PDA

View Full Version : 11 Ways to Undo the Damage to Open World PvP


Kurindor_Mythecnea
03-05-2010, 08:03 AM
<div><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>THE FIX</strong></span> <span style="color: #ff0000;">would be...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">· 1.) Open world PvP objectives with regional/majority control bonuses, novel items/adornments/adornment components/player-mounted heads, and encounter size limits (to ward off zerging and server latency issues).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">· 2.) <em>ALL</em> instances should be made into contested dungeons.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">· 3.) Only 30 seconds immunity after evacuation, 1 minute 30 second after respawning, and no immunity in open world zones on <em>weekends</em>.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"> - This means NO immunity even in Moors of Ykesha and Paineel (on weekends).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">· 4.) Difficult group encounters with desirable loot should be added to open world areas.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">· 5.) Exclusive PvP loot only found on PvP servers, and not through battlegrounds as well.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> - A couple charms, a cloak, and a mount don't cut it. I know I'd never use +4 AOE auto attack cloak over a +5 max health one...Guardians/Brawlers/Crusaders know you often find PvP without 4+ targets stacked on top of one another, and that living longer with more health means more time to DPS and call for help.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> - Distinguished items with things such as...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · +spell or melee range (ensure items with these mods dont stack past 100%)</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · ability mod/DPS procs/stonewill/blood symphony copies/upgraded ring of repulsion options</span></p><p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · casting speed/reuse items for priests/mages</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · aesthetically pleasing weapons with damage ratings stronger than Mythicals (with more blue stat mods as well)</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · visually unique mounts with things like crit bonus, potency, and the buffs mentioned below</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · casting speed/reuse items for priests/mages</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · encounter-wide damage proc items</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · stun cloaks like the justice cloak with upgraded/desirable blue stat modifiers</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><em>- Don't give open world PvP ALL the exclusive loot options, but at least 3/5ths of it.</em></span></p><p><em><span style="color: #ff6600;">- Don't allow open world PvPers or battlegrounds PvPers to obtain bastardized versions of the same item (e.g. don't make items "exclusive" like this), as it leaves players feeling very disgruntled if they purchase one while accidentally not noticing the other.</span></em></p></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">· 6.) Upgrade fail PvP items like the wrists with no procs and the mounts that aren't faster than OLD SHADOW ODYSSEY BEARS.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"> - NOBODY will use a mount that travels slower than an old expansion bear unless they only want to run fast in battlegrounds, which essentially is meaningless because battlegrounds revolves around cooperation and teamwork.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"> - New PvP discs NEED 70% runspeed, +/- 5% hate mod, +5 casting, +100 ability modifier, and plus 10 to slashing/crushing/piercing/disruption/defense/parry/ordination/ministration.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"> - The point in open world PvP is to CATCH someone, you CANNOT DO THIS if you run 5% slower than them because the "new" mount is worse than the old one.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"> - The shield is terrible and has no proc to make it better than the old RoK PvP shield, Impenetrable Bulwark (it also has avoidance far less than a commonly dropped shield in The Vigilant: Infiltration).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">7.) Add fame loss on death from those ranked one notch above, below, or on par with you.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">8.) Remove fame decay while offline.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"> - Being unable to build PvP titles on alts inhibits one from fully enjoying content longevity in ways previously available.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">9.) Allow players to toggle participation in the PvP rank system with a 30 second casting, 7 day reuse ability.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">10.) Redo the guild strategist on PvP servers. NO RALLY BANNERS, PERIOD!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"> - Turn it into a system that marks one group worth of enemies in your PvP range as waypoints.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">11.) Endow PvP gear with red adornment slots</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"> - Desirability is affected in extreme ways when resists/damage mitigation/critical mitigation from toughness barely seem to be effective</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If you don't agree with me and can't explain why for every point, you have failed your PvP server, your conscience, and rationality.</span></p></div>

Satu
03-05-2010, 08:31 AM
<p>Not a gripe, or anything like that, so, please don't bash me, but, why is this posted in Battlegrounds instead of a PVP forum?</p>

