PDA

View Full Version : Warfields/PvP Ranks/Faction Balance/Immunity/Items


EndevorX
06-30-2010, 12:03 AM
<p><strong>Share your perspective on the matters presented, if you would!</strong></p><p>1.) Warfields</p><p>2.) PvP Titles</p><p>3.) Faction Balance</p><p>4.) Immunity</p><p>5.) Items</p><p>1st & foremost I'd like to offer a disclaimer, given the relatively utter quiet seen on the front of announcements & inquiries.If the following ides are SINCERELY being considered because the impact to gameplay is being taken SERIOUSLY, as well as the SOLUTIONS, then forgive the accusational nature of this thread's title. But, given Smokejumper's last post in "<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=480958&post_id=5356342" target="_blank">Re: Prayer from a Nagafen player. (Dear God, please fix PvP.)</a>", I feel open-ended perception is due in this regard.</p><blockquote>(1277486877)[Fri Jun 25 10:27:57 2010] aPC 1389173 <span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span>:<span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span>/a BROADCASTS, "I want to remind you that if you have any feedback or suggestions, please make sure to PM them to me on the forums.   I also know most of you are waiting for more changes and I wanted to make sure you are aware I am working on them."(1277487095)[Fri Jun 25 10:31:35 2010] aPC 1389173 <span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span>:<span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span>/a BROADCASTS, "I understand most of you would like updates on forums about what is being changed, but it would not be fair to you all given the time it may take for them to go live.   As such, I can only continue to work towards a more enjoyable PvP experience. "(1277487176)[Fri Jun 25 10:32:56 2010] aPC 1389173 <span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span>:<span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span>/a BROADCASTS, "I will do my best to bring back some of the older PvP rules.  That is what I loved and that is what we should have.  It will take some time for the changes made before me are changed.   I have hope for us all.  "(1277487425)[Fri Jun 25 10:37:05 2010] aPC 1389173 <span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span>:<span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span>/a BROADCASTS, "Once again, thank you for your feedback and comments.  I understand how passionate we are about our servers, and do not worry I read all of your posts.   Have a great weekend!"</blockquote><p>While our state of affairs may presently be portrayed as conflicted, we clearly have a defender for the cause, that we might not lose faith in the powers that be.<strong>1.) Warfields</strong> A. Will warfields ever be distributed relative to tier, in their respective zones?  - Players below 90 have <span style="color: #ff0000;">NO EFFECT</span> on the success of their faction.  - Norrathians in tiers 2-8 deserve their own warfield brackets where they can CONTRIBUTE, instead of hinder server performance for the competitors that are instrumental for their team's success.  - Restrict participation in warfields objectives to only players of that zone's tier.  - T2: Antonica/Commonlands  - T3: Thundering Steppes/Nektulos Forest  - T4: Enchanted Lands/Zek, the Orcish Wastes  - T5: Everfrost/Lavastorm  - T6: Sinking Sands/Pillars of Flame  - T7: Tenebrous Tangle/Barren Sky  - T8: Kylong Plains/Jarsath Wastes  - T9: Sundered Frontier/Stonebrunt Highlands  - <span style="color: #ff0000;">Current, simplistic, vanilla warfields system could be used for this purpose, until individual, innovative, unique, and dynamic goals & contested objectives are developed.</span>  B. When will we have a warfields tab under the zones menu?  - This is vital if a player wants to ensure their agenda can accomodate both PvE and some sample of "vibrant" PvP.  - Actively display both existing AND new warfields timers if a new instance of that warfields zone opens.  - Inform players the premise behind victory and loss for each respective warfields version. C. Will objectives ever change beyond rehashed, cookie-cutter clones?  - Just defend this keep. kthx...awesome. =_="...  - EverQuest II deserves INNOVATIVE gameplay mechanics BEYOND THE NORM.  - You are SONY ONLINE ENTERTAINMENT, a FRANCHISE. Your products are worth ACCLAIM, not tantamount plagiarism from past game developers.  - Some might scorn as though being subjected to charades, but the completely uninformed paranoia administrators expect players to have is uncalled for. Is it even okay to click over to an ongoing warfield that you couldn't enter if you weren't grouped? What we have currently, these are charades. Yes, writs & basic faction PvP will be addressed further on.  - Dynamic, player-sensitive, progressive sequences ensure the pace of action is frenetic, ambiguous, & easy to get hooked on.  - For example:<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=476584&post_id=5299986" target="_blank"><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></a></p><blockquote>Also, if PvP objectives are to be continually added to open world zones, I'd like to see offerings that aren't the cliche "territory capture, hold this item, or caoture the flag".There are TONS of unique things that can be done.<span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">Freeportian Gnomes, Qeynosian Koada'Dal</span></span>There can be Gnomish refining trains engineered to run off of player bodies or sacred Koada'Dalian ships blessed to harvest energy from sanctifying & redeeming corrupted corpses.Players would have to attach tinkered chains or cast elven binds to drag the body to a pegasus-drawn wagon, or a Gnomish inflated hovercraft depot, to then drive the load for filling the train's boiler firebox or the ship's rune energizer. 6 bodies would be 1 shipment.Once the train or ship made a full pass around the zone (say, Nektulos Forest & Thundering Steppes or Enchanted Lands & Zek the Orcish Wastes), 4 outer bases & 1 central base could all activate, requiring delivery of refined/blessed shipments to power a force field or energy cannon.To activate the cannon or force field would require 3 hovercraft/pegasus-wagon deliveries to these auxiliary bases and 6 to the primary (18 total), wherein all opposition would be destroyed or repelled into the nearest overland zone as control is obtained & faction bonuses are awarded.Defenders would have to maintain at least 3 deliveries fueling the outer bases & 6 in the center, & an excess could be stored in a way where attackers could steal shipments back out, to bring them to their own demolisher ship/train.These demolisher bases of the attackers have 3 pegasus wagons or inflated hovercrafts that activate if the Gnomish refining train/sacred Koada'Dalian ship make a full pass around the zone).Attackers would win by holding off the process for the time limit of the procession, say, 40 mins or an hour.At that point, if attackers won the primary goal, the ship could crash or the train could experience explosions in some of its cars, wherein the follow-up scenario would be for defenders using the 3 wagons/hovercrafts available to drag the ship or train back to its original maintenance station for repairs.Attackers would win by holding off this process for 30 mins (hovercraft/pegasus wagons would be snarable & travel at 60% runspeed).If offense won this secondary objective, a mother ship or an army of clockwork menaces & helicopters would come to drag the refining train or sacred ship back to its hub, killing enemies w/in 80 meters w/ blue or red laser beams. This would take 3 mins.Therein, the original objective would begin anew, w/ the attackers receiving a bonus of their choice for the next round of the primary objective, selected upon zone entry.If defenders won the primary goal, then the alternative secondary objective would be for attackers to bring 1 destructive shipments to these outer bases & 2 to the central, w/ the time limit also being 30 mins here (defenders would win if progression was halted for that long).If offense won, then the bases would be destroyed, but an army of Koada'Dalian ships or clockwork menaces/helicopters/dragons would come to destroy the attackers present at these bases & repair them.And again, the primary objective would reset w/ the restoring army taking 3 mins to repair bases & restart the primary objective, where the victorious faction could choose a bonus of their choice upon zone entry.</blockquote><p> D. Reward systems must be revised - NO auto-granting tokens for getting flagged.  - 30 mins w/ the OLD writ poster reuse were worth 15 open world PvP tokens.  - Recent lists are now seemingly infinite, making the writ poster reuse of 5 mins no more efficient, or less efficient, than a writ poster reuse of 10 mins w/ a cap on the recent list.  - AFKers profit from doing NOTHING w/ warfields automatically issuing rewards. These are dead-weight leechers that might negatively impact zone performance, existing due to this flaw in warfields implementation.  - PvP writs completed during active warfields should reward double tokens. THIS would put the focus back on open world PvP & organization.  - Warfields victors should be given their choice of:  · 10% mount speed  · 20% in-combat runspeed  · 5 Crit Bonus  · 15 pet crit bonus  · 5% spell double attack  · 5% flurry  · 15% AOE auto attack  · +5 meters spell/combat art range  · 10% Reuse  · 20% Casting  · +50% Adv./Trade/AA XP (stacks w/ mentoring & potions)  · 30 DPS/Haste proc 2x/min (35 sec duration, stacks w/ all item procs)  · -10% resistability (combat art & spell applicable)  · Potion/Signet/Relic/PvP trinket/Tinkered item reuse HALVED (100% reduced) & failure chances removed  · Fear (5 sec duration, 30 m range, 1 min reuse, no dmg, 1 sec casting [unaffected by casting speed])  · 75% snare (10 sec duration, 30 m range, 1 min reuse, no dmg, 1 sec casting [unaffected by casting speed])  · Single group instance timer reset (usable ONCE a day on ONE instance; players can NOT enter an instance reset w/ this feature if they already have done so that day)  · Adornment extrication (usable ONCE biweekly, every 2 weeks, this would let a player remove an adornment from an item)  · Equipment liberator (usable ONCE monthly, this would let a player unattune 1 item)  - Warfields bonuses would last until that character logged off, or until the opposing faction won a warfields of that player's tier.<span style="color: #ff0000;">  - Creating in-demand warfields victor effects, operable in PvE as well, will ensure the attraction to them is strong & consistent.</span> E. Start all warfields at the same time to distribute population/server load.</p><p>  - Staggered warfields initiation in multiple instances decreases gameplay quality due to elevated latency (greater congestion).    - Even when trying to organize in 1 (when warfields start at the same time), many do their own thing regardless of coordination calls, as when 1 finishes, the other tends to have 2 towers down. F. Warfields instance population caps are pointless  - Is it understood that warfields instancing is broken, in that players can enter whichever instance their groupmate is in, even if it reads as "full" to ungrouped players?  - These only ensure the imbalanced faction locks opposition out, as Freeportians barely ever seem to mass invite their peers to "Go to" the respective warfields instance, as Qeynosians do.  - Unifying the start of warfields & distributing them by tier will effectively destroy lag issues.<strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">  - Consolidating warfields timers & removing ineffective instance population caps that only bloccade competition will be enough to promote performance, until warfields can be added to each tier's zones.</span></strong><strong>2.) PvP Titles</strong> A. Why is there a delay in introducing the old fame/infamy/notoriety system? B. Toggling PvP ranks is the only new desired feature. B1. Can this be done w/ a 30 sec casting, 1 week reuse ability?  - Some players might not like participating in an aspect of "vanity", as they deem it. They may think PvP ranks are meaningless, & want to exclude themselves from the hunt relative to such.  - If a player seeks a PvP environment of reactive consequence & near infinite replay value and longevity, they must be willing to risk the opposition thirsting for their elimination.   - Should a player decide they can't handle the stress of being consistently hunted as a target once they successfully vie for a top rank, they should receive exclusion (for 1 week) from the bonus that is enacting loss & acquiring gain from foes in a feelable way.  - To any would-be challenger, are you able to scheme & strategize well enough to reach the top, & become one of the few Overlords? C. Fame decay destroys the cyclical, infinite longevity of PvP titles.  - Hunting that one player ranked above, below, or on par w/ you takes dedication, perseverence, & adroit planning.  - Being unable to control the fate of the rewards that you've labored for leaves your work meaningless. Players CAN NOT choose to PvP over PvE, because sometimes, enemy factions just AREN'T active.  - Being able to simultaneously maintain high PvP ranks is only possible W/OUT fame decay. This is vital to the infinite replay value PvP ranks had in their prime.  - Currently, it IS NOT as developers think. Titles, in their current state, NEVER DECAY while online. EVER. There is NO check that is applied upon zoning that detracts from your fame rank sum. The decay message ONLY appears when you log on after having been offline for some time. Regardless, fame/notoriety/infamy should NEVER decay for the aforementioned reasons. D. The unique commodity of EverQuest II PvP WAS the PvP rank system, it was what separated it from other MMOs, giving TRULY LIVE competition to the world of Norrath.<span style="color: #ff0000;">  - For the past year, players of all tiers, playtimes, & playstyles have championed for this to return, acknowledging the currently uninvolving & completely boring, riskless state of PvP titles</span>.<strong>3.) Faction Balance - Yes, players can choose what faction they play in, but why let the life of the game suffer?</strong> A. On Nagafen, Qeynos UNDOUBTEDLY outnumbers Freeport at level 90. This results in unenjoyable warfields, due to the lack of a contest. B. Open betrayal ABSENT SPELL LOSS according to the relative tier/faction imbalance. - Players would be warned, UPON STARTING OR PROGRESSING the questline that would make them an Exile, that they would keep their spells if they successfully betrayed to the needy opposite faction & remained the same class. - Players would also be warned that, if they tried to return to the faction w/ an active player surplus/excess, they would lose their spells.  B1. If a player is active (clocking in feats that would award adventurer XP) for 3+ hours a week, they are included in the "balance" tally as "active players". B2. The tally would be recounted every week during a server downtime, to ensure no extra load would be on the server to accomodate this algorithm for equity. - The algorithm would check to see if adventurer XP would've been awarded at 5 minute intervals. - 36+ confirmed 5 minute intervals of adv. XP gain would tag a character an "active player" - After 40 confirmed 5 minute intervals of adv. XP gain, the algorithm would ignore review of that player, to bypass unnecessary strain on the bandwidth performing these calculations. B3. "Welcome_Info" would display how many more players in your tier could betray & keep your spells.  - Active players wouldn't subtract from the allotment of "smuggled" betrayers required to obtain balance UNTIL they SUCCESSFULLY switched from good to evil, or vice versa.  - If the allotment is reached, players would be warned of their impending spell loss UPON STARTING OR PROGRESSING the questline that would make them an Exile.  - Active players already Exiled during the B4. Balance Tally Example:  - Freeport has 593 LVL 90 active players (doing feats that would otherwise award adv. XP for 5+ hrs/week)  - Freeport has 904 LVL 90 inactive players (doing feats that would otherwise award adv. XP for less than 5 hrs/week)  - Qeynos has 864 LVL 90 active players  - Qeynos has 1203 LVL 90 inactive players  - Qeynosian "Welcome_Info" menus would identify 271 spell-reserving slots of SUCCESSFUL betrayal to the opposite faction, as the same class.<strong>4.) Immunity</strong> A. Promoting player movement & coordination isn't incentivized as well as it could be. Some players camp their friends or alts in immunity, allowing for hassle free writ completion or warfields tagging.  - Remove permanent immunity from all overland zones aside from the Dropship Landing in Moors of Ykesha, Paineel in Sundered Frontier, & Moonfield Hamlet in Stonebrunt Highlands.  - Evacuating would also NOT give you permanent immunity, but an invulnerability timer of 30 sec.  - War is war, & this change would reinforce that there are no trivial caveats to be taken advantage of, but battle readiness & combatant supremacy.  - If people "need to AFK", they can call to their Guild Hall or city w/in the immunity countdown.<strong>5.) Items</strong>  A. Stonewill is procing at it's old PvP values in PvE.  - This drastically affects the viability of these items for single group instances when compared to the current state of affairs for PvE servers. Fixing this should be urgent enough to go into the next hotfix.  B. Items w/ "This effect can only trigger once every 60 seconds" are currently NOT procing AT ALL.  - Admiral's Chain, Grand Admiral's Chain  - These limitations should be REMOVED, as it completely destroys the claim that they proc 2x/min.<span style="color: #ff0000;">While deadlines, time, or funding may be constraints, know that it isn't a constraint to divert revenue from Station Cash or Legends of Norrath for the purpose of embellishing one of your highest populated realms (& a major selling point to EverQuest II) w/ TRUE zest, an approach that calls for a revival in lively action.No risk, no reward. If you build it, they will come.</span>(P.S. If you know of any bugged PvP items, post them here as well!)</p>

NoPetKitty
06-30-2010, 01:05 AM
<p>Haha, and people thought my posts were long.</p><p>You bring up some very good points, in very good detail.  Good to know I am not alone, I was worried that I would be when I finally decided to "speak" up.</p><p>I too wonder about SmokeJumper's post though... what good is a new expansion if people are becoming dissatisfied with the existing internal problems?</p><p>I know that we are a minority on the PVP servers, but still, 1 subscription loss here, and 2 there, and 1 over there eventually adds up.  Then what if the expansion is bunk for the first couple weeks, and they have to patch it like they usually do?  I am sure there are issues with PvE as well, like the Stonewall proc effect that you pointed out.  It unfortunately seems to me like EQ2 is starting to have the same reasons why I primarily left EQ1, and that is because they would rather pursue the new money over fixing the broke (censored)-(censored) that they currently have.</p><p>But it is like you said, they are a franchise and typically franchises require large amounts of revenue flow, and worry about profit margins and new revenue building avenues that need pursued, rather than the individual customer.</p><p>I also think that SmokeJumper's post does sum it all up, proof positive that what we are typing about in these forums won't be dealt with for a while, even though they are aware of the "inadequcies". </p><p>I am halfway inclined to just not re-up my account for the duration until something is done.  My interest is NOT in a new expansion.  Obviously if my money is not good enough to go towards fixing the existing issues, then why would I keep paying for an aspect of service that is "inadequate"?  Because I'm loyal? Because I have money and time invested into moving thousands upon thousands of bits of data around on a server?  Sorry, loyalty is earned and lost, and I think by SmokeJumper's comment it has moved back to the lost side of the fence, although earlier today it was gaining back. </p><p>My money is also a physical tangable thing, and I can live without the bits of data on a server.  Moreover, lets just say for the sake of arguement that all those bits of data are deleted simply because I don't want to support them while they are working on a new expansion.  Says a lot about how much each individual matters.</p><p>I just can't believe that a Sr. Producing Developer would have the complete lack of business ettiquette to actually state in barely more candy-coated words than [paraphrasing] " We're aware of the issues, but we could care less about them at the moment because our new Expansion that is going to generate additional revenue is more important".</p><p>The actual page this post is on is here - just hit the "end" key when the page loads:  <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=180&topic_id=480958" target="_blank">SmokeJumper's post</a></p><p>For those that cannot get the link to work: </p><p></p><p><span >First bit of honesty : PvP is not our focus at the moment. Between the new user improvements and the expansion later this year, the majority of our focus is elsewhere.</span></p><p>Second bit of honesty : We know there are inadequacies. (Polite phrasing.) We *will* be looking into it and making changes. But there is no ETA for those changes yet.</p><p>Personal note: I've made a lot of PvP games in my game history. I'm looking forward to digging in with the team and talking through stuff. Just not quite yet. </p><p></p><p>I totally and completely agree with you EndevorX.  But it looks like we all get to wait.  Sad.  By that time most of our suggestions and ideas will probably be buried and/or forgotten, assuming of course there was even a remote chance of them being considered at all.  /shrug</p><p>On a final side note, I almost would be interested to hear what PvP games this guy has made and in what year.  Not really to confirm his experience, but just to see what sort of a ride we might be in for.  I know with my work I always look back on what projects I have developed and draw on a little bit of that existing completed project to offer some directional insight for future projects.</p>

Dorsan
06-30-2010, 03:00 AM
<p>Look Seliri, if you make a TL;DR version using standard white fonts, then I will read that, promise.</p>

EndevorX
06-30-2010, 03:39 AM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><em>Edit: I've moved Olihin's broadcasts to the original post to underscore the political paradigm EQ2 PvPers face.</em></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Yet there is hope in the land of Norrath.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">And Dorsan, check your PMs, for therein lies a version, dressed in white as ye are accustomed to in thy liking.</span></p>

