Titles make the world go round

[wellehad0]

<p>what is it about titles that forces people to fight as cheap as they can be... it seem like everybody with a slayer or above title would not 1v1 another player if his life was on the line..</p><p>here is how it goes most of the time. i see a slayer all by himself i moove in for the fight and the guy takes off and runs.. now 30 seconds later slayer decides he wants to fight so you moove back in and fight. what you dont know is the slayer has a full group hiding behind a rock or atleast very near to him.</p><p>i seem to run into this everywhere i go. yes there are some who will fight to the death but most of the time it will only be if they have  nothing to loose... worst thing about all of this is that it does not matter how many lvls they have on you if they have a title higher then slayer and have a chance to loose it, 9 players out of 10 would not dare fight 1v1. the only time they would fight is if they had a full gank squad near by ready to jump in and stomp you...</p><p> i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again...</p><p>before anybody flames yes there are people who fight no matter what but sorry you guys are the small minority of the title huggers... need any proof on this go hang out at the sinking sands carpet and watch the slaughter that goes on there and tell me how many 1v1 fights you see</p>

[Faenril]

So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ?

[Proeka]

<cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ?</blockquote>Make pvp experience gain optional

[Shadow_Viper]

In my opinion titles should just be removed.

[Spyderbite]

<cite>Shadow_Viper wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my opinion titles should just be removed.</blockquote>I agree.

[Spyderbite]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Make pvp experience gain optional</blockquote>Please expand on that. Either you had a point that had something to do with titles, or you were spamming every thread with a reply button available. Which is it?

[Dalema]

<cite><a href="mailto:eedSpyderbite@Venekor" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">eedSpyderbite@Venekor</a> wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Shadow_Viper wrote:</cite><blockquote>In my opinion titles should just be removed.</blockquote>I agree.</blockquote>Agreed.

[wellehad0]

na i would keep titles.. waht i would do is code some kind of coward penalty that would be the same as a PVP death... i know nothing like that woudl ever happen because unles the code can be made in 30 seconds then SOE wont waste its time.

[Spyderbite]

<cite>Idragon@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>na i would keep titles.. waht i would do is code some kind of coward penalty that would be the same as a PVP death... i know nothing like that woudl ever happen because unles the code can be made in 30 seconds then SOE wont waste its time.</blockquote>I disagree. It's much easier to yank titles and as a result kapoot the play style they've produced as a result. To tweak it instead, is just going to cause people to find loopholes much like they do camping revive points, cliff diving, etc.Titles serve absolutely no purpose except to encourage people to hunt the weakest and run from anything that seems even the slightest bit challenging.

[seahawk]

<p>I like titles personally.  I have had people run from one v. ones that no fame was involved, so you can't lump all runners into the category " i must protect my title...".</p><p>My guess is, titles have been in the game since the launch of the pvp servers and if iirc they have not changed on how they are gained or lost so I can't imagine them doing anything about it now.</p><p>-side note, before you think I am some title monger.. I have various toons from Slayer to Champ.  I have been Dreadnaught on a few different toons, but by no means do I carry all the various evac paraphenelia to keep a title.</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Make pvp experience gain optional</blockquote>Please expand on that. Either you had a point that had something to do with titles, or you were spamming every thread with a reply button available. Which is it?</blockquote><p>My arachnid foe, </p><p>it is inappropriate for you to attempt to arrogantly hijack another posting operator's thread.</p><p>Mr Idragon stated "...i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again..."</p><p>Mr Faerie responded "So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? "</p><p>I chimed in "Make pvp experience gain optional"</p><p>Mr shadow viper throws out "In my opinion titles should just be removed."</p><p>Yourself drifts in with a two word expose extolling the virtues of Mr shadow Viper response, specifically the phrase "I agree"</p><p>Following this, in a state of apparently high arrogance, without so much as a by your leave, you proceed to usurp the operator's right to control and question his participants' input.</p><p>You did not request expansion of the one sentence statement of the operator, one sentence question of Mr Faerie, or One sentence answer of Mr Shadow viper.Rather, you arrogantly demanded of me that I "...expand on that..." Further,you did this in a thoroughly shallow,  insulting, and attempted demeaning way that is both below your worth as a responder and reflects poorly on a state of mind that would stoop so low. Requoting it would lower the quality of this thread, and, no sir,  I will not follow such an  odious example.</p><p>For shame, sir, for shame.</p>

[Spyderbite]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>For shame, sir, for shame.</p></blockquote>Who's on first??

[liveja]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Following this, in a state of apparently high arrogance, without so much as a by your leave, you proceed to usurp the operator's right to control and question his participants' input.</p></blockquote><p>It's a message board. The only one who controls anything here is SOE <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> Spyder did not, in fact could not, usurp any amount of that control.</p><p>As for the thread: I dislike titles, because they're nothing but fluff, but at the same time, I'm not so sure it's just the title that causes people to run back to their buddies. After all ... haven't any of you people heard of "pulling"?? Sure you have, & that's what happened to YOU: <b>you got pulled</b>.</p><p>IOW, the OP got suckered by a "Feigned Flight" strategy, which has been working for centuries of military history, & apparently works pretty well in EQ2, too <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> & please, don't talk about "fair" fights, because only dupes, fools, & idiots fight "fair." Learn the tactical lesson, & drive on.</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Idragon@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>na i would keep titles.. waht i would do is code some kind of coward penalty that would be the same as a PVP death... i know nothing like that woudl ever happen because unles the code can be made in 30 seconds then SOE wont waste its time.</blockquote><b>I disagree. It's much easier to yank titles and as a result kapoot the play style they've produced as a result. To tweak it instead, is just going to cause people to find loopholes much like they do camping revive points, cliff diving, etc.Titles serve absolutely no purpose except to encourage people to hunt the weakest and run from anything that seems even the slightest bit challenging.</b></blockquote><p>What is it with  the idea that the best way to properly manage a controversial benefit is to destroy it? Destruction may be easier, but it is much less beneficial to the greater good, and may actually be destructive to same.  Correcting  underlying mechanisms that created the controversy may be more difficult, but it is, oftentimes, much more rewarding. </p><p>There is everything right with the development of a variety of responses to any initiated game changes (whether right or wrong). This is supposed to be , after all, a non-linear excitement-filled, player-modifiable playground. Dynamism, in such an environment grows the product and entertains the participants.</p><p>Mr Spyderbyte states  "Titles serve absolutely no purpose except to encourage people to hunt the weakest and run from anything that seems even the slightest bit challenging"Please forgive me, but this extremist statement begs to be buried back in the graveyard from which it was unearthed in the dead of night.Why someone would chose to demean the creation of the game developers in such a manner is baffling. to say the least.And to make a clearly erroneous statement with such emphasis insults the intelligence of readers everywhere. </p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>For shame, sir, for shame.</p></blockquote>Who's on first??</blockquote>You have me there, sir, I am at a loss as to the meaning

[Proeka]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Following this, in a state of apparently high arrogance, without so much as a by your leave, you proceed to usurp the operator's right to control and question his participants' input.</p></blockquote><p>It's a message board. The only one who controls anything here is SOE <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> Spyder did not, in fact could not, usurp any amount of that control.</p><p>As for the thread: I dislike titles, because they're nothing but fluff, but at the same time, I'm not so sure it's just the title that causes people to run back to their buddies. After all ... haven't any of you people heard of "pulling"?? Sure you have, & that's what happened to YOU: <b>you got pulled</b>.</p><p>IOW, the OP got suckered by a "Feigned Flight" strategy, which has been working for centuries of military history, & apparently works pretty well in EQ2, too <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> & please, don't talk about "fair" fights, because only dupes, fools, & idiots fight "fair." Learn the tactical lesson, & drive on.</p></blockquote><p>I disagree with paragraph one. If the posting operator took the time and energy to create said post, he/she? is deserving of our respect and forbearance. Common courtesy demands that</p><p>I am afraid I failed to grasp the substance of your last three sentences; so in that area, I remain in the dark</p>

[seahawk]

<p>----- "<b><i>You have me there, sir, I am at a loss as to the meaning "----</i></b></p><p>^^^ It's a reference to comedy bit by Abbot and Costello.</p>

[Proeka]

I see. I do not understand the context though

[Paikis]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>it is inappropriate for you to attempt to arrogantly hijack another posting operator's thread.</p><p>Mr Idragon stated "...i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again..."</p><p>Mr Faerie responded "So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? "</p><p>I chimed in "Make pvp experience gain optional"</p></blockquote>How does pvp experience have anything to do with titles? Talk about hijacking a thread huh?

[Yahshua]

<p>The issue as I see it is this: As the OP said, the issue is with groups getting fame off soloers -- imho this should NEVER be rewarded; so either remove it entirely (the fame aspect of it) or address it otherwise.  This seems to me to be the core issue of what upsets people the most, and the core issue as to why the general opinion is that titles don't represent a thing (generally speaking).</p><p>Typically, you have a "slayer, dessy, champ, etc" who refuses to fight solo, because he's afraid of losing his/her fame/infamy (there are exceptions to this of course, I'm stating this as a general observation); but is more than happy to get your fame off of you by steamrolling over you when he's in a group and you're not (and who wouldn't want it this way...except for those who actually WANT a challenge).  </p><p>It's easy to see how people can say that people such as this have bogus or farmed titles; and they would be right -- it is cheap and it takes little to no skill, and moreover (again, generally speaking) the title bears little value as far as eluding to the skills of the person with the title.</p><p>Now I don't know HOW this can be fixed other than to force a pvp lock encounter of some type in Group vs. solo situations and then have a 1 minute immunity timer on the soloer so he can get ready for the next inevitable fight, but at least this gives the guy a CHANCE.  I'm sure people here with come up with all kinds of ways to suggest ways that this can be abused and that's fine; I'm not saying this is an iron clad solution, but from personal experience nothing makes me angrier than some group ganking me, then talking through their pets about how I was "owned" and what a "noob" I am, and yet turns right around and refuses my challenge to a solo fight, all the while hailing their pets with "I would own you" etc.</p><p>Would love to hear suggestions on how we can stop this, and possibly kill off leaching in the process.</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>it is inappropriate for you to attempt to arrogantly hijack another posting operator's thread.</p><p>Mr Idragon stated "...i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again..."</p><p>Mr Faerie responded "So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? "</p><p>I chimed in "Make pvp experience gain optional"</p></blockquote>How does pvp experience have anything to do with titles? <b>Talk about hijacking a thread huh?</b></blockquote><p>No sir, that I did not do. A question was asked ( See line 3 above), and I responded to same. Out of courteous respect to the posting operator, and particularly because that was not his question,  I modified the brevity of my response. It was my understanding that  had he  wished  a clarification, or required a more in depth response, he would have requested same and I would have happily expounded on my answer.</p><p>No sir, I specifically avoided any thread hijacking. I cannot say the same for others.</p>

[Oh]

<p>nm</p>

[Astornoth]

<p>Tittles should go but I don`t think it`ll solve much I`m afraid ;(</p><p>How many times U were atacked by an green scout while fighting mob or other pll ?</p><p>How many times exacly the same scout just run on sight from U?</p><p>How many times full group killed U in few seconds?</p><p>How many times pll that just killed U simply change zone w/o even slight chance of rematch?</p><p>PvP in <a href="mailto:EQ@2" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">EQ2</a> is a sad joke.U wana be strong forget about anyting decent just do all dirty tricks fight w/o honor lie and kill kill kilil or U wanna have fun?then simply die ;(</p>

[Faenril]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>it is inappropriate for you to attempt to arrogantly hijack another posting operator's thread.</p><p>Mr Idragon stated "...i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again..."</p><p>Mr Faerie responded "So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? "</p><p>I chimed in "Make pvp experience gain optional"</p></blockquote>How does pvp experience have anything to do with titles? <b>Talk about hijacking a thread huh?</b></blockquote><p>No sir, that I did not do. A question was asked ( See line 3 above), and I responded to same. Out of courteous respect to the posting operator, and particularly because that was not his question, I modified the brevity of my response. It was my understanding that had he wished a clarification, or required a more in depth response, he would have requested same and I would have happily expounded on my answer.</p><p>No sir, I specifically avoided any thread hijacking. I cannot say the same for others.</p></blockquote>So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? In other words, how does pvp experience gain optional improve anything with titles ?

