Dude, you REALLY need to learn to be short and to the point. You're dispersing your own argument and obscuring the point you're trying to make by these walls of text.

That being said: I have nothing against improving OF. I DO have something against "improving" it by an extremely custom measure of removing the only alternative means of RvR for people and the only way to get near RR5 in a reasonable ammount of time. If Battlegrounds are killing endgame RvR, then it's endgame RvR that has to change and adapt, not the battlegrounds that have to be removed. Improving something does not mean destroying everything else.

Your PvE to Frontiers suggestion has nothing in common with the removal of Battlegrounds. No one goes to bgs only to exp, it's just a nice side-effect.

Not to mention that the whole thing would fail horribly. You are basing your whole argument on the premise that hoards and hoards of PvE players will willingly go out to the Frontiers and be slaughterd so they can sustain RvR. I mean, that's beyond absurd, it didn't even work in NF that way and NF had like 3000 times better XP spots, a better map layout and a stronger solo community, not to mention instaports.

I did my best to keep it as short and as readable as possible while keeping the reasoning behind as many conclusions as possible, there are just too many elements in play to keep it much shorter. You bring up flawed arguments and I therefore elaborate on why they are flawed. Obviously you somehow still did not get my point.

Nymeros wrote:...an extremely custom measure of removing the only alternative means of RvR...

It amazes me to see you still write this. I tried to explain as clear as I could that only the latest BGs (40+) are having partial negative effects on the potential end RvR population. Like it or not, this is simply the truth, especially in Uthgard's case where they become THE ONLY alternative to what SHOULD be possible in end RvR, but what is currently impossible.

You should not see the reason as: "The only way to 'fix' end RvR is by removing the latest BGs.", but rather as "The removal of the later BGs is only a part of that whole fix that helps make the it succeed instead being the only vital element."

If you fix casual end RvR, they CAN freely be removed because casual end RvR would then fulfill the need for endgame casual RvR, which is the exact type of gameplay you seem to fear losing. In other words this means that removing the 40+ BGs is only helping them become obsolete, but will not do so on its own. The loss is minimised because you gain a worthy alternative and the essence of BG like RvR remains preserved (in lower level tiers) and hopefully even improved.

But this is also where it gets tricky. If you do it wrong, and for instance ONLY remove the latest BGs, you will not create that new playstyle, but you will destroy what you already have, which has of course never been the intention. The complete package of changes is what makes it work, definately not just one of them.

If you do it right, you will create a setting where the level of character improvement for BG type casual RvR is slightly lower than it is now, but where you create the possibility to enjoy an entirely new playstyle that has no character improvement limitation whatsoever.
If you then want to play the BG style RvR, nothing stops you from doing so, just as it is now, but if you want to play your character in a casual environment above level 40, you will have to venture out in the frontiers and you will be able to remain there and keep improving your character endlessly. Instead of having to reroll because there is no casual end RvR which is currently the case.

This is the reason why having /rp off with the current setting would make things worse instead of better. It would be a step away from the solution as long as there is no established casual end RvR.
This is why it did work on live aswell. If there is a healthy established form of casual end RvR, BGs lose their impact on the players' decision and can thus be optimised without endangering other systems. People will always pick whatever they want to do most, which is why you can then safely allow /rp off for BGs to make it easier for those players who have set their minds on BG RvR without interfering with the interest for other playstyles.


In all, the current flaws cause a loss of an entire playstyle AND a heavy restriction on another (BGs). It is quite ironical that you could actually help BG RvR become more worthwhile by removing their latest forms (but again, not if that's the only measure taken).



Trust me on this one mate, my goal is to find out how to maximise DAoC's potential. Removing entire playstyles just to get a 'worse' edition of it is simply ridiculous and illogical. I aim for the option to do both, instead of being forced into one where you can't even push the limits of your character to the max.


Oh and just a sidenote which is of rather low importance: lowering the max level and RR cap for BGs in an OF server is actually less custom than what we have now.

Nymeros wrote:Your PvE to Frontiers suggestion has nothing in common with the removal of Battlegrounds.

