PDA

View Full Version : Either make gray cons attackable or make red cons unattackable.


Lowell_high
06-18-2007, 05:34 PM
<p>Ok, why on earth would lower players have the advantage of attacking higher level cons at their own will?  Not only that, they can get loot, tokens, and fame from red cons. </p><p>I'm tired of fighting an even on fairly and 2 or 3 grays jump in.  Being a cloth caster a gray con just out of the PVP range can do significant damage or land a debuff that ultimately ends up in my death to an even con.  This results in me losing fame and in some cases where I wouldn't of even lost fame to the even con but since the gray con swung (and not to mention he doesnt even have to hit or land any spell on me whatsoever just the fact that he swung and missed or I resisted) gives him fame if I die.</p><p>Take the right for a undercon to attack any higher level player, its unfair.  A group of grays can surround me and prepare their entire group for combat while all I can do is stand around or run or twiddle my thumbs until they decide its safe for them to attack.  Do I ever get the headstart on a green, blue, white, or orange con?  Do I ever get to have my group walk up to the conning enemy and discuss my strategy with my group before I attack? No.  I have to scout for a distance.  I don't get to follow a red con waiting for them to engage so I can jump in and leech fame or kill someone when they are in some way or form of combat when otherwise I would of never been able to kill the red con fair and square.  </p><p> Fix this, please!</p>

Orthureon
06-18-2007, 07:04 PM
<p>I posted this on another forum,</p><p>A different approach to taking away greys being able to attack would be to do this:</p><p>The lower level player that attacks you and kills you will subsequently be flagged with a special kind of carnage, where as allowing a player up to your level to attack them. This will not be able to be removed by PVE death, thus eliminating the jumping off cliffs/drowning etcetera. Meaning if a bunch of level 20s attack a 50 and kill him, they will all then be flagged with carnage where players level 50 and lower can attack them. </p><p>The special carnage flag could have 2 ways of being applied:</p><p>Proposition 1:</p><p>15-20 minute duration any PVP death will result in it being removed. Upon going to an instance, the city (unlikely to get attacked in the city), inn room/house or logging off, the timer will stop and start ticking again once you enter a zone which allows players to attack you.</p><p>Proposition 2:</p><p>A special flag that is ONLY removed upon a PVP death. Meaning if a person a few levels higher or lower kills you it is removed, if a level 50 kills you it is removed. But it does NOT cancel until you suffer a PVP death. Cannot be removed by PVE death. Now some other rules, since this could potentially be abused, if you kill more people that would normally give you this flag you would then receive another carnage flag. meaning you would then be open to 2 PVP deaths and both would be raised if the person was even higher that you just killed. IE: You just killed a level 50 who was red to you, you get a CF, you do some more PVP and kill a 52 now you would have 2 CFs both would allow a 52 to attack you.</p>

eu
06-18-2007, 07:09 PM
<p>not a horrible idea but I would still make it a 30 minute carnage flag.</p><p> I still prefer if they can attack you then you can attack them</p><p>or if you can not attack them they can not attack you.</p>

Roald
06-18-2007, 07:09 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Ok, why on earth would lower players have the advantage of attacking higher level cons at their own will?  Not only that, they can get loot, tokens, and fame from red cons. </p><p>I'm tired of fighting an even on fairly and 2 or 3 grays jump in.  Being a cloth caster a gray con just out of the PVP range can do significant damage or land a debuff that ultimately ends up in my death to an even con.  This results in me losing fame and in some cases where I wouldn't of even lost fame to the even con but since the gray con swung (and not to mention he doesnt even have to hit or land any spell on me whatsoever just the fact that he swung and missed or I resisted) gives him fame if I die.</p><p>Take the right for a undercon to attack any higher level player, its unfair.  A group of grays can surround me and prepare their entire group for combat while all I can do is stand around or run or twiddle my thumbs until they decide its safe for them to attack.  Do I ever get the headstart on a green, blue, white, or orange con?  Do I ever get to have my group walk up to the conning enemy and discuss my strategy with my group before I attack? No.  I have to scout for a distance.  I don't get to follow a red con waiting for them to engage so I can jump in and leech fame or kill someone when they are in some way or form of combat when otherwise I would of never been able to kill the red con fair and square.  </p><p> Fix this, please!</p></blockquote><p> I disagree. You should never been safe from an attack like that, and if u see a group of greys coming that you think can kill you.....don't just stand there waiting. At level 70 im sure u could easily get to a zoneline before your dead.</p><p>On a side note, are you talking about your warden?</p>

Bozidar
06-18-2007, 07:12 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Ok, why on earth would lower players have the advantage of attacking higher level cons at their own will?  Not only that, they can get loot, tokens, and fame from red cons. </p><p>I'm tired of fighting an even on fairly and 2 or 3 grays jump in.  Being a cloth caster a gray con just out of the PVP range can do significant damage or land a debuff that ultimately ends up in my death to an even con.  This results in me losing fame and in some cases where I wouldn't of even lost fame to the even con but since the gray con swung (and not to mention he doesnt even have to hit or land any spell on me whatsoever just the fact that he swung and missed or I resisted) gives him fame if I die.</p><p>Take the right for a undercon to attack any higher level player, its unfair.  A group of grays can surround me and prepare their entire group for combat while all I can do is stand around or run or twiddle my thumbs until they decide its safe for them to attack.  Do I ever get the headstart on a green, blue, white, or orange con?  Do I ever get to have my group walk up to the conning enemy and discuss my strategy with my group before I attack? No.  I have to scout for a distance.  I don't get to follow a red con waiting for them to engage so I can jump in and leech fame or kill someone when they are in some way or form of combat when otherwise I would of never been able to kill the red con fair and square.  </p><p> Fix this, please!</p></blockquote><p>The con of the player doesn't matter.  The only advantage that a grey has in a fight vs a red is that he gets the first hit in.  AFter that, it's no holds barred.</p><p>I personally don't mind greys that attack me.  Usually they learn not to do it again. </p>

eu
06-18-2007, 07:16 PM
I believe he is more refering to when he and other 70's are fighting and grays are in a zone way too high for them normally are standing around out of the level range waiting for you to attack other 70's. They get all the reward with little to no risk. Add to this the fact that you can do nothing to combat it except for level up another character to that specific level range and run him out there only to watch them zone away when a real fight shows up.

Ikuri
06-18-2007, 07:23 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Ok, why on earth would lower players have the advantage of attacking higher level cons at their own will?  Not only that, they can get loot, tokens, and fame from red cons. </p><p>I'm tired of fighting an even on fairly and 2 or 3 grays jump in.  Being a cloth caster a gray con just out of the PVP range can do significant damage or land a debuff that ultimately ends up in my death to an even con.  This results in me losing fame and in some cases where I wouldn't of even lost fame to the even con but since the gray con swung (and not to mention he doesnt even have to hit or land any spell on me whatsoever just the fact that he swung and missed or I resisted) gives him fame if I die.</p><p>Take the right for a undercon to attack any higher level player, its unfair.  A group of grays can surround me and prepare their entire group for combat while all I can do is stand around or run or twiddle my thumbs until they decide its safe for them to attack.  Do I ever get the headstart on a green, blue, white, or orange con?  Do I ever get to have my group walk up to the conning enemy and discuss my strategy with my group before I attack? No.  I have to scout for a distance.  I don't get to follow a red con waiting for them to engage so I can jump in and leech fame or kill someone when they are in some way or form of combat when otherwise I would of never been able to kill the red con fair and square.  </p><p> Fix this, please!</p></blockquote><p> I disagree. You should never been safe from an attack like that, and if u see a group of greys coming that you think can kill you.....don't just stand there waiting. At level 70 im sure u could easily get to a zoneline before your dead.</p><p>On a side note, are you talking about your warden?</p></blockquote><p><i>no you cant', with the new pvp changes u wont be able to use any speed buffs in combat. You cannot zone while in combat, you cannot evac, and you can't even out run them because every class and their dog has multiple roots/snares. </i></p><p><i>So the ultimate way of infamy in he new system is leeching it off reds whiel theyare busy pvping in a small fight lol.</i> </p>

Phygnathus
06-18-2007, 09:42 PM
My wife, Midniite, and I would like to apologize to all the poor defenseless level 70s we've killed since we hit 57; sometimes just the 2 of us, sometimes with 1-3 others from our guild.   We feel bad for you.  We really do.  Getting taken out by 2-4 gray cons has got to be a bit embarrassing, and they really should do something about it.   To the lone 70 Fury that died to Midniite and I while waiting on the Ant spires while we were 57; great fight.   I hope it didn't hurt your feelings too bad when you died after that full 7 minute long fight. To the lone 70 Swashie on the Everfrost docks...  I feel for you.  Dying in seconds to a group of 4 grays must have stung the pride a bit.  Especially when you brought up your pet named Trythatagain and then when we did you had to flee...  To the lone 70 Ranger in Everfrost...  How much did it hurt to have to ask a level 58 guildie to come help you seek revenge on a group of 3 grays fighting mobs after you died yourself to us.  I hope you got some satisfaction out of those kill.  Our overzealous wizzie decided to attack before we could warn him that you weren't alone this time. To the 70 wizzie outside of CT...  When you quickly un-mentored that buddy we killed I bet you weren't expecting we would attack you as well.  We would have left you alone after that if you didn't keep coming back for more.  I felt bad for you.  I really did.  It didn't stop us from killing you again, but just know that I felt bad while doing it. And to the 70 monk at the bottom of the Zek mine... Great job man.  You stifled me and took me out quickly before I could even pop a freedom of mind potion.  No need for me to apologize to you since you won that one; but I wanted to congratulate you on winning where many others failed. There are plenty of others I missed, but don't feel too hurt if I didn't mention you.  This post is already too long as it is.  The point is, they really need to do something to protect the poor defenseless 70s running around out there alone.  Fortunately for you, my wife and I hit 60 last night.  So next time you see us out in Lesser Faydark or any other level 10 zone you can gather your x4 to come get us! -The Gingerbread Man

shagr1414
06-18-2007, 10:06 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Ok, why on earth would lower players have the advantage of attacking higher level cons at their own will?  Not only that, they can get loot, tokens, and fame from red cons. </p><p>I'm tired of fighting an even on fairly and 2 or 3 grays jump in.  Being a cloth caster a gray con just out of the PVP range can do significant damage or land a debuff that ultimately ends up in my death to an even con.  This results in me losing fame and in some cases where I wouldn't of even lost fame to the even con but since the gray con swung (and not to mention he doesnt even have to hit or land any spell on me whatsoever just the fact that he swung and missed or I resisted) gives him fame if I die.</p><p>Take the right for a undercon to attack any higher level player, its unfair.  A group of grays can surround me and prepare their entire group for combat while all I can do is stand around or run or twiddle my thumbs until they decide its safe for them to attack.  Do I ever get the headstart on a green, blue, white, or orange con?  Do I ever get to have my group walk up to the conning enemy and discuss my strategy with my group before I attack? No.  I have to scout for a distance.  I don't get to follow a red con waiting for them to engage so I can jump in and leech fame or kill someone when they are in some way or form of combat when otherwise I would of never been able to kill the red con fair and square.  </p><p> Fix this, please!</p></blockquote><p>The con of the player doesn't matter.  The only advantage that a grey has in a fight vs a red is that he gets the first hit in.  AFter that, it's no holds barred.</p><p>I personally don't mind greys that attack me.  Usually they learn not to do it again. </p></blockquote>Althoug he is a mage as he said and a few low lvl rangers can put a fast hurt on him well enough to drop him in just a few attack,s even fast enough to do so b4 he gets one spell off, so once again Boz.....get to lvl 70 and [Removed for Content].

CresentBlade
06-18-2007, 10:12 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Ok, why on earth would lower players have the advantage of attacking higher level cons at their own will?  Not only that, they can get loot, tokens, and fame from red cons. </p><p>I'm tired of fighting an even on fairly and 2 or 3 grays jump in.  Being a cloth caster a gray con just out of the PVP range can do significant damage or land a debuff that ultimately ends up in my death to an even con.  This results in me losing fame and in some cases where I wouldn't of even lost fame to the even con but since the gray con swung (and not to mention he doesnt even have to hit or land any spell on me whatsoever just the fact that he swung and missed or I resisted) gives him fame if I die.</p><p>Take the right for a undercon to attack any higher level player, its unfair.  A group of grays can surround me and prepare their entire group for combat while all I can do is stand around or run or twiddle my thumbs until they decide its safe for them to attack.  Do I ever get the headstart on a green, blue, white, or orange con?  Do I ever get to have my group walk up to the conning enemy and discuss my strategy with my group before I attack? No.  I have to scout for a distance.  I don't get to follow a red con waiting for them to engage so I can jump in and leech fame or kill someone when they are in some way or form of combat when otherwise I would of never been able to kill the red con fair and square.  </p><p> Fix this, please!</p></blockquote><p> I disagree. You should never been safe from an attack like that, and if u see a group of greys coming that you think can kill you.....don't just stand there waiting. At level 70 im sure u could easily get to a zoneline before your dead.</p><p>On a side note, are you talking about your warden?</p></blockquote>Well the greys are safe so what is the difference? It should be both ways or no way.

CresentBlade
06-18-2007, 10:15 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Ok, why on earth would lower players have the advantage of attacking higher level cons at their own will?  Not only that, they can get loot, tokens, and fame from red cons. </p><p>I'm tired of fighting an even on fairly and 2 or 3 grays jump in.  Being a cloth caster a gray con just out of the PVP range can do significant damage or land a debuff that ultimately ends up in my death to an even con.  This results in me losing fame and in some cases where I wouldn't of even lost fame to the even con but since the gray con swung (and not to mention he doesnt even have to hit or land any spell on me whatsoever just the fact that he swung and missed or I resisted) gives him fame if I die.</p><p>Take the right for a undercon to attack any higher level player, its unfair.  A group of grays can surround me and prepare their entire group for combat while all I can do is stand around or run or twiddle my thumbs until they decide its safe for them to attack.  Do I ever get the headstart on a green, blue, white, or orange con?  Do I ever get to have my group walk up to the conning enemy and discuss my strategy with my group before I attack? No.  I have to scout for a distance.  I don't get to follow a red con waiting for them to engage so I can jump in and leech fame or kill someone when they are in some way or form of combat when otherwise I would of never been able to kill the red con fair and square.  </p><p> Fix this, please!</p></blockquote><p>The con of the player doesn't matter.  The only advantage that a grey has in a fight vs a red is that he gets the first hit in.  AFter that, it's no holds barred.</p><p>I personally don't mind greys that attack me.  Usually they learn not to do it again. </p></blockquote>First strike is a HUGE thing in PvP it can often sway the fight in the attackers favor.

Lowell_high
06-19-2007, 05:46 PM
<p>So this is my usual scenario -</p><p>I either get HT'd by a gray for 3k as a cloth caster (illusionist) and I know this is being nerfed anyway, but that puts me way below 60 to 70% of my total hp, so usually a group of grays who either preprae or don't prepare but instantly engage me with their high ca's can usually take me out.  This usually happens when I am left in combat somewhere.</p><p>If I do attack back and I am winning they run away long enough or far enough so that they drop out of combat and I an unable to do anything.  </p><p>Or, they take one swing and hide or do some sort of ranged attack unnoticeable by myself so if I die fighting an even con I lose fame when otherwise I would never of lost a thing.</p><p>And no this isn't on my warden.</p><p>The carnage flag is an awesome idea, if they are flagged they can lose fame / coin, imo.</p>

Lowell_high
06-19-2007, 05:47 PM
and regardless if the group of grays is next to me or just in my rendering range, they have the advantage of preparing to kill me and getting the jump when I can do nothing.

Wytie
06-19-2007, 05:49 PM
I wish greys would attack me heh,  oh wait they do but only when im in freeport too bad they're carnage flag is gone once they revive <img src="/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Amphibia
06-19-2007, 06:23 PM
Here's an idea: Open PvP. Get rid of the level range limits in all zones except tier 1 zones - but without fame loss, item loss or XP debt for greys unless they attack first. Either that, or make it impossible for anyone to attack someone else who is outside their own level range. Why the heck should greys be allowed to attack reds, but not the other way around?

Shinnar
06-19-2007, 06:39 PM
<p>Open PVP idea sucks.  Or you want to see even conned enemies with 2 lev 70 babysitters that will finish you once that even conned starts fight ? </p><p>I think it is good as it is... </p><p>And if you lose to a grey con group... so what?  Better then to be ganked by groups or orange con S.U.C.K.E.R.S., that can only run when you meet them solo....</p>

Amphibia
06-19-2007, 07:05 PM
<cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Open PVP idea sucks.  Or you want to see even conned enemies with 2 lev 70 babysitters that will finish you once that even conned starts fight ? </p><p>I think it is good as it is... </p><p>And if you lose to a grey con group... so what?  Better then to be ganked by groups or orange con S.U.C.K.E.R.S., that can only run when you meet them solo....</p></blockquote> No, it is not good as it is. Allow me to give you an example: The system with greys being able to attack reds but not the other way around makes it almost impossible for raid guilds to take down avatars, just to mention one thing. The little greys can just run merrily past the protection group, targets whoever they want in the main raid and attack as soon as soon as they feel like it... and there is absolutely nothing anyone can do about it, thanks to the wonderful level range limits. Yay. But as you say, there is a downside with everything. Level 70 babysitters sucks, yes. However, you can always call in help from your faction to get rid of them, right? I think maybe open PvP would encourage more cooperation within the factions, and perhaps even bring some of the adrenaline rush back into this game. But that's just my opinion. Anyway... in the example above, there is nothing we can do. We have absolutely no means to stop them, and something needs to be done about that.

Shinnar
06-19-2007, 08:31 PM
hmm ok, you are killing avatar when few greys attack you...  if that greys were green or blue what would be different?

Wilde_Night
06-19-2007, 09:27 PM
Yes, because the greens and blues could be engaged and dispatched of first by the pre-set protection group.  Grays, on the other hand, can walk unmolested past the extra defense.. wander in the middle of the raid and open up on the 'easier' targets before the raid group would have time to respond properly.

Qanil
06-20-2007, 02:19 PM
<p>with the way resists work you can kill a fully fabled geared out plate tank with a group of grays NO problem.</p><p>I had to EVAC from 7 level 28s on my 70 Dirge one night.  I'm not kidding.  they can all mob around you, set up, spam their abilities til something lands...  my fully fabled 70 brig was nearly 3 shotted once by a group of level 48s.</p><p>It is a serious problem.</p>

Weizen Heimer
06-20-2007, 02:36 PM
<cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote>hmm ok, you are killing avatar when few greys attack you...  if that greys were green or blue what would be different? </blockquote> What a stupid quesion. What would be different is the people guarding would be able to kill them before they got to the raid taking out the mob. If there were no people guarding, the people taking out the mob could attack them as soon as they saw them without the intruders getting to pick exactly who to attack/charm and evac.

jaff247
06-20-2007, 10:16 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>My wife, Midniite, and I would like to apologize to all the poor defenseless level 70s we've killed since we hit 57; sometimes just the 2 of us, sometimes with 1-3 others from our guild.   We feel bad for you.  We really do.  Getting taken out by 2-4 gray cons has got to be a bit embarrassing, and they really should do something about it.   </blockquote>please dont feel its an achievement on your part, where if you attacked a level 70 NPC you would die in 3 seconds and have all your attacks dodged or resisted, but you are able to land and mitigate and do quite clearly obsurd amounts of damage to people many levels above you. Thats broken game mechanics, if it was FFA PVP, sure, let a group of greys kill a red con, that would be fair, because when he finds you solo he can basically hold you against the wall and make you his girlfriend, but when greys can run around immune from everything, pick and choosing their perfect time to strike on someone who has , apparently stupidly leveled to 70, that doesnt make any sense, there is no recourse for the 70, because if he dies.. guess what, he can revive and he cant hit you again, because the lower level characters get to set the rules of engagement.

Shinnar
06-20-2007, 11:12 PM
Weizen Heimer wrote: <blockquote><cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote>hmm ok, you are killing avatar when few greys attack you...  if that greys were green or blue what would be different? </blockquote> What a stupid quesion. What would be different is the people guarding would be able to kill them before they got to the raid taking out the mob. If there were no people guarding, the people taking out the mob could attack them as soon as they saw them without the intruders getting to pick exactly who to attack/charm and evac.</blockquote><p> kk, next time a grey  attacks you, kill him.... lol what is the difference between this and the situation, where you are solo fighting a mob and some grey (blue, yellow) attacks you.  </p><p>And if you see group of greys, dont attack that mob if you think they can own you. Just get rid of them first somehow.  (if you are raiding outside, you will surely have many lower levels watching, so they can guard)</p><p>If you want 'easy' raiding, PVE servers are here for you..... I dont have more to say</p>

Lowell_high
06-20-2007, 11:40 PM
<p>We want the opportunity to pvp, is what we are asking.  The way it is now is more PVE than PVP so you're witty comeback to go back to pve server is null. =)</p>

HerbertWalker
06-20-2007, 11:45 PM
<p>Calling for FFA once you are a level 70 raider shows very bad form.   Think of something else.</p>

Lowell_high
06-21-2007, 12:18 AM
<p>Bad form for wanting an FFA?  I've been asking that since before PVP was implemented on EQ2.  If anything, wanting immunity to other players is bad form.  You want things easier for you, a head start, an advantage over other players  because you either refuse to level up or you want to do things higher levels do at a lower level. (Since you are obviously jumping in fights that you don't belong in.)</p><p>Solution being</p><p>A. Once grays attack they become flaggable for 30 minutes.</p><p>B. Grays cannot attack red cons, since we cannot attack them.</p><p>C. Grays can be attacked by anyone.</p>

Lowell_high
06-21-2007, 12:24 AM
With that being said why don't you come up with a justification of why you believe you should have these advantages besides the fact that you are a lower level.  Other than making an irrelavant excuse that doesn't contribute nor offer compensation for the issue at hand.

Simera
06-21-2007, 12:29 AM
<p>This is nothing new..it's been this way for a year. I feel for your situation but really what is a person leveling up supposed to do...on this same front page people are crying that twinks gank greens and blues. Can't really start restricting people to a whole two level range. The second a grey hits you you can fight them. For raids, have to be ready to deal with lower levels attacking with groups of allies or alts..it's always been that way. You're pretty lucky this is the first you're having a problem with it, imo. We've been dealing with that since the very first month of Venekor. </p><p>If everytime a group of people leveling up kill someone more than two levels above them..they become fodder for level 70s, they're gonna not chance it. It's hard enough now to convince a group to attack a red. Opening people up to severe ganking anytime they attempt to kill someone slightly harder then their group is gonna really harm exciting pvp all the way up to 69. </p><p>There was something fun and challenging in trying to kill a guy higher than your group. There's so little freaking left thats challenging in the game now...can't we like face the challenge instead of yet one more uncertainty taken out of the world?</p>

Lowell_high
06-21-2007, 12:52 AM
<p>So, how about carnage flagg for those grays who attack that doesn't cancel upon death? Or any zone with a contested mob is unlimited range?  Easy solution imo</p>

jaff247
06-21-2007, 04:46 AM
ive leveled all my chars in exile, so i have been subject to FFA pvp by everyone, even if my foes werent. its not that bad, really, alot of people will kill you because they can, some people wont because theres no point to it.

Gutmonger
06-21-2007, 04:52 AM
You dont need any fancy rule set changes to fix this. If a level 20 walks into a level 60 zone they should just be flagged attackable by those people in range of the zone. Very easy fix. If you are stupid enough to let a bunch of grey chars get the jump on you then you deserve to loose your fame after that point.

Valdar
06-21-2007, 05:28 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>There was something fun and challenging in trying to kill a guy higher than your group. There's so little freaking left thats challenging in the game now...can't we like face the challenge instead of yet one more uncertainty taken out of the world?</p></blockquote><p>While it may be fun for you to zerg a red con, maybe you should consider that it's no fun for them to be zerged by a bunch of n00b twinks on nightmares.</p><p>If you want to play with us then level up, otherwise go and play with the other twinks at the TS griff station and let us cloud hop in peace in KoS. </p>

Simera
06-21-2007, 06:20 AM
<cite>Valdar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>There was something fun and challenging in trying to kill a guy higher than your group. There's so little freaking left thats challenging in the game now...can't we like face the challenge instead of yet one more uncertainty taken out of the world?</p></blockquote><p>While it may be fun for you to zerg a red con, maybe you should consider that it's no fun for them to be zerged by a bunch of n00b twinks on nightmares.</p><p>If you want to play with us then level up, otherwise go and play with the other twinks at the TS griff station and let us cloud hop in peace in KoS. </p></blockquote><p> Red cons are pretty killable with a good group. Maybe you were unable to kill someone higher level than your group unless you zerged or something..but for people with a bit of skill who play well together, it's not that hard to do.   Most newbs nowadays have several level 70 characters..and hop on alts when they get tired of being bored to death by people who think pvp is cloud hoping in kos.  </p><p>At server start there was a few unlimited zones..but people whined and they were nerfed. There was 8 and 12 level zones that got nerfed to 4 and 8 level zones. There was actually a difference in your resists back then that would prevent greys from being able to do any real damage to you. That seems to have been nerfed too.  Lots of people have been killed by swarms of greys. I myself LIKE to fight swarms of greys. If they leveled up as you wish, you'd be killed by a swarm of 70s..the difference is you had a bit more of a chance to survive the greys. You may very well end up dead either way..but is that a reason to remove an entire aspect of the game? How often do you REALLY die to these guys? </p><p>I'd just like to try and preserve 'some' of what makes pvp exciting..interesting..unexpected..? </p><p>If there has to be an adjustment, how about this? The second your raid attacks a CONTESTED mob in an open zone, you can only be attackable by people who con to you in that zone? That way greys can't stand around just waiting for you to pull? </p>

Legiax
06-21-2007, 06:32 AM
<p>I love fighting 67+ toons on my 56 wiz 1v1.... do you really want to pass up the chance of getting a fame kill from a grey clothie?</p><p>Because I dont want to lose the ability to attack over confident reds and take fame easily =)</p>

Valdar
06-21-2007, 06:48 AM
<p>I don't find greys interesting, unexpected or exciting. I find them annoying like flies.</p><p>So there you are, having some good group vs group pvp at SS docks, and all of the time there is a few of these leeches hanging around waiting to get a fame hit in, and sometimes even stealing tokens when they did maybe 5 damage to the target...</p><p>As for dieing to them, last time a bunch of greys tried to jump my warlock I detonated the whole group with Rift and Apocalypse. Wasn't interesting, fun or challenging, just annoying.</p><p>You want to attack reds then fine, put a carnage flag on them as a result of engaging a red and let's party.</p>

Norrsken
06-21-2007, 07:40 AM
<cite>Valdar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>You want to attack reds then fine, put a carnage flag on them as a result of engaging a red and let's party.</p></blockquote>Agree.

