PDA

View Full Version : Anonymous & IFF


EQ2Player
08-12-2010, 05:35 PM
<p>Although we can quickly identify our oponents level in PVP, we cannot ascertain surrounding friendlies with as much ease. This is an awkward game mechanic.</p><p>Since ANON is primarily used to prevent a players class from being displayed to an oponent (and location), can you please consider making the behavior of this flag affect the warring faciton only, thus removing the sea of pink-names around us.</p><p>Also instituting a visual indicator as to what level the friendly players are surrounding us would be very helpful. Something similar to what we have now vs. oponent, but contrasted enough as to not confuse us of course.</p>

Sprin
08-12-2010, 10:19 PM
<p><cite>EQ2Player wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Although we can quickly identify our oponents level in PVP, we cannot ascertain surrounding friendlies with as much ease. This is an awkward game mechanic.</p><p>Since ANON is primarily used to prevent a players class from being displayed to an oponent (and location), can you please consider making the behavior of this flag affect the warring faciton only, thus removing the sea of pink-names around us.</p><p>Also instituting a visual indicator as to what level the friendly players are surrounding us would be very helpful. Something similar to what we have now vs. oponent, but contrasted enough as to not confuse us of course.</p></blockquote><p>While their names aren't highlighted in red / orange / yellow / white / blue / gray...</p><p>if you hover your mouse over them, the cursor turns the same color as you would see their names if they were enemies...  so at least you know if they are gray</p><p>But i agree, a simple number buble in the same text color as their names are... at least you know just by glancing how much of those same factioned players are leeching off your kill and how many are helping you kill...</p>

EndevorX
08-12-2010, 10:22 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I too would like a number bubble for current LVL to be shown for allies.</span></p>

Sprin
08-12-2010, 10:24 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I too would like a number bubble for current LVL to be shown for allies.</span></p></blockquote><p>Although I think it would be quite depressing... 99% of the time you are fighting someone of opposite faction, a massive sea of gray-equivalent nubmers leeching off your kill is most likely all you will see...</p><p>Would be nice on same alignment, if the number bubble was the corresponding con color...</p>

EndevorX
08-12-2010, 10:25 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Tier-specific warfield zones with simultaneous, global initiation in 2010 ftw! ;o</span></p>

Sprin
08-12-2010, 10:34 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Tier-specific warfield zones with simultaneous, global initiation in 2010 ftw! ;o</span></p></blockquote><p>I tried dude, I really tried... but the quarrels about OP classes and the sort just sorta makes the good ideas dissapear...   the simple fix for all WF's problems... I tried, trust me I did... see post below</p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=480525">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=480525</a></p>

EndevorX
08-12-2010, 10:40 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Tier-specific warfield zones with simultaneous, global initiation in 2010 ftw! ;o</span></p></blockquote><p>I tried dude, I really tried... but the quarrels about OP classes and the sort just sorta makes the good ideas dissapear...   the simple fix for all WF's problems... I tried, trust me I did... see post below</p><p><a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=480525">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=480525</a></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I still like my zone distribution more than yours... =</span></p><p><span><cite>[email protected] wrote in</cite><cite> </cite><a href="list.m?topic_id=481953"><cite>Fundamental Reformation in Stagnation? Warfields/PvP Ranks/Faction Balance/Immunity/Items</cite></a><cite>:</cite></span></p><blockquote>A. Will warfields ever be distributed relative to tier, in their respective zones?  - Players below 90 have NO EFFECT 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</blockquote>

