution would be to ...

a) close the battlegrounds
b) set classic live-like level and realmrank-ranges which would be:

Abermenai: level 15-19 and max. 25 RP (Realmlevel 1L2)
Thidranki: level 20-24 and max. 125 RP (Realmlevel 1L3)
Murdaigean: level 25-29 and max. 750 RP (Realmlevel 1L5)
Caledonia: level 30-35 and max. 7125 RP (Realmlevel 2L0)

If we would do so the staff would face serious flames, due to most players have become biased of a battleground-gameplay that never existed on live servers as it currently does on Uthgard that we as staff allowed to evolve into it's current state. Especially as an oldschool DAoC player I have always been annoyed of that system, because it just adds too many problems. As mentioned before many players often say in connection to our rvr population-problem: "but look on shard XYZ zone 123 worked perfect. Lot of incs ...". The point is that other high-peaking freeshards always offered only one rvr-zone, meaning if a server had a population of about 300players, these 300 players would be pent-up within a small battleground. Now imagine Uthgard would close or adjust the battleground-system. Of course a few players would argue and "strike" on that change by not logging in for 1-2weeks. However, soon after such a change the number of total players would obviously sum up within NF meaning an increase of total players by almost 100% of our current peaks (in numbers: ~300players).

The only argument for not changing the system to be live-like is and was the issue that low-RR players would have to fight against high-RR players, but if you played on live servers you knew that live-servers never offered such comfort. Usually low-RR players helped each other by forming a zerg to withstand the RA-dumping of certain high-RR guildgroups which most of the times worked pretty well.


With regards,
Haldan

Well, topic is about bg reforming, I'd say the caps and the way they are implemented here are part of the discussion. Better discuss about all the aspects of it, if we want a balanced solution.

Sure, spliting the BGs would be nice, since it's not that easy to lvl here, and new players could go away if they have to grind for a month just to go in the first bg.
Still, it doesn't mean there are no other issues, or partial solutions to the problem.

@Haldan : thid is max 750rp iirc.

For the multiple bgs, I'd say it's better not to have too much of them. Uthgard is still low pop server, it's probably better to have one 20-27 and the other 28-35, as suggested. It's not that bad to have some purp ennemies, they don't resist as much as mobs :>

haldan removing BGs 100% would be bad I think (or atleast then make rvr zone support more lvls to xp with because for a 1st time uth player 1-50 with 0 rvr would suck and I think many would quit - however if lvl 20s knew they could go emain at XP spots to find other xpers and rvr with them inside the big boy rvr zone that would be awesome imo)


however I agree

we need people to move through the BGs fast so more get to agra asap and dont stick around in BGs too long

Haldan wrote:From my personal point of view battlegrounds are the reason no#1 for our problems of a low populated rvr zone especially off-peak times. Usually the sum of total players within our battlegrounds equals or slightly exceeds the number of players within NF. Often players argue that they do not encounter enemies within our main RvR zone and believe that a change to another zone might be the solution, but if you keep the player numbers (NF vs BGs) in mind a logical solution would be to ...

a) close the battlegrounds
b) set classic live-like level and realmrank-ranges which would be:

Abermenai: level 15-19 and max. 25 RP (Realmlevel 1L2)
Thidranki: level 20-24 and max. 125 RP (Realmlevel 1L3)
Murdaigean: level 25-29 and max. 750 RP (Realmlevel 1L5)
Caledonia: level 30-35 and max. 7125 RP (Realmlevel 2L0)

If we would do so the staff would face serious flames, due to most players have become biased of a battleground-gameplay that never existed on live servers as it currently does on Uthgard that we as staff allowed to evolve into it's current state. Especially as an oldschool DAoC player I have always been annoyed of that system, because it just adds too many problems. As mentioned before many players often say in connection to our rvr population-problem: "but look on shard XYZ zone 123 worked perfect. Lot of incs ...". The point is that other high-peaking freeshards always offered only one rvr-zone, meaning if a server had a population of about 300players, these 300 players would be pent-up within a small battleground. Now imagine Uthgard would close or adjust the battleground-system. Of course a few players would argue and "strike" on that change by not logging in for 1-2weeks. However, soon after such a change the number of total players would obviously sum up within NF meaning an increase of total players by almost 100% of our current peaks (in numbers: ~300players).

The only argument for not changing the system to be live-like is and was the issue that low-RR players would have to fight against high-RR players, but if you played on live servers you knew that live-servers never offered such comfort. Usually low-RR players helped each other by forming a zerg to withstand the RA-dumping of certain high-RR guildgroups which most of the times worked pretty well.


