Poll: Gear Score Requirements

Starting tomorrow, there will be a cap to the quality/amount of equipment (armor, weapons, banners, artifacts) that a unit can equip. This limit will be dependent on their level.
Requirements given here:
http://www.battleconforum.com/t881-gear-score-limits-per-level-of-unit

What are your opinions on this, and give reasoned, justified explanations for them. Keep it civil, keep it professional, and be thorough.

Poll wrote:

5)The limitations are too strict, while some may agree that a L1 unit shouldn't equip godlikes, it should be able to equip uncommons (which they cannot)

The transition from level 1 to level 2 is probably 2-4 battles. A unit can then equip uncommon items.

The problems I see with this change:
1--IT WASN"T DISCUSSED WITH THE PLAYER BASE!
Seriously, STOP MAKING SWEEPING CHANGES that alter the gameplay in a very fundamental way without talking to your players---THIS IS HOW GAMES DIE!

2)The low end units barely have ANY available GS. The first 3 levels DO come quickly, when we're able to equip our units with the items necessary to keep them alive. Forcing low levels to run around naked means I'll be able to have them engage 1 unit and then force them to withdraw in order to keep them alive. This will especially be true in the new NM with lvl 20 units!

3)Devs seem to have forgotten that even end-game players have to get lvl 1 units whenever they upgrade their barracks. It's going to take even longer to get units up to respectable levels without being able to put gear on them.

4)Level 20 units? 98% of the player base don't even have lvl 11 units yet. Don't cater to the top 1% of players unless you only want to keep that 1% of players!

5)Low level units need help, high level ones dont... but with the GS set as they are, it's just the reverse that happens. After 20 levels units will have +60 stats spread around from leveling, added to the boosts from research, they'll be able to cap out on stats with nothing higher than rares, why would we WANT to be able to put 500 AP worth of gear on them?

6)The values are completely imbalanced. How can someone even HAVE 530 AP in equipment on a single unit? I don't think GLs can go up to 130 AP each. Low level units can't even equip 4 Commons, not commons that give more than 1-2 bonus anyway.

7)The progression of low to high level is going to screw with the 35% rule. It's already annoying enough equiping lights/archers to be able to send in heavies.

8)Barracks AP limits won't ever be able to be approached with low level units with the current limits. I've got a higher barracks to be able to send in more/quality troops to combat.... now that benefit is being removed.

9)Purchased GLs aren't able to be used for a week/two of gameplay? How is this a good idea?

10)How much coding/development time was put into this while we've been waiting impatiently for GW2? Why is -THIS- being introduced when we still don't have the guild bonuses we've been waiting THREE DAMN MONTHS for? You've already got plenty on your plate, stop grabbing more until you've finished!
Honestly--this is the point that has me the most ticked off, we could've had GW finished if you'd stop getting distracted! FOCUS PEOPLE!

11)It seems like all the changes you're coming out with lately and intended to squeeze/limit players using gear. That's a huge part of the game, let us use the equipment we've fought so hard to earn.
Seriously--Stop Nerfing things, it's pissing people off.




---Solutions (because unless a solution is proposed, it's just whining and complaining)

Take the whole system back to the drawing board, rebalance the numbers for levels. The low levels are too low, and unless you come out with "universe breaking" equipment that 530 AP limit is purely academic.

Allow a research tree to add to the GS usable by units. This would allow older/veteran players to be able to equip their quality gear they've got from hundreds of battles. 5 Tiers of 10% increase each would allow old players to use the stuff they've fought hard to get.

Perhaps just allow a battle gear limit, comparable to the 35% rule, but for equipment. Limit the amount of gear you can have per battle, but not per unit. So that way my high levels, that don't need help, can run naked, but contribute their GS to the lower units... the ones i REALLY want to put lots of equipment on.

RuneSlayer wrote:

Poll wrote:

5)The limitations are too strict, while some may agree that a L1 unit shouldn't equip godlikes, it should be able to equip uncommons (which they cannot)

The transition from level 1 to level 2 is probably 2-4 battles. A unit can then equip uncommon items.

ONE uncommon item, and a common... WHOHO!