Sprin
08-12-2010, 10:53 PM
<p>Just putin my 2 copper in.. your idea spreads it out WAAAY too much... the exact opposite of what we want...</p><p>We want to spread PVP into different tiers, not make it so that there is so few targets out there that its a "sit and wait for the WF to get over" every time..</p><p>you need to have SOME overlap and some amount of pvp for every tier... or else every tier will just sit there and have nothing to fight... Afterall... you can Group with more then just someone your own level... and fight someone more then just your own level...</p><p>You're idea would only work if the PVP level range was 1-2 for every zone... otherwise, there will be so few targets, it will prevent PVP rather then encourage it..</p><p>afterall, a lvl 42, which is technically T5, can fight people from low T4.... but if they were forced to go into the T5 bracket, all they would be able to do is fight people 7 levels above them</p><p>You need overlap and not to spread it out too thin....   Too much is bad, Too little is even worse I'd say..</p><p>I dont want to discourage openworld PVP, i want to discourage leeching and lag, and ENCOURAGE openworld pvp.... your spread just encourages 8 nearly empty zones...</p>

EndevorX
08-12-2010, 11:10 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Just putin my 2 copper in.. your idea spreads it out WAAAY too much... the exact opposite of what we want...</p><p>We want to spread PVP into different tiers, not make it so that there is so few targets out there that its a "sit and wait for the WF to get over" every time..</p><p>you need to have SOME overlap and some amount of pvp for every tier... or else every tier will just sit there and have nothing to fight... Afterall... you can Group with more then just someone your own level... and fight someone more then just your own level...</p><p>You're idea would only work if the PVP level range was 1-2 for every zone... otherwise, there will be so few targets, it will prevent PVP rather then encourage it..</p><p>afterall, a lvl 42, which is technically T5, can fight people from low T4.... but if they were forced to go into the T5 bracket, all they would be able to do is fight people 7 levels above them</p><p>You need overlap and not to spread it out too thin....   Too much is bad, Too little is even worse I'd say..</p><p>I dont want to discourage openworld PVP, i want to discourage leeching and lag, and ENCOURAGE openworld pvp.... your spread just encourages 8 nearly empty zones...</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Meh, I felt you were gonna reply in this thread...I was so gonna say make yer reply in my actual post! haha.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">But, players in different tiers, I feel, just aren't in the same competitive class.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Because of that, tower guards, or whatever warfields objective, should be scaled differently, because the basic disparity for classes, per tier, is simply too great for the participants of the lesser tier to contribute effectively.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">In such a case, where the attempt is made to scale warfields for multiple tiers, what we find is that the highest tier contributors are the only ones that are significant to the end verdict.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Your model would only, effectively, create warfields zones for 30s, 50s, 70s, and 90s, bastardizing T2, T3, T5, T7, and most of T9.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">The idea that objectives can be shared according to variable level ranges just leaves leeches that needlessly trouble latency for parties that are actually enforcing the strength of their tier and faction.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If the PvP for that tier is based off of being able to kill greens/blues, then I don't think it's properly designed. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Being on a relatively even playing field is what tends to give players the most satisfaction.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Having the environmental change in scenery, features, and chokepoints is what will make each tier more novel, unique, and desirable when compared to one another.</span></p>

