DrB

X4, Y27/28. Fort Summit and Summit Landing are no more.

Crew (sailor) vs soldier using link system: Crew linked to the commander impacts speed but can't shoot. Unlinked = can shoot (or cast) but headcount does not affect the boat performance. "Commanded correctly" (per Maurizio's point) now involves a conscious decision and communication versus purely RNG -- teamwork matters and everyone has a useful role (not just an extra body sitting afk for max speed) regardless of 2 year old account vs 8 year old account.

There are good points on both sides of the argument; however, I will say that even with 2 years of playtime and grinding like a fool, I know I can't compete in PVP with a lot of the long-aged accounts. That these accounts are bought/sold/traded and never expire simply increases that gap that Propheteer posted about. Now, Maurizio makes a good point about the 2 month old account beating the 2 year old account -- not very likely in many stats based games; however, that isn't what Propheteer was explaining: my interpretation being why can't a 2 year old account beat a 5 year old account? I'm not a fan of the whole curve thing having experienced it on WurmU I can tell you it would be a nightmare trying to merge that onto Chaos this late in the game, no pun intended. However, the answer (or a variation of) might be found in how some other PVP-centric/team-centric games have solved this problem. In those examples, they have artificially elevated the new players based upon teaming and proximity so that they can compete. They won't have the same capabilities but they at least can hit. In those games they would artificially elevate level (granting CR so they can hit) but they would still be hindered by lack of special moves and the like that the longer-aged players had at the true level. (I'm not talking about specials in Wurm which I understand need work -- just the specials equivalent in those games). Perhaps something like that or a "luck" factor? A luck factor being a CR adjustment that diminishes over the age of the character which has the same affect -- we have the newbie food/water/healing buff that lasts 24 hours, why not have a newbie PVP buff that lasts some much longer period of time that simply boosts CR so that they can actually hit or have a chance of blocking an arrow? Another interesting variant would be that newbie buff only show up on Chaos and work as SB for fighting related skill gains (FS, wep, archery, shield)? A baby-curve of sorts? On chaos, those skills would gain at curve-rates but the long-aged accounts would still have the benefit of the body/str/ctl just not so overwhelming on the CR.

I found the KOS bit funny for exactly the reason you pointed out...uh..Chaos? HOTS? Isn't that the definition of KOS?

Well, that would definitely change PVP -- but not in a good way.

That fight yesterday is also a clear example of why the "just be a pincushion" view that Retro mentioned on the last page is flawed. When you came out of that mine you could get 2-3 swings and then pop back down into the mine before archers could get a shot off. With a 2h axe and stacked buff/dmg bonuses you could have easily destroyed a non-SOTG/ < 50 body account just because of damage inflation. Arrows won't pincushion a SOTG using a 2h with a non-buggy hop (ala the shooting into buildings stuff) like a minedoor. Again, my caution about just buffing hitpoints is you trivialize the NPCs. If you go that route, you may as well just grant all players 70FS/wep skill. IMO, the damage calculation needs to be revisited and not just merely inflate hitpoints. The equation may have worked as intended 2-3 years ago but the distribution curve of FS/BodyStats/Wep stats has shifted to the right since then because characters don't "age out" but are instead sold to others so they remain in game.

From what i've read, simply doing things like adjusting SOTG, Hate Bonus, or even buffing hit points are just throwing bandaids at the problem. Damage dealing has scaled up and the flaws in the damage algorithm are being exposed. I would suggest the cause is that there are now accounts with body strength up there, based upon the posts above about 70 BS scaling up the damage radically. Simply buffing up player hitpoints isn't enough since that would then make it so a started player can take on a troll. Buffing up Troll damage would likely then cause other problems like damage to armor. A simpler answer may be (and i'm posing it for the Devs to consider looking at) is to change the combat/CR equation itself or at least make sure what used to be outliers (and is now the norm) aren't what is screwing it up. You can get the same effect as boosting hitpoints by lowering damage output but without requiring every creature and equipment damage element having to be looked at. When a 50+ body in 80+ plate with 90+ shield skill gets demolished in 7 hits over 20 seconds -- damage output is over the top.

Were they using 2h Axes? Just curious. From what i've read, it seems like the problem is the insane damage out of 2Hs which is the real driver and SOTG just lets those accounts run with the big 2H equipped more.

Except for Fo who gives a mission to go drain Dark Citadel

Mostly likely they recognize and are trying to avoid mudflation which is what normally happens when you take the buff versus nerf approach. Yes, they could make the same effect by boosting the effect of body, for example, so that non-SOTG could take 2 huge ax hits, but then NPCs would need to be buffed up and the cascading effects of "balancing" begins with all the complaints and unintended consequences. If they completely scrapped insanity, would there be complaints that the remaining are not balanced against each other? Probably not.

