I agree with some of what Jynne points out. However, I disagree with allowing players beyond a certain level range being allowed to assist or defend low-level bases. Why? Because it is very easy for a skilled, high-level player to make a low level alt to build a controller and towers in a level 10 area. Then, that player never needs to ever use that char again? The player just logs his high-level player to defend the level 10 tower? That is ludicrous!
Following is Jynne's horror story, but I would argue that any org that doesn't have a decent defense force in the appropriate levels SHOULD lose the base! Else what is the level range for?
quote from Jynne's post:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Org Chat] Jynne: Well folks, we just lost our Nascent Nifty Notum Drilling Field base.
[Org Chat] Someone_Else: What happened? I thought you were there helping defend it Doc?
[Org Chat] Jynne: The attackers were under level 100 from a twink org, so we had to just sit there and watch them fight our towers. Level 200 chars from the main org stood outside in the 75% zone and gave them HE, mochams, RRFE, and some other buffs; when they got hurt they ran out for a bit and a high level doctor CH'd them. We couldn't touch the people doing the buffing, and we couldn't touch the people attacking our base.
[Org Chat] Someone_Else: Boy that's a crock. I wonder if EBgames.com takes returns on these booster packs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why should high-level orgs be able to defend every level base? That will mean a dominance of high-level land control since the low- and medium-level guilds will never be able to destroy a low- or medium-level base protected by only only high-level players.
However, there is still the problem with zone boundaries that Jynne point out. This is a serious problem and the current Disgrace Period will not solve it. I suggest that helpers be tagged (read the three possible solutions below).
Many posts above suggested solutions, here's some possibilities base on many of their great ideas.
Possible solutions:
1) Make all attackers' participation in Land Control mean they give permission to enter full PvP mode. Full PvP mode would be like being PvP flagged. If you want to run, you have to run away for 3 hours, not just one minute. If a player doesn't want to PvP, don't attack! This would increase the consequences of attacking.
2) Anyone who assists a PvP tagged player is PvP tagged themselves. So, even if you don't attack, assisting an attacker is the same as attacking. If you don't want to PvP, don't assist in an attack! This would greatly diminish participation by attacking out-of-range players while giving defending out-of-range players something to do if the attackers resort to assists from out-of-range players (hunt them down!).
3) Any attacker who enters an attackable area is attackable by all towers (not players). This should help solve the lowbies 'spying' and buffing for higher levels.
So, the three suggestions, along with keeping the existing PvP rules where high-level players cannot defend towers effectively may help balance this situation.
I suggest all three be implemented. I do not suggest preventing help from high levels as Cz proposed, just tag them. That would create some interesting side fights, while the appropriate levels battle over the land. But, if the defending org has NO high-level players, and can't encourage anyone else to take out the high-level assister who is tagged, the balance still seems to be toward the high-level orgs.
One last thing: If attackers are Tagged, doesn't if follow that each of the Controllable Areas could be smaller? Then, there could be more of them! What is the point of making the Controllable Area so big? Attackers really only have to clear a small path anyway. A bunch of land is being wasted on these giant parcels. And there isn't enough land to go around.
Typothetae