Ambrin
03-05-2010, 08:35 AM
<blockquote><div><p>...</p></div></blockquote><p>...</p><p><span style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; color: #ff6600;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><span style="color: #ffffff;">1. Agree.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">2. I don't agree, I like being able to do a zone without having to worry about PvP so much. I would quit the server if this was implemented.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">3. Disagree with no immunity in major hubs (Moors and Paineel) because players do need somewhere with an open broker to buy and sell stuff. Immunity on death should be 3 minutes to allow time for rez sickness, otherwise I agree.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">4. Agree.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">5. There are a few items not available via battlegrounds vendors on the token vendor. I would personally prefer there to be no PvP exclusive items as not to give PvP'ers an advantage over PvE'ers that does not come from skill or knowledge.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">6. If you actually analyse what items can go into what slot it becomes obvious why some items have a proc where others don't. For example, there are 3 PvP ears available to fighters, one with crit/DA and a proc, with with only crit/DA (but with otherwise identical stats) and one with a resist piece. The intention is you get the proc item, than either the resist piece (survivability) or the second crit/DA only item (DPS). I understand why this is in place, but would prefer to see some of the items improved.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">7, 8, 9. Don't care (I personally don't care about fame at all). The only thing I would like to see is the ability not to display your PvP title.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">10. This won't do anything other than make it a pain in the buttocks to get places, so I disagree.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">11. Agree, I would actually prefer the slot to be a colour other than red (perhaps green) as to not give raiders or PvP'ers extra advantage in the adornments available (ie raiders PvPing only to adorn their gear or PvP'ers raiding to adorn theirs).</span></p>

Kurindor_Mythecnea
03-05-2010, 08:56 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><blockquote><div><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">...</span></p></div></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">...</span></p><p><span style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; color: #ff6600;"><span style="color: #000000; font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12px;"><span style="color: #ffffff;">1. Agree.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">2. I don't agree, I like being able to do a zone without having to worry about PvP so much. I would quit the server if this was implemented.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">3. Disagree with no immunity in major hubs (Moors and Paineel) because players do need somewhere with an open broker to buy and sell stuff. Immunity on death should be 3 minutes to allow time for rez sickness, otherwise I agree.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">The critique here is irrelevant, as this condition would only apply on weekends, to promote open world PvP activity.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">4. Agree.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">5. There are a few items not available via battlegrounds vendors on the token vendor. I would personally prefer there to be no PvP exclusive items as not to give PvP'ers an advantage over PvE'ers that does not come from skill or knowledge.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Organized premades will completely wipe any small number of PvPers who have resolve enough to get a couple select, costly, and desirable pieces. What battlegrounds experience do you have? There is NO substance to the claim that some exclusive items will completely turn the tables against PvEers with open world PvPers.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I can list off a very solid number of PvEers who strike down your "balance" theory with exceeding efficiency. Point being, the only BALANCE lost is in open world PvP being EXTREMELY less desirable due to the lesser rate for token gains in world PvP without the proportional increase to potent offerings.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">6. If you actually analyse what items can go into what slot it becomes obvious why some items have a proc where others don't. For example, there are 3 PvP ears available to fighters, one with crit/DA and a proc, with with only crit/DA (but with otherwise identical stats) and one with a resist piece. The intention is you get the proc item, than either the resist piece (survivability) or the second crit/DA only item (DPS). I understand why this is in place, but would prefer to see some of the items improved.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Why have a cap of 40% damage mitigation/60% critical mitigation from 600 toughness if not all items are even worth getting?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">DPS proc items, Stonewill 3 procs, Bangle of the Blood Symphony upgrades (Gwarthlea's Hoop), Jewel of Many Colors power procs, Admiral's Chain effect stacks, Impenetrable Bulwark taunt modifiers, collected memories charms: versions of these items with toughness should be added for 100-300 of two types of battlegrounds tokens.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Or, preferably, a yellow adornment slot should be added to augment toughness only to items that have none. These mythical adornments could have quests that require completing 100 battlegrounds matches <em><strong>or 50 PvP writs</strong></em> to obtain the primary component.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">7, 8, 9. Don't care (I personally don't care about fame at all). The only thing I would like to see is the ability not to display your PvP title.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">10. This won't do anything other than make it a pain in the buttocks to get places, so I disagree.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">You threaten to leave if carebear instances were removed, so I don't really know how relevant the priority of curing bleak open world PvP is to you. It really does appear to be a focus far from your concern, though.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Instead of people fooling around, they could all simply travel to their destination with the person/people who used to be flag droppers, like it USED to be when there were PvP chokepoints en route to active PvE locales.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ffffff;">11. Agree, I would actually prefer the slot to be a colour other than red (perhaps green) as to not give raiders or PvP'ers extra advantage in the adornments available (ie raiders PvPing only to adorn their gear or PvP'ers raiding to adorn theirs).</span></p></blockquote>