With regards,
Haldan

Hmmmm. Closing BGs would mean a slow but certain death to Uthgard for sure. Not only would people have to face RR7+ enemies at RR1L5 (yes, a few DF and RvR kills here and there, wohoo!), but also the insane deathtrap this would mean to new players that try to establish themselves here. PvE in DAoC is dull and slow, especially on classic like shards, like Uthgard. This, combined with the low population only makes the leveling worse than it already is. BGs are the natural form of relaxation during the usually boring and repetitive grind. It's like the holiday from work.

This is also the reason why I'm proposing a split in the Braemar BG level range, to give people a well-earned and rewarding break sooner than it currently stands.

Regarding your second option, it's one of the Dev's dogmas popping up where you guys basicly claim that: "Customising your own server is EVIL". It just makes me lose faith in the staff as being independant and capable of deciding and creating solutions that are best for THEIR server with THEIR population and player base.
As long as you guys don't realise that Uthgard should NOT be livelike in every single neutral* aspect like BGs, you will end up with a half-assed totally inappropriate setting that does NOT work here. It would only be a waste of bandwith to not do give the server what it needs, but instead do with the server what Mythic did with theirs. If that's the idea, then we might aswell play live.

You state it as being a logical solution, yes, it might be logical, but it would not be the BEST solution. As long as you don't look for the best solutions you'll always end up with systems that create new or just delay the problem and eventually will have to be changed AGAIN. As long as you don't think trough solutions, you will never really fix the problem, just kick it 5 ft ahead, but u can be sure it's gonna be right in front of your nose again some day. Sometimes it seems to me that you are trying to fix the community's 'whining' instead of the problem. But as long as u don't fix the problem, you'll always have whining again soon or later.

To be honest, what bothers me most of all with the staffs decisions is that they sometimes are so purposely BLIND to the (custom) middle route to a solution. What it comes down to in pretty much every one of those cases is that you state 2 opinions, both pushed to the extreme. Like: "Either we don't do it or either we do it livelike, because if it's not livelike we are being accused of customising things". Imo you're acting too one-minded towards the 'omg you're customising attitude', I agree that you have to be careful, but regarding neutral elements like BG settings, people will actually be happy about the fact that you 'custom' changed it for the better. Stop acting the bullied kid tbh, it's only harming your image and probably the server aswell. I can understand that people are angry when you start to customise formulas or character abilities like crit shot, because that's just unneccesary and pointlessly customising something that directly negatively affects balance. BUT, this is NOT such a customisation, you seriously need to wake up from the 'if we customise we're getting flamed' attitude regarding ANYTHING that is NOT related to class balance, character abilities and formulas. Those things are COMPLETELY different things and as long as you act the same in both cases, we, and you, will only get harmed by it. So please, stop acting like you will get flame flooded by customising NON balance affecting things, because you WON'T. In fact if you would make that difference I'm sure a LOT of people would be happy to see custom improvements and would only applaud the staffs ability to creatively bring well thought-trough solutions instead of mindlessly copying live.

Please, forget live for anything that is not related to formulas or character abilities and try to figure out what the best solution would be on YOUR server. Use your own imagination and ideas to solve problems, hell, ask the community for advice if you really can't figure it out, but whatever you do, please, think outside the damn box for a change!


*neutral: not interfering with class balance.

I just felt I had to say this, it was never intended to blame or upset people. I probably haven't said everything exactly the way I ment or wanted to say it, but this is the closest I got.
I also read that it's your personal view, but it's similar to what I've read before, so I used this to base my reply on.

Well it seems to me that the problem at hand is that many people (including myself) would prefer xping through RvR and that with the current system, you just can't do that. Either before or after we hit the RR cap, we have to kill mobs.

Is such a preference to be encouraged? Maybe should we start with this. The amount of xp gained while killing a player is clearly higher than while killing a mob. Same with xp gained in NF or DF. This sounds to me that RvR is already encouraged against PvE, and on a game such as DAoC, that makes sense.

The additionnal BGs are proposed as a solution, but as Haldan points it out, different places for RvR are already a problem for a server as populated as Uthgard. The fact of the matter is that many players will log on their toons where the action is. No action in NF? Ok, let's have a look in BGs. No action in BGs? Ok, let's go DF or any dungeon to level my new twink. I see that all the time. Players want to play, period (and I didn't talk about X-realming).

