PDA

View Full Version : Fan Faire Feedback in Action


Olihin
08-17-2010, 03:05 PM
<p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Greetings,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">I want to first thank everyone that prior to Fan Faire and during the event submitted their feedback and suggestions.   We are evaluating every point and at the same time making sure it fits somewhere in our schedule.   The changes that will be made will not likely hit our live servers until GU58 or later in some cases.   </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">To begin, a few changes that are being considered or worked on at this time:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Standardize Level Restrictions - Starting cities and some of their starting zones will be set to carnage flag.  </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Qeynos</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Halas - Frostfang Sea</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Kelethin - Greater Faydark</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Freeport</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Neriak - Darklight Woods</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Gorowyn - Timorous Deep</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Example:  In Halas, players of evil alignment will be carnage flagged.  In addition, the Frostfang Sea zone will be set to carnage flag, aligned with the GOOD faction players.   This zone will also maintain the immunity timers when spawning from a death.   The change will allow new player to our server, a chance to progress and learn more about the game before they are assaulted by our master low level hunters.   There will be plenty of young adventurer zones for you to enjoy still!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Immunity - The above changes are being done since all other zones will now be set to 8 level range.   This means, there are no more UNLIMITED zones and random 4, 8 or 10 level range areas.   My research shows that 8 levels appears to be the range in which competitive fights are most common.   Anyone over or under 8 levels is usually not a challenge to the attackers.    At this time, we are still allowing the ability for Grey con players to engage Red con players....more discussions on this topic in the future.  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">With the exception of a few quest hubs, all other zones will now be immunity free.   This means that anyone that zones in or spawns in our 8 level range areas will no longer have infinite immunity.   A timer of 60 seconds will count down and players will need to fight or flight from now on.    With the addition of our various transportation methods and guild halls, the need to have this immunity is detrimental to a healthy open world PvP.   </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Some final changes to mention, and I am sure will be the topic of discussion here:  </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We are considering allowing you to attack back when mentored.</span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We will make sure to add a clear indicator that the target/group has mentored.</span></li></ul></li><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We are changing the on take hostile action to now put you in combat.   </span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">This will be a first of many changes to bring back risk to open PvP. </span></li></ul></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Please let me know what you think about these coming changes....I will post more on other threads to separate the discussions.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Thank you! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p><p>edit: font size, grammar... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" /></p>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 03:16 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Epicly awesome work hombre! Cheers! =]</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Wish it could be patched in within a week or so, though, instead of GU#58's October. ehehehe.</span></p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">PvP Ranks</span></strong></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Now for the classic fame system with 1 week reuse/30 sec casting toggle/reset from participating in the PvP rank establishment.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Also restrict fame gain while dead, to avoid greys leeching from mains to sell fame hits.</span></p><p><span style="color: #800000;"><strong><em></em></strong></span></p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">Warfields Population/Lag/Commmunity Involvement</span></strong></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Then, distribute warfields relegated to tier-specific zones (see Part 1, Section C of the "<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=481953" target="_blank">EQ2's PvP Panacea</a>" thread in my signature).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Those not in that particular tier wouldn't be able to affect warfields objectives.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Tier-specific zones could create a niche interest in each tier for nostalgic reasons. =]</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Simultaneous initiation for all warfields will ensure population/latency isn't an issue.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Once that's done, warfields instances can have their population caps removed so that many aren't off-put from participating.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">It's no wonder that city PvP completely died down from the group vs group and raid vs raid experience that it was after warfields population caps were instated.</span></p>

Darkor
08-17-2010, 03:17 PM
<p>Sounds all good.</p><p>When mentored people can attack back, you must have a sign that shows that someone is mentored.</p><p>Zones should have never gotten immunity. Finally we can get rid of this feature on the pvp server. Higher lvl zones have absolutaly no need for immunity unless its a very special case.</p><p>The Combat thing is okay too, i dont care since i mostly fight back even when outnumbered.</p>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 03:23 PM
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff9900;">Mentors & Self-Defense</span></strong></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">While I initially though that being mentored should never allow you to return fire because AAs, myths, myth buffs, and gear never scale appropriately, I guess it's okay if that's a risk the offender wants to take.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I do think that there should be a more noticable identifier aside from the mentored player not having an aggressive, red outline around their name.</span></p>