Dorsan
06-30-2010, 04:42 AM
<p>Hmm... I did read the version in my PM. Well, yeah those are valid points. But IMO the warfield instancing needs to be completely different. I think when one CL instance has a warfield going on, all instances should have the warfield at the same time. Also there should be a different attacker and defender buff both of which would disappear upon getting the reward for those warfields and then you'd have 30 minutes immunity for that buff - to avoid getting multiple rewards in multiple instances. In this case people wouldn't be desperate to get into CL2 because CL1 and CL3 would also have warfields in them at the same time.</p>

EndevorX
06-30-2010, 05:04 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Hmm... I did read the version in my PM. Well, yeah those are valid points. But IMO the warfield instancing needs to be completely different. I think when one CL instance has a warfield going on, all instances should have the warfield at the same time. Also there should be a different attacker and defender buff both of which would disappear upon getting the reward for those warfields and then you'd have 30 minutes immunity for that buff - to avoid getting multiple rewards in multiple instances. In this case people wouldn't be desperate to get into CL2 because CL1 and CL3 would also have warfields in them at the same time.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I agree, and had earlier felt in my heart concurrence therein at such a suggestion (as simultaneous initiation across instances), and as such, shall make such an improvisation to know inclusion within the thoughts of infusion.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In regard to redundant rewards, I only witnessed this occur when warfields were bestowing 15 tokens.</span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: line-through;"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"><strong><span>__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________</span></strong></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Original Post Modifications (<em>Last Edit - 07-05-2010, 11:04 AM AST</em>):</strong></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Feel free to skip this part (and NO not this entire post, ehehehe) if you want, I just made this so that those who already read this thread can review it again if this section is updated.</span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: line-through;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">lol at nobody telling me I had two 1D sections! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/9d71f0541cff0a302a0309c5079e8dee.gif" border="0" /> Section 1F incoming...O_O"...Made a lil mod to Section 2B1 line 3! 8]</span></span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: line-through;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">Section G shall also be introduced, relative to warfields instance caps.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I've consolidated estranged lines into the appropriate sections, so Part 1 now only extends to Section F (and Part 1C is now Part 1B, and so on, within Part 1)!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Also, a line on restricting participation in warfields objectives to players of that zone's tier was added as Part 1, Section A, Line 4.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Included in the original post are now the quoted broadcasts Olihin made 5 days ago, to better represent our state of affairs (these were initially reviewed in my 2nd post of this thread).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Sadly, my speshul orange colors cannot fit within the character limitations of a post.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If you get annoyed at reading my posts without the vibrant, colorful life they exude, share this, that we might petition for the limitation on forum posts being annulled.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Appended a notation on the integrality of warfields victor bonuses as Part 1, Section D, Line 6.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Modified classification of an "active player" to be 5 hrs/week accomplishing feats that would otherwise give XP, instead of 10hrs/week.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Included 4 new warfields victor reward choices.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Changed the beginning of the overall post (the forward, us English speakers say) & the header for Part 1, Section E, and made the past header for Part 1, Section E a line of that section.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Altered Part 3, Section B2's number of 5 minute intervals to reflect the earlier change, requiring 3 hrs of adventurer XP gain instead of 10, per week, to be deemed an active player.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Edited Part 1, Section D (warfields rewards) to note that warfields must be changed to no longer automatically grant tokens (currently, automatically giving tokens supports an unneeded drag on bandwidth by having pseudo-participants utilize zone processing power that is best relegated to active players).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It is done.</span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: line-through;"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"><strong><span>__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________</span></strong></span></span></span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><span style="color: #ff9900;">PvP Server Morale?:</span></strong></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Before you let negative nellies damper your morale, also consider <span style="color: #ff0000;">Timetravelling</span>'s answer to question #3.</span></p><p><cite><span style="color: #ff0000;">timetravelling</span> wrote in <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=480904&post_id=5346675" target="_blank">Re: DEV: Say something!</a><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=480904&post_id=5346675" target="_blank"></a>:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Draagun wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>1) Token Exchange</p><p>2) Class Balance</p><p>3) When the next season gear is coming out</p><p>4) Trade in for gear</p></blockquote><p>1) We are aware of the issues with obtaining Smuggler's Rum for some players and would like to work out a solution. No ETA, but it is on our radar. We would like for everyone to be able to obtain every piece of gear, but at the same time do not want to push people away from a very fun BG that is just (unfortunately) hard to queue for.</p><p>2) This is ongoing, and, imo, going well. Beyond abilities that are bugged, we prefer not to adjust classes between updates. Any balance changes would likely come with GU57</p><p>3) We do not currently plan to release a new armor set with GU57. New gear, yes, just not armor in particular</p><p>4) No plans to implement this in any form.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">We're not being hung out to dry, but it's...<em>"possible"</em>...that not as much capital that could be committed to the bettering of our environment, is allocated appropriately.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I consider that there will still be new "campaign" releases of battlegrounds/open world PvP equipment, but the lack of a palpable timetable, or incentivized rankings for open world PvP and battlegrounds placement, is a disheartening circumstance that many of us are aware of.</span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: line-through;"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"><strong><span>__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________</span></strong></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Hardline Open World PvP Stimulus:</strong></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">As an aside, I would like to again note the value that the destruction of instances & converting them to dungeons, would have for hyperdriving world PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Though I know this to be a position a bit further on the hardcore spectrum, issues like these, for PvPers only, would best be reviewed through a poll...for PvPers only.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">As I mentioned later in the thread, if removing the guild strategist isn't an option, creating an open world tango locator amenity would be respectable service to innovation in a PvP realm.</span></p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote in <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=476584&post_id=5300240" target="_blank">Re:GU56 Changes and You!</a>:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I'd also suggest to make all instances into contested dungeons, as that'd bring back the level locking spirit that the craze knew in Antonica and Commonlands in Stormhold and Fallen Gate.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">But, if pandering to PvE carebearisms precedes prioritizing open world PvP, then I think keeping the instances but having contested versions of each instance would be better than nothing.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If players chose to enter "(Contested)" over "(Instanced)", dungeons that scale would automatically force players to enter the contested version of their tier.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">So, levels 50-59 would enter zone's scaled for 55, 60-69 would enter zone's scaled for 65, 70-79 would enter zones scaled for 75, 80-89 would enter zones scaled for 85, and 90s would enter...zones scaled for 90s.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Also, I sincerely hope this update is coupled with the removal of fame decay while offline and the inclusion of the old fame/notoriety/infamy system with fame gains/losses based upon 1 rank above, below, or on par with your own.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Players cherish being able to build PvP titles on alternative characters, and the longevity/cyclical value of this pastime is lost with offline fame decay.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Having fame loss/gain occur only from 1 PvP title ranked above, below, or on par with your own also supports the niche hobby of...the fame hunt!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">This was always very appealing to vie for once a player is geared out...as now, many players gear out and just resort to PvE with their gameplay hours, whereas they used to contribute to the active fame hunt with roaming, group vs group PvP spread throughout the overland realms.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I also agree with disabling guild strategist flags on PvP servers, and instead, changing them into an automatic track lock on 3 enemies in overland zones.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="text-decoration: line-through;"><span style="color: #c0c0c0;"><strong><span>__________________________________________________ ______________________________________________</span></strong></span></span></span></p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong><span style="color: #ff9900;">Brainstorming Uniquity in Warfields Objectives:</span></strong></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">1.) Conditional components</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> - Strategies that favor melee or casters, scouts or mages, tanks or priests (think the meager task a priest may do to initiate Protector's Realm, but COMPLETELY expand upon it.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> - Simultaneously, coordinated...:</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · ...HP burns on targets that charm/possess/feign death/transform allies</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">   · ...gathering/environment destruction/climbing/casting/dragging/crafting</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> - Temporarily present implements, vital to objective progress</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> - Using player corpses (or players possessed/transformed) as fuel for arcane energy shields/cannons/bombs/curses</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> - Completing renditions of the above, in multiple areas, to advance an objective stage</span></p>

Olihin
06-30-2010, 01:58 PM
<p>Moved response to be more clear with what was mentioned....</p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=481950" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=481950</a></p><p><span style="font-size: large; color: #3366ff;">Olihin</span></p>

Edgaard
07-01-2010, 01:30 AM
<p>We should just give up on pvp tbh</p>

YasikoSetsu
07-08-2010, 10:02 AM
<p><span >- Restrict participation in warfields objectives to only players of that zone's tier.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">This would almost single handedly fix most of the problems we've been seeing recently, especially the latency.</span></p><p><span >- AFKers profit from doing NOTHING w/ warfields automatically issuing rewards. These are dead-weight leechers that might negatively impact zone performance, existing due to this flaw in warfields implementation.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Big problem. Getting 'something' for doing 'nothing' is automatically a broken system. It's already stated in Seliri's post, but remove all immunity. Having immunity in an open world pvp zone is stupid, go to your city/guild hall if you need a break - that's what our 2 calls are for. You should get 1 minute of immunity after rezzing, and 30 seconds after evaccing.</span></p><p><span >- PvP writs completed during active warfields should reward double tokens. THIS would put the focus back on open world PvP & organization.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I dunno about double, they already give too many. Making pvp gear any easier to get is a bad thing, in my book. It would surely encourage people to get out and kill during the warfields, but the consequences would be too high IMO.</span></p><p><span >- Warfields victors should be given their choice of: etc...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">This is a great idea, AS LONG AS something is done to help stabilize the populations (and tiered warfields are implemented, preferably...) As much as I'd love to see every Q ever running around with some crazy buff, this would have to come in much later.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Also, the reward, obviously, should ONLY work in PvP combat, and should only give desirable PvP based effects. I dont really like the idea of awarding bonus experience, or stuff that will affect PvE. Gear unadorning or unattuning is an interesting idea, though.</span></p><p><span >-Is it understood that warfields instancing is broken, in that players can enter whichever instance their groupmate is in, even if it reads as "full" to ungrouped players?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Just remove the ability to 'go to groupmember' when in a warfield zone. Simple as that. Put a cap of 50 freeport players, and 50 qeynos players in each warfield zone. Not a cap of 100 total, which is a big problem currently. A billion Q's zone in, and only 10-15 freeps are in zone when it locks.</span></p><p><span >A. Why is there a delay in introducing the old fame/infamy/notoriety system?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">QFE. No one likes this new fame system. Bring back the old system exactly as it was, no clue why it was ever removed in the first place.</span></p><p><span >B. Open betrayal ABSENT SPELL LOSS according to the relative tier/faction imbalance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Best idea on this whole list of suggestions. Let a set amount of players (based on current population) each week betray over penalty free - I guaruntee plenty would do it.</span></p><p><span >- Remove permanent immunity from all overland zones aside from the Dropship Landing in Moors of Ykesha, Paineel in Sundered Frontier, & Moonfield Hamlet in Stonebrunt Highlands.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">As I stated above, immunity is dumb.</span> <span style="color: #ff0000;">So +1.</span></p><p><span >- Evacuating would also NOT give you permanent immunity, but an invulnerability timer of 30 sec.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Again, as I stated above, +1. With the addition of 1 minute immunity after rezzing.</span></p><p><span >B. Items w/ "This effect can only trigger once every 60 seconds" are currently NOT procing AT ALL.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Are you sure? I dont think it's all of them, my 1/min pvp reflect works fine.</span></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Just picked out what I thought were the most solid/easy to implement suggestions, don't feel like listing out everything I agree with, because most of it is good stuff.</p><p>Major +1 in general.</p>

EndevorX
07-08-2010, 11:44 AM
<p><cite>YasikoSetsuna wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span>- Restrict participation in warfields objectives to only players of that zone's tier.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasikoSetsuna: This would almost single handedly fix most of the problems we've been seeing recently, especially the latency.</span></p><p><span>- AFKers profit from doing NOTHING w/ warfields automatically issuing rewards. These are dead-weight leechers that might negatively impact zone performance, existing due to this flaw in warfields implementation.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasikoSetsuna: Big problem. Getting 'something' for doing 'nothing' is automatically a broken system. It's already stated in Seliri's post, but remove all immunity. Having immunity in an open world pvp zone is stupid, go to your city/guild hall if you need a break - that's what our 2 calls are for. You should get 1 minute of immunity after rezzing, and 30 seconds after evaccing.</span></p><p><span>- PvP writs completed during active warfields should reward double tokens. THIS would put the focus back on open world PvP & organization.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasikoSetsuna: I dunno about double, they already give too many. Making pvp gear any easier to get is a bad thing, in my book. It would surely encourage people to get out and kill during the warfields, but the consequences would be too high IMO.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: One caveat I thought I submitted in my post, but didn't, was that, if warfield rewards are revised in the way I suggested, warfields would also NOT automatically grant tokens for participating. The only way to receive a token bonus would be to successfully accrue PKs for your writs, during an active warfield. This change is now in the original post! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></span></p><p><span>- Warfields victors should be given their choice of: etc...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasikoSetsuna: This is a great idea, AS LONG AS something is done to help stabilize the populations (and tiered warfields are implemented, preferably...) As much as I'd love to see every Q ever running around with some crazy buff, this would have to come in much later.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Also, the reward, obviously, should ONLY work in PvP combat, and should only give desirable PvP based effects. I dont really like the idea of awarding bonus experience, or stuff that will affect PvE. Gear unadorning or unattuning is an interesting idea, though.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Something I've noticed is that, once people gear out, they PvP less frequently. Offering PvE bonuses helps to maintain attraction for those who might've otherwise fade away, and it also attracts those who would've only rarely attended warfields or sought open world PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">75% of the players at T9 I haven't seen out PvPing. Why? Because their toons are geared and there aren't enough novelties to experience or attain from warfields. There hasn't yet been any room to explore innovation or some certain spice that makes warfields in demand on a consistent basis.</span></p><p><span>-Is it understood that warfields instancing is broken, in that players can enter whichever instance their groupmate is in, even if it reads as "full" to ungrouped players?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasikoSetsuna: Just remove the ability to 'go to groupmember' when in a warfield zone. Simple as that. Put a cap of 50 freeport players, and 50 qeynos players in each warfield zone. Not a cap of 100 total, which is a big problem currently. A billion Q's zone in, and only 10-15 freeps are in zone when it locks.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: See, the issue I think, with even capping warfields zones, is that you're going to get some very strong groups in one warfield from one faction, and some very strong groups from the other faction in another warfield. That's not going to make warfields competitive or fun.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">What needs to be given an honest attempt, given the complete slump warfields have known, is simply having all, multiple instances of warfields zones have their warfields begin at the same time, for both defense and offense. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">People will naturally spread out to different instances despite rallying calls, as I mentioned in the post, by the time one warfield is down when 2 pop simultaneously, the 2nd usually has 2 towers down.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">The key here though, is separating warfields relative to tiers. New instances should start when there are 100 people in the zone, but only if they're of that particular tier.</span></p><p><span>A. Why is there a delay in introducing the old fame/infamy/notoriety system?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasikoSetsuna: QFE. No one likes this new fame system. Bring back the old system exactly as it was, no clue why it was ever removed in the first place.</span></p><p><span>B. Open betrayal ABSENT SPELL LOSS according to the relative tier/faction imbalance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasikoSetsuna: Best idea on this whole list of suggestions. Let a set amount of players (based on current population) each week betray over penalty free - I guaruntee plenty would do it.</span></p><p><span>- Remove permanent immunity from all overland zones aside from the Dropship Landing in Moors of Ykesha, Paineel in Sundered Frontier, & Moonfield Hamlet in Stonebrunt Highlands.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasikoSetsuna: As I stated above, immunity is dumb.</span> <span style="color: #ff0000;">So +1.</span></p><p><span>- Evacuating would also NOT give you permanent immunity, but an invulnerability timer of 30 sec.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasikoSetsuna: Again, as I stated above, +1. With the addition of 1 minute immunity after rezzing.</span></p><p><span>B. Items w/ "This effect can only trigger once every 60 seconds" are currently NOT procing AT ALL.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">YasukoSetsuna: Are you sure? I dont think it's all of them, my 1/min pvp reflect works fine.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Well, the 2 items I mentioned, I know the regular Admiral's Chain isn't procing, and I've heard multiple reports that the Greater Admiral's Chain is also...not procing! Aside from that, who can say!</span></p><p>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</p><p>Just picked out what I thought were the most solid/easy to implement suggestions, don't feel like listing out everything I agree with, because most of it is good stuff.</p><p>Major +1 in general.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">As is custom for me in my efforts to vie for due redress, I've been broadcasting for players to review and post their perspective herein. I've received accolades from Elvy/Hashashin/Espinage/Tooled/Natthan/Nabygangzsta/Xawni/Morticai/Handek/Doubonk (Beefie), but they haven't yet "publicly" presented such points of view beyond private messages, in-game.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Worries that I think have plagued the morale of the playerbase, <strong>PRIMARILY</strong>, is that you, the developers/producers/administrators, won't take the appropriate steps to offer passive incentives for<strong> promoting faction balance.</strong></span> <span style="color: #ff6600;">If such is never done, warfields will never reach the widespread popularity, success, or acclaim that they could've.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">This is a problem that <strong>demands</strong> addressing, for the sake of quality gameplay. ;D</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">And for those of you who are letting yourselves get demoralized in hearing Smokejumper say that "PvP is not our focus at the moment", consider the two following posts prior to allowing yourself to get totally jaded.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 11px; font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">SmokeJumper</span> wrote in <a href="SmokeJumper wrote: Well, we'll fix the lag first and then we'll see how things go. We've determined that one of the major sources of lag in the game right now is due to outdated server hardware, so we're in the process of acquiring new hardware and upgrading everything. This isn't a quick fix. Since we just made the decision to upgrade, we're just now starting the ordering process and it could take a good chunk of time to get it all in, configured and installed. But we are moving the process along and hope to have big improvements on lag before summer is over. Then we'll see how much that improves the situation. " target="_blank">Re:Contested Need to Go</a>:</span></p><div><blockquote><p>Well, we'll fix the lag first and then we'll see how things go.</p><p>We've determined that one of the major sources of lag in the game right now is due to outdated server hardware, so we're in the process of acquiring new hardware and upgrading everything.</p><p>This isn't a quick fix. Since we just made the decision to upgrade, we're just now starting the ordering process and it could take a good chunk of time to get it all in, configured and installed. But we are moving the process along and hope to have big improvements on lag before summer is over.</p><p>Then we'll see how much that improves the situation.</p></blockquote></div><div><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Whether Nagafen is included in the hardware upgrades, who knows, but hopefully some more information is going to be released. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" /></span></p><p><cite><span style="color: #ff0000;">SmokeJumper</span> wrote in <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=481950&post_id=5358283" target="_blank">Re:Lets talk about this...</a>:</cite></p><blockquote><p>We're going to have a feedback panel at Fan Faire where we talk about the BGs, PvP servers, BGs on PvP servers, etc. We're looking forward to some good freeform decision back and forth about things at that time, in addition to the discourse here on these forums of course.</p><p>I'll personally be spending a bunch of game time doing PvP stuff soon (first BGs and then Nagafen) and the guys that actually do the work on the PvP systems are already analyzing and making suggestion lists.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Yes, we have other competing priorities, but this is not just being ignored until after the next expansion goes out. We do want it to be successful and fun. We'll get there.</span></p></blockquote></div><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Simply highlighting the more significant portion of what was said, though this wasn't originally colored red! ehehe.</span></p>

Olihin
07-08-2010, 02:47 PM
<p>Good thread and I appreciate the time taken to type all these points out.  </p><p>I am sure that this will cover some of the topics that some of you thought to bring up on the Fan Faire panel.</p><p><span style="font-size: large; color: #3366ff;">Olihin</span></p>

