Unfreeze High Levels? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Unfreeze High Levels? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Caterane
11-01-06, 09:34 AM This is a community poll to see who would be interested in seeing the higher leagues (ECL 10+) unfreeze. It would begin with the Iron Man Tournament. After that, the leagues would be unfrozen and combined:

ECL 10
ECL 11-12
ECL 13-14
ECL 15-16
ECL 17-18
ECL 19-20

This is to have enough characters in a league.

If you vote, you could perhaps also add a reason for your decision.

You have one Voice and poll closes on Nov 10.

Note: I voted "I don't care" because I cannot see the results else. Doesn't reflect my personal opinion.
waywreth
11-01-06, 09:37 AM I would say it would depend if we have the Pitlords to support the high levels. I would think that higher level fights are both more complicated (more options) and often shorter (combat is both brief and bloody).

Perhaps do the much anticipated "Iron Man", then unfreeze one level per week/month or the like?
SoulLord
11-01-06, 09:41 AM I voted for it even if we have a limited amount of pitlords the truth is also that we have a limited amount of players
if someone wishes to play with his 10th lvl character its very likely that at the same time he won't be using his new 3rd lvl character as well.

How about to prevent pitlord shortage that each activation of a frozen character costs as 2 regular activations?
Krytos
11-01-06, 09:42 AM I'm going to have to agree with waywreth, only if we have enough pitlords for it. Other than that, I really don't care one way or the other as I have no characters anywhere close to that.
Macbrea
11-01-06, 09:52 AM The only reason I am playing my new characters at this point is because I cannot keep advancing Lord Frost. I am all for opening up the higher levels. The fights at that level take about the same amount of time as a fight at the lower levels. Things die quickly and decisively in about the same amount of rounds.

The only stipulation I would put on fighting at those levels is the following rule:

Monster fights in this range are only availble for teams. Single individuals will not be paired against one monster.
McJarvis
11-01-06, 09:58 AM So long as there are enough players for a competitive atmosphere, eh?
TelinArtho
11-01-06, 10:08 AM I am all for opening up the higher leagues. I see it as a potential for some players to continue on with builds that they thought would have to be "ended" at ECL10.

I am not concerned about the number of pitlords - as this number will always fluctuate. While I hope at some point more players will take on Pitlording responsibility, it is not required. It is unlikely any single player will take a character to ECL10 without some use of credits somewhere along the way - and pitlording is the most likely avenue to gain them. I see opening up the higher leagues as incentive for more pitlords.
Vathelokai
11-01-06, 10:11 AM I've been waiting for 12 lv. + casters since I started, and now that 3 of my characters are close to frozen, I'm anxious to have those leagues open.

I'm not sure if it's nessicary to combine leagues like that (11-12, 13-14, etc.). I see the reasoning, but I'm not sure.

I agree with SoulLord; having high lv. activations count as 2 activations could solve an overcrowding problem.

As for pitlord shortage, I don't think it will be any different than we have now or in the past.
Macbrea
11-01-06, 10:13 AM We have alot of people that are creating level 3 characters just to be able to stay around. Example: Last time I played Lord Frost was 3-31-06. As I am not in a guild, mostly because he didn't at the time agree with any of the guilds or qualify for the ones he wished to be in. I was left with the choice make Izumi or quit playing until the league opened.

I do feel though that we shouldn't allow people to complete advance on monsters by themselves. By requiring characters to work as teams against monsters or fight each other it reduces the pitlord load and creates working relationships.
hogarth
11-01-06, 10:17 AM I think that -- like it or not -- the pool of higher level characters is always going to be limited. Thus the higher leagues might as well be unfrozen sooner than later so that those who don't mind the limited pool of opponents can keep progressing their characters.
Hirumajoe
11-01-06, 10:17 AM I do feel though that we shouldn't allow people to complete advance on monsters by themselves. By requiring characters to work as teams against monsters or fight each other it reduces the pitlord load and creates working relationships.

I also agree with this sentiment.