Ambrin
03-05-2010, 09:07 AM
<p>The critique on no immunity during weekends is very relevant, basically you are suggesting that people be all but unable to buy items from the other faction during weekends as that is all you would really accomplish.</p><p>There are no items people can get on a PvE server that people on a PvP can't obtain. There are PvP items that PvE'ers can't obtain. That was my only point in regards to balance.</p><p>I am not threatening to leave, I am promising to leave. I do not play on a PvP server to do nothing but PvP. I enjoy PvP'ing, but that does not mean that I don't enjoy playing the PvE game equally as much. I want world PvP fixed, but I don't want it at the cost of completely destroying the PvE side of the game. As far as raid banners go, all you would accomplish is a person with the 5 year vet reward running to the zone first and summoning the rest of the raid who would zone in on being summoned. As I said, you would only make things more of a hassle to get the raid zones without really accomplishing anything that would promote a lot more open world PvP.</p>

Kurindor_Mythecnea
03-05-2010, 09:14 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The critique on no immunity during weekends is very relevant, basically you are suggesting that people be all but unable to buy items from the other faction during weekends as that is all you would really accomplish.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">People have always been able to use T1 players in Gorowyn, so you do lie.</span></p><p>There are no items people can get on a PvE server that people on a PvP can't obtain. There are PvP items that PvE'ers can't obtain. That was my only point in regards to balance.</p><p>I am not threatening to leave, I am promising to leave. I do not play on a PvP server to do nothing but PvP. I enjoy PvP'ing, but that does not mean that I don't enjoy playing the PvE game equally as much. I want world PvP fixed, but I don't want it at the cost of completely destroying the PvE side of the game. As far as raid banners go, all you would accomplish is a person with the 5 year vet reward running to the zone first and summoning the rest of the raid who would zone in on being summoned. As I said, you would only make things more of a hassle to get the raid zones without really accomplishing anything that would promote a lot more open world PvP.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">PvP writs should give updates when a member of a raid is fighting another raid. Regardless, your claim that this would only make things a hassle is false, because routes to active raid zones are then guaranteed to be active locations for PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">And no, having to ensure you take careful pulls or have a scout who's watching track as you progress through a contested dungeon isn't "doing nothing but PvP," it's a level of tactic you'd understand if you were ever a level locked PvPer active in Runnyeye, Stormhold, Fallen Gate, Blackburrow, Wailing Caves, the Ruins, the sewers, or the Ruins of Varsoon.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">You want to fix world PvP but don't want to deal with the actual strategy of it? That's called bullcrud.</span></p></blockquote>

Ambrin
03-05-2010, 09:36 AM
<p>What does your comment about T1 players in Gorowyn mean? It still does nothing to adress the need of a 24/7 safely accessed world broker.</p><p>The path to raid zones would be active for about an hour as guilds did travel to the zones, and even than not all guilds would do the same thing. You really wouldn't see raids running into each other any more than they already do.</p><p>My problem with every zone being contested is that only one group can do a zone at a time, which is really and truly a terrible concept. Instances are designed specifically to allow multiple people to accomplish the same thing at the same time, would SoE remove them?</p><p>Level locking is boring and generally not much else than a few twinks destroying low level questers (Yes, I have tried it).</p><p>All your suggestions would really accomplish is get everyone but you and a handful of other people to quit the PvP server. I supremely doubt there would be enough people interested in your rule set remaining on Nagafen to put together a consistent x4 raid if what you suggested was implemented. Not that many people are interested in this pure, ho holds-bar PvP you seem to be championing.</p>