Thinwizzy
07-08-2010, 04:34 PM
<p>I think with all this focus on warfields, we are losing sight of what was the strong point of eq2 pvp, and that is simple group vs group fights.  Until we return to having good solid group vs group pvp, it does not matter what new objectives get put in and what your reward is for achieving them.  Until the mechanics of pvp get righted, everything that gets introduced will be a shortlived fad and a simple means to an end (gear).  All that is wrong with warfields is simply a sympton of the bigger problem.  If we focus on the root of the problem, instead of the symptons, we can actually fix pvp instead of merely slowing its death.</p><p>I am going to focus on a few of the changes that where made that had a longterm negative effect on pvp.  In no particular order they are: Immunity, Fame, Writs, Travel, and Damage Nerfs.</p><p>1. Immunity.  It needs to go.  30 seconds post zoning immunity is fine.  Perma-immunity outside of a city is not.  There is nothing perma-immunity contributes to pvp that makes pvp better.  This change was made a long time ago, and it didn't seem as large of a change then as it is now.</p><p>2. Fame.  Particularly fame lose on death.  Some hate it.  Some love it.  Others don't care.  I had mixed feelings about this before it was removed.  If you where a person that loved it, it gave you something else to work for besides gear.  This is a good thing.  If you hated it, the only real effect it most likely had was making some people harder to catch and kill.  This is one change that was made that really started the downward spiral.  Death needs to suck.  Removing the suck from dying leads to people not caring if they die.  This is a big step towards a mass revive zerg.</p><p>3. Writs.  With the introduction of the writ system came a system where mass amounts of people all got rewards for killing one person.  This was a major step downward for pvp.  Combined with the removal of fame lose, the 'glory days' of pvp ended here.  These where put in because people complained about scouts having the upper hand soloing for their token drops.  What was not predicted however, is what happens when you remove the reward for solo classes soloing for their pvp gear.  When this is reward is removed, it is another push towards 'the zerg'.  Rewards need to be equivalent to the effort and risk involved in getting them.</p><p>I would propose a return to a faction based system.  Kills would give faction, death and the purchase of gear/rewards would lower your faction.  I think a system like this is far more beneficial than a writ/token based system.  The amount of faction gained is related to the number of players engaged with your target.  If you kill someone that 12 other people are also engaged with, the amount of faction you gain will be rather small compared to a 1 vs 1 fight.  This change alone should help dissipate the mass zerg for gear.</p><p>4. Travel.  Particularly guild banners.  This is a change that was put in to make it easier and quicker to get around the world.  The problem with this is it also removes players from the open world.  A large amount of pvp used to occur between 2 groups headed to their respective instance or dungeon.  There is no longer any controlling of zones done.  There is no longer a need to wait until your entire group is ready before you head out to the zone.  Guild banners need to go.</p><p>5. Damage.  Damage reduction is through the roof.  All classes can stand up to more than what they should.  A major culprit of this is toughness.  I propose the removal of toughness and the return of crit mit being universal. </p><p>One last thing that is hurting the state of pvp is the forced seperation of the two parts of this game: PvP and PvE.  EQ2 is made up of these two parts (on our server).  These two parts need to coexist.  The major problem with PvP gear being effective in PvE was in how easy and thoughtless it has become to get.  Make it take effort to get again, and let both styles of gear be again used universally.  As it is now, PvE gear is not near as effective in PvP due to the lack of toughness.  This removes some of the benefit of achieving this gear.  On the other hand, the PvP gear is less than desirable for PvE and completely useless for raids.  The two sides of our game need to support each other.  As it is now, players start to lose interest in one or the other, and that is when the game starts to get dull.</p><p>Anyway, those are my views.  Warfields could be great fun, but they are not what will fix this game.  We need to go back to the roots of PvP and fix that.  Until we fix the roots, everything else we try to fix will be ineffective in the long run.</p>

Nemas Ravenor
07-08-2010, 05:10 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think with all this focus on warfields, we are losing sight of what was the strong point of eq2 pvp, and that is simple group vs group fights.  Until we return to having good solid group vs group pvp, it does not matter what new objectives get put in and what your reward is for achieving them.  Until the mechanics of pvp get righted, everything that gets introduced will be a shortlived fad and a simple means to an end (gear).  All that is wrong with warfields is simply a sympton of the bigger problem.  If we focus on the root of the problem, instead of the symptons, we can actually fix pvp instead of merely slowing its death.</p><p>I am going to focus on a few of the changes that where made that had a longterm negative effect on pvp.  In no particular order they are: Immunity, Fame, Writs, Travel, and Damage Nerfs.</p><p>1. Immunity.  It needs to go.  30 seconds post zoning immunity is fine.  Perma-immunity outside of a city is not.  There is nothing perma-immunity contributes to pvp that makes pvp better.  This change was made a long time ago, and it didn't seem as large of a change then as it is now.</p><p>2. Fame.  Particularly fame lose on death.  Some hate it.  Some love it.  Others don't care.  I had mixed feelings about this before it was removed.  If you where a person that loved it, it gave you something else to work for besides gear.  This is a good thing.  If you hated it, the only real effect it most likely had was making some people harder to catch and kill.  This is one change that was made that really started the downward spiral.  Death needs to suck.  Removing the suck from dying leads to people not caring if they die.  This is a big step towards a mass revive zerg.</p><p>3. Writs.  With the introduction of the writ system came a system where mass amounts of people all got rewards for killing one person.  This was a major step downward for pvp.  Combined with the removal of fame lose, the 'glory days' of pvp ended here.  These where put in because people complained about scouts having the upper hand soloing for their token drops.  What was not predicted however, is what happens when you remove the reward for solo classes soloing for their pvp gear.  When this is reward is removed, it is another push towards 'the zerg'.  Rewards need to be equivalent to the effort and risk involved in getting them.</p><p>I would propose a return to a faction based system.  Kills would give faction, death and the purchase of gear/rewards would lower your faction.  I think a system like this is far more beneficial than a writ/token based system.  The amount of faction gained is related to the number of players engaged with your target.  If you kill someone that 12 other people are also engaged with, the amount of faction you gain will be rather small compared to a 1 vs 1 fight.  This change alone should help dissipate the mass zerg for gear.</p><p>4. Travel.  Particularly guild banners.  This is a change that was put in to make it easier and quicker to get around the world.  The problem with this is it also removes players from the open world.  A large amount of pvp used to occur between 2 groups headed to their respective instance or dungeon.  There is no longer any controlling of zones done.  There is no longer a need to wait until your entire group is ready before you head out to the zone.  Guild banners need to go.</p><p>5. Damage.  Damage reduction is through the roof.  All classes can stand up to more than what they should.  A major culprit of this is toughness.  I propose the removal of toughness and the return of crit mit being universal. </p><p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">One last thing that is hurting the state of pvp is the forced seperation of the two parts of this game: PvP and PvE.  EQ2 is made up of these two parts (on our server).  These two parts need to coexist.  The major problem with PvP gear being effective in PvE was in how easy and thoughtless it has become to get.  Make it take effort to get again, and let both styles of gear be again used universally.  As it is now, PvE gear is not near as effective in PvP due to the lack of toughness.  This removes some of the benefit of achieving this gear.  On the other hand, the PvP gear is less than desirable for PvE and completely useless for raids.  The two sides of our game need to support each other.  As it is now, players start to lose interest in one or the other, and that is when the game starts to get dull.</span></strong></p><p><span style="color: #ffff99;">This is absolutely right.  And again, since the Devs have told us that they aren't going to make any real fixes to PVP that is why I think we need to make suggestions as to what we would like to see in the PVE parts of the game that could enhance PVP the way we would like it.  If they are creating content for the new expansion now, if we tell them the kinds of things that would be beneficial for both PVE servers and PVP then they might actually go ahead and make some of those changes.  Otherwise we are just spinning our wheels.</span></p><p>Anyway, those are my views.  Warfields could be great fun, but they are not what will fix this game.  We need to go back to the roots of PvP and fix that.  Until we fix the roots, everything else we try to fix will be ineffective in the long run.</p></blockquote>

EndevorX
07-08-2010, 06:12 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">I don't mean to be territorial and parse every post, I simply intend to hone in on the most relevant priorities for the PvP paradigm in EQII. I think the answers we come to will be a result of consensus, and a general focus on the dilemma of the whole, as opposed to some.</span></span></p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think with all this focus on warfields, we are losing sight of what was the strong point of eq2 pvp, and that is simple group vs group fights.  Until we return to having good solid group vs group pvp, it does not matter what new objectives get put in and what your reward is for achieving them.  Until the mechanics of pvp get righted, everything that gets introduced will be a shortlived fad and a simple means to an end (gear).  All that is wrong with warfields is simply a sympton of the bigger problem.  If we focus on the root of the problem, instead of the symptons, we can actually fix pvp instead of merely slowing its death.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Moreover, with warfields existing, they are likely going to continue to be a hotspot. Do you have a position at all about the nature of rewards with warfields, or what should be done with them?</span></p><p>I am going to focus on a few of the changes that where made that had a longterm negative effect on pvp.  In no particular order they are: Immunity, Fame, Writs, Travel, and Damage Nerfs.</p><p>1. Immunity.  It needs to go.  30 seconds post zoning immunity is fine.  Perma-immunity outside of a city is not.  There is nothing perma-immunity contributes to pvp that makes pvp better.  This change was made a long time ago, and it didn't seem as large of a change then as it is now.</p><p>2. Fame.  Particularly fame lose on death.  Some hate it.  Some love it.  Others don't care.  I had mixed feelings about this before it was removed.  If you where a person that loved it, it gave you something else to work for besides gear.  This is a good thing.  If you hated it, the only real effect it most likely had was making some people harder to catch and kill.  This is one change that was made that really started the downward spiral.  Death needs to suck.  Removing the suck from dying leads to people not caring if they die.  This is a big step towards a mass revive zerg.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: While many of us believe fame will support a greater concern for fashioning a quality group or actively searching zones for your many nemeses, that fame loss on death will herald in the return of rivalry and battles stricken with anxiety, strategy, and coordination, this is our presumption that people will care for titles after having been accustomed to indiscriminate target bashing to grind PvP tokens.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Warfields CAN be the opportunity to provide something fresh on a cyclical, consistent basis (i.e. a choice of victor bonuses), with near infinite longevity that competing for the highest PvP title gave, as well.</span></p><p>Having a variety of gameplay features that promote a loop of reusable content is what death having consequence is about. For instance, be more careful about where you expose yourself and under what conditions you PvP, and you can work on accruing fame/notoriety/infamy.</p><p>The thing is though, mostly everyone wants fame decay gone, fame loss on death back, but ALSO the ability to completely opt out of the PvP ranking system.</p><p>3. Writs.  With the introduction of the writ system came a system where mass amounts of people all got rewards for killing one person.  This was a major step downward for pvp.  Combined with the removal of fame lose, the 'glory days' of pvp ended here.  These where put in because people complained about scouts having the upper hand soloing for their token drops.  What was not predicted however, is what happens when you remove the reward for solo classes soloing for their pvp gear.  When this is reward is removed, it is another push towards 'the zerg'.  Rewards need to be equivalent to the effort and risk involved in getting them.</p><p>I would propose a return to a faction based system.  Kills would give faction, death and the purchase of gear/rewards would lower your faction.  I think a system like this is far more beneficial than a writ/token based system.  The amount of faction gained is related to the number of players engaged with your target.  If you kill someone that 12 other people are also engaged with, the amount of faction you gain will be rather small compared to a 1 vs 1 fight.  This change alone should help dissipate the mass zerg for gear.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Seliri: If you start to include one's capacity to equip themselves as a consequence to death, that's like forcing fame decay, because you take out player choice. With PvP ranks, people can choose to not care about them even if they can't opt out of the system.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If a faction based system for gear is introduced, then it'd force everyone to be min-/maxing freaks to be competitive (i.e. only going out to PvP in an optimal group set-up, 2 priests, 2 tanks, 2 very tough DPS), and not everyone has the time or capacity to perform in such a way.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Until factions are balanced, and even then, there will always be leeching, simply because not everyone has access to a raid guild that can equip them equally, or not all have the schedule to accommodate a playstyle that will truly make them competitive</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">On top of that, not everyone will always be able to conjure up a group with DPS prime enough to take down other groups with 2 or 3 priests.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">There are too many variables here to ensure that a faction based system with credit relative to encounter size is an open world PvP reward system that is viable for casual players.</span></p><p>4. Travel.  Particularly guild banners.  This is a change that was put in to make it easier and quicker to get around the world.  The problem with this is it also removes players from the open world.  A large amount of pvp used to occur between 2 groups headed to their respective instance or dungeon.  There is no longer any controlling of zones done.  There is no longer a need to wait until your entire group is ready before you head out to the zone.  Guild banners need to go.</p><p>5. Damage.  Damage reduction is through the roof.  All classes can stand up to more than what they should.  A major culprit of this is toughness.  I propose the removal of toughness and the return of crit mit being universal. </p><p>One last thing that is hurting the state of pvp is the forced seperation of the two parts of this game: PvP and PvE.  EQ2 is made up of these two parts (on our server).  These two parts need to coexist.  The major problem with PvP gear being effective in PvE was in how easy and thoughtless it has become to get.  Make it take effort to get again, and let both styles of gear be again used universally.  As it is now, PvE gear is not near as effective in PvP due to the lack of toughness.  This removes some of the benefit of achieving this gear.  On the other hand, the PvP gear is less than desirable for PvE and completely useless for raids.  The two sides of our game need to support each other.  As it is now, players start to lose interest in one or the other, and that is when the game starts to get dull.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Dunno about damage being an issue bro. People are still dying, there are still classes that can parse 1K, 1.5K, 2.5K, 3.5K in PvP. If toughness had its flat damage mitigation component removed, people would be dropping faster than flies in an electric lantern.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Raiders still get accessories that completely trump almost all PvP offerings. They still get weapons that are better, and, very potent red adornments.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Moreso would the benefit of achieving PvE gear be lost if people could gank for Roehn Theer 4 rune quality gear in scripted PvP warfields, as opposed to having to bypass the hurdle of DKP, guild drama/politics, recruitment/admissions, attendance, and then successful adherence to PvE encounter scripts.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Seliri: If PvPers get class-specific red adorns and PvEers get toughness added, that's fine IMO, so long as the specialty raid accessories stay as such.</span></p><p>Anyway, those are my views.  Warfields could be great fun, but they are not what will fix this game.  We need to go back to the roots of PvP and fix that.  Until we fix the roots, everything else we try to fix will be ineffective in the long run.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Also, Nemas Ravenor, I agree with suggesting the styling of the next expansion, as if you see in my 3rd post in this thread I've quoted a past post of mine supporting "Hardline Open World PvP Stimulus".</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If I was the decider, I would completely abolish all solo group instances and make them contested dungeons on timers, but, I don't think that's a realistic suggestion given the casual playstyle that must be placated for the sake of sales.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">At the very minimum, I think, all instances should have a contested version scaled to applicable tiers, and there should also be more expansive, contested dungeons with challenging named, ring spawns, and all the bells and whistles, coupled with</span> <span style="color: #ff6600;">DESIRABLE equipment as rare drops.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I do, however, think that it's completely unrealistic to expect them to abolish PvP gear and make it battlegrounds only, especially with all the precedents set (i.e. see Nemas Ravenor's post "</span><span style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 11px; color: #403c56; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px;"><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=482290">PVE Suggestions to help PVP in next expansion</a></span><span style="color: #ff6600;">").</span></p>

Thinwizzy
07-08-2010, 06:53 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I don't mean to be territorial and parse every post, I simply intend to hone in on the most relevant priorities for the PvP paradigm in EQII. I think the answers we come to will be a result of consensus, and a general focus on the dilemma of the whole, as opposed to some.</span></p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think with all this focus on warfields, we are losing sight of what was the strong point of eq2 pvp, and that is simple group vs group fights.  Until we return to having good solid group vs group pvp, it does not matter what new objectives get put in and what your reward is for achieving them.  Until the mechanics of pvp get righted, everything that gets introduced will be a shortlived fad and a simple means to an end (gear).  All that is wrong with warfields is simply a sympton of the bigger problem.  If we focus on the root of the problem, instead of the symptons, we can actually fix pvp instead of merely slowing its death.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Moreover, with warfields existing, they are likely going to continue to be a hotspot. Do you have a position at all about the nature of rewards with warfields, or what should be done with them?</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Warfields need to be scrapped until PvP is fixed.  A bad PvP foundation will not allow a good warfield system to exist.</span></p><p>I am going to focus on a few of the changes that where made that had a longterm negative effect on pvp.  In no particular order they are: Immunity, Fame, Writs, Travel, and Damage Nerfs.</p><p>1. Immunity.  It needs to go.  30 seconds post zoning immunity is fine.  Perma-immunity outside of a city is not.  There is nothing perma-immunity contributes to pvp that makes pvp better.  This change was made a long time ago, and it didn't seem as large of a change then as it is now.</p><p>2. Fame.  Particularly fame lose on death.  Some hate it.  Some love it.  Others don't care.  I had mixed feelings about this before it was removed.  If you where a person that loved it, it gave you something else to work for besides gear.  This is a good thing.  If you hated it, the only real effect it most likely had was making some people harder to catch and kill.  This is one change that was made that really started the downward spiral.  Death needs to suck.  Removing the suck from dying leads to people not caring if they die.  This is a big step towards a mass revive zerg.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">While many of us believe fame will support a greater concern for fashioning a quality group or actively searching zones for your many nemeses, that fame loss on death will herald in the return of rivalry and battles stricken with anxiety, strategy, and coordination, this is our presumption that people will care for titles after having been accustomed to indiscriminate target bashing to grind PvP tokens.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Warfields CAN be the opportunity to provide something fresh on a cyclical, consistent basis (i.e. a choice of victor bonuses), with near infinite longevity that competing for the highest PvP title gave, as well.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">I think you could have said what you said here in 2 sentences or less.  I am not even sure what your point was.</span></p><p>Having a variety of gameplay features that promote a loop of reusable content is what death having consequence is about. For instance, be more careful about where you expose yourself and under what conditions you PvP, and you can work on accruing fame/notoriety/infamy.</p><p>The thing is though, mostly everyone wants fame decay gone, fame loss on death back, but ALSO the ability to completely opt out of the PvP ranking system.</p><p>3. Writs.  With the introduction of the writ system came a system where mass amounts of people all got rewards for killing one person.  This was a major step downward for pvp.  Combined with the removal of fame lose, the 'glory days' of pvp ended here.  These where put in because people complained about scouts having the upper hand soloing for their token drops.  What was not predicted however, is what happens when you remove the reward for solo classes soloing for their pvp gear.  When this is reward is removed, it is another push towards 'the zerg'.  Rewards need to be equivalent to the effort and risk involved in getting them.</p><p>I would propose a return to a faction based system.  Kills would give faction, death and the purchase of gear/rewards would lower your faction.  I think a system like this is far more beneficial than a writ/token based system.  The amount of faction gained is related to the number of players engaged with your target.  If you kill someone that 12 other people are also engaged with, the amount of faction you gain will be rather small compared to a 1 vs 1 fight.  This change alone should help dissipate the mass zerg for gear.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If you start to include one's capacity to equip themselves as a consequence to death, that's like forcing fame decay, because you take out player choice. With PvP ranks, people can choose to not care about them even if they can't opt out of the system.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If a faction based system for gear is introduced, then it'd force everyone to be min-/maxing freaks to be competitive (i.e. only going out to PvP in an optimal group set-up, 2 priests, 2 tanks, 2 very tough DPS), and not everyone has the time or capacity to perform in such a way.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Until factions are balanced, and even then, there will always be leeching, simply because not everyone has access to a raid guild that can equip them equally, or not all have the schedule to accommodate a playstyle that will truly make them competitive</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">On top of that, not everyone will always be able to conjure up a group with DPS prime enough to take down other groups with 2 or 3 priests.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">There are too many variables here to ensure that a faction based system with credit relative to encounter size is an open world PvP reward system that is viable for casual players.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Leeching is not necessarily a result of faction balance.  Leeching is more likely a result of poor quality pvp and the fact that the leechers get rewarded equally.  Faction penalty on death does not have to be as servere as what you are making it out to be.  If you go die 20 time in a row, it adds up, but the way to avoid that is to not zerg.  That is exactly the goal we should have - eliminate the zerging.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Some of your points make it sound as though you never pvp'd high end back in kos/eof.  Nothing is wrong with that, but it sounds like you just aren't thinking from the other perspectives.</span></p><p>4. Travel.  Particularly guild banners.  This is a change that was put in to make it easier and quicker to get around the world.  The problem with this is it also removes players from the open world.  A large amount of pvp used to occur between 2 groups headed to their respective instance or dungeon.  There is no longer any controlling of zones done.  There is no longer a need to wait until your entire group is ready before you head out to the zone.  Guild banners need to go.</p><p>5. Damage.  Damage reduction is through the roof.  All classes can stand up to more than what they should.  A major culprit of this is toughness.  I propose the removal of toughness and the return of crit mit being universal. </p><p>One last thing that is hurting the state of pvp is the forced seperation of the two parts of this game: PvP and PvE.  EQ2 is made up of these two parts (on our server).  These two parts need to coexist.  The major problem with PvP gear being effective in PvE was in how easy and thoughtless it has become to get.  Make it take effort to get again, and let both styles of gear be again used universally.  As it is now, PvE gear is not near as effective in PvP due to the lack of toughness.  This removes some of the benefit of achieving this gear.  On the other hand, the PvP gear is less than desirable for PvE and completely useless for raids.  The two sides of our game need to support each other.  As it is now, players start to lose interest in one or the other, and that is when the game starts to get dull.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Dunno about damage being an issue bro. People are still dying, there are still classes that can parse 1K, 1.5K, 2.5K, 3.5K in PvP. If toughness had its flat damage mitigation component removed, people would be dropping faster than flies in an electric lantern.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Damage is completely terrible.  If you pull up ACT and compare damage to what the same spell did a tier or even 2 tiers ago, it is doing less now.  People are still dying, this is true, but more people are living much longer than they should.  This is not because they are healing to much, this is because they are recieving as much damage as should be.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Raiders still get accessories that completely trump almost all PvP offerings. They still get weapons that are better, and, very potent red adornments.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Red adornment gear is terrible for pvp.  Sure, the effects are nice, and it gives some nice dps, but it takes your survivability to 0.  Just today I was doing some BGs, and I had some blubies in my group with full red adorn gear.  They would die in a matter of seconds while I stood against the full group never dying.  Red adorn gear is not for pvp in the slightest.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Moreso would the benefit of achieving PvE gear be lossed if people could gank for Roehn Theer 4 rune quality gear in scripted PvP warfields, as opposed to having to bypass the hurdle of DKP, guild drama/politics, recruitment/admissions, attendance, and then successful adherence to PvE encounter scripts.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">I dont know what your point is here.  If you are saying PvP gear is far to easy to get, then I 100% agree.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If PvPers get class-specific red adorns and PvEers get toughness added, that's fine IMO, so long as the specialty raid accessories stay as such.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Like I said, the gear needs to be usable for both.  You do not really want the gear to be identical from both, as that would be boring.  I do not believe toughness is necessary, crit mit should be more than enough.  Also, I will state again, if gear where to become usable for both, PvP gear needs to be much harder to earn that it is now, or it would need to be reduced in quality.</span></p><p>Anyway, those are my views.  Warfields could be great fun, but they are not what will fix this game.  We need to go back to the roots of PvP and fix that.  Until we fix the roots, everything else we try to fix will be ineffective in the long run.</p></blockquote></blockquote>