Magnis
08-17-2010, 03:48 PM
<p>It all sounds great. <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/e8a506dc4ad763aca51bec4ca7dc8560.gif" border="0" /> </p><p>Any update what your considering for reverting the fame system back? The only affect I can think of with reverting the fame system, that it might affect how people handel WF, which i dont think its bad.  </p>

Wytie
08-17-2010, 04:16 PM
<p>Pretty good start I hope you dont let us down.</p><p><em>Also fix the [Removed for Content] Stonewill procs 1st.... like yesterday Olihin!</em></p>

Ralpmet
08-17-2010, 04:28 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial, helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"> At this time, we are still allowing the ability for Grey con players to engage Red con players....more discussions on this topic in the future. </span></p></blockquote><p>An easy and quick fix would be to punish someone for attacking beyond their level range, a simple carnage flag would let all the people who con "red" know that this particular person is more than willing to fight a higher level.</p>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 04:30 PM
<p><cite>Ralpmet wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"> At this time, we are still allowing the ability for Grey con players to engage Red con players....more discussions on this topic in the future. </span></p></blockquote><p>An easy and quick fix would be to punish someone for attacking beyond their level range, a simple carnage flag would let all the people who con "red" know that this particular person is more than willing to fight a higher level.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I dunno, I think greys shouldn't be carnage flagged after they attack a red, it allows for an enjoyable interface between highbies and lowbies at times.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Requiring the red to attack or kill the grey during the period the grey has hate/engaged PvP status seems fair to me.</span></p>

Ralpmet
08-17-2010, 04:41 PM
<p>The only reason someone would think that grey's shouldn't be punished for attacking outside of the level range are people who are leeching.</p><p>There is absolutely no reason for anyone to break the "level restrictions" in pvp without consequence, and the carnage flag system is already in place and would be applicable here.</p>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 04:50 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Many greys can work together to kill 1 red, but if they're carnaged, then they can't focus on that 1 red because other reds will kill them.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I like that hordes of nubs can do that in the current system.</span></p><p><strong><em><span style="color: #ff9900;">- E D I T -</span></em></strong></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Swarming is totally PvP, because if you're dealing with like, 24 or 36+ lowbies (actual player count and not their levels), you really have to work to kill their priests.</span></p>

Ralpmet
08-17-2010, 04:54 PM
<p>That's too bad, because that's not your intended target, if you're swarming individuals who are near other individuals then that's your own fault for swarming.</p><p>Swarming isn't PvP, and should never be an acceptable means of getting rewards.</p><p>EDIT:</p><p>Swarming is not pvp, because using a slew of unresistable spells to CC someone who is well outside of your range does not take skill nor talent, and should not be rewarded.</p>

Thinwizzy
08-17-2010, 04:56 PM
<p>Any word on Stonewill and abilities like Legionnaires Conviction and Battle Frenzy getting fixed on our server?</p>