[Faenril]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Idragon@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>na i would keep titles.. waht i would do is code some kind of coward penalty that would be the same as a PVP death... i know nothing like that woudl ever happen because unles the code can be made in 30 seconds then SOE wont waste its time.</blockquote><b>I disagree. It's much easier to yank titles and as a result kapoot the play style they've produced as a result. To tweak it instead, is just going to cause people to find loopholes much like they do camping revive points, cliff diving, etc.Titles serve absolutely no purpose except to encourage people to hunt the weakest and run from anything that seems even the slightest bit challenging.</b></blockquote><p>What is it with the idea that the best way to properly manage a controversial benefit is to destroy it? Destruction may be easier, but it is much less beneficial to the greater good, and may actually be destructive to same. Correcting underlying mechanisms that created the controversy may be more difficult, but it is, oftentimes, much more rewarding. </p><p>There is everything right with the development of a variety of responses to any initiated game changes (whether right or wrong). This is supposed to be , after all, a non-linear excitement-filled, player-modifiable playground. Dynamism, in such an environment grows the product and entertains the participants.</p><p>Mr Spyderbyte states "Titles serve absolutely no purpose except to encourage people to hunt the weakest and run from anything that seems even the slightest bit challenging"Please forgive me, but this extremist statement begs to be buried back in the graveyard from which it was unearthed in the dead of night.Why someone would chose to demean the creation of the game developers in such a manner is baffling. to say the least.And to make a clearly erroneous statement with such emphasis insults the intelligence of readers everywhere. </p></blockquote>This company has a long history of destroying things they don't manage to get to work properly/scale approprietly (for instance some class CAs/AA lines), or plain overshooting, like for pvp xp fix. Indeed because it's easier <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />So if they can't figure out how - or won't put the time - to design a meaningfull pvp title system, why not simply remove it ?

[icemini]

Titels are the only reason at all that encourage people to pvp at all, if you remove them what other reason should have left to pvp at all ?

[Faenril]

<cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote>Titels are the only reason at all that encourage people to pvp at all, if you remove them what other reason should have left to pvp at all ?</blockquote>1) fun2) pvp gear3) money (mainly tier <img src="/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />4) status5) funppl who would not pvp at all if there were no titles would not be a great loss.

[Dalema]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Make pvp experience gain optional</blockquote>Please expand on that. Either you had a point that had something to do with titles, or you were spamming every thread with a reply button available. Which is it?</blockquote><p>My arachnid foe, </p><p>it is inappropriate for you to attempt to arrogantly hijack another posting operator's thread.</p><p>Mr Idragon stated "...i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again..."</p><p>Mr Faerie responded "So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? "</p><p>I chimed in "Make pvp experience gain optional"</p><p>Mr shadow viper throws out "In my opinion titles should just be removed."</p><p>Yourself drifts in with a two word expose extolling the virtues of Mr shadow Viper response, specifically the phrase "I agree"</p><p>Following this, in a state of apparently high arrogance, without so much as a by your leave, you proceed to usurp the operator's right to control and question his participants' input.</p><p>You did not request expansion of the one sentence statement of the operator, one sentence question of Mr Faerie, or One sentence answer of Mr Shadow viper.Rather, you arrogantly demanded of me that I "...expand on that..." Further,you did this in a thoroughly shallow,  insulting, and attempted demeaning way that is both below your worth as a responder and reflects poorly on a state of mind that would stoop so low. Requoting it would lower the quality of this thread, and, no sir,  I will not follow such an  odious example.</p><p>For shame, sir, for shame.</p></blockquote>rofl

[icemini]

<cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote>Titels are the only reason at all that encourage people to pvp at all, if you remove them what other reason should have left to pvp at all ?</blockquote>1) fun2) pvp gear3) money (mainly tier <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />4) status5) funppl who would not pvp at all if there were no titles would not be a great loss.</blockquote>1) there is no fun if there is nothing to win or to loose2) not avaible to exiles3) the few copper you gain ?4) not avaible to exiles and absolutly useless5) see 1

[Faenril]

<cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote>Titels are the only reason at all that encourage people to pvp at all, if you remove them what other reason should have left to pvp at all ?</blockquote>1) fun2) pvp gear3) money (mainly tier <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />4) status5) funppl who would not pvp at all if there were no titles would not be a great loss.</blockquote>1) there is no fun if there is nothing to win or to loose2) not avaible to exiles3) the few copper you gain ?4) not avaible to exiles and absolutly useless5) see 1</blockquote>1) Well in many games, especially RL, there is no concrete reward appart from the satisfaction of beating the other player/team, through skills, strats...Why do you NEED a reward ? Showing the other team you play better might just be enough of a reward ?2) Yes, poor exiles who don't have pvp gear, I feel so sad for them <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />3) Kill a tier 8 quester on his way to the nearest mail and you may get a fair amount of gold if you are lucky. I agree at lower tiers you don't get much money from pvp usually. IMO attunable legendary and fabled items, as well as rare harvestables, should drop again from players too.4) Well I wouldn't mind if exiles got status for pvp kills. I don't agree it's useless, especially the guild status you get from pvp. It's true once your guild is 80 and you sit on millions of personnal SP, it's not that useful anymore. Maybe there is something to dig for the devs here...Like finding a purpose to SPs at end game, or making SP harder to get.5) See 1So, turn the question differently: would you pvp if there were no titles ?

[Armironhead]

<cite>Astornoth wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Tittles should go but I don`t think it`ll solve much I`m afraid ;(</p><p>How many times U were atacked by an green scout while fighting mob or other pll ?</p><p>How many times exacly the same scout just run on sight from U?</p><p>How many times full group killed U in few seconds?</p><p>How many times pll that just killed U simply change zone w/o even slight chance of rematch?</p><p>PvP in <a rel="nofollow" href="mailto:EQ@2" target="_blank">EQ2</a> is a sad joke.U wana be strong forget about anyting decent just do all dirty tricks fight w/o honor lie and kill kill kilil or U wanna have fun?then simply die ;(</p></blockquote><p>Welcome to open world pvp.  Open world pvp is not about fair play, one on ones, rematches, etc.  Its about the tactics, the hit and run, bringing the mostest to fight the fastest.  That green who jumped you while you were on a mob? Well he was being smart.  Its highly unlikely that he could have won in a "fair" one on one fight, so he used his brain to change the odds in his favor -- good for him.  Those grps who leave after they have beaten you? Why should they stay -- they've won you lost, its your turn to hunt them.  You want fair play and one on ones in soe?  then the blue severs are for you.</p><p>As for titles, they are one of only two reasons to engage in pvp in soe.  There is no death penealty.  Hence, the driver for pvp is all reward side -- titles and tokens.  If you take titles out of the game, you seriously damage the point of engaging in pvp.  Why hunt at all if you gain nothing from it?  All it will become is mindnumbing repetative killing of the same toons over and over again.  Now I can understand why certain blue colored folk who regularly post on these servers would want to get rid of titles because it is part of their effort to make pvp more blueish and the repetative killing of mobs is their style, but no serious pvp'er should want the removal of titles -- not at least without the addition of some other reward/punishment system, being imposed at the same time.</p>

[Bozidar]