I fear additionnal BGs might increase this way of playing, because multiplying the places to RvR will divide the action potential. I like Nixian's suggestion about /xp on | /rp on toggle command, but to be honest, I don't think it's the best solution. When XP is off, you potentially loose the XP you would have gained, and same when RP's off. It's a pity to waste this. I'd prefer leveling my toons along with gaining RPs, and not sacrifying one for the other.

You may call this 'comfort', which is true. But in my book there's nothing wrong with enjoying a rich gameplay while leveling a character.

kikoo wrote: When XP is off, you potentially loose the XP you would have gained, and same when RP's off. It's a pity to waste this. I'd prefer leveling my toons along with gaining RPs, and not sacrifying one for the other.

agree

maybe the /xp off could work in the same way as when you ding lvl 5?

so that when /xp on and you get XP you gain xp + whatever you gained while /xp off was on?

I think that staff actually wants to get rid of /xp off instead of making it better

We need to find balance so it is viable to level in BG, but people should want to progress to next BG and big boy rvr eventually, not just /xp off and stay there forever or even until rr cap

My proposal was to improve the quality of LEVELING by making BGs accessible and rewarding at an earlier level. This is only possibly by having a lower cap for the lowest BG, which would mean splitting up the Braemar level range.

Like I said before, more BGs in this case will NOT negatively affect end-RVR, it will only help and relieve people from the boring PvE grind sooner than now, which encourages them to keep going and to reach lvl 50 RvR.

Level 20-28 are the most boring and unrewarding levels currently on Uthgard, I think most of us can agree here. Changing this will only create a healthier and more relaxing XP environment, which I don't see would be a bad thing, EVEN for the end-RvR.

Zarkor wrote:My proposal was to improve the quality of LEVELING by making BGs accessible and rewarding at an earlier level.

Which is not incompatible with pushing this idea forwards and make leveling through RvR possible at most levels. If that can be done, it worth the try.

Zarkor wrote:Level 20-28 are the most boring and unrewarding levels currently on Uthgard, I think most of us can agree here.

Absolutely. But let's have a look at what happens on Uthgard currently: people keep on reroll. Yes, the 30 first levels are nothing but a pain in the ass, and yet people won't play their high level toons as much as expected. Why? I mean they should be happy with the idea of not having to xp anymore, but still, many of them will create a new one, and get through the xp process once again. There's a real problem here.

The simple use of the /who command in game over the BGs points out right away where the action is most of the time: Braemar. Since players can't (fortunately) use the /rp off command, there is only one explanation left: People keep on reroll to play here.

That's where low level BGs can interfere with end-RvR. We have seen it in the past, where people was making a level 20 toon, playing it in the Quartz until level 25, deleting this char and back to square 1. Because it takes less time to do this than leveling a char up to 50, farming/crafting the gear, etc...

We can't deny BGs have side effects on end-RvR, because when people can play in low level BGs, they won't bother to play anywhere else.

RP Gain in BGs should be lower, then I could really Agree in splitting up the BGs.

TY for the proposal.


Duke

kikoo wrote:

Zarkor wrote:My proposal was to improve the quality of LEVELING by making BGs accessible and rewarding at an earlier level.

Which is not incompatible with pushing this idea forwards and make leveling through RvR possible at most levels. If that can be done, it worth the try.

Zarkor wrote:Level 20-28 are the most boring and unrewarding levels currently on Uthgard, I think most of us can agree here.

Absolutely. But let's have a look at what happens on Uthgard currently: people keep on reroll. Yes, the 30 first levels are nothing but a pain in the ass, and yet people won't play their high level toons as much as expected. Why? I mean they should be happy with the idea of not having to xp anymore, but still, many of them will create a new one, and get through the xp process once again. There's a real problem here.

The simple use of the /who command in game over the BGs points out right away where the action is most of the time: Braemar. Since players can't (fortunately) use the /rp off command, there is only one explanation left: People keep on reroll to play here.

That's where low level BGs can interfere with end-RvR. We have seen it in the past, where people was making a level 20 toon, playing it in the Quartz until level 25, deleting this char and back to square 1. Because it takes less time to do this than leveling a char up to 50, farming/crafting the gear, etc...

We can't deny BGs have side effects on end-RvR, because when people can play in low level BGs, they won't bother to play anywhere else.

Yes but like I said, they will make those toons regardless of what happens to the BGs unless they are removed completely.