Amphibia
06-21-2007, 07:50 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>There was something fun and challenging in trying to kill a guy higher than your group. There's so little freaking left thats challenging in the game now...can't we like face the challenge instead of yet one more uncertainty taken out of the world?</p></blockquote>How on earth can that be challenging? Greys can hide behind their immunity, gather people and wait for the perfect oppertunity to strike. First strike is huge in PvP, I hope you realize that. And it's quite easy to take down a red con clothie or class with low DPS if you gang up on him like that. Want a challenge? Let's have open PvP and see how it goes then.... how about that? Seriously, this needs to go. And if open PvP is too horrible, then give us REAL level range limits which goes both ways.

Siphar
06-21-2007, 08:31 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>My wife, Midniite, and I would like to apologize to all the poor defenseless level 70s we've killed since we hit 57; sometimes just the 2 of us, sometimes with 1-3 others from our guild.   We feel bad for you.  We really do.  Getting taken out by 2-4 gray cons has got to be a bit embarrassing, and they really should do something about it.   To the lone 70 Fury that died to Midniite and I while waiting on the Ant spires while we were 57; great fight.   I hope it didn't hurt your feelings too bad when you died after that full 7 minute long fight. To the lone 70 Swashie on the Everfrost docks...  I feel for you.  Dying in seconds to a group of 4 grays must have stung the pride a bit.  Especially when you brought up your pet named Trythatagain and then when we did you had to flee...  To the lone 70 Ranger in Everfrost...  How much did it hurt to have to ask a level 58 guildie to come help you seek revenge on a group of 3 grays fighting mobs after you died yourself to us.  I hope you got some satisfaction out of those kill.  Our overzealous wizzie decided to attack before we could warn him that you weren't alone this time. To the 70 wizzie outside of CT...  When you quickly un-mentored that buddy we killed I bet you weren't expecting we would attack you as well.  We would have left you alone after that if you didn't keep coming back for more.  I felt bad for you.  I really did.  It didn't stop us from killing you again, but just know that I felt bad while doing it. And to the 70 monk at the bottom of the Zek mine... Great job man.  You stifled me and took me out quickly before I could even pop a freedom of mind potion.  No need for me to apologize to you since you won that one; but I wanted to congratulate you on winning where many others failed. There are plenty of others I missed, but don't feel too hurt if I didn't mention you.  This post is already too long as it is.  The point is, they really need to do something to protect the poor defenseless 70s running around out there alone.  Fortunately for you, my wife and I hit 60 last night.  So next time you see us out in Lesser Faydark or any other level 10 zone you can gather your x4 to come get us! -The Gingerbread Man </blockquote><p>I didn't get through the whole post so forgive me if things have developed off the first page.</p><p>I just wanted to comment what a childish and idiotic reply this way. Trolling and purely seeking some kind of reaction, especially considering you were listing your names and the locations of the enemies your grp killed.</p><p>I suppose you are trying to get some infamy on the boards with your noobish antics? well -denied- you earn your infamy by killin in game and being humble about what you have. Not coming to the boards and shooting your mouth off like a 10 year-old with his new action figure who apparently just saved the world from destruction.</p><p>So you ganked a few reds on your toons? /golf-clap...no doubt you are twinked with max aa as well, and i bet you get a real sense of being uber because most other people can't be bothered to twink all their stuff to your level, before leveling through the tiers...</p><p><b>Now level up and play the game properly you freakin nub(s).</b></p><p>Note: Because if you were at T7 i have (and many others have) a range of characters that will mutilate your nub toons. </p>

Simera
06-21-2007, 09:32 AM
<cite>Amphibia wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>There was something fun and challenging in trying to kill a guy higher than your group. There's so little freaking left thats challenging in the game now...can't we like face the challenge instead of yet one more uncertainty taken out of the world?</p></blockquote>How on earth can that be challenging? Greys can hide behind their immunity, gather people and wait for the perfect oppertunity to strike. First strike is huge in PvP, I hope you realize that. And it's quite easy to take down a red con clothie or class with low DPS if you gang up on him like that. Want a challenge? Let's have open PvP and see how it goes then.... how about that? Seriously, this needs to go. And if open PvP is too horrible, then give us REAL level range limits which goes both ways. </blockquote><p> Ooh don't get me wrong here Amphibia.. I would LOVE it if they opened up tons of zones to unlimited pvp. That would be hella fun! Anything that encourages MORE pvp works for me. The problem is no matter WHAT they do, someone will be unhappy...either the grey 'getting ganked by reds' or the red 'getting ganked by greys'. (red here being anyone higher level than you at any level..not just 70s, btw) and the devs resolve these issues not by giving..but by taking.</p><p>From experience..if I may..the end result of complaints has NEVER been less restrictions and more pvp...it has always been MORE restrictions and less pvp.  THAT is what always brings me to threads like this just cautioning people to be very careful what they ask for. </p>

Siphar
06-21-2007, 09:43 AM
<p>With no debt after GU 36 what will be so bad about dying anyway as a grey?</p><p>I played exile from around 30-55 on my alt and <i><b>know</b></i> what it's like to have open pvp.</p><p>Having more targets is great, but being ganked is not cool, but something you accept.</p><p>I think open PvP range is a good idea and would bring the communities closer together. The higher level toons would have to some extent protect the lower level toons.</p><p>No reward for killing a grey that does not fight back is the only solution to prevent general griefing.</p>

Mordumor
06-21-2007, 11:05 AM
<p>Plan A </p><p>1. be tinkerer</p><p>2. charm healer</p><p>3. kill group of greys</p><p>4. end of story</p><p>Plan B</p><p>1. kill your 70</p><p>2. don't engage the grey adds</p><p>3. fly off</p><p>Plan C for the rich folks</p><p>1. screw bomb</p><p>2. chiller bomb</p><p>3. one of those other [Removed for Content] bombs</p><p>4. grab a mop and bucket</p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 11:19 AM
<cite>Valdar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>While it may be fun for you to zerg a red con, maybe you should consider that it's no fun for them to be zerged by a bunch of n00b twinks on nightmares.</p><p>If you want to play with us then level up, otherwise go and play with the other twinks at the TS griff station and let us cloud hop in peace in KoS. </p></blockquote> I don't think lowbie twinks on nightmares are up in KoS ganking reds <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 11:21 AM
<cite>Siphar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>With no debt after GU 36 what will be so bad about dying anyway as a grey?</p><p>I played exile from around 30-55 on my alt and <i><b>know</b></i> what it's like to have open pvp.</p><p>Having more targets is great, but being ganked is not cool, but something you accept.</p><p>I think open PvP range is a good idea and would bring the communities closer together. The higher level toons would have to some extent protect the lower level toons.</p><p>No reward for killing a grey that does not fight back is the only solution to prevent general griefing.</p></blockquote><p>lvl 20 champion from team A attacks full group of lvl 16 destroyers.  lvl 70 zerker AOE's full group of lvl 16 destroyers, killing them all.</p><p>lvl 20 champion makes dreadnaught, and goes to look for more fame to farm with his 70 buddy.. who he doesn't even have to group with for protection.</p><p>unlimited level ffa pvp is dumb, and everyone knows it.  folks asking for it just want to gank greys. </p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 11:25 AM
<cite>Siphar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>So you ganked a few reds on your toons? /golf-clap...no doubt you are twinked with max aa as well, and i bet you get a real sense of being uber because most other people can't be bothered to twink all their stuff to your level, before leveling through the tiers...</p><p><b>Now level up and play the game properly you freakin nub(s).</b></p><p>Note: Because if you were at T7 i have (and many others have) a range of characters that will mutilate your nub toons. </p></blockquote><p> I'm sorry, but comments like "play the game properly" make me laugh.</p><p>You think that playing the game properly is where the greatest challenge you will face is an opponent who is white.  We play in a world where we look for red con's to kill.</p><p>You know what usually prevents reds from getting ganked?  A group... though not always.  we've killed raids of reds <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  </p><p>So as for play the game properly?  Eh... the only way not to play it properly is to cheat.  We don't cheat, we just win, and it makes 70's like you so mad in the pants it just increases the gaming experience that much more.</p>

Valdar
06-21-2007, 11:33 AM
<p>Yeah, ganking a red makes you uber.</p><p>If you are just leveling up your gear will be sub par, you won't have a huge amount of aa's and your spells won't be fully ad3/masters.</p><p>Then you get ganked by a full group of greys who have more aa's then you, who are fully mastered and riding nightmares. Wow, what a challenge.</p><p>At 70 everyone has at least ad3's, and a very large percentage will be fabled up too.</p><p>But hey, if your idea of pvp is autoattacking people to death in CL-ANT then fine for you, not my place to judge, just leave me out of your childish groups, or let me fight you on a level playing field.</p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 11:45 AM
<p>Valdar wrote: </p><blockquote><p>Yeah, ganking a red makes you uber.</p></blockquote><p>No.  I'm uber w/o ganking reds.  It just makes my game more fun when we kill a 58 tank, or make a 57 swashy evac.  That's enjoyable.. </p><p>Valdar wrote:</p><blockquote><p>If you are just leveling up your gear will be sub par, you won't have a huge amount of aa's and your spells won't be fully ad3/masters.</p><p>At 70 everyone has at least ad3's, and a very large percentage will be fabled up too.</p></blockquote><p>Killed a 70 last night.  Was he leveling up?  Is there some tag that folks have on that should let us know when they're ready for pvp or not?  Oh wait, this isn't SWG.. if you go out, expect to fight or you know.. die.</p><p>Valdar wrote:</p><blockquote><p>But hey, if your idea of pvp is autoattacking people to death in CL-ANT then fine for you, not my place to judge, just leave me out of your childish groups, or let me fight you on a level playing field.</p></blockquote><p>I really don't get this.  As soon as I attack, the playing field is even.</p><p>If it's a group of even conn'd to you, or a group of greys, what difference does it make?  If someone goes out alone, exposes themselves to pvp, and dies in pvp *gasp* -- omg, the horror!</p><p>It's the arogance of reds that makes this so much fun.  You go out, and you think you're safe because of your levels... surprise, you're not.  The anger that follows the arogance is like the garlic sauce for the perfect shrimp scampi.</p><p>But hey, if your idea of pvp is cloud hopping and hiding in instances then fine for you, not my place to judge (and yet, similar to the quote above, i do seem to be judging anway, don't i?), just leave me out of your pathetic whines, or get a group and stop crying <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>lol.. i'm in quite a mood today.</p>

jaff247
06-21-2007, 12:03 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's the arogance of reds that makes this so much fun.  You go out, and you think you're safe because of your levels... surprise, you're not. </blockquote>they cannot attack you, you can attack them, with how confident you are that you can slaughter people above your level range, i would greatly appreciate if you could please go on to explain how the discrepancy with who is able to engage who is fair.

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 12:08 PM
<cite>jaff247 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's the arogance of reds that makes this so much fun.  You go out, and you think you're safe because of your levels... surprise, you're not. </blockquote>they cannot attack you, you can attack them, with how confident you are that you can slaughter people above your level range, i would greatly appreciate if you could please go on to explain how the discrepancy with who is able to engage who is fair. </blockquote><p> They can attack me the second I attack them.  The only advantage that greys get is the first hit.  It's not like anyone's 1-shotting reds out there.</p><p>Most pvpers i know really enjoy it when greys try to take them down.  They either easily get away, or take their faces off faster than liquid hot magama would.  It's the ones that suck who complain, tbh.</p><p>Btw.. when i'm solo.. i take greys, of just about any level, seriously.  Why?  Cuz i'm not a nub.</p>

Qanil
06-21-2007, 12:12 PM
<p>The ignorance in these posts is astounding.  Especially the ignorance from the people that dont play T7 nor do they care to play T7.</p><p>People say if you're stupid enough to get killed by a bunch of grays...  what does that mean?  I mean, they put the AVATAR in a 4 level zone.  Why on earth would they do that?  I mean, you can be 65 and be completely immune from attack until you feel good and ready to do it, and I know for a fact a 65 can easily beat down a 70...</p><p>The issue here isn't so much the open zones, it's bottlekneck type places like the epic mobs the put in the world, or quest locations, or places where you need to travel.  Entire  raids of grays drool at the chance to find one of these classes and kill it.   I dont think it's any great feat, you shouldn't either, because it's not hard. You didn't do anything special.  </p><p>Example.  I run into 6 people 20 levels lower than me on my brig.  they get first strike, I could die, a single mez or charm would be enough.. with the way resists are broken it's not like they did anything special, they spam it enough IT WILL land... however if I encounter that same 6 man up in Kos where I can kill them .. they stand little to NO chance whatsoever.</p><p>Immunity in this game is implemented for reasons, but the downside to it is FAR outweighing the upside.  You people WANt to be immune from a 70?  I'm cool with that, but it should go both ways.  You attack one, in a zone... there should be penalties to that.  </p><p>Or at least put some kind of check mechanism in the game where a 70 is given it's due amount of resists vs some lower level... I mean really.  wow.. just wow</p>

Captain Apple Darkberry
06-21-2007, 12:21 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>jaff247 wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>It's the arogance of reds that makes this so much fun.  You go out, and you think you're safe because of your levels... surprise, you're not. </blockquote>they cannot attack you, you can attack them, with how confident you are that you can slaughter people above your level range, i would greatly appreciate if you could please go on to explain how the discrepancy with who is able to engage who is fair. </blockquote><p> They can attack me the second I attack them.  The only advantage that greys get is the first hit.  It's not like anyone's 1-shotting reds out there.</p><p>Most pvpers i know really enjoy it when greys try to take them down.  They either easily get away, or take their faces off faster than liquid hot magama would.  It's the ones that suck who complain, tbh.</p><p>Btw.. when i'm solo.. i take greys, of just about any level, seriously.  Why?  Cuz i'm not a nub.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff3300">Grey get more of an advantage than 1st shot...   ...they get immunity.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff3300">Its like setting up for a raid mob, you have all the prep time you need, in this case getting the scouts ready to chain their Cheap Shots, getting everyone ready to cue up their debuffs.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff3300">You said it yourself...   ...level ranges don't mean much in this game in PvP...   ...so why is hiding behind immunity to important for you?   Scared that you might have to level up...?   ...yes, thats it isn't it.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff3300">The game has borked scaling of conning in PvP, you know it, many know it.  They take advantage of it to attack from immunity.  So why, since greys can obviously do so well against reds, should they be given immunity?  Its not just first strike.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff3300">You will keep saying that hoping that the problem will be ignored, but your actions will be what causes Reds to be given immunity, and yet you will cry when it happens.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff3300">You act like your hardcore attacking reds, but again, your the [Removed for Content] bluebie that needs to turn PvP into the same situation as PvE, where you can ~stay outside of aggro range (in this case immunity) setting up for the pull~.  Weak...    ...real weak.</span> </p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 12:22 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Or at least put some kind of check mechanism in the game where a 70 is given it's due amount of resists vs some lower level... I mean really.  wow.. just wow</p></blockquote><p> I actually think that they really need to look at the mechanics of levels.  I've said that before.  Players with a significant skill advantage over others should notice a significant difference in how often things land.  Someone with a 300/300 defense should be able to block/parry/riposte 100% of attacks with someone who has 125 in slashing/piercing.  Someone with 125 disruption shouldn't be able to land an attack on someone with 50% resistance mitigation vs a lvl 70 mob.</p><p>When the differences are closer, 275 vs 300, or someone trying to land a spell on an opponent 5 levels higher.. yeah, they should have a decent shot.</p><p>I'm not saying make orange gods compared to greens -- that's dumb.  I think the balance found in the current level ranges is good, and fair.</p><p>But i'd like a little bit of a challenge when we engage reds.  It's pretty dumb for so many of them to be mincemeat.  Those fights should be tough, not forgone conclusions (which they are atm).  As it is, the only things we have a level restriction on who we engage are pallies, monks, and healers... and it's generally at about 20 levels or so.</p><p>I'm all for SoE making reds more realistically tougher.  Just don't remove our ability to fight them altogether. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 12:29 PM
<p>[email protected] wrote: </p><blockquote><p>Its like setting up for a raid mob, you have all the prep time you need, in this case getting the scouts ready to chain their Cheap Shots, getting everyone ready to cue up their debuffs.</p></blockquote><p>You can't chain stuns, they carry a stun immunity.  it's not raiding, it's pvp.. it's what we do at lower levels instead of hiding in instances <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>[email protected] wrote: </p><blockquote><p>You said it yourself...   ...level ranges don't mean much in this game in PvP...   ...so why is hiding behind immunity to important for you?   Scared that you might have to level up...?   ...yes, thats it isn't it.</p></blockquote><p>Oh.. ya got me!  I'm hiding behind level ranges by attacking reds....?  I'm caught!</p><p>[email protected] wrote: </p><blockquote><p>The game has borked scaling of conning in PvP, you know it, many know it.  They take advantage of it to attack from immunity.  So why, since greys can obviously do so well against reds, should they be given immunity?  Its not just first strike.  </p></blockquote><p>I agree that the scaling of conning in pvp <i>beyond the level range of the zone</i> is borked.  Within normal ranges i think it's pretty fair.  And again asking for reds to be able to run around and gank greys.. honestly, it makes me laugh every time, w/o fail.</p><p>[email protected] wrote: </p><blockquote><p>You will keep saying that hoping that the problem will be ignored, but your actions will be what causes Reds to be given immunity, and yet you will cry when it happens.</p></blockquote><p>I won't cry, not a single tear.  Not a spec of salty water will pour from my optical organs.. i swear it. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  But i think you might, if you think about the long-term ramifications.. </p><p>[email protected] wrote: </p><blockquote><p>You act like your hardcore attacking reds, but again, your the [Removed for Content] bluebie that needs to turn PvP into the same situation as PvE, where you can ~stay outside of aggro range (in this case immunity) setting up for the pull~.  Weak...    ...real weak. </p></blockquote>No, I act like i ENJOY myself by attacking reds.  I only consider myself "hard core" when we kill a group of reds, or when it's a raid of them <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  And sorry, this ain't pve.  If you want to get away in pvp, you can.  No one forces a red to engage the greys back, they can evac, griff, or just walk away if they like.  The system is carebear enough that you should never ever die to a group of greys.. there's too many ways to get away out there.

jaff247
06-21-2007, 12:34 PM
The only advantage is that greys get the first hit, ok, so what recourse does a player have if they are being trailed by numerous greys who get to decide exactly when to engage? The "red" cannot pick his moment or position to attack them first. So there is an undeniable discrepancy there right? Please dont fool yourself into believing youre great because a handful of people your tier can pickoff a solo person in the next, a master 1 spell is the better of its next tier upgrade apprentice, the pvp resist system in this game is just baffling, to watch t7 raid geared players be nuked by greys for full spell damage.. i dont understand in the slightest. i know you want to think its because " youre a great player " , but really you are just sitting at your keyboard clicking your adept 3 or master 1 attack or spell, believe it or not, that in and of itself is not an amazing feat. So really what does the average person dealing with greys in the tier below them have? maybe a few extra hitpoints and mana, lets be generous and go as far as to say 45 base per level, so .. 450 hitpoints and mana more... infact lets be really generous and say that the next tier of gear they have access too allows for another 250 hp or mana, i mean we all know that a majority of lockers are geared out, but to be as unbiased as possible 700hp/mana more than you/ or your group, a resist system which defeats the concept of a "red con"-  a name you want to dangle from your neck like a trophy .. but when the game treats a player character entirely differently than a npc, allowing you to land damage that no one could honestly attest to being able to reproduce on a npc of the same level difference, what advantage do they have? none, really none. greys get to pick when to engage, and if they are successful, they return to their immune state, leaving the player above their tier with no possible recourse.

lost
06-21-2007, 12:35 PM
Lets take it to its extreme, and I'm suprised I haven't heard of more people doing this--level up a bunch of wizards to 65, lock them there, and camp the spires in commonlands and antonica.  You can fusion/ice nova/whatever the hell out of any 70s standing at the spire without them being able to attack back, and they can't do anything until most of their health is gone because of the immunity of the 65.  I can see a bunch of level 30s deciding that killing a level 70 is fun, and it is an accomplishment to beat the 70, but at the same time, for those level 65 greys, its certainly not.  Or take a t7 contested fight, and the guild pulling it generally has at least an x2 protecting the main raid.  If the greys attack the main raid, the protecting force cannot do anything to help the main raid unless the greys also decide to engage the x2+.  With the additional upcoming scaling of heals, a fight that would be difficult on its own, probably turns to impossible if greys can continually zerg and keep the main raid force in combat. I'm all for more pvp, whether that means a carnage flag for greys that attack reds, open pvp, etc.  Another thing that would be a great addition is a pvp range that scaled with player level rather than the intended level of the characters leveling in a zone, to make it so that no matter where you are, you can attack the same people.

Badaxe Ba
06-21-2007, 01:07 PM
<p>I posted this idea also on another thread, but since this is a hot topic, I'll bring it up again.</p><p>You say you want a challenging fight, against that red target you see.  Fine, I'm all for challenging fights!  The problem, and its been stated many times, is the degree to which lower levels damage outputs ARE NOT resisted by higher level tiers!</p><p>Until this situation is addressed, by giving a progressive scale to resists per tier, then the advantage will always remain with the greys, when the fight is started with one side enjoying immunity. </p><p>A simple solution is to simply change the degree of immune targets based upon the zone.  For example, Antonica has a level limit of 4 zones below your level which is attackable by a player, but there is no upper limit.  Placing a limit of 8 levels (a factor of x2) above your level in that zone which is attackable by you would still allow your 'challenging' fights, while anything above that, you would be required to move to the next (higher) zone.  Claiming that this means a much higher level player could run around stealing your nodes, mobs etc., well, unless they are continuosly stealing your mobs, a violation of the EULA and a reportable offense,  last time I checked no harvest node has anyone's name on it.  and its a big zone, with plenty of nodes.  Not to mention you can always ask for help from your faction.</p><p>Scaling this immunity to the different zones would not in any way deter pvp, but would go a long way in alleviating the problem of 'leechers', by removing their ability in lower zones to get that one hit for fame.</p><p>Ant/CL 8 lvls above level attackable.</p><p>TS/Nek 16 levels above attackable.</p><p>And so on, for each higher tier until you reach the no limit levels.  </p><p>Want a harder challenge?  Move to the next zone, where that red knows he's not immune to certain levels.  Keep the immunity to lower levels in place, as that is not the problem.</p><p>Complex solution?  Redo the scaling of resists, so T3 fighting T7 better expect a wipeout, no matter how twinked, buffed or how much zerging they do.</p>

Captain Apple Darkberry
06-21-2007, 01:26 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><smoke and mirrors></p><p>Look at the monkey! Look at the monkey!</p><p><more smoke and mirrors> </p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff3300">You hide in the immunity of the lower tiers and exploit the bork PvP scaling system...   ...grats, you won EQ2.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff3300">The broken mechanic will be taken away, and you will leave because of it...   ...so please let me be the first to say /bye to you and those like you.  Those who look for the ~easy~ niche in the game.  Twink ftw huh...?</span></p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 01:54 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff3300">You hide in the immunity of the lower tiers and exploit the bork PvP scaling system...   ...grats, you won EQ2.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff3300">The broken mechanic will be taken away, and you will leave because of it...   ...so please let me be the first to say /bye to you and those like you.  Those who look for the ~easy~ niche in the game.  Twink ftw huh...?</span></p></blockquote><p>I'd prefer if they FIXED the mechanic, rather than take it away.  I think i've made that rather clear.</p><p>But you guys would rather just have immunity yourself, and be "safe" from lower level players.</p><p>Who's looking for easymode now? Why don't you just roll on a blue server?  Seriously.  Perfectly safe from pvp there, it's 100% immunity! wheeeee!! </p>

Amphibia
06-21-2007, 03:03 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff3300">You hide in the immunity of the lower tiers and exploit the bork PvP scaling system...   ...grats, you won EQ2.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff3300">The broken mechanic will be taken away, and you will leave because of it...   ...so please let me be the first to say /bye to you and those like you.  Those who look for the ~easy~ niche in the game.  Twink ftw huh...?</span></p></blockquote><p>I'd prefer if they FIXED the mechanic, rather than take it away.  I think i've made that rather clear.</p><p>But you guys would rather just have immunity yourself, and be "safe" from lower level players.</p></blockquote>Exactimondo! I do indeed want to be safe from players I cannot attack.