Bonez, I never thought these words would be coming off my keyboard, but I totally love you right now.

Bonezz, I don't like you.
You sniped my Godlike Fragment.

But very well written post mate.

i belive its too early to poll about new changes. Give them week or two and then lets discuss about it.

Ahem, those paying noobs!... Now I'll go and ruin your day... (and ha Aella, I wouldn't want your temporary love anyway, you don't even pvp me!)

Bonezz wrote:

2)The low end units barely have ANY available GS. The first 3 levels DO come quickly, when we're able to equip our units with the items necessary to keep them alive.  Forcing low levels to run around naked means I'll be able to have them engage 1 unit and then force them to withdraw in order to keep them alive. This will especially be true in the new NM with lvl 20 units!

Yeah, lvl 3 units fighting NM. You're insane. You know what? The non-paying noobs have to do that running around naked, because they have no items yet. So what?

Bonezz wrote:

3)Devs seem to have forgotten that even end-game players have to get lvl 1 units whenever they upgrade their barracks.  It's going to take even longer to get units up to respectable levels without being able to put gear on them.

no issue here. Leveling up isn't hard.

Bonezz wrote:

5)Low level units need help, high level ones dont... but with the GS set as they are, it's just the reverse that happens.  After 20 levels units will have +60 stats spread around from leveling, added to the boosts from research, they'll be able to cap out on stats with nothing higher than rares, why would we WANT to be able to put 500 AP worth of gear on them?  
6)The values are completely imbalanced.  How can someone even HAVE 530 AP in equipment on a single unit? I don't think GLs can go up to 130 AP each.  Low level units can't even equip 4 Commons, not commons that give more than 1-2 bonus anyway.

Yeah this part seems to make sense. The capping from stats, so nice. 530.. Maybe they WILL add items or raise stats or whatever, just some breathing room. Including hero gear into unit..?

Bonezz wrote:

7)The progression of low to high level is going to screw with the 35% rule. It's already annoying enough equiping lights/archers to be able to send in heavies.

How so? 35% rule isn't directly affected. Even I can send hi/cavs with naked lia... More naked LI or putting heroes on them. It's effing easy! And irrelevant to this topic.

Bonezz wrote:

9)Purchased GLs aren't able to be used for a week/two of gameplay? How is this a good idea?

How is it a good idea to buy them? And seriously, in one week of normal gameplay (50 battles a day or less) units gonna be lvl 6+ easily.

Bonezz wrote:

FOCUS PEOPLE!

Yay

Bonezz wrote:

11)It seems like all the changes you're coming out with lately and intended to squeeze/limit players using gear. That's a huge part of the game, let us use the equipment we've fought so hard to earn.
Seriously--Stop Nerfing things, it's pissing people off.

yes, the whole point is to prevent godlike noobs running around. Fought hard to earn? PFFFT, you bought them with real money. The effing easiest way. Let premium players do everything, right. Then they whine that devs will lose all profit etc. Better lose some paying noobs than all playerbase while trying to make everything easy for those who pay the most. Nerfs ARE NEEDED. Maybe not now, maybe it's rushed a bit, but needed.

Bonezz wrote:

Perhaps just allow a battle gear limit, comparable to the 35% rule, but for equipment. Limit the amount of gear you can have per battle, but not per unit.  So that way my high levels, that don't need help, can run naked, but contribute their GS to the lower units... the ones i REALLY want to put lots of equipment on.

Nonsense, it doesn't fix anything and well if I want to have all gl units in a battle, due to total GS I couldn't..? But oh so nice, noobs could equip their lvl 2.

Some of you say that everyone who isn't affected is happy. Well, ALL OF US ARE AFFECTED. All freaking new units after barracks upgrades.. Higher levels more so than those 1-5 lvls... And well, lvl 10+ mostly DO use rares or epics, underusing GS while noobs want to run around in godlikes. Is it normal? If you'd just battle a bit, all level requirements would soon become irrelevant.
Also I noticed in chats some premium noobs complaining how from now on they won't be able to gear up their units and couldn't battle (they die without godlikes? Quite hard to do if using some basic strategy instead of charging...). But they don't go and fight while they still can. Better to whine and complain how devs are effectively robbing them.