Excuse me for making it plain simple, but the last few weeks I read a lot of nonsense within these forums. Nonsense based on personal wishes or on the lack of apprehension of Uthgards main concept. This and the fact of a massive increase of "whines" within these forums combined with a boat-load of repetitive screams for changes not only biased players and their gameplay, but also biased the way on how the staff reacts on certain requests. I'm of course not the god of game-design, but the time as active gamemaster on this server in addition to having experienced almost every single MMO that was released within the last years probably enables me to evaluate needful features and/or mechanics. However, the sum of needful features is clearly definded within a games concept which should never be manipulated due to players requests and/or subjective wishes!

The battlegrounds themselves are meant to offer players a first glimpse on rvr. Players should earn their first success while learning how to play their class in RvR. The battlegrounds were never meant to offer the ultimative way of leveling even though in their current stage they do. If you now try to see the whole rvr system (battlegrounds and NF) out of a staffmembers view, you probably would be able to understand why the current battleground system creates a lot of problems. As mentioned before the sum of active battleground players exceeds the number of active NF-players. When I submitted my last posting the numbers had been ...

(15:30 gmt+2): 50 players in NF ||| 67 players in battlegrounds
(19:45 gmt+2): 42 players in NF ||| 65 players in battlegrounds

The interesting thing about these numbers is that if we did some research on these toons we obviously would find out that 50+% of these battleground players had at least one or more lvl50 RR4 characters meaning that at least 4 groups of players could in addition be within our main RvR zone. The paradoxon is that these players often use to argue about an underpopulated rvr zone and state this as reason for switching to a battleground toon - kind of a vicious circle.

However, it is not only the players to blame for switching to a bg-toon. We as staff initially offered you these battlegrounds and made them more and more interesting in terms of faster rvr-encounters, faster exp-gain and so on.

Haldan wrote:Excuse me for making it plain simple, but the last few weeks I read a lot of nonsense within these forums. Nonsense based on personal wishes or on the lack of apprehension of Uthgards main concept. This and the fact of a massive increase of "whines" within these forums combined with a boat-load of repetitive screams for changes not only biased players and their gameplay, but also biased the way on how the staff reacts on certain requests. I'm of course not the god of game-design, but the time as active gamemaster on this server in addition to having experienced almost every single MMO that was released within the last years probably enables me to evaluate needful features and/or mechanics. However, the sum of needful features is clearly definded within a games concept which should never be manipulated due to players requests and/or subjective wishes!

There's no doubt that this is true, it also makes it harder to see the valid points trough the flood. Though it would be a shame if the people who do think their feedback trough get to be classified as the people who don't.

Haldan wrote:The battlegrounds themselves are meant to offer players a first glimpse on rvr. Players should earn their first success while learning how to play their class in RvR. The battlegrounds were never meant to offer the ultimative way of leveling even though in their current stage they do. If you now try to see the whole rvr system (battlegrounds and NF) out of a staffmembers view, you probably would be able to understand why the current battleground system creates a lot of problems. As mentioned before the sum of active battleground players exceeds the number of active NF-players. When I submitted my last posting the numbers had been ...

(15:30 gmt+2): 50 players in NF ||| 67 players in battlegrounds
(19:45 gmt+2): 42 players in NF ||| 65 players in battlegrounds

The interesting thing about these numbers is that if we did some research on these toons we obviously would find out that 50+% of these battleground players had at least one or more lvl50 RR4 characters meaning that at least 4 groups of players could in addition be within our main RvR zone. The paradoxon is that these players often use to argue about an underpopulated rvr zone and state this as reason for switching to a battleground toon - kind of a vicious circle.

However, it is not only the players to blame for switching to a bg-toon. We as staff initially offered you these battlegrounds and made them more and more interesting in terms of faster rvr-encounters, faster exp-gain and so on.

I think you're twisting things here. You're saying that the battlegrounds create the problems, while instead the end RvR system could be the cause?

I think most of those people with a lvl 50 RR4+ character tend to play BG chars because they feel RvRing with their lvl50s just doesn't cut it for some reason. I wouldn't blame the BGs for that, but the end-RvR.

To be honest I think if/when OF kicks in, I think we'll see a lot more people there than in BGs...


Anyway, this proposal was just to help giving a break to levelers, not to improve BG RvR, it would be an additional benefit, yes, but imo, decreasing the effort to PvE towards a point where you can actually check out and test your character should be a good change, regardless of who's in NF or in BGs, cus like I said, I believe you can't blame BGs, but have to look at NF.