Zarkor wrote: That 2 extra minutes (which will probably won't even be that most of the time) will really not make the difference.
If it does, then you seriously lack a healthy dosis patience.
Just my 2 cents..

I lack a healty gameplay time, i have a job i have a life. I wish i could spend whole day playing games but i cant anymore. Thats the difference between a 15 years old and me, This should not be a disscusion over ages and other non-important issues. Let's concentrate on the topic.

hm i don't like the idea with blocking ip's or wait half a day only for changing the ream. I play in hib, and if we take a break in rvr i log my albchar and level it further. And after the break we go on with rvr.

Really, i dont't want to wait half a day only to log in another realm.
10-15 minutes should be ok but half a day is just too much.
.....my opinion.

and yeah i have a job too: so my time is limited

12 hours at least would be just perfect

I saw something very nice for XPing. Its now a bonus from 35th-50th where it was starting at 40th before. Thats huge.

Lots of good stuff, hope to see it soon:)

Looks great! I can't wait to start RvR!

@ the debate before:
Even if those Hibs and Albs had a 10% bonus over me, there's no way I would change from Mid!

I just hope this new system don't foment zergs more(and I think it does ) but we'll se what happens. There are so many people fed up of zergs at agra that think if this finally turns into a dailly routine will be the end of that people playing and the end of nice rvr in uthgard.

I agree with Zip and Salbei, think uth is enough umbalanced(cause of the population) as to umbalance it even more with that sort of bonus.

Anyway it's a great job from the staff to implement all these, just maybe it is a bit in the wrong direction.

Great job! Great Ideas ! It was a wonderful surprise to read this

Only 1 request I have: DON'T give too many rps for tower/keep taking!!! (dol official server players already know...)

I've been playing on Uthgard for about 2 weeks now, so take my argument with a grain of salt. I come from Tristan on live, having played a Friar to 47 before Catacombs and ToA, quitting right after Gaheris was implemented (all realm, coop-PvE).

I agree with having tangible bonuses for Relic capture etc (stat and dmg buffage) provided there is some way to 'reset' RvR with regularity.

For example:
Hib captures both Alb and Mid relics on 3/1/09. They get the bonuses for 3 weeks, until relics reset on 3/22/09, and relics are returned to their owners.

3 weeks was just used as an example timeframe.

I think this would mitigate the Uber-realm problem, while still maintaining the relevance of RvR.

Discuss!

And thank you to the Admin for maintaining Uthgard!

It is much easier to recaprute a stolen relic than to steal it from a realm. The captured relics are stored in the homekeep of the realm that took it. That's a level 6 keep with ordinary guards at the highest level. That can be done by 1 group.

We decided to decrease the 75% Agramon experience gain bonus for the following reasons:

* The new rvr area is 4 times bigger, so the chances to be found are lower. Therefore you can make use of that bonus for a longer period of time. So finally it's the same if you don't calculate it for 20 minutes.
* There is a new 10% Bonus for the zones around Agramon in which you should be able to level for a vast longer time, even if there are enemies in Agramon.

Regarding the relic bonuses: I don't estimate one realm to often have both relics for a long period of time. First of all it takes a long time to capture a relic and bring it into the own homekeep and additionally you will get into the center of attention if you offend both realms, so you won't be able to use the bonus for other purposes than rvr.

As Mercury mentioned before, we had long discussions about that. Of course we can't guess the perfect solution without seeing the system being used. If we recognize enormous imbalances or other problems being caused by the relic bonuses, of course we will rethink the issues again.

My opinion is that with more focus here being put on Keep taking and Keep defense the not being able to enter a keep door while under attack has to be changed.

This gives a considerable edge to Hib for example as a few animist can lay a pile turrets around and no one is getting in that keep. where as if VS Alb or Mid if a bunch rush for the door every person has to be targeted and attacked so at least some are going to get in. Where as the turrets can just be layed out and can do their thing. I think Animist class give Hib a big edge in keep defense anyways especially on low Population servers like ours, but that's a different discussion.

I understand partly the door thing can be exploited by people popping in and out and bombing or such, but maybe some sort of time can be put in like a 10 sec delay before you can re-enter a keep door if you just exited. This would prevent the exploitation if that is the concern.

yes, shrooms are an advantage in keeping people from entering the keep. but PBAOE (or rather any AE) works fine too.

NF keeps and towers have a backdoor, and the attackers have to monitor both front and back door, they can't possible stop the defenders when entering with an evenly sized group/zerg.

