First Battleground:
Level 15 - Level 19
RR 1L0 - RR 1L5
10% RP Gains

Second Battleground:
Level 20 - Level 24
RR 1L6 - RR 2L2
25% RP Gains

Third Battleground:
Level 25 - Level 34
RR 2L3 - RR 3L2
50% RP Gains

Final Battleground:
Level 35 - Level 44
RR 3L3 - 4L2
75% RP Gains

Reasoning:
This will do so much for Uthgard in the respects of the battlegrounds being useful and fun. Lowering the cap level in which people can go to the battlegrounds will funnel more people into the frontiers.

Some of the main problems I've personally experienced with the battlegrounds are as follows. Firstly I gain way too many realm points. I can fully rank out of a battleground in a few days 10 levels below the BG level cap. This personally to me makes no sense. Secondly any battleground I'm in, if I'm not cap level for that battleground I'm fighting a mix of greys, greens, and purples. This also to me is a little unfun and makes little sense.

I think mixing it up with a 4th BG and lowering both the highest cap level and the overall RP gains for each battleground will do strides to fix the problems here. Discuss, no flames. If you hate my idea, then say why. As a side note I'll also mention this is far closer to a "Live and Classic" setup that Uthgard strides for, instead of the extremely custom and headache inducing situation we have now.

first: 15-19 there is no rp gain so won't ever come on uth
second: by 10% do you mean that you get 10% of what you normally would get or 10% more than you normally would?


if so then I personally would rather have it the other way around


100% 20-24
75% 25-30
50% 31-35
25% 36 43
10% 44-49

as 44-49 is a much bigger pain than 20-24

Yo,

not a bad idea allthough my personal preferance would be to have a classic livelike setup. (1st: lvl 20-24, 2nd 25-29, 3rd 30-34) with an additional 4th BG (35-39 3L5 cap) and possibly even 5th BG (40-44 4L0 cap).

The first 3 BGs would be the old Classic ones. The last (2) would be NF BGs.

I personally believe your setup still has too high level range jumps. The last 2 BGs cover 20 levels in total. I think that's a bit much. This aswell as what nixian mentioned that there's little to no RP gain under level 20 are my 2 main concerns.


Whether or not the BGs end at 40 or 44 doesn't really matter that much to me as long as they don't end anywhere higher than 44 for the known reasons. However I don't think an additional BG for lvl 40-44 is really that necessary, it might be a good idea since even with good RvR and PvE possibilities for levelers in OF, you'll still have a rather hard time being level 40 in the frontiers.



@nixian, reforming BGs without removing the last one would be the worst idea ever imo. Why would you want to keep the one BG that has a negative impact on end RvR activity when you can grant players in that levelrange the possibility to level through RvR/PvE decently in OF?
The grind from lvl 44 (45 since you'd probably get to 44.9 in the latest BG) would become a lot less important when you can establish decent lvl 45+ RvR opportunities (meaning you can encourage enough co-levelers to go out aswell) in end RvR due to the fact that you can have viable action below that peaklevel. Of course being level 50 will still be a real advantage, however it won't be nearly as important as it is now, which I think is something a lot of people forget when they hear/talk about BGs.

i would like to point out that 15-19 there is rp gain. i was 1L3 on my runemaster at level 16 from getting a few nukes in on a keep lord. i was actually quite annoyed by it because thats wasted ranks i could have made at 35 in braemar.

the reason you need reduced rp gains in the lower BGs is because of how fast the levels go. you can rank out in a few kills with normal rp gain enabled. pointless to even have a bg you cant stay in for more than one fight. by 10%/25%/50%/75% i mean for example, if u were supposed to get 10 RPs you would instead get 1 in the 10% bg. was obvious to me, guess needed more explaining.

Zarkor wrote:Yo,

not a bad idea allthough my personal preferance would be to have a classic livelike setup. (1st: lvl 20-24, 2nd 25-29, 3rd 30-34) with an additional 4th BG (35-39 3L5 cap) and possibly even 5th BG (40-44 4L0 cap).

Totaly agree. But disagree with 5th bg. If we go to classic server, we should have old bg system. But if im not wrong there was bg for levs 15-20 in pre toa times.

Astealoth wrote:i would like to point out that 15-19 there is rp gain. i was 1L3 on my runemaster at level 16 from getting a few nukes in on a keep lord. i was actually quite annoyed by it because thats wasted ranks i could have made at 35 in braemar.

the reason you need reduced rp gains in the lower BGs is because of how fast the levels go. you can rank out in a few kills with normal rp gain enabled. pointless to even have a bg you cant stay in for more than one fight. by 10%/25%/50%/75% i mean for example, if u were supposed to get 10 RPs you would instead get 1 in the 10% bg. was obvious to me, guess needed more explaining.

Yea, it did need a bit more explaining. ^^

Hmm, this is interesting and in fact countering the argument that you do not gain RPs below lvl 20:

Camelot Herald wrote:BATTLEGROUND NOTES

Version 1.60 has a couple of large changes to the battleground system. The intent of these changes is to get more players involved in RvR at lower levels by incenting them with experience points. There are two major parts of these additions: we've added a new lower-level battleground for those players levels 15-19, and now you can gain lots of experience by completing each Battleground.