<p>the no-dying-loss and fame-decay combo is all i can think of to improve the title system.</p><p>removing it altogether has some merits to it, but if you want to impliment that, you might as well just do what I said above ^</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>I disagree with paragraph one. If the posting operator took the time and energy to create said post, he/she? is deserving of our respect and forbearance. Common courtesy demands that</p><p>I am afraid I failed to grasp the substance of your last three sentences; so in that area, I remain in the dark</p></blockquote><p>The OP deserves nothing but a polite response, which is what Spyderbite posted. "Respect & forebearance" have nothing to do with any amount of "control" you might wish the OP to have, especially when the OP has no such control. IOW, posting on somewhat public message boards means you have to put up with the responses you get. SOE is the only arbiter of which posts are offensive & trolling, & which are not.</p><p>The last three sentences? I could have sworn they were plainly stated, but perhaps my use of the term "Feigned Flight" confused people. It's simple:</p><p>A. Party A attacks Party B.</p><p>B. Party B "retreats".</p><p>C. Party A gives chase, & then, too late, discovers that Party B has friends hiding in the tree line.</p><p>This was a common strategy of many "light cavalry" forces throughout history: induce the enemy to pursue, pull them into a weak position, then turn around & slaughter them. It never was a "retreat", it was done simply to make people THINK the enemy was retreating, in hopes of spurring them into rashly reacting.</p><p>In the OP's case, it worked like a charm. The first lesson here? Don't get carried away chasing after runners, be more aware of your situation. The other lesson? NEVER assume your opponent is just going to "stand & fight", & NEVER assume that your opponent running means he/she doesn't want to fight. It may well be that he/she is running, in order to get a tactical advantage of some sort. As a Dirge, for example, yes I'm going to run, because I want to get space between you & me so I can try to kite you for a bit. But now that I've read this post, I'm looking forward to playing "bait the Qs" for my allies <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p><p>There's no such thing as a "fair fight", & only the callow or the foolish expect otherwise. It may be just a game, but it's WAR. People need to expect nasty things to happen in WAR, & then deal with it.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>As for titles, they are one of only two reasons to engage in pvp in soe. </p></blockquote><p>Perhaps I missed it in your post, but ...if titles are one of only two reasons for PvP ... what's the OTHER reason? To me, the OTHER reason is that it's <b>fun</b>. For those who think the removal of titles would make PvP no fun ... why do you think that? Isn't the thrill of beating your opponent enough for you? If I want loots & rewards & other such stuff, I'll PvE ... PvP is for the thrill of the kill <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>it is inappropriate for you to attempt to arrogantly hijack another posting operator's thread.</p><p>Mr Idragon stated "...i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again..."</p><p>Mr Faerie responded "So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? "</p><p>I chimed in "Make pvp experience gain optional"</p></blockquote>How does pvp experience have anything to do with titles? Talk about hijacking a thread huh?</blockquote><p>No sir, that I did not do. A question was asked ( See line 3 above), and I responded to same. Out of courteous respect to the posting operator, and particularly because that was not his question, I modified the brevity of my response. It was my understanding that had he wished a clarification, or required a more in depth response, he would have requested same and I would have happily expounded on my answer.</p><p>No sir, I specifically avoided any thread hijacking. I cannot say the same for others.</p></blockquote><b>So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? In other words, how does pvp experience gain optional improve anything with titles ?</b></blockquote><p>Of note is that this polite camaraderie request  originates from the querying poster of the original question and stands in dire contrast to previous hostile insulting ones, from other posters with no right-of-request. My preference would have been for the posting operator (i.e. the Master Poster) to seek same; thus validating any perceived intrusion into his posting space. I will,however, take his silence on this matter as a form of implied consent, as I do not wish to denigrate the querying poster by a non-reply.</p><p>I thank you for this query, sir, and I appreciate your indulgence. A thoughtful question does, however require a thoughtful answer</p><p>Fleeing by titled players, in my opinion, is disgraceful. The specifics of that, however, is grist for another thread.</p><p>Notwithstanding this, the increased rate of flight by titled players, and the fleeing of titled players who did not use to flee, is a phenomenon common to the past seven months or so. </p><p> Let not the naysayers fool you. Obtaining the title of slayer or above requires a significant amount of time, energy, and expertise. Having accomplished this goal, one does , and one should, have a warm feeling of success. At the slayer benchmark, however, title retention becomes problematic. Advancement is progressively difficult, since the title structure and the means of advancement are both pyramidal in nature.  Further, de-titling hurts. Just as gaining slayer gives a sweet  feeling of accomplishment, losing same result in the bitter bilious taste of failure. It is all too human to seek sweet over bitter, success over failure, and this is what happens. </p><p>In seeking advancement, titled players often-times prepare for and chose thier battles. Prior to the afore-mentioned seven month period there were many more battles and battle opportunities. This meant when a titled player was de-titled, possibilities for re-titling were readily available. The titled player could ,and did, take more chances in an attempt to increase his title status; the result: fewer flights.  In this era of more barren opportunities re-titling is much more difficult, making detitling that more painful and more in need of protecting; hence increased flight.</p><p>The pvp experience gain application of Dec 2007 caused the loss of many lower tier pvpers. As these dedicated players retreated from the game, the result was a dramatic decline in the number, intensity and ferocity of low tier pvp events. This resulted in a logarythmic increase in the difficulty of obtaining high title and/or to re-title. Hence those with titles became overprotective of same, and we see the results in this present era. </p><p>PVP experience gain means that the effort invested in preparing for pvp (tier specific skills, spells and equipment), rapidly loses its worth as this millstone drags ythe player  into the next PVP  tier inadequately skilled, spelled and equipped for that tier. This causes fairly  rapid de-titling and difficult re-titling, resulting in the appearance of increased titling protective measures: i.e. flight and other more distasteful mechanisms.</p><p>Optional pvp experience would result in the  return of the dedicated lower tier PVPers. The grand return of this playerbase  would spark  a quantum leap in the </p><p>amount, intensity, and ferocity of lower tier pvp. This would  lead to increased opportunities for re-titling of de-titled players, reducing the fear of not being </p><p>able to retitle, and therefore increasing the the attempts to up-title; ergo fewer flights.</p><p>Fewer fleeing titled players would increase the respect the community would have for the titled, thereby making titles meaningful again. Fleeing in upper tier pvp </p><p>would also decline as these flee-ers would not wish that that thier titled status be held in less regard than the lower tiered titled PVPers; the final result:</p><p> <b>meaningful titles throughout the tiers.</b></p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>I disagree with paragraph one. If the posting operator took the time and energy to create said post, he/she? is deserving of our respect and forbearance. Common courtesy demands that</p><p>I am afraid I failed to grasp the substance of your last three sentences; so in that area, I remain in the dark</p></blockquote><p><b>The OP deserves nothing but a polite response</b>...SOE is the only arbiter of which posts are offensive & trolling, & which are not.</p></blockquote><p>Here our opinions  differ, and part ways(amicably, I would hope).</p><p>It is my thought that the Master Poster guides and channels the discourse to address or amplify on his posting subject; that he may or not, as he sees fit, allow deviations from the matter at hand, or branches of same or ancilliary subjects or subject matters that he deems worthwhile. The moderators role, to me, is more that of a referee, intervening only for rule infractions</p><p>I intend to respect and acknowledge the master posters investment in the creation of his post and offer him more than just a polite response.</p>

[Echgar]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Following this, in a state of apparently high arrogance, without so much as a by your leave, you proceed to usurp the operator's right to control and question his participants' input.</blockquote>The poster that starts the thread has no special privileges above anyone else and <b>all</b> posters are expected to adhere to the <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=411000" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">forum rules</a>.If you feel another poster is violating the <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=411000" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">forum rules</a>, use the "Report this post to a moderator" link and the moderation team will take a look.  Taking it into your own hands, however, with personal attacks, insults, or namecalling is only going to get yourself into trouble.You are welcome to disagree with other posters, but please keep your comments on-topic, constructive, and courteous.

[Proeka]

<cite>Echgar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Following this, in a state of apparently high arrogance, without so much as a by your leave, you proceed to usurp the operator's right to control and question his participants' input.</blockquote>The poster that starts the thread has no special privileges above anyone else and <b>all</b> posters are expected to adhere to the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=411000" target="_blank">forum rules</a>.If you feel another poster is violating the <a rel="nofollow" href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=411000" target="_blank">forum rules</a>, use the "Report this post to a moderator" link and the moderation team will take a look.  Taking it into your own hands, however, with personal attacks, insults, or namecalling is only going to get yourself into trouble.You are welcome to disagree with other posters, but please keep your comments on-topic, constructive, and courteous.</blockquote><p>I stand corrected ,sir.</p><p>Nevertheless, I will abide by my own personal sense of courtesy, and will provide to any Master Poster, Topic Generator, all due respect, forbearance, and indulgence that I believe he/she is entitled to.</p>

[Armironhead]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>As for titles, they are one of only two reasons to engage in pvp in soe. </p></blockquote><p>Perhaps I missed it in your post, but ...if titles are one of only two reasons for PvP ... what's the OTHER reason? To me, the OTHER reason is that it's <b>fun</b>. For those who think the removal of titles would make PvP no fun ... why do you think that? Isn't the thrill of beating your opponent enough for you? If I want loots & rewards & other such stuff, I'll PvE ... PvP is for the thrill of the kill <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p></blockquote>The other reason was mentioned in my post -- tokens.  As for "fun,"  the thrill of killing a "q" just for the sake of killing a q kinda fades over time, at least it does for me and I suspect it does for a fair number of other folk too.  I also suspect, that SOE understands this and that is why they imposed a reward based pvp system.  The rewards give people incentive to keep on going -- something to strive and reach for.  Otherwise, it just becomes the same old, same old.  No titles would leave only tokens, and a only "token" system imo would be very gimpped indeed, especially at lower levels where you cant trade you tokens for gear.

[Zacarus]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Obtaining the title of slayer or above requires a significant amount of time, energy, and expertise.</p></blockquote>Gotta disagree with 2/3 of those criteria (time and expertise). To reach slayer you just need to kill untitleds. You could be slayer in 2 hours in this game. The first hour 0-9 in TD, the second hour 10-14 doing more TD quests and joining the occasional gank squad.<p>Energy yes, I'll grant that. However, expertise is a stretch too. Some classes are just unbelievable at lower tiers. Sk, fury, and wiz are good examples. In t2 and t3 their big nukes hit for half of most peep's hp's. Doesn't take much skill to be a slayer SK in tier 3.</p><p>Frankly I like the title system as is. By and large you can tell who are really skilled players. For me, skill includes running with a solid group, and running from unbalanced fights. Its not just 1v1 machismo. I know plenty of dreads who could easily be beaten by hunters and slayers 1v1. They've earned their dread title through teamwork, and that takes as much skill as 1v1's.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Slayer title'd player sucks. There are lots of unbelievably skilled players with low titles. Some are really aggressive and could care less about dying, so they attack anything that moves. As a result their title gets hit. Some are just making their way through the ranks, and haven't pvp'd a lot.</p>

[Bozidar]

<cite>Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Frankly I like the title system as is. By and large you can tell who are really skilled players. For me, skill includes running with a solid group, and running from unbalanced fights. </p></blockquote>my only argument with this is those in T8 exiled who obtain the most overpowering gear in the game and then run around in gank squads that can't be killed with anything resembling even numbers X2. (or, of course, those who obtained similar gear by being helped by said exiles with the Raid Advantage)

[Azekah1]

<cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>The other reason was mentioned in my post -- tokens.  As for "fun,"  the thrill of killing a "q" just for the sake of killing a q kinda fades over time, at least it does for me and I suspect it does for a fair number of other folk too.  I also suspect, that SOE understands this and that is why they imposed a reward based pvp system.  The rewards give people incentive to keep on going -- something to strive and reach for.  Otherwise, it just becomes the same old, same old.  No titles would leave only tokens, and a only "token" system imo would be very gimpped indeed, especially at lower levels where you cant trade you tokens for gear.</blockquote>It fades in an out for me. If I see a green con w/no title and I just finished my writ will I kill him? Um yea...He's on the frp side...He's evil...He should die (Die as in he should be forced to rezone at spawn point and run back to where he just was).But writs/titles/faction/status/coin/loot are all good reasons to pvp besides the fact that it's just so much fun.Oh yea, about that green con, he gave me status/faction.

