What the hell are you talking about? I won't even comment your "Well, it was like that before, duh?" answers, but I gotta tell you - if you ever win a Nobel prize it will have to be for peace.

When I came to THIS server we had Agrammon (even instaports), full BGs and NF RAs, and there was talk about customizing them for balance. NF RAs have been here for years.

So, once again, what the hell are you talking about?

These were the BGs at that point and never got touched before New frontiers. they worked then why on earth shouldnt they work now?

You can also ask: the current BGs are working good, why change them? Custom rules concerning Gameplay are already applied and will always be (XP & lvl differences), so why is the "classic" argument here concerning BGs so strong? It's just an excuse, because main problem is that ppl enjoy the RvR in the BGs too much and must be forced to look for some RvR between roaming fg-guild-gankers who have not so much to gank there atm.

Well at the time we had Agramon on the server people were asking for the Classic frontiers for the classic server. and on live Insta rvr was unheard of before they started making some porters in the NF.

I know people who gave this server a big chance twice and quited again because theres not enough action in the frontiers. now that they implementing old Ra's, old BGs they want to give it a third chance.

i dont think any1 has a problem with people enjoying BGs i merely think its a public problem that the frontiers arent active enough concidering the amount of players.

darmas wrote:Well at the time we had Agramon on the server people were asking for the Classic frontiers for the classic server. and on live Insta rvr was unheard of before they started making some porters in the NF.

I know people who gave this server a big chance twice and quited again because theres not enough action in the frontiers. now that they implementing old Ra's, old BGs they want to give it a third chance.

i dont think any1 has a problem with people enjoying BGs i merely think its a public problem that the frontiers arent active enough concidering the amount of players.

Zarkor wrote:How does lowering the level range for BGs reduce your ability to play in the BGs in any way? In fact, Bgs become a lot more accessible earlier on, which is a big plus when there's no /rp off to stay in BGs.

The way staff has worked it out now, it just won't be possible anymore to play with a setting very similar to end RvR (regarding abilities) in BGs, which is a good thing imo. If you want to RvR with the max of your abilities, don't expect battlegrounds to be an option to do so. If you want BGs, feel free. Nothing is preventing you from it, not even with the new system.

In conclusion, I don't think the real bg players won't quit (will have it even easier to stick in bg's) but the real players that are willing to go all the way will be punished twice because of some guild groups not having enough lwrp.

1) dull level grinding at homelands or quick yet lethal xp at frontiers

2) lower RR to begin with in end RvR

the latter may not be that worse with old RA's then with new RA's

Though it may be better to evaluate the situation when we're 4weeks after the implementation of this all. (will need some time to settle in I geuss)

1 question though, will there be xp bonusses like there are now when having brae/wilt/thid in the 'new' bg's?

Nymeros wrote:Removing higher end BGs makes absolutely no sense at all, has not been voted on by the players and is an extremely custom change implemented for the sole purpose to FORCE more people into a flawed OF RvR system.

The method of making something that in itself does not function well seem more desirable by removing the only alternative is one of the worst practices for a developer of anything (not only games) to use.

Oh boy here we go again... You really try hard not to get it and therefore be against it huh?

Well, let's just see how it works out shall we?

Let's not imply that everyone who is against the changes somehow "doesn't get it", shall we?

And what if it doesn't work out? A huge number of people is already against these changes, what's gonna change after they're live? They'll still be labeled as whiners by the likes of you. Or are we to wait for YOU to wait and see, so YOU can tell us if it worked out nicely or not?

ITT: I'm trying to show you that you're effectively ignoring all the arguments against all these changes with either "they're classic", "you guys don't get it" and finally "let's not whine now, let's wait and see". This isn't a chemistry experiment where we have to wait for results, people played with both OF RAs, without MoS, without Det, without higher BGs... what is there to wait and see? The staffs mysterious "further adjustments"? If they're so vital and everything rests upon them, why haven't we been given more details?

Nymeros wrote:Let's not imply that everyone who is against the changes somehow "doesn't get it", shall we?

And what if it doesn't work out? A huge number of people is already against these changes, what's gonna change after they're live? They'll still be labeled as whiners by the likes of you. Or are we to wait for YOU to wait and see, so YOU can tell us if it worked out nicely or not?