Wilde_Night
03-05-2010, 09:40 AM
<p>12. Allow PvP to PvE transfers.</p>

Kurindor_Mythecnea
03-05-2010, 09:49 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What does your comment about T1 players in Gorowyn mean? It still does nothing to adress the need of a 24/7 safely accessed world broker.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">T1 players can safely access a world broker, in Gorowyn, 24/7.</span></p><p>The path to raid zones would be active for about an hour as guilds did travel to the zones, and even than not all guilds would do the same thing. You really wouldn't see raids running into each other any more than they already do.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">For about an hour...? Guilds raid across all spectrums.</span></p><p>My problem with every zone being contested is that only one group can do a zone at a time, which is really and truly a terrible concept. Instances are designed specifically to allow multiple people to accomplish the same thing at the same time, would SoE remove them?</p><p>Level locking is boring and generally not much else than a few twinks destroying low level questers (Yes, I have tried it).</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Wrong. During the age when SOE designers cared (or ignored?) about their truly loyal players, there was an EXTREME amount of group vs group PvP consisting primarily of twinks, all throughout the T2-T4+ overland zones and constested dungeons.</span></p><p>All your suggestions would really accomplish is get everyone but you and a handful of other people to quit the PvP server. I supremely doubt there would be enough people interested in your rule set remaining on Nagafen to put together a consistent x4 raid if what you suggested was implemented. Not that many people are interested in this pure, ho holds-bar PvP you seem to be championing.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Polls are valid systems. Blanket statements aren't.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">To promote PvPers (Voxians/Nagafenians) submitting their valid feedback on questions pertaining to the invigoration of open world PvP, a poll could automatically start upon log-in (for only Voxians/Nagafenians, for the period of a month), with...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">"Give feedback on PvP concerns and get a FREE 1 month subscription PLUS 5 FREE "Choose a pack" boosters of your choice!"</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">There would then be options for "Proceed" or "Ignore", to not force polls according to SOE's "odd" policy. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></span></p></blockquote>

Ambrin
03-05-2010, 09:58 AM
<p>Gorowyn is an evil city, Qeynosions would be unable to safely access it.</p><p>Most guilds have a similar start time, this is the only time frame where you could reasonably expect them to run into each other.</p><p>Make a poll, I highly doubt the results would be in your favour. I only know a grand total of two people in game who would actually care for a pure PvP system as you are suggesting.</p>

Kurindor_Mythecnea
03-05-2010, 10:00 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Gorowyn is an evil city, Qeynosions would be unable to safely access it.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">T1 players aren't attackable in Timorous Deep. So yes, Qeynosians can safely access it. The banks there are also usable. The city is said to be neutral according to lore, thus, guards are not aggressive toward Qeynosians or Exileds.</span></p><p>Most guilds have a similar start time, this is the only time frame where you could reasonably expect them to run into each other.</p><p>Make a poll, I highly doubt the results would be in your favour. I only know a grand total of two people in game who would actually care for a pure PvP system as you are suggesting.</p></blockquote>

Ambrin
03-05-2010, 10:03 AM
<p>So I am expected to make a T1 toon just to use the broker? That is not an acceptable solution, even just considering players with full accounts for starters. Not to mention that the zone is flagged as a Freeport city so the Freeporter's could attack the Qeynosions without fear of reprisal.</p>

Kurindor_Mythecnea
03-05-2010, 10:13 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So I am expected to make a T1 toon just to use the broker? That is not an acceptable solution, even just considering players with full accounts for starters. Not to mention that the zone is flagged as a Freeport city so the Freeporter's could attack the Qeynosions without fear of reprisal.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It really would be an acceptable solution, at least, were no immunity in overland zones to be implemented on weekends.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">And...if the above ruleset was to be implemented, anyone with filled account slots could make a trial account in minutes, should they find an insatiable need to not have characters in both factions while desiring to examine broker offerings from all sides...on weekends. It's not like weekdays wouldn't exist under those conditions.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Again though...I clarified your misunderstandings on "Freeportians being able to attack Qeynosians without fear of reprisal" issue in regard to Gorowyn...I'm not seeing why you mention that again. T1 Qeynosians would be safe safe. ;]</span></p>

Dannnybones
03-05-2010, 10:13 AM
<p>I'm going to side with ambrin here, alot of your ideas are stupid, you want this system go play one of those ''other'' games.</p>

Kurindor_Mythecnea
03-05-2010, 10:26 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I'm going to side with ambrin here, alot of your ideas are stupid, you want this system go play one of those ''other'' games.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">lol. There's essentially no open world PvP, and what you're saying is that you want Nagafen to basically remain a PvE server.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Nobody could POSSIBLY obtain open world PvP tokens at the rate of battlegrounds tokens as it is, simply because nobody has a reason to be exposed. I'm not seeing justification for your perspective.</span></p>