EndevorX
07-08-2010, 07:58 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Ugh. The dreaded quotations of point-by-point commentary! Ehehehe. =]</span></p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">I don't mean to be territorial and parse every post, I simply intend to hone in on the most relevant priorities for the PvP paradigm in EQII. I think the answers we come to will be a result of consensus, and a general focus on the dilemma of the whole, as opposed to some.</span></span></p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I think with all this focus on warfields, we are losing sight of what was the strong point of eq2 pvp, and that is simple group vs group fights.  Until we return to having good solid group vs group pvp, it does not matter what new objectives get put in and what your reward is for achieving them.  Until the mechanics of pvp get righted, everything that gets introduced will be a shortlived fad and a simple means to an end (gear).  All that is wrong with warfields is simply a sympton of the bigger problem.  If we focus on the root of the problem, instead of the symptons, we can actually fix pvp instead of merely slowing its death.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Moreover, with warfields existing, they are likely going to continue to be a hotspot. Do you have a position at all about the nature of rewards with warfields, or what should be done with them?</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Thinwizzy: Warfields need to be scrapped until PvP is fixed.  A bad PvP foundation will not allow a good warfield system to exist.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: But what if warfields rewards were changed how I suggested, with the associated faction balance incentive and immunity modified? How can you say it'd be a bad foundation for PvP to have multiple groups of players from competing factions looking to simultaneously conquer objectives or coordinate strategies to oust their foes from a chance at dominance? That would be solid group vs group PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">If warfields only gave victor bonuses and modded token gain for writs completed during warfields, then leechers wouldn't be rewarded for doing nothing and straining the server load, because if they were truly not contributing anything, they'd be picked off, and their token gain squelched..</span></p><p>I am going to focus on a few of the changes that where made that had a longterm negative effect on pvp.  In no particular order they are: Immunity, Fame, Writs, Travel, and Damage Nerfs.</p><p>1. Immunity.  It needs to go.  30 seconds post zoning immunity is fine.  Perma-immunity outside of a city is not.  There is nothing perma-immunity contributes to pvp that makes pvp better.  This change was made a long time ago, and it didn't seem as large of a change then as it is now.</p><p>2. Fame.  Particularly fame lose on death.  Some hate it.  Some love it.  Others don't care.  I had mixed feelings about this before it was removed.  If you where a person that loved it, it gave you something else to work for besides gear.  This is a good thing.  If you hated it, the only real effect it most likely had was making some people harder to catch and kill.  This is one change that was made that really started the downward spiral.  Death needs to suck.  Removing the suck from dying leads to people not caring if they die.  This is a big step towards a mass revive zerg.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: While many of us believe fame will support a greater concern for fashioning a quality group or actively searching zones for your many nemeses, that fame loss on death will herald in the return of rivalry and battles stricken with anxiety, strategy, and coordination, this is our presumption that people will care for titles after having been accustomed to indiscriminate target bashing to grind PvP tokens.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Warfields CAN be the opportunity to provide something fresh on a cyclical, consistent basis (i.e. a choice of victor bonuses), with near infinite longevity that competing for the highest PvP title gave, as well.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Thinwizzy: I think you could have said what you said here in 2 sentences or less.  I am not even sure what your point was.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: You claim warfields are irrelevant to the utility the fame system provided as a means of consequence to death and a cyclical objective. Simply because you're jaded against how they're now implemented, doesn't mean they cant ever successfully serve a purpose for promoting quality, active group vs group PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">lol at claiming I could've said what I did in 2 sentences or less...when I used 2 sentences. The point was emphasis on the ambiguity behind the desired fame changes.</span></p><p>Having a variety of gameplay features that promote a loop of reusable content is what death having consequence is about. For instance, be more careful about where you expose yourself and under what conditions you PvP, and you can work on accruing fame/notoriety/infamy.</p><p>The thing is though, mostly everyone wants fame decay gone, fame loss on death back, but ALSO the ability to completely opt out of the PvP ranking system.</p><p>3. Writs.  With the introduction of the writ system came a system where mass amounts of people all got rewards for killing one person.  This was a major step downward for pvp.  Combined with the removal of fame lose, the 'glory days' of pvp ended here.  These where put in because people complained about scouts having the upper hand soloing for their token drops.  What was not predicted however, is what happens when you remove the reward for solo classes soloing for their pvp gear.  When this is reward is removed, it is another push towards 'the zerg'.  Rewards need to be equivalent to the effort and risk involved in getting them.</p><p>I would propose a return to a faction based system.  Kills would give faction, death and the purchase of gear/rewards would lower your faction.  I think a system like this is far more beneficial than a writ/token based system.  The amount of faction gained is related to the number of players engaged with your target.  If you kill someone that 12 other people are also engaged with, the amount of faction you gain will be rather small compared to a 1 vs 1 fight.  This change alone should help dissipate the mass zerg for gear.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Seliri: If you start to include one's capacity to equip themselves as a consequence to death, that's like forcing fame decay, because you take out player choice. With PvP ranks, people can choose to not care about them even if they can't opt out of the system.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If a faction based system for gear is introduced, then it'd force everyone to be min-/maxing freaks to be competitive (i.e. only going out to PvP in an optimal group set-up, 2 priests, 2 tanks, 2 very tough DPS), and not everyone has the time or capacity to perform in such a way.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Until factions are balanced, and even then, there will always be leeching, simply because not everyone has access to a raid guild that can equip them equally, or not all have the schedule to accommodate a playstyle that will truly make them competitive</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">On top of that, not everyone will always be able to conjure up a group with DPS prime enough to take down other groups with 2 or 3 priests.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">There are too many variables here to ensure that a faction based system with credit relative to encounter size is an open world PvP reward system that is viable for casual players.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Thinwizzy: Leeching is not necessarily a result of faction balance.  Leeching is more likely a result of poor quality pvp and the fact that the leechers get rewarded equally.  Faction penalty on death does not have to be as servere as what you are making it out to be.  If you go die 20 time in a row, it adds up, but the way to avoid that is to not zerg.  That is exactly the goal we should have - eliminate the zerging.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Some of your points make it sound as though you never pvp'd high end back in kos/eof.  Nothing is wrong with that, but it sounds like you just aren't thinking from the other perspectives.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: I don't claim leeching is only a part of faction balance, but that such exacerbates it, and that it will always exist. If you try to forcibly disallow leeching, then poorly equipped players will never get better. In such a scenario, new players will have a competency curve FAR longer and more troublesome than what you or others experienced on their path to functionality.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">If you're looking to try and portray me as somehow being out of touch, why not be more specific with what other perspectives I'm missing out on, and why you feel PvPing at the high end in KoS/EoF is somehow relevant to such?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Essentially, if an ultra crap player needs 12 others to kill 6 people, and they get only the equivalent of 2 updates, if they then die and lose the equivalent of 1 full update, you cant even begin to imagine the ardor of such a rough path unless you start to draw some clear numbers about your ideas on penalty severity and reward significance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">As we know, PvP isn't the TOP focus, but it's still something to be addressed prior to the expansion. If suggestions are going to be solvent, concrete analysis and rendering on the part of our theories will best help developers choose a solution most likely to achieve the desired goal: establish consistent invigoration for open world PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Aside from that, leeching is essentially a non-issue. If you choose to engage near a respawn, that's your strategic decision. If you engage far away from enemy respawns and your encounter can't fend off the current amount of opposition, then you either engaged too many or just don't have the DPS to break through the chokepoint.</span></p><p>4. Travel.  Particularly guild banners.  This is a change that was put in to make it easier and quicker to get around the world.  The problem with this is it also removes players from the open world.  A large amount of pvp used to occur between 2 groups headed to their respective instance or dungeon.  There is no longer any controlling of zones done.  There is no longer a need to wait until your entire group is ready before you head out to the zone.  Guild banners need to go.</p><p>5. Damage.  Damage reduction is through the roof.  All classes can stand up to more than what they should.  A major culprit of this is toughness.  I propose the removal of toughness and the return of crit mit being universal. </p><p>One last thing that is hurting the state of pvp is the forced seperation of the two parts of this game: PvP and PvE.  EQ2 is made up of these two parts (on our server).  These two parts need to coexist.  The major problem with PvP gear being effective in PvE was in how easy and thoughtless it has become to get.  Make it take effort to get again, and let both styles of gear be again used universally.  As it is now, PvE gear is not near as effective in PvP due to the lack of toughness.  This removes some of the benefit of achieving this gear.  On the other hand, the PvP gear is less than desirable for PvE and completely useless for raids.  The two sides of our game need to support each other.  As it is now, players start to lose interest in one or the other, and that is when the game starts to get dull.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Dunno about damage being an issue bro. People are still dying, there are still classes that can parse 1K, 1.5K, 2.5K, 3.5K in PvP. If toughness had its flat damage mitigation component removed, people would be dropping faster than flies in an electric lantern.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Thinwizzy: Damage is completely terrible.  If you pull up ACT and compare damage to what the same spell did a tier or even 2 tiers ago, it is doing less now.  People are still dying, this is true, but more people are living much longer than they should.  This is not because they are healing to much, this is because they are recieving as much damage as should be.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: Did you mean "aren't receiving" instead of "are receiving"? O_o Anyways, your call here seems far too arbitrary just because you seem to want people to die faster despite the fact that they still...die. Quality focus DPS/interrupts/knockbacks, taunting, these are what alleviate a foe of his living burden.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Damage...damages...and kills, pretty effectively. If it's in large part due to procs over the comparative damage of abilities in the past, what does it matter if this is what's available and called for, to be effective in offense?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Raiders still get accessories that completely trump almost all PvP offerings. They still get weapons that are better, and, very potent red adornments.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Thinwizzy: Red adornment gear is terrible for pvp.  Sure, the effects are nice, and it gives some nice dps, but it takes your survivability to 0.  Just today I was doing some BGs, and I had some blubies in my group with full red adorn gear.  They would die in a matter of seconds while I stood against the full group never dying.  Red adorn gear is not for pvp in the slightest.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: Even having once choice piece of red adornment gear can tremendously ease things. An SK's reaver heal mod, a Templar's +3 triggers to their group reactive, those are all very valuable effects where trading out 1 piece of PvP gear would be more helpful than detrimental.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">And again, what the most noticable disparity is, is OF COURSE, the accessories, and not the armor specifically. Rings of Emptiness, Rings of Blood and Rage, Bangles of the Blood Symphony, Blackened Pearlescent Bangles, Baubles of Preservation, avatar power regen charms, collected memories charms, potent priest ward proc weapons/earrings, overall greater additional crit bonus/potency/ability mod, those are all raid pieces not available as PvP items for classes that they are particularly choice on.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Being able to remain cured of debuffs and control effects, having that many more procs or that much more potency/crit bonus all adds up when competing in an organized premade with an ideal set-up. The idea that the benefits of PvE accomplishments are somehow all lost when you can't be most effective in PvP using all raid armor instead of some raid armor and nearly all raid accessories, it's mistaken and raider-centric.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Moreso would the benefit of achieving PvE gear be lost if people could gank for Roehn Theer 4 rune quality gear in scripted PvP warfields, as opposed to having to bypass the hurdle of DKP, guild drama/politics, recruitment/admissions, attendance, and then successful adherence to PvE encounter scripts.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Thinwizzy I dont know what your point is here.  If you are saying PvP gear is far to easy to get, then I 100% agree.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Seliri: If PvPers get class-specific red adorns and PvEers get toughness added, that's fine IMO, so long as the specialty raid accessories stay as such.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">Thinwizzy: Like I said, the gear needs to be usable for both.  You do not really want the gear to be identical from both, as that would be boring.  I do not believe toughness is necessary, crit mit should be more than enough.  Also, I will state again, if gear where to become usable for both, PvP gear needs to be much harder to earn that it is now, or it would need to be reduced in quality.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: Your point was a bit vague, saying only that the two sides of the game need to support each other, which could lead one to believe that you supported selling PvP versions of Collected Memories charms, Munzok's Band of the Corruptor/Void Reaver, Bow of Shadow, or the Blade of Toxic Horror. My point, was that these items shouldn't be sold as PvP pieces, as toppling that aspect of PvE content should always be a long-term goal for players not to be exchanged by a PvP grind.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Regardless, with how early raid guilds cleared content reaping red adorn raid gear, why should PvP gear be much harder to earn than it is now if it obtains these effects? If your faction-based system isn't adopted, would this be introducing these items, or special class-specific PvP only adorns, for 200 tokens themselves, or what is your perception of making PvP gear "much harder to get"?</span></p><p>Anyway, those are my views.  Warfields could be great fun, but they are not what will fix this game.  We need to go back to the roots of PvP and fix that.  Until we fix the roots, everything else we try to fix will be ineffective in the long run.</p></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: #000000; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><span style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; color: #444444; font-size: small;"><span style="font-size: 11px;"></span></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">And you had the audacity to include my typo on lossed! [Removed for Content].</span></p>

