Level Protection Change

[Khamul Nazgul]

Quite Simple.
Raise the Level protection.

Avg Level of Server - (__%) Certain percentage = Level protection for said Server.


The game has gone of for so long, Level 30 isn't hard to get to nor do you have much of a chance to compete/defend yourself at level 30.
It will also give the younger players a chance to actually create guilds, without having to rely on a large guild (Which usually they want something out of it) and play amongst themselves without fear of a larger presence stomping them.

Which is why I am suggesting a change to the system.


Raising it gives a better over-all fairness imo.

The current Level system if outdated.
Most new players are forced to a large guild, Get shot/quit or stalemate under level 30.

Higher level protection let's the big boys continue what they are doing and also lets the smaller guys (Level 60-70 is classed as small) do their own wars and not be forced to join a larger guild/thus larger wars.

I say let them have their own fun and and freedom.

Let's encourage younger players to do their own thing, make their own story, make their own guilds.


Comments/opinions?
Positive/Negative are welcome, just be polite to everyone in your replies please.

Thanks,
KN.


PS. Before anyone says, I searched for relevant topics and only found Level Protection threads that are about hitting larger players and not getting your protection taken away.

[Sandcastle Smasher]

While it would allow lower players to further grow their accounts, it would not enable them to fight real wars, as they would still have their blobs derbed by the rouge player with the 200mil mobile.

[Ferdoc]

How would you determine the certain percentage? Is it just decided on a whim? How much of the server do you want to remove from being targeted by a player?

Also the way the suggestion is presented is quite frankly retarded and hardly fair. For example Server XYZ has a protection cap of level 55.7. I'm level 55.8 and you are level 55.6. I can't attack your bases you because you are under a protection cap and yet very close to me in level.

How is that fair?

[Erls]

How would you determine the certain percentage? Is it just decided on a whim? How much of the server do you want to remove from being targeted by a player?

Also the way the suggestion is presented is quite frankly retarded and hardly fair. For example Server XYZ has a protection cap of level 55.7. I'm level 55.8 and you are level 55.6. I can't attack your bases you because you are under a protection cap and yet very close to me in level.

How is that fair?

Arbitrary lines in the sand thought up without much effort are always to be considered fair on the AE FR forum.

[Phantom]

How would you determine the certain percentage? Is it just decided on a whim? How much of the server do you want to remove from being targeted by a player?

Also the way the suggestion is presented is quite frankly retarded and hardly fair. For example Server XYZ has a protection cap of level 55.7. I'm level 55.8 and you are level 55.6. I can't attack your bases you because you are under a protection cap and yet very close to me in level.

How is that fair?

I don't like adding more variables to the equation though it'd be necessary to prevent your example being a problem. Consider how level protection works right now. To hit someone underneath level 30 you must be within 10 levels. A similar system could be implemented here.

If a player under protection was X% of your level, you could hit their bases ect.

So say level protection ended at 50 and X was 80% of your player level. To hit that level 49.9, you'd need to be below level 62.5. But that means your one level difference no longer matters.

[Erls]

How would you determine the certain percentage? Is it just decided on a whim? How much of the server do you want to remove from being targeted by a player?

Also the way the suggestion is presented is quite frankly retarded and hardly fair. For example Server XYZ has a protection cap of level 55.7. I'm level 55.8 and you are level 55.6. I can't attack your bases you because you are under a protection cap and yet very close to me in level.

How is that fair?

I don't like adding more variables to the equation though it'd be necessary to prevent your example being a problem. Consider how level protection works right now. To hit someone underneath level 30 you must be within 10 levels. A similar system could be implemented here.

If a player under protection was X% of your level, you could hit their bases ect.

So say level protection ended at 50 and X was 80% of your player level. To hit that level 49.9, you'd need to be below level 62.5. But that means your one level difference no longer matters.

Want to know the biggest difference between a level 49.9 and a level 62.5?

One just lost ~10M fleet in a crash while the other didn't.

IE, a formula such as that runs the risk of the losing side in a crash all of a sudden having their bases become protected by the victors of the crash.

[Khamul Nazgul]

How would you determine the certain percentage? Is it just decided on a whim? How much of the server do you want to remove from being targeted by a player?

Also the way the suggestion is presented is quite frankly retarded and hardly fair. For example Server XYZ has a protection cap of level 55.7. I'm level 55.8 and you are level 55.6. I can't attack your bases you because you are under a protection cap and yet very close to me in level.

How is that fair?

I haven't determined the certain percentage as I wanted opinions before putting that in, as such I left it blank.
I want it to be as balanced as possible.

What do you guys think a balanced percentage would be?

Want to know the biggest difference between a level 49.9 and a level 62.5?

One just lost ~10M fleet in a crash while the other didn't.

IE, a formula such as that runs the risk of the losing side in a crash all of a sudden having their bases become protected by the victors of the crash.

I see your issue, could just put a 12 Hour (Just like Vacation Mode) for it to come into effect for those who are above level protection and then go below into level protection from losing their fleet.

