Current alignment split of characters, statistically (rounded down to the nearest 1%):

Good: 25%
Neutral: 35%
Evil: 38%

There are a couple of ways it seems like that from the outside when it comes to a couple of cabals. Tribunal in some ways but it is mostly noticeable in Outlander and Battle.

From the outside it is usually pretty much impossible to peg down any difference between an outlander elf and a wood-elf. If you are one of the numerous targets (by cabal, race or class) then you will get attacked relentlessly even if you are a goodie yourself. I doubt the goodies in Outlander have ever talked the others out of raiding due to many goodie tribunals in the way that would get killed.

Mechanicswise and "funwise" I understand this but on the other hand would it fly if I made a storm giant that hates elves and kills all of them, including the good ones? Would my alignment change? No real remorse, just a role that states that they are evil due to X and needs to be killed.

Since this is the second or third post you've made like this within the last week or two, I have to ask. Even though discussions like this do often happen between boards, wouldn't it be more efficient and constructive for you to participate in them "over there" (or rather, simply on whatever board they happen on), rather than start new threads "over here"? I mean, especially for this particular little nugget you've supplied us, it just seems like it'd make more sense if it was as a reply to the original topic on the other board.

You're probably right, but...

Doing it this way also keeps me from getting too involved in the flaming, which is a good thing for a number of reasons, too.

I suppose that's fair. And it's not like only the denizens of Dio's will benefit from these PSA's.

>Since this is the second or third post you've made like this
>within the last week or two, I have to ask. Even though
>discussions like this do often happen between boards, wouldn't
>it be more efficient and constructive for you to participate
>in them "over there" (or rather, simply on whatever board they
>happen on), rather than start new threads "over here"? I mean,
>especially for this particular little nugget you've supplied
>us, it just seems like it'd make more sense if it was as a
>reply to the original topic on the other board.

It is more beneficial to have the Immortal voice coming from a single location that is officially supported. As you've seen from posts, we do read the forums at Dio's, and at times we'll even make comments on threads there. I personally like having an unofficial site where people can go and vent that is supported by the community. That however comes with a "price" if you're looking for accurate information.

It all depends on what your parameters are. I think something closer to the users graph with # of pfiles vs average # of hours played might give a more accurate description of how the game is currently playing out pendulum wise.

Right now, Fortress and Outlander got some sickly class comboes and numbers. This only means that the goodies is extremly more active than the evils.

I'm not sure which actual numbers you mean.

My numbers are the actual numbers for population. If you're trying to say that something other than population is more important (and maybe it is) I'm just curious what.

Make your case. Convince me. :)

IE, each goodie might play an avg of 5 hours a day. And if each evil only plays an hour a day, then the goodies will still be outnumbering evil, right?

However, there is a huge difference between number statistics and how it actually play out. As Java mentioned hours played matters a lot. In prime time I think ive seen up towards, or perhaps even above 10 fortress hero range people online at times. Outlanders have lingered around 5+ (Some of them spend alot of time near fortress). While on the evil side there is fewer than 5 total most of the time, and these five you can split up into scions, empire and evil outlanders and evil tribunals which means that at any given time evils who is allied and wont outright kill eachother is limited to 2-3 max.

Unless it would be hours played during last week or something. Otherwise you'd still have ancient, seldom playing characters matter more than younger, more active ones.

The Orc Chief, one-two scions and an evil outlander or two against 3 hero range forties who are ghosts or hiding in their guilds.

It's the infamous pendulum swing.

As others have mentioned, hours played is probably a good one to use.

It might also be instructive to break it down by level range.

It's possible that "hours played" vastly favors goodies at one level range and vastly favors evils at another.

I'd be interested to see the following:

1. Hours played broken down by alignment for characters level 44+ over the past week.

2. Total number of player kills broken down by alignment for characters level 44+ over the past week.

3. Number of characters, broken down by alignment, who have earned (or assisted in) at least one player kill during the past week.

Those are all interesting stats that we don't currently gather.

There's a good Santa Zulg in that, if nothing else...

Actually, now that I think of it, #2 isn't complete. Counting player kills ignores kill by evils *on* evils.

So you'd want to also consider "Total number of player deaths, broken down by alignment, suffered by level 44+ characters over the past week."

But yeah. I'll throw it up on Santa Zulg in a couple months. And by that I mean post, not vomit. :)

Actually I would think you would want to know about kills by evils on evils. Or perhaps both measurements would be good to have, since it depends on what you're trying to measure, precisely.

If you're working on a specifically good v evil axis, then you only want to know kills of goods v evils and evils v goods. And maybe losses to neutrals on both.

If you're trying to measure the general plight of goodies and the general plight of evils, with no other parameter, you would want to know evil on evil and good on good kills as well.

You know what would be cool, is to collect all these sorts of data and just give us a data dump once a month or something, and let those of us who are statistically-minded sort out interpretations! Could come up with some real handy statistical measurements and throw it in a simple Excel spreadsheet...

Or if you don't want to dump that data out to everyone, you can email it to me and I'll volunteer to do it!

Aarn

Fortress' item is held by Grinning Skull and evil is winning (Nexus stats) more extremely than I've seen since Nexus came back.

