Fort PvP balance

No one likes team imbalance as far as PvP goes. Its not much fun for the assaulters or defenders when it is completely lop sided. To this end some players with good intentions and characters on both sides will swap back and forth when they see imbalance independent of the whole which actually as I have witnessed weeks ago had caused more imbalance. I am wondering if you guys have any good ideas that will help stave off one side clearly outnumbering the other. I know that it will never be completely balanced team wise but anything we can do to aid in this area should be welcomed. Any ideas?

Its going to happenen, it happenend today big time lol I think cleavens mostly must be on EU time and axfell on american, I have a small idea but not sure how it could be implmented and its to do with x amount of attackers v ex amount of defenders ann if there is a large difference boosting the npc's effectiveness . But like I say no idea how such a thing could be implimented

One thing i would do is allow attackers into the fort area again at least if your so out numbered and they decide to kill hullet you have powerful npcs backing you up .

Out of all the Cleaven attackers today there may have been three players which didn't also have at least one 40th level Axfell. I'm not saying anyone should have switched sides I'm just saying this to make the point that there must be something we could do.

Hard one to deal with, only thought I have is to boost up the NPC's inside temple and inside main fort (If they attempt a slaughter), this way if the defenders have no high lvls to stop the attack the attackers have to make sure they have the beef to take the temple and or main fort assult..
Might be a good thing so you cant have two or three main players have an easy walk at anytime...
On a day when alot are online (playing) might force some good team work to take the temple..

Have the relic do nothing until there are at least 3 challenging PVP kills for the winning side or something like that maybe?

hmmm

What about making assaulting a fort and capturing a relic more of an epic challenge than a casual thing people do - even if there are no PC defenders and significant numbers to one side.

I have a few not-so-thought through ideas on this front, but things like:

• Better, more diverse guards. (E.G. Mages, Clerics, Frenchmen blowing raspberrys)
  
• Better, more diverse defenses. (E.G. the clear plains in front of the fort could cause -10 hide/ms. Standing on the walls +ac/+ab. Random defensive actions, like archer volleys)
  
• Increased rewards (E.G. Upping the timed xp - or even better, giving a one off xp reward to the capturing faction. OR even better, proving a % xp increase on all incoming xp!)

As we increase difficulty, having the very linear assaulting method wouldn't be so fantastic. Defenders could hold the fort extremely easily. We could add other avenues of attack, which would ensure that even a heavy defensive force of PC's could be out-manoeuvred such as:

• Ladders (Exodus-style)
  
• Explosive Kegs (Complete with torch-wielding Uruks? / Something pretty for Cleavens)
  
• Catapults the can launch players over walls

I addition, we also have easier, but none-the-less influential. objectives outside of the forts.

Such as:

• Outposts which would contribute to % xp rewards. (These would be set up in such a way that they would encourage more open-fair-pvp. Very little defensive bonuses for those that currently hold them.)
  
• Supply trains which would travel a set path to the forts. If interrupted they would affect morale of NPC defenders (-ab/ac etc.). Or, if not stopped, repair gates.

Before a balance of pvp is made a clear idea of number of players who actually pvp is needed.

If you havn't noticed yet, on both factions there exists players who create characters that never experience assaults or defend the fort.
Couple of reasons for this; They either don't want to pvp, not lvl 40 yet (or high enough lvl), not equiped/prepaired for pvp, they prefer random pvp that occurs while out of the fort and bumping into the enemy, or they pvp once or twice to discover the players they are pvping along side them aren't at all working as a team.
Which is an issue/problem that is adding to the imbalance.
If out of a faction of 10 if only 2 are pvpers and participating in pvp vs the other faction of 10 which consists of 7-8 pvpers partaking in pvp thats the imbalance right there.

I'd suggest a 3rd faction for those who aren't here for pvp to be that faction. Then once all the extra's are out of the picture you can finally see a better idea of what cleaven has for pvpers and what axfell has for pvpers.
Though i bet you all those non-pvpers probably will remain in cleaven/axfell not caring much that they're causing players to have to pvp on their behalf against a team expecting equal numbers.
It's absurd.. really.. and distroys also the rp aspect of the server.
Soldiers who join a war and don't even fight the enemy... Crafting things and gathering treasure to sell isn't a good reason for them to be permited to stay. Thinking in terms of a business etc.. why hire a person who can provide half the job.. when you have and could have a person doing the entire job. Players who pvp AND craft AND gather treasure to distribute.