Joemomm
08-17-2010, 05:13 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">--Snipped--</span></span><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Some final changes to mention, and I am sure will be the topic of discussion here:  </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We are considering allowing you to attack back when mentored.</span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We will make sure to add a clear indicator that the target/group has mentored.</span></li></ul></li><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large; color: #ff0000;">We are changing the on take hostile action to now put you in combat.</span>   </span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">This will be a first of many changes to bring back risk to open PvP. </span></li></ul></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Please let me know what you think about these coming changes....I will post more on other threads to separate the discussions.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Thank you! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p><p>edit: font size, grammar... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/b2eb59423fbf5fa39342041237025880.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Could you (or anyone who understands it) clarify what that means?</p><p>I like the rest, so long as the "few quest hubs" that will still keep immunity are the 3 main cities (paineel, moonfeild hamlet, and Moors) which all contain banks, brokers, and token merchants. The last thing you want to do is encourage players to camp the raid token merchant in paineel for 10plat shots on players trying to buy equipment or adorns. I can swallow loosing all immunity in all other zones.</p><p>I like the idea of allowing mentored players to fight back when attacked, though it could lead to a rash of "body gaurds" in lower level questing situations and may, therefore, deter lower lvl pvp....unless you can somehow make mentored 90's actually be on a level playing feild as their mentored level says they are instead of incredibly stronger. Though since I don't pvp aside from t9, that downside means little to me.</p><p>Carnage flags in lowbie zones make me happy <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" /> I'm not one of those players who gets kicks off killing players 10+ levels lower than me, but I will be very happy to help lowbies out by protecting them from insane low level twinks.</p>

skylancer
08-17-2010, 05:47 PM
<p>All in all I like these possible changes-</p><p>-The "On take hostile" rocks, if i understand it correctly, you get thrown into combat when you get hit. If thats the case its bloody brilliant. My bigest issue BY FAR with pvp is runaway -expletive deletes-. Imo if you are going to play on naggy, come here to fight. If you runaway esp. after engaging that toon needs to be deleted and SOE should send out a hit team to shoot your dog. 99.897% of runaways are from freeport btw, must be something in the water.</p><p>-I think getting a 15 min. carnage when engaging a red player is a no brainer. Have had many encounters where the swarm o greys is busy leeching and taunting and you cant tab to someone you can actually attack. This is the simple and sensible solution to grey leechers.</p><p>-Never thought id say it , but i miss the old KP unlimited days. Warfields is a nice concept, but has kind of gotten silly, spending 10 min spamming 1-9 to get invited to a zone is blah.</p><p>Just do away with wf's, put an immunity back on kp docks. make kp unlimited again, and i guarantee pvp will come back to life big time. Granted you can still find some t9 pvp during warfields, but usually spend 90% of your time flying to em, or trying to find what instance they are in.</p><p>Back in the day you could zone in to KP and find pvp pretty much 24/7 and by golly it was FUN. What was wrong with KP being unlimited ill never know. It was downright exhilarating to quest out there if you werent 80 and geared, there should be a place you go to at your peril on a pvp server dammit.</p>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 05:49 PM
<p><cite>skylancer wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>All in all I like these possible changes-</p><p>-The "On take hostile" rocks, if i understand it correctly, you get thrown into combat when you get hit. If thats the case its bloody brilliant. My bigest issue BY FAR with pvp is runaway -expletive deletes-. Imo if you are going to play on naggy, come here to fight. If you runaway esp. after engaging that toon needs to be deleted and SOE should send out a hit team to shoot your dog. 99.897% of runaways are from freeport btw, must be something in the water.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Yeah, I didn't let this process at first, but yes, this is also an epicly wonderful reform!</span></p><p>-I think getting a 15 min. carnage when engaging a red player is a no brainer. Have had many encounters where the swarm o greys is busy leeching and taunting and you cant tab to someone you can actually attack. This is the simple and sensible solution to grey leechers.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I think such a scenario is one of strategy, whether or not you place yourself near a swarm of greys or not.</span></p><p>-Never thought id say it , but i miss the old KP unlimited days. Warfields is a nice concept, but has kind of gotten silly, spending 10 min spamming 1-9 to get invited to a zone is blah.</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Seems like your problem is mostly with warfields population caps like I mentioned a fix for above!</span></p><p>Just do away with wf's, put an immunity back on kp docks. make kp unlimited again, and i guarantee pvp will come back to life big time. Granted you can still find some t9 pvp during warfields, but usually spend 90% of your time flying to em, or trying to find what instance they are in.</p><p>Back in the day you could zone in to KP and find pvp pretty much 24/7 and by golly it was FUN. What was wrong with KP being unlimited ill never know. It was downright exhilarating to quest out there if you werent 80 and geared, there should be a place you go to at your peril on a pvp server dammit.</p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Except all the competition you mention was mostly within a level range of 0. Those beneath 80 were typically freebies!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Immunity anywhere in overland zones, even KP docks, is for the lose!</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Seliri's comments = <span style="color: #ff0000;">red</span>/orange</span></p>