[Quasimo]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>it is inappropriate for you to attempt to arrogantly hijack another posting operator's thread.</p><p>Mr Idragon stated "...i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again..."</p><p>Mr Faerie responded "So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? "</p><p>I chimed in "Make pvp experience gain optional"</p></blockquote>How does pvp experience have anything to do with titles? Talk about hijacking a thread huh?</blockquote><p>No sir, that I did not do. A question was asked ( See line 3 above), and I responded to same. Out of courteous respect to the posting operator, and particularly because that was not his question, I modified the brevity of my response. It was my understanding that had he wished a clarification, or required a more in depth response, he would have requested same and I would have happily expounded on my answer.</p><p>No sir, I specifically avoided any thread hijacking. I cannot say the same for others.</p></blockquote><b>So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? In other words, how does pvp experience gain optional improve anything with titles ?</b></blockquote><p>Of note is that this polite camaraderie request  originates from the querying poster of the original question and stands in dire contrast to previous hostile insulting ones, from other posters with no right-of-request. My preference would have been for the posting operator (i.e. the Master Poster) to seek same; thus validating any perceived intrusion into his posting space. I will,however, take his silence on this matter as a form of implied consent, as I do not wish to denigrate the querying poster by a non-reply.</p><p>I thank you for this query, sir, and I appreciate your indulgence. A thoughtful question does, however require a thoughtful answer</p><p>Fleeing by titled players, in my opinion, is disgraceful. The specifics of that, however, is grist for another thread.</p><p>Notwithstanding this, the increased rate of flight by titled players, and the fleeing of titled players who did not use to flee, is a phenomenon common to the past seven months or so. </p><p> Let not the naysayers fool you. Obtaining the title of slayer or above requires a significant amount of time, energy, and expertise. Having accomplished this goal, one does , and one should, have a warm feeling of success. At the slayer benchmark, however, title retention becomes problematic. Advancement is progressively difficult, since the title structure and the means of advancement are both pyramidal in nature.  Further, de-titling hurts. Just as gaining slayer gives a sweet  feeling of accomplishment, losing same result in the bitter bilious taste of failure. It is all too human to seek sweet over bitter, success over failure, and this is what happens. </p><p>In seeking advancement, titled players often-times prepare for and chose thier battles. Prior to the afore-mentioned seven month period there were many more battles and battle opportunities. This meant when a titled player was de-titled, possibilities for re-titling were readily available. The titled player could ,and did, take more chances in an attempt to increase his title status; the result: fewer flights.  In this era of more barren opportunities re-titling is much more difficult, making detitling that more painful and more in need of protecting; hence increased flight.</p><p>The pvp experience gain application of Dec 2007 caused the loss of many lower tier pvpers. As these dedicated players retreated from the game, the result was a dramatic decline in the number, intensity and ferocity of low tier pvp events. This resulted in a logarythmic increase in the difficulty of obtaining high title and/or to re-title. Hence those with titles became overprotective of same, and we see the results in this present era. </p><p>PVP experience gain means that the effort invested in preparing for pvp (tier specific skills, spells and equipment), rapidly loses its worth as this millstone drags ythe player  into the next PVP  tier inadequately skilled, spelled and equipped for that tier. This causes fairly  rapid de-titling and difficult re-titling, resulting in the appearance of increased titling protective measures: i.e. flight and other more distasteful mechanisms.</p><p>Optional pvp experience would result in the  return of the dedicated lower tier PVPers. The grand return of this playerbase  would spark  a quantum leap in the </p><p>amount, intensity, and ferocity of lower tier pvp. This would  lead to increased opportunities for re-titling of de-titled players, reducing the fear of not being </p><p>able to retitle, and therefore increasing the the attempts to up-title; ergo fewer flights.</p><p>Fewer fleeing titled players would increase the respect the community would have for the titled, thereby making titles meaningful again. Fleeing in upper tier pvp </p><p>would also decline as these flee-ers would not wish that that thier titled status be held in less regard than the lower tiered titled PVPers; the final result:</p><p> <b>meaningful titles throughout the tiers.</b></p></blockquote>Ya, I think your forgetting one thing, with or without pvp xp, titling is relatively just as hard or easy as it is with or without any other game mechanic, so your whole argument generally fails.I think titles should be kept when obtained, statically, which may require a super amount of pvp killing to get done and might require some other mechanism to avoid massive zergging to title up, but still, there is a reason wow got rid of the pyramid pvp title scheme.I think the PVP xp is a good system and should remain.

[Proeka]

<cite>Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Obtaining the title of slayer or above requires a significant amount of time, energy, and expertise.</p></blockquote><b>Gotta disagree with 2/3 of those criteria (time and expertise). To reach slayer you just need to kill untitleds. You could be slayer in 2 hours in this game. The first hour 0-9 in TD, the second hour 10-14 doing more TD quests and joining the occasional gank squad</b>. </blockquote><p>Hmmm. Things have certainly changed since the inception of pvp experience gain. </p><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. Using authorized, non-exploitative game mechanics required many hours of successful fun battles to reach that previously envied status. </p><p>It appears that in this era of reduced low tier PVP activity, our game managers may have increased fame experience gain or reduced rank level requirement to shorten the time to the one hour of PVPing you described for achieving slayer rank. </p><p>If the time requirement is actually that short, we should see a myriad of slayers and supra-slayers in game. Also, hunter-titled players should abound. For if slayer requires one hour, then hunters that much less: thirty to forty-five minutes perhaps?  This would be quite easily attainable by even the most casual of players. </p><p> Is there any confirmation of high numbers of these categories on this now thinner low tier PVP battlefield?</p>

[Bozidar]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hmmm. Things have certainly changed since the inception of pvp experience gain. </p><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. Using authorized, non-exploitative game mechanics required many hours of successful fun battles to reach that previously envied status. </p><p>It appears that in this era of reduced low tier PVP activity, our game managers may have increased fame experience gain or reduced rank level requirement to shorten the time to the one hour of PVPing you described for achieving slayer rank. </p><p>If the time requirement is actually that short, we should see a myriad of slayers and supra-slayers in game. Also, hunter-titled players should abound. For if slayer requires one hour, then hunters that much less: thirty to forty-five minutes perhaps?  This would be quite easily attainable by even the most casual of players. </p><p> Is there any confirmation of high numbers of these categories on this now thinner low tier PVP battlefield?</p></blockquote><p>it used to and still does require about 16 kills to get from unranked to slayer depending on who you kill, and if you're grouped or not, or if others share in the kill.</p><p>it's got nothing to do with time, or xp.</p>

[Norrsken]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:</cite><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. </p></blockquote>That is plain wrong.

[Proeka]

<cite>Quasimo wrote:</cite><blockquote>Ya, I think your forgetting one thing, with or without pvp xp, titling is relatively just as hard or easy as it is with or without any other game mechanic, so your whole argument generally fails.I</blockquote><p>No sir, that is not the case. The argument is robust. There is no failure. The ease of titling is directly related to PVP battles.</p><p>More PVP battles and battle opportunities means a more dynamic and respected titling and titling fluctuation system, increasing the meaning of held titles. Fewer PVP encounters creates a more static environment, the offshoot of which are an increase in the poorly  respected title protective measures such as flight. This reduces the proportion of meaningful titles, pulling that category down as a whole.</p><p>In summary: mandatory PVP experience gain = less PVPing=fewer opportunities for titling and retitling=greater amount of poorly respected title protective       measures= reduction in the quantity and quality of <b>meaningful titles</b></p><p><b>                   </b>optional pvp experience gain =morePVPing=more opportunities for titling and retitling=lesser amount of poorly respected title protective       measures= increase in the quantity and quality of <b>meaningful titles</b></p>

[Proeka]

nm

[Proeka]

<cite>Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:</cite><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. </p></blockquote>That is plain wrong</blockquote><p>You may be correct. Let me clarify.</p><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a <b>varying</b>  number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. This was because different opponents gave different amounts of fame per battle</p>

[Azekah1]

I think I see more frp slayers/destroyers then hunters/no titles.

[Valdar]

<p>At the moment it seems that the factions are reduced to docks hugging.</p><p>As for unkillable Exiles, probably 1 group out there that is that tough, which is the VV group. Any others you would have a shot. As for gear, the one advantage exile has is a Mythical, which can be obtained easily (according to the forum gurus here) by exiling and raiding a few weeks. So stop whining, leave the docks and run around a bit so there can be some decent fights again.</p>

[Zacarus]

<cite>Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:</cite><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. </p></blockquote>That is plain wrong.</blockquote>You quoted the wrong person there ... I didn't (and wouldn't) write that.

[Dalema]

<p>Title's mean very very little in terms of skill. Mysts of Avalon is a fine example of this. All they would do is camp the Qeynos guards in Ant every single day. Some of them got high titles, but Im fairly sure I could roll a level 10 guard in old school island gear and kill them.  </p><p>There are so many reasons why fame means very little. Buying fame, fame whoring (this comes in many forms, of course), exploiting etc.</p>

[Wreatch]

/agree remove titles.  I have been saying this to anyone who will listen.  Title [Removed for Content] are annoying, if you group with them they will watch you die before OMG losing fame.Give us something to fight over, remove titles, and pvp will be better for it.If you simply MUST have titles, find some other way to code them, as is they ruin pvp imo.  They actually discourage fights, instead of promoting them.

[Paikis]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Ulvhamne@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:</cite><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. </p></blockquote>That is plain wrong</blockquote><p>You may be correct. Let me clarify.</p><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a <b>varying</b>  number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. This was because different opponents gave different amounts of fame per battle</p></blockquote>I begin to wonder if you're playing the same game as I am? Since their inception, the only change to the title system has been the addition of the 'General' title. Other than that, there has not EVER been any change at all to the system. It is still exactly how it was when your supposed 'Golden Age' of PvP lockers was in full swing.

[Faenril]

I don't subscribe to the argument "more players in the same tier = less fleeing", which seems to be the idea pro - locking. Consider a tier that is underpopulated (does not matter which one, since it's all theory), and imagine I am general. If I want to get master I have to fight dreadnaughts and generals, but there is only a handful of those in the first place. So I better fight them when I meet them, because it may take a while before I meet another one. On the other hand, if a tier is crowded, there are plenty of ppl in my title range, so I can fly from those that are better than me, and only fight those that I consider "easier". And a more crowded tier = more leech opportunities too. I don't think a more populated tier brings less fleeing. But it brings more battles overall, so fleeing is less annoying.

[Jacquotte]

<p>as annoying as title-huggers may be, removing titles removes a great deal of the game that is pvp</p><p> pvp'ers need some kind award</p><p>pvp needs to be awarding, instead of mindless killing that results in nothing</p><p>there has been talk of removing the +/- 1 infamy-gain, so that you got infamy/lost infamy for/from anyone, this, however, would result in even more runners</p><p>leave titles be.. *clicks escape root*</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><p>.</p><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a <b>varying</b>  number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. This was because different opponents gave different amounts of fame per battle</p></blockquote>I begin to wonder if you're playing the same game as I am? Since their inception, the only change to the title system has been the addition of the 'General' title. Other than that, there has not EVER been any change at all to the system. It is still exactly how it was when your supposed 'Golden Age' of PvP lockers was in full swing.</blockquote>I fail to grasp your point. Why are you so bemused? To what title system change  do you refer?  How does your question mesh with the quoted text?  Enlighten me.

[Proeka]

<cite>Tapeworm@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Title's mean very very little in terms of skill. </p></blockquote>Were this my thread, I would put the  kibosh to this ludicrous statement; the fear of parasitic infestation notwithstanding.