Well I just like countering things =p But wtf, few people with perma-low levels (you won't have lvl 5+ anytime, with such lazy attitude) making so much noise, especially BEFORE IT EVEN GETS IMPLEMENTED.

Fyrr, just quickly.

You realise Free to Play games still exist with the purpose of making money right?

As noble as the Dev's might be, they will not run a game as a charity out of their own pockets. So essentially the 'premium players' (ie. Those who pay money) are the ones that keep this game going.

Without money the game dies. It's all well and good for a game to have a million players, but if none of them pay any money, the game won't be around for very long. So paying players are ABSOLUTELY more important than free players, because free players (other than having fun) don't actually contribute anything to the business model (which is profit, or at least splitting even).

So to say that paying players shouldn't have their way because they got it easier, well.......a company can't survive on the basis of 'well I've played for weeks and weeks to 'earn' those items'. To us this is a game, to them its their job. All the 'time and effort' in the world won't do a thing for a company when it doesn't generate them any money.

Note: I really didn't read through your whole post. Just picked out your reply to Bonez's (11).

PS. I'm not trying to advocate a "Pay to Win" model. But at the same time we all need to understand that if real money items in the game lose their value, they will be purchased less, which means the company gets less money, which means it will cease to exist that much sooner, which none of us want to happen. (Unless of course this is one of those cases where these guys are multi-millionaires and couldn't care less about the profit and are doing this purely out of 'fun'). - I doubt it.

I would like to clarify a few things, because the poll has several choices which are totally incorrect. I would suggest people who start polls, which have a "suggestive" character to be more informed and do not try to pass along misinformation.

Poll wrote:

4)This is an interesting concept and should be pursued, but it should be discussed more with the player base before release to ensure proper balance.

This change had been announced maybe 2-3 months ago, but the development workflow only allowed it to go live today. If we made a change which would be in favor of one group and against another, then we would definitely have made a post about it in order to start a discussion. However, this change is something that affects the whole playerbase and since PVP is only allowed between armies of a specific level range and GS limitations per level of unit prevent large differences in GS, there is no advantage for one group over the other. The only effect that it will have for some players, is the fact that they may have to change their current gear composition, WITHOUT rendering items obsolete or useless, as they can be used either at another level or as part of a different gear composition.

Poll wrote:

5)The limitations are too strict, while some may agree that a L1 unit shouldn't equip godlikes, it should be able to equip uncommons (which they cannot)

Totally inaccurate. With a Gear Score (GS) cap of 8 at level 1, and with a min GS for Uncommon items at 4, this means that a level 1 unit can equip 2 Uncommon Items.

Poll wrote:

6)The lower tiers (where 90% of the units are) have far too few GS allowed, most people will never be able to equip quality rares due to casual game play.

Once again, this is totally inaccurate. The min GS for a Rare item is 7 and the average GS for Rares is 14, which means that a player could equip a level 2 unit with either 2 low level Rare items or 1 avg Rare item.  Remember, leveling a unit from level 1 to level 2-3 takes maybe 1-2 hours (max).

Poll wrote:

7)The higher tiers are far too generous with their GS. This will make high level units far too powerful and result in a very steep curve of difficulty.

I do not understand the logic behind it. Why does it seem so illogical to you? Higher level units can equip higher level items. As for the difficulty...What difficulty are you referring to? You want level 5 units to fight against level 12 units in PVP and have a chance to win?  I apologize, but this is not the kind of game we want to develop and have. We reward players who invest time and effort in the game and we want to create an entertaining, fair, balanced and progressive gaming experience. Perhaps are you referring to PVE, which is scaling according to the player's level, so there is no steep curve of difficulty there....

Bonezz wrote:

Forcing low levels to run around naked means I'll be able to have them engage 1 unit and then force them to withdraw in order to keep them alive. This will especially be true in the new NM with lvl 20 units!

Who is forcing players to run around naked? And you want to do Nightmare difficulty battles with low level units.....? The difficulties are there for a reason....It is called game progression.