People see what they want to see, and assume that if they log on at a time when the other side is winning that it's winning 24/7.

Edit: Also, Scions are desperately trying to kill a random Herald for some reason because they apparently have nothing better to do.

Yeah, we definitely need to close Fortress.

But that doesn't change the fact that when Fortress locks it down, they really lock it down.

Being involved in what happened last night, and I realize this is purely anecdotal and I don't have access to your statistics.

The game just seems a little stupid when there are more than 7 heroes actively defending the fort. And when younger evils come to try to retrieve there are 2 healers following the lower levels around around making it very difficult to defeat them. And then when two hero imperials come to try and retrieve against very stacked odds, two Nexuns get into the mix and start fighting AGAINST the evils.

Sometimes man, things are just broke. Statistics be damned. I don't think Fortress needs to be nuked, but I do think it needs to be tweaked.

Maybe simply changing the way their cabal channels work would be a simple enough solutions. If I recall correctly Fort leaders can hear all fort channels, Marans can hear both CB and their Maran channel, and Acolytes CB and their Acolyte channel.

What if you just reversed it? So that only full Marans and Acolytes can speak and hear on the CB. And the squire and altar boys can only speak and hear from their half.

FWIW I realize this post is just kind of a thought vomit

So on top of having much weaker powers than Empire or Scion (mages/priests), Fortress should also be further handicapped?

I don't think so.

But certainly we aren't hanging our game balance hat on that, right?

- They get help given to them freely from chars out of their pk range. In most cases it would be bad RP for those elven healers to not help out the little marans fighting their enemies.

- They can heal their outter far easier AND faster than any other cabal.

Hell I'd even be happy if the fort was a little bit further away from from a protected area, so that if the Marans DO get pounded a little, they have a bit farther to run before the self-imposed Imperial law prevents you from chasing them down.

but the scariest characters I've faced have always been from other cabals.

Game experiences vary depending on login time, but the pendulum is already swinging away from Fortress dominance.

Based on this post, I feel confident that you haven't played Fortress in a long time, if ever.

I've had a number of Fort chars and a leader char in the Fort. Regardless, we seem to be at a difference of opininon, and you're the only one with one that matters.

I believe you, but, I've played all the different sides a fair bit, and my experiences playing Fort really do not line up with what you're saying. Or at least I feel like you've really lost your perspective on it.

Unless you mean that if you're a level 20 guy that Fort rounds up to fight the level 20 Empire guy that none of them have range, that you will get out of range healing if available while you're fighting near the Fortress. That's generally true, but isn't any different than my experiences on the flip side of that being evil and being recruited to kill a guy no one in Empire has in range at the Palace. (Or fill in other 'willing to kill situations' -- for example as non-evil Tribunal I've been recruited to kill a wanted guy or Outlander attacking the Palace that no one in Empire had in range and gotten whatever help was available.)

>- They get help given to them freely from chars out of their
>pk range. In most cases it would be bad RP for those elven
>healers to not help out the little marans fighting their
>enemies.

Other cabals mostly get this as well. Even across alignment boundaries. You can argue that shouldn't be the case, but it is.

Seriously man. I'd take a herald healer with me on an explore trip before a Fort healer.

...and seen 6 hero range chars of one alignment on, and 1...repeat, 1, hero range BAMF of the opposite align and the balance be normal.

I know I for one was confused as hell, but I assume that the game calculates the fact that later on that BAMF had killed 3 of the other aligns and gotten his item back and made the entire range shift with logins/logouts.

Yeah, depending on who the 6 were and who the 1 was, it's possible the balance would show as normal and I'd consider it to be right. It's not just about numbers. People who can't PK for #### count for a lot less than your BAMF.

Like you said, in that case the BAMF came out on top -- clearly he didn't need Nexus help to take out the trash.

But I think it's possible for people who don't see it that way (and I'm not saying you don't) to say: "OMG it's 6 on 2 and Nexus is helping the 6. Broken!!!!"

That you're just trolling. But now I'm not so sure. Perhaps you truly believe in what you're saying }(

Things to consider:

1) Evils are split among opposite cabals: Battle, Empire, Scion, Outlander, Tribunal and often fight each other. Even if you have more evils online than goodies, they hardly are the winning side if you have 1-2 evil heroes in each of opposite cabals.

2) Goodies more often than not are together (Fortlanders)

3) I'm not sure how Nexus calculates the balance, but if it just the number of players of both aligns with some tweaks I don't think it's great. Probably the balance should never be in favor of those who already took enemies items.
For example, if Fort keeps Empire/Scion items and there are 5 fort heroes against 2 imperials, 2 scions and 2 ragers it should NOT be the case where evils are considering "winning" side, even if technically it is 6 vs 5. If Nexus will jump on evils in situations like that, I don't think it's great for the game.

4) It doesn't matter how many fire giants are currently online in Academy. Hero range is what matters most.

>3) I'm not sure how Nexus calculates the balance, but if it
>just the number of players of both aligns with some tweaks I
>don't think it's great.

It's a lot more complicated than that, and it's been a long time since I've seen it say a side is winning that I don't actually think is winning.

Nexus before I took it over did have a much simpler balance system and did get it wrong sometimes in my opinion.

n't