[Bozidar]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tapeworm@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Title's mean very very little in terms of skill. </p></blockquote>Were this my thread, I would put the  kibosh to this ludicrous statement; the fear of parasitic infestation notwithstanding.</blockquote><p>As previously stated by the moderator, this is indeed your thread as much as it is anyone elses.   Also, putting the Kibosh on it, as it were, is not within your, nor any other non-soe participant's purview.</p><p>That being said I also disagree to an extent.  Titles generally give you a great deal of information about a player if you evaluate them in context.  Skill is often, imo, determinable based on a players title and the context in which i observe them playing.</p><p>So if a player is solo in kp by the docks all the time, and facing (not hidng under) an x4.. then his title, if he has any, is likely well earned.</p><p>If a player is lvl 70 in kp with a general title hiding behind an X4 leaching fame.. his title is very likely meaningless.</p><p>It's all about context</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>.</p><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a <b>varying</b>  number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. This was because different opponents gave different amounts of fame per battle</p></blockquote>I begin to wonder if you're playing the same game as I am? <b>Since their inception, the only change to the title system has been the addition of the 'General' title.</b> <b>Other than that, there has not EVER been any change at all to the system.</b> It is still exactly how it was when your supposed 'Golden Age' of PvP lockers was in full swing.</blockquote>I fail to grasp your point. Why are you so bemused? To what title system change  do you refer?  How does your question mesh with the quoted text?  Enlighten me.</blockquote><p>I think he's referring to the same title system you are. His question meshes quite well, in that he's asserting, contra you, that the title system hasn't changed at all; note the <b>bolded</b> phrases, which I highlighted for your convenience.</p><p>IOW, he's saying you're completely wrong to claim that the implementation of mandatory PvP XP is the problem, here. That's the point you say you "fail to grasp."</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><b>I don't subscribe to the argument "more players in the same tier = less fleeing", which seems to be the idea pro - locking.</b>On the other hand, if a tier is crowded, there are plenty of ppl in my title range, so I can fly from those that are better than me, and only fight those that I consider "easier".I don't think a more populated tier brings less fleeing. But it brings more battles overall, so fleeing is less annoying.</blockquote><p>I should have been more detailed, and will try to do so in future musings.</p><p>More players in the tier = more battles= proportionately fewer player frustration-causing flights.  </p><p>Some players are just flee-ers, its in thier blood; the first thing they were taught as soon as they could crawl.  They glory at the feel of the wind in thier hair(helmet must be removed for this), the grass brushing thier ankles, the sand rising in furious swirls behind them as they speed in terror from Idragon as he utters his Dragonic roar and chases them with his sword of " I am going to kill you".</p><p>But , if only one of three fled from Idragon's fire- breathing rage, he would not be as upset. The other two would serve to satisfy his lust for fresh meat.   munch , munch munch.  Hmmm (Idragon  thinks),picking a piece of stuff from between his teeth ... not much meat on that fae.    Shouldnt complain though,   that first  dark elf meat was sweeettt!!.  Still,    bet that ogre that got away would have been more filling.   Oh well, meat is meat...  Now if I can only find another hapless non-flee-er.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Some players are just flee-ers, its in thier blood.</p></blockquote>& that will be true, regardless of titles, PvP XP, looting rights, or otherwise.

[Proeka]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>.</p><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a <b>varying</b>  number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. This was because different opponents gave different amounts of fame per battle</p></blockquote>I begin to wonder if you're playing the same game as I am? <b>Since their inception, the only change to the title system has been the addition of the 'General' title.</b> <b>Other than that, there has not EVER been any change at all to the system.</b> It is still exactly how it was when your supposed 'Golden Age' of PvP lockers was in full swing.</blockquote>I fail to grasp your point. Why are you so bemused? To what title system change  do you refer?  How does your question mesh with the quoted text?  Enlighten me.</blockquote><p>I think he's referring to the same title system you are. His question meshes quite well, in that he's asserting, contra you, that the title system hasn't changed at all; note the <b>bolded</b> phrases, which I highlighted for your convenience.</p><p>IOW, he's saying you're completely wrong to claim that the implementation of mandatory PvP XP is the problem, here. That's the point you say you "fail to grasp."</p></blockquote>Notwithstanding the excess of your generosity in providing me with bolded texts(and the appreciation of same correlates well with the progressive increased mental fatigue as I frantically search both my short and long term memory for recollection of commentary on my part that the title system has changed),  you may be confusing me with another poster.

[Bozidar]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hmmm. Things have certainly changed since the inception of pvp experience gain. </p><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. Using authorized, non-exploitative game mechanics required many hours of successful fun battles to reach that previously envied status. </p></blockquote>just jogging the ole' memory

[Paikis]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Hmmm. Things have certainly changed since the inception of pvp experience gain. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Prior to Dec 2007</span>, it required a <b>varying</b>  number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. This was because different opponents gave different amounts of fame per battle</p></blockquote>I begin to wonder if you're playing the same game as I am? Since their inception, the only change to the title system has been the addition of the 'General' title. Other than that, there has not EVER been any change at all to the system. It is still exactly how it was when your supposed 'Golden Age' of PvP lockers was in full swing.</blockquote>I fail to grasp your point. Why are you so bemused? To what title system change  do you refer?  How does your question mesh with the quoted text?  Enlighten me.</blockquote>My point was related to the red text. You seem to be implying that adding PvP exerience somehow changed the title system. It didn't. Guess what? It still requires the exact same amount of kills to get your new title. Different oponents still give different amounts of fame, nothing has changed.

[liveja]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Obtaining the title of slayer or above requires a significant amount of time, energy, and expertise.</p></blockquote><b>Gotta disagree with 2/3 of those criteria (time and expertise). To reach slayer you just need to kill untitleds. You could be slayer in 2 hours in this game. The first hour 0-9 in TD, the second hour 10-14 doing more TD quests and joining the occasional gank squad</b>. </blockquote><p><b>Hmmm. Things have certainly changed since the inception of pvp experience gain. </b></p><p><b>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. Using authorized, non-exploitative game mechanics required many hours of successful fun battles to reach that previously envied status. </b></p><p><b>It appears that in this era of reduced low tier PVP activity, our game managers may have increased fame experience gain or reduced rank level requirement to shorten the time to the one hour of PVPing you described for achieving slayer rank.</b> </p><p>If the time requirement is actually that short, we should see a myriad of slayers and supra-slayers in game. Also, hunter-titled players should abound. For if slayer requires one hour, then hunters that much less: thirty to forty-five minutes perhaps?  This would be quite easily attainable by even the most casual of players. </p><p> Is there any confirmation of high numbers of these categories on this now thinner low tier PVP battlefield?</p></blockquote><p>Proekame, I did not confuse you with anyone, nor did Paikis. You are implying that the amount of fame needed to achieve Slayer rank has changed since 12/07. Again, I bolded the relevant text for your convenience.</p><p>Others are saying that no such change occurred. That is what I'm referring to.</p><p>If you can show me that some other Proekame wrote the message I quoted, or that you weren't really trying to imply there was a change in the title system, please feel free.</p>

[wellehad0]

<cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't subscribe to the argument "more players in the same tier = less fleeing", which seems to be the idea pro - locking.Consider a tier that is underpopulated (does not matter which one, since it's all theory), and imagine I am general. If I want to get master I have to fight dreadnaughts and generals, but there is only a handful of those in the first place. So I better fight them when I meet them, because it may take a while before I meet another one.On the other hand, if a tier is crowded, there are plenty of ppl in my title range, so I can fly from those that are better than me, and only fight those that I consider "easier". And a more crowded tier = more leech opportunities too.I don't think a more populated tier brings less fleeing. But it brings more battles overall, so fleeing is less annoying.</blockquote><p>i agree with you that alot of people will only fight if they think the other person is weaker then them.. once you get destroyer then well its the point where you cant only pick on noobs anymore... like with my wiz when he got destroyer i had to fight champs destroyers and slayers if i wanted to moove up in rank..</p><p>jsut to make it clear in no way do i want titles gone wihtout them pvp would become worthless and have no meaning... yes pvp can be fun but without real reason to do it then it gets kind of boring.... well glad i got people talking.</p>

[Azekah1]

<cite>Idragon@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>i agree with you that alot of people will only fight if they think the other person is weaker then them.. once you get destroyer then well its the point where you cant only pick on noobs anymore... like with my wiz when he got destroyer i had to fight champs destroyers and slayers if i wanted to moove up in rank..</p></blockquote>Who would fight if they thought they were going to lose? Usually ppl don't like to lose. It's not brave when you charge into a 3vs1...It's stupid.I'm sure there is some title hugging going around, but I would bet more often than not it's just ppl getting mad they didn't get to gank that loner or smaller group.I was on the Nek docks last night with a 30 ranger and 34 warden...so the warden was the only one with 32 MC. A group comes up to use, 4 of em, all destroyers...all over 32...so they all have 32 MC. One guy puts a pet up and says yourgroupvsours. I'm like, are you serious? There was no way we were just going to give away fame to these guys.Neway, picking your fights is not title huggin, its strategy.

[liveja]

<p>People who rail against "title huggers" are, essentially, complaining that "nobody fights fair."</p><p>Unfortunately for that complaint: "fair fights" are for chumps. There is no "honor", there is no "glory", there's only "you die, or I die", & I'm going to do my best to ensure it's not me.</p><p>The very best way to deal with this, is to quit worrying about whether or not other people are fighting "fair", & worry instead about whether or not you're the one getting looted when the dust clears.</p>

[Paikis]

<p>Speaking for myself, I used to hate titles. I used to tell people that I didn't care about my title, and for a long time that was true...</p><p>Then I hit Dreadnaught.</p><p>I died (while AFK) just outside Haven in Nek last night... my first reaction was no longer 'OMG I DIED!' No, my first reaction was 'Thank god I didn't lose notoriety!'</p>

[Armironhead]

<cite>Azekah1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Idragon@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>i agree with you that alot of people will only fight if they think the other person is weaker then them.. once you get destroyer then well its the point where you cant only pick on noobs anymore... like with my wiz when he got destroyer i had to fight champs destroyers and slayers if i wanted to moove up in rank..</p></blockquote>Who would fight if they thought they were going to lose? Usually ppl don't like to lose. It's not brave when you charge into a 3vs1...It's stupid.I'm sure there is some title hugging going around, but I would bet more often than not it's just ppl getting mad they didn't get to gank that loner or smaller group.I was on the Nek docks last night with a 30 ranger and 34 warden...so the warden was the only one with 32 MC. A group comes up to use, 4 of em, all destroyers...all over 32...so they all have 32 MC. One guy puts a pet up and says yourgroupvsours. I'm like, are you serious? There was no way we were just going to give away fame to these guys.Neway, picking your fights is not title huggin, its strategy.</blockquote>Well what the title haters are saying is that if there were no titles you would probably say "What the [censored]" and just fight them even though you were likely going to lose, since you had "nothing" to lose.  IMO that is just a fantasy.  People are just as likely to say "why bother" since they have nothing to gain.