Ambrin
03-05-2010, 10:42 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So I am expected to make a T1 toon just to use the broker? That is not an acceptable solution, even just considering players with full accounts for starters. Not to mention that the zone is flagged as a Freeport city so the Freeporter's could attack the Qeynosions without fear of reprisal.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It really would be an acceptable solution, at least, were no immunity in overland zones to be implemented on weekends.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">And...if the above ruleset was to be implemented, anyone with filled account slots could make a trial account in minutes, should they find an insatiable need to not have characters in both factions while desiring to examine broker offerings from all sides...on weekends. It's not like weekdays wouldn't exist under those conditions.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Again though...I clarified your misunderstandings on "Freeportians being able to attack Qeynosians without fear of reprisal" issue in regard to Gorowyn...I'm not seeing why you mention that again. T1 Qeynosians would be safe safe. ;]</span></p></blockquote><p>The issues Qeynosions should not require two characters (one being a T1 alt) just to do what Freeporters can do any time. You either need to add a world vendor in a Qeynos aligned immunity granting zone or get rid of the idea entirely. The only reason a lot of people still go to moors / hand around Paineel are for the world vendors. If you gave both factions an accessible vendor than you can scrap the entire "no immunity" concept because it wouldn't matter, if you don't you just create an imbalance / the inability to effectively use the broker on weekends.</p>

slothmister
03-05-2010, 10:43 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><div><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>Alot of crap</strong></span></div></span></p></blockquote><p>1. I agree. Make open world pvp more rewardable.</p><p>2. NO NO NO!!!</p><p>3. I agree with the 30 seconds after evacing. But allow immunity after you die. And forget the "at weekend" thing, thats stupid. Also, the immunity in cities is needed. People need to afk occasionally, people need to bank ect. Removing this is stupid.</p><p>4. Agreed, we have difficult group encounters now but the loot is kinda pathetic. Up the loot so you get a master from each kill or something.</p><p>5. Not sure, that would give us PVP-ers an advantage in the BG's. I would personally prefer to see something down with the pricing of the BG items, increase their cost by a factor of 5 and also increase the tokens gained by WINNING a BG by a factor of 5, leave it as 1 for a loss.</p><p>6. Agree with 90% here, the mount does not need the extra stats, but they would be nice. Giving them the extra stats would mean a large increase in cost imo.</p><p>7. Fame loss on death is good. Adjust the amount of fame lost depending on the rank(s) of the person who killed you (more for a hunter, less for an overseer). Also adjust fame gained to come from EVERY kill of someone with HIGH/Equal rank to your own, not just 1 rank above/below.</p><p>8. Agreed, it was not needed in the first place. However a better fix might reduce the rate fame decays, say you loose a flat amount (1 level of fame) per WEEK you are offline/online but do not engage in any pvp.</p><p>9. Not needed.</p><p>10. This is just plain pathetic. Just becuase you play on a pvp server does not mean you do not play pve also. Rally banners help raids get to their raid, reduce zone lag by making those 24 players only in one zone for a small period of time. Leave these as they are.</p><p>11. Not sure about this, red adornmants are extreamly powerful and should be restricted to pve only. With toughness not existing on pve gear it means those who raid will be loosing alot of toughness if they used their raid gear to pvp in. IMO leave it as it is and maybe readress this when the larget guilds start clearing alot of SF raid content.</p>