ITT: I'm trying to show you that you're effectively ignoring all the arguments against all these changes with either "they're classic", "you guys don't get it" and finally "let's not whine now, let's wait and see". This isn't a chemistry experiment where we have to wait for results, people played with both OF RAs, without MoS, without Det, without higher BGs... what is there to wait and see? The staffs mysterious "further adjustments"? If they're so vital and everything rests upon them, why haven't we been given more details?

Don't try turning your own lack of arguments against me. I didn't say you don't get it, I said you are trying hard not to get it, which is quite a bit different. You're consciously ignoring the potential in these changes in order to stay 100% negative about it. It's only YOU that's trying so hard to keep this up, so don't start generalising my words to make your own position look better, that's just low.
Try all you want but that trick doesn't work on me. It's true that I am more postively orientated towards this change, but that doesn't mean I'm deliberately blind to the other side of the story like you are.

Not to mention this topic is not about the RAs, where you press on the negative sides more than enough. I've also never claimed that those do not exist. Sure they do, the difference is that I do not consider staff to be as ignorant as you do when it comes to dealing with them, even though they might seem so occasionally. Anyway, like I said, this conversation isn't about RAs. It's about BGs, so keep RAs out of it.


Now, for your so called arguments about the BGs then...

Well, what can I say. The only things that I've read from you so far are the following:
1. "they have not been voted on by the players"
2. "they are extremely custom"
3. "they force players into end-RvR by removing BGs"
4. "only positive for 'Classic-freaks'"
5. "current system worked for years"

Well then let's see...
1. No, they have not been voted on by the players. And neither should they. Staff's decision is all that's needed to change this, just like it was the staff's decision to create this server, solve bugs, apply their rules and even allow these forums to exist.
Don't act like every staff action requires a vote, that's pure bullshit. This argument is worthless.

2. Custom? The only thing that is custom is the current BG layout, and ESPECIALLY with OF. Again, this argument is worthless.

3. A) Not all BGs get removed. In fact, there's even more BGs than there were before AND they start sooner, which only allows the BG fans to loop round the BGs easier and faster. Removing level ranges from BGs is NOT equal to removing the BG playstyle possibility. If anything, that possibility became better. Not only is this argument worthless, it's a straight-out lie (if taken literally) to support your cause. Pitiful, really.
B) Yes, players who want to play their character with their full potential will have no choice to do so in end-RvR, making end-RvR more important for those players than it used to be. This, combined with a higher activity in OF (if not just for xpers) will result in a more attractive end-RvR environment. And even you admit that end-RvR requires a boost more than any other, but still you try to turn an attempt to do so in an argument AGAINST it? Typical...

4. Not really, more attractive end-RvR will be better for pretty much anyone, especially when it goes hand in hand with a more accessible BG layout for those who intend to remain there.
In fact, the only ones for whom this change is negative, are the ones who are so vigorously against everything that is Classic. Well, that's just too bad for you I guess, because like it or not, but you're fighting a losing battle in enemy territory. It's probably better you give up and live with it or simply leave. You're not achieving anything here but frustration.

5. Working is very relative and subjective. The upcoming system will work too. Whether it's better or not is yet to be discovered. Allthough the current system might work relatively well in a NF setting, it clearly doesn't perform as well with OF, as we can see for ourselves. That's why it's time to deal with it in order to grant OF the chance it deserves. Then of course you're of the opinion OF doesn't deserve a chance in the first place I'm sure... In any case, this definately is no valid argument not to change the BGs.
Oh and about the port RvR influx argument regarding port timers and downtime. Even that has not gone by unseen by our staff. They have also announced counter-measures for that, effectively invalidating your argument based on that.



So, now do you see why I ignored your arguments?

I'm willing to consider any valid argument I encounter and take it into account when forming my opinion. I really try hard to do so, but when arguments aren't valid, I prefer not to bother with them as they only lead to needless efforts to counter them, like the one I just did.

Oh well, I hope this will clear up things at least to some of us.

Good you bring some structure in this discussion Zarkor,

1. True, Staff can do what he wants, but what for? For players on their Server - it's like a win-win situation. So why not Act in the majorities interest with polls about discussable changes concerning Playstile?