Bassman
06-21-2007, 03:08 PM
<p>Bozidar, its funny how you so quickly give an example of how the system may be exploited in the future without mentioning how its being exploited today.</p><p>LVL 70 gets jumped by 2 other lvl 70s but decides to fight because he won't lose any fame to these two attacking him.   A group of greys standing by jump in and he loses fame.  Since he couldn't clear them out before he fought (he can't attack them), the greys are basically waiting around to steal fame from anyone that fights.  I don't see how this is fair in any way.  And don't give me a line about how you shouldn't fight at the carpet in SS, cause we are talking about encouraging more pvp here.  I'd like to see more fights and people enjoying themselves and less worries about some grey stealing fame or ganking them outright.  This is in SS even, this isn't Antonica we are talking about.  If the greys think they can take them, then fine, let them attack.  But allow the red to do something about it before they are all camping the area or following people around to spy on them for others that are coming.</p><p>If they put in the mechanics to cap how high of a red they can attack, they simply allow the greys to continue to spy and following people around for higher level toons to come and gank the people.  If you see a red, run, its the law of the jungle end of story.  Tired of seeing lvl 9s standing on the spire in KoS to look for people in zone to gank.  I'm tired of seeing greys standing around trying to decide if they are going to try and take down the lvl 70 clothy or just waiting around for someone else to tank him why they attack.  I'm tired of people whining about not enough pvp out there and nobody wants to pvp because nothing is fair anymore. </p><p>If greys can attack reds, they darn well should be able to attack them.  If someone worked hard to get to level 70, why hurt them more by continuing to allow this to happen?  Locked toons can stay locked toons, just put them in a zone away from the level 70s.  Make them flee if they see level 70s not the other way around.  There used to be the "Queens Guard" guild, believe that was the name, that actually protected zones from reds trying to gank lowbies.  Believe it or not, the same people who gank reds, will probably be ganking greys for their kicks.  But they don't lose anything from it (unlike us 70s do now), and if they all level up together as a group, then there is less of a chance of them dying to a stray grey ganker.  </p><p>I'd love to see people protecting areas more,  Antonica seems more of a haven for fp and exile then it does for qeynos.  They should be protecting their borders and killing anyone that threatens their lands.  Instead, they are over in SS trying to get free fame by attacking reds and hiding under the world.</p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 03:10 PM
<cite>Amphibia wrote:</cite><blockquote>Exactimondo! I do indeed want to be safe from players I cannot attack. </blockquote><p> So in the vote vs:</p><p>()  Make fights of reds vs greys more balanced and fair for the reds.</p><p>()  Make the poor defenseless reds immune from those killer greys, let's all have a hug in Carealot, zomg.. </p><p>You vote the second one... got it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Amphibia
06-21-2007, 03:14 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>From experience..if I may..the end result of complaints has NEVER been less restrictions and more pvp...it has always been MORE restrictions and less pvp.  THAT is what always brings me to threads like this just cautioning people to be very careful what they ask for. </blockquote> I agree, and that is my experience as well. But I'm asking anyway..... because if the level range limits are here to stay, then they should at least go both ways. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 03:14 PM
<cite>Bassman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Bozidar, its funny how you so quickly give an example of how the system may be exploited in the future without mentioning how its being exploited today.</p><p>LVL 70 gets jumped by 2 other lvl 70s but decides to fight because he won't lose any fame to these two attacking him.   A group of greys standing by jump in and he loses fame.  Since he couldn't clear them out before he fought (he can't attack them), the greys are basically waiting around to steal fame from anyone that fights.  I don't see how this is fair in any way.  And don't give me a line about how you shouldn't fight at the carpet in SS, cause we are talking about encouraging more pvp here.  I'd like to see more fights and people enjoying themselves and less worries about some grey stealing fame or ganking them outright.  This is in SS even, this isn't Antonica we are talking about.  If the greys think they can take them, then fine, let them attack.  But allow the red to do something about it before they are all camping the area or following people around to spy on them for others that are coming.</p><p>If they put in the mechanics to cap how high of a red they can attack, they simply allow the greys to continue to spy and following people around for higher level toons to come and gank the people.  If you see a red, run, its the law of the jungle end of story.  Tired of seeing lvl 9s standing on the spire in KoS to look for people in zone to gank.  I'm tired of seeing greys standing around trying to decide if they are going to try and take down the lvl 70 clothy or just waiting around for someone else to tank him why they attack.  I'm tired of people whining about not enough pvp out there and nobody wants to pvp because nothing is fair anymore. </p><p>If greys can attack reds, they darn well should be able to attack them.  If someone worked hard to get to level 70, why hurt them more by continuing to allow this to happen?  Locked toons can stay locked toons, just put them in a zone away from the level 70s.  Make them flee if they see level 70s not the other way around.  There used to be the "Queens Guard" guild, believe that was the name, that actually protected zones from reds trying to gank lowbies.  Believe it or not, the same people who gank reds, will probably be ganking greys for their kicks.  But they don't lose anything from it (unlike us 70s do now), and if they all level up together as a group, then there is less of a chance of them dying to a stray grey ganker.  </p><p>I'd love to see people protecting areas more,  Antonica seems more of a haven for fp and exile then it does for qeynos.  They should be protecting their borders and killing anyone that threatens their lands.  Instead, they are over in SS trying to get free fame by attacking reds and hiding under the world.</p></blockquote><p>If a grey attacks a red engaged in a fight, he needs to deal damage before that red is more than halfway dead in order to get fame from that red.</p><p>And a red, who has a grey attack them when they're more than half health, should have time enough to kill that grey.</p><p>I've been the red guy getting attacked by groups of greys, guys <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  I've also had greys try me out when i'm engaged in order to get some free fame, and wind up killing those greys (and btw, making dreadnaught off of oen) because i paid attention to what was going on. You're not alone just because you're at end game.  I'm just not looking for a pillow to bite, or a super special hug.  I'd like to see it balanced, because i think a good toon 20+ levels higher should be an absolute nightmare to kill for a group -- regardless of how twinked.</p>

Amphibia
06-21-2007, 03:21 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amphibia wrote:</cite><blockquote>Exactimondo! I do indeed want to be safe from players I cannot attack. </blockquote><p> So in the vote vs:</p><p>()  Make fights of reds vs greys more balanced and fair for the reds.</p><p>()  Make the poor defenseless reds immune from those killer greys, let's all have a hug in Carealot, zomg.. </p><p>You vote the second one... got it <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote> Out of those two options? Yes, you bet I did! But you forgot the third option, which is: () Open PvP .... but you don't like that one, do you? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 03:22 PM
<cite>Amphibia wrote:</cite><blockquote>Out of those two options? Yes, you bet I did! But you forgot the third option, which is: () Open PvP .... but you don't like that one, do you? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote> Nor would you, if you'd think it through.

Bassman
06-21-2007, 03:26 PM
Bozidar wrote: <blockquote><p>I'd like to see it balanced, because i think a good toon 20+ levels higher should be an absolute nightmare to kill for a group -- regardless of how twinked.</p></blockquote> If the devs would have balanced out this problem instead of removing all the caps period, we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. At the same time however, I was in a x4 of 50s chasing a single bruiser from nek docks all the way to commonlands (before the speed boosts) and we couldn't even get the guy below half health.  There has to be some point at which a x4 of 50s should be able to take down a single 70.  I like the way things are now, it promote more fighting and allows the lowbies to even think about killing lvl 70s.  At the same time, 70s should be able to defend ourselves from situations where they greys are benefiting.  Why not allow them to chase away the greys, or kill that lvl 9 standing at the spire do a /who for people in zone for their other aligned toon to kill.  If you have lvl 70s then you know hitting a lvl 70 from range and hiding behind a bridge or something is very easy todo without anyone knowing or even realizing what has happen.  I see it done all the time and its more than annoying.

Bloodfa
06-21-2007, 03:47 PM
<p>Open PvP would be bad.  And by bad, I mean take a 32 up to TT and make the run for AP's.  I'd expect the same treatment I give out there; a throwing knife in the spine.  But everywhere?  That would truly suck.</p><p>The level gap perma-immunity (essentially the same thing), and the location-tied restrictions need ... fine tuning.  In another thread, somebody mentioned a suggestion for Carnage Flagging.  Carnage flagging anyone involved in PvP (the survivors, I mean) might make for an easier solution to the whole issue.  It would certainly open up the possibility of payback, which doesn't exist at the moment, make things a bit more risky for those interfering with raids, beyond the initial attack, and still allow groups of greys to take down reds.  Just without the same degree of impunity.  20's take out a 45 in Antonica?  Cool, grats to them.  Let the 45 come looking for payback and settle the score.  Ah, but then the 45's flagged and better hope that level 70 SK he was taunting earlier doesn't roll up and kick his tail into South Qeynos.  Want more PvP, a little more balance, a lot more risk?  That ought to have some impact.  I've been carnage flagged before, and it hurts.  Well, until you die, anyway.  That needs fixing too.</p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 03:52 PM
<p>Bloodfang : Not terriffic solutions.  You attack a 25 on your 20 warlock, kill him, and now a 70 can kill you for 15 minutes? </p><p>But how about this... and I could accept this, even though i'd <b><i><u>prefer</u></i></b> if they'd just fix the skill balance:</p><p>You or your group engage a lvl 58 toon in antonica.  For the duration of your combat, you are attackable as if YOU were lvl 58.  A 62 can attack you, a 54 can attack you, a 43 can attack you, a 34 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  you get the idea..</p>

Vilesummon
06-21-2007, 04:08 PM
<span style="color: #3333ff">The mechanics of the game are severely broken in favor of the lower levels attacking the higher levels. At 70, I can have resists of over 50% damage to a level 70, which means that someone that is gray to me really shouldn't have much chance to do any damage. I should, if mechanics worked properly, be able to either flat out resist the spell or skill or have the damage be so close to ZERO that one tick of my health regen keeps me full. It doesn't come close to working like that...and that is why higher levels are saying it needs fixed. To all the gray con leeching [Removed for Content] that level lock to avoid the punishment of t7 pvp engagement, we can spell it out in simple terms that you may understand...take yourself out to the loping plains and find a lvl 68, 69, or 70 mob and attack it and see how it turns out for you. You know you will not kill the creature because it will not only resist almost anything you do, but it will also do damage off the chart since the mitigation would be below zero for the superior level attacking you. If you are level 50 and can resist 50% of a level 50 enemy, do you think you have the same resist vs a 70? HELL NO, you would get smoked...and that is with your skills set at PVE level damage. I know that certain title hugging lil chumps love camping at ss docks waiting for the big kids to play, but it really isn't an accomplishment to let the true pvpers beat the hell out of each other and you leech from it based on one hit or because you can pick on one clothie that happens to be farming nodes. It is ridiculous that 70s that are decked out in nice raid gear have to tolerate the issue, but it is yet again, another area that isn't being fixed. </span>

Bloodfa
06-21-2007, 04:10 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Bloodfang : Not terriffic solutions.  You attack a 25 on your 20 warlock, kill him, and now a 70 can kill you for 15 minutes? </p><p>But how about this... and I could accept this, even though i'd <b><i><u>prefer</u></i></b> if they'd just fix the skill balance:</p><p>You or your group engage a lvl 58 toon in antonica.  For the duration of your combat, you are attackable as if YOU were lvl 58.  A 62 can attack you, a 54 can attack you, a 43 can attack you, a 34 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  you get the idea..</p></blockquote><p> Assuming that the combat lasts more than 8 seconds. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Actually, I kind of like that idea.  Basically it'd be like reverse mentoring for conning sake.  How would you address out-of-combat healing in such a situation?  </p>

Vilesummon
06-21-2007, 04:15 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Bloodfang : Not terriffic solutions.  <span style="color: #cc0000">You attack a 25 on your 20 warlock,</span> kill him, and now a 70 can kill you for 15 minutes? </p><p>But how about this... and I could accept this, even though i'd <b><i><u>prefer</u></i></b> if they'd just fix the skill balance:</p><p>You or your group engage a lvl 58 toon in antonica.  For the duration of your combat, you are attackable as if YOU were lvl 58.  A 62 can attack you, a 54 can attack you, a 43 can attack you, a 34 <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  you get the idea..</p></blockquote>The only place a 25 would con red to a 20 is the t2 zones, and realistically I don't know too many people (other than level lockers) that hang out in t2 zones at 25. Kinda pointless isn't it? Guess what, you can avoid the whole mess in t2 by not attacking the 25, right? Guess what, if you don't attack, the 25 would get bored of watching your group kill things and find something else to do. The whole point of the thread is that tooooooo much control of engagements by gray is controlled by the gray with no fear of consequence for their action.  I don't know about the whole carnage tag thing, but if it were that way, guess what you can do....MOVE. Level 70s are not going to endlessly camp ANT and CL hoping that some grays end up with a carnage tag. If that player happens to have a 70 that they want to pay you back with...make it hard to find you. After all, you CHOSE to engage the red, right?

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 04:26 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>The only place a 25 would con red to a 20 is the t2 zones, and realistically I don't know too many people (other than level lockers) that hang out in t2 zones at 25. Kinda pointless isn't it? Guess what, you can avoid the whole mess in t2 by not attacking the 25, right? Guess what, if you don't attack, the 25 would get bored of watching your group kill things and find something else to do. The whole point of the thread is that tooooooo much control of engagements by gray is controlled by the gray with no fear of consequence for their action.  I don't know about the whole carnage tag thing, but if it were that way, guess what you can do....MOVE. Level 70s are not going to endlessly camp ANT and CL hoping that some grays end up with a carnage tag. If that player happens to have a 70 that they want to pay you back with...make it hard to find you. After all, you CHOSE to engage the red, right? </blockquote><p>You're wrong, 25's hang out in cl/ant all the time.  There are great reasons for it.</p><p>The carnage flag for attacking a red is dumb, though.</p><p>Let's say i'm grouped with someone who's lvl 21, and i'm lvl 20.  We come across a 25, red to me, and engage him.  I get a carnage flag for it?  What if i'm in sinking sands and engage someone 9 levels higher than me?  Flagged for it?</p><p>You folks keep trying to come up with solutions to "punish" players for attacking reds.  Why is it so hard to get behind the idea of "balance the combat"?  Why is the idea of making the fights more fair for the red con'd so foreign and abtuse to you?  The only thing i can think of is that you don't actually WANT a fair fight, you want to grind out faction on greys because not enough of them zone to the overrealm for your liking.. </p>

Vilesummon
06-21-2007, 04:34 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>The only place a 25 would con red to a 20 is the t2 zones, and realistically I don't know too many people (other than level lockers) that hang out in t2 zones at 25. Kinda pointless isn't it? Guess what, you can avoid the whole mess in t2 by not attacking the 25, right? Guess what, if you don't attack, the 25 would get bored of watching your group kill things and find something else to do. The whole point of the thread is that tooooooo much control of engagements by gray is controlled by the gray with no fear of consequence for their action.  I don't know about the whole carnage tag thing, but if it were that way, guess what you can do....MOVE. Level 70s are not going to endlessly camp ANT and CL hoping that some grays end up with a carnage tag. If that player happens to have a 70 that they want to pay you back with...make it hard to find you. After all, you CHOSE to engage the red, right? </blockquote><p>You're wrong, 25's hang out in cl/ant all the time.  There are great reasons for it.</p><p>The carnage flag for attacking a red is dumb, though.</p><p>L<span style="color: #6633ff">et's say i'm grouped with someone who's lvl 21, and i'm lvl 20.  We come across a 25, red to me, and engage him.  I get a carnage flag for it?  What if i'm in sinking sands and engage someone 9 levels higher than me?  Flagged for it?</span></p><p>You folks keep trying to come up with solutions to "punish" players for attacking reds.  Why is it so hard to get behind the idea of "balance the combat"?  Why is the idea of making the fights more fair for the red con'd so foreign and abtuse to you?  The only thing i can think of is that you don't actually WANT a fair fight, you want to grind out faction on greys because not enough of them zone to the overrealm for your liking.. </p></blockquote>Ummm, I know you find comfort in hiding behind the con advantage but I have news for you...the 25 could actually attack the 21 anyway, so they would at least have some say in the engagement, right? As for sinking sands, you should be flagged or punished for attacking someone 9 levels higher than you. You will generate ZERO sympathy from me and a lot of 70s on that one since we all endured beatings when SS was, in fact, unlimited in PVP range. I know you seem to find comfort in thinking you are great because you can kill a 70 as a gray, but since the mechanics are not geared properly, there should be a consequence for your action. As we said, you still control it.....if you fear the tag, choose NOT to attack the red. Complex, isn't it?

Bloodfa
06-21-2007, 04:40 PM
<p>Just to clarify my stance, I don't think greys should give faction, ever.  Even those nasty little betrayers.  Not that I don't think they should die, but I don't think that you should get a PvP reward from somebody that, if he were an NPC, would yield nothing but some loose change and maybe a body part.  I just want a little payback.</p><p>Okay, a lot of payback.  Whatever it takes to let me come back and make them run.  Even if I die again, I want to know I sent 2 or 3 of them to the respawn. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  What can I say, I'm petty like that. <img src="/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 04:42 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>Ummm, I know you find comfort in hiding behind the con advantage but I have news for you...the 25 could actually attack the 21 anyway, so they would at least have some say in the engagement, right? As for sinking sands, you should be flagged or punished for attacking someone 9 levels higher than you. You will generate ZERO sympathy from me and a lot of 70s on that one since we all endured beatings when SS was, in fact, unlimited in PVP range. I know you seem to find comfort in thinking you are great because you can kill a 70 as a gray, but since the mechanics are not geared properly, there should be a consequence for your action. As we said, you still control it.....if you fear the tag, choose NOT to attack the red. Complex, isn't it? </blockquote><p> Ummm, I know you find comfort in misreading what people say and you like to save time by not trying to get where they are coming from, but i have news for you.. the 25 is still RED to me.  Your rule suggestion sux.. not my fault, but don't beat yourself up over it.  And btw.. i sinking sands someone 9 levels higher than you can attack you, just as the 25 could attack me in my earlier example.  But i did cry a little on the inside about all those poor 70's who got beatings in sinking sands <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> <img src="/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> poor little fellas.. </p><p>Why does everyone always say that i think i'm great because i kill reds?  Has word spread about how great i am, and has everyone called into Ms. Cleo to have her do some psychic mumbo jumbo to read what's going on inside my head?  I have killed exactly 1 70 w/o reasonable protection (meaning i was in a raid in reasonable range to them, and they were also in a raid).  I don't think that makes me great? Why would i? i didn't do the work, that's for sure <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  However, myself and my friends all lvl 20-23 killing a raid of guys from 25-27... yeah, THAT was great.</p><p>And again.. LOL.. You are such a twit <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  You don't say "Fix the mechanic!!!", you say "PUNISH THEM, I AM SO RIGHTEOUS!!"  Oh, there is definately a complex going on here, but i'm not going to psychoanalyze you the way you like to do it to me <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Amphibia
06-21-2007, 04:43 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Amphibia wrote:</cite><blockquote>Out of those two options? Yes, you bet I did! But you forgot the third option, which is: () Open PvP .... but you don't like that one, do you? <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </blockquote> Nor would you, if you'd think it through.</blockquote> Oh, I think would actually. I've already stated why several times in this thread. But if open PvP is such a bad idea, then we're back to suggestion #2: Make level range limits go both ways. Fair and simple, and nothing to cry about for anyone.

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 04:44 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Just to clarify my stance, I don't think greys should give faction, ever.  Even those nasty little betrayers.  Not that I don't think they should die, but I don't think that you should get a PvP reward from somebody that, if he were an NPC, would yield nothing but some loose change and maybe a body part.  I just want a little payback.</p></blockquote> LOL, let's deal with one broken game mechanic at a time <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Oh, and greys give fame if they attack you first, btw, not just faction.

Lowell_high
06-21-2007, 04:50 PM
Isn't it ironic how a grey con is even a threat?  This topic shouldn't even be debatable to begin with - why should a red con ever have to worry about a grey con?  With the new LU update greys will even be more dangerous as they can land there spells easier than before.. funny how things work.

CresentBlade
06-21-2007, 04:50 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Just to clarify my stance, I don't think greys should give faction, ever.  Even those nasty little betrayers.  Not that I don't think they should die, but I don't think that you should get a PvP reward from somebody that, if he were an NPC, would yield nothing but some loose change and maybe a body part.  I just want a little payback.</p></blockquote> LOL, let's deal with one broken game mechanic at a time <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Oh, and greys give fame if they attack you first, btw, not just faction.</blockquote>Nope they do not.

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 04:55 PM
<cite>CresentBlade wrote:</cite><blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Just to clarify my stance, I don't think greys should give faction, ever.  Even those nasty little betrayers.  Not that I don't think they should die, but I don't think that you should get a PvP reward from somebody that, if he were an NPC, would yield nothing but some loose change and maybe a body part.  I just want a little payback.</p></blockquote> LOL, let's deal with one broken game mechanic at a time <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  Oh, and greys give fame if they attack you first, btw, not just faction.</blockquote>Nope they do not. </blockquote>Yes, they do.  This isn't a question.

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 04:56 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>Isn't it ironic how a grey con is even a threat?  This topic shouldn't even be debatable to begin with - why should a red con ever have to worry about a grey con?  With the new LU update greys will even be more dangerous as they can land there spells easier than before.. funny how things work.</blockquote><p> I agree!!! <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  See how easy it is to get along?</p><p>Let's make THIS an issue.  Stop asking for Norrath to be turned into Carealot.  Let's fix the mechanics so that greys (true greys) really shouldn't be a big threat.  It's got some grit to it, but it's an issue that CAN be dealt with.  We just need to bring it to the dev's attention, and stop asking for <i>more [Removed for Content] immunity!!</i></p>

EQGu
06-21-2007, 04:57 PM
<p>grey cons shouldnt be able to attack reds... Sure you could impliment a carnage system or something but that will do NO good you wanna know why? the whole immunity system now which is a whole other topic but...</p><p>all a grey will do is get their group follow a high lvl around help the high lvl get a kill evac after its over and they got their fame then sit in immunity or call to town or camp out for a few.. so that wouldnt work</p><p>Just dont make them attackable its rediculous that someone even has to worry about grey cons but the truth is, with a grey group tank dps and 2 healers its really hard to take them down if they are just out of lvl range,...</p><p> FOR EXAMPLE: say im sittin on ant spire waiting to go up a group of locked 65s or say some 65s and 64s and 63s well normally they would con green to me in other zones right well here they con grey so either i have to hope they dont attack me or i have to run away and hope the big bad greys dont get me... well say i stay they can be ready to use all their big hitters and 90% of the time they will land. HT would hit for 3k ish an assassinate like 1.5k already with 2 CAs ive lost 4.5k hps.. most people dont have much more hps than that. and with say a lvl 65 warden in the group there is no way 1 person is bringing them down tbh..</p><p>it needs to be fixed. </p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 05:00 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>grey cons shouldnt be able to attack reds... Sure you could impliment a carnage system or something but that will do NO good you wanna know why? the whole immunity system now which is a whole other topic but...</p><p>all a grey will do is get their group follow a high lvl around help the high lvl get a kill evac after its over and they got their fame then sit in immunity or call to town or camp out for a few.. so that wouldnt work</p><p>Just dont make them attackable its rediculous that someone even has to worry about grey cons but the truth is, with a grey group tank dps and 2 healers its really hard to take them down if they are just out of lvl range,...</p><p> FOR EXAMPLE: say im sittin on ant spire waiting to go up a group of locked 65s or say some 65s and 64s and 63s well normally they would con green to me in other zones right well here they con grey so either i have to hope they dont attack me or i have to run away and hope the big bad greys dont get me... well say i stay they can be ready to use all their big hitters and 90% of the time they will land. HT would hit for 3k ish an assassinate like 1.5k already with 2 CAs ive lost 4.5k hps.. most people dont have much more hps than that. and with say a lvl 65 warden in the group there is no way 1 person is bringing them down tbh..</p><p>it needs to be fixed. </p></blockquote><p>Right, because the results of this example would be vastly different if they conn'd green to you rather than grey? </p>

Bloodfa
06-21-2007, 05:01 PM
So everybody agrees it's in need of a fix, just not agreeing on how.  Well, it's a start. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 05:02 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>So everybody agrees it's in need of a fix, just not agreeing on how.  Well, it's a start. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></blockquote> I disagree.  I think some folks see that it needs a fix, and others want nerfage and *boggle* more immunity.

novok
06-21-2007, 05:03 PM
If someone cons green to you in ANY zone they should con green to you in EVERY zone.