I also voted to open the high level leagues, even though I don't have any character near that level. I'm thinking if the Iron man tournament really has been floating around for over a year, actually implimenting it as opposed to letting it float around for another year seems like the thing to do.
Abyssal Stalker
11-01-06, 12:58 PM I voted "yes", because I don't really see a reason they should be frozen. This gives people more freedom with their beloved characters and might even be a good way to attract new people. Maybe even reducing the credit cost of activating new characters to make it easier to get a higher level character - otherwise it takes a year to get there.
Macbrea
11-01-06, 01:20 PM At one point in time, the cost was 4o per level to activate. You can still see it reflected in Advanced rules credit system. When the first State of Emergancy was created it was raised to 5o per level. With the excuse that it would motivate people to pitlord more. I think in truth it did the opposite. It devalued credits.

But each person has their opinion on what would motivate people to do stuff. Making life harder on them rarely is a form of motivation.
McJarvis
11-01-06, 01:25 PM But each person has their opinion on what would motivate people to do stuff. Making life harder on them rarely is a form of motivation.

I would have to agree on this point. CoCo is already frustrating enough for new players to make them not want to join....
MindWandererB
11-01-06, 02:05 PM I agree with Macbrea. As my characters approach ECL 10, I'm creating new ones at lower levels to replace them. There will be no need for that if they are allowed to continue.

There's also the guild issue: there are several cases where characters with high ECLs are required (like those damned Denthians in Chanadar). It's also not hard to raise guild-related MQs to an EL of 13 (Class A and B structures, one guard post, friendly district), which is steep for ECL 10 characters.

I don't think this will result in more drain on pitlords: every high-level character that activates is one less low-level one. And that's what credits are for.

However: I think monster fights should be a no-go at those levels. PC vs. PC only. That prevents any one character from outstripping all others.
Caterane
11-01-06, 02:12 PM Seems like everyone (and their dog) wants to see high level fights. I'll try to get to set up the Iron Man for December. We should inform inactive players of ECL 10 characters that they now have a chance to win a Custom Avatar. We also have to begin to form teams to fill the slots. It's either 16 or 32 participants.

It's just a pity that I have no time to participate in the Iron Man Tournament. But then, I already have a Custom Avatar *shrugs*
TelinArtho
11-01-06, 02:16 PM I guess that means I'll have to finish getting Kraegin to ECL10...

like those damned Denthians in Chanadar

Denthians aren't damned... they're misunderstood :)
Erithmu
11-01-06, 02:53 PM @Cat: I would recommend setting the Ironman tourney to start at the end of your Campaign. If your Campaign is still going during the Ironman then there is the issue of crossing over, and then level ups during the tourney, gaining new abilities, having to switch gears for xp in the campaign, etc etc.

PS: voted yes
Caterane
11-01-06, 02:55 PM My campaign is not even halfway done. We could allow you to participate despite being in the campaign. You'll be frozen soon anyway.
Zevox
11-01-06, 03:05 PM Voted yes! Asran hsn't been frozen long, but I can already tell you I'd love to be able to go beyond ECL 10 with my characters. Some don't hit thier stride until past then. Asran is a good example - until he gets Blackguard abilities at level 12 (Dark Blessing) and 13 (Rebuke Undead + Divine Might, 2nd level divine spells), hes not so scary as he might otherwise be. Another is Mindrel - once I get him going, hes not much to play/look at until level 8, and doesn't get really good until 12+.

Of course, if this does happen, I may need to retire one or two of my current characters so that Mindrel and Mithos can activate with Asran no longer frozen... ah well, a bridge to cross when I come to it.

Zevox
SauroGrenom
11-01-06, 04:40 PM Yea I'd love to see higher level open up. Even if it was only campaigns and miniquests, that would still be great.

It's just a pity that I have no time to participate in the Iron Man Tournament.

Perhaps us rabble will have a chance.;)
NiQil
11-01-06, 10:07 PM I would have to agree with the yes sentiment. I don't think it is necessary to make higher levels count as more activations or cost credits...as many have said, higher level activations mean less lower level activations. I am also unsure if it will be necessary to pair the leagues as Cat has presented them. I can see both sides of that argument.

This might even be reason enough for me to not retire the Horsemen :)
Erithmu
11-01-06, 11:23 PM hrum ... teams ...

If anyone has another ECL 8 char that they would like to pair up with Loddick, I would rather run a team than run Ignatius in the Iron man, and I'm not going to be able to level Loddick up in time to run ECL 10 on his own as it would take 6 weeks to pull it off, and finding a questlord so that I won't have to chance in the arena.
Hirumajoe
11-02-06, 12:22 AM Hmm... Teams... So if I can find 4 other like minded ECL 5 characters by the time the Iron man rolls around (since Valen will be ECL 5 in a maximum of two weeks), can they go into the Iron man as a team? Since ECL 5 + 5 characters = ECL 10?