Bonezz wrote:

3)Devs seem to have forgotten that even end-game players have to get lvl 1 units whenever they upgrade their barracks. It's going to take even longer to get units up to respectable levels without being able to put gear on them.

Heavy Infantry is twice if not 2.5 more effective than Light Infantry. Cavalry around 1.8 more effective than Light Infantry. So, although they start at level 1, they are more effective by default, and they will gain XP much faster because the player is already playing on a higher difficulty than when he had to play with his level 1 Light Infantries.

Bonezz wrote:

5)Low level units need help, high level ones dont... but with the GS set as they are, it's just the reverse that happens. After 20 levels units will have +60 stats spread around from leveling, added to the boosts from research, they'll be able to cap out on stats with nothing higher than rares, why would we WANT to be able to put 500 AP worth of gear on them?

6)The values are completely imbalanced. How can someone even HAVE 530 AP in equipment on a single unit? I don't think GLs can go up to 130 AP each. Low level units can't even equip 4 Commons, not commons that give more than 1-2 bonus anyway.

Again, the changes affect the whole playerbase, not just the high level players or the low level players. The 500 GS includes Heroes' AP, their items and extra features coming up, such as Runes on items that players will be able to add.

Bonezz wrote:

7)The progression of low to high level is going to screw with the 35% rule. It's already annoying enough equiping lights/archers to be able to send in heavies.

No, actually it is not, as the progression is much smoother now. The reason why there is a 35% rule, is so there is a balance between armies and so we have tactical battles and not a shoot em up experience where you just add Heavy Infantries or Special Units and the player with the highest gear and the best type of unit wins the battle.

Bonezz wrote:

10)How much coding/development time was put into this while we've been waiting impatiently for GW2? Why is -THIS- being introduced when we still don't have the guild bonuses we've been waiting THREE DAMN MONTHS for? You've already got plenty on your plate, stop grabbing more until you've finished!
Honestly--this is the point that has me the most ticked off, we could've had GW finished if you'd stop getting distracted! FOCUS PEOPLE!

We are pretty focused on what we are doing and we have spent countless sleepless nights to deliver the product you are currently playing. In a project, as complicated as this, there exist countless things that need to be taken care of. While you are playing the game and you are having fun with it (perhaps?), some people have to make sure that the game remains stable, fix bugs and develop the coming features.

EDIT--TLDR @ Bottom
If you read all the poll choices, there are several choices which allow people to express their content with the decision. If someone likes something, they like it, it doesn't require a large number of options to discuss what they like about it. The same is not true for dislikes, as people may like 90% of something, but the other 10% they dislike could be what makes it completely unappealing to them. That is why there are more "what I dont like" options. I tried to give a number of options so as to filter out the specifics of what problems the playerbase had, not to give leading answers.

Just because an UC item 'can' be 4 ap, doesn't mean they're the ones that people use. Most people sell/break/ignore the low + items. A +9 melee uncommon costs 11 points. That's ONE uncommon, and it can't be held by a level one unit,  in fact it would take a level 5 unit to be able to wear 4 pieces of 'high end' uncommon equipment.

If you just said that GS of a unit includes the value of the hero and the heroes equipment you just totally destroyed any argument for the currently proposed numbers. So not only will a unit have to limit itself with what it wears, but its hero's equipment is counted against it as well?

This WILL affect different people differently. Players that have been playing a long time (like Fyrr, the only player that's voiced agreement on the forum) already have lvl 10+ units and aren't likely to gain more than a few more as they've already got lvl 20+ barracks and are capped out on units. They'll not have an issue with low level units struggling to equip more than 1 uncommon or rare.  This is screwing low level players more than others, and low level premiums most of all. (Which Fyrr was one of, he's been running around with GL+ troops for a long time)

As far as the 'rapid leveling' that's been discussed, I've had the +25% exp bonus + dragon bonus for 24 days, which just recently expired, and after earning 40k CP (30k CP+ during that 24 days) I don't have a level 10 unit. Most of them are lvl 7-9ish.  My heroes are between 7-8.