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 05:05 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>If someone cons green to you in ANY zone they should con green to you in EVERY zone.</blockquote> Put the level ranges for T2 back the way they were.  This is what you're saying.. this is how it should be.  T1 4 levels is good, imo.

novok
06-21-2007, 05:10 PM
<p>Well not exactly. What I am saying is that if a toon cons green or above to you in an unlimited zone, that same toon should never be somehow magically grey to you just because you happen to be meeting her waiting for the spires in CL.</p><p>Although personally I think expanding the level limits back to the way the were at launch would be a good idea. Back when they first started talking about lowering the limits I thought it would be a good idea, but after seeing it in practice all these months I have changed my mind on that one.</p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 05:22 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Well not exactly. What I am saying is that if a toon cons green or above to you in an unlimited zone, that same toon should never be somehow magically grey to you just because you happen to be meeting her waiting for the spires in CL.</p><p>Although personally I think expanding the level limits back to the way the were at launch would be a good idea. Back when they first started talking about lowering the limits I thought it would be a good idea, but after seeing it in practice all these months I have changed my mind on that one.</p></blockquote><p>The only zones where a green con's grey to you is in the T2 zones.  Put them back to eight levels, and it's fixed.</p><p>Leave T1 alone though.  We don't need lvl 25's back in the caves or graveyard.. it's dumb. </p>

Lowell_high
06-21-2007, 05:28 PM
<p>Perhaps you could make level restrictions determined by the players level rather than the zone they are in.</p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 05:31 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Perhaps you could make level restrictions determined by the players level rather than the zone they are in.</p></blockquote><p>Interesting and fair.  Would vastly change a lot of things for lower level pvpers.  I'd like to see you expound upon that idea, if you would.  It's pretty good on the surface.</p><p>Just don't go start another thread on it, please <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p>

Lowell_high
06-21-2007, 05:34 PM
<p>I will make a thread for every different topic I think of. =)  Discussing multiple topics in a single thread isn't productive, imo.</p>

novok
06-21-2007, 05:35 PM
Jubilee I think that is where my line of thinking was leading me, put much more succinctly <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 05:37 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>I will make a thread for every different topic I think of. =)  Discussing multiple topics in a single thread isn't productive, imo.</p></blockquote>This isn't a different topic.  This is about making grey vs red combat more fair and reasonable in EQ2.  You had a good idea.. keep it here.  Cuz the Strollingwolf is going to mark his territory on your duplicate threads =P

Harbringer Doom
06-21-2007, 06:34 PM
Right now my level 32 Guard PvPs alot with a 28 Swash.  (I like to keep my tank several levels above the rest of the group) Now, when we're out hunting in T2 zones (because you find everything from level 12s to level 70s in the T2 zones) the tracker needs to know that we're not going to be able to attack anything that cons less than white to her. Easy enough when its the two of us. We can't attack a 27, conning blue to her, because I con red to the 27. Now, if we install this rule of yours that greys can attack reds, the rules of engagement become mindboggling.  For example, what happens when a red is grouped with a grey.   Take an extreme example, a 70 is grouped with a 10. They come across a level 10.  Normally, the level 10 could attack either of the group and take his chances with the 70 milling around.   Can the level 10 still do that, or can he not attack a group with a red in it?  Or can he attack the 10 and the 70 can do anything, like mentoring rules? Would a level 10 grouped with a 70 be an untouchable group because you can't attack a red (the 70) or a grey (the 10)? Right now up arrows and down arrows make my head go fuzzy.  I need an abacus at times to figure out who I can attack in which zone and who I can't.  I chase a yellow across a zone line and he turns orange.  I change an orange across a zone line and tell my groupmates I'm chasing an orange and they say "Good. Fruit is good for you." The moral of my post is:  I think reds should be attackable. 

Lowell_high
06-21-2007, 06:42 PM
I did keep it here, I posted it in here didn't i?

EQGu
06-21-2007, 08:01 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>grey cons shouldnt be able to attack reds... Sure you could impliment a carnage system or something but that will do NO good you wanna know why? the whole immunity system now which is a whole other topic but...</p><p>all a grey will do is get their group follow a high lvl around help the high lvl get a kill evac after its over and they got their fame then sit in immunity or call to town or camp out for a few.. so that wouldnt work</p><p>Just dont make them attackable its rediculous that someone even has to worry about grey cons but the truth is, with a grey group tank dps and 2 healers its really hard to take them down if they are just out of lvl range,...</p><p> FOR EXAMPLE: say im sittin on ant spire waiting to go up a group of locked 65s or say some 65s and 64s and 63s well normally they would con green to me in other zones right well here they con grey so either i have to hope they dont attack me or i have to run away and hope the big bad greys dont get me... well say i stay they can be ready to use all their big hitters and 90% of the time they will land. HT would hit for 3k ish an assassinate like 1.5k already with 2 CAs ive lost 4.5k hps.. most people dont have much more hps than that. and with say a lvl 65 warden in the group there is no way 1 person is bringing them down tbh..</p><p>it needs to be fixed. </p></blockquote><p>Right, because the results of this example would be vastly different if they conn'd green to you rather than grey? </p></blockquote><p> YES it would be a HUGE difference if they conned green. You wanna know why? because im not gonna sit there and say hey mr green con come circle around me preheal buff up and get first shot so i have no chance of winning, if they conned green i would see them on track or see them aproaching and i would get ready myself and attack first then it would be a decent fight i would most likely lose but it wouldnt just be oh hey gank me cuz i cant attack you first... </p><p>Or if they were green and too many id just run, not just hope that the uber greys dont attack me.. If anyones solution is just run when they greys come around lol [Removed for Content] imo</p>

EQGu
06-21-2007, 08:06 PM
<p>along the lines of jubilees idea...</p><p>Say from lvl 10-20 there is a 4 lvl limit on who can attack you 30 - 40 its a 6 lvl limit   50 - 60 its 8 etc etc</p><p> Something along the lines of that not exactly maybe but make the lvl you are the range that can attack you not the other way around.. OR make everywhere T2+   8 levels  EXCEPT the newb zones make that 4 lvls and the T7 zones make them unlimited</p>

Eybietie
06-21-2007, 08:16 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p> YES it would be a HUGE difference if they conned green. You wanna know why? because im not gonna sit there and say hey mr green con come circle around me preheal buff up and get first shot so i have no chance of winning, if they conned green i would see them on track or see them aproaching and i would get ready myself and attack first then it would be a decent fight i would most likely lose but it wouldnt just be oh hey gank me cuz i cant attack you first... </p><p>Or if they were green and too many id just run, not just hope that the uber greys dont attack me.. If anyones solution is just run when they greys come around lol [I cannot control my vocabulary] imo</p></blockquote><p>tbh if you sit there seeing how 6 people looking at you/ walking towards you, you deserve to get ganked. any red con can sprint or just walk away easily if they don´t engage. you just need good food/ drinks. it´s the red cons that mess things up. twink grp engages and the higher lvl player is like : <i>hey i´m gonna wtfpwn those greys... </i></p><p>edit : i can understand that issue on a 4 lvl range tbh. never understood why they changed that in cl / ant anyway. </p>

HerbertWalker
06-21-2007, 08:57 PM
<p>I fought back against grays once.  Then I privately cried and wrote a bunch of posts here asking for changes to the game.</p><p>Oh wait, that wasn't me.  That's you whiners.</p><p>Change the game for MEEEEEEEEEEEE</p><p>I don't like THIS.  I don't like THAT.</p><p>ME ME MEEEEEEEE</p><p>I can't have fun unless the rules get revamped for MY BENEFIT !!</p>

Vilesummon
06-21-2007, 09:15 PM
<cite>HerbertWalker wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I fought back against grays once.  Then I privately cried and wrote a bunch of posts here asking for changes to the game.</p><p>Oh wait, that wasn't me.  That's you whiners.</p><p>Change the game for MEEEEEEEEEEEE</p><p>I don't like THIS.  I don't like THAT.</p><p>ME ME MEEEEEEEE</p><p>I can't have fun unless the rules get revamped for MY BENEFIT !!</p></blockquote>LOL...this crap for a level 38 with 65 aa. Exactly the type of person we would expect to defend the action...twink from hell FTW. Won't it suck when you have 8 aa sitting there doing nothing for you til you level though...1.5 x lvl. And since when is it to the benefit of a level 70 (or whatever red con) to simply ask for the mechanics of the game to work properly. If at 70 my resists worked the way they should...there would be no need for the thread at all, but that isn't the case. In fact, as it works, you are actually whining more about the issue than any higher level by asking SOE to do NOTHING about the subject. I mean, you wouldn't want the mechanics of the game to work inappropriately, would you?

Shinnar
06-21-2007, 09:48 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Perhaps you could make level restrictions determined by the players level rather than the zone they are in.</p></blockquote><p> When i posted this idea few months ago, i was called a carebare by those FFA PVPers, so good luck</p><p>About that grey-cant-attack-red idea. This will destroy lower tier PVP and enable exploits where player will become unattackable while grouped with high level, what will lead to another change and that is FFA PVP. So nothing good.</p><p>Those level 70s complaining about greys really make me laugh. Just stay in unlimited-range-areas where you can kill any lev 10 you meet, lol. My highest char on PVP is 56. Maybe when i get to 70, i will also start crying that i cant kill a grey in T3 zone, who knows....</p><p>If you are fed up with greys, just take some lev 50-60 alts and go raiding/exping/harvesting to some unlimited zone. I guarantee, you will see other color than grey, lol.</p><p>I know i know, i am not lev 70 yet,  so that means that i know nothing about this game... Sorry that i spoke.</p><p>Later NOOBS</p>

Vilesummon
06-21-2007, 10:09 PM
<cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Perhaps you could make level restrictions determined by the players level rather than the zone they are in.</p></blockquote><p> When i posted this idea few months ago, i was called a carebare by those FFA PVPers, so good luck</p><p>About that grey-cant-attack-red idea. This will destroy lower tier PVP and enable exploits where player will become unattackable while grouped with high level, what will lead to another change and that is FFA PVP. So nothing good.</p><p>Those level 70s complaining about greys really make me laugh. <span style="color: #006600">Just stay in unlimited-range-areas where you can kill any lev 10 you meet, lol.</span> My highest char on PVP is 56. Maybe when i get to 70, i will also start crying that i cant kill a grey in T3 zone, who knows....</p><p>If you are fed up with greys, just take some lev 50-60 alts and go raiding/exping/harvesting to some unlimited zone. I guarantee, you will see other color than grey, lol.</p><p>I know i know, i am not lev 70 yet,  so that means that i know nothing about this game... Sorry that i spoke.</p><p>Later NOOBS</p></blockquote>If you want the grays protected, lift the level restriction in SS again because this is one of the largest points of contention of level 70s. Options on places to farm t6 items needed for crafting and spells is limited, so SS is always hopping. Gotta love when freeps and qs start fighting and some gray exiles come in to take pot shots for fame when one side is closer to death...and guess what...they will stay immune to the other side since they didn't attack them. I know of a few lame generals that were born that way.

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 11:13 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>I did keep it here, I posted it in here didn't i?</blockquote><p> yeah, but you were itching.. you know it!! <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Bozidar
06-21-2007, 11:14 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p> YES it would be a HUGE difference if they conned green. You wanna know why? because im not gonna sit there and say hey mr green con come circle around me preheal buff up and get first shot so i have no chance of winning, if they conned green i would see them on track or see them aproaching and i would get ready myself and attack first then it would be a decent fight i would most likely lose but it wouldnt just be oh hey gank me cuz i cant attack you first... </p><p>Or if they were green and too many id just run, not just hope that the uber greys dont attack me.. If anyones solution is just run when they greys come around lol [I cannot control my vocabulary] imo</p></blockquote><p> Me thinks she doth protest too much.</p><p>pre heals or not, that group would own you green or grey.  you know it.  they don't need to strategize killing 1 player.</p>

Orthureon
06-22-2007, 12:10 AM
Pheelin is badass though, so I know he would take some with him lol.

Neverborn
06-22-2007, 03:04 AM
Grays should be attackable by any level if they aren't in a city zone. They shouldn't lose fame or get exp debt if they are attacked by a red con unless they attacked him first, but we should be able to clear them out of the way like the stupid newb trash that they are. Giving them any sort of ability to attack us from perma-immunity is absolute BS... Level up you worthless sacks.

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 03:09 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>Grays should be attackable by any level if they aren't in a city zone. They shouldn't lose fame or get exp debt if they are attacked by a red con unless they attacked him first, but we should be able to clear them out of the way like the stupid newb trash that they are. Giving them any sort of ability to attack us from perma-immunity is absolute BS... Level up you worthless sacks. </blockquote><p> Want a tissue?</p><p>Please, stop with the tantrums or you'll have to go to the naughty chair.</p><p>We pay our fee, we can play the way we like.  Half the game here is pre lvl 70.. so sorry you missed it.. roll an alt.  </p>

EvilIguana9
06-22-2007, 05:22 AM
This issue is one of the big reasons I haven't played pvp much recently.  Basically, greys can gather and organize in total safety until they have an overwhelming advantage and the only defense the higher level player has is to run away.  What sense does it make that people out of level range should be able to bully players like that?  If they were attackable they would be pretty easy to kill one by one as they showed up.  If we imagine a level 70 in a 10 range zone and a 6 opposing players, they would have a huge advantage at level 59 that they would not have at 60.  That is the very definition of a broken mechanic. The first change I'd like to see implemented is for people outside of the level range to be UNABLE to attack if their target is already engaged with someone in his range.  That way greys can't just pile on as soon as a level appropriate person shows up to start the battle, they will have to actually take the risk themselves.  Second, use the carnage flag to make the grey squad attackable in a larger range.  After all, if they have the confidence to take on a person well out of the level range they should have the confidence to be taken on by people outside of that level range on their own terms.  Third, if you are close to the level of the Grey squad when they decide to attack Mr Red, you should be given a countdown timer that ends with you being made a legitimate target.  So you can't just hang around invulnerable and jump in when it's convenient.  Either move along or be prepared to be retaliated against.  That should make people outside of the standard level range think a bit harder about abusing their protections.  If you want to play with the big dogs you should be subject to all of their rules. 

Valdar
06-22-2007, 06:54 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote>Gotta love when freeps and qs start fighting and some gray exiles come in to take pot shots for fame when one side is closer to death...and guess what...they will stay immune to the other side since they didn't attack them. I know of a few lame generals that were born that way. </blockquote></blockquote>Yeah, gotta hate those exiles that are able to hide in immunity because of level ranges...

Vilesummon
06-22-2007, 09:39 AM
Perhaps another way to at least quick fix the issue would be to allow attacks to be based on the lowest level in a group. If a 70 is being eyed up by some 50s and can't preemptively attack, why not allow the 70 to find a quick group with say a level 55, which is within the level range of the attacking the 50s in zones like SS.  The first strike could then be the 70s if the 50s really wanted to hang around in the big kids sandbox. To avoid HUGE abuse of this subject, the first attack rule would have to implement ONLY if the lower character can legitimately group with the higher level. That way you avoid 70s grouping with 20s and going on gank runs. If you would get the "your level is too low to gain experience" message; then the higher level can not attack unless he is attacked first. It is sad that some of the lower levels can not understand why the 70s (or other reds) are a little irritated that their resists and mitigation do not work properly. To simplify it, it would be the same as the level lockers having ZERO resists no matter what quality gear they get...if you gain enough faction to get your city pvp gear GREAT, but guess what, the resists don't work :S. You would be crying..."OMG, they nerfed the gear, we need it fixed....that doesn't make sense, why would SOE nerf our PVP gear". Some of the 70s have raid gear from elite zones like Emerald Halls and Mistmoore inner sanctum and such, but as it stands....the resists are not working the way they should be. Instead of looking at it as the higher levels whining or complaining, maybe you should just see that they want the mechanics to work properly for gear that they busted their butts to earn. You want the PVP gear to work the way it should for you...and rightfully so. Your level locking is your business, and if you gain the gear...good for you...it should work right. The higher ups just want the same respect with their gear and resists. Not a huge complaint, just something that makes sense.

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 10:24 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote> It is sad that some of the lower levels can not understand why the 70s (or other reds) are a little irritated that their resists and mitigation do not work properly. Instead of looking at it as the higher levels whining or complaining, maybe you should just see that they want the mechanics to work properly for gear that they busted their butts to earn. </blockquote> I think if you'll read carefully, you'll find that "some of the lower levels" understand the problem better than the 70's who just call everyone worthless sacks, and proposed that that problem be fixed rather than some bandaid solution that would let 70's run around killing greys to show how uber they were. I don't think a single 70 player has backed up my request to the devs that they actually FIX the problem of grey vs red combat. They just want to attack greys and kill them and make their e-peeen go !!!*sproing*!!!.

Vilesummon
06-22-2007, 11:02 AM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote> It is sad that some of the lower levels can not understand why the 70s (or other reds) are a little irritated that their resists and mitigation do not work properly. Instead of looking at it as the higher levels whining or complaining, maybe you should just see that they want the mechanics to work properly for gear that they busted their butts to earn. </blockquote> I think if you'll read carefully, you'll find that "some of the lower levels" understand the problem better than the 70's who just call everyone worthless sacks, and proposed that that problem be fixed rather than some bandaid solution that would let 70's run around killing greys to show how uber they were. <span style="color: #cc0000"> I don't think a single 70 player has backed up my request to the devs that they actually FIX the problem of grey vs red combat.</span> They just want to attack greys and kill them and make their e-peeen go !!!*sproing*!!!.</blockquote>Okay, my other posts have not really mentioned attacking grays unless you are legitimately grouped with someone that is in the right level range, but I will say this to make it clear. I, 100%, agree with you that if the devs FIXED the problem of gray vs red combat, then reds don't need the right to attack grays. I do see that some reds would love to show their uberness by picking on grays...but I truly do think they would be the exception. The largest problem is that the devs aren't fixing the issue.

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 11:06 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>Okay, my other posts have not really mentioned attacking grays unless you are legitimately grouped with someone that is in the right level range, but I will say this to make it clear. I, 100%, agree with you that if the devs FIXED the problem of gray vs red combat, then reds don't need the right to attack grays. I do see that some reds would love to show their uberness by picking on grays...but I truly do think they would be the exception. The largest problem is that the devs aren't fixing the issue. </blockquote><p> Great <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  let's start a movement.. Someone get a Guthrie on the phone (let me know if you get that LOL)</p>

Bassman
06-22-2007, 11:43 AM
<p>Boz, dude.</p><p>You say how you want things to be fair, yet you want greys to be able to attack when they want and not when the reds want.  You say you want them to fix the mechanics of greys vs reds, yet the only results people can come up with have shown how it will be abused or simply not work.</p><p>We stated together that we think things are broken, and need to be fixed.   Since the "bandaid" approach will cause further abuse, additional problems... why not just remove all the caps except for t1 zones?</p><p>If you die to a red, you lose nothing, so why are you worried about this? Why not just put in place a few rules as to engagement like a red con can't attack a grey con if they are engaged already (with another party).  Come up with ideas that make the situation fair for everyone instead of continuing to find ways to keep things the same way they are for you.  </p><p>If they make it harder for greys to hit reds, You'll still see people stealing fame from fights.  You'll still see them hanging around waiting to try and land an attack so they can get unearned fame.  The only thing you'll change is greys won't attack reds outright anymore.  This does not help anything since it doesn't promote more pvp.</p><p>Remove the caps, put some rules in place as to fame lose.  </p><p>So what happens when reds come around ganking greys, how will that be fun to you?  Just say in your Qeynos or Freeport chat that reds are out there ganking and I guarentee you people will show up to gank that guy over and over again.  This AGAIN promotes pvp.</p><p>I'll tell you what doesn't promote pvp though.  Level locked toons who attack and kill those new to the game and trying to level up and learn.  They have no chance to take on a well equipped twink with those many AAs.  </p><p>Honestly, all us 70 pvpers keep reading your posts and all we see is someone who failed at T7 and went to pick on the newbs.</p>

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 12:03 PM
<cite>Bassman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Boz, dude.</p><p>You say how you want things to be fair, yet you want greys to be able to attack when they want and not when the reds want.  You say you want them to fix the mechanics of greys vs reds, yet the only results people can come up with have shown how it will be abused or simply not work.</p></blockquote><p>I disagree.  I think that if they look at an INCREASING curve of skill/resistance disparity they can fix the problem.  Make red == dead, as it should be.  No one, on any of the boards, has said: "That approach will not work".  In fact, a SoE employee responded to the tread on the testing forum saying that it was a really good discussion =P</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>We stated together that we think things are broken, and need to be fixed.   Since the "bandaid" approach will cause further abuse, additional problems... why not just remove all the caps except for t1 zones?</p><p>If you die to a red, you lose nothing, so why are you worried about this? Why not just put in place a few rules as to engagement like a red con can't attack a grey con if they are engaged already (with another party).  Come up with ideas that make the situation fair for everyone instead of continuing to find ways to keep things the same way they are for you.  </p></blockquote><p>Don't remove the ability to attack reds because it's just creating more pvp immunity.  It's fun and challenging to kill a red, or a group of reds.  It just shouldn't be so <i>easy</i>.</p><p>The bottom line is that you're talking about more, more, and more rules. change 5 rules so that the mechanics of grey vs red work.. right?  Bogus.. just FIX THE MECHANICS!  I'm not talking about keeping things the same for me, i'm talking about modifying the skill/resistance mechanics between a grey and a red so that as the red gets red<i>er</i> their defenses become stronger vs a grey.  I'm talking about making it so someone with 125 disruption isn't going to land a spell on someone who has a 58% mitigation of that type of damage vs something 50 levels higher than the person casting the spell.  I'm talking about FIXING the mechanic, not circumventing and bandaiding it.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>If they make it harder for greys to hit reds, You'll still see people stealing fame from fights.  You'll still see them hanging around waiting to try and land an attack so they can get unearned fame.  The only thing you'll change is greys won't attack reds outright anymore.  This does not help anything since it doesn't promote more pvp.</p></blockquote><p>First, if the grey is attacking the red and they land damage -- so be it.  As a player out in the world it's your responsibility to pay attention to your own gluteous maximus.  If someone who can take fame from you hits you, make sure he dies before you do.  If they fix the grey vs red mechanice the grey will have a MUCH harder time getting that hit in to cause damage, and the red will have a much easier time squashing him for his impunity.  And no... you'll still see greys attacking reds, you just won't see them doing it at completely stupid levels like 4 20's vs a 58.  It improves pvp, makes it more fair for reds, and more challenging for those that want to fight reds.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>Remove the caps, put some rules in place as to fame lose.  </p><p>So what happens when reds come around ganking greys, how will that be fun to you?  Just say in your Qeynos or Freeport chat that reds are out there ganking and I guarentee you people will show up to gank that guy over and over again.  This AGAIN promotes pvp.</p><p>I'll tell you what doesn't promote pvp though.  Level locked toons who attack and kill those new to the game and trying to level up and learn.  They have no chance to take on a well equipped twink with those many AAs.  </p><p>Honestly, all us 70 pvpers keep reading your posts and all we see is someone who failed at T7 and went to pick on the newbs.</p></blockquote><p>Again, the caps, more rules about fame lose.  How much more coding do you want them to do in order to fix something that they could just look at, carefully tune, and fix it directly?</p><p>And you can gaurantee me all you want.. but i don't trust it.  Reds ganking greys when it's so easy to get away from pvp?  A red squashes some guy farming a named that his buddy is trying to get.  Some poor fool is trying to kill a spawned name like the High Priest in CL, but a lvl 70 spots it.. and knows his friend needs him for the HQ.  That poor fool spent hours spawning that named.. and a 70 can completely and legitmately prevent him from finishing the quest?  and that poor fool has to rely on other 70's to come and save him, and still possibly lose the named if the 70 decides just to kill it because he called in help?</p><p>Reds being able to openly attack greys in anything short of the T7 zones is D - U - M - B.  Get past it.. it's a bad idea.  It will spoil pvp entirely.  New players to the game? ROFL!!!  What do you think will happen to all the locking griefers you see out there today?  i'm not talking about myself. I lock xp.. i level up very slowly, and i kill everything in sight.  But i RARELY grief people, and only for a very good reason.  But i know for a fact that there are a lot of idiots out there who just love to grief alllllllll ttthhhheeeee tttiiiiiimmmeee1!!!!  These guys, the ones that don't quit outright, will level up to 70 and kill every grey in sight.  You think you have a new player problem now?  How do you think it will work when they can't even fart off the island before someone lights their butt on fire? BAD idea.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>I'll tell you what doesn't promote pvp though.  Level locked toons who attack and kill those new to the game and trying to level up and learn.  They have no chance to take on a well equipped twink with those many AAs.  </p><p>Honestly, all us 70 pvpers keep reading your posts and all we see is someone who failed at T7 and went to pick on the newbs.</p></blockquote><p>Look, there are a lot of things that don't promote pvp.  Making a grey vs red fight more fair WILL improve pvp though, and thus promote it.</p><p>And for the record, i never made it to lvl 70.  My server failed, so i've re-rolled.  Btw.. nice to sneak in a little personal attack there, when the rest of your post was so much more reasonable and tbh, a good discussion.  /claps for you.</p>