I don' think it would hurt to have a special spot on the server for those who rp and never pvp.

Or figure out who the pvp-players are and make sure there is an even number on either side.. leaving the non pvp's to continue floating around the server doing nothing to help their side with pvp. If there is already an even number.. then the issue is time differences and that can't be helped much.

in that case only solution might be something someone told me long ago...
I'm paraphrasing; "No one is forcing you to pvp, if a large group is assaulting and you're the only one defending just stay out of the way"

Alright here is the problem I am having with this talk about balance .... Just 2 weeks ago Axfell had no problem dominating Cleaven in assaults so I don't think balance is the way to go, at least for the stand point of how many we have on each side. I do agree with the amount of people per side we have actually pvp'ing and not afk'ing at times could differ at times but that's just going to happen...Either way 1 defender should be able to hold off 2 attackers depending on class of course but for the most part with calvery and timing it shouldn't be a thing. I think where we fall short is the desire to defend .. I've heard from multiple people that they don't like to pvp cause it's "throwing Exp away" so how about we up the amount of exp you get for a PVP kill or if you get a kill you get a token to turn into hullet/daler for exp ? I do like the idea of upping the temple guards and such depending on attackers but how would that work? Just up the spawn trigger or something? How about making a type of window thing in the temple so people can throw spells in and out at each other cause that where we fell short a couple assaults ago where we didn't want to abuse the opening closing door thing but we wanted to throw spells out, Ive also noticed a problem with NPC's getting turned on spell casters using SOV and Creeping Doom maybe make those spells not hurt npcs? be strictly hostile spells? just a thought, Sorry for rambling

I personally think that PvP is more balanced than it has ever been.

I am dying more often, but that is because I am not the best PvPer and there is more of it happening.

Some days we mow over Cleavens gates with no issues, other days we can do nothing to stop the onslaught of the invading force.

I would love to see a battle on an open field, 10v10 but that is not likely. Balance to me would be that Cleavens win in the morning and lose in the evening, which as TheeVals put it, seems to be that way now.

Agree'd Still would love to see compensation for killing a 40 lol

So, does anyone have any solutions to balance issues - instead of reiterating that there are balance issues?

TheeVals wrote:I'd suggest a 3rd faction for those who aren't here for pvp to be that faction. Then once all the extra's are out of the picture you can finally see a better idea of what cleaven has for pvpers and what axfell has for pvpers.

LOL.. This puts me back when the Shilar faction was made, at one point that caused a good PvP RP fight for a few weeks between Shilar and Axfell.. Hell we had a wedding to attend too.. have better things to do on Anphillia than attend a wedding..
Back to the Forts, better to kick up the NPC end, I think the player base balance is fine and the XP is fine..

Was that the cybering faction?

Yes it was, The make love not war faction..

Damn i used to hate them self rightgeous ass holes ;p At least you knew where you stood with drow lol .

Honestly the PvP is one of the biggest reasons I keep coming back to Anphillia. I was told when I started my most recent iteration of Rann Cora that Cleaven was the gimped side. I think in my time getting from level 4 to 18 (maybe 19, I'm still at work, AFK XP should've put me there by now by my count though ) it has seemed a little even, if not tipped in favor of Axefell ever so slightly. I think judging how often the relic is captured is a poor judge of PvP balance, because time zones and work schedules and levels and such play into that moreso than the balance of players. Even though I haven't participated due to my current low level, I've been online and active during maybe... 3 assaults going both directions? Out of like 10. Unfortunately, there's no real way to fix that. That is a NATURAL happening. I want to play with people, so I'm going to play with people in my timezone and similar schedules.

I like the idea of boosting or nerfing the NPCs based on how many defenders. You could perhaps have a trigger on the transition from (Cleaven side) the Plains to Suman Valley that every time an Axefell character crossed it, the NPCs got a "stack" buff, up to a certain limit of course. Then, on the opposite side from Fort Cleaven to Suman Valley, a negative stack counter based on Cleaven characters entering/leaving the area. You could scale it based on level, I know once I hit bout 25 if there's an assault on Cleaven I'll be out there doing my best to pester attackers so they give up... which is nothing to a level 40 really but a nuisance. So, let's say you have 6 40's attacking. You'd have say, 12 stacks. Say there are also 3 level 20-30 characters defending and 1 level 40. That could be... 5 stacks, so a net of 7 stacks. You could buff the NPC stats based on that number to make it more even for the defenders. If there were no defenders, it would be a great challenge for the attackers as well.