Otherwise, I'll be cheering from the Coliseum bleachers for the underdog. Whoever that might be. :)
MindWandererB
11-02-06, 12:26 AM Hmm... Teams... So if I can find 4 other like minded ECL 5 characters by the time the Iron man rolls around (since Valen will be ECL 5 in a maximum of two weeks), can they go into the Iron man as a team? Since ECL 5 + 5 characters = ECL 10?

Otherwise, I'll be cheering from the Coliseum bleachers for the underdog. Whoever that might be. :)
Sorry, H, but fights always have a max of 4 participants. Most you could do might be 3 ECL 7's.

@Rith: Hmm... if Besthirah hasn't leveled up by then, I could send her. She's one fight away from leveling, but I only use her for guild actions. Unfortunately, Sunstroke just levelled to 9.
Vathelokai
11-02-06, 05:44 AM Maybe we could allow mixed ECL9+ECL7 vs ECL 10. That works out if I understand correctly.

I've got my new Antalya character from uncon that could go for a team. Denshi and Auburn will both probably be ECL 10 at that time. Hassan might be able to level up to a team ECL.
Caterane
11-02-06, 07:28 AM I think we should make fixed teams more interesting. After all you face the disadvantage that you have to rely on another player.

Perhaps we could allow crafting for your team mate.
Other ideas for making fixed teams more attractive? I just think this is a great step into a living board with support so we should provide teams with some benefits.
Hirumajoe
11-02-06, 09:40 AM I think we should make fixed teams more interesting. After all you face the disadvantage that you have to rely on another player.

Perhaps we could allow crafting for your team mate.
Other ideas for making fixed teams more attractive? I just think this is a great step into a living board with support so we should provide teams with some benefits.

My only question in regards to this is what happen if/when the team splits up?

If the crafter is only using his resources to do the crafting and loaning it to the team mate, then after a split up, he most likely sells it back for 1/2 price, and hopefully recoups his cost. Gives incentive not to pay an npc crafter to add stuff the crafter can't make.

If the crafter is using his team mates resources and the team mate owns the item after crafting, this could cause problems. Since the character has essentially gotten an item (or many items) for half price for the cost of 10 credits, without spending a feat or even necessarily being a caster.

So simply allowing the loaning of equipment between teammates might be the way to go, as opposed to outright crafting for the ally. The crafter could make something for the ally and loan it, and in return the ally buys something and loans it to the crafter. In this case, the ally probably wants to make it something he could use as well, in case the team ever breaks up. Basically, you'd add a "loaned and received" equipment section to the character sheet of both, just for easy reference.
Sunwolf
11-02-06, 10:29 AM Since all my characters are frozen :eek: -- I would love to have the high level leagues unfrozen.
Gonbow
11-02-06, 01:55 PM With luck, Tatyana will be at ECL 8 in two weeks... or three if I send her on a quest, but I don't think quests are kosher in a S.O.E.

But regardless, a powerful kineticist makes a good addition to a team.
Caterane
11-02-06, 03:32 PM My only question in regards to this is what happen if/when the team splits up?

If the crafter is only using his resources to do the crafting and loaning it to the team mate, then after a split up, he most likely sells it back for 1/2 price, and hopefully recoups his cost. Gives incentive not to pay an npc crafter to add stuff the crafter can't make.

If the crafter is using his team mates resources and the team mate owns the item after crafting, this could cause problems. Since the character has essentially gotten an item (or many items) for half price for the cost of 10 credits, without spending a feat or even necessarily being a caster.

So simply allowing the loaning of equipment between teammates might be the way to go, as opposed to outright crafting for the ally. The crafter could make something for the ally and loan it, and in return the ally buys something and loans it to the crafter. In this case, the ally probably wants to make it something he could use as well, in case the team ever breaks up. Basically, you'd add a "loaned and received" equipment section to the character sheet of both, just for easy reference.
Sounds logical. Anything else? Perhaps something that helps non-caster teams?
Macbrea
11-02-06, 03:45 PM Loaned items isn't that big of deal. As long as they stay on the original character's character sheet. It really doesn't matter if the item is useable by the caster or not. Watch:

Wizard 9 makes longsword +3 cost = 18,315gp but to craft = 9,315gp and 720xp.