Roald
06-22-2007, 12:45 PM
<p>This whole thread is fundamentally flawed.</p><p>If you see a group of greys that can kill you, runaway and dont die.</p><p>If you stick and fight them, good job if you win, unlucky if you die.</p><p>Its your choice whether or not to fight them, and if your not carrying totems to see them before they attack, or pots to cure what ever roots that land, your a noob.</p><p>The whole thing about greys attacking raids....[Removed for Content]? </p><p>PvP at a contested mob, who woulda thought? so your x4 of fully fabled/mastered players cant take a grp of lvl 30 greys attacking you? A warlock or 2 would have them down in a few seconds. And if they do take one player down, well, thats pvp, accept it or move to a blue server.</p>

Borias
06-22-2007, 01:00 PM
<p>The problem about greys attacking a contested raid is not the dps of the greys.  It has more to do with miracle charming the tank, and then evacing him out of the raid.  This happens with nothing the raid can do about it, as you can't even use a pre-emptive outside raid to stop them, as you could with people that con.</p><p>PvE already has a system that would stop red ganking.  Your target can parry all of your attacks!  Just simply add, Your target can resist all of your spells!</p>

Bassman
06-22-2007, 01:15 PM
<p>Summary thoughts on your response Boz:</p><p>If they increase the mit then the same thing will happen, you will have 6 lvl 65s camping spire, still landing everything and killing people.  This will only make the level 24 locked toons think twice about attacking a lvl 41 wizard because their melee attacks won't land as well.  If you think those 24s will continue to attack if they don't have a chance, think again.  (does not promote more pvp)</p><p>Nobody is saying remove the ability to attack reds, they are simply saying we all live by the law of the jungle.  Why not use the same law in the game.  The bigger fish should usually win out over the smaller ones (this we agree on).  The bigger fish attack and eat the smaller ones all the time, who ever heard of the big fish not eating the smaller fish until the smaller fish attacked first?</p><p>What we are talking about is removing all the rules in place for caps.  And putting in probably 2 simple rules in its place that is a precheck before engagement can occur.  I do not see a lot of coding that needs to be done to make this happen.</p><p>I'm all for having to pay attention when it comes to pvp.  What I'm not all for is greys sitting around waiting for their chance to grab some free fame.  When I see a group of greys on track, they should be considered a possible target... not someone I need to investigate and then check their level to see if a group of them might possibly be able to take me down. </p><p>As for your example about 70s stealing your names: As it is right now, any level 70 I know of that is in a lowbie area and there is a named up and they want the lowbies to leave.  They kill the named anyway just so they leave.  If the level 70 wants the mob, its going to happen anyway you look at it.  As it is right now, the lowbie will attack you while you attack the mob and most likely kill you, then try and kill the mob until you come back.  If these rules go into effect, you simply turn the mob over to the level 70, let them have it, and come back and get it on the next respawn.  If you don't think this is fair, get yourself in a guild that can help you with these kinds of problems.</p><p>In EQ1, this ruleset was on 1 of 3 different types of PVP servers and ended up being the most populated that I can recall.  Everyone loved how hard it was to do things and people had to work together to pvp successfully.   When you ask a locked toon to come help you kill someone, their response is usually... I can kill them solo why do I need you?  This exact statement has been said to me multiple times.  Wouldn't it be better if people worked together to achieve their victories? Everything the Devs have done and are doing is to make fights last longer, promote more group pvp, and nerf everyone to get ready for more expansions.  Did you read anything in that list that talks about making it more balanced across all classes?  These upcoming changes can be listed as nerfs for future expansions in my book.  </p><p>Alot of people on here have mentioned removing the caps, and all you seem to be doing is disregarding the notion without giving good examples why.  In fact, you were down right rude to a majority of them. I felt a slap in the face was called for due to this reason.</p>

Bloodfa
06-22-2007, 01:24 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>This whole thread is fundamentally flawed.</p><p><b><u><span style="font-size: small">If you see a group of greys that can kill you, runaway and dont die.</span></u></b></p><p>If you stick and fight them, good job if you win, unlucky if you die.</p><p>Its your choice whether or not to fight them, and if your not carrying totems to see them before they attack, or pots to cure what ever roots that land, your a noob.</p><p>The whole thing about greys attacking raids....[I cannot control my vocabulary]? </p><p>PvP at a contested mob, who woulda thought? so your x4 of fully fabled/mastered players cant take a grp of lvl 30 greys attacking you? A warlock or 2 would have them down in a few seconds. And if they do take one player down, well, thats pvp, accept it or move to a blue server.</p></blockquote><p>Bold part doesn't always work.  My brother and I got rolled by your gang (Bozidar's guy was there, too, as I chuckled on TS "Hey, I recognize that name&quot<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> as we were fleeing from a poorly chosen attack on a red with our alts.  My brother's toon, a level 30 Ranger, and my 34, at the time, Warden, picked a fight with a 42 Necro by the CL docks.  After about 5 seconds, it became obvious that the guy had gear and experience, and one or both would die.  We gave it another 15 or 20 seconds, and it was clear that I would be out of power before he was, so we rooted and ran after we both got down below 40%.  And saw a bunch of Norathian Pirates bearing down on us.  Right as we reached the range to break the combat lock and move at 45% SoW, I got rooted, stunned and 2-shotted in about .75 seconds.  My bro lasted 4 seconds longer, but he was farther away, and turned back to try to help his dying brother. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  It's all good, we gambled and lost.  But we sure as hell weren't going to make it away.</p><p>Now with my main, if a group of greys are bearing down on me, well, that 50% steed earns his keep.  And if I get bushwhacked while engaged, yeah, I'll evac.  But that's because I can.  Some of my other alts don't have that as an option.  My Monk tends to die a lot.  But again, it's cool.  I'm not a fame/title [Removed for Content], so it doesn't bother me too much.  Unless I get something nice looted off me, that irks me. </p>

Amphibia
06-22-2007, 01:31 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>The problem about greys attacking a contested raid is not the dps of the greys.  It has more to do with miracle charming the tank, and then evacing him out of the raid.  This happens with nothing the raid can do about it, as you can't even use a pre-emptive outside raid to stop them, as you could with people that con.</p></blockquote> Yes, this is a huge problem right now for raidguilds that try to take down contested mobs in limited zones. The protection raid can do nothing, of course. One single grey poses a far greater threat to the raid than a x2 of even con'ed players, which is quite ridiculous.

Vilesummon
06-22-2007, 02:01 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>The problem about greys attacking a contested raid is not the dps of the greys.  It has more to do with miracle charming the tank, and then evacing him out of the raid.  This happens with nothing the raid can do about it, as you can't even use a pre-emptive outside raid to stop them, as you could with people that con.</p><p>PvE already has a system that would stop red ganking.  Your target can parry all of your attacks!  Just simply add, <span style="color: #cc0000">Your target can resist all of your spells!</span></p></blockquote>Perfectly worded and very accurate if the mechanics of pvp were fixed to reflect true mitigations and resists. What you guys should see is miss/miss/miss/parry/miss/resisted/resisted/resisted but you don't...there is the problem.

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 02:01 PM
<p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>Summary thoughts on your response Boz:</p><p>If they increase the mit then the same thing will happen, you will have 6 lvl 65s camping spire, still landing everything and killing people.  This will only make the level 24 locked toons think twice about attacking a lvl 41 wizard because their melee attacks won't land as well.  If you think those 24s will continue to attack if they don't have a chance, think again.  (does not promote more pvp)</p></blockquote><p>First, 6 lvl 65's will still kill a solo 70 regardless of what he does.  You can come up with a million ways in which it matters that they can attack out of immunity -- and it's jut not true.  They're going to kill you, regardless of where you are.  When it comes to contested raids in a 4 level zone.. i agree that a 65 group can really screw things up and that miracle powers to evac the tank away from immunity are BROKEN.  There has to be a reasonable solution to the raid mobs in a 4 level range w/o borking the rest of the pvp ruleset.  The charm/evac thing is dumb.  When you charm someone in pvp it should put you into pvp combat, and thus you shouldn't evac.  This is an exploit, and needs to be fixed ----- NOT ADD 30 NEW RULES!  Fix problems, don't engineer new ones.  Systems design 101, honestly.</p><p>Second, the 24's will continue to attack the 41's.  They may not attack the 51's or the 61's like they do now, but the 41's will still get killed.  At 41 they've got 1 tier of gear on the 24's, 1 more master 2, and if they fix the skill vs defense of grey vs red, a 41 will be CHALLENGING for a group of 24's.. not the cake walk nearly-soloable they are now.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>Nobody is saying remove the ability to attack reds, they are simply saying we all live by the law of the jungle.  Why not use the same law in the game.  The bigger fish should usually win out over the smaller ones (this we agree on).  The bigger fish attack and eat the smaller ones all the time, who ever heard of the big fish not eating the smaller fish until the smaller fish attacked first?</p></blockquote><p>A good number of people HAVE said to remove the ability to attack reds.  They want more immunity from pvp, for crying out loud.  But you're asking for, FFA pvp, simply won't work in Eq2.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>What we are talking about is removing all the rules in place for caps.  And putting in probably 2 simple rules in its place that is a precheck before engagement can occur.  I do not see a lot of coding that needs to be done to make this happen.</p></blockquote><p>You're talking about removing the level ranges from all zones.  This isn't a flick of the switch.  You think it will be 2 simple rules that will result from that?  Have you ever developed a system before?  I have.  Changes of this type, ones that affect <i>fundemental rules of the system</i> are generally not "simple", and don't usually result in "not a lot of coding".  </p><p>Let's leave alone the fact that you're changing the basic foundation of the entire pvp system -- the forced honor system that prevents gankage and protects lower level players from high level ganks.  Let's leave alone the fact that you're asking for a SoE sponsored system change that will, at it's most basic level, force people to level up and play the game <i>the way you'd like them to</i>.  We can sugar coat it, but you're not asking for FFA pvp to fix the problem of greys attacking reds -- and you know it.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>I'm all for having to pay attention when it comes to pvp.  What I'm not all for is greys sitting around waiting for their chance to grab some free fame.  When I see a group of greys on track, they should be considered a possible target... not someone I need to investigate and then check their level to see if a group of them might possibly be able to take me down. </p></blockquote><p>Greys can't sit around and wait for a chance to grab free fame.  If you choose to engage in combat with greys around waiting to nail you -- that's your fault.  The contested mobs in small level range zones -- that's a different story, and from what I read the devs are in discussions with T7 raid guilds working on that issue right now.  But if you pvp in a zone where folks are going to jump in and attack you?  That's pvp.  If you don't like moochers, don't hang out where they are (and are unattackable).  But if some come along?  As soon as they engage, they're open season for you.. just as if you'd tracked them down to kill them yourself.  And yeah.. you should scout them to see if they're a threat or not, before ignoring them.</p><p>Bassman wrote:</p><blockquote><p>As for your example about 70s stealing your names: As it is right now, any level 70 I know of that is in a lowbie area and there is a named up and they want the lowbies to leave.  They kill the named anyway just so they leave.  If the level 70 wants the mob, its going to happen anyway you look at it.  As it is right now, the lowbie will attack you while you attack the mob and most likely kill you, then try and kill the mob until you come back.  If these rules go into effect, you simply turn the mob over to the level 70, let them have it, and come back and get it on the next respawn.  If you don't think this is fair, get yourself in a guild that can help you with these kinds of problems.</p></blockquote><p>The example wasn't a 70 stealing a named, but preventing someone from getting it themselves and saving it for a friend.  And btw.. your answer to "give up and go cry in a corner" when someone <i>beyond a reasonable level</i> tries to prevent you from playing the game is pretty illuminating.</p><p>Cuz that's absolute bullcrap.  Letting someone higher level molest lower level players is R-E-T-A-R-D-E-D!  It's a system that opens the game up to constant abuse, and will make a dwindling population evaporate.  Keep pushing for it though.  This isn't Sullen Zek.</p><p>Bassman wrote:</p><blockquote><p>In EQ1, this ruleset was on 1 of 3 different types of PVP servers and ended up being the most populated that I can recall.  Everyone loved how hard it was to do things and people had to work together to pvp successfully.   When you ask a locked toon to come help you kill someone, their response is usually... I can kill them solo why do I need you?  This exact statement has been said to me multiple times.  Wouldn't it be better if people worked together to achieve their victories? Everything the Devs have done and are doing is to make fights last longer, promote more group pvp, and nerf everyone to get ready for more expansions.  Did you read anything in that list that talks about making it more balanced across all classes?  These upcoming changes can be listed as nerfs for future expansions in my book.  </p></blockquote><p>Yes, i've read about sullen zek and all the super uber things the higher level guys did to police the system.  Fantastic. </p><p>Relying on the player base to provide a fair and enjoyable environment for your game is like an MMO tossing their subscription base up in the air and saying : "Hey, you guys catch it! We trust you!!" <img src="/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>In my experience, when you call ANY pvper to come kill someone, there are only two things that will keep them from coming to help.  1) They're not able to kill them.  2) They're already on recent.  The whole "help me" - "no, i can solo them, bite me" exchange is dumb, and it doesn't happen that way.  But there just aren't a steady supply of 70s in the lower zones.  You can't rely on someone to come along -- or even be able to make a difference if they do (i've seen 70's take on groups before.. and send them packing).  Low level twinks?  They're going to come to help kill someone if they're not on recent.. trust me.</p><p>This whole paragraph has nothing even to do with the topic at hand.  IMO, you have an agenda against level locking in general, and that's why you want FFA.  It's not about the disparity between grey vs red fights for you, is it?  It's not about attacking from immunity, is it?  Honestly, i don't mean this as an attack, but I think you should be honest about your intentions, and i think that your intentons are about making people level up to end game because you dislike level locking.</p><p>Bassman wrote:</p><blockquote><p>Alot of people on here have mentioned removing the caps, and all you seem to be doing is disregarding the notion without giving give examples why.  In fact, you were down right rude to a majority of them. I felt a slap in the face was called for due to this reason.</p></blockquote>I don't disregard the notion.  I give examples why, i explain to you that it will most likely destroy both the existing and future player base.  I apologize for my rudeness, but i'm hardly alone on that score.

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 02:04 PM
<cite>Amphibia wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>The problem about greys attacking a contested raid is not the dps of the greys.  It has more to do with miracle charming the tank, and then evacing him out of the raid.  This happens with nothing the raid can do about it, as you can't even use a pre-emptive outside raid to stop them, as you could with people that con.</p></blockquote> Yes, this is a huge problem right now for raidguilds that try to take down contested mobs in limited zones. The protection raid can do nothing, of course. One single grey poses a far greater threat to the raid than a x2 of even con'ed players, which is quite ridiculous. </blockquote> It's an exploit and needs to be fixed.  When you charm someone in pvp it should put you into pvp combat, and aggro his/her whole group.  Period.

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 02:06 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>The problem about greys attacking a contested raid is not the dps of the greys.  It has more to do with miracle charming the tank, and then evacing him out of the raid.  This happens with nothing the raid can do about it, as you can't even use a pre-emptive outside raid to stop them, as you could with people that con.</p><p>PvE already has a system that would stop red ganking.  Your target can parry all of your attacks!  Just simply add, <span style="color: #cc0000">Your target can resist all of your spells!</span></p></blockquote>Perfectly worded and very accurate if the mechanics of pvp were fixed to reflect true mitigations and resists. What you guys should see is miss/miss/miss/parry/miss/resisted/resisted/resisted but you don't...there is the problem. </blockquote>Agreed, and i'll add -- even when you see miss/miss ect... many of your secondary effects will STILL LAND on them (decrease to attack speed, ect.. many debuff carriers on attacks will land)

Roald
06-22-2007, 02:15 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>This whole thread is fundamentally flawed.</p><p><b><u><span style="font-size: small">If you see a group of greys that can kill you, runaway and dont die.</span></u></b></p><p>If you stick and fight them, good job if you win, unlucky if you die.</p><p>Its your choice whether or not to fight them, and if your not carrying totems to see them before they attack, or pots to cure what ever roots that land, your a noob.</p><p>The whole thing about greys attacking raids....[I cannot control my vocabulary]? </p><p>PvP at a contested mob, who woulda thought? so your x4 of fully fabled/mastered players cant take a grp of lvl 30 greys attacking you? A warlock or 2 would have them down in a few seconds. And if they do take one player down, well, thats pvp, accept it or move to a blue server.</p></blockquote><p>Bold part doesn't always work.  My brother and I got rolled by your gang (Bozidar's guy was there, too, as I chuckled on TS "Hey, I recognize that name"<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> as we were fleeing from a poorly chosen attack on a red with our alts.  My brother's toon, a level 30 Ranger, and my 34, at the time, Warden, picked a fight with a 42 Necro by the CL docks.  After about 5 seconds, it became obvious that the guy had gear and experience, and one or both would die.  We gave it another 15 or 20 seconds, and it was clear that I would be out of power before he was, so we rooted and ran after we both got down below 40%.  And saw a bunch of Norathian Pirates bearing down on us.  Right as we reached the range to break the combat lock and move at 45% SoW, I got rooted, stunned and 2-shotted in about .75 seconds.  My bro lasted 4 seconds longer, but he was farther away, and turned back to try to help his dying brother. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  It's all good, we gambled and lost.  But we sure as hell weren't going to make it away.</p><p>Now with my main, if a group of greys are bearing down on me, well, that 50% steed earns his keep.  And if I get bushwhacked while engaged, yeah, I'll evac.  But that's because I can.  Some of my other alts don't have that as an option.  My Monk tends to die a lot.  But again, it's cool.  I'm not a fame/title [Removed for Content], so it doesn't bother me too much.  Unless I get something nice looted off me, that irks me. </p></blockquote><p> This basically agree with my statement entirely:</p><p>You took the option to engage a red, and unfortuneately you dieing because, while in combat, you couldnt get away fast enough from us.</p><p>When you didnt engage, you made it away or evaced.</p>

Vilesummon
06-22-2007, 02:28 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>The problem about greys attacking a contested raid is not the dps of the greys.  It has more to do with miracle charming the tank, and then evacing him out of the raid.  This happens with nothing the raid can do about it, as you can't even use a pre-emptive outside raid to stop them, as you could with people that con.</p><p>PvE already has a system that would stop red ganking.  Your target can parry all of your attacks!  Just simply add, <span style="color: #cc0000">Your target can resist all of your spells!</span></p></blockquote>Perfectly worded and very accurate if the mechanics of pvp were fixed to reflect true mitigations and resists. What you guys should see is miss/miss/miss/parry/miss/resisted/resisted/resisted but you don't...there is the problem. </blockquote>Agreed, and i'll add -- even when you see miss/miss ect... many of your secondary effects will STILL LAND on them (decrease to attack speed, ect.. many debuff carriers on attacks will land) </blockquote>Exactly, in my case my pyreshield (M1 w/ aa points also since I am secondary conj for raiding, Doike is our #1 conj) should be burning the crap out of lower levels yet the damage is highly mitigated...almost as if they were equal level. Just the buffs and procs of some level 70s (especially those in raid fabled gear from EOF zones) should pretty much own the grays...hope I live long enough to see it dealt with.

Bloodfa
06-22-2007, 02:38 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>This whole thread is fundamentally flawed.</p><p><b><u><span style="font-size: small">If you see a group of greys that can kill you, runaway and dont die.</span></u></b></p><p>If you stick and fight them, good job if you win, unlucky if you die.</p><p>Its your choice whether or not to fight them, and if your not carrying totems to see them before they attack, or pots to cure what ever roots that land, your a noob.</p><p>The whole thing about greys attacking raids....[I cannot control my vocabulary]? </p><p>PvP at a contested mob, who woulda thought? so your x4 of fully fabled/mastered players cant take a grp of lvl 30 greys attacking you? A warlock or 2 would have them down in a few seconds. And if they do take one player down, well, thats pvp, accept it or move to a blue server.</p></blockquote><p>Bold part doesn't always work.  My brother and I got rolled by your gang (Bozidar's guy was there, too, as I chuckled on TS "Hey, I recognize that name"<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> as we were fleeing from a poorly chosen attack on a red with our alts.  My brother's toon, a level 30 Ranger, and my 34, at the time, Warden, picked a fight with a 42 Necro by the CL docks.  After about 5 seconds, it became obvious that the guy had gear and experience, and one or both would die.  We gave it another 15 or 20 seconds, and it was clear that I would be out of power before he was, so we rooted and ran after we both got down below 40%.  And saw a bunch of Norathian Pirates bearing down on us.  Right as we reached the range to break the combat lock and move at 45% SoW, I got rooted, stunned and 2-shotted in about .75 seconds.  My bro lasted 4 seconds longer, but he was farther away, and turned back to try to help his dying brother. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  It's all good, we gambled and lost.  But we sure as hell weren't going to make it away.</p><p>Now with my main, if a group of greys are bearing down on me, well, that 50% steed earns his keep.  And if I get bushwhacked while engaged, yeah, I'll evac.  But that's because I can.  Some of my other alts don't have that as an option.  My Monk tends to die a lot.  But again, it's cool.  I'm not a fame/title [Removed for Content], so it doesn't bother me too much.  Unless I get something nice looted off me, that irks me. </p></blockquote><p> This basically agree with my statement entirely:</p><p>You took the option to engage a red, and unfortuneately you dieing because, while in combat, you couldnt get away fast enough from us.</p><p>When you didnt engage, you made it away or evaced.</p></blockquote><p>Yes and no.  C'mon, you don't expect me to easily agree that I just agreed with a Freep while trying to argue, do ya?  My only point was I was involved with something that wouldn't let us evac away, or get out of harms way in time to take advantage of our superior movement.  Like I said, poor judgement on our part.  Well, more on my part.  My brother figured we'd get creamed, and you guys know how big brothers can be convincing, even to a 36 year old "kid".  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

tiredang
06-22-2007, 02:41 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>This whole thread is fundamentally flawed.</p><p><b><u><span style="font-size: small">If you see a group of greys that can kill you, runaway and dont die.</span></u></b></p><p>If you stick and fight them, good job if you win, unlucky if you die.</p><p>Its your choice whether or not to fight them, and if your not carrying totems to see them before they attack, or pots to cure what ever roots that land, your a noob.</p><p>The whole thing about greys attacking raids....[I cannot control my vocabulary]? </p><p>PvP at a contested mob, who woulda thought? so your x4 of fully fabled/mastered players cant take a grp of lvl 30 greys attacking you? A warlock or 2 would have them down in a few seconds. And if they do take one player down, well, thats pvp, accept it or move to a blue server.</p></blockquote><p>Bold part doesn't always work.  My brother and I got rolled by your gang (Bozidar's guy was there, too, as I chuckled on TS "Hey, I recognize that name"<img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> as we were fleeing from a poorly chosen attack on a red with our alts.  My brother's toon, a level 30 Ranger, and my 34, at the time, Warden, picked a fight with a 42 Necro by the CL docks.  After about 5 seconds, it became obvious that the guy had gear and experience, and one or both would die.  We gave it another 15 or 20 seconds, and it was clear that I would be out of power before he was, so we rooted and ran after we both got down below 40%.  And saw a bunch of Norathian Pirates bearing down on us.  Right as we reached the range to break the combat lock and move at 45% SoW, I got rooted, stunned and 2-shotted in about .75 seconds.  My bro lasted 4 seconds longer, but he was farther away, and turned back to try to help his dying brother. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  It's all good, we gambled and lost.  But we sure as hell weren't going to make it away.</p><p>Now with my main, if a group of greys are bearing down on me, well, that 50% steed earns his keep.  And if I get bushwhacked while engaged, yeah, I'll evac.  But that's because I can.  Some of my other alts don't have that as an option.  My Monk tends to die a lot.  But again, it's cool.  I'm not a fame/title [Removed for Content], so it doesn't bother me too much.  Unless I get something nice looted off me, that irks me. </p></blockquote>Fact is, sometimes in PvP you will die.  The irony in this is you attacked a red, couldn't win, then got attacked by grays and died.  And of course you can't always run.  Track, however, helps you get a head start.

Bassman
06-22-2007, 02:44 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>If you see a group of greys that can kill you, runaway and dont die.</p><p>Its your choice whether or not to fight them</p></blockquote><p>These are two statements are exactly what us red cons have a problem with.</p><p>It should be the greys that are running from reds.  The other statement isn't true either.  We don't choose to fight them or not until after the grey's choose.  Here is where the problem lies.  If a grey is standing next to me in any zone, he should be scared for his life, not stand there, taunt me to no end and try to kill my god pets. </p>

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 02:44 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Yes and no.  C'mon, you don't expect me to easily agree that I just agreed with a Freep while trying to argue, do ya?  My only point was I was involved with something that wouldn't let us evac away, or get out of harms way in time to take advantage of our superior movement.  Like I said, poor judgement on our part.  Well, more on my part.  My brother figured we'd get creamed, and you guys know how big brothers can be convincing, even to a 36 year old "kid".  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote><p> I /rofl'd at that <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  What toon was i on, btw? I don't remember the engagement to be honest.</p><p>I pvp with my brother a lot, though he's taking a break these days, and i know some of those brother-brother discussions can be difficult after a revive <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 02:46 PM
<cite>Bassman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>These are two statements are exactly what us red cons have a problem with.</p><p>It should be the greys that are running from reds.  The other statement isn't true either.  We don't choose to fight them or not until after the grey's choose.  Here is where the problem lies.  If a grey is standing next to me in any zone, he should be scared for his life, not stand there, taunt me to no end and try to kill my god pets. </p></blockquote>Greys shouldn't be running from reds, they should be safe from them, but in general -- they shouldn't be taking them down like a house of cards in pvp.  That needs looking at.