Epiph
08-17-2010, 05:50 PM
<p>you say bring back risk to open world pvp.</p><p><span style="font-size: xx-large;"><strong>YOU CAN'T HAVE RISK WITH THE CURRENT INFAMY SYSTEM WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND???</strong></span></p>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 05:54 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Look at that! In 15 replies, already 2 explicit agreements to my "now for..." suggestions in the 1st reply to the thread!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">The others agree, they're just being passive Pashtuns.</span></p>

Roald
08-17-2010, 06:35 PM
<p>I like none of the ideas in the op.</p>

Taldier
08-17-2010, 07:49 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Greetings,</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">I want to first thank everyone that prior to Fan Faire and during the event submitted their feedback and suggestions.   We are evaluating every point and at the same time making sure it fits somewhere in our schedule.   The changes that will be made will not likely hit our live servers until GU58 or later in some cases.   </span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">To begin, a few changes that are being considered or worked on at this time:</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Standardize Level Restrictions - Starting cities and some of their starting zones will be set to carnage flag.  </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Qeynos</span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Halas - Frostfang Sea</span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Kelethin - Greater Faydark</span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Freeport</span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Neriak - Darklight Woods</span></li><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Gorowyn - Timorous Deep</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Example:  In Halas, players of evil alignment will be carnage flagged.  In addition, the Frostfang Sea zone will be set to carnage flag, aligned with the GOOD faction players.   This zone will also maintain the immunity timers when spawning from a death.   The change will allow new player to our server, a chance to progress and learn more about the game before they are assaulted by our master low level hunters.   There will be plenty of young adventurer zones for you to enjoy still!</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: xx-small;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">fine, wont really solve the problem that its supposed to but doesnt hurt anything either.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Immunity - The above changes are being done since all other zones will now be set to 8 level range.   This means, there are no more UNLIMITED zones and random 4, 8 or 10 level range areas.  </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">My research shows that 8 levels appears to be the range in which competitive fights are most common.   Anyone over or under 8 levels is usually not a challenge to the attackers.    At this time, we are still allowing the ability for Grey con players to engage Red con players....more discussions on this topic in the future.  </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; color: #ff0000; font-size: small;"><strong>Endgame zones should ALWAYS be unlimited range.  The point isnt whether it is possible for a grey to competitively fight.  The point is whether greys can interfere with appropriate level pvp.  And considering the amount of temporary 100% damage immunities in the game and the fact that <span style="text-decoration: underline;">taunts and cc have max effect on red players</span>, they most certainly can, especially in large numbers.  If they dont belong in the zone they should be free to kill before they get in the way.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">With the exception of a few quest hubs, all other zones will now be immunity free.   This means that anyone that zones in or spawns in our 8 level range areas will no longer have infinite immunity.   A timer of 60 seconds will count down and players will need to fight or flight from now on.    With the addition of our various transportation methods and guild halls, the need to have this immunity is detrimental to a healthy open world PvP.   </span></p><p><span style="font-family: Arial; color: #ff0000; font-size: small;">good</span></p><p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">Some final changes to mention, and I am sure will be the topic of discussion here:  </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We are considering allowing you to attack back when mentored.</span> </span><ul><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">We will make sure to add a clear indicator that the target/group has mentored.</span></li></ul></li></ul><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: small;">good, not that important but its certainly taken long enough</span></p></span><ul><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><strong>We are changing the on take hostile action to now put you in combat.   </strong></span><ul><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><strong>This will be a first of many changes to bring back risk to open PvP.</strong> </span></li></ul></li></ul><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">This doesnt increase risk.  It simply makes it pointless for anyone who isnt a q to even leave their guild hall.  There is no risk to 30 vs 1 if you arent even allowed to move.  "Risk" implies some probability under 100%, that is the defintion of the word.  This change only creates certainty of pointless death and free rewards for anyone on the opposing team who happens to be nearby.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Is attacking someone going to put everyone on your faction into combat?  Because if it doesnt, you are simply making a single range attack drop someone into combat so that the rest of the swarm can run them down while still maintaining 100% runspeed.</span></p><font face="arial,helvetica,sans-serif" size="4"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">FAIL.