Note--the biggest problem that people are having is the pathetically low GS allowed for the low levels. Just increasing the allowed values for the first 10 levels will alleviate most of the disagreement. Quick solution, use the unit table for heroes, and add the heroes table to the unit table (so 11 for lvl 1, 20 for level 2, 31 for level 3, etc)  That would be a great compromise. Keep GL lvl1s, but allow EQUIPPED low levels as well.

If you're concerned about equipment issues in PVP. Fine--Use GS, but only in PVP matches. Allow people to keep playing their solo games as they always have, with the same gear they always have.

No, this was not really discussed with the player base. It was mentioned a while back, but it wasn't discussed as coming soon. The only things we've been told are coming soon are the GW expansions... which still have not arrived.  In order for there to be a discussion, there need to be posts made in a forum section that ALLOWS REPLIES.  Before you start programming a large change, take polls (fill in your own questions if these were too 'leading'), ask for people's opinion in the general forum, in short TALK TO YOUR PLAYERS.  If you don't (and you haven't) you can't be surprised when people get mad when changes are made!

We are not mad that you fix bugs or do server maintenance. No one will fault those required distractions. The issues we have is when large amounts of programming to into complicated AI improvements (something that needed to be done, just not done NOW), or various 'rebalancing' issues (which aren't really NEEDED, just preferred), that detract from the big update that, again, STILL HASN"T ARRIVED.

If you 'need a break' from GW2 or GW3 coding, do other utility upgrades that people have been begging for since before GW was even discussed--Better search options in the market, the ability to filter/search by various things in the rankings list (CP/MVP/faction/guild filters/etc). Put in the ability for guild members to use their guild bank! (To prevent the sniping of very delicious GL artifact fragments... which may result in 2 lightside players deciding to find another game to play where their stuff can't get 'stolen'--and justifiably so)

Don't get so defensive when people disagree with your changes. The fact that we're posing onthe forums means that, believe it or not, we LIKE your game and we want it to get BETTER! (and definitely avoid it getting worse!)  Many of the people here have been playing various games for 20-30-40 years, we've seen what works and what doesn't. We know when games are making decisions that are going to result in lost players, and we know that when games lose some players due to bad changes, it ends up losing MORE players just because OTHER players quit.  There are hundreds of other online games people can choose to play.  Piss players off, and they'll just not come back... ever.


Also, if you look at the polls, half of the people like, and half the people dislike (give or take). So there is definitely grounds to discuss this further.

TLDR
The poll questions aren't leading. First options support the changes
UC items that PEOPLE USE are closer to 7-11 in cost. No one but the newest players use the +4 stat bonuses.
GS limits of units shouldn't use any equipment on the hero.
Older players with L20+ barracks won't notice this as much as the players in the barracks 14-20 range, with units lower than level 8.
Getting up to lvl 4 doesn't take long, getting to level 8 takes a serious investment. Getting to level 10+ takes damn near forever.
Increasing the GS for the first 10 levels will make people a lot happier with this change.
If its a PVP concern with low levels/GLs, make GS only apply to PVP battles!
"Discussing" means talking with people. Not just making declarations.
The updates we don't want taking up time are the large chunks that alter gameplay. Bugs/maintenance are completely acceptable/expected.
Other coding schemes taken up should be the simple ones that make gameplay more streamlined *interface updates F.EX*
Don't get so mad when people disagree with you. We do it to make the game better, listen to other's opinions.
The split in the poll shows there is grounds to discuss this change.

I will sum it up this way.

Developers have every right to roll out sweeping changes and don't need to discuss a thing with their players beforehand.

Players who support the game financially have every right to move their money to another game.

The main reason that such compromises and discussions to exist is because developers don't like the prospect of turning their communities into ghost towns.

Now you can talk about how illogical human feelings are, but they do drive the impulse to stay around or to leave. If people feel cheated or scammed, they will leave- often feeling scorned. I've been a gamer chick for 15 years now and I've played a lot of games. I've watched plenty of them die because developers felt that they could force changes on the players or revoke benefits that the players paid for.