Thinwizzy
07-09-2010, 12:36 PM
<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: But what if warfields rewards were changed how I suggested, with the associated faction balance incentive and immunity modified? How can you say it'd be a bad foundation for PvP to have multiple groups of players from competing factions looking to simultaneously conquer objectives or coordinate strategies to oust their foes from a chance at dominance? That would be solid group vs group PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">If warfields only gave victor bonuses and modded token gain for writs completed during warfields, then leechers wouldn't be rewarded for doing nothing and straining the server load, because if they were truly not contributing anything, they'd be picked off, and their token gain squelched..</span></p><p>What I am saying is: warfields are not the foundation of the pvp system.  I am all for having events such as warfields, but the warfields themselves are not what is wrong with pvp; they do, however, show us many of the things that are broken.  If the issues that have first been plaguing pvp for the last several years are fixed first, you will see the warfield system improve drastically.</p><p>Our goals here are similar.  I am just trying to say that I think to may people are focusing on relieving symptoms, instead of putting focus on the disease at the root.  Fix the pvp system at its base, and many issues with the warfields will be no more.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: You claim warfields are irrelevant to the utility the fame system provided as a means of consequence to death and a cyclical objective. Simply because you're jaded against how they're now implemented, doesn't mean they cant ever successfully serve a purpose for promoting quality, active group vs group PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #000000;">I am not jaded against warfields themselves. I am annoyed at how far the pvp in this game has fallen.  I agree, warfields could serve up some great group vs group pvp; however, due to all that is wrong with pvp right now, it is closer to just being a big joke.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Until factions are balanced, and even then, there will always be leeching, simply because not everyone has access to a raid guild that can equip them equally, or not all have the schedule to accommodate a playstyle that will truly make them competitive</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">On top of that, not everyone will always be able to conjure up a group with DPS prime enough to take down other groups with 2 or 3 priests.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">There are too many variables here to ensure that a faction based system with credit relative to encounter size is an open world PvP reward system that is viable for casual players.</span></p><p>Leeching in some form will always exist.  That does not mean it needs to be rewarded.  From what you said here, it sounds as though you want casuals to be able to reap the same rewards as those who play hardcore. </p><p>This is one of the biggest things that have gone wrong with this game.  Casuals should never be given access to the same gear as hardcores.  MMOs are great because you can put time and effort into your character to make it the best possible.  As soon as you make this to easy, the game becomes stale.</p><p>There will always be those people that put massive amounts of time into a game; at least until there is no reason to. </p><p>A game should not be built around giving the max reward to the casual.  The casual is an important part of the game, but they should not be at the top of the reward system.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: I don't claim leeching is only a part of faction balance, but that such exacerbates it, and that it will always exist. If you try to forcibly disallow leeching, then poorly equipped players will never get better. In such a scenario, new players will have a competency curve FAR longer and more troublesome than what you or others experienced on their path to functionality.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">If you're looking to try and portray me as somehow being out of touch, why not be more specific with what other perspectives I'm missing out on, and why you feel PvPing at the high end in KoS/EoF is somehow relevant to such?</span></p><p>I am not trying to forcibly disalow leeching.  Leeching will never go away.  Some leeching isn't even all bad.  What I am trying to do, is remove the encouragement for leeching.  I am trying to do is make someone think about if it will really be worth it, before they go out to leech.  A pvp server is like an ecosystem.  You need solo predators.  You need pack hunters (groups).  You need prey.  You need leechers.  Right now, leechers are the most encouraged form.  It is to the point where most have lost their roles and turned into a mass of leeches.  This is the balance that needs to be righted.</p><p>The KoS/EoF era was the highpoint of this server.  There where no warfield events.  They where unneeded.  The closest thing to warfields where the contested mobs.  PvP was healthy and amazing then.  This is the foundation I keep referring to.  Stripped down, basic, raw pvp.  No crowding around a writ giver.  No solos swarming a tower or revive spot only to die and get rewarded anyway.  If you died then, you got no reward.  If you died then you lost fame, some lost pride, and in the case of contesteds, you lost your chance at loot.  This is the foundation upon which pvp was built</p><p>If this system is somehow revived, I think you will find yourself forgetting all about warfields, and instead you will find yourself having the most fun in this game you have ever had.  That is my goal.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Essentially, if an ultra crap player needs 12 others to kill 6 people, and they get only the equivalent of 2 updates, if they then die and lose the equivalent of 1 full update, you cant even begin to imagine the ardor of such a rough path unless you start to draw some clear numbers about your ideas on penalty severity and reward significance.</span></p><p>You are getting to hung up on your interpretation of this idea.  If this faction based system where to be implemented, the penalty would not be nearly so sever.  There is no need to take it to your far extreme.  If one where to get 100 faction for a solo kill and loose maybe 5 for a death; this would encourage going out and hunting while at the same time it would discourage throwing yourself at a group over and over again.  Once again, this is just a thought in its roughest form, where it to even get a serious thought of implemtation, details would then be ironed out.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">As we know, PvP isn't the TOP focus, but it's still something to be addressed prior to the expansion. If suggestions are going to be solvent, concrete analysis and rendering on the part of our theories will best help developers choose a solution most likely to achieve the desired goal: establish consistent invigoration for open world PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Aside from that, leeching is essentially a non-issue. If you choose to engage near a respawn, that's your strategic decision. If you engage far away from enemy respawns and your encounter can't fend off the current amount of opposition, then you either engaged too many or just don't have the DPS to break through the chokepoint.</span></p>As I covered earlier, leeching is a major issue when it reaches the point that it has today.  <p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: Did you mean "aren't receiving" <span style="color: #000000;">(yes)</span> instead of "are receiving"? O_o Anyways, your call here seems far too arbitrary just because you seem to want people to die faster despite the fact that they still...die. Quality focus DPS/interrupts/knockbacks, taunting, these are what alleviate a foe of his living burden.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Damage...damages...and kills, pretty effectively. If it's in large part due to procs over the comparative damage of abilities in the past, what does it matter if this is what's available and called for, to be effective in offense?</span></p><p>The damage in pvp is borked.  There are accounts all over about.  I can't even comprehend why you would even dispute this.  All you need to do is open up ACT and look at what abilities and spells are doing compared to what they read.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri: Raiders still get accessories that completely trump almost all PvP offerings. They still get weapons that are better, and, very potent red adornments.</span></p><p>Hardcore players who spend more time and effort, should be rewarded as such.  Most of the rewards they get are not head and shoulders better for pvp.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: Even having once choice piece of red adornment gear can tremendously ease things. An SK's reaver heal mod, a Templar's +3 triggers to their group reactive, those are all very valuable effects where trading out 1 piece of PvP gear would be more helpful than detrimental.</span></p><p>This is not true for every class.  There are some powerful bonuses, but none of them is capable of winning a fight by itself.  Bottom line is, toughness gear is better for pvp.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">And again, what the most noticable disparity is, is OF COURSE, the accessories, and not the armor specifically. Rings of Emptiness, Rings of Blood and Rage, Bangles of the Blood Symphony, Blackened Pearlescent Bangles, Baubles of Preservation, avatar power regen charms, collected memories charms, potent priest ward proc weapons/earrings, overall greater additional crit bonus/potency/ability mod, those are all raid pieces not available as PvP items for classes that they are particularly choice on.</span></p><p>Some of those are PvP items.  Avatar items are not available.  Some of those are available as heroic instance drops, or if you are unlucky you can buy them with marks.  Others are old tier raid zones that can be one grouped.  Basically, they are either not available or they are easy to get.  If someone wants one, they have no reason to not getting it.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Being able to remain cured of debuffs and control effects, having that many more procs or that much more potency/crit bonus all adds up when competing in an organized premade with an ideal set-up. The idea that the benefits of PvE accomplishments are somehow all lost when you can't be most effective in PvP using all raid armor instead of some raid armor and nearly all raid accessories, it's mistaken and raider-centric.</span></p><p>It seems as though you are attacking what I am saying without fulling comprehending it.  I said the gear needs to go both ways.  PvP gear and PvE gear.  Each. Usable for both.  However, strong items MUST take more time and effort to achieve.  This is why the PvP reward system needs reworked.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Seliri: Your point was a bit vague, saying only that the two sides of the game need to support each other, which could lead one to believe that you supported selling PvP versions of Collected Memories charms, Munzok's Band of the Corruptor/Void Reaver, Bow of Shadow, or the Blade of Toxic Horror. My point, was that these items shouldn't be sold as PvP pieces, as toppling that aspect of PvE content should always be a long-term goal for players not to be exchanged by a PvP grind.</span></p><p>I don't see how you can misinterpret what I said so badly.  I won't repeat here what I put just above.</p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Regardless, with how early raid guilds cleared content reaping red adorn raid gear, why should PvP gear be much harder to earn than it is now if it obtains these effects? If your faction-based system isn't adopted, would this be introducing these items, or special class-specific PvP only adorns, for 200 tokens themselves, or what is your perception of making PvP gear "much harder to get"?</span></p><p>It used to take a couple months or more to get a full set of pvp gear.  I got my blue adorn set in less than 2 weeks.  If PvP gear where to be usable for raiding, this would greatly offset the progression.  It would give access to the more powerful gear much faster and with less effort than intended.  Less effort should not give better gear.  Ever.</p></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; color: #000000;"><span style="font-size: 12px;"><span style="font-size: small; font-family: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; color: #444444;"><span style="font-size: 11px;"></span></span></span></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">And you had the audacity to include my typo on lossed! [Removed for Content].</span></p></blockquote>

Neskonlith
07-09-2010, 12:49 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Anyone else tickled by the thought of a Dev taking the suggestions of an infamous chat troll and previously deleted exploiter seriously?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Maybe it is time that SOE allows free transfers off Lagafen before making changes that remove game content access and enable new forms of exploitation.</span></p>

EndevorX
07-09-2010, 01:35 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Anyone else tickled by the thought of a Dev taking the suggestions of an infamous chat troll and previously deleted exploiter seriously?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Maybe it is time that SOE allows free transfers off Lagafen before making changes that remove game content access and enable new forms of exploitation.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Because you would like to demonize me and portray me as a troll, it simply must be so?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Why not consider yourself a troll and concern yourself with confronting that, when here, you've stifled your capability for constructive contribution insofar?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Instead of vaguely saying what changes are going to "remove game content access" and "enable new forms of exploitation", why not specifically address what modifications might lead to such?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If you have sincere thoughts on the issues I've addressed, by all means, express them, but to try and haze my credibility as though making a mistake at one point renders my voice unworthy, it's beyond hypocritical and contradictive.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In order to take such a stance in bias against me, you yourself would've had to never lied, cheated, or stolen, to rebuff the idea that moral exploitations debase the credibility of a person's point of view on troublesome, current affairs.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If you truly think you aren't trolling here, then you will refrain from accusations and restrict comments to the identified matters, or clearly suggest what you think the complications presently are.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><strong>@Thinwizzy:</strong> I'll respond later on to what you've said, just gotta do some stuff prior to! =] I don't think we need paint one another as attacking the other's perspective, as I do believe carrying a conciliatory conversation is something that has mostly been done.</span></p>

Neskonlith
07-09-2010, 03:11 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Because you would like to demonize me and portray me as a troll, it simply must be so?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You rightfully earned the reputation that hangs upon you, time and again, and the onus is on you to prove yourself worthy of anybody's trust over time.    </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">My proven history of integrity is not questionable.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Instead of vaguely saying what changes are going to "remove game content access" and "enable new forms of exploitation", why not specifically address what modifications might lead to such?</span><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p></blockquote><p><a href="mailto:[email protected]"><strong><em>[email protected]</em></strong></a><strong><em> wrote in </em></strong><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=476584&post_id=5300240" target="_blank"><strong><em>Re:GU56 Changes and You!</em></strong></a><strong><em>:</em></strong></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">I'd also suggest to make all instances into contested dungeons...</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Easy exploit?  Chain-invade contested instances one after another, ganking players while they are tied up on pulls and steal their names to prevent them from progressing.  This would also allow unrestricted access to names for fabled farming after griefing players into abandoning the instance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">While this sounds amusing in theory if you play the role of <em>farmer of undergeared noobs</em>, in practice it is very likely to fail to improve the amount and <em>quality</em> of open-pvp.  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">Considering SOE's long history of emergency fixes, of adding band-aid rules and restrictions - it is highly likely that such a concept would end up with "contested" instances being left with gaping loopholes easy to cheat just like the "Warfields" currently have.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Any acceptable solution for improving the pvp game does not attempt to ruin and delete content from the pve portion of EQ2 to make the broke-pvp better in comparison, but instead encourages players to <span style="text-decoration: underline;">willingly participate in open-pvp</span> while minimizing the game-breaking lag.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Currently, the Lagafen server cannot accommodate a moderate amount of players participating in open-pvp without severe lag spoiling the experience for many.</span></p>

EndevorX
07-09-2010, 03:21 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><a href="mailto:[email protected]"><strong><em>[email protected]</em></strong></a><strong><em> wrote in </em></strong><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=476584&post_id=5300240" target="_blank"><strong><em>Re:GU56 Changes and You!</em></strong></a><strong><em>:</em></strong></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">I'd also suggest to make all instances into contested dungeons...</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Easy exploit?  Chain-invade contested instances one after another, ganking players while they are tied up on pulls and steal their names to prevent them from progressing.  This would also allow unrestricted access to names for fabled farming after griefing players into abandoning the instance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">While this sounds amusing in theory if you play the role of <em>farmer of undergeared noobs</em>, in practice it is very likely to fail to improve the amount and <em>quality</em> of open-pvp.  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">Considering SOE's long history of emergency fixes, of adding band-aid rules and restrictions - it is highly likely that such a concept would end up with "contested" instances being left with gaping loopholes easy to cheat just like the "Warfields" currently have.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Any acceptable solution for improving the pvp game does not attempt to ruin and delete content from the pve portion of EQ2 to make the broke-pvp better in comparison, but instead encourages players to <span style="text-decoration: underline;">willingly participate in open-pvp</span> while minimizing the game-breaking lag.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Currently, the Lagafen server cannot accommodate a moderate amount of players participating in open-pvp without severe lag spoiling the experience for many.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">How is that an exploit if the drop rate is reduced? That would be the point, to promote open world PvP, and such carrying on in contested dungeons would be fair game.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Those that are undergeared would have the instanced versions to use, and as such, you'd likely find the geared players engaging in combat in the contested versions.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Keep in mind that your quoting me here is from my 3rd post in this thread, and that such a suggestion is ancillary, secondary, to the primary entries in the original post.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Do you have any thoughts about the central core of the thread, aside from your concerns with the subordinate idea of contested dungeons?</span></p>

Neskonlith
07-09-2010, 03:58 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;">When discussing lists, I prefer to start with one point and progress onwards from there in an attempt to avoid <em>wall-of-nested-texts</em> that often become TL;DR snoozers.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If some of the ideas you list here are not considered significant enough to discuss in detail, why did you bother to include them?  You evidently felt compelled strongly enough to post such an idea and then asked for comments, so I provided one on a <em>low-hanging fruit</em> from the bushel of ideas you offered.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You also made the effort to preface your comment with the emphasis that you prefer the destruction of instances in favour of all-contested:</span></p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">As an aside, I would like to again note <span style="color: #ff00ff;">the value that the destruction of instances </span>& converting them to dungeons, would have for hyperdriving world PvP.</span></p><p><cite><a href="mailto:[email protected]">[email protected]</a> wrote in <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=476584&post_id=5300240" target="_blank">Re:GU56 Changes and You!</a>:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I'd also suggest to make all instances into contested dungeons, as that'd bring back the level locking spirit that the craze knew in Antonica and Commonlands in Stormhold and Fallen Gate.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">But, if pandering to PvE carebearisms precedes prioritizing open world PvP, then I think keeping the instances but having contested versions of each instance would be better than nothing.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">What your posts indicate to me is that you have a preference for deleting and destroying PVE game options in order to leave broke-pvp as the remaining viable option.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">A strong open-pvp system would have more than enough willing participants without resorting to measures such as shutting down and disabling PVE options.  If a "solution" requires widespread PVE content removal to succeed, then I would observe that such a solution is far too weak to be worthy of Dev resources.</span></p>

EndevorX
07-09-2010, 04:07 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">When discussing lists, I prefer to start with one point and progress onwards from there in an attempt to avoid <em>wall-of-nested-texts</em> that often become TL;DR snoozers.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If some of the ideas you list here are not considered significant enough to discuss in detail, why did you bother to include them?  You evidently felt compelled strongly enough to post such an idea and then asked for comments, so I provided one on a <em>low-hanging fruit</em> from the bushel of ideas you offered.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You also made the effort to preface your comment with the emphasis that you prefer the destruction of instances in favour of all-contested:</span></p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #ff9900;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><strong>Hardline Open World PvP Stimulus:</strong></span></span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">As an aside, I would like to again note </span><span style="color: #ff00ff;">the value that the destruction of instances</span><span style="color: #ff6600;"> & converting them to dungeons, would have for hyperdriving world PvP.</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">Though I know this to be a position a bit further on the hardcore spectrum, issues like these, for PvPers only, would best be reviewed through a poll...for PvPers only.</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><cite>[email protected] wrote in <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=476584&post_id=5300240" target="_blank">Re:GU56 Changes and You!</a>:</cite></p><blockquote><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">I'd also suggest to make all instances into contested dungeons, as that'd bring back the level locking spirit that the craze knew in Antonica and Commonlands in Stormhold and Fallen Gate.</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">But, if pandering to PvE carebearisms precedes prioritizing open world PvP, then I think keeping the instances but having contested versions of each instance would be better than nothing.</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">If players chose to enter "(Contested)" over "(Instanced)", dungeons that scale would automatically force players to enter the contested version of their tier.</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">So, levels 50-59 would enter zone's scaled for 55, 60-69 would enter zone's scaled for 65, 70-79 would enter zones scaled for 75, 80-89 would enter zones scaled for 85, and 90s would enter...zones scaled for 90s.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">What your posts indicate to me is that you have a preference for deleting and destroying PVE game options in order to leave broke-pvp as the remaining viable option.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">A strong open-pvp system would have more than enough willing participants without resorting to measures such as shutting down and disabling PVE options.  If a "solution" requires widespread PVE content removal to succeed, then I would observe that such a solution is far too weak to be worthy of Dev resources.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I never said this idea wasn't significant enough to discuss in detail, I simply asked your perspective on the other, primary thoughts.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Despite it being my preference to destroy instances and have only contested dungeons, if you take in the "if pandering to PvE carebearisms precedes prioritizing open world PvP" into account, you'll realize that I also support the likely better route of creating contested dungeons, along with having the instances.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Even if there were only contested dungeons, they wouldn't be shutting down or removing PvE options. You'd simply want to rally enough potent allies to accomplish your PvE aim. IMO, it's a healthy mix of the two.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Note that I also wouldn't be against multiple contested dungeons of the same instance if the population grew too large (i.e. more than 40 of each faction or 80 total).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Of course, again, to emphasize, drop rates would need to be altered accordingly.</span></p>

Neskonlith
07-09-2010, 04:42 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I never said this idea wasn't significant enough to discuss in detail, I simply asked your perspective on the other, primary thoughts.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">For many of your other listed ideas, I currently have no additional, pressing comments for consideration since those items are generally <em>additive</em> to pvp options, which are positive <em>additions</em> to the overall game.  I like changes to broken systems, I encourage adding solutions that enhance the overall gameplay experience. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">SOE has a dark history of hasty deletions and content removal as a band-aid while they eventually get around to patching in a fix, and I strongly discourage movement in the direction of encouraging nerfs on content that is fun and functional.</span></p>

Neskonlith
07-09-2010, 04:43 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Even if there were only contested dungeons, they wouldn't be shutting down or removing PvE options. You'd simply want to rally enough potent allies to accomplish your PvE aim. IMO, it's a healthy mix of the two.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Note that I also wouldn't be against multiple contested dungeons of the same instance if the population grew too large (i.e. more than 40 of each faction or 80 total).</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">A contested area without player caps or very few artificial restrictions is desirable for open-pvp, so that players could wage "war" against each other with "armies".  It is a pity that SOE hardware is currently incapable of handling the task of open-pvp when more than a handful of players take an interest in participating.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Player caps create closed instances that are more like BeeGees.</span></p>

EndevorX
07-09-2010, 04:59 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Even if there were only contested dungeons, they wouldn't be shutting down or removing PvE options. You'd simply want to rally enough potent allies to accomplish your PvE aim. IMO, it's a healthy mix of the two.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Note that I also wouldn't be against multiple contested dungeons of the same instance if the population grew too large (i.e. more than 40 of each faction or 80 total).</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">A contested area without player caps or very few artificial restrictions is desirable for open-pvp, so that players could wage "war" against each other with "armies".  It is a pity that SOE hardware is currently incapable of handling the task of open-pvp when more than a handful of players take an interest in participating.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Player caps create closed instances that are more like BeeGees.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I agree, but, we gotta work with what we have, and maybe soon what we don't yet have, if Smokejumper's statements on hardware improvements are going to include Nagafen! ;D</span></p>

Auxillery
07-10-2010, 04:53 AM
<p>Here comes Auxillery's views.</p><p>Pvp Immunity: Can't tell you how many times freeps sit there and appear on my track, imo track should pick up those NOT IN IMMUNITY OR AFK. Granted the afk will have to be worked out somewhat, if you move it comes off etc. Also, if you do not want to pvp then don't be there, I mean really immunity should only be there if you die to give you time to buff.</p><p>Writs: The writs are fine I see no problem with that.</p><p>Warfields: HOLY CRAP LAG? As a brigand with CAs, the casting delay is horrendous. I cant kill a healer if they pop a heal in between my delay. I agree with seliri on the diffrent tiers are diffrent zones, that should have been implimented in the beginning, lower levels should not be in the same zone as 90s.</p><p>Titles: Fame decay is horrible, lost destroyer three times in three days just because I turned the game off to SLEEP.</p><p>Toughness: Makes fighters and anyone with a full set invincible, in BGs I might as well throw my shoes at the enemy to do anything...</p><p>Battlegrounds: Make it so the flag gives a debuff to speed or SOMETHING, a bard or SoW buffed tank can just easily pop his temps to be immune to everything and run away.</p>