That pretty well sums it up. Defending isn't fun, but you have to do it or risk tle deed getting flattened and losing everything. The current system seems one of extremes due to how players actually play. I'm guessing the original though was that someone would just take down a tile, get inside, get some stuff, get a drain, and leave. Making these types of raids more fun is a fine goal; however, there are other raids which are just "obliterate the deed" type of raids where changes made to make the prior type easy, make the later type easy to the point of being griefer-esque. This also goes a prior post about kingdom rosters. The gist being MR had 1000, other PMKs having hundreds. Many of those are bots/alts solely to act as alarms for twitter or ways of holding your stuff so it can't be taken in a flattening raid or just lockpicked. I'm not sure having any sort of PMK "size" restriction isn't going to be harmful because of that. Someone mentioned having a cap negatively impacting the ability of friends to play together -- and that is true (and why I am also against caps). Other MMOs looked at side imbalance by buffing and other temporary mechanics: 1. Warbirds (1990s-2000s flight sim) did it by using their map. High population got the map as normal. Low population got the map with enemy force lines. Their map had a grid superimposed (like our letter/numbers but with lines as well) and in each block they got a red line with the size of the line indicating relative # of enemy aircraft there. This allowed them to strike or defend more cohesively and prevent the surprise attack by the large country. 2. WW2OL limited respawn rate by putting in a delay on respawn when strength deviated. I don't know how that would work here except by increasing timers on catapults/mining/etc -- but we already have a defense bias. I'm not saying to use these, only throwing these out to get the brains flowing of other ways to handle dramatic imbalance. (Oh, the above were based upon "who's online" not "who's a member.")

I think this got turned sideways because of the PVE conversation that got brought in. I thought the complaint was, for example, I put my main on a sailboat with 4 SOTGs and then log off. That way the SOTGs hold "5 player speed" even though i'm not around to get pincushioned to slow the boat down. Meanwhile, the enemy with 5 players "active" get their weakest pincushioned and are now slower (removing rarity of boat). The only quirk I can see is what happens when a player drops connection and is reconnecting, does the boat suddenly slow down and prevent the get-away? Perhaps the "fix" is a combination, they solve the sailing is too slow problem while adjusting speed to "online/embarked" when an enemy is in local."

The point of my post wasn't "Nerf because of MR" but that all the reasons I have read against the teleport being removed/limited were being portrayed as "this isn't needed, because MR isn't affected by the teleport system as is." For example, a prior post asserted something along the lines of... MR raids JK and JK can't port in enough to stop us and if they do we just go elsewhere and they're stuck there; therefore, nothing needs to change. That anecdote omits that it DOES affect OTHER kingdoms who can't simply overwhelm with numbers (how far do you think a HOTS attack on an MR deed would go before MR ported in 10-15 people all around the point of attack so they can encircle and wipe out the attacking force, which the current porting system allows). The arguments being made for "teleport isn't broken" are all lopsided from the MR point of view and so I was presenting the alternative view -- that the current teleport mechanic is a big inhibitor to anyone being able to attack any substantially larger kingdom.

I love how the criticism against changes to teleport are of the MR perspective. Oh, if they teleport in the village, we just change where we raid and they're stuck. The bigger thing about removing information minister AND the teleport change is that MR deeds (theoretically) become more vulnerable. I'm saying MR here not as a slight to MR but only because they travel in the largest groups for raids right now. As someone pointed out, MR shows up with 20, defenders bring in 15, not 100; however, if JK or HOTS were to send 5-15 in on a MR deed, how likely is it that MR could/would be able to teleport in > #s? Very, because they have the people. Now, use that same "pro-MR" argument about oh, you just change your point of attack -- that is again ignoring MR being the one under attack, and MR not using the overwhelming teleport. JK attacks deedA with 15. MR ports in 10, so JK decides to go to deedB. MR can port in a different 10. In both of those cases, the 10 porting in do NOT have to be the biggest-baddest because of how defense works. Now that i've pointed that out -- I do want to say I'd prefer a different anti-teleport approach. Leave the teleports (karma and vinvites) in. Simply make it so that when a deed is "locked down/settlement alarm" is active, the village isn't allowed to invite anybody into it. That way, at least true villagers who may be out on a raid can karma port home. Removing the teleport entirely creates a situation where someone is on a raid and and can't leave without disrupting the raid (ala, taking a sailboat and ending the raid for 4 others, etc).

Retro: In an early remark you pointed out a desire to make raiding less tedious being the basis for some of these propositions; however, that ignores the purpose of many raids is not simply to drain and get stuff -- some have the objective of total destruction. It happens on Chaos, it happens in WU. In some cases, the flattening of a deed is done because one kingdom wants the land. In other cases, it is purely griefing. I think a lot of players know this, have experienced it, or have dealt it out. This is the underlying thought process around the criticism of the 'attacking easier' goals.