Because when he sells this item because it is no longer useful he gains half the market value or 9,107gp 5 sp.. Note. no profit in that deal. It does allow his traveling companion to use the sword as long as they are paired.
Erithmu
11-02-06, 04:47 PM With luck, Tatyana will be at ECL 8 in two weeks... or three if I send her on a quest, but I don't think quests are kosher in a S.O.E.

But regardless, a powerful kineticist makes a good addition to a team.

Just go look at Loddick and realize how much offensive firepower we would have ...
MindWandererB
11-02-06, 04:52 PM Just go look at Loddick and realize how much offensive firepower we would have ...
Just remember the "Iron Man" nature of the tournament. We'll see how far you can stretch those PPs.
SauroGrenom
11-02-06, 04:53 PM I suggested something simular a while back. My suggestion is a bit more flexible however.

Say that a warrior and wizard are teamed up. The wizard can use his feats and gold to make equipment for his ally, as Macbrea suggests. The problem with this is that the wizard is spending everything. He spends the feats and the gold. I think this price is a bit too high for the wizard to carry for the benifit of his ally.

Rather I suggest the wizard's feats can be "used" to make items for his ally using his ally's gold. This basicially allows the ally to buy some items at half price. If the team breaks up, then the character who cannot craft his own crafted items is required to simply sell them at 1/2 price. So in this case the warrior forks over the crafting cost to his wizard friend. As long as they work together he can use the weapon freely. Once they part ways, the sword is sold on the market at 1/2 price and the warrior's cash is refunded.
Hirumajoe
11-02-06, 06:12 PM I suggested something simular a while back. My suggestion is a bit more flexible however.

Say that a warrior and wizard are teamed up. The wizard can use his feats and gold to make equipment for his ally, as Macbrea suggests. The problem with this is that the wizard is spending everything. He spends the feats and the gold. I think this price is a bit too high for the wizard to carry for the benifit of his ally.

Rather I suggest the wizard's feats can be "used" to make items for his ally using his ally's gold. This basicially allows the ally to buy some items at half price. If the team breaks up, then the character who cannot craft his own crafted items is required to simply sell them at 1/2 price. So in this case the warrior forks over the crafting cost to his wizard friend. As long as they work together he can use the weapon freely. Once they part ways, the sword is sold on the market at 1/2 price and the warrior's cash is refunded.

That does seem reasonable. It deals with same problem and does let the other character pay his fair share. It also lets 100% of the groups cash be put through the crafting feat as opposed to 50%. I'd certainly be happy to see something like this put into the rules.

As for other options for groups, perhaps working out rules for attack-defend packages as used by groups. Being able to bring along a ranger/rogue with lots of skills and who can scout (and thus provide buffs rounds for the group as a whole) might be nice. As far as I know, group fights ignore the skill packages and so forth.
hogarth
11-02-06, 06:27 PM It seems odd that people are trying to think of ways to make team battles stronger for the team when regular interleague fights seem pretty balanced as it is. Why are we trying to tilt the odds farther in the team's favour?

And why are we discussing this in the "Unfreeze High Levels" thread?
SauroGrenom
11-02-06, 06:41 PM It seems odd that people are trying to think of ways to make team battles stronger for the team when regular interleague fights seem pretty balanced as it is. Why are we trying to tilt the odds farther in the team's favour?

And why are we discussing this in the "Unfreeze High Levels" thread?
This is here because it can play a roll in making more characters available for higher leagues. If you form teams that is one way to get more characters into higher leagues. If the higher leagues aer unfrozen, then there are lots of characters who suddenly become possible partners at ECL11 or higher.
Abyssal Stalker
11-03-06, 01:43 AM I think we shouldn't allow direct equipment swapping between teammates. This could lead to a twisted team where the other character is weak and only boosts the other to be a super-tank with practically double items. I am always told that equipment forms a big part of a combatants CR. I think that the total amount of each character's equipment should stay the same as a single character's of the same ECL. Allowing the other to craft for his teammate wouldn't break this rule, so that doesn't sound too bad.
Caterane
11-04-06, 10:05 AM Added Sauro's suggestion to the rules for parties. Anything else to make them more interesting?
Gonbow
11-04-06, 12:35 PM Just remember the "Iron Man" nature of the tournament. We'll see how far you can stretch those PPs.