[wellehad0]

<cite>Azekah1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Idragon@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>i agree with you that alot of people will only fight if they think the other person is weaker then them.. once you get destroyer then well its the point where you cant only pick on noobs anymore... like with my wiz when he got destroyer i had to fight champs destroyers and slayers if i wanted to moove up in rank..</p></blockquote>Who would fight if they thought they were going to lose? Usually ppl don't like to lose. It's not brave when you charge into a 3vs1...It's stupid.I'm sure there is some title hugging going around, but I would bet more often than not it's just ppl getting mad they didn't get to gank that loner or smaller group.I was on the Nek docks last night with a 30 ranger and 34 warden...so the warden was the only one with 32 MC. A group comes up to use, 4 of em, all destroyers...all over 32...so they all have 32 MC. One guy puts a pet up and says yourgroupvsours. I'm like, are you serious? There was no way we were just going to give away fame to these guys.Neway, picking your fights is not title huggin, its strategy.</blockquote><p>hmm is it strategy what goes on in sinking sands by the carpet. where at any given time there is a swarm of one side or the other who are camping the carpet to trap people inot being ganged on....   im the kind of person who thinks every class has there arch enemy where yes you would not fight 1v1, but  when im a mage destroyer and i have rangers 8 lvls higher then me running from me because they dont want o take a chance of fighting somebody thats not at 50% health and have mobs on them then somthing is wrong..</p>

[therodge]

<cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote>Titels are the only reason at all that encourage people to pvp at all, if you remove them what other reason should have left to pvp at all ?</blockquote>1) fun2) pvp gear3) money (mainly tier <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />4) status5) funppl who would not pvp at all if there were no titles would not be a great loss.</blockquote>1) there is no fun if there is nothing to win or to loose2) not avaible to exiles3) the few copper you gain ?4) not avaible to exiles and absolutly useless5) see 1</blockquote>this is why i dont play pvp in eq2 anymore, to me pvp is one of the most interesting and challenging things to do, i have just gone back to first person shooters, and waiting for darkfall to come out. PVP is about the challenge, the possibility of something unexpected happening. honestly if the took out every reward for PVP titles armor everything, the only thing that should display is when inspected is should show the following Kills(how many people you have killed)  Deaths (how many deaths you had) Disengages( how many times you entered pvp and neither one of you killed eachother with 5 min) Hell got rid of factions compleatly free for all no holds bared pvp Thats all i would do, you can win nothing but can loose everything, the rewards arnt what drives pvp, its the action, the challenge. if your playing pvp for any reason other then you like the sheer rush of downing another player the idea of knowing your better then they are at pvp, then honestly you have no reason to pvp as it is.

[Azekah1]

<cite>Idragon@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>hmm is it strategy what goes on in sinking sands by the carpet. where at any given time there is a swarm of one side or the other who are camping the carpet to trap people inot being ganged on....   im the kind of person who thinks every class has there arch enemy where yes you would not fight 1v1, but  when im a mage destroyer and i have rangers 8 lvls higher then me running from me because they dont want o take a chance of fighting somebody thats not at 50% health and have mobs on them then somthing is wrong..</p></blockquote>I didn't say no one title hugged.

[Proeka]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Hmmm. Things have certainly changed since the inception of pvp experience gain. </p><p>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. Using authorized, non-exploitative game mechanics required many hours of successful fun battles to reach that previously envied status. </p></blockquote>just jogging the ole' memory</blockquote><p>Thank you.</p><p>But if you would be kind enough to review the preceding  Zacarus post to which that sentence was refrencing,  where he stated that slayer title could be gained with one hour of PVP play time,  you would have realised that my commentary was referring to this (to me)  surprising new change. The following paragraph was a follow on to its predecessor.</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Hmmm. Things have certainly changed since the inception of pvp experience gain. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Prior to Dec 2007</span>, it required a <b>varying</b>  number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. This was because different opponents gave different amounts of fame per battle</p></blockquote>I begin to wonder if you're playing the same game as I am? Since their inception, the only change to the title system has been the addition of the 'General' title. Other than that, there has not EVER been any change at all to the system. It is still exactly how it was when your supposed 'Golden Age' of PvP lockers was in full swing.</blockquote>I fail to grasp your point. Why are you so bemused? To what title system change  do you refer?  How does your question mesh with the quoted text?  Enlighten me.</blockquote>My point was related to the red text. You seem to be implying that adding PvP exerience somehow changed the title system. It didn't. Guess what? It still requires the exact same amount of kills to get your new title. Different oponents still give different amounts of fame, nothing has changed.</blockquote>Thank you.But if you would be kind enough to review the preceding  Zacarus post to which that sentence was refrencing,  where he stated that slayer title could be gained with one hour of PVP play time,  you would have realised that my commentary was referring to this (to me)  surprising new change. The following paragraph was a follow on to its predecessor.

[Proeka]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Tapeworm@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Title's mean very very little in terms of skill. </p></blockquote>Were this my thread, I would put the  kibosh to this ludicrous statement; the fear of parasitic infestation notwithstanding.</blockquote><p>As previously stated by the moderator, this is indeed your thread as much as it is anyone elses.   Also, <b>putting the Kibosh on it, as it were, is not within your, nor any other non-soe participant's purview.</b></p><p>That being said I also disagree to an extent.  Titles generally give you a great deal of information about a player if you evaluate them in context.  Skill is often, imo, determinable based on a players title and the context in which i observe them playing.</p><p>So if a player is solo in kp by the docks all the time, and facing (not hidng under) an x4.. then his title, if he has any, is likely well earned.</p><p>If a player is lvl 70 in kp with a general title hiding behind an X4 leaching fame.. his title is very likely meaningless.</p><p>It's all about context</p></blockquote><p>I actually only intended to kibosh the "... very very little..."  portion of his input. </p><p>It was never my intent to raise the fear that I would kibosh him or the entirety of his post ( postings).  (Kiboshing abilities notwithstanding).</p><p>I mean, honestly, what harm can a little kiboshing here and there do anyway. </p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Zacarus@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>Obtaining the title of slayer or above requires a significant amount of time, energy, and expertise.</p></blockquote><b>Gotta disagree with 2/3 of those criteria (time and expertise). To reach slayer you just need to kill untitleds. You could be slayer in 2 hours in this game. The first hour 0-9 in TD, the second hour 10-14 doing more TD quests and joining the occasional gank squad</b>. </blockquote><p><b>Hmmm. Things have certainly changed since the inception of pvp experience gain. </b></p><p><b>Prior to Dec 2007, it required a finite number of successful PVP battles to attain sufficient fame to achieve slayer rank. Using authorized, non-exploitative game mechanics required many hours of successful fun battles to reach that previously envied status. </b></p><p><b>It appears that in this era of reduced low tier PVP activity, our game managers may have increased fame experience gain or reduced rank level requirement to shorten the time to the one hour of PVPing you described for achieving slayer rank.</b> </p><p>If the time requirement is actually that short, we should see a myriad of slayers and supra-slayers in game. Also, hunter-titled players should abound. For if slayer requires one hour, then hunters that much less: thirty to forty-five minutes perhaps?  This would be quite easily attainable by even the most casual of players. </p><p> Is there any confirmation of high numbers of these categories on this now thinner low tier PVP battlefield?</p></blockquote><p>Proekame, I did not confuse you with anyone, nor did Paikis. You are implying that the amount of fame needed to achieve Slayer rank has changed since 12/07. Again, I bolded the relevant text for your convenience.</p><p>Others are saying that no such change occurred. That is what I'm referring to.</p><p>If you can show me that some other Proekame wrote the message I quoted, or that you weren't really trying to imply there was a change in the title system, please feel free.</p></blockquote><p>That is zacarus assertion.   Not mine. I actually completely disagreed with that described time window, but was too polite to state it outright.  My hope was that someone familiar with whether it was actually possible to do so would debunk, or offer supporting evidence.</p><p>Alas,  no brave soul stepped forward on any side of it, and now I am forced to prove my innocence in that matter.  Not guilty, your honor, not guilty.</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Idragon@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote>I don't subscribe to the argument "more players in the same tier = less fleeing", which seems to be the idea pro - locking.Consider a tier that is underpopulated (does not matter which one, since it's all theory), and imagine I am general. If I want to get master I have to fight dreadnaughts and generals, but there is only a handful of those in the first place. So I better fight them when I meet them, because it may take a while before I meet another one.On the other hand, if a tier is crowded, there are plenty of ppl in my title range, so I can fly from those that are better than me, and only fight those that I consider "easier". And a more crowded tier = more leech opportunities too.I don't think a more populated tier brings less fleeing. But it brings more battles overall, so fleeing is less annoying.</blockquote><p>i agree with you that alot of people will only fight if they think the other person is weaker then them.. once you get destroyer then well its the point where you cant only pick on noobs anymore... like with my wiz when he got destroyer i had to fight champs destroyers and slayers if i wanted to moove up in rank..</p><p>jsut to make it clear in no way do i want titles gone wihtout them pvp would become worthless and have no meaning... yes pvp can be fun but without real reason to do it then it gets kind of boring.... well glad i got people talking.</p></blockquote><p>Talking?  Did you say talking?</p><p>You, Master Poster, have created a storm front of discourse, a veritable vortex of dialogue, a raging inferno of  differing opinions, expose's and reparte's.</p><p>No, not talking, not talkin at all.</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>People who rail against "title huggers" are, essentially, complaining that "nobody fights fair."</p><p>Unfortunately for that complaint: "fair fights" are for chumps. There is no "honor", there is no "glory", there's only "you die, or I die", & I'm going to do my best to ensure it's not me.</p><p>The very best way to deal with this, is to quit worrying about whether or not other people are fighting "fair", & worry instead about whether or not you're the one getting looted when the dust clears.</p></blockquote><p>Honor and glory are personal attributes.</p><p>It is honorable to not attack a green or grey foe.</p><p>It is glorious to decimate a yellow, orange or red.</p><p>You, my good man, are missing out on a great deal. A great deal, for sure!!</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>People who rail against "title huggers" are, essentially, complaining that "nobody fights fair."</p><p>Unfortunately for that complaint: "fair fights" are for chumps. There is no "honor", there is no "glory", there's only "you die, or I die", & I'm going to do my best to ensure it's not me.</p><p>The very best way to deal with this, is to quit worrying about whether or not other people are fighting "fair", & worry instead about whether or not you're the one getting looted when the dust clears.</p></blockquote><p>Having castigated you for your honor and glory statement, I must say this:</p><p>The assassin who stealths up behind you and chops your head off without even saying hello,  is fighting honorably, and I wouldnt have it any other way.</p>