</span></p></font></span></blockquote>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 07:59 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Greetings,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">I want to first thank everyone that prior to Fan Faire and during the event submitted their feedback and suggestions.   We are evaluating every point and at the same time making sure it fits somewhere in our schedule.   The changes that will be made will not likely hit our live servers until GU58 or later in some cases.   </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">To begin, a few changes that are being considered or worked on at this time:</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Standardize Level Restrictions - Starting cities and some of their starting zones will be set to carnage flag.  </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Qeynos</span></li><li><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Halas - Frostfang Sea</span></li><li><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Kelethin - Greater Faydark</span></li><li><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Freeport</span></li><li><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Neriak - Darklight Woods</span></li><li><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Gorowyn - Timorous Deep</span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: x-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Example:  In Halas, players of evil alignment will be carnage flagged.  In addition, the Frostfang Sea zone will be set to carnage flag, aligned with the GOOD faction players.   This zone will also maintain the immunity timers when spawning from a death.   The change will allow new player to our server, a chance to progress and learn more about the game before they are assaulted by our master low level hunters.   There will be plenty of young adventurer zones for you to enjoy still!</span></p><p><span style="font-size: xx-small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">fine, wont really solve the problem that its supposed to but doesnt hurt anything either.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Immunity - The above changes are being done since all other zones will now be set to 8 level range.   This means, there are no more UNLIMITED zones and random 4, 8 or 10 level range areas.  </span><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">My research shows that 8 levels appears to be the range in which competitive fights are most common.   Anyone over or under 8 levels is usually not a challenge to the attackers.    At this time, we are still allowing the ability for Grey con players to engage Red con players....more discussions on this topic in the future.  </span></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial; color: #ff0000;"><strong>Endgame zones should ALWAYS be unlimited range.  The point isnt whether it is possible for a grey to competitively fight.  The point is whether greys can interfere with appropriate level pvp.  And considering the amount of temporary 100% damage immunities in the game and the fact that <span style="text-decoration: underline;">taunts and cc have max effect on red players</span>, they most certainly can, especially in large numbers.  If they dont belong in the zone they should be free to kill before they get in the way.</strong></span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">With the exception of a few quest hubs, all other zones will now be immunity free.   This means that anyone that zones in or spawns in our 8 level range areas will no longer have infinite immunity.   A timer of 60 seconds will count down and players will need to fight or flight from now on.    With the addition of our various transportation methods and guild halls, the need to have this immunity is detrimental to a healthy open world PvP.   </span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Arial; color: #ff0000;">good</span></p><p><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Some final changes to mention, and I am sure will be the topic of discussion here:  </span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We are considering allowing you to attack back when mentored.</span> </span><ul><li><span style="font-size: small; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We will make sure to add a clear indicator that the target/group has mentored.</span></li></ul></li></ul><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><p><span style="font-size: small; color: #ff0000;">good, not that important but its certainly taken long enough</span></p></span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>We are changing the on take hostile action to now put you in combat.   </strong></span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>This will be a first of many changes to bring back risk to open PvP.</strong> </span></li></ul></li></ul><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">This doesnt increase risk.  It simply makes it pointless for anyone who isnt a q to even leave their guild hall.  There is no risk to 30 vs 1 if you arent even allowed to move.  "Risk" implies some probability under 100%, that is the defintion of the word.  This change only creates certainty of pointless death and free rewards for anyone on the opposing team who happens to be nearby.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Is attacking someone going to put everyone on your faction into combat?  Because if it doesnt, you are simply making a single range attack drop someone into combat so that the rest of the swarm can run them down while still maintaining 100% runspeed.</span></p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">FAIL.</span></p></span></span><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I must confess a bit of bias in regard to flatly agreeing with this feature, but I do suggest passive implements for faction balance!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">See Part 3 of the "<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=481953" target="_blank">EQ2's PvP Panacea</a>" thread in my signature for the concept fully realized!</span></p></blockquote></blockquote>