...

New Low-Level Battleground

Additionally, a new battleground, Abermenai, has been opened for players to get their very first taste of RVR action at an earlier level. Characters can enter Abermenai if they are level 15-19. The realm point cap for this battleground is lower than Thidranki(125), but high enough so that players can purchase their first realm abilities at an earlier level.

Even though I didn't recall this BG, it seems it was there very early on. There's more info on the XP reward for the BGs that's added in patch 1.60. However I think the system on Uthgard is better since it just grants more xp per kill, giving you the opportunity to decide when to level on and when to keep RvRing in that BG, rather than 'forcing' you to keep RvRing in BGs in order to get the experience bonus.

So, it seems there was a Classic BG at lvl 15-19 after all.


Anyway, I think we should focus on what's specifically important for good BGs, and also the things that are mostly flawed in the current setting:

- Keep the level range restricted (5-6 levels max)
- Keep the latest BG at a decent distance from lvl 50. (Max lvl 44)
- Make sure the RR cap isn't too low so that you can just level out the BG instead of capping it by RR first.

The rest (classic maps, level 15-19 BG or not, BG 'tasks', ...) is are just details imo.

Might make going through BGs for someone like me even worse. A lot of time I play with the three battlegrounds we have now I'll run around forever just to finally see one person that it seems people aren't often willing to die and try again. I get a kill and they just leave :\. 4-5 BG would probably seperate numbers in each battleground even more.

I also don't know why people have a problem with lv.35 for Braemar. It's an easy level to get to.

after i played in braemar after a longer absence from it, i was shocked how bad the "rvr" there really is. it's just a place to level faster and get some additional abilities, at least i really hope noone takes it as a place for serious pvp.

wilton and foremost thid are a lot better as it feels somewhat like real rvr, although you have no 'downtime' and sometimes you find enemies with subpar gear. i think, it's necessary to have thid as it's a good training for OF. if you can't keep up there, OF is absolutely nothing for you. if you can keep up, you might find your place in OF. also: thid is the only BG where the classes are balanced (as they are in OF), as they are almost lvl50 and have the basic RA. the lower the bg the more classes get out of balance.

so i don't support the idea of lowering the higher BG and i also don't support new places to level faster, disguised as low level BG. in these levels the leveling speed is ok. as a starter you need gear and money more than faster leveling anyway in these levels. both you only get in pve, but maybe the whole low level BG story is meant for twinks anyway.

The BGs are fine. Who caps Thid at 4L2 and reroll again is sick. But if we're a Classic server we should go for Thidranki (20-24), Murdaigean (25-29) and Caledonia (30-35) with a total cap of 2L2 instead of 4L2 as NF.

A cap of 2L2 could be embarassing in Emain with the high ranks that roam there so maybe - a HUGE maybe - should be implemented all the BG, Old and New ones.

The problem again is the people who abuse of the bg. Yesterday there was like 2fg hibs zerging in Braemar...

@Eeil - Yes, there was a 15-19 BG (Abermenai) but i think is not that great idea.

Removing the most funny pvp-place on uthgard sounds like a greate idea.

people just don't want to RvR in OF. So they will stay in Battlegrounds. No matter how you Design them. Removing Thidranki will just lead to bigger DF zergs. And without getting 4l2 that fast like now, they will proably Never leave it.

Tirax wrote:Removing the most funny pvp-place on uthgard sounds like a greate idea.

people just don't want to RvR in OF. So they will stay in Battlegrounds. No matter how you Design them. Removing Thidranki will just lead to bigger DF zergs. And without getting 4l2 that fast like now, they will proably Never leave it.

SOME people dont want OF RvR. Some do. How about a system that allows people who prefer the BGs to have them and those who prefer OF RvR to have that? Oh, wait, thatäs the system we have today. Lets stop trying to force players to play RvR the RIGHT way and let people play the way they find fun.

So, lowering the RP gain in BGs would be a benefit for all. The only-bg-rvr player can stay longer in theyr beloved BG's, and for the rest it's a higher appeal to go into the real rvr.

I also think that BG's should be capped at lvl 44 or something, with way lower RP gain in the BG's, RP cap could stay 4L2 for all i care... but that would be custom.

Gil wrote:

Tirax wrote:Removing the most funny pvp-place on uthgard sounds like a greate idea.

people just don't want to RvR in OF. So they will stay in Battlegrounds. No matter how you Design them. Removing Thidranki will just lead to bigger DF zergs. And without getting 4l2 that fast like now, they will proably Never leave it.

SOME people dont want OF RvR. Some do. How about a system that allows people who prefer the BGs to have them and those who prefer OF RvR to have that? Oh, wait, thatäs the system we have today. Lets stop trying to force players to play RvR the RIGHT way and let people play the way they find fun.

I totally agree to you.

Anyway, here are that much people, fanboiying for Good-Old-frontiers, that you have more than enough players, that roam in FZs.... oh wait... you dont? Wow thats strange, where did all the people go that voted our RvR to the death? What they play Battlegrounds now? Wow thats wierd.