EndevorX
07-10-2010, 05:26 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Here comes Auxillery's views.</p><p>Pvp Immunity: Can't tell you how many times freeps sit there and appear on my track, imo track should pick up those NOT IN IMMUNITY OR AFK. Granted the afk will have to be worked out somewhat, if you move it comes off etc. Also, if you do not want to pvp then don't be there, I mean really immunity should only be there if you die to give you time to buff.</p><p>Writs: The writs are fine I see no problem with that.</p><p>Warfields: HOLY CRAP LAG? As a brigand with CAs, the casting delay is horrendous. I cant kill a healer if they pop a heal in between my delay. I agree with seliri on the diffrent tiers are diffrent zones, that should have been implimented in the beginning, lower levels should not be in the same zone as 90s.</p><p>Titles: Fame decay is horrible, lost destroyer three times in three days just because I turned the game off to SLEEP.</p><p>Toughness: Makes fighters and anyone with a full set invincible, in BGs I might as well throw my shoes at the enemy to do anything...</p><p>Battlegrounds: Make it so the flag gives a debuff to speed or SOMETHING, a bard or SoW buffed tank can just easily pop his temps to be immune to everything and run away.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Well, I know Brigands are still able to DPS and compete effectively against tanks. Even non-raid geared Brigands like Hekter are very formidable in PvP. A duel I had with Hekter lasted 17 m 38 sec. TBH, I think it's best you disclose information about the state of your character, as I'm pretty sure you're in mostly Legendary! O_O</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In regards to writs, I don't think the issue is with that, but warfields rewards. What's your take on that? =]</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Kinda off topic, but snares and roots have always been vital for the Battlefield of Ganak!</span></p>

Skudwhistle
07-10-2010, 05:41 AM
I now know why a majority of the server has you on ignore =/

Auxillery
07-10-2010, 01:33 PM
<p>Pvp/Legendary gear yes, find me a scout that can dps DOWN a tank full pvp geared then come talk to me.</p><p>As far as snares/roots HAH ok, Gogo aura of the crusader or close mind then nobody can stop them.</p><p>WF rewards: The rewards should be increased, the amount of tokens we get for the LONG wait is stupid... 3 if you win, yeah ok sure let me waste 10 mins of my time sitting there at klak HOPING to not be vsing a stacked group.</p>

EndevorX
07-10-2010, 02:42 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Pvp/Legendary gear yes, find me a scout that can dps DOWN a tank full pvp geared then come talk to me.</p><p>As far as snares/roots HAH ok, Gogo aura of the crusader or close mind then nobody can stop them.</p><p>WF rewards: The rewards should be increased, the amount of tokens we get for the LONG wait is stupid... 3 if you win, yeah ok sure let me waste 10 mins of my time sitting there at klak HOPING to not be vsing a stacked group.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Toughness:</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Pretty much most all fully PvP geared/AAd scouts can at least run a tank out of power if they don't have avatar regen charms or wrist pieces. Crit mit sets/adorns and Symphonic Allure/Blood Symphony/Blood Ritual/Superior Runes of Mending are enough to keep a scout replenished if they also have solid power regen items. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">And for scouts to be able to run a tank out of power is pretty substantial, considering their job isn't to tank and absorb an abyss of damage. Snaring and kiting a tank is still viable, but not if you want to avoid their bow triggering 3-8+ procs of theirs at a time.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">Warfields Rewards:</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I think you meant to be a bit more on topic, and ignore battlegrounds in this thread! ;P [Removed for Content]. In particular, what do you think about the warfields rewards I suggested (Part 1, Section D), or can you imagine a better option to share with us?</span></p>

Auxillery
07-10-2010, 02:50 PM
<p>Sorry seliri, half tired but WF needs to have the tokens increased from 5 to 15-20. (Point i was trying to get at)</p>

EndevorX
07-12-2010, 02:55 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sorry seliri, half tired but WF needs to have the tokens increased from 5 to 15-20. (Point i was trying to get at)</p></blockquote><p><cite>[email protected]'s log wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>(1278786904)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:04 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Level_1-9 (1), "Seliri"(1278786913)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:13 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Level_1-9 (1), "I see you saw my posts on forums.."(1278786916)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:16 2010] You tell Level_1-9 (1), "aux"(1278786922)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:22 2010] You tell Level_1-9 (1), "did you read my OP even?"(1278786932)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:32 2010] You tell Level_1-9 (1), "my original post ;P"(1278786932)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:32 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Level_1-9 (1), "overpost? yeah"(1278786940)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:40 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Level_1-9 (1), "Original to"(127878695<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:35:58 2010] You tell auxillery, "you didnt give yer thoughts on my rendition of revised warfields rewards though"(1278786971)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:11 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i gave what i could"(1278786980)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:20 2010] You tell Auxillery, "nay"(1278786982)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:22 2010] You tell Auxillery, "give more"(1278786982)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:22 2010] You tell Auxillery, "Lol"(1278786989)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:29 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "im semi tired lol hush <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />"(1278786999)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:39 2010] You tell Auxillery, "im SRS"(1278787006)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:46 2010] You tell Auxillery, "EDIT THAT POST NAO after considering part 1 section d!!"(1278787024)[Sat Jul 10 11:37:04 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />"(1278787025)[Sat Jul 10 11:37:05 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "<span style="color: #ff0000;">after seeing second 2.7 no thx</span>"(1278787031)[Sat Jul 10 11:37:11 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "<span style="color: #ff0000;">section</span>"(1278787074)[Sat Jul 10 11:37:54 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<span style="color: #ff6600;">what?</span>"(1278787100)[Sat Jul 10 11:38:20 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<span style="color: #ff6600;">there is no section 2.7!!</span>"(1278787160)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:20 2010] You tell Auxillery, "srsly"(1278787164)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:24 2010] You tell Auxillery, "read part 1 section d"(127878716<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:39:28 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i did"(1278787169)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:29 2010] You tell Auxillery, "and edit yer post"(1278787177)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:37 2010] You tell Auxillery, "LOL"(1278787182)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:42 2010] You tell Auxillery, "im not saiyng support me"(127878718<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:39:48 2010] You tell Auxillery, "but you didnt say anything abotu your thoughts"(1278787190)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:50 2010] You tell Auxillery, "about my suggestion! O_O"(1278787196)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:56 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i dont have to"(1278787223)[Sat Jul 10 11:40:23 2010] You tell Auxillery, "do you know what i suggested as a revision to warfields rewards...?"(1278787390)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:10 2010] You tell Auxillery, "????????"(1278787392)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:12 2010] You tell Auxillery, "do you?"(1278787394)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:14 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />"(1278787400)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:20 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "What now?"(1278787410)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:30 2010] You tell Auxillery, "do you know what i suggested as a revision to warfields rewards...?"(1278787427)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:47 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I am not caring the slightest bit right now"(1278787432)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:52 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "pvping atm"(1278787439)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:59 2010] You tell Auxillery, "that's my point"(1278787450)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:10 2010] You tell Auxillery, "if you read the original post you'd understand what better alternatives were"(1278787455)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:15 2010] You tell Auxillery, "doesnt seem like you read it ="(127878745<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:44:18 2010] You tell Auxillery, "cause you dont know! ;'["(1278787469)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:29 2010] You tell Auxillery, "where are you pvPing?"(1278787475)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:35 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "Ok seliri tell me you can read a 1000 page book and recite all the words "(1278787477)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:37 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "you cant"(1278787492)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:52 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i read all of your jargon and i cant remember everything"(1278787530)[Sat Jul 10 11:45:30 2010] You tell Auxillery, "Lol"(127878754<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:45:48 2010] You tell Auxillery, "i suggested victor bonuses you can choose 1 of"(1278787556)[Sat Jul 10 11:45:56 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "Oh i read that"(1278787557)[Sat Jul 10 11:45:57 2010] You tell Auxillery, "and removing auto granting tokens at warfields"(1278787560)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:00 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "10% crit or some $hit"(1278787570)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:10 2010] You tell Auxillery, "and giving double tokens to pvp writs completed during active warfields"(1278787579)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:19 2010] You tell Auxillery, "dont you think that is better than 15 tokens tot he winner 5 to the loser?"(1278787583)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:23 2010] You tell Auxillery, "auto granting tokens supports AFKers leeching"(127878758<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:46:28 2010] You tell Auxillery, "putting a strain on the server"(1278787600)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:40 2010] You tell Auxillery, "if you truly agree with me, edit yer post to say so...if you dont, whatevs <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />"(1278787614)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:54 2010] You tell Auxillery, "cause i know i just refreshed yer memory about my thoughts on warfields rewards"(1278787619)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:59 2010] You tell Auxillery, "=]"(1278787630)[Sat Jul 10 11:47:10 2010] You tell Auxillery, "where are you pvping?"(1278787669)[Sat Jul 10 11:47:49 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "my group mates are r3tarded"(1278787695)[Sat Jul 10 11:48:15 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i rather group with you half dead then these guys"(1278787697)[Sat Jul 10 11:48:17 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "Stonebrunt"(1278788116)[Sat Jul 10 11:55:16 2010] You tell Auxillery, "hao dayere yew cold shoulder me"(1278788120)[Sat Jul 10 11:55:20 2010] You tell Auxillery, "how much pvp in SH"(1278788131)[Sat Jul 10 11:55:31 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Seliri, "huh?"(1278788167)[Sat Jul 10 11:56:07 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I hate when i dont sleep, i have seliri popping up in my chat box"(1278788229)[Sat Jul 10 11:57:09 2010] You tell Auxillery, "yo"(1278788234)[Sat Jul 10 11:57:14 2010] You tell Auxillery, "you didnt answer my last question"(1278788249)[Sat Jul 10 11:57:29 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "And there he goes popping up again"(1278788254)[Sat Jul 10 11:57:34 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "Man i have to be delusional"(1278788352)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:12 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<span style="color: #ff6600;">I suggested victor bonuses you can choose 1 of, removing auto granting tokens at warfields (promotes leeching/strain on the server from inactive participants), + doubling tokens from writs during active warfields</span>"(1278788370)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:30 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<span style="color: #ff6600;">dont you think that's better than auto granting 15 for winners 5 for losers?</span>"(1278788381)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:41 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "<span style="color: #ff0000;">I guess</span>"(1278788389)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:49 2010] You tell Auxillery, "then you should edit your post"(1278788389)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:49 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I am away from the keyboard, Zzzz.... "(1278788391)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:51 2010] You tell Auxillery, "to say you agree with me"(1278788391)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:51 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I am away from the keyboard, Zzzz.... "(1278788396)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:56 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />"(1278788396)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:56 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I am away from the keyboard, Zzzz.... "(1278788406)[Sat Jul 10 12:00:06 2010] Friend: Auxillery has logged out<p><img src="http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/8835/auxilleryimageproofsupp.png" /></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> After deriving seemingly coherent focus from Auxillery, I believe his true position on the matter has been discovered...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">(P.S. Cant believe my 3rd hotbar was misaligned all this time...can totally tell from the extra frame budging in on the right side of that chat box...)</span></p>

Forebian
07-12-2010, 03:27 PM
<p>My idea is simple:</p><p>Allow us to turn on a notification system that will have an icon on our screen when we log in if a Warfield is up and what zone it is. When you're running BGs and popping in and out there is no way of knowing if a WF is up without asking. Additionally, when using a porting system of some kind please identify which instance of Ant/CL is the WF.</p><p>Feedback to one of the ideas here: WF by tier may be fine, but I wouldn't want WFs in a zone where I would get MOB aggro. If you have it by tier in an appropriate zone then you'll spend half you time fighting MOBs. Not what I came there for.</p>

Joemomm
07-12-2010, 09:34 PM
<p>Here is the viewpoint from one of the many "casual" Pvpers on Nagafen.....actually right now I hardly ever pvp because of the little time I have to play with real life commitments, but I used to pvp on my templar when on Venekor and plan to again soon once I get my current toon up to par. So please don't discount my suggestions/worries. Also, while I tried to read EVERY post and reply in this thread.....I haven't had time so I skimmed. Apoligies if I post any repeats.</p><p><span ><p>Pvp Immunity:I am totally open to the idea of nerfing immunities. My only fear is this: I do NOT have the time to play the broker game or farm like so many players out there so my primary source of income is questing t8/t9. In SF currently about 3 quests give or take will net me a plat. Last night I was critically Shadow stepped for 9.8k damage and 1 shotted while questing and lost...what....60-70% of the money I had. And to be sure, I never do more than 3-4 quests at a time without running back to immune Paineel for that very reason. Couldn't even get evac off. How on earth will I make money if I can't even run immune to a bank in Paineel (I know Seliri mentioned leaving at least 3 zones immunity intact and I thank you for that). If you nerf all immunity as one poster wished, you will give rise to plat farmers of a different sort, perhaps ones who hide and farm quest turn in locations for easy money. Maybe not, but that would be destructive blow to myself as a player.</p><p>Writs: I don't see a problem with writs either. No suggestions on how many tokens should be awarded or anyting but I don't pvp simply for tokens. I do it for the fun of the fight and the enjoyment of the friends I fight with.</p><p>Warfields: Coming from a player on the Q side, these things are just a joke right now because of how boring they are. I don't blame the dev's for this outright (though it may have been naivety that led to the exploits), i just think it's rediculous how many players switched to the opposing side to farm WF tokens because it was easier. Suggestion: DO NOT let tokens transfer when you are betraying back. If so, make it a limited timed event to try and even up the sides. That's my only thoughts on this. It would take something massive aimed at the playerbase to make these enjoyable to me. I like Seliri's ideas and since I'm not creative I will not try to add my own.</p><p>Titles: Make them the way they used to be. I used to HATE the fame system because I was terrible at pvp. I wanted a negative title that made players lose fame for killing me <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" /> but that was because I was biter and pathetic. Now I see that I was childish to not enjoy them for what they are and would like a return to the new system. I have NO idea how I had a Hunter with 3x more deaths than kills a few months ago......just made me chuckle. Shouldn't happen.</p><p>Toughness:I don't really have a problem with this. I do worry that once things get changed in pvp that those who were able to farm ungodly amounts of tokens during easy mode WF's will be at a definite advantage to those who are making new toons under a new? system. But other than that, I don't much care about toughness. Crusader fights are intensely boring to watch though (while dead and unable to revive), I will admit, though likely due to crazy proc heals or other imbalances that I choose to ignore. Thank you for the ability to convince your partner to jump off a cliff and suicide so the game can go on is all i can say.</p><p>Battlegrounds: No suggestions, don't do them anymore, I may eventually but having to do a number of Smugglers' Den BG's for gear, which seem to take forever, is a sore thing to think about. Give us more types I would say.</p><p>Closed instances vs. Open instances: I like the idea of turning more closed instance into open ones, just please institute some brawler protections next to named monsters (something that can sense FD or what not because I just KNOW players will be farming them till the sun sets in the west). That is assuming there will not be lockout timers....which brings up it's own issue that I am too hungry to think about.</p><p>To sum it up, I know that hardcore pvp'ers want to make a haven of death and destruction on Nagafen but be sure to consider the casual pvp'er when you decide to institute changes that will inadvertantly....or purposefully, affect pve, or the population may dwindle more.</p><p>Thank you!</p></span></p>

MalkorGodchyld
07-13-2010, 04:08 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">If we focus on the root of the problem, instead of the symptons, we can actually fix pvp instead of merely slowing its death.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">1. Immunity.  It needs to go.  30 seconds post zoning immunity is fine.  Perma-immunity outside of a city is not.  There is nothing perma-immunity contributes to pvp that makes pvp better.  This change was made a long time ago, and it didn't seem as large of a change then as it is now.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">2. Fame.  Particularly fame lose on death.  Some hate it.  Some love it.  Others don't care.  I had mixed feelings about this before it was removed.  If you where a person that loved it, it gave you something else to work for besides gear.  This is a good thing.  If you hated it, the only real effect it most likely had was making some people harder to catch and kill.  This is one change that was made that really started the downward spiral.  Death needs to suck.  Removing the suck from dying leads to people not caring if they die.  This is a big step towards a mass revive zerg</span>.</p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">I would propose a return to a faction based system.  Kills would give faction, death and the purchase of gear/rewards would lower your faction.  I think a system like this is far more beneficial than a writ/token based system.  The amount of faction gained is related to the number of players engaged with your target.  If you kill someone that 12 other people are also engaged with, the amount of faction you gain will be rather small compared to a 1 vs 1 fight.  This change alone should help dissipate the mass zerg for gear.</span></p><p><span style="color: #3366ff;">4. Travel.  Particularly guild banners.  This is a change that was put in to make it easier and quicker to get around the world.  The problem with this is it also removes players from the open world.  A large amount of pvp used to occur between 2 groups headed to their respective instance or dungeon.  There is no longer any controlling of zones done.  There is no longer a need to wait until your entire group is ready before you head out to the zone.  Guild banners need to go.</span></p></blockquote><p>Highlighted a few paragraphs that i thought were most important in that post Thin...  i made some of the same points in a tell i sent to Olihin in game, mainly about the fame system.       Dude...work on the highlighted portions for the core of any future "PvP Fixes"    and you go a long way in fixing PvP.        After u do whats quoted, build everything else around it & presto.           </p><p>  Let the faction based rewards/penalties work both ways... a smaller group gets a bonus for killing a larger group of the same teir, to encourage something other than a "6v6 or run"  mindset.    </p><p>   Get more creative with titles when u bring them back...      this is just extra but consider making suffix titles based on a players PvP playstyle.     Someone who doesnt run no matter what?      "The Unwavering" or something along those lines.     Somebody who tends to hunt down whoever killed them?    "The Vengeful"         200 killstreak?     "The Undying"          it may sound corny to some ppl but small things like that flesh out a pvp system and provides a little extra incentive.   </p><p>  Of course before screwing around with titles the Quoted & highlighted  stuff srsly needs to be fixed FIRST.       I dont have the motivation at the time, to type out a detailed post so luckily Thinwizzy hit some very important points that i would have likely put in any "PvP fix post of my own"     Right on Thin!     </p><p>Mariusx</p><p>       </p>

monte9
07-13-2010, 08:46 AM
<p>This is coming from a Q on Vox who has only started playing this game about 2 months ago for the first time.</p><p> 1: Warfields.</p><p>Splitting the zones up by tier would be a good idea. Only problem with it, only 2 or 3 tiers will ever be active. The very low tiers and the end tier. Everything between will be empty. As a lowbie grinding up, I didn’t mind everything being together.</p><p>What needs to change are the rewards. Give the people a reason to fight again. At the moment Warfields is mostly an AFK’ers easy token system. Rewards should be done by objectives met type thing. Example: 1 token for every mage still standing/killed or 2 tokens for each tower destroyed/standing at the end. Each side getting the number of tokens for the objectives met. This will once again bring out the big group of 90’s on both sides to actually fight for the objects and there will be PVP!!!</p><p>War field tab is a good thing. Should be an easy way to see if warfields is up and zone. Having Warfields winners get a extended buff for winning is a GRAND idea. This helps PvP’ers and raiders as well. Gives people a reason to fight even after they get all there.</p><p>2: PvP Titles.</p><p> Could care less. I think this favors the side with more people. It is much easier for an over populated Q side or Freep side to get easy rep, zerg mentality.</p><p>3: Faction balance.</p><p> Not sure how you can really fix this. May be if one side is extremely over populated; allow an entire guild to switch side. This would be on a first come first serve bases. Done on a Manual level with an SOE employee Ok’ing and doing the transfer. There guild hall would transfer over as is along with all their member characters, bank accounts, spell levels and all. When one side gets way over populated, SOE can put out a request for a guild or two to switch side. Guilds could volunteer for the transfer and SOE would choice one or two to go over.</p><p>4: Immunity.</p><p>Only issue I have with this. You should not be able to receive any rewards or updates while in immunity.</p><p>5: Gear</p><p>Easy way to fix items. Add toughness to all fable armor. Shard armor and all. This will make all types of armor viable, and give new PvE’ers a better chance when they hit the BG and Warfields.</p>