In every case, the players experienced negative feelings. Usually the migration isn't immediate. Players are forgiving and patient for a while, but if they are scorned often enough, the community turns into a ghost town.

I'll use Cybernations as an example. Because the administration allowed the members of the largest and most powerful alliance dictate all of the game changes, and the majority was screwed several times, the number of nations took a sharp drop from over 250k to under 30k. That number never recovered and probably won't.

What I see here again are changes that placate the few and enrage the many. It is only a matter of time before the many say to themselves that there are plenty of games on the internet where you build a city and an army and wage war with them. (Evony, Grepolis, Roma, etc)

The developers are full well in their rights to proceed and can ignore the players' wishes. But because this is a free market and so many of these games are similar, players also have the right to go elsewhere.

Aella wrote:

I will sum it up this way.

Developers have every right to roll out sweeping changes and don't need to discuss a thing with their players beforehand.

Players who support the game financially have every right to move their money to another game.

The main reason that such compromises and discussions to exist is because developers don't like the prospect of turning their communities into ghost towns.

Now you can talk about how illogical human feelings are, but they do drive the impulse to stay around or to leave. If people feel cheated or scammed, they will leave- often feeling scorned. I've been a gamer chick for 15 years now and I've played a lot of games. I've watched plenty of them die because developers felt that they could force changes on the players or revoke benefits that the players paid for.

In every case, the players experienced negative feelings. Usually the migration isn't immediate. Players are forgiving and patient for a while, but if they are scorned often enough, the community turns into a ghost town.

I'll use Cybernations as an example. Because the administration allowed the members of the largest and most powerful alliance dictate all of the game changes, and the majority was screwed several times, the number of nations took a sharp drop from over 250k to under 30k. That number never recovered and probably won't.

What I see here again are changes that placate the few and enrage the many. It is only a matter of time before the many say to themselves that there are plenty of games on the internet where you build a city and an army and wage war with them. (Evony, Grepolis, Roma, etc)

The developers are full well in their rights to proceed and can ignore the players' wishes. But because this is a free market and so many of these games are similar, players also have the right to go elsewhere.

you also know, and this poll is proof of it, you cannot please everybody. gear limits (or items you can use at certain levels)are good idea, and quite common in most games. it was not a scam to introduce it, but instead a feature the devs did not had time to implement yet. and its quite true that it had been discussed in this forum and was a planned feature. you also know that this games are long term and in relatively little time you will be able to use all your items again.

games that lean too much on payed content or have strong "pay to win" philosophy tend to have a small amount of players. having loads of free content is a good way to have a large player base that is also the interest of paying players.
devs have to balance these requirements and they are trying to. i honestly cannot see any malicious attempt from the devs to scam anyone and you should be more understanding of what the devs are trying to.

nathor wrote:

games that lean too much on payed content or have strong "pay to win" philosophy tend to have a small amount of players. having loads of free content is a good way to have a large player base that is also the interest of paying players.
devs have to balance these requirements and they are trying to. i honestly cannot see any malicious attempt from the devs to scam anyone and you should be more understanding of what the devs are trying to.

The only people who benefit from these changes are in the top guilds or the top 100. The new features like "runes on gear" definitely won't benefit me. The new merc units? Well, you just removed my ability to nightmare that I worked for, so how will I access this? The top guilds have the lock on those regions and since my ability to produce IP has been reduced drastically, there is little that the smaller guilds can do the influence the big ones anymore.

These changes give the larger players and guilds supremacy while punishing all the other players by taking AWAY access to things they already had access to.

You are talking about having as much content available as possible? How do changes that limit what the majority of the players are going to have access to and keep them from accessing what they once could accomplish this?

Aella wrote:

The only people who benefit from these changes are in the top guilds or the top 100.

The new changes are not considered beneficial to one group or another. They are a core change in the mechanics of the game to provide a smooth game progression which rewards players by giving them the ability to equip higher level items to their units as they level up.

Aella wrote:

The new features like "runes on gear" definitely won't benefit me.

Aella, why are you so negative? Do you even know how this system will work? Why so much negativity?

Aella wrote:

The new merc units? Well, you just removed my ability to nightmare that I worked for, so how will I access this?