Kleasion wrote:Might make going through BGs for someone like me even worse. A lot of time I play with the three battlegrounds we have now I'll run around forever just to finally see one person that it seems people aren't often willing to die and try again. I get a kill and they just leave :\. 4-5 BG would probably seperate numbers in each battleground even more.

That's one way of looking at it. What I think however is that the effect of making the level range from BGs smaller is two-sided. A) BGs become a more viable way to level, which allows players to stay in BGs longer and B) By dividing for instance the level range from Braemar into three, you split the total potential population, but at the same time increase the total active population throughout that level range.

The actual impact of the change is hard to predict, however I'm confident that in the right conditions there shouldn't be a population problem.

Kleasion wrote:I also don't know why people have a problem with lv.35 for Braemar. It's an easy level to get to.

Not for all classes. Some are a pain to level, but make you realise why they're worth it every time you RvR. It's not about whether or not it's easy to achieve, it's about whether it's fun to achieve. And let's be honest, DAoC isn't loved for its PvE. It's loved for its RvR. It's just the most fun part about it. If you don't agree with that, fine, that's how you like to play, but BGs won't prevent you from doing that.

Lev wrote:after i played in braemar after a longer absence from it, i was shocked how bad the "rvr" there really is. it's just a place to level faster and get some additional abilities, at least i really hope noone takes it as a place for serious pvp.

You'd be surprised. ^^

Seriously though, every BG is a place to level faster and get some additional abilities in essense. That doesn't make them any less fun however. Braemar can indeed be considered as the most casual RvR environment on Uthgard, but I really don't see anything wrong with that. Everyone needs a place to start.

Lev wrote:i think, it's necessary to have thid as it's a good training for OF

I don't. ^^
The latest BG will always fit the job well enough, also at level 40ish. Even though the abilities are more similar to OF at level 49, the setting is just so much more different that players require more adaptation to that than to a few new moves from you and your enemies. That's why I think it's best to motivate the players to continue the BG-like spirit of being able to level through RvR or in an RvR heavy environment, combined with the settings they will need to get used to in end RvR. This way you succesfully prepare your playerbase for every aspect of end RvR, except for the seriously higher standard when it comes to gameplay and RvR knowledge.

It would be a vital change compared to the situation we are in now you where get almost no possibility to adapt to anything but to having almost similar abilities, which on itself is rather trivial anyway.

As you might know this could be done by granting a significantly increased amount of XP per RvR kill in OF. (It's a lot harder to find AND kill enemy players in OF, not to mention as a leveler/level group.)

Apoc315 wrote:The BGs are fine. Who caps Thid at 4L2 and reroll again is sick. But if we're a Classic server we should go for Thidranki (20-24), Murdaigean (25-29) and Caledonia (30-35) with a total cap of 2L2 instead of 4L2 as NF.

Imo a Real Classic server doesn't mean you can't improve the details. (Everyone knows we're not living in 2002 anymore where everyone online was happily enjoying their newly bought MMORPG, enjoying it for the heck of it while trying to ignore the downsides or simply not even seeing them at all. That's 8 years from now. People don't play the game this way anymore, not even the exact copy of what used to be Classic, simply because you can't copy the fact that every DAoC player had maximum 2 years of experience in world populated by about 1000 players per realm.
In my opinion, to succesfully revive Classic DAoC today, you need to consider Classic DAoC as your platform (which you try copying as good as you can) on which you can improve where needed. After all, that's how Mythic did it and still does. That's also why having a specific limit in patches isn't always the best option. The only difference is that Uthgard doesn't need to 'keep the customers happy' and can therefore create stability rather than a constant variation flow to keep things interesting.)

And yes, I also believe both the XP and RP gap between BGs and end RvR would then just be too high.

Tirax wrote:people just don't want to RvR in OF. So they will stay in Battlegrounds. No matter how you Design them. Removing Thidranki will just lead to bigger DF zergs. And without getting 4l2 that fast like now, they will proably Never leave it.

The removal of the latest BG should go hand in hand with the XP-possibility related improvements of OF.

If this doesn't happen, you will completely miss the impact of the combination of both changes, which is vital for it to succeed because OF needs a critical amount of players to become a viable place to casually RvR in. It would be like removing (or adding) something without supporting it at all, which would significantly decrease the improvement potential of the changes on the short-term (< 1 year).

holsten-knight wrote:So, lowering the RP gain in BGs would be a benefit for all. The only-bg-rvr player can stay longer in theyr beloved BG's, and for the rest it's a higher appeal to go into the real rvr.

I also think that BG's should be capped at lvl 44 or something, with way lower RP gain in the BG's, RP cap could stay 4L2 for all i care... but that would be custom.

I agree that BGs should be a more viable way to level through RvR, however I don't think that's a reason to lower the RP rate in the BGs. You can just aswell solve that problem by relatively improving the RR cap per BG so that it becomes harder to cap RR before you cap the level range. This way you also make sure to keep a decent possibility to gain RR in BGs, which is something you will definately much need in OF.