Auxillery
07-13-2010, 10:27 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Sorry seliri, half tired but WF needs to have the tokens increased from 5 to 15-20. (Point i was trying to get at)</p></blockquote><p><cite>[email protected]'s log wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>(1278786904)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:04 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Level_1-9 (1), "Seliri"(1278786913)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:13 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Level_1-9 (1), "I see you saw my posts on forums.."(1278786916)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:16 2010] You tell Level_1-9 (1), "aux"(1278786922)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:22 2010] You tell Level_1-9 (1), "did you read my OP even?"(1278786932)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:32 2010] You tell Level_1-9 (1), "my original post ;P"(1278786932)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:32 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Level_1-9 (1), "overpost? yeah"(1278786940)[Sat Jul 10 11:35:40 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Level_1-9 (1), "Original to"(127878695<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:35:58 2010] You tell auxillery, "you didnt give yer thoughts on my rendition of revised warfields rewards though"(1278786971)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:11 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i gave what i could"(1278786980)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:20 2010] You tell Auxillery, "nay"(1278786982)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:22 2010] You tell Auxillery, "give more"(1278786982)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:22 2010] You tell Auxillery, "Lol"(1278786989)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:29 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "im semi tired lol hush <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />"(1278786999)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:39 2010] You tell Auxillery, "im SRS"(1278787006)[Sat Jul 10 11:36:46 2010] You tell Auxillery, "EDIT THAT POST NAO after considering part 1 section d!!"(1278787024)[Sat Jul 10 11:37:04 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />"(1278787025)[Sat Jul 10 11:37:05 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "<span style="color: #ff0000;">after seeing second 2.7 no thx</span>"(1278787031)[Sat Jul 10 11:37:11 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "<span style="color: #ff0000;">section</span>"(1278787074)[Sat Jul 10 11:37:54 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<span style="color: #ff6600;">what?</span>"(1278787100)[Sat Jul 10 11:38:20 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<span style="color: #ff6600;">there is no section 2.7!!</span>"(1278787160)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:20 2010] You tell Auxillery, "srsly"(1278787164)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:24 2010] You tell Auxillery, "read part 1 section d"(127878716<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:39:28 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i did"(1278787169)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:29 2010] You tell Auxillery, "and edit yer post"(1278787177)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:37 2010] You tell Auxillery, "LOL"(1278787182)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:42 2010] You tell Auxillery, "im not saiyng support me"(127878718<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:39:48 2010] You tell Auxillery, "but you didnt say anything abotu your thoughts"(1278787190)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:50 2010] You tell Auxillery, "about my suggestion! O_O"(1278787196)[Sat Jul 10 11:39:56 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i dont have to"(1278787223)[Sat Jul 10 11:40:23 2010] You tell Auxillery, "do you know what i suggested as a revision to warfields rewards...?"(1278787390)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:10 2010] You tell Auxillery, "????????"(1278787392)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:12 2010] You tell Auxillery, "do you?"(1278787394)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:14 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />"(1278787400)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:20 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "What now?"(1278787410)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:30 2010] You tell Auxillery, "do you know what i suggested as a revision to warfields rewards...?"(1278787427)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:47 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I am not caring the slightest bit right now"(1278787432)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:52 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "pvping atm"(1278787439)[Sat Jul 10 11:43:59 2010] You tell Auxillery, "that's my point"(1278787450)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:10 2010] You tell Auxillery, "if you read the original post you'd understand what better alternatives were"(1278787455)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:15 2010] You tell Auxillery, "doesnt seem like you read it ="(127878745<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:44:18 2010] You tell Auxillery, "cause you dont know! ;'["(1278787469)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:29 2010] You tell Auxillery, "where are you pvPing?"(1278787475)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:35 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "Ok seliri tell me you can read a 1000 page book and recite all the words "(1278787477)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:37 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "you cant"(1278787492)[Sat Jul 10 11:44:52 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i read all of your jargon and i cant remember everything"(1278787530)[Sat Jul 10 11:45:30 2010] You tell Auxillery, "Lol"(127878754<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:45:48 2010] You tell Auxillery, "i suggested victor bonuses you can choose 1 of"(1278787556)[Sat Jul 10 11:45:56 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "Oh i read that"(1278787557)[Sat Jul 10 11:45:57 2010] You tell Auxillery, "and removing auto granting tokens at warfields"(1278787560)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:00 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "10% crit or some $hit"(1278787570)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:10 2010] You tell Auxillery, "and giving double tokens to pvp writs completed during active warfields"(1278787579)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:19 2010] You tell Auxillery, "dont you think that is better than 15 tokens tot he winner 5 to the loser?"(1278787583)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:23 2010] You tell Auxillery, "auto granting tokens supports AFKers leeching"(127878758<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" />[Sat Jul 10 11:46:28 2010] You tell Auxillery, "putting a strain on the server"(1278787600)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:40 2010] You tell Auxillery, "if you truly agree with me, edit yer post to say so...if you dont, whatevs <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />"(1278787614)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:54 2010] You tell Auxillery, "cause i know i just refreshed yer memory about my thoughts on warfields rewards"(1278787619)[Sat Jul 10 11:46:59 2010] You tell Auxillery, "=]"(1278787630)[Sat Jul 10 11:47:10 2010] You tell Auxillery, "where are you pvping?"(1278787669)[Sat Jul 10 11:47:49 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "my group mates are r3tarded"(1278787695)[Sat Jul 10 11:48:15 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "i rather group with you half dead then these guys"(1278787697)[Sat Jul 10 11:48:17 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "Stonebrunt"(1278788116)[Sat Jul 10 11:55:16 2010] You tell Auxillery, "hao dayere yew cold shoulder me"(1278788120)[Sat Jul 10 11:55:20 2010] You tell Auxillery, "how much pvp in SH"(1278788131)[Sat Jul 10 11:55:31 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells Seliri, "huh?"(1278788167)[Sat Jul 10 11:56:07 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I hate when i dont sleep, i have seliri popping up in my chat box"(1278788229)[Sat Jul 10 11:57:09 2010] You tell Auxillery, "yo"(1278788234)[Sat Jul 10 11:57:14 2010] You tell Auxillery, "you didnt answer my last question"(1278788249)[Sat Jul 10 11:57:29 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "And there he goes popping up again"(1278788254)[Sat Jul 10 11:57:34 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "Man i have to be delusional"(1278788352)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:12 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<span style="color: #ff6600;">I suggested victor bonuses you can choose 1 of, removing auto granting tokens at warfields (promotes leeching/strain on the server from inactive participants), + doubling tokens from writs during active warfields</span>"(1278788370)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:30 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<span style="color: #ff6600;">dont you think that's better than auto granting 15 for winners 5 for losers?</span>"(1278788381)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:41 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "<span style="color: #ff0000;">I guess</span>"(1278788389)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:49 2010] You tell Auxillery, "then you should edit your post"(1278788389)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:49 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I am away from the keyboard, Zzzz.... "(1278788391)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:51 2010] You tell Auxillery, "to say you agree with me"(1278788391)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:51 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I am away from the keyboard, Zzzz.... "(1278788396)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:56 2010] You tell Auxillery, "<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" />"(1278788396)[Sat Jul 10 11:59:56 2010] aPC -1 Auxillery:Auxillery/a tells you, "I am away from the keyboard, Zzzz.... "(1278788406)[Sat Jul 10 12:00:06 2010] Friend: Auxillery has logged out<p><img src="http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/8835/auxilleryimageproofsupp.png" /></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">After deriving seemingly coherent focus from Auxillery, I believe his true position on the matter has been discovered...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">(P.S. Cant believe my 3rd hotbar was misaligned all this time...can totally tell from the extra frame budging in on the right side of that chat box...)</span></p></blockquote><p>Ok copying my text when I was tired... yeah you are not going to get my 100% correct views because I was tired. Secondly if you want me to post again dont try and humiliate me. Thanks.</p>

EndevorX
07-13-2010, 11:15 PM
<p><cite>Forebian wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>My idea is simple:</p><p>Allow us to turn on a notification system that will have an icon on our screen when we log in if a Warfield is up and what zone it is. When you're running BGs and popping in and out there is no way of knowing if a WF is up without asking. Additionally, when using a porting system of some kind please identify which instance of Ant/CL is the WF.</p><p>Feedback to one of the ideas here: WF by tier may be fine, but I wouldn't want WFs in a zone where I would get MOB aggro. If you have it by tier in an appropriate zone then you'll spend half you time fighting MOBs. Not what I came there for.</p></blockquote> <p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In regard to your worries about dealing w/ aggressive mobs if warfields are relegated to the respective zones of the tier, I completely believe there are enough paths w/ no roaming mobs that would make avoiding them more than possible.</span></p> <p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Despite that, even if there are minor adds to fend off in the course of fulfilling revised warfields objectives, most all trash has been changed to essentially be ineffective at meaningfully damaging those geared competently in their tier, which is fair enough IMO, since players of such caliber would be the type of competition encountered.</span></p> <p><cite>monte9 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is coming from a Q on Vox who has only started playing this game about 2 months ago for the first time.</p><p> 1: Warfields.</p><p>Splitting the zones up by tier would be a good idea. Only problem with it, only 2 or 3 tiers will ever be active. The very low tiers and the end tier. Everything between will be empty. As a lowbie grinding up, I didn’t mind everything being together.</p><p>What needs to change are the rewards. Give the people a reason to fight again. At the moment Warfields is mostly an AFK’ers easy token system. Rewards should be done by objectives met type thing. Example: 1 token for every mage still standing/killed or 2 tokens for each tower destroyed/standing at the end. Each side getting the number of tokens for the objectives met. This will once again bring out the big group of 90’s on both sides to actually fight for the objects and there will be PVP!!!</p><p>War field tab is a good thing. Should be an easy way to see if warfields is up and zone. Having Warfields winners get a extended buff for winning is a GRAND idea. This helps PvP’ers and raiders as well. Gives people a reason to fight even after they get all there.</p><p>2: PvP Titles.</p><p> Could care less. I think this favors the side with more people. It is much easier for an over populated Q side or Freep side to get easy rep, zerg mentality.</p><p>3: Faction balance.</p><p> Not sure how you can really fix this. May be if one side is extremely over populated; allow an entire guild to switch side. This would be on a first come first serve bases. Done on a Manual level with an SOE employee Ok’ing and doing the transfer. There guild hall would transfer over as is along with all their member characters, bank accounts, spell levels and all. When one side gets way over populated, SOE can put out a request for a guild or two to switch side. Guilds could volunteer for the transfer and SOE would choice one or two to go over.</p><p>4: Immunity.</p><p>Only issue I have with this. You should not be able to receive any rewards or updates while in immunity.</p><p>5: Gear</p><p>Easy way to fix items. Add toughness to all fable armor. Shard armor and all. This will make all types of armor viable, and give new PvE’ers a better chance when they hit the BG and Warfields.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">2 & 3.) If a passive system for faction balance is instated, equity in competition may be seen even for Vox, which may possibly aid in restoring quality group vs group PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">4.) AFKers would abuse this and only leave immunity to be rewarded at the last moment.</span></p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p> <blockquote><p>Ok copying my text when I was tired... yeah you are not going to get my 100% correct views because I was tired. Secondly if you want me to post again dont try and humiliate me. Thanks.</p></blockquote> <p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Pshh...was nott trying to humiliate you bro, that's messed to think I'd be like that. No joke. =o The intention was to portray the idea that I wouldn't photoshop or fabricate support! 8]</span></p>

monte9
07-14-2010, 10:52 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Forebian wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>My idea is simple:</p><p>Allow us to turn on a notification system that will have an icon on our screen when we log in if a Warfield is up and what zone it is. When you're running BGs and popping in and out there is no way of knowing if a WF is up without asking. Additionally, when using a porting system of some kind please identify which instance of Ant/CL is the WF.</p><p>Feedback to one of the ideas here: WF by tier may be fine, but I wouldn't want WFs in a zone where I would get MOB aggro. If you have it by tier in an appropriate zone then you'll spend half you time fighting MOBs. Not what I came there for.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In regard to your worries about dealing w/ aggressive mobs if warfields are relegated to the respective zones of the tier, I completely believe there are enough paths w/ no roaming mobs that would make avoiding them more than possible.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Despite that, even if there are minor adds to fend off in the course of fulfilling revised warfields objectives, most all trash has been changed to essentially be ineffective at meaningfully damaging those geared competently in their tier, which is fair enough IMO, since players of such caliber would be the type of competition encountered.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff00ff;"> I you are really worried about adds you could have WF not start till level 20 or 30.  Like you can't set AA to 100% till 30.  Have each WF in a zone that would be gray to that level.   But I agree, having the extra adds, tactics, problems, will add excitment to the PvP.</span></p><p><cite>monte9 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>This is coming from a Q on Vox who has only started playing this game about 2 months ago for the first time.</p><p> 1: Warfields.</p><p>Splitting the zones up by tier would be a good idea. Only problem with it, only 2 or 3 tiers will ever be active. The very low tiers and the end tier. Everything between will be empty. As a lowbie grinding up, I didn’t mind everything being together.</p><p>What needs to change are the rewards. Give the people a reason to fight again. At the moment Warfields is mostly an AFK’ers easy token system. Rewards should be done by objectives met type thing. Example: 1 token for every mage still standing/killed or 2 tokens for each tower destroyed/standing at the end. Each side getting the number of tokens for the objectives met. This will once again bring out the big group of 90’s on both sides to actually fight for the objects and there will be PVP!!!</p><p>War field tab is a good thing. Should be an easy way to see if warfields is up and zone. Having Warfields winners get a extended buff for winning is a GRAND idea. This helps PvP’ers and raiders as well. Gives people a reason to fight even after they get all there.</p><p>2: PvP Titles.</p><p> Could care less. I think this favors the side with more people. It is much easier for an over populated Q side or Freep side to get easy rep, zerg mentality.</p><p>3: Faction balance.</p><p> Not sure how you can really fix this. May be if one side is extremely over populated; allow an entire guild to switch side. This would be on a first come first serve bases. Done on a Manual level with an SOE employee Ok’ing and doing the transfer. There guild hall would transfer over as is along with all their member characters, bank accounts, spell levels and all. When one side gets way over populated, SOE can put out a request for a guild or two to switch side. Guilds could volunteer for the transfer and SOE would choice one or two to go over.</p><p>4: Immunity.</p><p>Only issue I have with this. You should not be able to receive any rewards or updates while in immunity.</p><p>5: Gear</p><p>Easy way to fix items. Add toughness to all fable armor. Shard armor and all. This will make all types of armor viable, and give new PvE’ers a better chance when they hit the BG and Warfields.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">2 & 3.) If a passive system for faction balance is instated, equity in competition may be seen even for Vox, which may possibly aid in restoring quality group vs group PvP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">4.) AFKers would abuse this and only leave immunity to be rewarded at the last moment.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: 8.5pt; color: #444444; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">2,3)  May be.   It is pretty hard for the company to say.    You can't play with your guild because there are too many Q's or freeps already on that side.  This may cause lose in player base.  The manual, look at the server pop and move people voluntarily could keep the pop balance and not lose revenue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Although I fully support the passive system, I don’t think they will do it.</span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: 8.5pt; color: #444444; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif";"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">4.) agreed, but what they should do is make it so when you leave the zone or get immunity you lose the flag.  Having perminant imunity is bad, though.</span></span></p><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ok copying my text when I was tired... yeah you are not going to get my 100% correct views because I was tired. Secondly if you want me to post again dont try and humiliate me. Thanks.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Pshh...was nott trying to humiliate you bro, that's messed to think I'd be like that. No joke. =o The intention was to portray the idea that I wouldn't photoshop or fabricate support! 8]</span></p></blockquote>

Forebian
07-14-2010, 01:42 PM
<p>Appreciate your response to my thoughts...but still believe that PvP in an area with MOB aggro would be counter-productive.</p>

Thinwizzy
07-14-2010, 04:30 PM
<p>PvP around mob aggro has been around since the beginning.  There is/was nothing wrong with it.  Why must people keep asking for changes to make this game even easier and require less thought or awareness?</p>

Whill
07-14-2010, 04:51 PM
<p>The copy/paste of the conversation in tells between you and Auxillery was really tacky, dude.</p>