If the staff choses to change it so you can enter a keep/tower when in combat, they should also fix PBAOE hitting through walls/doors.

I'm going to make several points here directed and responding to a few people in this thread. The first is responding to mercury's comments, then I will offer response to swiftfist and h-mans' comments which i think deserve some attention as they bring up points of concern I made in my original reply here.



Mercury - Crossrealming Issue

Mercury wrote:Another solution of that problem would be a system that would hinder people from logging between the realms. For example if you just logged out in Hib, you need to wait for half a day until beeing able to log into another realm. Relics could change in this time of course. That would also solve the problem, wouldn't it?
But this would make a kind of account registration necessary - and finding a solution that is not a too big barrier for new players and also can't be abused is really not easy here.

Doing something about the logging between realm issue would help the 'cross realming' aspect to this problem in that someone cant learn of a relic raid on one realm then log their character for the targeted realm to help defend. I do encourage a system put in place to disencourage or prevent this type of behavior entirely but I dont think that it alone will do the job at alleviating or preventing consistant one sided fights. To stick to the point of preventing crossrealm logging, I would propose something like this:


http://uthgard-server.net/modules.php?n ... sc&start=0

Blue wrote:We thought several times about such limitations. But it can't be enforced easily without paid accounts.

Whats in the task queue is that logging into other realm accounts will have some type of timed lock. Therefore all accounts someone owns have to be registered to one email address. Using of shared accounts will be forbidden then. Also logging into accounts registered by a second email address would be bannable.

Zippity wrote:
I'd make it a 24 hour lock beginning from the time the player logs out of their current account. That way the player has to choose if they wish to play hib, mid, or alb that particular day as opposed to playing hib for x minutes/hours and logs to mid/alb.

I guess the real question is, what prevents someone with 10 accounts from creating 10 seperate e-mail addresses, then changing ips once they log, then log into the next account under a different ip?

I'd like to see an additional component added to this in the form of a standalone application that is required to run and be operating in the background. This application would check harddrive IDs and report this info to uth server when the person logs in with an account. If the HD id's dont match what is associated with the registered account then the user is rejected from logging into any account.

For example the application is required to download and run during the registration process. When run, the app will prompt the user to enter their desired info (account name, pw, e-mail address for the account) and sends this off to uth registration. The user now has an account registered and their Hardware ID is recorded and sent off to be stored in an UTH DB. The player can login to uth using daoc portal but in order to be connected to uth server, the application has to be run and validate the login request from the current user. Since the application is required to run in the background each time the player logs in, no one can get onto uth without first having verified they are the person who originally made the account since it is linked to the PC used to register.

An option could be placed on the application if the person is changing hardware or accessing the account. Clicking this would update the current info registered to the person's account after revalidating the new hardware. To my knowledge one cannot fake hardware ID authentification. A timer could be set preventing a player from revalidating multiple times in a day. For example if a revalidation is done, then the account is banned from use for a 24 hour period (or whatever time is deemed appropriate) This would prevent exploitating the use of the validation process to log in from another machine and so forth.

Swiftfist & H-man - Keep/Tower Door Combat Timer & AOE effects

swiftfist wrote:My opinion is that with more focus here being put on Keep taking and Keep defense the not being able to enter a keep door while under attack has to be changed.

This gives a considerable edge to Hib for example as a few animist can lay a pile turrets around and no one is getting in that keep. where as if VS Alb or Mid if a bunch rush for the door every person has to be targeted and attacked so at least some are going to get in. Where as the turrets can just be layed out and can do their thing. I think Animist class give Hib a big edge in keep defense anyways especially on low Population servers like ours, but that's a different discussion.

I understand partly the door thing can be exploited by people popping in and out and bombing or such, but maybe some sort of time can be put in like a 10 sec delay before you can re-enter a keep door if you just exited. This would prevent the exploitation if that is the concern.

H-Man wrote:yes, shrooms are an advantage in keeping people from entering the keep. but PBAOE (or rather any AE) works fine too.

NF keeps and towers have a backdoor, and the attackers have to monitor both front and back door, they can't possible stop the defenders when entering with an evenly sized group/zerg.

If the staff choses to change it so you can enter a keep/tower when in combat, they should also fix PBAOE hitting through walls/doors.

I agree with swift in the serious nature of keep/tower defense with the current limitations to defending these structures. H-man points uot that one can enter the keep with a decent sized zerg but this is in itself a keypoint which highlights the problem here. Using agramon as a basis for understanding the issue, one can simply point to the MANY sieges that have gone on there which the only sensible course of action to take against an attacker on a tower is to simply build a bigger/even level zerg to fight the enemies in the open field there as opposed to using the structure for its intended purpose...getting inside and defending.