[Armironhead]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>People who rail against "title huggers" are, essentially, complaining that "nobody fights fair."</p><p>Unfortunately for that complaint: "fair fights" are for chumps. There is no "honor", there is no "glory", there's only "you die, or I die", & I'm going to do my best to ensure it's not me.</p><p>The very best way to deal with this, is to quit worrying about whether or not other people are fighting "fair", & worry instead about whether or not you're the one getting looted when the dust clears.</p></blockquote><p>Honor and glory are personal attributes.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">It is honorable to not attack a green or grey foe.</span></p></blockquote><p>Absolutely and completely wrong.  SOE imposed lore on us for a reason -- immersion.  The point of this game is a war between opposing sides (interestingly in pve soe allows violations of the lore for raid purposes, but not on pvp servers -- go figure).  In war, if you don't kill the enemy you're a traitor to the cause and will be lined up against a wall and shot for your cowardness.  Now arguably maybe the "Q's" have some heightened sense of morality that does not allow them to slaughter foes who are weaker then them (how they every expect to win this thing I don't know), but I'm fairly sure that lucian will have your head if you <i>don't</i> kill greens and greys.</p>

[Armironhead]

<cite>therodge wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote>Titels are the only reason at all that encourage people to pvp at all, if you remove them what other reason should have left to pvp at all ?</blockquote>1) fun2) pvp gear3) money (mainly tier <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />4) status5) funppl who would not pvp at all if there were no titles would not be a great loss.</blockquote>1) there is no fun if there is nothing to win or to loose2) not avaible to exiles3) the few copper you gain ?4) not avaible to exiles and absolutly useless5) see 1</blockquote>this is why i dont play pvp in eq2 anymore, to me pvp is one of the most interesting and challenging things to do, i have just gone back to first person shooters, and waiting for darkfall to come out. PVP is about the challenge, the possibility of something unexpected happening. honestly if the took out every reward for PVP titles armor everything, the only thing that should display is when inspected is should show the following Kills(how many people you have killed)  Deaths (how many deaths you had) Disengages( how many times you entered pvp and neither one of you killed eachother with 5 min) Hell got rid of factions compleatly free for all no holds bared pvp Thats all i would do, you can win nothing but can loose everything, the rewards arnt what drives pvp, its the action, the challenge. if your playing pvp for any reason other then you like the sheer rush of downing another player the idea of knowing your better then they are at pvp, then honestly you have no reason to pvp as it is.</blockquote>SOME folks play poker for only matchsticks and the like. OTHER folks cannot play poker unless there is something real at stake, i.e. money.  Who is the real poker player?  For my money, its the folk that play for <i>money</i>.  Playing pvp games where you run and shoot and have nothing at stake -- blah.

[Bozidar]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Thank you.</p><p>But if you would be kind enough to review the preceding  Zacarus post to which that sentence was refrencing,  where he stated that slayer title could be gained with one hour of PVP play time,  you would have realised that my commentary was referring to this (to me)  surprising new change. The following paragraph was a follow on to its predecessor.</p></blockquote>i'm aware of the context.  yes, you can get slayer in an hour, it's got nothing to do with time it's all got to do with gear, groups, and knowing where and who to hunt.

[Faenril]

<cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>therodge wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Faerie@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>icemini wrote:</cite><blockquote>Titels are the only reason at all that encourage people to pvp at all, if you remove them what other reason should have left to pvp at all ?</blockquote>1) fun2) pvp gear3) money (mainly tier <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />4) status5) funppl who would not pvp at all if there were no titles would not be a great loss.</blockquote>1) there is no fun if there is nothing to win or to loose2) not avaible to exiles3) the few copper you gain ?4) not avaible to exiles and absolutly useless5) see 1</blockquote>this is why i dont play pvp in eq2 anymore, to me pvp is one of the most interesting and challenging things to do, i have just gone back to first person shooters, and waiting for darkfall to come out. PVP is about the challenge, the possibility of something unexpected happening. honestly if the took out every reward for PVP titles armor everything, the only thing that should display is when inspected is should show the following Kills(how many people you have killed) Deaths (how many deaths you had) Disengages( how many times you entered pvp and neither one of you killed eachother with 5 min) Hell got rid of factions compleatly free for all no holds bared pvp Thats all i would do, you can win nothing but can loose everything, the rewards arnt what drives pvp, its the action, the challenge. if your playing pvp for any reason other then you like the sheer rush of downing another player the idea of knowing your better then they are at pvp, then honestly you have no reason to pvp as it is.</blockquote>SOME folks play poker for only matchsticks and the like. OTHER folks cannot play poker unless there is something real at stake, i.e. money. Who is the real poker player? For my money, its the folk that play for <i>money</i>. Playing pvp games where you run and shoot and have nothing at stake -- blah.</blockquote>Indeed, and it seems like most pvpers in eq2 are driven by the reward, not the challenge (wether the reward is a title or piece of gear does not matter).That's to be expected in a MMORPG anyway, where character progression is the core concept.Ppl want to advance their toons. If the most efficient way is to gank solos with an x2 then so be it...

[Proeka]

<cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>People who rail against "title huggers" are, essentially, complaining that "nobody fights fair."</p><p>Unfortunately for that complaint: "fair fights" are for chumps. There is no "honor", there is no "glory", there's only "you die, or I die", & I'm going to do my best to ensure it's not me.</p><p>The very best way to deal with this, is to quit worrying about whether or not other people are fighting "fair", & worry instead about whether or not you're the one getting looted when the dust clears.</p></blockquote><p>Honor and glory are personal attributes.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">It is honorable to not attack a green or grey foe.</span></p></blockquote><p>Absolutely and completely wrong.  SOE imposed lore on us for a reason -- immersion.  The point of this game is a war between opposing sides (interestingly in pve soe allows violations of the lore for raid purposes, but not on pvp servers -- go figure).  In war, if you don't kill the enemy you're a traitor to the cause and will be lined up against a wall and shot for your cowardness.  Now arguably maybe the "Q's" have some heightened sense of morality that does not allow them to slaughter foes who are weaker then them (how they every expect to win this thing I don't know), but I'm fairly sure that lucian will have your head if you <i>don't</i> kill greens and greys.</p></blockquote><p>You, sir,   are correct.   I have exceeded myself on this point.  My personal sensibilities ought  not to be extended  in such a cavalier manner. To Mr flaye, I apologise.   Mayhaps I should take the philosophy of the Walrus in the poetic tale of the Walrus and the Carpenter and the Oysters:<img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p><p> "I weep for you," the Walrus said:</p><p>   "I deeply sympathize."</p><p>With sobs and tears he sorted out</p><p>   Those of the largest size,</p><p>Holding his pocket-handkerchiefs</p><p>   Before his streaming eyes.</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Thank you.</p><p>But if you would be kind enough to review the preceding  Zacarus post to which that sentence was refrencing,  where he stated that slayer title could be gained with one hour of PVP play time,  you would have realised that my commentary was referring to this (to me)  surprising new change. The following paragraph was a follow on to its predecessor.</p></blockquote>i'm aware of the context. <b> yes, you can get slayer in an hour, it's got nothing to do with time it's all got to do with gear, groups, and knowing where and who to hunt.</b></blockquote>I stand corrected, and My apologies to Mr Zacarus.   <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/499fd50bc713bfcdf2ab5a23c00c2d62.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

[liveja]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>It is honorable to not attack a green or grey foe.</p></blockquote><p>I'm sorry, but IMO the only "honorable" way to look at PvP is: RED name = DEAD name. The rest is people whining because they didnt get the kill.</p><p>BTW: all of your argument, in this thread & in others, rests solely on the notion that "low level PvP" is "dying." I don't know about Vox & Venekor, but on Nagafen, <b>that claim is simply false as false can be</b>. Ergo, I think the rest of your arguments fall with it.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Armironhead@Vox wrote:</cite><blockquote>People are just as likely to say "why bother" since they have nothing to gain.</blockquote><p>I get status/faction, XP, & maybe even loots from successfully PvPing, not to mention a riotous good time.</p><p>IMHO, more rewards than that are meaningless fluff, which is why I don't care a fig for PvP titles, & SOE could get rid of all of them for all I care.</p>

[Azekah1]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>IMHO, more rewards than that are meaningless fluff, which is why I don't care a fig for PvP titles, & SOE could get rid of all of them for all I care.</p></blockquote>Wait until you get destroyer or higher.It creeps...slowly...carefully...calculating the precise time to strike...and drag you down into the deep dark depths of hopeless desire to never let anything, not even a few drops of blood, tarnish your beautiful, precious, glowing, glorious!!!...titleIt's a disease.: )

[Proeka]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>"low level PvP" is "dying." I don't know about Vox & Venekor, but on Nagafen, <b>that claim is simply false as false can be</b>. </blockquote>Direct evidence,     circumstantial evidence,   testimonial input from other players, and  anecdotal  refences unequivocally confirms that the present level of minimal low tier  PVP stands in stark contrast to pre Dec 2007.    The disintegration of a " thing " to the mere withered shadow of its prior appearance,  to being a barely-seen reflection of what it previously was,  suggests that,    in comparison to its previously bulgingly stalwart,  brightly shining substance,    it,   the "thing",    is fading,    is gradually    going away,  is    dying.<img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" />

[Ahlana]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>"low level PvP" is "dying." I don't know about Vox & Venekor, but on Nagafen, <b>that claim is simply false as false can be</b>. </blockquote>Direct evidence,     circumstantial evidence,   testimonial input from other players, and  anecdotal  refences unequivocally confirms that the present level of minimal low tier  PVP stands in stark contrast to pre Dec 2007.    The disintegration of a " thing " to the mere withered shadow of its prior appearance,  to being a barely-seen reflection of what it previously was,  suggests that,    in comparison to its previously bulgingly stalwart,  brightly shining substance,    it,   the "thing",    is fading,    is gradually    going away,  is    dying.<img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>No offense but in that light all PVP is dying. Because every tier used to be busier. The point is T2/3 are still the MOST active PVP tiers in the game. Maybe not as much as before but no tier is.