Bassman
06-22-2007, 03:05 PM
<p>Boz, There is a big community in exile these days.  It is entirely FFA pvp.  It works just fine.  In fact, if you look at the top pvp kills leaders they are probably in Exile.  </p><p>This server was merged with other servers recently because guess what... they were dying. There are so many reasons why people are upset with this game its not even funny these days.  Level locking is just as dumb to me as you think letting reds gank greys is to you.</p><p>When people level up, the game takes away the ability to openly killing people that are x levels below you due to the zone you are in.  Because you level up, you don't get the chance to attack a group fighting mobs and try and take down as many as you can.  One level difference and you can no longer take out that bot group farming in RoV and get the named for yourself.  In fact, you have to wait until all 6 of them are whaling on you before you can even begin to fight which is complete BS.  Why punish people for leveling and working harder?</p><p>If this server was sullen zek ruleset, I'd probably have enjoyed it a lot more than i do these days.  The Justin's of the servers would have definitly been put in their place.</p><p>I tell ya what.  Sony, do us all a favor please.  Don't ever let reds kill greys.. let them continue to level lock.    This way in the future nobody will want to level up because you let everyone else besides those at end game enjoy the benefits.  In fact, lets all reroll alts and stay in T2.  Yea thats it.  We won't ever need to purchase another expansion from you guys again.  No more extra money, no more need to expand the code because your budget doesn't permit it.   Shoot. lets all just end this game right now before the new games come out.</p>

Bloodfa
06-22-2007, 03:22 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Yes and no.  C'mon, you don't expect me to easily agree that I just agreed with a Freep while trying to argue, do ya?  My only point was I was involved with something that wouldn't let us evac away, or get out of harms way in time to take advantage of our superior movement.  Like I said, poor judgement on our part.  Well, more on my part.  My brother figured we'd get creamed, and you guys know how big brothers can be convincing, even to a 36 year old "kid".  <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote><p> I /rofl'd at that <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  What toon was i on, btw? I don't remember the engagement to be honest.</p><p>I pvp with my brother a lot, though he's taking a break these days, and i know some of those brother-brother discussions can be difficult after a revive <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p></blockquote><p>Raike.  I saw that and thought "Oh, crap, twinked to the nines and me half dead without SoW."  The worst part was yelling to my brother "No, keep going, I'm meat!" and he still kept coming.  He probably would have made it if he'd kept going, too ... gotta love the loyalty between blood.</p><p>*edit* Oh, and I'm sure it wasn't memorable for your gang.  We couldn't have been more than a speedbump for that one. <img src="/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  But stuff like that is what makes PvP so damned addictive; the adrenaline hit and not knowing if you're going to make it.  </p>

Roald
06-22-2007, 03:29 PM
<cite>Bassman wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>If you see a group of greys that can kill you, runaway and dont die.</p><p>Its your choice whether or not to fight them</p></blockquote><p><strike>These are two statements are exactly what us red cons have a problem with.</strike></p><p><strike>It should be the greys that are running from reds.  The other statement isn't true either.  We don't choose to fight them or not until after the grey's choose.  Here is where the problem lies.  If a grey is standing next to me in any zone, he should be scared for his life, not stand there, taunt me to no end and try to kill my god pets. </strike></p></blockquote><p>First of all, greys should only run from reds in Unlimited zones, unless of course you are asking for FFA PvP or for zone level restrictiosn to be taken away.</p><p>Secondly, even if they grey decides to attack you, its still your choice whether or not to fight back, like my quoted statement says.</p><p>Accordingly, i have crossed through all the parts of your post with are now redudant. </p>

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 03:32 PM
<cite>Bassman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Boz, There is a big community in exile these days.  It is entirely FFA pvp.  It works just fine.  In fact, if you look at the top pvp kills leaders they are probably in Exile.  </p></blockquote><p>Grats on getting to 70 and pvping exile.  I see 1 out of every 100 people in my levels as an exile.  Spare me the big community stuff.. you can't say that ffa is a working model when barely anyone does it because as a lower level player you're mincemeat.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>This server was merged with other servers recently because guess what... they were dying. There are so many reasons why people are upset with this game its not even funny these days.  Level locking is just as dumb to me as you think letting reds gank greys is to you.</p></blockquote><p>This server? which one? Naggy?  The EU Servers were dying, and now vox is dying.  Venekor and Naggy were fine, and are good now.  Are there people that leave the game?  Sure are.. and plenty come back too, as do new players.  I can see how you'd wand to put and end to that though....?</p><p>I'm glad you've at least admitted that your agenda here is about level locking, not fixing the grey-vs-red mechanics.  I get it that you don't like it, but it's not your game, it doesn't belong to you.  You can't take your ball and go home.  The rules are there to protect players, and the devs are changing the game to be more fair for level lockers.  I'm in 100% agreement with them, and support their efforts.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>When people level up, the game takes away the ability to openly killing people that are x levels below you due to the zone you are in.  Because you level up, you don't get the chance to attack a group fighting mobs and try and take down as many as you can.  One level difference and you can no longer take out that bot group farming in RoV and get the named for yourself.  In fact, you have to wait until all 6 of them are whaling on you before you can even begin to fight which is complete BS.  Why punish people for leveling and working harder?</p></blockquote><p>LOL, i've been that guy in RoV farming names and a group of six chasing me off.  Attacking them first wouldn't make a difference.. So i got my lower level toon, got a few friends, and killed them.  Then went back to my business with a bit more faction <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p><p>fyi - i'm for returning the previous zone level limits to what they were to allow you to protect yourself in higher tiers from things like this.  in rov if even one of them was within 10 levels, you should have been able to engage.  In ant/cl? 8 was a fine level limit.  In sinking sands?  Unlimited works for me.. don't know why they changed these.  The only level that's right is T1.. cuz those zones should have the 4 level protection.  but beyond T1, IMO, the 4 level restriction should be removed, and the previous zone limits restored.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>If this server was sullen zek ruleset, I'd probably have enjoyed it a lot more than i do these days.  The Justin's of the servers would have definitly been put in their place.</p></blockquote><p>"Let me kill greys and gank away because it's more enjoyable for me than fighting people my own level".  Is that about an approximate translation?</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>I tell ya what.  Sony, do us all a favor please.  Don't ever let reds kill greys.. let them continue to level lock.    This way in the future nobody will want to level up because you let everyone else besides those at end game enjoy the benefits.  In fact, lets all reroll alts and stay in T2.  Yea thats it.  We won't ever need to purchase another expansion from you guys again.  No more extra money, no more need to expand the code because your budget doesn't permit it.   Shoot. lets all just end this game right now before the new games come out</p></blockquote>I'm officially done responding to you.  You've exposed the fact that you're about killing greys becuase you don't like the way they play the game.  You have no interest in the grey-ganks-red problem, and no real new solution or information to offer to the debate.  Thanks for keeping things civil, but i don't think we need yet another "remove locking" thread discussion.

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 03:33 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>First of all, greys should only run from reds in Unlimited zones, unless of course you are asking for FFA PvP or for zone level restrictiosn to be taken away.</p></blockquote>that's exaclty what he wants and is asking for

Bassman
06-22-2007, 04:10 PM
<p>Bozidar wrote:</p><blockquote><p>This server? which one? Naggy?  The EU Servers were dying, and now vox is dying.  Venekor and Naggy were fine, and are good now.  Are there people that leave the game?  Sure are.. and plenty come back too, as do new players.  I can see how you'd wand to put and end to that though....?</p><p>I'm glad you've at least admitted that your agenda here is about level locking, not fixing the grey-vs-red mechanics.  I get it that you don't like it, but it's not your game, it doesn't belong to you.  You can't take your ball and go home.  The rules are there to protect players, and the devs are changing the game to be more fair for level lockers.  I'm in 100% agreement with them, and support their efforts.</p></blockquote><p>If you were on Naggy from the beginning you'd know just how many people have stopped playing this game.  After the merger we are probably still at half the numbers we used to have.</p><p>I admitted that I don't like level lockers, I didn't however say anything about not solving the grey vs red mechanics.  I believe what I've been saying is that the mechanics are NOT broken as long as you allow the reds to attack as well.  If you change the zone levels, and put the mitigations and spell resists back in, you are doing the same thing but you are also allow the reds to easily gank those who are green now.  If you change the level cons and leave things as they are, it basically (in a smallers numbers of removing caps all together) is exactly what I'm referring to.  I , however, am saying why not remove the caps all together except for T1 zones.</p><p> Bozidar wrote:</p><blockquote><p>LOL, i've been that guy in RoV farming names and a group of six chasing me off.  Attacking them first wouldn't make a difference.. So i got my lower level toon, got a few friends, and killed them.  Then went back to my business with a bit more faction <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /> </p><p>fyi - i'm for returning the previous zone level limits to what they were to allow you to protect yourself in higher tiers from things like this.  in rov if even one of them was within 10 levels, you should have been able to engage.  In ant/cl? 8 was a fine level limit.  In sinking sands?  Unlimited works for me.. don't know why they changed these.  The only level that's right is T1.. cuz those zones should have the 4 level protection.  but beyond T1, IMO, the 4 level restriction should be removed, and the previous zone limits restored.</p></blockquote><p>I can go into RoV and kill off a group of orange bots while solo.  If they attack me I need to finish off the guy I'm trying to gank or I'm done period.  If they attack me first I don't even see if I can get away, it usually means insta evac.  How in the world can you say to me that them attacking me first is the same outcome if I am able to attack them first?  The difference in these examples is night and day.  Believe me when I say that being able to get the jump on anyone is a HUGE advantage at any tier.</p><p>If they return the levels to the way they were, then thats fine with me as well.  It isn't a total FFA situation, but it gives the lower tiers what they want and the upper tiers what they want.  The only problem is still the spires are located in some of the zones that will still be considered lower levels.  This also doesn't give us solutions to trying to take down avatars in some of these lower level restricted areas either.</p><p>Bozidar wrote:</p><blockquote>"Let me kill greys and gank away because it's more enjoyable for me than fighting people my own level".  Is that about an approximate translation?</blockquote><p>You must be a bad translator, so let me explain it to you since you can't read between the lines.  Justingrell used to use god abilities, warp away, charm mobs and send them to attack you until you had 10 or more on you.  He did everything he could to exploit the system and still does today.  With his level 45 he used to even attack and successfully kill some level 70s that didn't know of him or the traps he'd set for people to fall into.  This is the type of guy that as a level 70 I shouldn't have to put up with period.  If he comes near me I should be able to grief him repeatedly because I leveled to 70 and I deserve the right to kill anyone I want to.  No where in this or previous statements did I say I go out of my way to find and grief anyone because it was more enjoyable than fighting people my own level.  In fact, removing level caps would only ENSURE people not my level would stay out of my way.</p><p>Bozidar wrote: </p><blockquote>I'm officially done responding to you.  You've exposed the fact that you're about killing greys becuase you don't like the way they play the game.  You have no interest in the grey-ganks-red problem, and no real new solution or information to offer to the debate.  Thanks for keeping things civil, but i don't think we need yet another "remove locking" thread discussion.</blockquote><p>Again, when someone starts to make sense to you, you pull a "I'm done with you, you suck because" card.  My only interest in discussing this with anyone on the boards, let alone a level locking punk like you is because I want to make sure the Devs consider removing level caps as a viable solution and don't discard it because level lockers like you don't want your crap pushed in.  Level lockers should be considered Reds in their own right compared to most of the newbs at those levels anyway.  </p><p>Why doesn't Sony make it so that anyone with over 10 more AAs than you in a 10 level cap zone can't attack each other unless the person with less AAs attacks first and then we'll see how you like it when 6 of em are standing around you and have the first attack *grin*.</p>

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 04:31 PM
<cite>Bassman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>I admitted that I don't like level lockers, I didn't however say anything about not solving the grey vs red mechanics.  I believe what I've been saying is that the mechanics are NOT broken </p><p>Again, when someone starts to make sense to you, you pull a "I'm done with you, you suck because" card. </p></blockquote><p>Just to make it clear:</p><p>You don't think that the disparity of what damage a grey or group of greys can do to a red con ridiculously above their level is a broken mechanic?  Did you even read this thread?</p><p>It's far far too easy for greys to take out a red these days, even those very very much higher level in them.  The mechanics around this are broken.  I'm not talking about oranges 7 levels higher, i'm talking about guys 30 levels higher, 40 levels higher.</p><p>I don't think you suck, I just don't think you're interested in having a debate about this topic.  You think that because you leveled to 70 you have the right to kill whoever you're higher level than.  I'm not interperting that, you said it yourself.  So you want FFA.</p><p>Attacking first isn't going to change the fact that it's broken, it just means that way more greys that are not prepared to fight reds are going to die horrible deaths.</p>

Fleaba
06-22-2007, 04:48 PM
<p><span style="font-size: x-small">Here's my two cents for what it's worth.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small">FFA will just open up a field of ganking like you wouldn't believe. Greys will run around with a lvl 70 babysitter non stop just to make sure the group of greys never lose vs. color'd cons. Reds will kill anything and anyone just cuz they are bored. Reds will make the lives so miserable for xping noobs that they'll just move on to another game. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small">Making red's non attackable won't really fix it either but it would probably be the easiest way to fix the problem.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small">SOE already uses curves for everything in the game based on con color or lvl (not sure which though). IMHO if they just made the red con's curve steep as heck so that the greys have a 1/100 chance of nailing anything from melee to casted stuff, they'd think twice about attacking a red. That same group of greys travel to an 8 lvl differential zone and now that same red is either yellow or orange con to them. Now the curves aren't so steep and they have a very good chance of killing the dude.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small">All they need to do is tweak there formulas a bit on there diminishing returns curves, or whatever they call it and the problem should be fixed for the most part.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small">P.S. The red cons should have a damage bonus of some sort too vs. greys above and beyond what they already have......</span></p>

Emberwind
06-22-2007, 05:16 PM
I just wanted to put this out there, since no one else has mentioned it. When the pvp servers first opened, players were treated the same as mobs as far as level range differences.  Gray players had the same penalties to hit a red player as they did to hit a red mob.  It wasn't uncommon to see a higher level player utterly destroy multiple groups of lower level players, even greens.  The development team purposefully removed (or greatly decreased) those penalties to make pvp more fair. A lot of people here are saying that groups of grays killing a red is a broken mechanic, forgetting that this particular mechanic was purposefully broken.  Maybe what has happened though, is that so many other things have changed since the beginning that it is a mechanic that needs to be looked at again.

Bassman
06-22-2007, 05:19 PM
Bozidar wrote: <blockquote>You don't think that the disparity of what damage a grey or group of greys can do to a red con ridiculously above their level is a broken mechanic?  Did you even read this thread?</blockquote><p>Giving a group a chance at killing a red is a good thing and should be encouraged.  When people are bored (which we all seem to be these days with this game), this keeps things interesting. </p><p>Bozidar wrote: </p><blockquote>It's far far too easy for greys to take out a red these days, even those very very much higher level in them.  The mechanics around this are broken.  I'm not talking about oranges 7 levels higher, i'm talking about guys 30 levels higher, 40 levels higher.</blockquote><p>The max amount of your CA is the max amount you can do.  As you progress in levels, that amount increases.  Does this mean that a group of 24s should NOT be able to take out a single 40?  I would hope that a decently equipped group of 20s can take down a crappy equipped wizard almost 50 even.  One on One, never, but a group of them, this sounds good to me.  Now, I do agree that they might have gone a little too far with it in the resists code as of late.  Removing those all together could have been tweaked a little to make things harder for sure.   But giving lower levels a chance to do something crazy like this was a good idea and promotes more PVP.  So I'm not pushing to see it changed for these reasons. </p><p>Bozidar wrote: </p><blockquote>I don't think you suck, I just don't think you're interested in having a debate about this topic.  You think that because you leveled to 70 you have the right to kill whoever you're higher level than.  I'm not interperting that, you said it yourself.  So you want FFA.</blockquote><p>You just got done saying that groups of players are killing people 30 to 40 levels higher than them.  I also stated that I'm for keeping things the way they are currently as far as resists and mitigation.  Now, your telling me I'm somehow saying I deserve the right to kill whoever is lower than me?  What I think you meant to say here is I deserve the right to ATTACK anyone who is lower than me and make them leave me alone or leave the area that my guild or group is in so that I can protect it for whatever it is I'm doing in that area.</p><p>Bozidar wrote: </p><blockquote>Attacking first isn't going to change the fact that it's broken, it just means that way more greys that are not prepared to fight reds are going to die horrible deaths.</blockquote><p>People dying in PVP?  ZOMG say it ain't so.  I'd rather encourage more pvp and stop the problems we are currently having with the tiers of toons then call for more restrictions or continue to allow grey's to abuse the system.  The more content that is added, the more chance of abuses like this will continue to occur.  God abilities was just one example of something that was added into the system but did not account for PVP.  Lets face it, Sony just doesn't think about PVP when they do half of their changes</p><p> Summary:</p><p>If you fix the mitigation and resists you solve half the problem.  If you open it up to FFA, no more worries about contested mobs or other abuses of fame leaching because if greys are in the area where people normally fight, they won't be live long enough to do anything.  Reds see a bunch of 60s coming their way, they can attack the first wave of them and deal with the second part of the group after they kill a few and reduce the damage have done to them.  If they don't do a good job, because everything is still the way it is, the grey group STILL HAS A FIGHTING CHANCE as they do now.</p><p>The only situation you seem to fret over is the level 70s ganking the level 20-60s or so.  What chance does a level 45 have against a level 70 attacking them.  Well not much.  But if things stay the way they are, they might actually have a chance if a x4 of 45s attacked a single 70.  This way they all have a fighting chance at beating each other.  As it is right now, I don't know if the 70s would win if a full x4 of 45s attacked them.  Would depend on the class of the 70 I think <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  70s will continue to lose fame, but the greys won't unless they attack kinda deals as well.  So if a 70 goes on a grey killing spree, just tell the greys to stay out of the way and find help to get rid of the problem.</p><p>If the final solution is to change the zone lines, make them a much bigger difference than they even used to be.  Antonica should be more like 20 levels.  KoS, SS, some of EoF should all be unlimited.  By all means keep the T1 zones as they are and allow people to learn the game and start leveling up.  I don't exactly like the idea that the only way to get rid of a 70 is to get higher levels to help you out.  Antonica should probably only have to deal with people that are up to lvl 40 or so.  So 20 levels sounds perfect to me.  This way if a group of 50s attack a 70 on the spire, the 70 has a fighting chance once the fight starts.  </p><p>Does this mean I'm not for FFA... no I'm still for it.  But as an alternative if level caps are here to stay, at least make them more appropriate for the current rulesets and abilities.  Things are so confusing these days.  I'm in antonica and this toon shows up as an orange.  As soon as he zones into qeynos with me, he's yellow.  Does that mean he's easier for me to kill while in the city?  The current settings just don't make much sense as far as level caps and I think we'd all be better off if they were just removed.</p><p>I like the old old days where guards used to be in place to protect the lower levels and if you removed these insanely stated guards after a long hard fight you could go in and grief greys as you attacked their city.  Nowadays they make it so we can't even attack the greys and if we want to go into their city we simply walk in but we can't attack anyone unless they attack us first.  I surely hope that the next game that comes along doesn't continue to take these same carebear approaches.</p>

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 05:19 PM
<cite>Emberwind wrote:</cite><blockquote> A lot of people here are saying that groups of grays killing a red is a broken mechanic, forgetting that this particular mechanic was purposefully broken.  Maybe what has happened though, is that so many other things have changed since the beginning that it is a mechanic that needs to be looked at again. </blockquote><p>I think you're right.</p><p>To be fair.. i only think it needs to be looked at/adjusted in the 10+ level range.  I think pvp fights are pretty fair in the pvp ranges right now, and mucking with it could open up a huge can of worms.  But when folks attack other players dramatically higher than them in level, it shouldn't be so very very easy to win. </p>

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 05:31 PM
<cite>Bassman wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>Giving a group a chance at killing a red is a good thing and should be encouraged.  When people are bored (which we all seem to be these days with this game), this keeps things interesting. </p></blockquote><p>I agree, but right now it's not just when we're bored.  It's whenever we see them.  At lvl 22-25 if we see a lvl 21, or we see a lvl 51, it doesn't matter.  We still just run em down and kill them. 25 levels should mean that it really only should be when we're bored, and are looking for a challenge -- not just another kill.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>The max amount of your CA is the max amount you can do.  As you progress in levels, that amount increases.  Does this mean that a group of 24s should NOT be able to take out a single 40?  I would hope that a decently equipped group of 20s can take down a crappy equipped wizard almost 50 even.  One on One, never, but a group of them, this sounds good to me.  Now, I do agree that they might have gone a little too far with it in the resists code as of late.  Removing those all together could have been tweaked a little to make things harder for sure.   But giving lower levels a chance to do something crazy like this was a good idea and promotes more PVP.  So I'm not pushing to see it changed for these reasons.</p></blockquote><p>A group of 15's can take down people in their 40's.  W/o losing a single guy in the process.  Guys in the 20's?</p><p>I've was told a lvl 25 druid SOLO a lvl 70 player.  He had group buffs on, but no one else helped.  I believe it, i know the player.</p><p>There's a point here where it's just plain stupid for the system to be the way it is.  It's not just the resists code though, and it's not just lately.</p><p>Giving lower levels a CHANCE is what I want.  Right now it's not a chance, it's a easy button to kill a red.  I'd rather it be a real challenge and a difficult fight, and to have a little bit of a RUSH when we actually take down a guy much higher than us.  Right now?  ho hum.. it's too easy, they need to look at it.</p><p>It's one thing to let greys attack reds from immunity, it's an entirely different thing to make it an easy kill for them.</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>You just got done saying that groups of players are killing people 30 to 40 levels higher than them.  I also stated that I'm for keeping things the way they are currently as far as resists and mitigation.  Now, your telling me I'm somehow saying I deserve the right to kill whoever is lower than me?  What I think you meant to say here is I deserve the right to ATTACK anyone who is lower than me and make them leave me alone or leave the area that my guild or group is in so that I can protect it for whatever it is I'm doing in that area.</p></blockquote><p>You can do this, in T7 zones.  You have to understand though, this change you're asking for won't just be a Bassman buff so that you can protect yourself. It will change everything.  People won't be using this change to protect themselves.  What do you think the percentage of pvp deaths are of greys killing reds right now?  What do you think the percentage of reds killing greys would be if they made it FFA?  Be honest..</p><p>Bassman wrote: </p><blockquote><p>People dying in PVP?  ZOMG say it ain't so.  I'd rather encourage more pvp and stop the problems we are currently having with the tiers of toons then call for more restrictions or continue to allow grey's to abuse the system.  The more content that is added, the more chance of abuses like this will continue to occur.  God abilities was just one example of something that was added into the system but did not account for PVP.  Lets face it, Sony just doesn't think about PVP when they do half of their changes</p></blockquote><p>Yes, reds going around the lowbie zones killing greys would be a great promotion for pvp.  We could even start a whole series of threads about stop crying, level up, "omg you died on a pvp server".  </p><p>Right after that we can start the "Zomg we need a server merge, we'll even take vox people" threads.</p>

Lowell_high
06-22-2007, 05:45 PM
<p>Boz,</p><p>Isn't it a little hypocritical to say you don't want grays to not be able to attack a red because it will lead to immunity, yet you want immunity from reds?</p><p>And</p><p>Isn't it ironic how you (assuming you're locked) have level locked yourself because you do not want to play in any higher Tiers, yet you want the right to fight in those higher level Tiers as a lower level but you do not want to give higher level Tiers the opporunity to fight in lower level Tiers?</p>

Bozidar
06-22-2007, 06:36 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Isn't it a little hypocritical to say you don't want grays to not be able to attack a red because it will lead to immunity, yet you want immunity from reds?</p></blockquote><p>No, the red vs grey immunity is there for a reason, and you know it.  I didn't petition to have that immunity added - it was there when i joined the game.  If anything i'm asking for more exposure to pvp by asking that the level restrictions be restored.</p><p>[email protected] wrote: </p><blockquote><p>Isn't it ironic how you (assuming you're locked) have level locked yourself because you do not want to play in any higher Tiers, yet you want the right to fight in those higher level Tiers as a lower level but you do not want to give higher level Tiers the opporunity to fight in lower level Tiers?</p></blockquote><p>I'm not level locked because i don't want to play in higher tiers.  I'm xp locked becuase i level very slowly, and i feel that i'm doing it the way that's right for me.  I want the right to engage higher level players who haunt the zones i pvp in to STAY, becuase i have that right now.  I'm asking that they please make my opponents as tough as they deserve to be.</p><p>Gosh.. i'm such a jerk?</p><p>The only change to the current system i'm asking for is that reds be tougher than they are now, appropriately tougher.  </p>