Sprin
08-12-2010, 11:24 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Just putin my 2 copper in.. your idea spreads it out WAAAY too much... the exact opposite of what we want...</p><p>We want to spread PVP into different tiers, not make it so that there is so few targets out there that its a "sit and wait for the WF to get over" every time..</p><p>you need to have SOME overlap and some amount of pvp for every tier... or else every tier will just sit there and have nothing to fight... Afterall... you can Group with more then just someone your own level... and fight someone more then just your own level...</p><p>You're idea would only work if the PVP level range was 1-2 for every zone... otherwise, there will be so few targets, it will prevent PVP rather then encourage it..</p><p>afterall, a lvl 42, which is technically T5, can fight people from low T4.... but if they were forced to go into the T5 bracket, all they would be able to do is fight people 7 levels above them</p><p>You need overlap and not to spread it out too thin....   Too much is bad, Too little is even worse I'd say..</p><p>I dont want to discourage openworld PVP, i want to discourage leeching and lag, and ENCOURAGE openworld pvp.... your spread just encourages 8 nearly empty zones...</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Meh, I felt you were gonna reply in this thread...I was so gonna say make yer reply in my actual post! haha.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">But, players in different tiers, I feel, just aren't in the same competitive class.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Because of that, tower guards, or whatever warfields objective, should be scaled differently, because the basic disparity for classes, per tier, is simply too great for the participants of the lesser tier to contribute effectively.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If the PvP for that tier is based off of being able to kill greens/blues, then I don't think it's properly designed. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Being on a relatively even playing field is what tends to give players the most satisfaction.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">IMO, having the environmental change in scenery, features, and chokepoints is what will make each tier more novel, unique, and desirable when compared to one another.</span></p></blockquote><p>But what I don't think you are grasping is that if you were to spread out PVP into 8 different zones, there would hardly be any pvp... again, if the PVP range in all zones were 2, then I would see the point... and besides... lvl 90's is a tier of its own..(yes its T10, but above and beyond that).... with lvl 90 PVP gear and adornments and the gear available ONLY to lvl 90's out there... no "T9" toon has a chance vs lvl 90's....</p><p>A lvl 89 even with lvl 80 PVP gear on, stands no chance against a 90 with 90 PVP gear on, with blue adornments, lvl 90 Only PVE gear, lvl 90 Raid gear... etc etc etc...  you need to give</p><p>And you say "players in different tiers aren't in the same competitive class"... well it works both ways.. a blue can attack and kill a white, yellow or orange... they aren't indestructable... its the mentality of most players to attack lower level toons... but what you suggest is BG's in WF form... if you had no Cross tier competition or engagement... all players would lock at X9 (39, 49, 59, 69) to be "the top" of the food chain in their respective WF's and you would just have BG's in open world...</p><p>What i suggested is to give a spread so that you still have the openworld feel, where you can still get killed by oranges and still attack greens, but you wont get bombarded by 100 grays taunt locking you, cheap shotting you, just to leech an update...</p><p>You still get the Openworld PVP.. but without the BS of the leeches and the lag</p><p>I think if you continue to push the "BG style" WF's the concept will be lost with the rage that people feel towards BG's... just think about it for a bit..</p><p>Don't spread it out as much and don't make it BG's...</p><p>And besides, these comments will be as lost in this thread as they would be in either of our other threads... people like to argue about toughness and OP classes and the sort MUCH more then they like real solutions to real problems that the game faces... so..</p>

