January 2015 FMR review - change level protection

[Whis]

Sorry for the time between FMR reviews, if you have a topic you want discussed just send me a pm.

As the title states, what changes to level protection should be changed? Should there be some sort of protection for a level 30.01 acct vs a level 150 account (aside from fighter nerf)?

Let's put down ideas, I can assure you Wizard does lurk this forum so your opinions will be heard.

[Winchester]

Biggest one: remove level protection from inactive players. Once they hit 20 days they go to the next step up (example, a level 14 can now be hit by anyone level 24 or below), and after 40 days they're open for anyone to hit.

Aside from that, I wouldn't mind seeing a new tier of protection emerging with every year the server has been open. Every year, you add a ten-level tier. Level 30-39.99 can only be hit within ten levels once the server is a year old; level 40-49.99 can only be hit within ten levels once the server is two years old; etc. You could also make it favor new accounts by being time-based - you keep a minimum of ten levels protection for four months for every year the server has been open. On a three-year-old server, you've got a year of protection, regardless of level. Of course, you can still put a cap on it, such as "one year or level 60, whichever comes first" to prevent abuse.

[fendelius]

great idea. tha twould make tons of ppl play longer and making of low level accounts being perma farmed harder as it would have to be someone within an acceptable level range of u

[Anime]

Well, I would suggest people also take a look at this thread in the Feedback board, as it raised one pretty big issue.

The most important bits though:

Make HARD level protection only last for a certain period of time, say 100-150 days. Level protection was intended to protect newbies - which is worthwhile - but is in practice also routinely abused by players to keep JGs safe by making it impossible for players of level 30 or higher to occupy them. Case in point: I remember somebody in Andromeda had a high level JG set up on a level 16 account, meaning that it could only be hit by a player of level 21 or less. You can imagine how few of those remained after 2 months. Under the current system, it is practically a requirement for every guild to have a player who is roughly level 20 and carefully ensures that he never levels too much, which is simply silly.

Another argument which was raised in favour of limiting the HARD level protection (but was not discussed at length in that thread) is the people who abuse it by briefly going above level 30, making some annoying hits and then immediately dropping back below level 30, prevent counter-attacks. Whilst usually merely a pain (and I have been fortunate enough not to be bothered by them myself), they can cause incredible damage by for instance stealing occupations (at times permanently denying income of the occupied bases are below level 30) whilst being practically invulnerable themselves.

Note that I speak about the "hard" level protection. When I say "hard" protection, I am referring to the impossibility to hit player's bases due to their level (below 30 and/or out of level range). I have absolutely no issue with the "soft" level protection which penalises people for hitting players who are less than 65% of their level. As far as I am concerned, the 65% level protection mechanics (lower pillage/plunder and Fighter swarm nerf) should remain unchanged and NOT expire. If anything, judging by some of the hits I have been seeing on Alpha - extremely high level players still FT swarming low level players for (slight) profit (partially due to high armour tech) - the soft level protection could be strengthened.

150 days of hard protection should be more than enough time to get used to the game, join a guild (for protection) and reach a decent level. Most newbies I know who actually keep playing this game certainly seem to manage in far less time, even when put in a disadvantageous situation.

tl;dr:

• Limit the "hard" level protection to 100-150 days.
• Keep "soft" level protection (65% mechanics) as a permanent measure (and possibly strengthen them).

Biggest one: remove level protection from inactive players. Once they hit 20 days they go to the next step up (example, a level 14 can now be hit by anyone level 24 or below), and after 40 days they're open for anyone to hit.

I fully agree with removing level protection from players once they hit 40 days of inactivity. That said, I don't see the 20 days idea working out well, as the only people who would know about it at the people who are in the same guild. Unless you start the red "XX days inactive" text starting from day 20, but as somebody who knows people who occasionally disappear for a few weeks, I'd find that less than optimal.

Aside from that, I wouldn't mind seeing a new tier of protection emerging with every year the server has been open. Every year, you add a ten-level tier. Level 30-39.99 can only be hit within ten levels once the server is a year old; level 40-49.99 can only be hit within ten levels once the server is two years old; etc. You could also make it favor new accounts by being time-based - you keep a minimum of ten levels protection for four months for every year the server has been open. On a three-year-old server, you've got a year of protection, regardless of level. Of course, you can still put a cap on it, such as "one year or level 60, whichever comes first" to prevent abuse.

I would.

Regarding the first idea: on Alpha, that would mean that level protection would reach to level 80, which is a bit excessive in my opinion. It would also only worsen abuse with keeping JGs low level on purpose, and scare level 60's from hitting bases belonging to level 100+ players, as they'd be open to retaliations then. It would stifle the game in too many ways. As for the second idea: On Alpha, that'd be 2 years and 8 months of protection. That is aeons. And again, people would be afraid of hitting people of higher levels simply because they're risk retaliations which they'd be entirely safe from otherwise. Too much protection is a bad thing.

Rather than making it impossible to hit people, it is better to focus on dissuading high level players from hitting low level players. I myself do not hit people who are 80 levels below me not just because it's horribly imbalanced, but also because the profit I could get out of it is so minuscule that it is simply not worth the hassle. Clearly, the soft level protection could do a better job to dissuade high level players from hitting players far below them; I have seen level 140 players hit bases belonging to level 40-60 players and still make a profit. Which is largely - I might add - due to the ridiculous amount of debris they create with their own high armour tech level.

If you really want to improve things for the newer players, then I would advise looking into improvements for the soft level protection. Maybe decrease the amount of debris which is made if you hit a base (or fleet on a base) belonging to a player who is less than 65% of your own level? Just something I came up with just now.

[Rajam]

The best way to protect low level accounts is to make it unprofitable for high level ones to do it.

Modify debris generated on an attack AND limit econ gained when occupying a lower level account. Just spit balling here but make debris generated on an attack go WAY lower the greater the level difference(to a certain level difference). Have it go to almost zero in extreme cases. Combine that with the credit value of occupying that base being lowered as well. Again, dramatically in the most extreme cases.

While this would offer no protection under the current system it would also be a pretty big disincentive for big accounts to attack smaller ones yet still give people the ability to do so when those same accounts are annoying.

[Malkov]

Am on into what Ribben suggested. Remove it from incactives from over 40 days although, because after 40 days, for upgraded people ofc, they are removed from guild so its basically free for all to hunt them.

[Winshester]

I suggest completely removing level protection from a server once my account reaches level 50.

[Winchester]

I suggest completely removing level protection from a server once my account reaches level 50.

[Ron Burgandy]

Couldn't level protection simply be changed to:

You cannot be attacked by anyone 50% higher level than you.
The level protection rules, up to the after level 30 you're free game, still apply
-example, you are level 50. You are then protected from anyone over level 75.
-example, you are level 18. You are protected from anyone over level 28.
-example, you are level 30. You are protected from anyone over level 45.
As long as you're level 30, you basically take your level, times it by 1.5, you have your magic number.