2. Not true, the only things I know are the custom XP-restrictions with extrem low & extrem high partymembers to prevent pulling, same for Tinderboxes. I bet there are more which I don't know. These are only changes which improve the game-experience, not the mechanics and balance in RvR. The BG-ranges are defenitely part of the game experiece and do not count in the RvR Mechanics (Ranger A doesn't hit Thane B harder because of different/custom BG-ranges)

3. Yes there are more BGs, but each goes only 4 levels. That means:
A) Rush trough the BGs with one character due to low RR-caps (we don't know them yet, but they will surely not be 4L2). Yes you can reach the BGs now faster but you always have to recreate a Char and lvl him from scratch whereas now a Char in Wilton/Thidranki is for a very long time without any leveling.
B) very low BG-population, since leveling 1-34 is faster than 34+. I hardly get a group together for XP where the lvl difference is under 4, what effect will that have on the BG-population?

4. "more attractive end-RvR will be better for pretty much anyone" no, I don't want to play with ppl who have time to make a perfect SC, form their perfect group, gank everyone in a "don't add" & "fair fight" mentality - not to mention the stealthers. Even if more ppl will be there, these aspects will remain in end-RvR

5. subjective "works" replace with a subjective "maybe it'll work" - I would stay at the first.

Zarkor
Ah, again with the walls of text. I'll just isolate the glaringly obvious logical dead-ends then.

1.) Since when are polls not important? Almost every single person who is in favor of old RAs has mentioned the OF RA poll, but now suddenly the polls aren't needed? Not to mention that you call my argument "worthless", but it is in fact TRUE. How totally without shame can you get? HAS THE CHANGE BEEN VOTED ON BY THE PLAYERS? NO. Can anyone claim it is a change desired by players then? No. Though I like how the truth is "worthless to you", not to mention this insane argument about how the staff not only could, but SHOULD do what they want. I could so easily run you into the ground just by quoting your own posts from not so long ago right now, it's not even funny.

2.) Do not the Battlegrounds go up to lvl 49 on live?

3.) Are the end BGs removed? Yes. Are they removed for the sole purpose to force those players into engdame RvR? Yes. Truth again "worthless" for Zarkor? Yes.

4.) So RvR where you wait for timers is more positive for people who have CHOSEN to RvR in Battlegrounds? RvR with a outdated map layout is positive for people who have chosen a better map layout? Please explain this to me. Oh and don't worry about my battles or my frustration, these day I get even more fun out of the forums then out of the game.

5.) How is it "yet to be discovered" when people PLAYED FOR YEARS with both OF, played on patch 1.69 and with everything else? Explain this to me.

Oh, and what countermeasures are those, AGAIN? Please list them for me, since you obviously didn't read this bit:

The staffs mysterious "further adjustments"? If they're so vital and everything rests upon them, why haven't we been given more details?

As someone who is rolling here for classic daoc i think this is fantastic tbh. Yeh it was fun rocking it up in Caledonia for a good while but it's better for the overall rvr population that there is that gap between 35 to 50 imho.

Nymeros

1.) Since when are polls not important?

Zarkor never claimed that, reread?
There was no poll, so no poll to account or not to account.

HAS THE CHANGE BEEN VOTED ON BY THE PLAYERS? NO. Can anyone claim it is a change desired by players then? No.

Speak for yourself here... i read many post pro and maybe some more con... (dunno what u wanna reach with this caps lock, we all pointed that fact out before and either i like it or not (i dont) the staff dont need a vote.
Sever democrazy is a good topic, i think the only one that opended a more or less constructive topic about that was Zarkor some months (about half a year?^^ dunno) ago, suggestions were made, afair staff didnt react on it. (democrazy is not our topic here...)

2.) Do not the Battlegrounds go up to lvl 49 on live?

simple: nop. not in classic times.

3.) I dont wanna answer/comment any of your two's (zarkor and you) bullying each other... my opinion:
I agree that for people 35+ grind COULD maybe be harder. BUT note that staff WILL do serious improvements on OF XP. you remember Agra? good! then you know how "pewpew xp xp xp 50" it was. (up to 120% xp with all boni... wtfpwn)

4.) I didnt get you(Nym) here. Who chosen what by what? Me for myself isnt interested in countering "i like classic" with "i dont like classic" (what i got from zarkors post)

5.) How is it "yet to be discovered" when people PLAYED FOR YEARS with both OF, played on patch 1.69 and with everything else? Explain this to me.