EndevorX
08-12-2010, 11:34 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Just putin my 2 copper in.. your idea spreads it out WAAAY too much... the exact opposite of what we want...</p><p>We want to spread PVP into different tiers, not make it so that there is so few targets out there that its a "sit and wait for the WF to get over" every time..</p><p>you need to have SOME overlap and some amount of pvp for every tier... or else every tier will just sit there and have nothing to fight... Afterall... you can Group with more then just someone your own level... and fight someone more then just your own level...</p><p>You're idea would only work if the PVP level range was 1-2 for every zone... otherwise, there will be so few targets, it will prevent PVP rather then encourage it..</p><p>afterall, a lvl 42, which is technically T5, can fight people from low T4.... but if they were forced to go into the T5 bracket, all they would be able to do is fight people 7 levels above them</p><p>You need overlap and not to spread it out too thin....   Too much is bad, Too little is even worse I'd say..</p><p>I dont want to discourage openworld PVP, i want to discourage leeching and lag, and ENCOURAGE openworld pvp.... your spread just encourages 8 nearly empty zones...</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Meh, I felt you were gonna reply in this thread...I was so gonna say make yer reply in my actual post! haha.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">But, players in different tiers, I feel, just aren't in the same competitive class.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Because of that, tower guards, or whatever warfields objective, should be scaled differently, because the basic disparity for classes, per tier, is simply too great for the participants of the lesser tier to contribute effectively.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If the PvP for that tier is based off of being able to kill greens/blues, then I don't think it's properly designed. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Being on a relatively even playing field is what tends to give players the most satisfaction.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">IMO, having the environmental change in scenery, features, and chokepoints is what will make each tier more novel, unique, and desirable when compared to one another.</span></p></blockquote><p>But what I don't think you are grasping is that if you were to spread out PVP into 8 different zones, there would hardly be any pvp... again, if the PVP range in all zones were 2, then I would see the point... and besides... lvl 90's is a tier of its own..(yes its T10, but above and beyond that).... with lvl 90 PVP gear and adornments and the gear available ONLY to lvl 90's out there... no "T9" toon has a chance vs lvl 90's....</p><p>A lvl 89 even with lvl 80 PVP gear on, stands no chance against a 90 with 90 PVP gear on, with blue adornments, lvl 90 Only PVE gear, lvl 90 Raid gear... etc etc etc...  you need to give</p><p>And you say "players in different tiers aren't in the same competitive class"... well it works both ways.. a blue can attack and kill a white, yellow or orange... they aren't indestructable... its the mentality of most players to attack lower level toons... but what you suggest is BG's in WF form... if you had no Cross tier competition or engagement... all players would lock at X9 (39, 49, 59, 69) to be "the top" of the food chain in their respective WF's and you would just have BG's in open world...</p><p>What i suggested is to give a spread so that you still have the openworld feel, where you can still get killed by oranges and still attack greens, but you wont get bombarded by 100 grays taunt locking you, cheap shotting you, just to leech an update...</p><p>You still get the Openworld PVP.. but without the BS of the leeches and the lag</p><p>I think if you continue to push the "BG style" WF's the concept will be lost with the rage that people feel towards BG's... just think about it for a bit..</p><p>Don't spread it out as much and don't make it BG's...</p><p>And besides, these comments will be as lost in this thread as they would be in either of our other threads... people like to argue about toughness and OP classes and the sort MUCH more then they like real solutions to real problems that the game faces... so..</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">You wouldn't have battlegrounds in the open world, because T5 and T6 are mostly likely to be empty due to a lack of content.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Because of that, these players might go to the T4 and T7 warfields zones to engage the players there, even though they couldn't participate in whichever objectives or receive and bonuses from warfields in zones that weren't for their own tier.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Eventually, if they disrupt other tiers enough, players would be coerced to level up and energize tiers that aren't so lively! n_n"</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I don't think there's much rage associated with battlegrounds, but the only issue with them, I think, is that there doesn't seem to be a chance of the fame system being included in them.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">They're also very linear, and because of that, pretty boring.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Fame on open world servers is what made it all interesting in the first place!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Aside from that, warfields objectives could also be rennovated for increased dynamism after relegating them per tier.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Though, such could happen for battlegrounds as well, it seems less likely, as warfields are exceedingly mundane and bland when compared even to battlegrounds.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">The thing is, my outline gives the less active tiers something to hope for (that their presence in the lesser tier warfields would coerce some to level up), but your plan pretty much damns 5 tiers to be snubbed.</span></p>

Sprin
08-12-2010, 11:42 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">You wouldn't have battlegrounds in the open world, because T5 and T6 are mostly likely to be empty due to a lack of content.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Because of that, these players might go to the T4 and T7 warfields zones to engage the players there, even though they couldn't participate in whichever objectives or receive and bonuses from warfields in zones that weren't for their own tier.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Eventually, if they disrupt other tiers enough, players would be coerced to level up and energize tiers that aren't so lively! n_n"</span></p></blockquote><p>So you want people to go into a zone where they get no reward for being, in the hopes, that their actions cause people to want to level up and pvp with them in their own tier, so that eventually, months down the line, they will be able to pvp in their own WF's and get rewards from their own Tier WF?  Just think about that a bit if you will please... </p><p>Spreading every tier into a different Zone and giving no rewards for any other tier to enter into that zone is BG's in open world...</p><p>And I don't exactly know what PVP forums you have been reading... PVP'rs dont like BGs... and CERTAINLY dont want WF's to become BG's..</p>