This is wrong. BGs have a big influence on the player's decision on where to invest his time. Players that are in BGs are not in the frontier and vice versa. In order to maximise your solution, you will have to include the removal or nerf of other attractive alternatives for the targetted playerbase in order to widen the potential playerbase for the zone you are trying to populate in the long term.
Of course you should not force it into being the ONLY place where you can invest your time effectively, but it should be slightly more attractive than the rest for sure.

The entire reason why BGs in this particular case can and should be removed whereas any other (DF/mainland) zone has to say is exactly because their RvR aspect will be obsolete AND their Playstyle aspect will remain preserved in the lower BGs (in a situation where the solution is succesfully implemented).

Nymeros wrote:Not to mention that the whole thing would fail horribly. You are basing your whole argument on the premise that hoards and hoards of PvE players will willingly go out to the Frontiers and be slaughterd so they can sustain RvR. I mean, that's beyond absurd, it didn't even work in NF that way and NF had like 3000 times better XP spots, a better map layout and a stronger solo community, not to mention instaports.

I should probably have elaborated further on this, which I will do now.

Those PvE players are not sustaining casual RvR by being food for their hunters. They are sustaining casual RvR more by just being there, by giving the casual player a reason to go out and look for them.
You need a certain amount of players xping in the frontiers to make this kick effect kick in, which will trigger the incentive for players to go out in search for them. This is the 2nd wave of players that the enter frontiers and populate it. Action skyrockets. (not hard compared to the current situation but still )
And this in turn eventually triggers players that start hunting the (xper) hunters, which will incite the original xper hunters to hunt their hunters, creating actual healthy smallman and solo RvR that feeds on itself rather than on the xpers in the long term. This is why they will not get slaughtered as much as you'd think.
The PvE players form a sort of buffer, where smallman and solo RvR can fall back upon whenever the hunter vs hunter action becomes too low.
Frontier (xp) population is the actual last incentive when it's established (and also the first and most crucial one to start it!) to get players into the frontiers and so in RvR.

Of course, the larger the amount of players that go PvE, the larger the potential playerbase that's up for hunting them and the larger the potential playerbase that's up for hunting the hunters. And so, the more and the better action there will be.

This is the most important reason to why removing the latest BGs combined with making the frontiers more attractive is so invaluably important to making this actually work.


The removal of BGs heavily increases the potential playerbase, whereas that gets backed up by the incentive to go to the frontiers because of the xp and xp/RvR through casual end RvR benefits, creating a self sustaining frontier player influx. Which in turn is what leads to a self sustaining casual RvR option.




I really really hope you get what I'm on about now, I can barely get this out in the open any clearer and it's probably one of my most informative posts about the whole idea so far I must admit...

Guys i dont want to interfere in your text wall building contest, but didnt you notice noone reads this any more since you started writing your essays? ~~

Better to remain quiet when you got nothing to say. Makes you look less like a tool.

zarkor....

if you havent noticed:
alb and mid are doing fine. without your changes.

you are so knee deep in explaining your reasoning that you miss ONE! crutial element:

your basicly proposing feeding low expers to exper gankers to tanker hunters to fg to high rr fg to zerg. preferably from hib to alb/mid since hib has the least active in rvr, hence the expers are free to kill without danger from a fg.

theres a difference between humans and the rest of the species: we stepped out of our low part in the food chain and went right for predator spot nr. 1.

you basicly want Agramon back and at the same time, get rid of 35+ bgs.

to force the players into the frontiers.
so that gankers can make rp on them.

as it was until OF.
as the many now high RR players used to get where they are now.


it did barely work with agramon.
and it wont work for OF.

if the players, especially in hib, would do the same as the rest of the server, bloody sticking together, we would already have a healthy rvr population.


inexpierenced low rr's barely get a viable group.
they mostly end up in a pug with barely more then bg expierence, if at all.

and the regular rvr players just roll over them.
because every group is doing its own thing while the other realms run together.

check the alb perspective, 2 groups of any size meet, they group up naturaly, and kill everything thats weaker. and get rp doing so. and get a bit practice.
hence they are more likely to stay in rvr longer, getting a higher chance to get / build medium-high RR groups, hence, increasing the active fgs and zergs.

if we are even within cliping range, we take the other way, no matter where the other group is going. we go the other way.

we pretty much get farmed.

and that is PURE mentality.

hence, especially the folks that arent that fixated on 50 rvr in the first place wont consider the exponential amount of time it takes to even start to get entertainment as anything but reasonable - ergo, they rather play BGs, where the gap to the maximum never can more then 31 points - which averages out to a 16 point difference in thid to the highest possible.