Vilesummon
06-22-2007, 07:04 PM
<span style="font-size: small"><span style="color: #0000ff">At the very least we are hearing one consistent...the dark reds (10+ levels) are getting hosed. Jubilee, I think some progress is being made in the discussion...and Boz isn't really hiding behind immunity. If you follow the text of what he is saying, he is saying that IF a gray attacks a high red, the mechanics should allow the red to smoke the gray in 1 or 2 shots without taking any damage. So far, it seems like all indicators are the problem with mechanics. As a 70, I have no issue with grays eyeballing me, IF I can expect my spells to perform at maximum level, my pet to destroy the grays as he can, and I expect my gear to resist almost every point of damage. I HAVE EARNED THAT RIGHT BY NOT LOCKING...they need to quit protecting the people that want to avoid the end game. IF those things happen, I don't need the right as a 70 to attack a gray first; they just should know there would be a SEVERE consequence if they did attack me. The more I think about the whole dynamic; the more upsetting it is really.</span></span>

ailen
06-22-2007, 07:14 PM
<p>I remember when the server first went live.  There was lots of talk about how hard it was to kill people higher than you.  They nerfed something in the mechanics that was described as "avoidance checks" but it wasn't exactly accurate as you may full well know an avoidance tank is pretty tough to hit if you're even a few levels lower.</p><p>I remember when I first got into my 40s on my SK Gass was on the docks with my old guild leader Dregg (Berserker) and we picked a fight with Blue, one of the first level 70 Swashbucklers on all of Nagafen, if not THE first 70 Swashy.   He AOE'd us and we died in ONE shot.  So... from this little story you can see that something was changed even more at a later date.  Not sure what it was, but it was all done within the first couple months of Nagafen being online.</p><p>I remember all the level 70s griefing the bajeezus out of us in Sinking Sands and Clefts of Rujark, and all those zones we tried to XP in, completely immue to the gray mobs in that zone, rolling from place to place wiping entire groups out  But at least we could hit them, and it made good sense.  I in turn did the same kinds of things on my Brigand when he was 70 for about a week, rolling entire raids of people... got my 1000 kills that week, got my faction, moved on... but those people had a hard hard time hitting me, but it was possible to win...</p><p>Probably 6-8 months ago I realized something was funky though, when I was harvesting as often as I do from work (Where my machine and connection sucks, so I dont pvp from there) and saw a group of gray con high 40s.. 50 maybe.... I ignored them as I knew they would be stupid to attack me.</p><p>all of the sudden I'm chained, Ice comet, manaburn and I was at like 10pct health.  Started to retaliate and something hit me and I was dead.</p><p>So... something was changed even further.  </p><p>From my long-winded post you can see things have been getting adjusted for quite some time now...  but something is broken when I'm on my 67 Dirge and 7 high 20s attack me and I BARELY get away before I would have died.  Thats BROKEN.... B R O K E N.</p>

Shinnar
06-23-2007, 06:55 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>I remember when the server first went live.  There was lots of talk about how hard it was to kill people higher than you.  They nerfed something in the mechanics that was described as "avoidance checks" but it wasn't exactly accurate as you may full well know an avoidance tank is pretty tough to hit if you're even a few levels lower.</p><p>I remember when I first got into my 40s on my SK Gass was on the docks with my old guild leader Dregg (Berserker) and we picked a fight with Blue, one of the first level 70 Swashbucklers on all of Nagafen, if not THE first 70 Swashy.   He AOE'd us and we died in ONE shot.  So... from this little story you can see that something was changed even more at a later date.  Not sure what it was, but it was all done within the first couple months of Nagafen being online.</p><p>I remember all the level 70s griefing the bajeezus out of us in Sinking Sands and Clefts of Rujark, and all those zones we tried to XP in, completely immue to the gray mobs in that zone, rolling from place to place wiping entire groups out  But at least we could hit them, and it made good sense.  I in turn did the same kinds of things on my Brigand when he was 70 for about a week, rolling entire raids of people... got my 1000 kills that week, got my faction, moved on... but those people had a hard hard time hitting me, but it was possible to win...</p><p>Probably 6-8 months ago I realized something was funky though, when I was harvesting as often as I do from work (Where my machine and connection sucks, so I dont pvp from there) and saw a group of gray con high 40s.. 50 maybe.... I ignored them as I knew they would be stupid to attack me.</p><p>all of the sudden I'm chained, Ice comet, manaburn and I was at like 10pct health.  Started to retaliate and something hit me and I was dead.</p><p>So... something was changed even further.  </p><p>From my long-winded post you can see things have been getting adjusted for quite some time now...  but something is broken when I'm on my 67 Dirge and 7 high 20s attack me and I BARELY get away before I would have died.  Thats BROKEN.... B R O K E N.</p></blockquote>Lol. And do you know why is that ? It is because of you lev 70s crying. This is broken, that is broken, this class is overboosted, that class is overboosted, resist are broken, everything is broken. SOE fix that or I cancel my subscription. And so when they change it to make you happy, you begin to cry about something else.... You dont see that that 'fix' you need can affect all levels and can cause even more problems(on test servers is 99% of 'testers' lev 70). But at least you can start to cry again.... Seems like all those crying Wizards from PVE servers moved to PVP.... If i ever quit, it will be because of you, noobs and not because of game itself....

Gutmonger
06-23-2007, 07:08 PM
The bottom line is if there was no twinking (like we were promised by the devs in beta) there would be nothing for the OP to complain about. Twinking ruined EQ2. It fueld online sales and snuffed out any new players trying the game. The layers of bad rules added to pvp to cover other bad rules does not help either. I am willing to bet there are more people playing the FFA pvp server in VG then EQ2. Anyone who played VG knows how sad that is.

Vilesummon
06-23-2007, 09:38 PM
<cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>I remember when the server first went live.  There was lots of talk about how hard it was to kill people higher than you.  They nerfed something in the mechanics that was described as "avoidance checks" but it wasn't exactly accurate as you may full well know an avoidance tank is pretty tough to hit if you're even a few levels lower.</p><p>I remember when I first got into my 40s on my SK Gass was on the docks with my old guild leader Dregg (Berserker) and we picked a fight with Blue, one of the first level 70 Swashbucklers on all of Nagafen, if not THE first 70 Swashy.   He AOE'd us and we died in ONE shot.  So... from this little story you can see that something was changed even more at a later date.  Not sure what it was, but it was all done within the first couple months of Nagafen being online.</p><p>I remember all the level 70s griefing the bajeezus out of us in Sinking Sands and Clefts of Rujark, and all those zones we tried to XP in, completely immue to the gray mobs in that zone, rolling from place to place wiping entire groups out  But at least we could hit them, and it made good sense.  I in turn did the same kinds of things on my Brigand when he was 70 for about a week, rolling entire raids of people... got my 1000 kills that week, got my faction, moved on... but those people had a hard hard time hitting me, but it was possible to win...</p><p>Probably 6-8 months ago I realized something was funky though, when I was harvesting as often as I do from work (Where my machine and connection sucks, so I dont pvp from there) and saw a group of gray con high 40s.. 50 maybe.... I ignored them as I knew they would be stupid to attack me.</p><p>all of the sudden I'm chained, Ice comet, manaburn and I was at like 10pct health.  Started to retaliate and something hit me and I was dead.</p><p>So... something was changed even further.  </p><p>From my long-winded post you can see things have been getting adjusted for quite some time now...  but something is broken when I'm on my 67 Dirge and 7 high 20s attack me and I BARELY get away before I would have died.  Thats BROKEN.... B R O K E N.</p></blockquote>Lol. And do you know why is that ? It is because of you lev 70s crying. This is broken, that is broken, this class is overboosted, that class is overboosted, resist are broken, everything is broken. SOE fix that or I cancel my subscription. And so when they change it to make you happy, you begin to cry about something else.... You dont see that that 'fix' you need can affect all levels and can cause even more problems(on test servers is 99% of 'testers' lev 70). But at least you can start to cry again.... Seems like all those crying Wizards from PVE servers moved to PVP.... If i ever quit, it will be because of you, noobs and not because of game itself.... </blockquote><span style="font-size: small">Is it me...or are the only one's not recognizing this as a problem...the ones that are calling the 70s noobs. Yep, we accidentally got to 70. Killed a gray and got the raid gear....it was UBER. Should have seen it. I mean the 70s really are wayyyyyy out of line to ask for their gear to work properly...we should all be a bunch of pansies locking our levels and hiding behind our gray cons...and think we are uber because we can take out RED cons since the mechanics don't work right.</span>

Vilesummon
06-23-2007, 09:42 PM
<cite>Gutmonger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The bottom line is if there was no twinking (like we were promised by the devs in beta) there would be nothing for the OP to complain about. Twinking ruined EQ2. It fueld online sales and snuffed out any new players trying the game. The layers of bad rules added to pvp to cover other bad rules does not help either. I am willing to bet there are more people playing the FFA pvp server in VG then EQ2. Anyone who played VG knows how sad that is.</blockquote><span style="font-size: small">Yeah, no twinks would help. If SOE doesn't want to fix the mechanics of the PVP for the red con; if the level locking stopped, we could at least wait to give them a proper payback. Instead, they can hide as gray and hide behind broken game mechanics forever. Great treatment of the high end players really.</span>

Orthureon
06-23-2007, 09:47 PM
<p>If a person cons higher it should work like this:</p><p>10-11 levels he should be a 1up heroic</p><p>12-13 levels 2up heroic</p><p>14 levels 3up heroic</p><p>15-16 levels epic x1</p><p>17-18 levels epic x2</p><p>19 levels epic x3</p><p>20+ levels epic x4</p><p>I find this reasonable, as anything 20 levels+ should be close to impossible, but with a VERY small chance of success. They should also have something that calculates difficulty according to how many adept3s/masters, AAs and by the rating of their gear. Also masters and adepts would also have their own rating, I guess these would have to be rated according to usefullness and of course any master will have a higher rating than adepts. </p><p>Levels would each have their own rating aswell. This way they could add all of the ratings together and when you con someone it shows their rating vs yours.</p><p>IE use a rating system for gear, as in stats and mit all play a role in the rating.</p><p>----------------------------------</p><p>Made up Fabled chest piece:</p><p>Mitigation 200</p><p>+5 strength, +5 agility, +5 wisdom, +5 intelligence</p><p>+100 vs heat, +100 vs cold, +100 vs poison, +100 vs disease</p><p>Rating: 620 (mit and all stats added together)</p><p>-----------------------------------------------</p><p>Made up Legendary chest piece:</p><p>Mitigation 250</p><p>+10 strength, +5 agility, +10 wisdom, +5 intelligence</p><p>+125 vs heat, +125 vs cold, +125 vs poison, +125 vs disease</p><p>+3 focus (in this example worth 5 points each)</p><p>Rating: 795 (mit and all stats added together)</p><p>----------------------------------------</p><p>Focus and other such stats would definitely be subjective to class. IE a fighter with any bonuses to focus wouldn't count in the calculation of the armor rating. Where as any type of caster or hybrid that uses casting it would affect them, however hybrids would have a lower rating.</p>

Vilesummon
06-23-2007, 09:52 PM
<cite>Orthureon wrote:</cite><blockquote><p>If a person cons higher it should work like this:</p><p>10-11 levels he should be a 1up heroic</p><p>12-13 levels 2up heroic</p><p>14 levels 3up heroic</p><p>15-16 levels epic x1</p><p>17-18 levels epic x2</p><p>19 levels epic x3</p><p>20+ levels epic x4</p><p>I find this reasonable, as anything 20 levels+ should be close to impossible, but with a VERY small chance of success. They should also have something that calculates difficulty according to how many adept3s/masters, AAs and by the rating of their gear. Also masters and adepts would also have their own rating, I guess these would have to be rated according to usefullness and of course any master will have a higher rating than adepts. </p><p>Levels would each have their own rating aswell. This way they could add all of the ratings together and when you con someone it shows their rating vs yours.</p><p>IE use a rating system for gear, as in stats and mit all play a role in the rating.</p><p>----------------------------------</p><p>Made up Fabled chest piece:</p><p>Mitigation 200</p><p>+5 strength, +5 agility, +5 wisdom, +5 intelligence</p><p>+100 vs heat, +100 vs cold, +100 vs poison, +100 vs disease</p><p>Rating: 620 (mit and all stats added together)</p><p>-----------------------------------------------</p><p>Made up Legendary chest piece:</p><p>Mitigation 250</p><p>+10 strength, +5 agility, +10 wisdom, +5 intelligence</p><p>+125 vs heat, +125 vs cold, +125 vs poison, +125 vs disease</p><p>+3 focus (in this example worth 5 points each)</p><p>Rating: 795 (mit and all stats added together)</p><p>----------------------------------------</p><p>Focus and other such stats would definitely be subjective to class. IE a fighter with any bonuses to focus wouldn't count in the calculation of the armor rating. Where as any type of caster or hybrid that uses casting it would affect them, however hybrids would have a lower rating.</p></blockquote>Interesting thoughts...and not necessarily bad, just leaves one issue...SOE has work to do.

Bozidar
06-24-2007, 02:58 AM
<cite>Gutmonger wrote:</cite><blockquote> I am willing to bet there are more people playing the FFA pvp server in VG then EQ2. Anyone who played VG knows how sad that is.</blockquote>Not according to inside sources.. several of whom lost their jobs recently.

Shinnar
06-24-2007, 04:51 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Gutmonger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The bottom line is if there was no twinking (like we were promised by the devs in beta) there would be nothing for the OP to complain about. Twinking ruined EQ2. It fueld online sales and snuffed out any new players trying the game. The layers of bad rules added to pvp to cover other bad rules does not help either. I am willing to bet there are more people playing the FFA pvp server in VG then EQ2. Anyone who played VG knows how sad that is.</blockquote><span style="font-size: small">Yeah, no twinks would help. If SOE doesn't want to fix the mechanics of the PVP for the red con; if the level locking stopped, we could at least wait to give them a proper payback. Instead, they can hide as gray and hide behind broken game mechanics forever. Great treatment of the high end players really.</span> </blockquote>How we can hide behind broken game mechanics? I can be attacked with my 42 toon by red con lev 52 in T5 zone. I dont see any problem here....

Vilesummon
06-24-2007, 06:29 PM
<cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Gutmonger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The bottom line is if there was no twinking (like we were promised by the devs in beta) there would be nothing for the OP to complain about. Twinking ruined EQ2. It fueld online sales and snuffed out any new players trying the game. The layers of bad rules added to pvp to cover other bad rules does not help either. I am willing to bet there are more people playing the FFA pvp server in VG then EQ2. Anyone who played VG knows how sad that is.</blockquote><span style="font-size: small">Yeah, no twinks would help. If SOE doesn't want to fix the mechanics of the PVP for the red con; if the level locking stopped, we could at least wait to give them a proper payback. Instead, they can hide as gray and hide behind broken game mechanics forever. Great treatment of the high end players really.</span> </blockquote>How we can hide behind broken game mechanics? I can be attacked with my 42 toon by red con lev 52 in T5 zone. I dont see any problem here.... </blockquote>What you are not seeing a problem with is the fact that you are taking the low end of the red debate and using that as the standard. You know the people that are really making the argument are the ones that are talking about toons that are 15-20 levels higher. You, as a locked toon, should know your place and never think about attacking someone that is say 18 levels higher than you because the game SHOULD allow them to make you miss/block/parry/ and resist every skill you have. Take your 42 twinked self and engage a lvl 60 mob and see how it works for you. You wouldn't like the result...and that is how it should be for the players that are high level, raid geared, and have very high resists. Don't try to pass the "oh, I can be attacked by someone 10 levels higher in this zone" line....when you know most of the discussion is about the high red cons. Some of us actually decide to level lock and twink at 70...maybe, just maybe, we should get the respect we deserve for that...instead of SOE ignoring the issue and making lower twinks feel more relevant than they are.

Shinnar
06-24-2007, 08:43 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Gutmonger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The bottom line is if there was no twinking (like we were promised by the devs in beta) there would be nothing for the OP to complain about. Twinking ruined EQ2. It fueld online sales and snuffed out any new players trying the game. The layers of bad rules added to pvp to cover other bad rules does not help either. I am willing to bet there are more people playing the FFA pvp server in VG then EQ2. Anyone who played VG knows how sad that is.</blockquote><span style="font-size: small">Yeah, no twinks would help. If SOE doesn't want to fix the mechanics of the PVP for the red con; if the level locking stopped, we could at least wait to give them a proper payback. Instead, they can hide as gray and hide behind broken game mechanics forever. Great treatment of the high end players really.</span> </blockquote>How we can hide behind broken game mechanics? I can be attacked with my 42 toon by red con lev 52 in T5 zone. I dont see any problem here.... </blockquote>What you are not seeing a problem with is the fact that you are taking the low end of the red debate and using that as the standard. You know the people that are really making the argument are the ones that are talking about toons that are 15-20 levels higher. You, as a locked toon, should know your place and never think about attacking someone that is say 18 levels higher than you because the game SHOULD allow them to make you miss/block/parry/ and resist every skill you have. Take your 42 twinked self and engage a lvl 60 mob and see how it works for you. You wouldn't like the result...and that is how it should be for the players that are high level, raid geared, and have very high resists. Don't try to pass the "oh, I can be attacked by someone 10 levels higher in this zone" line....when you know most of the discussion is about the high red cons. Some of us actually decide to level lock and twink at 70...maybe, just maybe, we should get the respect we deserve for that...instead of SOE ignoring the issue and making lower twinks feel more relevant than they are. </blockquote><p>kk, so when anyone lower then 70 is killed by group of greys, all is ok. When it happens to lev 70, it is an exploit because of they raid gear and uber resists... You have my respect.... </p><p>Btw if you think i can solo player 18 levels higher, you must be mad... I cant sometimes solo even conned player, if that player is good <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

tiredang
06-24-2007, 09:16 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Gutmonger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The bottom line is if there was no twinking (like we were promised by the devs in beta) there would be nothing for the OP to complain about. Twinking ruined EQ2. It fueld online sales and snuffed out any new players trying the game. The layers of bad rules added to pvp to cover other bad rules does not help either. I am willing to bet there are more people playing the FFA pvp server in VG then EQ2. Anyone who played VG knows how sad that is.</blockquote><span style="font-size: small">Yeah, no twinks would help. If SOE doesn't want to fix the mechanics of the PVP for the red con; if the level locking stopped, we could at least wait to give them a proper payback. Instead, they can hide as gray and hide behind broken game mechanics forever. Great treatment of the high end players really.</span> </blockquote>How we can hide behind broken game mechanics? I can be attacked with my 42 toon by red con lev 52 in T5 zone. I dont see any problem here.... </blockquote>What you are not seeing a problem with is the fact that you are taking the low end of the red debate and using that as the standard. You know the people that are really making the argument are the ones that are talking about toons that are 15-20 levels higher. You, as a locked toon, should know your place and never think about attacking someone that is say 18 levels higher than you because the game SHOULD allow them to make you miss/block/parry/ and resist every skill you have. Take your 42 twinked self and engage a lvl 60 mob and see how it works for you. You wouldn't like the result...and that is how it should be for the players that are high level, raid geared, and have very high resists. Don't try to pass the "oh, I can be attacked by someone 10 levels higher in this zone" line....when you know most of the discussion is about the high red cons. Some of us actually decide to level lock and twink at 70...maybe, just maybe, we should get the respect we deserve for that...instead of SOE ignoring the issue and making lower twinks feel more relevant than they are. </blockquote><p>You know, do you honestly believe that hitting 70 is a true accomplishment to be respected and that people who are lower level who pay the same as you do are not relevant?  Hitting 70 takes nothing but time.  </p><p>I've been playing eq2 since, well, not launch, but pretty close -- since the armor quests were really worth doing and very difficult to boot.  This is a huge game with tons of content at all levels.  It used to take so much longer to level -- not only did you get far less exp per kill, but there were no aas, you shared exp debt with your party, each shard out there equalled a massive amount of exp debt.  Very frustrating at times, but also, you were able to enjoy a lot more of the content.  And the content IS good. Now people are saying that everyone should rush to 70, miss out on most of this huge, wonderful game.  It's a shame -- there is tons out there for all levels. I personally think that people want this because there is not enough pvp at 70, and the pvp there is is mainly cloud hopping, cliff diving "fun."</p><p>Now should grays be able to kill a red con?  It really does depend.  I remember the first time I encountered a gray swarm in sinking sands.  I had NO chance.  Then again, if I went into Sol Eye and aggroed 24 mobs, there's a very good chance I would die there as well.  I also remember a 55 ranger trying to kill my 70 warden -- I have no clue why he attacked me, but he died very easily.  i'm not sure what solo gray is killing someone 18 levels above them, but it should be harder for a group of grays to kill a solo red for sure.</p>

Amphibia
06-24-2007, 11:12 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Shinnar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Gutmonger wrote:</cite><blockquote>The bottom line is if there was no twinking (like we were promised by the devs in beta) there would be nothing for the OP to complain about. Twinking ruined EQ2. It fueld online sales and snuffed out any new players trying the game. The layers of bad rules added to pvp to cover other bad rules does not help either. I am willing to bet there are more people playing the FFA pvp server in VG then EQ2. Anyone who played VG knows how sad that is.</blockquote><span style="font-size: small">Yeah, no twinks would help. If SOE doesn't want to fix the mechanics of the PVP for the red con; if the level locking stopped, we could at least wait to give them a proper payback. Instead, they can hide as gray and hide behind broken game mechanics forever. Great treatment of the high end players really.</span> </blockquote>How we can hide behind broken game mechanics? I can be attacked with my 42 toon by red con lev 52 in T5 zone. I dont see any problem here.... </blockquote>What you are not seeing a problem with is the fact that you are taking the low end of the red debate and using that as the standard. You know the people that are really making the argument are the ones that are talking about toons that are 15-20 levels higher. You, as a locked toon, should know your place and never think about attacking someone that is say 18 levels higher than you because the game SHOULD allow them to make you miss/block/parry/ and resist every skill you have. Take your 42 twinked self and engage a lvl 60 mob and see how it works for you. You wouldn't like the result...and that is how it should be for the players that are high level, raid geared, and have very high resists. Don't try to pass the "oh, I can be attacked by someone 10 levels higher in this zone" line....when you know most of the discussion is about the high red cons. Some of us actually decide to level lock and twink at 70...maybe, just maybe, we should get the respect we deserve for that...instead of SOE ignoring the issue and making lower twinks feel more relevant than they are. </blockquote><p>You know, do you honestly believe that hitting 70 is a true accomplishment to be respected and that people who are lower level who pay the same as you do are not relevant?  Hitting 70 takes nothing but time.  </p></blockquote> As you say, it takes time. And even though it may not be an accomplishment, it does take considerably more effort than just locking at 20 or whatever..... I think anyone who has taken the time and effort to get to 70, have at least earned the right to not having to worry about those who are locked somewhere 20, 30 or even 40 levels below them. These greys are annoying like little bugs, to be honest... and right now a group of these bugs can kill a level 70 way too easily. Call it whatever you like, but this sounds to me like broken game mechanics. I don't mind level lockers in general, but I think they should have to level up if they want to play with those in higher tiers. At least for as long as they are allowed to attack from immunity.

tiredang
06-25-2007, 02:48 AM
<cite>Amphibia wrote:</cite><blockquote><blockquote><p>You know, do you honestly believe that hitting 70 is a true accomplishment to be respected and that people who are lower level who pay the same as you do are not relevant?  Hitting 70 takes nothing but time.  </p></blockquote> As you say, it takes time. And even though it may not be an accomplishment, it does take considerably more effort than just locking at 20 or whatever..... I think anyone who has taken the time and effort to get to 70, have at least earned the right to not having to worry about those who are locked somewhere 20, 30 or even 40 levels below them. These greys are annoying like little bugs, to be honest... and right now a group of these bugs can kill a level 70 way too easily. Call it whatever you like, but this sounds to me like broken game mechanics. I don't mind level lockers in general, but I think they should have to level up if they want to play with those in higher tiers. At least for as long as they are allowed to attack from immunity. </blockquote><p> It took me less than a month to get to 70 on my warden.  It took me about 3 weeks to get enough faction to get the first piece of PvP gear on my defiler including the time it took me to get the harvests for my gear and spells.</p><p>But I'm not sure why you cut on the rest of my post. I wasn't exactly disagreeing with you.  I just can understand both sides of this.  But the thing is, while I was leveling up, being ganked, being kicked out of farm spots, I never once thought of coming here and complaining about it -- I just figured it was the way it was on a pvp server so instead I harvested and farmed to try and be at least competitive.</p><p>I find the gray swarm annoying as well.  And no, I don't think a group of 50s should be able to easily take down a 70, but eventually they WILL kill that 70.  One change they SHOULD make.  If a gray engages a person, they should be attackable by all people up to the level of that person during the fight.  That way the red con can at least get help.</p>

Image_Vain
06-25-2007, 02:54 AM
My refrigerator is a Red Con to me. Scary, I know. My bed also talks to me.