EndevorX
08-12-2010, 11:55 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">You wouldn't have battlegrounds in the open world, because T5 and T6 are mostly likely to be empty due to a lack of content.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Because of that, these players might go to the T4 and T7 warfields zones to engage the players there, even though they couldn't participate in whichever objectives or receive and bonuses from warfields in zones that weren't for their own tier.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Eventually, if they disrupt other tiers enough, players would be coerced to level up and energize tiers that aren't so lively! n_n"</span></p></blockquote><p>So you want people to go into a zone where they get no reward for being, in the hopes, that their actions cause people to want to level up and pvp with them in their own tier, so that eventually, months down the line, they will be able to pvp in their own WF's and get rewards from their own Tier WF?  Just think about that a bit if you will please... </p><p>Spreading every tier into a different Zone and giving no rewards for any other tier to enter into that zone is BG's in open world...</p><p>And I don't exactly know what PVP forums you have been reading... PVP'rs dont like BGs... and CERTAINLY dont want WF's to become BG's..</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">lol. While it might sound bleak to the impressionable, T5, T6, T7, and most of T9 are already <strong><em>extremely</em></strong> dead.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">So, yep, rather than [Removed for Content] T2, T3, T4, T7, and most of T9 like your model would (T2/T3/T5/T7/T9 would never be valuable for warfields success in such a system), I would support T5/T6/T7/T8 players going where the action was, because getting fame and tokens would be the reward.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It would surely be fraudulent to claim they'd get no reward when they'd be getting active PvP, despite not being eligible to obtain victor bonuses or sustained token mods to writs, unless in their tier's warfields. The period of months you portray is something liable to be an exaggeration, as well.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Your system would actively promote needless weak links leeching, but mine has the chance of healthily developing activity throughout the entirety of the tiers.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If someone wants easy fame gain and tokens, they would definitely try out T5 to camp those in the T4 warfields.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">And on and on would that cycle continue until players started realizing they had enough in their tier to take down their own tier's warfields and obtain the coveted...warfields bonuses!</span></p>

Sprin
08-13-2010, 04:16 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It would surely be fraudulent to claim they'd get no reward when they'd be getting active PvP, despite not being eligible to obtain victor bonuses or sustained token mods to writs, unless in their tier's warfields. The period of months you portray is something liable to be an exaggeration, as well.</span></p></blockquote><p>Im sorry you cant grasp simple concepts Seliri...  Your mind is like your walls of text on these forums... a brick wall... i'm done trying to explain it to you</p>

EndevorX
08-13-2010, 04:32 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It would surely be fraudulent to claim they'd get no reward when they'd be getting active PvP, despite not being eligible to obtain victor bonuses or sustained token mods to writs, unless in their tier's warfields. The period of months you portray is something liable to be an exaggeration, as well.</span></p></blockquote><p>Im sorry you cant grasp simple concepts Seliri...  Your mind is like your walls of text on these forums... a brick wall... i'm done trying to explain it to you</p></blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Your system would actively promote needless weak links leeching, but mine has the chance of healthily developing activity throughout the entirety of the tiers.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I dunno why the idea of concepts being simple or complex comes into play (that's moreso calculus/quantum mechanics...junk.) ;D</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Problem with your system is it just doesn't support each tier moving toward it's own independence and having exclusive novelty.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Actively rewarding players who don't necessarily factor into their faction's warfields success is wrong, because lesser tier players just can't compete with those geared equally, but in the higher tier.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Cool, you think it's unlikely that people will level up to compete with T5ers and T4ers who might sexually abuse the T4 warfield zones.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Though we disagree there, you took the wrong step in attempting to portray me as narrow minded.</span></p>

Sprin
08-13-2010, 04:35 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It would surely be fraudulent to claim they'd get no reward when they'd be getting active PvP, despite not being eligible to obtain victor bonuses or sustained token mods to writs, unless in their tier's warfields. The period of months you portray is something liable to be an exaggeration, as well.</span></p></blockquote><p>i'm done trying to explain it to you</p></blockquote><p>QFE</p>