What do the Mercenary units have to do with the Nightmare difficulty? Guilds which control the relevant regions will have access to them and they will also be accessible as a premium. However, Gems purchased Mercenaries will be available only till a certain level, while Guilds will be able to recruit Mercenaries to level 20, IF the regional bonus is of course upgraded.

Aella wrote:

he top guilds have the lock on those regions and since my ability to produce IP has been reduced drastically, there is little that the smaller guilds can do the influence the big ones anymore.

A player with level 6 units was NEVER supposed to be able to be as effective in terms of combat/CP/Influence as a player with level 10 units. Why can't you understand that?

However, the taller you are, the easier you fall. Have smaller Guilds unite against a high level Guild and you can bring it down. Diplomacy, strategy, tactics...everything works... PAY 2 WIN doesn't....and NEVER WILL....as long as I'm in charge of this game.

Aella wrote:

These changes give the larger players and guilds supremacy while punishing all the other players by taking AWAY access to things they already had access to.

Not true...I've mentioned so many times why...

Aella wrote:

You are talking about having as much content available as possible? How do changes that limit what the majority of the players are going to have access to and keep them from accessing what they once could accomplish this?

Battle Conquest is a persistent world. New people are always joining the game world, so saying that the majority of the people have level 10+ units is simply.....incorrect. It is called progression. You start as a new player and slowly you progress. A week after, you are one week ahead compared to a new player...etc. etc.

Rune is making a lot of sense. I'd personally like to see what the changes look/feel like before passing judgement. I do like the idea of smoother progression as it rewards those who stick with the game for a period of time while also incenting newer players to growth through both fame AND BATTLE, which is after all the entire purpose. Even as a fairly high level player I'm sure I'll run across situations where gear score might impact me in equipping full gls, but that just forces me to think differently, which is not necessarily a bad thing...

Aella wrote:

nathor wrote:

games that lean too much on payed content or have strong "pay to win" philosophy tend to have a small amount of players. having loads of free content is a good way to have a large player base that is also the interest of paying players.
devs have to balance these requirements and they are trying to. i honestly cannot see any malicious attempt from the devs to scam anyone and you should be more understanding of what the devs are trying to.

The only people who benefit from these changes are in the top guilds or the top 100. The new features like "runes on gear" definitely won't benefit me.

we went trough that already...

Quote :

The new merc units? Well, you just removed my ability to nightmare that I worked for, so how will I access this?

? i think you can still do nm, especially with 2 epics per unit. that is a 5-10 level boost.

Quote :

The top guilds have the lock on those regions and since my ability to produce IP has been reduced drastically, there is little that the smaller guilds can do the influence the big ones anymore.

ah, really forget about it. you need large guild with many good players to win those regions. its not a few less aps per game that will make a difference. any way, guilds in this game are HUGE and you can always join a guild with such territories. of course, if you insist in your own guild, that will be quite an uphill struggle. and also, this game was planned to be like this quite some time ago. Guild wars layer 2 was design and discussed so much and its quite strange that some new player comes along and says that all is wrong when the vast majority of the players accepted what was to come long time ago.

Quote :

These changes give the larger players and guilds supremacy while punishing all the other players by taking AWAY access to things they already had access to.

what? you are mixing topics. no one took you access to mercs because no one has them yet. you lost the ability to use all of your items all at the same time and only til you gain a 2-3 levels.

Quote :

You are talking about having as much content available as possible? How do changes that limit what the majority of the players are going to have access to and keep them from accessing what they once could accomplish this?

-look, we are going to have new units to play with and against! yay!
-NM's will be more challenging for top players because we gonna fight level 20 units
-coops will be more challenging for tope players because of changes in the AI.
-pvps of top players with noobs will be impossible., so easy wins are taken away.
finally, many of us have been waiting and eagerly preparing til the time GW lawer 2 arrived. it has been almost 2 months without any serious new content and there where some players that left the game meanwhile out of boredom. we are super happy.
its just silly that someone still relatively new to the game suddenly comes along and says everything is wrong when all that is coming in this patch, including the gear limits was already planed and announced long ago.