Well well, but you know not everyone played everything and I for example got really no clue which patches i played and which not (not interested in)
Addition: Now you could say: "I did and its this and that"
Well, i just wouldnt trust you and want try out myself. period

The staffs mysterious "further adjustments"? If they're so vital and everything rests upon them, why haven't we been given more details?

could you....

just....

fakkin...

wait? (sry but i start getting ****** by all this SCHWARZMALEREI[dunno to translate it])
obviously not... too bad

Zappo wrote:Zarkor never claimed that, reread?
There was no poll, so no poll to account or not to account.

He wrote: "No, they have not been voted on by the players. And neither should they." So that pretty much settles your argument. Not to mention that I am the on who is simply stating that there was no poll.

Zappo wrote:Speak for yourself here... i read many post pro and maybe some more con... (dunno what u wanna reach with this caps lock, we all pointed that fact out before and either i like it or not (i dont) the staff dont need a vote.
Sever democrazy is a good topic, i think the only one that opended a more or less constructive topic about that was Zarkor some months (about half a year?^^ dunno) ago, suggestions were made, afair staff didnt react on it. (democrazy is not our topic here...)

When speaking about this forum and the Battlegrounds change, there have been many more people against it then for it. As for the staff needing a vote - of course they do not *need it*. Should they listen to player feedback when decidinga about MAJOR changes? Yes, they should.

Zappo wrote:simple: nop. not in classic times.

I'm not talking about classic times. I'm talking about Live. The Battlegrounds system is a separate entity and it mirrors the development and evolution of gameplay.

Zappo wrote:3.) I dont wanna answer/comment any of your two's (zarkor and you) bullying each other... my opinion:
I agree that for people 35+ grind COULD maybe be harder. BUT note that staff WILL do serious improvements on OF XP. you remember Agra? good! then you know how "pewpew xp xp xp 50" it was. (up to 120% xp with all boni... wtfpwn)

Ok, that's your opinion and I do not share it. My original point still stands: This is a change that is introduced solely to force people to RvR.

Zappo wrote:4.) I didnt get you(Nym) here. Who chosen what by what? Me for myself isnt interested in countering "i like classic" with "i dont like classic" (what i got from zarkors post)

I don't understand what you mean. OF RvR is inferior in every aspect to BG RvR.

Zappo wrote:Well well, but you know not everyone played everything and I for example got really no clue which patches i played and which not (not interested in)
Addition: Now you could say: "I did and its this and that"
Well, i just wouldnt trust you and want try out myself. period

Sigh. Ok, you don't trust me. Then ask someone else. Or use the Internet, look at the patch notes and read. There are even videos of OF RvR.

This also answers your last part. How OF RvR works is a known fact. How lower BGs work is a known fact. How patch 1.69 works is a known fact. The only unknown thing is these mysterious changes. I am simply stating that it's illogical to use changes we know nothing about to justify a flawed system we know EVERYTHING about.

1.) ok, i reread it hihi^^ u re right i think too this should be "... and they dont are forced to do so"

As for point 4, i think my english is just too bad to understand what you and Zarkor exactly meant.

As for the rest, i got your standing i think but i dont share the most of it. But well we dont need to have all the same opinion

I would looking forward to some aspects than brought so far...

I was going to reply to you in full, but I came to the conclusion it doesn't matter since it won't change the fact that you are completely against the entire Classic element Uthgard is trying to emulate.

Uthgard is not about picking the best DAoC has to offer and building a server based on that. Uthgard is about picking the best Classic DAoC had to offer and make the best out of that. Non-classical elements may help improving this, but they certainly do not belong to the fundaments. Clearly this rationale isn't compatible with yours, seeing how anti-Classic you really are, which is why this server probably just isn't the one you're looking for, even though Uthgard's actual state didn't always entirely equal their goal in the past.

I think it's quite clear that you really don't want Uthgard to be what the staff wants it to be, which is likely why you're trying so hard to make them change their minds. However I'm afraid your efforts are in vain. Staff has always said Uthgard's supposed to emulate Classic DAoC. If you're not looking for such a server, don't bother trying to make Uthgard the server you ARE looking for, it's very likely to just be a waste of your time.

edit: double post