EndevorX
08-13-2010, 04:35 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I think you were mistaken in thinking you had something to explain to me.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Bluffing, overrated.</span></p>

Ilovecows
08-13-2010, 05:20 PM
<p>Ghettoblaster's idea for the split warfield is better.</p><p>It may be true that for example a level 12 vs. a level 20 the 20 will win pretty much for sure, but in T5/T6/T7 there are barely any players and spliting it so that those Tiers have to play by themselves, wouldn't be right.  there are too few people in that Tier for them to be split.</p><p>My level 40sk is in a guild where most people are 35-39ish so basicly with Seliri's idea, i wouldn't be able to pvp with my guild unless i wanted to get no WF bonus, and if that is where the 42-45 players are going to go anyways, why not just give them a bonus for it to?</p><p>I see your reasoning Seliri, that it isn't pvp for people to be attacking greens and blues, but if you make people play only with people around their own level you won't let people attack yellows or oranges, most will still lock, like ghettoblaster said, at x9 29 39 59 etc. so that they can be killing the green and blues.  your idea would take away the part of wild pvp where you don't know what level is going to attack you.</p><p>If everyone is all the same level for the lower Tiers, then you won't have any ability to fight anything but a fair fight, some people want to have hard fights where the odds are against them, let them play like that</p>

EndevorX
08-13-2010, 05:35 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Ghettoblaster's idea for the split warfield is better.</p><p>It may be true that for example a level 12 vs. a level 20 the 20 will win pretty much for sure, but in T5/T6/T7 there are barely any players and spliting it so that those Tiers have to play by themselves, wouldn't be right.  there are too few people in that Tier for them to be split.</p><p>My level 40sk is in a guild where most people are 35-39ish so basicly with Seliri's idea, i wouldn't be able to pvp with my guild unless i wanted to get no WF bonus, and if that is where the 42-45 players are going to go anyways, why not just give them a bonus for it to?</p><p>I see your reasoning Seliri, that it isn't pvp for people to be attacking greens and blues, <font color="#0000ff">but if you make people play only with people around their own level you won't let people attack yellows or oranges</font>, most will still lock, like ghettoblaster said, at x9 29 39 59 etc. so that they can be killing the green and blues.  your idea would take away the part of wild pvp where you don't know what level is going to attack you.</p><p>If everyone is all the same level for the lower Tiers, then you won't have any ability to fight anything but a fair fight, some people want to have hard fights where the odds are against them, let them play like that</p></blockquote><p><font color="#ff6600">Not true that you wouldn't have the risk of highbies attacking you.</font></p><p><font color="#ff6600">It's probable that T5/T6/T7 and most of T9 will always be dead unless there's a direct strategy to revive them (like mine).</font></p><p><font color="#ff6600">Because of that, people in such tiers would always be searching out other targets to attack, often those in lesser tier warfields, to coerce others to level up to compete.</font></p><p><font color="#ff6600"></font></p><p><font color="#ff6600">If T5 players start loitering in T4 warfields, eventually the T5 warfields will have enough active players to effectively obtain warfields bonuses while not interfering in a warfield they can't necessaaarily contribute to the victory of.</font></p><p><font color="#ff6600">And no, you shouldn't get warfields bonuses if you're in a lesser tier warfield, because you already have the advantage.</font></p><p><font color="#ff6600">In a higher tier warfield, that's also their turf, so a lowbie shouldn't get bonuses in a higher tier's warfield, either.</font></p>

Crismorn
08-13-2010, 05:43 PM
<p>It would be alot better if there were no level rangers instead of locking at tactical levels in the hopes of killing weaker opponents</p>

EndevorX
08-13-2010, 05:45 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Nah, cause then I and many others would camp lowbies all day and the longevity/choice/liberty of such content would be destroyed.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Crismorn, your feedback...step it up son. Catering to less playstyles isn't an approach that SOE seems to have as a priority.</span></p>