Blackcougar you couldn't possibly be more ignorant about the whole situation. If you have actually read my posts and still do not understand them then that's a shame for you. I'll try to explain further later on but most of the things you're claiming are already refuted in my oh so horrible walls of text.

@the TL;DR trolls: wake up and read my posts. It barely takes 10 minutes to read them, I took hours to write them. No, no I can't put that in 2 sentences. It's just impossible. They're not poorly written and should be able to give you a rather clear view of what I'm on about. As long as you don't read what I'm saying here, gtfo pls. ^^

I MIGHT try to summarise what I've read so far, but I doubt that I can be assed to do so. We'll see...

Yeah, Zarkor, we are all stupid little kids, who cant understand anything. You`re, of course, a allknown God.

Btw what´s your main 50er for RvR? I´m really interested who you are

All this 138745139874513987 lines make me go dizzy

Xuji wrote:All this 138745139874513987 lines make me go dizzy

that one line is more annoying, just as annoying as the line im typing i guess

Neju seems we got too much time to spend in our hands.

How about this line, where i'm trying to get more annoying then you, and it works!

Sorry to inform you guys but this thread has a 30 lines per post minimum. You shall obey.

If you do not care about maximising DAoC and especially Uthgard's potential, simply don't post. You're only making fools out of yourselves.

@Rent: I'm the guild leader of Vanquish. My main RvR chars are: RR6L7 Bard, RR5L6 Eld, RR5L2 BM. I also have a RR5 chanter and RR6hero which I don't play that often anymore.
Oh and maybe (probably even) you are no "stupid kid", but you certainly manage to act like one. Again, if you don't care, don't post.


Anyway.. here goes again.

Blackcougar wrote:if you havent noticed:
alb and mid are doing fine. without your changes.

You fail to make a distinction between casual and FG RvR. Mid is the only one actually doing fine on that level. Alb and mostly Hib have a hard to compete, but that is an entirely different topic. That's balance, not the RvR playstyles, which is what I'm trying to explain here.

Currently one playstyle is completely missing in end RvR: casual RvR. Nobody is doing fine there because it simply does not exist.

Blackcougar wrote:you are so knee deep in explaining your reasoning that you miss ONE! crutial element:

your basicly proposing feeding low expers to exper gankers to tanker hunters to fg to high rr fg to zerg. preferably from hib to alb/mid since hib has the least active in rvr, hence the expers are free to kill without danger from a fg.

theres a difference between humans and the rest of the species: we stepped out of our low part in the food chain and went right for predator spot nr. 1.

I fail to see how this even makes any sense to be honest, but I think I know what you're on about. The problem is that it's not as simple as you make it sound. I explained how the presence! of PvErs sets a lower standard for end RvR than their currently is and so supporting casual RvR that eventually feeds on itself rather than on the xpers. I'll quote myself for that.

Zarkor wrote:Those PvE players are not sustaining casual RvR by being food for their hunters. They are sustaining casual RvR more by just being there, by giving the casual player a reason to go out and look for them.
You need a certain amount of players xping in the frontiers to make this kick effect kick in, which will trigger the incentive for players to go out in search for them. This is the 2nd wave of players that the enter frontiers and populate it. Action skyrockets. (not hard compared to the current situation but still Wink)
And this in turn eventually triggers players that start hunting the (xper) hunters, which will incite the original xper hunters to hunt their hunters, creating actual healthy smallman and solo RvR that feeds on itself rather than on the xpers in the long term. This is why they will not get slaughtered as much as you'd think. (Edit: There is more reward in killing and fighting enemies that are found faster and more frequently. Xpers are a reward that's lower, but that does provide the initial incentive for those RvR players to go out AND they pro.)
The PvE players form a sort of buffer, where smallman and solo RvR can fall back upon whenever the hunter vs hunter action becomes too low.

Frontier (xp) population is the actual last incentive when it's established (and also the first and most crucial one to start it!) to get players into the frontiers and so into RvR (with eachother).