Most players wouldn't even go below the level protection if they lose their fleets, this games been going on for so long, peoples Tech can keep someone above level 100.


Is there any other issues that anyone can see?



The formula I put up was to try have it server wide balanced, which is why AVG Player Level on Server was put into the formula to includes all varies of age of the servers, if it's not able to be balanced, could just make it a solid level.

The level protection would be different From Alpha than it was on Ixion for example as the formula includes AVG Level on server.

Alphas would be a higher level protection and Ixion would be a lower level protection, balanced server wide?

[Pasternak]

Locked on OPs Request

[Pasternak]

Open Again

A little misunderstanding, hah... Sorry.
I like this idea, very much. So i'm moving this to the workshop.

[Ferdoc]

IF and percentage is calculated I do believe that using one base upon a blanket is not tenable. See the prior issue I brought up. IF one is to be redone it should only be in reference to your own level.

IE a level 30 should be able to hit down towards the level 20s, but a level 90 should be able to smack around those in the 60s. So just a brief look at those two metrics I believe 33% of your level should be open game game with no penalty. If you want to hit within, oh lets say 50% of your level you should lose some degree of effectiveness, similar to the fighter nerf.

[Khamul Nazgul]

Thanks for adding your input Ferdoc.
I like the numbers you've supplied.

But to get it spot on, It would help if we had AVG Levels on each server to see if the Formula I put forward could be balanced in some way, that's if my formula could even be used/balanced.

Any chance one of the Mods/Devs could supply such information so we have some something to work with?


We need level protection that grows with the age of server basically, balancing it server-wide also.
So any input from all is more than welcome.

I know this has been an issue for awhile and I think we can come up with a fix.

[Desmond Cheese]

I suggest that something other than average is used to calculate it as it can be thrown massively by outliers...

A detailed 5 number summary plus the examination of the IQR eliminating the bottom and top 5% of the rankings would help further provide a better view of the changes needing to be made IMO.

[Erls]

A couple points which I think are important to keep in mind:

1- The point of a level protection adjustment should not be to offer long term assistance to players, allowing them to perpetually stay under a certain level and be protected while growing their accounts. There should be a cut off, when people are 'thrown to the wolves', however I agree that it should be above level 30.

2- Any change should not punish the best and most active players who level ahead of other people to quickly.

3- There should be a serious look into protecting fleet that is already under level protection when it is parked over a guild mates base that is also under level protection. At the very least, and adjustment like this would allow for those smaller guilds to blob up and protect each other (from other smaller guilds) more than they can now.

So, a couple suggestions:

1- Level protection stays at it is, with a new bracket being added:

Between levels 30-50 you cannot be attacked by someone more than 25 levels greater than you are. Thus, anyone level 75 or over could not attack anyone under level 50 unless they have broken level protection.

Level 51.52
Econ 5,971
Fleet 5,343,555
Tech 1,107,012

Now, am I saying that it is a 'fair fight' for someone like this to take on a level 100 player with 100M in fleet? No. But, it is certainly an improvement.

2- There is a '20% exception'.

This basically would say that the top 10% of the server does not have level protection from anyone else once they pass level 10.

Fenix (1009 players) = The top 100 accounts would have zero level protection from anyone larger than themselves.
Lyra (2496 players) = The top 249 accounts would have zero level protection from anyone larger than themselves.
Nova (10943 players) = The top 1094 accounts would have zero level protection from anyone larger than themselves.

I feel like this would ensure that the top accounts are not punished for their activity/ability. Accounts in the '10%' would have a little badge on their profile.

[Ferdoc]

I think a level range table broken into 5 level ranges X0-X4 | X5-X9 with the number of players present in each level bracket. That way we can say the X numbers of players in Range Y will have Z opponents with the lowest opponent being ## from bracket A.

[sternenpunk]

The rule should be simple to understand and to calculate for players and server and it would be nice if it could be the same on all servers. I would propose a simple extension of the level protection now in place.

Old level protection brackets:

Players with level<10 - Player bases can’t be attacked.
Players with level>=10 and Level<20 - Bases can only be attacked by players within 5 levels difference.
Players with level>=20 and level<30 - Bases can only be attacked by a player within 10 levels difference.

Proposed new level protection brackets:

Players with level>=30 and level<50 - Bases can only be attacked by a player within 20 levels difference.
Players with level>=50 and level<80 - Bases can only be attacked by a player within 30 levels difference.
Players with level>=80 and level<120 - Bases can only be attacked by a player within 40 levels difference.
Players with level>=120 and level<170 - Bases can only be attacked by a player within 50 levels difference.

That should be enough level protection for the next few years of ae simming!

Example: top player in alpha is lv 149.09, could attack everybody down to lv 109.09 = down to rank 524. I think that leaves enough targets - if you haven't already pacted most of the server. At lv 79.83 I could be attacked by everybody but Lite-Reborn in kappa and attack down to lv 50 - would be fine with me.