This goes against logic and intuitive thinking about defense. Not being able to enter structures while in combat further harms proper defenses as people dont even bother to go help defend (even if they could provide meaningful defense if they got inside) because the simple matter is that with the current mechanics they wont make it inside period if they are flagged as in combat. I have been considered a 'tower humper' so to speak in my agramon career so i have witnessed many sieges from the sidelines and have seen how groups are able to keep out defenders by positioning a caster or someone else with an instant effect spell at the access points around the tower to keep the small bands of individuals/groups from entering the tower. Naturaly in this circumstance, this means amost assured death for those patriotic indivduals who try to do their realm duty in helping to defend. I can tell you that in a siege, EVERY defender counts, whether they are manning the oil or shooting people with their short bow/spell or healing from the interior.




As for a solution, First of all i would remove the ability for AOE attacks to pass through structures/walls/gates and as for the keep door timer, I had a discussion over this a while back and I would propose something like this:

http://uthgard-server.net/modules.php?n ... c&start=15

Zarkor wrote:
This should be worked out in detail tho. After entering there should be a timer set on re-entering so that there is not in-out hopping from the defending side.

I can imagine an AoE stun followed by 2-3 pbs hopping out, blast the ram team down and hop back in... I'm not sure if I want that ^^

Zippity wrote:That is a fair comprimise i think. I too see the exploitive nature of being able to re-enter a tower/keep with impunity so it would be prudent to have some failsafe in this. In my opinion, one plan of action could be to link the re-entering of the keep linked to the keeps 'seige timer' where while a keep is under seige, one can enter it ONCE and only ONCE, while being attacked (except in the case if you get stunned/mezzed of course). The defender should be allowed to exit the keep through the doors but they should be disallowed from re-entering the keep while its under seige. This would make it so that the defenders can 'charge' the enemy by going outside the door (in cases where the enemies back off and the defenders regroup to go outside to take the fight to them for instnace. ) however they risk that if their 'charge' fails then they will be sitting ducks and unable to reenter until the keep is no longer under seige. In the case that someone dies and then releases to bind point without being resurrected, then their timer resets and they are alllowed to re-enter the keep, however players being resurrected while around/in the keep will keep their timer and will remain unable to enter the keep again until its out of siege. This measure would prevent potential 'death' related exploits to reset the timer under the proposed mechanics while at the same time allowing for people to come back to defend if they are inclined to do so and are able to make it back inside should there be no healer to resurrect them.


So in short, if the keep is under seige, then no one can re-enter it after they have entered it once already while it is under seige. Doing it this way would encourage people to actually stick to defending the keep instead of 'zerg rushing' from behind as well as prevent exploitive tactics such as described above with people exiting/entering at will and then doing things like PA/aoe on the attackers with no possibility to respond.

Well...
all these things looks good at first look.... but will it really be good ???
some months before rvR 50 was in emain... with alot of castles.... big and etc.... was it really good ? dont think so.... For me the best RvR ever had in 50's was in agra last map....
we could fight solo and find others easy.... could group and even zerg....

first problem in RvR today is: low ppl to fight, even with 500 on server.... ppl lose the battle and leave... and there is no more option of player to call.... Btw hib look the worst realm to play, almost always with lower ppl agains other realms.

So i think relic will be great to Mids..... that is always zerging and having a lot of players.
The huge map will not be good.... Hib will sofer without some bard what is a damn boring class to play and sometimes to find player.
i think agra was the best place for stealtehr too now they have to work a lot more to find a solo player or even a player....

i agree with most opinion of zipp.
but well.... lets try.... maybe staff are right....

Anyway i gz and thanks to staff work, nice job!

I believe the extremely slow and dull pve exping and unbalanced realm populations scares away some players who would otherwise enjoy playing on this server.

A suggestion is to give additional exp bonus in NF based on number off opposing players. For example if Midgard have 30 players in NF and Albion have 10 and Hib 20. Alb players should get an exp bonus based how many more players mid and hib have over alb.

If you for example get 1% for every enemy player minus your own realms players then Albion players in the example above would get (30 + 20 - 10) = 40% additional exp bonus in NF.

If you tweak it even higher for example 2% or 3% the weaker realms will get even more level 50 players and the realm populations in NF will become more balanced.