That's what Psionic Foci and various Psionic feats are for. Mwahahaha.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caterane 11-01-06, 09:34 AM	This is a community poll to see who would be interested in seeing the higher leagues (ECL 10+) unfreeze. It would begin with the Iron Man Tournament. After that, the leagues would be unfrozen and combined: ECL 10 ECL 11-12 ECL 13-14 ECL 15-16 ECL 17-18 ECL 19-20 This is to have enough characters in a league. If you vote, you could perhaps also add a reason for your decision. You have one Voice and poll closes on Nov 10. Note: I voted "I don't care" because I cannot see the results else. Doesn't reflect my personal opinion.
waywreth 11-01-06, 09:37 AM	I would say it would depend if we have the Pitlords to support the high levels. I would think that higher level fights are both more complicated (more options) and often shorter (combat is both brief and bloody). Perhaps do the much anticipated "Iron Man", then unfreeze one level per week/month or the like?
SoulLord 11-01-06, 09:41 AM	I voted for it even if we have a limited amount of pitlords the truth is also that we have a limited amount of players if someone wishes to play with his 10th lvl character its very likely that at the same time he won't be using his new 3rd lvl character as well. How about to prevent pitlord shortage that each activation of a frozen character costs as 2 regular activations?
Krytos 11-01-06, 09:42 AM	I'm going to have to agree with waywreth, only if we have enough pitlords for it. Other than that, I really don't care one way or the other as I have no characters anywhere close to that.
Macbrea 11-01-06, 09:52 AM	The only reason I am playing my new characters at this point is because I cannot keep advancing Lord Frost. I am all for opening up the higher levels. The fights at that level take about the same amount of time as a fight at the lower levels. Things die quickly and decisively in about the same amount of rounds. The only stipulation I would put on fighting at those levels is the following rule: Monster fights in this range are only availble for teams. Single individuals will not be paired against one monster.
McJarvis 11-01-06, 09:58 AM	So long as there are enough players for a competitive atmosphere, eh?
TelinArtho 11-01-06, 10:08 AM	I am all for opening up the higher leagues. I see it as a potential for some players to continue on with builds that they thought would have to be "ended" at ECL10. I am not concerned about the number of pitlords - as this number will always fluctuate. While I hope at some point more players will take on Pitlording responsibility, it is not required. It is unlikely any single player will take a character to ECL10 without some use of credits somewhere along the way - and pitlording is the most likely avenue to gain them. I see opening up the higher leagues as incentive for more pitlords.
Vathelokai 11-01-06, 10:11 AM	I've been waiting for 12 lv. + casters since I started, and now that 3 of my characters are close to frozen, I'm anxious to have those leagues open. I'm not sure if it's nessicary to combine leagues like that (11-12, 13-14, etc.). I see the reasoning, but I'm not sure. I agree with SoulLord; having high lv. activations count as 2 activations could solve an overcrowding problem. As for pitlord shortage, I don't think it will be any different than we have now or in the past.
Macbrea 11-01-06, 10:13 AM	We have alot of people that are creating level 3 characters just to be able to stay around. Example: Last time I played Lord Frost was 3-31-06. As I am not in a guild, mostly because he didn't at the time agree with any of the guilds or qualify for the ones he wished to be in. I was left with the choice make Izumi or quit playing until the league opened. I do feel though that we shouldn't allow people to complete advance on monsters by themselves. By requiring characters to work as teams against monsters or fight each other it reduces the pitlord load and creates working relationships.
hogarth 11-01-06, 10:17 AM	I think that -- like it or not -- the pool of higher level characters is always going to be limited. Thus the higher leagues might as well be unfrozen sooner than later so that those who don't mind the limited pool of opponents can keep progressing their characters.
Hirumajoe 11-01-06, 10:17 AM	I do feel though that we shouldn't allow people to complete advance on monsters by themselves. By requiring characters to work as teams against monsters or fight each other it reduces the pitlord load and creates working relationships. I also agree with this sentiment. I also voted to open the high level leagues, even though I don't have any character near that level. I'm thinking if the Iron man tournament really has been floating around for over a year, actually implimenting it as opposed to letting it float around for another year seems like the thing to do.