Blackcougar wrote:you basicly want Agramon back and at the same time, get rid of 35+ bgs.

to force the players into the frontiers.
so that gankers can make rp on them.

as it was until OF.
as the many now high RR players used to get where they are now.

What I'm proposing has similarities to the Agramon setting, yes. But it's got entirely different reasons than just "it worked in agra". No, it just plain logic that Agramon had a few features which are needed to create self sustaining casual end RvR. Some of these features therefore need to be reproduced in OF to make casual end RvR work here.
This is what you don't seem to get and is probably why you say that it won't work in OF.

Blackcougar wrote:if the players, especially in hib, would do the same as the rest of the server, bloody sticking together, we would already have a healthy rvr population.

Incorrect. See what you're claiming here is that it's the players fault for not playing casually in an environment that is extremely hostile to casual RvR itself. The only current form of end RvR is of such a high standard that it will wipe the floor with anything below that standard. You are saying that you should try to get round the requirements to reach that standard by just adding more numbers, so that you can afford to play below that standard and still win/enjoy your time.

This might seem logical, but isn't as logical in reality because the alternatives to enjoying your playtime are a LOT easier, rewarding and quicker to enjoy in other places. If you have to chose between giving all you got in a fight where you stand 12 to 8 and STILL LOSE, the road to frustration and demotivation is extremely easy to find. Especially if getting into that 12 slot group is usually very time and effort demanding and thus also very unreliable.

Compare this to BG RvR. You have almost no prerequisits, it's fast, it offers more equal opponents and it's more rewarding. Why on earth would you even bother wasting time on current high standard end RvR then if you aren't as competitive as the majority of end RvR players?

Exactly, there's eventually no reason to even bother anymore, which is the entire problem.

Blackcougar wrote:inexpierenced low rr's barely get a viable group.
they mostly end up in a pug with barely more then bg expierence, if at all.

Which is why they tend to abandon BGs after a reaching a certain level of frustration and lack of entertainment. This is the case you are finding yourself in, judging from your current posts.

Blackcougar wrote:]and the regular rvr players just roll over them.
because every group is doing its own thing while the other realms run together.

This is because the regular RvR players meet or exceed the current standard, not because they are running together.

Blackcougar wrote:check the alb perspective, 2 groups of any size meet, they group up naturaly, and kill everything thats weaker. and get rp doing so. and get a bit practice.
hence they are more likely to stay in rvr longer, getting a higher chance to get / build medium-high RR groups, hence, increasing the active fgs and zergs.

Wrong again. Building bigger groups to get round the standard requirement only provides a temporary solution and entertainment because the numbers needed to actually win fights are a requirement of themselves. Nobody logs on with 15 friends (except DG) and just goes out to form a regular zerg. Why not? Because you simply destroy the RvR and thus your own (and others') source of fun that way.

It's short sighted and not sustainable in the long-term AND requires a great deal of effort to pull off. In order words, a solution that just does not work the way it should.

Blackcougar wrote:we pretty much get farmed.

As long as you don't meet the standard (which is higher in Hib due to imbalances), you will indeed get farmed. That's why we need to find a way that makes finding end RvR with a lower standard possible so that players can chose between BGs or end RvR instead of being pushed into the BGs when it comes to RvR below the current playstyle, which is the majority of the RvR on Uthgard.

Blackcougar wrote:and that is PURE mentality.

Yes, but that mentality is created by the current setting.

You can not ever expect to change a mentality without changing the setting that is influencing it.

Blackcougar wrote:hence, especially the folks that arent that fixated on 50 rvr in the first place wont consider the exponential amount of time it takes to even start to get entertainment as anything but reasonable - ergo, they rather play BGs, where the gap to the maximum never can more then 31 points - which averages out to a 16 point difference in thid to the highest possible.

Exactly, BGs currently provide the only possibility to do casual RvR. Casual end RvR is inexistant due to the setting that is having a negative impact on the player's mentality needed to establish it.

Casual end rvr does exist, in it's most lame form. Zerging.

Toblerone wrote:Casual end rvr does exist, in it's most lame form. Zerging.

True, that is because numbers are the only way to afford being a player that does not meet the required standards to compete with equal numbers.

Problem is those numbers are a requirement of themselves, which means zerging can only partially be described as casual end RvR. Not to mention that zerging itself has a negative influence on the existing RvR, which is never a good thing.