Twinks: An analogy.

[Enthusiast]

Still noticing the complete dodge of my posts about poorly-geared and underequipped players.

Really there's not much to discuss since its a variation on the same old argument, gear.

Your take on an improved bolstering/handicapping system addresses your concerns rewarding effort in gearing anyway. How does it address lack of gear in a slot? Or gear that is 7 levels below current level instead of the 6 required for the bolster effect?

[Kyera]

Really there's not much to discuss since its a variation on the same old argument, gear.

Your take on an improved bolstering/handicapping system addresses your concerns rewarding effort in gearing anyway. How does it address lack of gear in a slot? Or gear that is 7 levels below current level instead of the 6 required for the bolster effect?

It doesn't. It puts the onus on the player seeking to partake in a competitive player versus player environment to put at least a modicum of effort into keeping their gear current. I don't feel that's an unreasonable expectation give the genre of Rift, the design style of Rift, and the gametype selected.

If you feel players should get carried and put on an equal statistical level, despite having empty gear slots or outdated gear, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement on expectations of player commitment, interest, and effort, and I doubt that gap will ever be closed, as I come from a background of plenty of competitive games where I expect my teammates to have their [expletive] together and anticipate my opponents will have done the same.

[Enthusiast]

It doesn't. It puts the onus on the player seeking to partake in a competitive player versus player environment to put at least a modicum of effort into keeping their gear current. I don't feel that's an unreasonable expectation give the genre of Rift, the design style of Rift, and the gametype selected.

If you feel players should get carried and put on an equal statistical level, despite having empty gear slots or outdated gear, then you and I have a fundamental disagreement on expectations of player commitment, interest, and effort, and I doubt that gap will ever be closed, as I come from a background of plenty of competitive games where I expect my teammates to have their [expletive] together and anticipate my opponents will have done the same.

I'll be honest with you kyera, I'm tired. I feel like I've put the maximum effort into trying to make sense out of both sides of the pro-twink/anti-twink argument. Maybe you don't think I was totally unbiased. That's fine. I thought I framed each side accurately and described them in a way that everybody could understand. I proposed a solution that I thought would solve a lot of problems. Doesn't mean that I thought it was the only viable solution. Unfortunately there's been little else added here beyond your take on the system. As such I don't know where else this discussion can go. We could banter back and forth about actual numbers like a 77% limit instead of a 85% limit.......?

But then again, maybe this discussion has just run its course.

[Kyera]

You're probably right. The other people here aren't interested in supporting your system, and even if I don't support it (it allows people to be lax, which I don't agree with in an MMO or in a PvP game), at best I can try to propose something in the middle ground (where people who are progressing responsibly and normally are made equitable and the lazy players don't get a free handout).

That's the one area where you won't convince me to change my stance, and if the same holds true for you, you're probably right in that we've reached the limit of the discussion (especially since my numbers were just made up to give an idea of the scope of the system, and not based on any detailed analysis).

[Enthusiast]

You're probably right. The other people here aren't interested in supporting your system, and even if I don't support it (it allows people to be lax, which I don't agree with in an MMO or in a PvP game), at best I can try to propose something in the middle ground (where people who are progressing responsibly and normally are made equitable and the lazy players don't get a free handout).

That's the one area where you won't convince me to change my stance, and if the same holds true for you, you're probably right in that we've reached the limit of the discussion (especially since my numbers were just made up to give an idea of the scope of the system, and not based on any detailed analysis).

I'd like to paint a slightly different picture than the one you've painted here. While little support has been offered for my solution, which I think is a fair solution, little support has been offered for your solution which is a twist on mine that takes into consideration the twink's point of view. In fact, I've said that it seems pretty good but at the same time it leaves the 10-19 bracket vulnerable. The point being, while its pretty good, its not great. In all honesty one could see the current form of the discussion as a negotiation.

What does this tell us? I believe twinks have a monopoly that they just flat out don't want to give up. Aside from one reasonable poster, they will not even begin to approach the middle ground. I've stated I think that Trion has 2 options to deal with twinks. The first is to shut them off. The second is to find a solution in the bolstering system.

Maybe I haven't been entirely forthcoming. There is a 3rd option. That is to leave it as is. It is an environment that is grossly unfair to the average leveling character. It is a situation where the only solution is to become part of the problem. Level x9 for everybody! Stop your progression and get geared!

I don't think this is a viable option. I will concede that maybe this is the reality of the situation for the foreseeable future.