Abyssal Stalker 11-01-06, 12:58 PM	I voted "yes", because I don't really see a reason they should be frozen. This gives people more freedom with their beloved characters and might even be a good way to attract new people. Maybe even reducing the credit cost of activating new characters to make it easier to get a higher level character - otherwise it takes a year to get there.
Macbrea 11-01-06, 01:20 PM	At one point in time, the cost was 4o per level to activate. You can still see it reflected in Advanced rules credit system. When the first State of Emergancy was created it was raised to 5o per level. With the excuse that it would motivate people to pitlord more. I think in truth it did the opposite. It devalued credits. But each person has their opinion on what would motivate people to do stuff. Making life harder on them rarely is a form of motivation.
McJarvis 11-01-06, 01:25 PM	But each person has their opinion on what would motivate people to do stuff. Making life harder on them rarely is a form of motivation. I would have to agree on this point. CoCo is already frustrating enough for new players to make them not want to join....
MindWandererB 11-01-06, 02:05 PM	I agree with Macbrea. As my characters approach ECL 10, I'm creating new ones at lower levels to replace them. There will be no need for that if they are allowed to continue. There's also the guild issue: there are several cases where characters with high ECLs are required (like those damned Denthians in Chanadar). It's also not hard to raise guild-related MQs to an EL of 13 (Class A and B structures, one guard post, friendly district), which is steep for ECL 10 characters. I don't think this will result in more drain on pitlords: every high-level character that activates is one less low-level one. And that's what credits are for. However: I think monster fights should be a no-go at those levels. PC vs. PC only. That prevents any one character from outstripping all others.
Caterane 11-01-06, 02:12 PM	Seems like everyone (and their dog) wants to see high level fights. I'll try to get to set up the Iron Man for December. We should inform inactive players of ECL 10 characters that they now have a chance to win a Custom Avatar. We also have to begin to form teams to fill the slots. It's either 16 or 32 participants. It's just a pity that I have no time to participate in the Iron Man Tournament. But then, I already have a Custom Avatar shrugs
TelinArtho 11-01-06, 02:16 PM	I guess that means I'll have to finish getting Kraegin to ECL10... like those damned Denthians in Chanadar Denthians aren't damned... they're misunderstood :)
Erithmu 11-01-06, 02:53 PM	@Cat: I would recommend setting the Ironman tourney to start at the end of your Campaign. If your Campaign is still going during the Ironman then there is the issue of crossing over, and then level ups during the tourney, gaining new abilities, having to switch gears for xp in the campaign, etc etc. PS: voted yes
Caterane 11-01-06, 02:55 PM	My campaign is not even halfway done. We could allow you to participate despite being in the campaign. You'll be frozen soon anyway.
Zevox 11-01-06, 03:05 PM	Voted yes! Asran hsn't been frozen long, but I can already tell you I'd love to be able to go beyond ECL 10 with my characters. Some don't hit thier stride until past then. Asran is a good example - until he gets Blackguard abilities at level 12 (Dark Blessing) and 13 (Rebuke Undead + Divine Might, 2nd level divine spells), hes not so scary as he might otherwise be. Another is Mindrel - once I get him going, hes not much to play/look at until level 8, and doesn't get really good until 12+. Of course, if this does happen, I may need to retire one or two of my current characters so that Mindrel and Mithos can activate with Asran no longer frozen... ah well, a bridge to cross when I come to it. Zevox
SauroGrenom 11-01-06, 04:40 PM	Yea I'd love to see higher level open up. Even if it was only campaigns and miniquests, that would still be great. It's just a pity that I have no time to participate in the Iron Man Tournament. Perhaps us rabble will have a chance.;)
NiQil 11-01-06, 10:07 PM	I would have to agree with the yes sentiment. I don't think it is necessary to make higher levels count as more activations or cost credits...as many have said, higher level activations mean less lower level activations. I am also unsure if it will be necessary to pair the leagues as Cat has presented them. I can see both sides of that argument. This might even be reason enough for me to not retire the Horsemen :)
Erithmu 11-01-06, 11:23 PM	hrum ... teams ... If anyone has another ECL 8 char that they would like to pair up with Loddick, I would rather run a team than run Ignatius in the Iron man, and I'm not going to be able to level Loddick up in time to run ECL 10 on his own as it would take 6 weeks to pull it off, and finding a questlord so that I won't have to chance in the arena.