Kurindor_Mythecnea
03-05-2010, 11:03 AM
<p><cite>slothmister wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><div><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>Alot of crap</strong></span></div></blockquote><p>1. I agree. Make open world pvp more rewardable.</p><p>2. NO NO NO!!!</p><p>3. I agree with the 30 seconds after evacing. But allow immunity after you die. And forget the "at weekend" thing, thats stupid. Also, the immunity in cities is needed. People need to afk occasionally, people need to bank ect. Removing this is stupid.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Immunity and carnage flagging in Gorowyn, Qeynos, Freeport, Neriak, and Kelethin are things I support, and didnt mention removing.</span></p><p>4. Agreed, we have difficult group encounters now but the loot is kinda pathetic. Up the loot so you get a master from each kill or something.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Master drop rates are already very common compared to what they were, and shouldn't be increased...I'm saying...add difficult group encounters to overland areas, those with desirable equipment, not masters (though adding them to such encounters at current drop ratse would be fine).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">This would promote locations where contested PvP might centralize in the aim to obtain such items.</span></p><p>5. Not sure, that would give us PVP-ers an advantage in the BG's. I would personally prefer to see something down with the pricing of the BG items, increase their cost by a factor of 5 and also increase the tokens gained by WINNING a BG by a factor of 5, leave it as 1 for a loss.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">lol? We already have an advantage in battlegrounds...our old PvP gear was given toughness when it originally was only going to keep its critical mitigation due to how many people used these items to progress with TSO content.</span></p><p>6. Agree with 90% here, the mount does not need the extra stats, but they would be nice. Giving them the extra stats would mean a large increase in cost imo.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">No, the mount shouldn't increase, because the mount is currently useless. Why would I buy a mount I cant catch anyone with? It's entirely senseless.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Many/most of these items are better than old TSO jewelry items, yet cost a fifth or less as much. The standard has already been set for generally low-priced PvP gear, and these mounts just don't cut it in their current state.</span></p><p>7. Fame loss on death is good. Adjust the amount of fame lost depending on the rank(s) of the person who killed you (more for a hunter, less for an overseer). Also adjust fame gained to come from EVERY kill of someone with HIGH/Equal rank to your own, not just 1 rank above/below.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">The old system was perfect. If everyone made you lose fame, then gaining ranks would again be too easy (as it is now). Don't make every kill give fame, or every death cause fame loss.</span></p><p>8. Agreed, it was not needed in the first place. However a better fix might reduce the rate fame decays, say you loose a flat amount (1 level of fame) per WEEK you are offline/online but do not engage in any pvp.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Any fame decay while offline is bad, as it detracts from the content longevity had in being able to maintain PvP ranks on alternative characters through hunting those in your fame range when you hear such opponents are populous.</span></p><p>9. Not needed.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Yes it is. Not everyone wanted/wants to participate in the PvP ranking system.</span></p><p>10. This is just plain pathetic. Just becuase you play on a pvp server does not mean you do not play pve also. Rally banners help raids get to their raid, reduce zone lag by making those 24 players only in one zone for a small period of time. Leave these as they are.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">There have been over 24 players in zones like Antonica and Commonlands with minimal lag. That's a weak excuse to keep a carebear system in-game, one that siphons off the presence of the community from exposure to PvP combat. As it is, many people simply don't care about PvP because they can control when and where they're protected ALL the time. Guild strategist flags ruin areas that would otherwise be active areas of contest.</span></p><p>11. Not sure about this, red adornmants are extreamly powerful and should be restricted to pve only. With toughness not existing on pve gear it means those who raid will be loosing alot of toughness if they used their raid gear to pvp in. IMO leave it as it is and maybe readress this when the larget guilds start clearing alot of SF raid content.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">Toughness is, seemingly, nearly useless. Pure PvPers give up their set bonuses on old PvP gear while PvEers dont have to, while pushing out MORE DPS and the same or better heals? Again, not sensible. I guarantee players in full PvE raid gear could wipe those in full PvP toughness equipment. There's no reason to stack things in the favor of PvE yet again.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Many PvEers will gear up in toughness PvP gear faster than those on Nagafen or Vox, and THAT is a guarantee. Things aren't mutually exclusive now, as the majority of PvP gear is fair game for all, thus, red adornments should also be.</span></p></blockquote>

KatrinaDeath
03-05-2010, 11:17 AM
<p>/Support Seliri</p><p>The truest PvP ever was the KoS days.</p>

Armironhead
03-05-2010, 02:07 PM
<p>How about just 3 suggestions to help open world pvp:</p><p>1) Disable guild flags or at least make them attackable</p><p>2) make open world pvp gear considerably better then bg gear - at the very least add critical mit to open world pvp gear so that it will be universally useful giving people an incentive to obtain said gear.</p><p>3) add loot tables to constested mobs already in the game -- primarily the guards in q and fp cities, have the loot tables drop pvp gear.  (While I would like to see the guards only attackable by opposing factions, I suppose the loss of faction and the problem of being kos in your own city might be enough to control farming by members of the respective city factions)</p>

Am
03-05-2010, 02:11 PM
Wow, you actually think some of these ideas are feasible?

Thinwizzy
03-05-2010, 02:18 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>1) Disable guild flags or at least make them attackable</p></blockquote><p>This.</p><p>Also, why is this in the BG forum?</p>

Kiara
03-05-2010, 03:16 PM
<p>There are already too many threads floating around complaining about the death of PvP.</p><p>The tin foil hat fun can stay in one thread.</p><p>Starting new threads on the topic to spam the forums with will only result in the topic being closed for discussion entirely.</p><p>Let's not make that happen, okay?</p>