[liveja]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Direct evidence,     circumstantial evidence,   testimonial input from other players</blockquote><p>Right. "Testimonial from OTHER players" who agree with YOU <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> I realize I've only been on the server 3 days, but I spend more time PvPing then anything else, & any time I want, I can find plenty of low level PvP. I'm sure you could, too, if you'd only look. But somehow, I'm getting the distinct impression you don't want to look.</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Ahlana wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote>"low level PvP" is "dying." I don't know about Vox & Venekor, but on Nagafen, <b>that claim is simply false as false can be</b>. </blockquote>Direct evidence,     circumstantial evidence,   testimonial input from other players, and  anecdotal  refences unequivocally confirms that the present level of minimal low tier  PVP stands in stark contrast to pre Dec 2007.    The disintegration of a " thing " to the mere withered shadow of its prior appearance,  to being a barely-seen reflection of what it previously was,  suggests that,    in comparison to its previously bulgingly stalwart,  brightly shining substance,    it,   the "thing",    is fading,    is gradually    going away,  is    dying.<img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></blockquote>No offense but in that light all PVP is dying. Because every tier used to be busier. The point is T2/3 are still the MOST active PVP tiers in the game. Maybe not as much as before but no tier is.</blockquote><p>Thank  you,  Ahlana.  There is no reason for me to be offended.</p><p>There is every reason for me to welcome you to our side of the debate.   Your supporting evidence, your unchallenged assertions,  bulwarks  our  already strong  </p><p>data.    Your input, my dear,  buttresses our case .  Hop aboard . There is a seat prepared for you at the table.  Welcome to the majority.</p><p>If it is agreed that  "...all PVP(tiers are)...dying. Because every tier used to be busier...".  and that  "...(low tier PVP is)...still the MOST active PVP tier... in the game...",   no more need be said on that point.    Low tier PVP is dying.</p><p>Now here is the crux of the matter.   Despite its declining status,  it is still stronger than high tier PVP,   it is still the foundation, the base of EQ 2 PVP.  Without it, all PVP tiers will falter, collapse, and die.  With it weakened,  all tiers are eventually weakened.     With all tiers weakening,  the corollary conclusion is that were low tier PVP to be strengthened,  the other tiers would benefit and likewise improve.</p><p>This is doable.</p>

[liveja]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>This is doable.</p></blockquote><p>But not by allowing people to remain level-locked at any given level forever. That doesn't "grow" any tier of PvP, it simply stagnates it.</p>

[Bozidar]

<cite>Ahlana wrote:</cite><blockquote>No offense but in that light all PVP is dying. Because every tier used to be busier. The point is T2/3 are still the MOST active PVP tiers in the game. Maybe not as much as before but no tier is.</blockquote>on which server?

[liveja]

<cite>Azekah1 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite><p>IMHO, more rewards than that are meaningless fluff, which is why I don't care a fig for PvP titles, & SOE could get rid of all of them for all I care.</p></blockquote>Wait until you get destroyer or higher</blockquote><p>I understand what you're saying, but ... I think the chances of my getting anything more than maybe Slayer or Hunter, at most, are about equal to my chances of being elected King Of The World.</p><p>I suck at PvP. I'm only the server as an occasional alternative to PvE, & I'm only interested in running around & having as much fun as I can. IMO, worrying about PvP title loss takes away from the fun. I would advocate either getting rid of the titles completely, or getting rid of the possibility of title loss. Personally, I prefer getting rid of the titles entirely. I see them as adding nothing to the game, while appearing to detract a great deal from it, & in any event I think there are already more-than-adequate rewards for PvP.</p>

[Ranja]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Make pvp experience gain optional</blockquote>Please expand on that. Either you had a point that had something to do with titles, or you were spamming every thread with a reply button available. Which is it?</blockquote><p>My arachnid foe, </p><p>it is inappropriate for you to attempt to arrogantly hijack another posting operator's thread.</p><p>Mr Idragon stated "...i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again..."</p><p>Mr Faerie responded "So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? "</p><p>I chimed in "Make pvp experience gain optional"</p><p>Mr shadow viper throws out "In my opinion titles should just be removed."</p><p>Yourself drifts in with a two word expose extolling the virtues of Mr shadow Viper response, specifically the phrase "I agree"</p><p>Following this, in a state of apparently high arrogance, without so much as a by your leave, you proceed to usurp the operator's right to control and question his participants' input.</p><p>You did not request expansion of the one sentence statement of the operator, one sentence question of Mr Faerie, or One sentence answer of Mr Shadow viper.Rather, you arrogantly demanded of me that I "...expand on that..." Further,you did this in a thoroughly shallow, insulting, and attempted demeaning way that is both below your worth as a responder and reflects poorly on a state of mind that would stoop so low. Requoting it would lower the quality of this thread, and, no sir, I will not follow such an odious example.</p><p>For shame, sir, for shame.</p></blockquote>I am sorry but I really dont understand what you are getting at in this post. Can you explain to me your point?

[Proeka]

<cite>Ranja wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Spyderbite@Venekor wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite></cite>Make pvp experience gain optional</blockquote>Please expand on that. Either you had a point that had something to do with titles, or you were spamming every thread with a reply button available. Which is it?</blockquote><p>My arachnid foe, </p><p>it is inappropriate for you to attempt to arrogantly hijack another posting operator's thread.</p><p>Mr Idragon stated "...i would never want titles to be taken out of game but i would love titles to mean somthing again..."</p><p>Mr Faerie responded "So what is your proposal to make titles meaningfull again ? "</p><p>I chimed in "Make pvp experience gain optional"</p><p>Mr shadow viper throws out "In my opinion titles should just be removed."</p><p>Yourself drifts in with a two word expose extolling the virtues of Mr shadow Viper response, specifically the phrase "I agree"</p><p>Following this, in a state of apparently high arrogance, without so much as a by your leave, you proceed to usurp the operator's right to control and question his participants' input.</p><p>You did not request expansion of the one sentence statement of the operator, one sentence question of Mr Faerie, or One sentence answer of Mr Shadow viper.Rather, you arrogantly demanded of me that I "...expand on that..." Further,you did this in a thoroughly shallow, insulting, and attempted demeaning way that is both below your worth as a responder and reflects poorly on a state of mind that would stoop so low. Requoting it would lower the quality of this thread, and, no sir, I will not follow such an odious example.</p><p>For shame, sir, for shame.</p></blockquote>I am sorry but I really dont understand what you are getting at in this post. Can you explain to me your point?</blockquote>This occurred on page one of this thread. What point are you requesting explanation of?

[Proeka]

<cite>Flaye@Mistmoore wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>Direct evidence,     circumstantial evidence,   testimonial input from other players</blockquote><p>Right. "Testimonial from OTHER players" who agree with YOU <img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /> I realize I've only been on the server 3 days, but I spend more time PvPing then anything else, & any time I want, I can find plenty of low level PvP. I'm sure you could, too, if you'd only look. But somehow, I'm getting the distinct impression you don't want to look.</p></blockquote><p>Oh wise one, please advise me.  Should I quote the few who present poorly or inadequately substantiated comments that are at times the converse of what I have observed?   I think not.   Let them quote, and support, thier own.</p><p>In much better times, in those much better days that preceded the destruction of low tier PVP, you did not have to "...look..." for PVP.  You  had to actually look to avoid PVP. </p><p>You would walk out beyond the Qeynos  north or south gates, and PVP WOULD FIND YOU</p><p>Try to get to the griffon, and PVP WOULD FIND YOU</p><p>Try to make it to the teleporter and PVP WOULD FIND YOU</p><p>Leave freeport,   stay in or leave the crossroad,    try to get to wailing caves,    enter wailing caves,    try to get to Dark Light Woods;    in every single one of these activities,   PVP WOULD FIND YOU  .   In those good times,   looking was not needed,   for  finding reigned .<img src="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/images/smilies/2e207fad049d4d292f60607f80f05768.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" width="15" height="15" /></p>

[seahawk]

<p>what Proekame fails to mention is that what finds you.  A behemoth of a toon.  One toon that has been freakishly grown as if in some mad scientist's laboratory.  A toon, that by just looking at you would make you shiver with fear.  A toon, that by the mere fact that they are breathing would kill you.  </p><p> ... and oh, by the way ... that toon has friends.. just in case they can't finish the job.</p><p> <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>-trix</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>seahawk91 wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>what Proekame fails to mention is that what finds you.  A behemoth of a toon.  One toon that has been freakishly grown as if in some mad scientist's laboratory.  A toon, that by just looking at you would make you shiver with fear.  A toon, that by the mere fact that they are breathing would kill you.  </p><p> ... and oh, by the way ... that toon has friends.. just in case they can't finish the job.</p><p> <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>-trix</p></blockquote><p>ROFL!!</p><p>I love this.  It is so true.   </p><p>But lest we forget, the player driven PVP world is a mirror image of the SOE created PVE world</p><p>And as we have weak mobs, strong mobs, heroic mobs and Boss mobs in PVE,    so we have thier PVP equivalent.  You have described our PVP equivalent of  the PVE dragon Ladon with his minions and an ability to spawn adds, except that he has a zone  wide aggro range, and wanders erratically throughout the zone.  Well,  you take down that "PVP Boss mob " the same way.. Assemble a raid  and go  to it.  </p>

[seahawk]

<p>Glad I could make you laugh Proekame!</p><p>If you supporters of the reinstatement of perma-locked pvp, can come up with an idea that doesn't involve the repetitive ganking of fresh new blood to the server, then I might.. I repeat might, sign on.  The problem is and was, that new blood was quickly ran off by the perma-lockers.  If there was some sort of huge pvp penalty for repetitive killing of recents that might help.  Otherwise, I stand by my position that perma-locking is bad for business.</p><p>Happy hunting friend,</p><p>-trix</p>

[Paikis]

<cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>But lest we forget, the player driven PVP world is a mirror image of the SOE created PVE world <p>And as we have weak mobs, strong mobs, heroic mobs and Boss mobs in PVE,    so we have thier PVP equivalent.  You have described our PVP equivalent of  the PVE dragon Ladon with his minions and an ability to spawn adds, except that he has a zone  wide aggro range, and wanders erratically throughout the zone.  Well,  you take down that "PVP Boss mob " the same way.. Assemble a raid  and go  to it.  </p></blockquote>No, it most certainly isnt. Ladon doesn't have the ability to invite 23 other Ladon's and come tear your face off. Those PvP lockers had absolutely no problems in inviting 23 others and then dominating a zone to the point where NOTHING could get rid of them, and no one could quest.

[Bozidar]

<cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote>No, it most certainly isnt. Ladon doesn't have the ability to invite 23 other Ladon's and come tear your face off. Those PvP lockers had absolutely no problems in inviting 23 others and then dominating a zone to the point where NOTHING could get rid of them, and no one could quest.</blockquote><p>please name for me the zone which if locked down no one can level/quest?</p><p>what is this mythical bottleneck zone, and what level is it at which you can not level/quest anywhere else?</p>

[Proeka]

<cite>Paikis wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Proekame@Nagafen wrote:</cite><blockquote>But lest we forget, the player driven PVP world is a mirror image of the SOE created PVE world <p>And as we have weak mobs, strong mobs, heroic mobs and Boss mobs in PVE,    so we have thier PVP equivalent.  You have described our PVP equivalent of  the PVE dragon Ladon with his minions and an ability to spawn adds, except that he has a zone  wide aggro range, and wanders erratically throughout the zone.  Well,  you take down that "PVP Boss mob " the same way.. Assemble a raid  and go  to it.  </p></blockquote><b>No, it most certainly isnt. Ladon doesn't have the ability to invite 23 other Ladon's and come tear your face off. Those PvP lockers had absolutely no problems in inviting 23 others and then dominating a zone to the point where NOTHING could get rid of them, and no one could quest.</b></blockquote>Stop being silly.  The  situation you described would be short-lived. Thier counterparts (q, or freep) would arrive fairly quickly to challenge and chase them away.