Hirumajoe 11-02-06, 12:22 AM	Hmm... Teams... So if I can find 4 other like minded ECL 5 characters by the time the Iron man rolls around (since Valen will be ECL 5 in a maximum of two weeks), can they go into the Iron man as a team? Since ECL 5 + 5 characters = ECL 10? Otherwise, I'll be cheering from the Coliseum bleachers for the underdog. Whoever that might be. :)
MindWandererB 11-02-06, 12:26 AM	Hmm... Teams... So if I can find 4 other like minded ECL 5 characters by the time the Iron man rolls around (since Valen will be ECL 5 in a maximum of two weeks), can they go into the Iron man as a team? Since ECL 5 + 5 characters = ECL 10? Otherwise, I'll be cheering from the Coliseum bleachers for the underdog. Whoever that might be. :) Sorry, H, but fights always have a max of 4 participants. Most you could do might be 3 ECL 7's. @Rith: Hmm... if Besthirah hasn't leveled up by then, I could send her. She's one fight away from leveling, but I only use her for guild actions. Unfortunately, Sunstroke just levelled to 9.
Vathelokai 11-02-06, 05:44 AM	Maybe we could allow mixed ECL9+ECL7 vs ECL 10. That works out if I understand correctly. I've got my new Antalya character from uncon that could go for a team. Denshi and Auburn will both probably be ECL 10 at that time. Hassan might be able to level up to a team ECL.
Caterane 11-02-06, 07:28 AM	I think we should make fixed teams more interesting. After all you face the disadvantage that you have to rely on another player. Perhaps we could allow crafting for your team mate. Other ideas for making fixed teams more attractive? I just think this is a great step into a living board with support so we should provide teams with some benefits.
Hirumajoe 11-02-06, 09:40 AM	I think we should make fixed teams more interesting. After all you face the disadvantage that you have to rely on another player. Perhaps we could allow crafting for your team mate. Other ideas for making fixed teams more attractive? I just think this is a great step into a living board with support so we should provide teams with some benefits. My only question in regards to this is what happen if/when the team splits up? If the crafter is only using his resources to do the crafting and loaning it to the team mate, then after a split up, he most likely sells it back for 1/2 price, and hopefully recoups his cost. Gives incentive not to pay an npc crafter to add stuff the crafter can't make. If the crafter is using his team mates resources and the team mate owns the item after crafting, this could cause problems. Since the character has essentially gotten an item (or many items) for half price for the cost of 10 credits, without spending a feat or even necessarily being a caster. So simply allowing the loaning of equipment between teammates might be the way to go, as opposed to outright crafting for the ally. The crafter could make something for the ally and loan it, and in return the ally buys something and loans it to the crafter. In this case, the ally probably wants to make it something he could use as well, in case the team ever breaks up. Basically, you'd add a "loaned and received" equipment section to the character sheet of both, just for easy reference.
Sunwolf 11-02-06, 10:29 AM	Since all my characters are frozen :eek: -- I would love to have the high level leagues unfrozen.
Gonbow 11-02-06, 01:55 PM	With luck, Tatyana will be at ECL 8 in two weeks... or three if I send her on a quest, but I don't think quests are kosher in a S.O.E. But regardless, a powerful kineticist makes a good addition to a team.
Caterane 11-02-06, 03:32 PM	My only question in regards to this is what happen if/when the team splits up? If the crafter is only using his resources to do the crafting and loaning it to the team mate, then after a split up, he most likely sells it back for 1/2 price, and hopefully recoups his cost. Gives incentive not to pay an npc crafter to add stuff the crafter can't make. If the crafter is using his team mates resources and the team mate owns the item after crafting, this could cause problems. Since the character has essentially gotten an item (or many items) for half price for the cost of 10 credits, without spending a feat or even necessarily being a caster. So simply allowing the loaning of equipment between teammates might be the way to go, as opposed to outright crafting for the ally. The crafter could make something for the ally and loan it, and in return the ally buys something and loans it to the crafter. In this case, the ally probably wants to make it something he could use as well, in case the team ever breaks up. Basically, you'd add a "loaned and received" equipment section to the character sheet of both, just for easy reference. Sounds logical. Anything else? Perhaps something that helps non-caster teams?
Macbrea 11-02-06, 03:45 PM	Loaned items isn't that big of deal. As long as they stay on the original character's character sheet. It really doesn't matter if the item is useable by the caster or not. Watch: Wizard 9 makes longsword +3 cost = 18,315gp but to craft = 9,315gp and 720xp. Because when he sells this item because it is no longer useful he gains half the market value or 9,107gp 5 sp.. Note. no profit in that deal. It does allow his traveling companion to use the sword as long as they are paired.