Auxillery
07-15-2010, 02:29 PM
<p>Thank you...</p>

NoPetKitty
07-27-2010, 12:25 AM
<p>Hey all,</p><p>I regret that I have not been able to post on the forums for some time, but I have been following them when I can.  I have had some real life matters that need my attention and I have barely had time to play while the matters were at hand.</p><p>This has turned into a serious in-depth matter, and I suppose I will add my thoughts into the discussion.</p><p>What I have managed to catch up on, thanks to Seliri and some others are some pending changes.  I for one agree with the immunity removal, or the non-reward in War Fields for being in immunity and have never left it.  Realize this may give way to people sitting dead in the zone, which you can fix by implementing a code that auto revives you at the nearest point if you do not select within 60 seconds. (you can make this game wide too, there is no reason to sit dead, and if you need to afk for a bathroom or drink/smoke etc. you can camp to character select) </p><p> If you couple this with my previous idea of hard level ranges (meaning if you are out of range being below, you can’t haul off and attack and attack a level 81 if you are level 70)  with leaving the ranges for different zones where they are now, you should eliminate the “zergfest” for updates.  Granted you can still have a ten level range “zerg” of pvp in some zones, but if you are lvl 80 jumping into a group of 90’s in a 10 level zone, you do so at your own risk as it should be.  Lower level ranges can still participate, but they will only get updates off of players within their range for that zone.  I.E.  a lvl 70 jumps in, and can only receive updates off of a level 80 or lower if they are in the mass.  90’s can’t touch them, and they can’t touch 90’s.  This should be easy to implement.</p><p>Once all that is implemented… 15 tokens for winning a warfield, and 5 for losing seems appropriate.  There should always be an incentive for participation, otherwise the eventual result is what you see happening currently in the event.</p><p>One other thing I would like to add is that my boss actually suggested an idea that is deceptively simple, yet complex, and would balance out PvP in the open world once it comes back to life a little.  If you have toughness be a stat that is contingent on whether or not you can attack a player within your range, it may go a long way to making players feel a little safer, if they do not have PvP gear like the majority of the server does.  What I mean is… take for example my dirge class character at 240 toughness.  I am wearing 3 pieces of pvp gear, and the rest MC.  I am level 80.  If a level 90 player wants to attack me, and their toughness is more than 25 points above mine, they cannot attack me until they reduce their toughness to within that 25 point range by switching out gear that has no toughness on it.  Most PvP players I know have two sets of gear anyway, PVP and raid gear.  Switching out would NOT be an issue, since this is the play style of most players from what I can gather.    You would also have to lock gear equipping during pvp combat as well to prevent exploitation.</p><p>If I am the level 80 player looking on at the level 90, I could see that their toughness was higher denoted by a little flexed arm symbol highlighted in red by their name.  This notifies me that I can attack, but they cannot attack me as of yet, as their toughness is too much for me.</p><p>If I am the level 90 player looking on at the level 80, I would see a little wavy line symbol surrounded in red, as well as their name would not have a red outline around it, denoting that I cannot attack that player until my toughness rating is reduced closer to theirs.</p><p>Group and raid dynamics on this would work the same way except EVERYONE would have to do the equipment change out.  This can be done quite quickly if you make a couple of hot bars with equipment on it, that can be switched back and forth.  It also forces a group to communicate what the toughness rating you can attack at is, so others can switch to it.</p><p>This modification would be suspended in the BG of course, as that would be way too many calculations for the servers, unless of course it can handle it.(chuckles) </p><p>I have also given some thought to the fame reward section, and about the best thing I can come up that works with the present system are special Resins that can be bought starting at the midway point to maximum fame(or dreadnaught I think it is… dunno, not familiar with rank system.)  These Resins have an effect on your armor so long as you have the midway title.  The effectiveness of these enhancements is based upon your overall fame.  Thus, if you drop below 50% max fame, the enhancements start to lose effect and/or disappear entirely.  If you continue to climb above 50% of max fame, then the adornments gain effects.   For this to be a truly effective system, you must increase the fame loss for each death that you receive consequtively(I.e. if you lose 50 for one death, you lose 75 for two in a row, 125 for three in a row, 200 for four… etc.  your simple a+ b=c sequential increment increase)   This will promote true gamesmanship, and eliminate the remainder of the “zergfest” as well.</p><p>The Resins are not your typical slot based adornments, they are more like tempers or polishes that you can apply.  Simply called, they are Scout’s/Fighter’s/Mage’s/Priest’s Discordant Resin Aura(lvl 90, lvl 80 can be called something different like Antagonist’s Resin aura hehe, but there is no level 70 or below Resin).  There is one for each equipment slot, jewelry, cloak, charms, ammo, etc.  and they can be applied to ANY item once and only once, and cannot be overwritten, and can be bought once you achieve 50% of max fame.   At 50% they will have a couple effects  that are beneficial to your arch-type. (like for a fighter, like 2% crit chance, 3% double attack chance, 100 mitigation, and 2% potency.  Just suggestions and examples, adjust accordingly for arch-type.)  As you gain each 5% closer to max fame, the existing stats increase, and at each 10% a new, more powerful effect is added.(Such as say 5 toughness at 60% of max fame) Rinse and repeat as you move on your way toward max fame.</p><p>If you drop down to 45% of max fame, then you will lose some( I.e 1.5% crit chance 2% double attack chance, 75 mitigation, 1.5% potency.)  At 40% you will lose an effect bonus altogether.  Rinse and repeat until you are at 25% of max fame to where you only have 1 minor stat increase(.5% crit chance)  and at 20% of max fame, you lose even that one, rendering the applied Resin(s) inert.</p><p>Each Resin does the same thing and stacks with whatever existing effects are already being given by the piece, and all rise and drop at the same time based on the same rate.  So it is possible that you could wait until you were an Overseer to buy them all, greatly enhancing your abilities, but I doubt you’d be able to do that if others bought them one at a time and worked them up.</p><p>Each Resin costs 75 Discord tokens, 250K status, and 5p, as well as fulfilling the prerequisite of being at 50% of max fame obtainable.</p><p>More than likely you will have to reset the fame for this, so everyone has a chance to build up to it equally.  It may require a bit of tweaking the gain per kill, but if you do it loosely based upon a chess type rating system as follows:</p><p>I have 1500 fame, the opponent has 1600 fame, if I win, my new fame is 1522, opponents fame is now 1578.</p><p>If the opponent wins, my new fame is 1489, opponents is 1611. </p><p>Ultimately, you will have to fight people at your own fame level to make any real progress upward, as it was in the old days.(Or kill 10000 hunter ranks… lol)</p><p>Max fame is 100000 points.  Decay for fame of being logged out is 10 points per hour.</p><p>That is really about all I have to add.  I think those simple fixes would be powerful enough to balance out pvp a bit, and turn it back to what it should be, and give appropriate incentives, as well as push down the zergfest and afk leeching to a minimum, while making PvP what it should be, a battle of tactics, and skill, and being rewarded for superior performance with fame.  (Obtaining better gear than your opponent is a tactic, seriously.  How do you think the Romans built the empire?  Their equipment and tactical skill with that equipment.  How did the Romans fall?  Their conquered opponents sought to exploit them from the inside out, while using their own gear as effciently or more efficiently than them.  Sound familiar?)</p><p>Oh an knock off the flaming about Seliri, not needed, not appropriate, and not wanted.  Seliri is one of many making a major contribution to the ongoing problem of PvP and helping to correct it.  If you are not part of this discussion and/or solution, then by process of elimination you are not part of this discussion, and/or part of the problem.</p>

Bosconi
07-27-2010, 03:32 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>1.) Warfields</strong> A. Will warfields ever be distributed relative to tier, in their respective zones?  - Players below 90 have <span style="color: #ff0000;">NO EFFECT</span> on the success of their faction.  - Norrathians in tiers 2-8 deserve their own warfield brackets where they can CONTRIBUTE, instead of hinder server performance for the competitors that are instrumental for their team's success.  - Restrict participation in warfields objectives to only players of that zone's tier.  - T2: Antonica/Commonlands  - T3: Thundering Steppes/Nektulos Forest  - T4: Enchanted Lands/Zek, the Orcish Wastes  - T5: Everfrost/Lavastorm  - T6: Sinking Sands/Pillars of Flame  - T7: Tenebrous Tangle/Barren Sky  - T8: Kylong Plains/Jarsath Wastes  - T9: Sundered Frontier/Stonebrunt Highlands  - <span style="color: #ff0000;">Current, simplistic, vanilla warfields system could be used for this purpose, until individual, innovative, unique, and dynamic goals & contested objectives are developed.</span></p><p>  E. Start all warfields at the same time to distribute population/server load.</p><p>  - Staggered warfields initiation in multiple instances decreases gameplay quality due to elevated latency (greater congestion).    - Even when trying to organize in 1 (when warfields start at the same time), many do their own thing regardless of coordination calls, as when 1 finishes, the other tends to have 2 towers down. F. Warfields instance population caps are pointless  - Is it understood that warfields instancing is broken, in that players can enter whichever instance their groupmate is in, even if it reads as "full" to ungrouped players?  - These only ensure the imbalanced faction locks opposition out, as Freeportians barely ever seem to mass invite their peers to "Go to" the respective warfields instance, as Qeynosians do.  - Unifying the start of warfields & distributing them by tier will effectively destroy lag issues.<strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">  - Consolidating warfields timers & removing ineffective instance population caps that only bloccade competition will be enough to promote performance, until warfields can be added to each tier's zones.</span></strong><strong>2.) PvP Titles</strong> A. Why is there a delay in introducing the old fame/infamy/notoriety system? B. Toggling PvP ranks is the only new desired feature. B1. Can this be done w/ a 30 sec casting, 1 week reuse ability?  - Some players might not like participating in an aspect of "vanity", as they deem it. They may think PvP ranks are meaningless, & want to exclude themselves from the hunt relative to such.  - If a player seeks a PvP environment of reactive consequence & near infinite replay value and longevity, they must be willing to risk the opposition thirsting for their elimination.   - Should a player decide they can't handle the stress of being consistently hunted as a target once they successfully vie for a top rank, they should receive exclusion (for 1 week) from the bonus that is enacting loss & acquiring gain from foes in a feelable way.  - To any would-be challenger, are you able to scheme & strategize well enough to reach the top, & become one of the few Overlords? C. Fame decay destroys the cyclical, infinite longevity of PvP titles.  - Hunting that one player ranked above, below, or on par w/ you takes dedication, perseverence, & adroit planning.  - Being unable to control the fate of the rewards that you've labored for leaves your work meaningless. Players CAN NOT choose to PvP over PvE, because sometimes, enemy factions just AREN'T active.  - Being able to simultaneously maintain high PvP ranks is only possible W/OUT fame decay. This is vital to the infinite replay value PvP ranks had in their prime.  - Currently, it IS NOT as developers think. Titles, in their current state, NEVER DECAY while online. EVER. There is NO check that is applied upon zoning that detracts from your fame rank sum. The decay message ONLY appears when you log on after having been offline for some time. Regardless, fame/notoriety/infamy should NEVER decay for the aforementioned reasons. D. The unique commodity of EverQuest II PvP WAS the PvP rank system, it was what separated it from other MMOs, giving TRULY LIVE competition to the world of Norrath.<span style="color: #ff0000;">  - For the past year, players of all tiers, playtimes, & playstyles have championed for this to return, acknowledging the currently uninvolving & completely boring, riskless state of PvP titles</span>.<strong>4.) Immunity</strong> A. Promoting player movement & coordination isn't incentivized as well as it could be. Some players camp their friends or alts in immunity, allowing for hassle free writ completion or warfields tagging.  - Remove permanent immunity from all overland zones aside from the Dropship Landing in Moors of Ykesha, Paineel in Sundered Frontier, & Moonfield Hamlet in Stonebrunt Highlands.  - Evacuating would also NOT give you permanent immunity, but an invulnerability timer of 30 sec.  - War is war, & this change would reinforce that there are no trivial caveats to be taken advantage of, but battle readiness & combatant supremacy.  - If people "need to AFK", they can call to their Guild Hall or city w/in the immunity countdown.<strong>5.) Items</strong>  A. Stonewill is procing at it's old PvP values in PvE.  - This drastically affects the viability of these items for single group instances when compared to the current state of affairs for PvE servers. Fixing this should be urgent enough to go into the next hotfix.  B. Items w/ "This effect can only trigger once every 60 seconds" are currently NOT procing AT ALL.  - Admiral's Chain, Grand Admiral's Chain  - These limitations should be REMOVED, as it completely destroys the claim that they proc 2x/min.<span style="color: #ff0000;"></span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">These 5 points should SPECIFICALLY be addressed before a fuller revamp to unique warfields objectives, warfields rewards/victor bonuses, and faction balance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If the sheer workload of revisions is supposedly too daunting, then these areas, I think, could be addressed with less development time than the three I suggest be reviewed later.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">(P.S. Dudoes, no, I'm talking to everyone. Try posting something contributory to the topic at hand.) n_n</span></p>

PeaSy1
07-27-2010, 03:53 AM
Are u really talking to urself on ur other account.....

EndevorX
07-31-2010, 10:54 AM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Your heinous accusation is impertinent and digressive.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Bosconi, however, raises high dollar concerns.</span></p>

NolaDragon
07-31-2010, 12:41 PM
<p>holy crap oly , thats alot of info to absorb .... i must admit i didnt read it all with the quotes and font color codeing. But I really like the info/Idea's and format it was laid out upon.</p><p>Being a long time pve player that is new to the pvp scene ... Im probably not aware of some of the long time problems in pvp. But most all of what you stated (especially war feilds) rings true in the current problems.</p><p>It makes total sense to split them up per tier , or a few teirs.  But lets not forget the fun in a group of greys taking on a deep red.</p><p>Fame and noriety I have no use for ... but it has been a long time gripe Ive been reading about. So I digress to those that know more than I.   I would however like an option to turn all the FrEaKing prefix and suffix titles off.  Its to [Removed for Content] confusing. Or maybe a different method of display ...... how bout the epic horns???</p><p>And I know this should probably be in a different post .... But how bout allowing transfers To>>> PVP   ... I think that would in itself revitalize pvp.    Lota bored bluebies in their raid gear just waiting to get pawned.<img src="/eq2/images/smilies/908627bbe5e9f6a080977db8c365caff.gif" border="0" /></p><p>And O~kay we might as well let you bored pvp'ers go hang out with the AB crowd <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" /></p>

Pawtrix
08-01-2010, 04:42 PM
<p>Here is Impawster's 2 bits.</p><p>I agree with Seliri on the WF, put the lower classes in a different wf instance and as much as i enjoy blowing up a full group of blues i think the t8 and t9 should be seperate too. WF timers and locations need to be be in our interface somehow, A WF tab in our zone timer UI seems to be the best answer. AFKers in WF should definitely not get a free ride, see my immunity ideas below. Also there obviously needs to be some sort of reward for actually winning a WF otherwise there is hardly a point to it except for the concentration of pvp which is really the only reason i go now.</p><p>Fame: I cant tell you how long i've been a champ and yet i kill overseers and masters all the time and it doesnt effect my fame. kinda dumb imo, also the decay system is a bit harsh, maybe give a day before decay starts in. also a way to monitor your progress is way overdue. </p><p>Immunity: here is my idea, No immunity in open zones except for the cities like paniel and Moors dock. the problem lies with evac and revive immunity. so i think there should be a timer on immunity of perhaps 5 min. enough time to grab a beer or bio but not enough to sit there forever and lag the server out. not sure what to do about dirt nappers, maybe a revive timer of 5 min. If you are immune or afk you don't get credit for WF.</p><p>WTB new BG TBH.</p><p>See you out there.</p><p>Impawster</p>

plavem_davem
08-02-2010, 01:11 PM
<p> OP, do you sit down to pee, cause you sure do behave like a little girl.</p><p>Your whole spill was more or less about what you want out of pvp not what the server wants out of pvp.</p><p>Leave immunity the way it is.</p><p>Titles mean nothing, so who cares how you get them. Sony won't change the title because some people care about the title and if they make the title decay daily people will continually log on just to keep there title from decaying.</p><p>And hey [Removed for Content]. Sony does care about money. They have to make it in order to make changes.</p><p>Thank god this isn't real life pvp, if it was you would already be a corpse.</p>

Bosconi
08-03-2010, 09:44 PM
<p><cite>Jacksalot wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> OP, do you sit down to pee, cause you sure do behave like a little girl.</p><p>Your whole spill was more or less about what you want out of pvp not what the server wants out of pvp.</p><p>Leave immunity the way it is.</p><p>Titles mean nothing, so who cares how you get them. Sony won't change the title because some people care about the title and if they make the title decay daily people will continually log on just to keep there title from decaying.</p><p>And hey [Removed for Content]. Sony does care about money. They have to make it in order to make changes.</p><p>Thank god this isn't real life pvp, if it was you would already be a corpse.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">LOL @ you letting petty pride and bias about who I am as a person completely compromise your ability to offer constructive feedback that considers the collective over the individual.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If you think this is somehow "just my pet project", you're completely ignoring the NUMEROUS other threads that have popped up, before and after my thread, on:</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> · destroying carebear immunity that lets leeching AFKers profit while not helping secure victory.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> · removing fame decay, reinstating fame loss for those ranked above/below, or on par with your rank</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">  - to return to a player controlled, cyclical objective and PvP-based commodity</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">  - rivals, ambushing, and extreme focus on situational awareness returns</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">  - players are given freedom to enjoy accruing titles that represent skill in situational awareness on alts, because their titles won't be meaningless because of decay</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> · eliminating lag from warfields by splitting them into tiers</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> · people laughing about there being no reason to win</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"> · the x8 vs x8 raid PvP in cities that COMPLETELY DISAPPEARED after they WRONGLY put a cap on players per warfield instance</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">  - bypassed by inviting people to the warfield instance (still not identified clearly as an exploit or not)</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">My points address ALL of the above in a critical, point-by-point method that focuses entirely on expanding content for a near infinite lifespan, in a way that draws ALL types to engage, and in a way that establishes novelty for each tier.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Supporting a "do-nothing" paradigm is completely out of line if the sentiments of our PvP society are to be successfully studied for creating a PvP environment that will be immensely attractive to a larger consumer base, should EQ2X prove beneficial.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If YOU THINK YOU care about SOE making money, maybe you'd consider how SOE would best implement EQ2X membership plans, instead of sitting idly by as they thoroughly and categorically disrupt the presence of the trial on live servers, while offering options entirely unequal to current subscribers.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">IMO, copy and pasting LOTR/DDO's model isn't something SOE should risk, given that those are actually, fairly mainstream franchises that might otherwise summarily trump the advertising power of Norrath.</span></p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff9900;">See a critique of such at...:</span></strong></p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/preList.m?topic_id=483444&post_id=5378595" target="_blank">EverQuest II Extended: Redeemed</a> <span style="color: #ff6600;"><- EQ2 forums</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2x/posts/preList.m?topic_id=10&post_id=1310" target="_blank">EverQuest II Extended: Redeemed</a> <- EQ2X forums</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Also keep in mind that they're, for some reason, defaulting to the streaming client, which has WIDESPREAD reports of being totally unreliable, choppy, and far too spotty and time consuming for consistent group play.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Instructing newbies to let it download overnight, and default to the all-in-one client, is likely the best route.</span></p>

halloweene
08-15-2010, 06:08 AM
<p>I agree with many of serili points : wf in different zones depending on tiers, incentive ones (with rewards, not charity tokens), changing immunity rules etc. One very simple and fast change that could be made (although not completely satisfying) : let buffs be negative in ennemy zone and positive in ally zone, and let next WF set up automatically in previous losers zone. That way, when your faction lose a warfield, you're sure you will be individually be more potent next WF.</p>

halloweene
08-15-2010, 10:08 AM
<p>Oh and btw, now that we have 30 mins battleground, is it reasonable to cap power regen at 135?</p>

Joemomm
08-17-2010, 09:57 PM
<p>Since this is one of your more long-winded of posts, here is where I am posting the information you requested.</p><p>Found <a href="http://www.sancb.org.za/presentation.asp" target="_blank">here</a> is some information on how to make your posts stop hurting people's eyes, though it is actually about powerpoint presentations, the information is still valid for Seliri's posts. Here are the quickies:</p><p>"<span style="font-size: medium; color: #ffff00;">It is good practice to have only a few lines of text, or bullet points</span>, on a slide, ideally no more than five to seven and only about five or six words per line, justified left. <span style="font-size: medium; color: #ffff00;">There must be enough space between lines</span> to prevent ‘crowding’ effects during reading.</p><p><span style="font-size: medium; color: #ffff00;">Text must be large enough to be read</span> by most low vision people in the front of the audience and by people with normal vision in the back of the hall. Therefore, we recommend a size of 48 point, unless more space is needed for long words, but never less than 32 point.</p> <p>It is helpful to use mixed upper and lower case letters which are easier for low vision participants rather than all capitals."</p><p>"Please use sans serif font types such as Helvetica, Arial and Verdana rather than font types like ‘Times New Roman’, because low vision people have difficulty with reading text in font types with serifs.</p> <p>Avoid the use of italic font style because this is also difficult to read. Try not to use more than one font type per slide. If you want some text to pop out, use a larger font size, or use bold style, for that text, to attract attention."</p><p>"There are two types of contrast – brightness and color. The highest brightness contrast is between black and white. Objects have the highest colour contrast when they have complementary colours. Examples of complementary colours are red & green and yellow & blue.</p> <p>Be aware that contrasting full colours have no brightness contrast and thus cannot be discriminated by colour blind people. So the main contrast in a slide must come from brightness and not from colour.</p> <p>Note that many people suffer from glare, so try to apply dark background colours (low brightness) and use bright colours (high brightness) for the text to please low vision and elderly people. A white font on a deep blue background is a very good combination. Text with high colour contrast without brightness contrast cannot be read by color blind people. In particular, they have difficulty with red-green perception. These people have difficulty in reading green text on a red background. So when it is important to have a red background, it would be helpful to use dark red and apply white fonts. Be aware that many colour blind people are less sensitive to red.<span style="font-size: medium;"> </span><span style="font-size: medium; color: #ffff00;">So we suggest not using a black font on a red background <span style="font-size: large; color: #ff0000;">or red text on a black background.</span>"</span></p><p>STOP BEING BIASED TOWARD THOSE WITH LOW VISION/COLOR BLIND SELIRI!  <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" /> All in good fun of course.</p>

Dramira
08-22-2010, 10:31 AM
<p><span style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif; color: #d2c5a9; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 1px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 1px;"><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #000000;">1.) Warfields: Something needs to change. Its a token farm and never balanced. The ability to get tokens just for being there should be removed.</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #000000;">2.) PvP Titles: Pointless, they prove nothing about the individual</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #000000;">3.) Faction Balance- I dont have anything to comment on that, really</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #000000;">4.) Immunity- its fine the way it is for an open world pvp server</span></p><p style="font-family: verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="color: #000000;">5.) Items- EQ2 is a tough game. Especially if you dont have a lot of back up for pvp, itll take forever to get items. I dont think it should be any "easier" exactly but it should require less tokens, maybe to give a more fair chance to people who solo more, dont have a pvp guild. have bad luck</span></p></span></p>