Crismorn
08-13-2010, 05:52 PM
<p>It would create community and force people into the highest tier to begin competing.</p>

EndevorX
08-13-2010, 05:56 PM
<p><cite>Crismorn wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It would create community and force people into the highest tier to begin competing.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">You're an out of touch nub. Or, your humor sucks. ;D</span></p>

Auxillery
08-15-2010, 09:06 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It would surely be fraudulent to claim they'd get no reward when they'd be getting active PvP, despite not being eligible to obtain victor bonuses or sustained token mods to writs, unless in their tier's warfields. The period of months you portray is something liable to be an exaggeration, as well.</span></p></blockquote><p>Im sorry you cant grasp simple concepts Seliri...  Your mind is like your walls of text on these forums... a brick wall... i'm done trying to explain it to you</p></blockquote><p>You know i wish people would stop saying that.. I can understand what he says and I ACTUALLY READ HIS OPINION! Wow what a concept to READ.</p>

MaCloud1032
08-16-2010, 03:56 PM
Serilli(sp) your system only works if people didn't lock. Dieing has never been reason enough for the lockers to unlock. Nor will it be in the futcher. People lock of the fun they have(personaly I see it as a power trip for themselfs). To make pvp fun/viable they need to close the massive gap between the have and the have nots. There is no reason why a 90 not in bg/pvp can't scratch one who is in that gear. Same reason a 89 out questing shoulnt get almost oneshotted by a lv 90 in pvp gear. Pvp skill has been lost to the insainly op pvp gear and the zerg

EndevorX
08-16-2010, 06:58 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span style="color: #ff00ff;">Serilli(sp) your system only works if people didn't lock.</span> Dieing has never been reason enough for the lockers to unlock. Nor will it be in the futcher. People lock of the fun they have(personaly I see it as a power trip for themselfs). To make pvp fun/viable they need to close the massive gap between the have and the have nots. There is no reason why a 90 not in bg/pvp can't scratch one who is in that gear. Same reason a 89 out questing shoulnt get almost oneshotted by a lv 90 in pvp gear. <span style="color: #ff00ff;">Pvp skill has been lost to the insainly op pvp gear and the zerg</span></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">How is the classic fame system relevant to players who level lock and experience the game in the accessible way most appealing to them?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">There's still skill once you're decked out in gear. I don't agree with that claim.</span></p>

MaCloud1032
08-17-2010, 02:12 PM
The classic system rewarded leachers by being able to be a master at lv12 (yes it can happen without leaching I know). The old system if they leached and you killed them you got fame and took there's. I use to go to SS just to defame the grey leachers( those were the days). Now you can't remove fame from anyone. As for the "system" I was refering to it was you idea for the WF's. I personaly don't like the idea of any WF in its current form. Also there is no skill inhoping a proc will go off or living just long enough for the hurd to come by

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 03:05 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Even if fame loss/gain from all deaths/kills went live, lowbies could still leech.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It really isn't a big deal (lowbies leeching while dead, but that should be changed, too), aside from the fact that if such an impeded and compromised fame system goes live (fame loss/gain from all deaths/kills over the classic set-up), then PvP ranks would still be trivial and nobody would care about them.</span></p>

Azekah1
08-17-2010, 05:56 PM
<p>wow, talk about hijacking a thread...</p>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 05:58 PM
<p><cite>Azekah1 wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>wow, talk about hijacking a thread...</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Why don't you agree with the OP before contributing more to off-topic winses like I've done? ;o</span></p>

Azekah1
08-17-2010, 06:01 PM
<p>For sure <img src="/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p><p>I agree with the OP. It's kind of annoying to have to hover over/inspect every friendly to see what level/class they are. I know some people actually like to be Anon/IFF, but I think most do it just for pvp. If there were an option to only hide from enemies I would definitely use it and encourage it's use to others.</p>