Erithmu 11-02-06, 04:47 PM	With luck, Tatyana will be at ECL 8 in two weeks... or three if I send her on a quest, but I don't think quests are kosher in a S.O.E. But regardless, a powerful kineticist makes a good addition to a team. Just go look at Loddick and realize how much offensive firepower we would have ...
MindWandererB 11-02-06, 04:52 PM	Just go look at Loddick and realize how much offensive firepower we would have ... Just remember the "Iron Man" nature of the tournament. We'll see how far you can stretch those PPs.
SauroGrenom 11-02-06, 04:53 PM	I suggested something simular a while back. My suggestion is a bit more flexible however. Say that a warrior and wizard are teamed up. The wizard can use his feats and gold to make equipment for his ally, as Macbrea suggests. The problem with this is that the wizard is spending everything. He spends the feats and the gold. I think this price is a bit too high for the wizard to carry for the benifit of his ally. Rather I suggest the wizard's feats can be "used" to make items for his ally using his ally's gold. This basicially allows the ally to buy some items at half price. If the team breaks up, then the character who cannot craft his own crafted items is required to simply sell them at 1/2 price. So in this case the warrior forks over the crafting cost to his wizard friend. As long as they work together he can use the weapon freely. Once they part ways, the sword is sold on the market at 1/2 price and the warrior's cash is refunded.
Hirumajoe 11-02-06, 06:12 PM	I suggested something simular a while back. My suggestion is a bit more flexible however. Say that a warrior and wizard are teamed up. The wizard can use his feats and gold to make equipment for his ally, as Macbrea suggests. The problem with this is that the wizard is spending everything. He spends the feats and the gold. I think this price is a bit too high for the wizard to carry for the benifit of his ally. Rather I suggest the wizard's feats can be "used" to make items for his ally using his ally's gold. This basicially allows the ally to buy some items at half price. If the team breaks up, then the character who cannot craft his own crafted items is required to simply sell them at 1/2 price. So in this case the warrior forks over the crafting cost to his wizard friend. As long as they work together he can use the weapon freely. Once they part ways, the sword is sold on the market at 1/2 price and the warrior's cash is refunded. That does seem reasonable. It deals with same problem and does let the other character pay his fair share. It also lets 100% of the groups cash be put through the crafting feat as opposed to 50%. I'd certainly be happy to see something like this put into the rules. As for other options for groups, perhaps working out rules for attack-defend packages as used by groups. Being able to bring along a ranger/rogue with lots of skills and who can scout (and thus provide buffs rounds for the group as a whole) might be nice. As far as I know, group fights ignore the skill packages and so forth.
hogarth 11-02-06, 06:27 PM	It seems odd that people are trying to think of ways to make team battles stronger for the team when regular interleague fights seem pretty balanced as it is. Why are we trying to tilt the odds farther in the team's favour? And why are we discussing this in the "Unfreeze High Levels" thread?
SauroGrenom 11-02-06, 06:41 PM	It seems odd that people are trying to think of ways to make team battles stronger for the team when regular interleague fights seem pretty balanced as it is. Why are we trying to tilt the odds farther in the team's favour? And why are we discussing this in the "Unfreeze High Levels" thread? This is here because it can play a roll in making more characters available for higher leagues. If you form teams that is one way to get more characters into higher leagues. If the higher leagues aer unfrozen, then there are lots of characters who suddenly become possible partners at ECL11 or higher.
Abyssal Stalker 11-03-06, 01:43 AM	I think we shouldn't allow direct equipment swapping between teammates. This could lead to a twisted team where the other character is weak and only boosts the other to be a super-tank with practically double items. I am always told that equipment forms a big part of a combatants CR. I think that the total amount of each character's equipment should stay the same as a single character's of the same ECL. Allowing the other to craft for his teammate wouldn't break this rule, so that doesn't sound too bad.
Caterane 11-04-06, 10:05 AM	Added Sauro's suggestion to the rules for parties. Anything else to make them more interesting?
Gonbow 11-04-06, 12:35 PM	Just remember the "Iron Man" nature of the tournament. We'll see how far you can stretch those PPs. That's what Psionic Foci and various Psionic feats are for. Mwahahaha.