EQGu
06-25-2007, 11:27 AM
<p>They grey attacking reds and winning is getting rediculous. I have been lvling up a brigand and have been grouping with friend a necro and troub..</p><p>Well me and the necro both lvl 42 or 43 see a lvl 60 wizard well think hmm should we try? (keep in mind that im in all app1 spells and treasured gear, and the necro is in similar) so we engage i debuff him and start attacking and we are bringin him down kinda fast for someone that has 18 lvls on us. We get him to red (im in red also) he runs off and a grey healer pops a 700 hp heal on him, me and the necro switch burn the grey healer down then go back to the wiz and he runs off..</p><p>we shouldnt even be able to hit someone that high.</p><p>Also 3 of us around 42 -43 see a lvl 70 ranger so we are like what the hell... we attack he threw pretty much everything at us including rain or arrows. we still manage to get him to 55% before we died.. now if we had 1 healer he would have went down.</p><p>PLEASE FIX THE GREY CRAP</p>

Bloodfa
06-25-2007, 11:41 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>They grey attacking reds and winning is getting rediculous. I have been lvling up a brigand and have been grouping with friend a necro and troub..</p><p>Well me and the necro both lvl 42 or 43 see a lvl 60 wizard well think hmm should we try? (keep in mind that im in all app1 spells and treasured gear, and the necro is in similar) so we engage i debuff him and start attacking and we are bringin him down kinda fast for someone that has 18 lvls on us. We get him to red (im in red also) he runs off and a grey healer pops a 700 hp heal on him, me and the necro switch burn the grey healer down then go back to the wiz and he runs off..</p><p>we shouldnt even be able to hit someone that high.</p><p>Also 3 of us around 42 -43 see a lvl 70 ranger so we are like what the hell... we attack he threw pretty much everything at us including rain or arrows. we still manage to get him to 55% before we died.. now if we had 1 healer he would have went down.</p><p>PLEASE FIX THE GREY CRAP</p></blockquote>See, here's the sort of thing that should get the attention.  You're right, that's crazy.  The game doesn't scale properly.  I understand the concept behind army ants, but [Removed for Content], no need to feed them steroids.

Bozidar
06-25-2007, 11:41 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>They grey attacking reds and winning is getting rediculous. I have been lvling up a brigand and have been grouping with friend a necro and troub..</p><p>Well me and the necro both lvl 42 or 43 see a lvl 60 wizard well think hmm should we try? (keep in mind that im in all app1 spells and treasured gear, and the necro is in similar) so we engage i debuff him and start attacking and we are bringin him down kinda fast for someone that has 18 lvls on us. We get him to red (im in red also) he runs off and a grey healer pops a 700 hp heal on him, me and the necro switch burn the grey healer down then go back to the wiz and he runs off..</p><p>we shouldnt even be able to hit someone that high.</p><p>Also 3 of us around 42 -43 see a lvl 70 ranger so we are like what the hell... we attack he threw pretty much everything at us including rain or arrows. we still manage to get him to 55% before we died.. now if we had 1 healer he would have went down.</p><p>PLEASE FIX THE GREY CRAP</p></blockquote><p> I'm pretty much in agreement with you.  I think that 18 levels isn't a lot.  There are some zones where pvp used to be a 14 level range (and should be again).  a lvl 60 wizard (was he titled? i doubt it) is truly only 1 tier ahead of you in gear at 42.  I don't know if you have full ebon on your buddies toon, i doubt it, but the 60's gear is probably not full lvl 60 fabled gear.  You should have a shot at duoing him at 42.  You're pretty well developed into your classes at that point, and you're powerful in your own right.</p><p>I think 20 levels isn't beyond a reasonable chance to kill a guy.  Maybe at 14 levels the curve should start to get a bit more steep in terms of chances, but there should still be A chance.</p><p>But i agree.. shoudln't be this easy.  Needs to be fixed.</p>

Zexybeast
06-25-2007, 12:00 PM
It'd be fine if the greys that were attacking us were in some way being punished, or I was being rewarded. I don't feel like spending 20 minutes out of what time I get to play killing greys that are zerging as soon as they go down. At least as a Templar it takes me a while to kill them, and if I have to put forth the time and effort, I'd like something more than a few points of faction. Make them drop something worthwhile, and maybe I'd feel a little better about it.

Bozidar
06-25-2007, 12:04 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>It'd be fine if the greys that were attacking us were in some way being punished, or I was being rewarded. I don't feel like spending 20 minutes out of what time I get to play killing greys that are zerging as soon as they go down. At least as a Templar it takes me a while to kill them, and if I have to put forth the time and effort, I'd like something more than a few points of faction. Make them drop something worthwhile, and maybe I'd feel a little better about it.</blockquote>they give you faction, and if you or they are capable, and they attack first, they give you fame.  What more do you want, a cookie?

Zexybeast
06-25-2007, 12:13 PM
Something tangible like a cookie would be great. Or, even if they aren't in my title range, they should give fame. As with a lot of 70's, faction gets maxxed in approximately 2 weeks, so that doesn't really work as a reward. Or maybe if they attack me, they have to stay dead for 10 minutes so that I can harvest. Or, let me harvest in combat. If some crazy 50 assassin wants to attack me, then let him, but don't make me stop what I'm doing.

Badaxe Ba
06-25-2007, 02:07 PM
<p>First off, Bozidar, I agree with you about the mechanics being unbalanced, although I wouldn't go so far as to say broken completely.  As to one of your earlier statements saying no 70's agreed with you, you would be wrong, but as you also pointed out, tweaking the game mechanics would require a lot of work by DEV's, I agree.</p><p>I still think a simpler solution, and much easier to implement would be an upper level restriction in certain zones.</p><p><b><u>You say you want a challenging fight, against that red target you see.  Fine, I'm all for challenging fights!  The problem, and its been stated many times, is the degree to which lower levels damage outputs ARE NOT resisted by higher level tiers! </u></b> (I stated this before, but highlighted it for you since you argued about no 70's agreeing with you)</p><p><b><u>Until this situation is addressed</u></b>, by giving a progressive scale to resists per tier, then the advantage will always remain with the greys, when the fight is started with one side enjoying immunity. </p><p>A simple solution is to simply change the degree of immune targets based upon the zone.  For example, Antonica has a level limit of 4 zones below your level which is attackable by a player, but there is no upper limit.  Placing a limit of 8 levels (a factor of x2) above your level in that zone which is attackable by you would still allow your 'challenging' fights, while anything above that, you would be required to move to the next (higher) zone.  Claiming that this means a much higher level player could run around stealing your nodes, mobs etc., well, unless they are continuosly stealing your mobs, a violation of the EULA and a reportable offense,  last time I checked no harvest node has anyone's name on it.  and its a big zone, with plenty of nodes.  Not to mention you can always ask for help from your faction.</p><p>Scaling this immunity to the different zones would not in any way deter pvp, but would go a long way in alleviating the problem of 'leechers', by removing their ability in lower zones to get that one hit for fame.</p><p>Ant/CL 8 lvls above level attackable.</p><p>TS/Nek 16 levels above attackable.</p><p>And so on, for each higher tier until you reach the no limit levels.  </p><p>Want a harder challenge?  Move to the next zone, where that red knows he's not immune to certain levels<b><u> BUT STILL CANNOT ATTACK BELOW THE LOWER LEVEL LIMIT!</u></b>.  Keep the immunity to lower levels in place, as that is not the problem.</p><p>Complex solution?  Redo the scaling of resists, so T3 fighting T7 better expect a wipeout, no matter how twinked, buffed or how much zerging they do.</p><p>Would I rather have the mechanics fixed/adjusted/scaled?  Yes.  I admit however to the difficulty this would require, and realistically understand the unintended consequences if it isn't just right.  What DEV in his right mind would want to get involved in that nightmare of a tuning job?</p><p>Does putting an upper level limit per zone reduce your pvp?  No, if you are that twinked/experienced/raided up, moving to a higher zone with a higher immunity limit isn't such an impossible step, and would provide you with that exciting challenge you so crave!</p>

Bozidar
06-25-2007, 02:21 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Complex solution?  Redo the scaling of resists, so T3 fighting T7 better expect a wipeout, no matter how twinked, buffed or how much zerging they do.</p><p>Would I rather have the mechanics fixed/adjusted/scaled?  Yes.  I admit however to the difficulty this would require, and realistically understand the unintended consequences if it isn't just right.  What DEV in his right mind would want to get involved in that nightmare of a tuning job?</p></blockquote><p>I disagree.  I think the scaling of resist/defenses vs offensive skills is an easier fix.  I think there would be less coding involved, and would open the game up to fewer exploits, ect.  I think the attackable target mechanics are quite complex when you examine them, and adding more immunity to the game is bad.</p><p>We're not talking about fixing a broad range of things here.  Impliment a steep diminishing returns curve for offensive skills vs defensive measures of other players.  If you're attacking someone with defensive skills that are + a certain amount.. nerf the high-holy-hell out of your chance to land your spell or combat art.</p><p>What unintended consequence could this have?  I'm talking about begining to adjust it at 15+ levels (taking the old zek level difference of 14, and adding one to it to make the ultimate "red" target).  That's what, 75 skill points?  That's a pretty hefty margin and shouldn't have any unintended consequences for any other part of the game.  Leave EVERYTHING under that 75 skill range alone.  Don't adjust resists any differently for the inside range, don't adjust avoidance or mitigation, any of it.</p><p>I honestly don't think this is THAT complex of a change.  It's not easy.. but it's the RIGHT way to do it, imo.</p><p>I apologize if i feel strongly about this.  As a developer I have people propose shotty work arounds all the time that just mean more work for me in the end <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  I'm a strong proponent of doing things right the first time. Not always easy.. but works out for the best in the long run. </p>

Vilesummon
06-25-2007, 02:33 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>They grey attacking reds and winning is getting rediculous. I have been lvling up a brigand and have been grouping with friend a necro and troub..</p><p>Well me and the necro both lvl 42 or 43 see a lvl 60 wizard well think hmm should we try? (keep in mind that im in all app1 spells and treasured gear, and the necro is in similar) so we engage i debuff him and start attacking and we are bringin him down kinda fast for someone that has 18 lvls on us. We get him to red (im in red also) he runs off and a grey healer pops a 700 hp heal on him, me and the necro switch burn the grey healer down then go back to the wiz and he runs off..</p><p>we shouldnt even be able to hit someone that high.</p><p>Also 3 of us around 42 -43 see a lvl 70 ranger so we are like what the hell... we attack he threw pretty much everything at us including rain or arrows. we still manage to get him to 55% before we died.. now if we had 1 healer he would have went down.</p><p>PLEASE FIX THE GREY CRAP</p></blockquote><p> <span style="color: #cc0000"> I'm pretty much in agreement with you.  I think that 18 levels isn't a lot.  There are some zones where pvp used to be a 14 level range (and should be again).  a lvl 60 wizard (was he titled? i doubt it) is truly only 1 tier ahead of you in gear at 42.  I don't know if you have full ebon on your buddies toon, i doubt it, but the 60's gear is probably not full lvl 60 fabled gear.  You should have a shot at duoing him at 42.  You're pretty well developed into your classes at that point, and you're powerful in your own right.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc0000">I think 20 levels isn't beyond a reasonable chance to kill a guy.  Maybe at 14 levels the curve should start to get a bit more steep in terms of chances, but there should still be A chance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #cc0000">But i agree.. shoudln't be this easy.  Needs to be fixed.</span></p></blockquote>Dude, you are agreeing the mechanics are not working, but you still have a way to go in the thought process of the whole discussion. You say 18 levels isn't a lot; when in fact, it is over 25% of the total level possibility that currently exists in the game. There were zones that were 14 level range, and the lower levels were complaining because someone so high could attack them at that time, ironic isn't it? 20 levels should have a chance to kill the guys still??? Based on what model should this happen, unless the guy that is 20 levels higher is naked? We are not talking about run of the mill players; you will notice you have seen posts from both city factions and exile saying that we deserve better...and there is nothing even implying that the issue will be dealt with. I know players like Zexy, Harry, Borias, and several others that are posting are wearing RAID gear or t7 pvp gear. Most of them are mastered out or [Removed for Content] close...yet we still have a thread discussing the topic because the game isn't working. As someone said, I am all for the army ant idea, but at some point you have to realize the ants are attacking something they shouldn't...and really shouldn't be considered an army when it is a group or less. If you were talking about raids, maybe, just maybe you could make a case that the higher guy should be pushed to the limit by using all his power killing 24 people; but that isn't what is happening. Following the logic of the mechanics as they are; we should take a group into raid zones and easily beat them...I mean a raid mob is only ONE being and is ONLY 5 levels higher than us, right? Yeah, PVE is different, but you do get the point that at some point the devs have to get a little more realistic about the situation with people that are 15-20 levels higher...and need to be a little more respectful of the accomplishments of the high end players. Right now, it is a slap in the face really.

Bozidar
06-25-2007, 02:40 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>Dude, you are agreeing the mechanics are not working, but you still have a way to go in the thought process of the whole discussion. You say 18 levels isn't a lot; when in fact, it is over 25% of the total level possibility that currently exists in the game. There were zones that were 14 level range, and the lower levels were complaining because someone so high could attack them at that time, ironic isn't it? 20 levels should have a chance to kill the guys still??? Based on what model should this happen, unless the guy that is 20 levels higher is naked? We are not talking about run of the mill players; you will notice you have seen posts from both city factions and exile saying that we deserve better...and there is nothing even implying that the issue will be dealt with. I know players like Zexy, Harry, Borias, and several others that are posting are wearing RAID gear or t7 pvp gear. Most of them are mastered out or [I cannot control my vocabulary] close...yet we still have a thread discussing the topic because the game isn't working. As someone said, I am all for the army ant idea, but at some point you have to realize the ants are attacking something they shouldn't...and really shouldn't be considered an army when it is a group or less. If you were talking about raids, maybe, just maybe you could make a case that the higher guy should be pushed to the limit by using all his power killing 24 people; but that isn't what is happening. Following the logic of the mechanics as they are; we should take a group into raid zones and easily beat them...I mean a raid mob is only ONE being and is ONLY 5 levels higher than us, right? Yeah, PVE is different, but you do get the point that at some point the devs have to get a little more realistic about the situation with people that are 15-20 levels higher...and need to be a little more respectful of the accomplishments of the high end players. Right now, it is a slap in the face really. </blockquote><p> 18 levels when the guy is out numbered.  Especially at mid-levels when his characters have most of the class defining abilities?  IMO, it should be harder to kill folks 15 levels higher and beyond.  Right now?  it's not.. 18 levels isn't a whole lot as it stands today.</p><p>We're agreeing here, i think, why the tone of disagreement?</p>

Zexybeast
06-25-2007, 02:46 PM
There are certainly circumstances when it should be possible to have two friends with you and take out a 70, even when your levels are 15-20 lower, but this is more along the lines of a player that is similarly equipped, and as you put, one tier of armor above the greys. When 3 50's attack me, they are not one, nor even two tiers below me, as Fabled 70 gear would outweigh MC 72 things, so we are talking of a disparity of 3 tiers of equipment. Combat Art/Spell-wise, it is a difference of essentially the next upgrade to any given spell, as most spells are upgraded every 10-15 levels. It is true that in some areas we are agreeing, but others we are not, hence the "tone of disagreement".

Bozidar
06-25-2007, 02:56 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>There are certainly circumstances when it should be possible to have two friends with you and take out a 70, even when your levels are 15-20 lower, but this is more along the lines of a player that is similarly equipped, and as you put, one tier of armor above the greys. When 3 50's attack me, they are not one, nor even two tiers below me, as Fabled 70 gear would outweigh MC 72 things, so we are talking of a disparity of 3 tiers of equipment. Combat Art/Spell-wise, it is a difference of essentially the next upgrade to any given spell, as most spells are upgraded every 10-15 levels. It is true that in some areas we are agreeing, but others we are not, hence the "tone of disagreement".</blockquote> I wasn't talking to you <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />

Zexybeast
06-25-2007, 02:58 PM
Well, no, you weren't, but the disagreement was on the span of levels and how that should affect the fighting interactions. So, while you weren't talking to me, I was still able to address your question.

Vilesummon
06-25-2007, 03:00 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>Dude, you are agreeing the mechanics are not working, but you still have a way to go in the thought process of the whole discussion. You say 18 levels isn't a lot; when in fact, it is over 25% of the total level possibility that currently exists in the game. There were zones that were 14 level range, and the lower levels were complaining because someone so high could attack them at that time, ironic isn't it? 20 levels should have a chance to kill the guys still??? Based on what model should this happen, unless the guy that is 20 levels higher is naked? We are not talking about run of the mill players; you will notice you have seen posts from both city factions and exile saying that we deserve better...and there is nothing even implying that the issue will be dealt with. I know players like Zexy, Harry, Borias, and several others that are posting are wearing RAID gear or t7 pvp gear. Most of them are mastered out or [I cannot control my vocabulary] close...yet we still have a thread discussing the topic because the game isn't working. As someone said, I am all for the army ant idea, but at some point you have to realize the ants are attacking something they shouldn't...and really shouldn't be considered an army when it is a group or less. If you were talking about raids, maybe, just maybe you could make a case that the higher guy should be pushed to the limit by using all his power killing 24 people; but that isn't what is happening. Following the logic of the mechanics as they are; we should take a group into raid zones and easily beat them...I mean a raid mob is only ONE being and is ONLY 5 levels higher than us, right? Yeah, PVE is different, but you do get the point that at some point the devs have to get a little more realistic about the situation with people that are 15-20 levels higher...and need to be a little more respectful of the accomplishments of the high end players. Right now, it is a slap in the face really. </blockquote><p> 18 levels when the guy is out numbered.  Especially at mid-levels when his characters have most of the class defining abilities?  IMO, it should be harder to kill folks 15 levels higher and beyond.  Right now?  it's not.. 18 levels isn't a whole lot as it stands today.</p><p>We're agreeing here, i think, why the tone of disagreement?</p></blockquote>You are sensing the tone of disagreement because in your prior post you mention how 18 levels really isn't that much of a difference...how the 60s gear is really only one tier ahead of the 2 lowbies...how a group of 2, should have a shot at someone 18 levels higher....NOPE, no chance unless he is naked and and not casting. Your post continued to mention that you think someone should have a shot at 20 levels difference....nope, shouldn't happen...even with a full group if you are giving 20 levels. 70s are not seeking some level of immortality; they are just seeking mortality to be caused by players that are in at least a 10 level range, if not smaller since a lot of us are now in raid quality gear with high number of masters and nice resists and mitigation. Maybe, if SOE fixes the mechanics, they could add some sort of funeral march music to implement when a gray attacks someone 20 levels higher.

Bozidar
06-25-2007, 03:05 PM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>You are sensing the tone of disagreement because in your prior post you mention how 18 levels really isn't that much of a difference...how the 60s gear is really only one tier ahead of the 2 lowbies...how a group of 2, should have a shot at someone 18 levels higher....NOPE, no chance unless he is naked and and not casting. Your post continued to mention that you think someone should have a shot at 20 levels difference....nope, shouldn't happen...even with a full group if you are giving 20 levels. 70s are not seeking some level of immortality; they are just seeking mortality to be caused by players that are in at least a 10 level range, if not smaller since a lot of us are now in raid quality gear with high number of masters and nice resists and mitigation. Maybe, if SOE fixes the mechanics, they could add some sort of funeral march music to implement when a gray attacks someone 20 levels higher. </blockquote><p> Ok, allow me to rephrase that <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>20 levels of difference with a good group of well geared players attacking a botter should have a chance <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>Btw.. i think 70's get various skill bonuses and massive resistances (when they gear their toon right) that would make them "virtually" higher than lvl 70 when you do the checks of piercing vs defense/parry, or subjugation vs resistances.</p><p>I honestly feel that the 0-14 levels of difference are fine.   at 15+ levels it should begin to get harder, 20+ much harder 30+ neigh on impossible.</p>

Badaxe Ba
06-25-2007, 07:38 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><p>Complex solution?  Redo the scaling of resists, so T3 fighting T7 better expect a wipeout, no matter how twinked, buffed or how much zerging they do.</p><p>Would I rather have the mechanics fixed/adjusted/scaled?  Yes.  I admit however to the difficulty this would require, and realistically understand the unintended consequences if it isn't just right.  What DEV in his right mind would want to get involved in that nightmare of a tuning job?</p></blockquote><p>I disagree.  I think the scaling of resist/defenses vs offensive skills is an easier fix.  I think there would be less coding involved, and would open the game up to fewer exploits, ect.  I think the attackable target mechanics are quite complex when you examine them, and adding more immunity to the game is bad.</p><p>We're not talking about fixing a broad range of things here.  Impliment a steep diminishing returns curve for offensive skills vs defensive measures of other players.  If you're attacking someone with defensive skills that are + a certain amount.. nerf the high-holy-hell out of your chance to land your spell or combat art.</p><p>What unintended consequence could this have?  I'm talking about begining to adjust it at 15+ levels (taking the old zek level difference of 14, and adding one to it to make the ultimate "red" target).  That's what, 75 skill points?  That's a pretty hefty margin and shouldn't have any unintended consequences for any other part of the game.  Leave EVERYTHING under that 75 skill range alone.  Don't adjust resists any differently for the inside range, don't adjust avoidance or mitigation, any of it.</p><p>I honestly don't think this is THAT complex of a change.  It's not easy.. but it's the RIGHT way to do it, imo.</p><p>I apologize if i feel strongly about this.  As a developer I have people propose shotty work arounds all the time that just mean more work for me in the end <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" />  I'm a strong proponent of doing things right the first time. Not always easy.. but works out for the best in the long run. </p></blockquote>Since the coding already exists for a level limit on lower down attackable targets, this is EASILY reversed, as the bones of the coding is already in place.  Setting resist levels in a complex equation of level of attacker - level of attackee + % of resistance/% of attack increase buffs>= spell levels x mitigation/avoidance, and this has to be implemented per Every Level scenario.  If you as a programmer cannot see this is more complex than if A + zone > B then is attackable, I'll eat my hat.

Vilesummon
06-25-2007, 10:16 PM
<cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote>[email protected] wrote: <blockquote>You are sensing the tone of disagreement because in your prior post you mention how 18 levels really isn't that much of a difference...how the 60s gear is really only one tier ahead of the 2 lowbies...how a group of 2, should have a shot at someone 18 levels higher....NOPE, no chance unless he is naked and and not casting. Your post continued to mention that you think someone should have a shot at 20 levels difference....nope, shouldn't happen...even with a full group if you are giving 20 levels. 70s are not seeking some level of immortality; they are just seeking mortality to be caused by players that are in at least a 10 level range, if not smaller since a lot of us are now in raid quality gear with high number of masters and nice resists and mitigation. Maybe, if SOE fixes the mechanics, they could add some sort of funeral march music to implement when a gray attacks someone 20 levels higher. </blockquote><p> Ok, allow me to rephrase that <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>20 levels of difference with a good group of well geared players attacking a botter should have a chance <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p><span style="color: #cc0000">Btw.. i think 70's get various skill bonuses and massive resistances (when they gear their toon right) that would make them "virtually" higher than lvl 70 when you do the checks of piercing vs defense/parry, or subjugation vs resistances.</span></p><p>I honestly feel that the 0-14 levels of difference are fine.   at 15+ levels it should begin to get harder, 20+ much harder 30+ neigh on impossible.</p></blockquote>Again, you are not following the thread...there have been posts from players like Harry, Zexy, Borias, and numerous other 70s...all of who I know are raid geared from very elite guilds...and all the checks and safetly measures don't work...we still die. IF you truly believe that players can be "virtually" higher than 70, these are the people...and yet they are all saying there is an issue that needs looked at. The fights of super 70s vs some of the lowbie 50s should be more of a selection of how to kill the 50s rather than it truly being a fight for life. There is another problem with the whole army of ant theory too...would you sit by and watch the army gather or would you strike them fast and decisively first to prevent the army from growing. That option doesn't exist, so we just want the courtesy of our gear working...I just want to sit and see resist/resist/resist/resist/parry/miss/miss/miss as it should be when players are giving up 20 levels...even with a group of 4-6.

Mildavyn
06-26-2007, 12:36 AM
Fully fabled and mastered troub. I get chewed up by greys in SS all the time. Hell, most of the time when i head to SS for some PvP there's a group of 3 or more level 58-59 toons just sitting on the docks. They aren't there just admiring the view. They're there to kill 70s. If they couldn't kill the 70s, why would they be there?

Bozidar
06-26-2007, 01:10 AM
[email protected] wrote: <blockquote><cite>Bozidar wrote:</cite><blockquote><p><span style="color: #cc0000">Btw.. i think 70's get various skill bonuses and massive resistances (when they gear their toon right) that would make them "virtually" higher than lvl 70 when you do the checks of piercing vs defense/parry, or subjugation vs resistances.</span></p></blockquote>Again, you are not following the thread...there have been posts from players like Harry, Zexy, Borias, and numerous other 70s...all of who I know are raid geared from very elite guilds...and all the checks and safetly measures don't work...we still die. IF you truly believe that players can be "virtually" higher than 70, these are the people...and yet they are all saying there is an issue that needs looked at. The fights of super 70s vs some of the lowbie 50s should be more of a selection of how to kill the 50s rather than it truly being a fight for life. There is another problem with the whole army of ant theory too...would you sit by and watch the army gather or would you strike them fast and decisively first to prevent the army from growing. That option doesn't exist, so we just want the courtesy of our gear working...I just want to sit and see resist/resist/resist/resist/parry/miss/miss/miss as it should be when players are giving up 20 levels...even with a group of 4-6. </blockquote>You're not following my point.  I'm not saying that's how it works now, i'm saying that's how it SHOULD work.  Guys in 70 in uber gear should be effectively harder due to those upgrades..