I also very much like the idea of multiple routes of attack. I also like what you've already done with the relic and the timed XP, how the losing faction gets less AFK xp and the bonus for the winning faction gets a better increase, that's new since last I played, previously losing faction lost nothing and winning faction was only 250. I like the idea of a bonus percentage on ALL xp, would encourage some activity when the relic is possessed, perhaps even more encouragement to try and get it back.

Again, PvP is a big reason I keep coming back. There's nothing quite as adrenaline pumping or tactical as NWN PvP can be. And I can say that even though I'm a Call of Duty nut.

Super powered guards buffed by a single pure cleric or pure bard ftw!

I like the general idea Rann, but above mentioned characters were defending alone, I'm not sure if attackers could do anything

The numbers of attacking cleavens I have seen in my timezone they are in and out by the time i buff up and run in lol we even had a DM defender tonight lol anyhow i'm gunna stop defending unless we have enogh online to have a chance at making it a good fight i just get all my sub lvl 40 toons killed out of pure frustration lol

I hope you realize it's mostly your side to have these numbers...
1 - 2 weeks ago, There was Kreodin, Kadfael and 3 shifters + 1 - 2 AAs (or roughly like that) bashing the Cleaven gates... And All we had was Vic as a 40 and three lvls +-20.

Win some, lose some man.

All these things tend to even themselves out!

Stick with it and all will be well!

SeXy_SnipER wrote:Alright here is the problem I am having with this talk about balance .... Just 2 weeks ago Axfell had no problem dominating Cleaven in assaults so I don't think balance is the way to go, at least for the stand point of how many we have on each side.

This was directly related to a few player switching sides. The effect is magnified in that when a player does this its subtracting the 40 they used to be playing on one side and adding a 40 on the other. Its not too bad now but I start to worry when I think of the possibility of more than just a few players doing this.

TheeVals wrote:Before a balance of pvp is made a clear idea of number of players who actually pvp is needed.

Very true. The largest group though does actually do some PvP they will defend though seldom will attack. There are very few players who do not PvP at all but your point remains, looking at characters logged in doesn't give you a real sense of the PvP balance. The third faction idea is always tempting for me but I usually defer to the knowledge of others who have told me it never has worked in the past. That along with the sheer scale of the mod changes that would have to be made turns me off to the 3rd faction.

Professor Plum wrote:What about making assaulting a fort and capturing a relic more of an epic challenge than a casual thing people do - even if there are no PC defenders and significant numbers to one side.

I have a few not-so-thought through ideas on this front, but things like:

• Better, more diverse guards. (E.G. Mages, Clerics, Frenchmen blowing raspberrys)
  
• Better, more diverse defenses. (E.G. the clear plains in front of the fort could cause -10 hide/ms. Standing on the walls +ac/+ab. Random defensive actions, like archer volleys)
  
• Increased rewards (E.G. Upping the timed xp - or even better, giving a one off xp reward to the capturing faction. OR even better, proving a % xp increase on all incoming xp!)

As we increase difficulty, having the very linear assaulting method wouldn't be so fantastic. Defenders could hold the fort extremely easily. We could add other avenues of attack, which would ensure that even a heavy defensive force of PC's could be out-manoeuvred such as:

• Ladders (Exodus-style)
  
• Explosive Kegs (Complete with torch-wielding Uruks? / Something pretty for Cleavens)
  
• Catapults the can launch players over walls

I addition, we also have easier, but none-the-less influential. objectives outside of the forts.

Such as:

• Outposts which would contribute to % xp rewards. (These would be set up in such a way that they would encourage more open-fair-pvp. Very little defensive bonuses for those that currently hold them.)
  
• Supply trains which would travel a set path to the forts. If interrupted they would affect morale of NPC defenders (-ab/ac etc.). Or, if not stopped, repair gates.

A wonderful set of ideas! I think a tiered approach is best. Have certain goals like the relic of ever increasing difficulty of which the highest is extremely difficult and seldom achieved and lowest is on a level battle field like the outpost you suggested.

Should it be ok for a player to PvP with a level 40 one day and then switch to an opposing faction and play a different level 40 the next?

I think one faction only pick a side delete your alts the original anph used to monitor cd keys , however it is just a game play where you feel comfortable .

I've never been a fan of having chars on both sides of the fence ... along with multiple accounts, Just my opinion