Ssue
08-17-2010, 08:21 PM
<p><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 9pt;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">Sounds pretty good, I only wish this was going to be happening sooner than later.  If this isn't in the plan already could you please consider it if the feedback for it is supported.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Along with the immunity changes could you change the perma-immunity that Evacuation grants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After Evac have an immunity time tick down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>I enjoyed the early days when I would evac thinking “Woot, safe!”… To then find my evac point was a bigger death trap than the one I evac’d from.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>The only time perma-immunity should be granted is after death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>I feel you’ve earned a break after a death so you can cool-off (to prevent rage quit), regroup, get a drink, bio break, whatever</span>. </span></p>

Taldier
08-17-2010, 08:22 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><ul><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><strong>We are changing the on take hostile action to now put you in combat.   </strong></span><ul><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><strong>This will be a first of many changes to bring back risk to open PvP.</strong> </span></li></ul></li></ul><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">This doesnt increase risk.  It simply makes it pointless for anyone who isnt a q to even leave their guild hall.  There is no risk to 30 vs 1 if you arent even allowed to move.  "Risk" implies some probability under 100%, that is the defintion of the word.  This change only creates certainty of pointless death and free rewards for anyone on the opposing team who happens to be nearby.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Is attacking someone going to put everyone on your faction into combat?  Because if it doesnt, you are simply making a single range attack drop someone into combat so that the rest of the swarm can run them down while still maintaining 100% runspeed.</span></p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">FAIL.</span></p></span></span><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I must confess a bit of bias in regard to flatly agreeing with this feature, but I do suggest passive implements for faction balance!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">See Part 3 of the "<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=481953" target="_blank">EQ2's PvP Panacea</a>" thread in my signature for the concept fully realized!</span></p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><p>Nothing in that thread which you link in half your posts addresses faction balance.  Buying spells is trivial for actual "active" players.  Simply removing penalties from betrayal does absolutely nothing as long as the current pvp reward system is designed in a way which actively encourages players to outnumber their opponents by as large a margin as possible.</p><p>As long as the writ system magically dupes tokens for each person who tosses a throwing knife at a target, players will continue to join the larger faction to get all the benefits with no downsides at all.</p><p>Even aside from the poor faction balance, the idea of forcing a target into combat is drastically flawed as long as allies of the attacker can continue to chase the target at max run speed.</p><p>Dropping both players in a 1v1 into combat has nearly no effect, if you can kill them under these circumstances you could have killed them by casting a root or a stun.  The change has 0 benefit unless you outnumber your opponent.  It allows swarms of players an assured kill on anything that gets within max range of any member of the group.</p>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 08:24 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><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>We are changing the on take hostile action to now put you in combat.   </strong></span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><strong>This will be a first of many changes to bring back risk to open PvP.</strong> </span></li></ul></li></ul><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">This doesnt increase risk.  It simply makes it pointless for anyone who isnt a q to even leave their guild hall.  There is no risk to 30 vs 1 if you arent even allowed to move.  "Risk" implies some probability under 100%, that is the defintion of the word.  This change only creates certainty of pointless death and free rewards for anyone on the opposing team who happens to be nearby.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Is attacking someone going to put everyone on your faction into combat?  Because if it doesnt, you are simply making a single range attack drop someone into combat so that the rest of the swarm can run them down while still maintaining 100% runspeed.</span></p><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">FAIL.</span></p></span></span><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I must confess a bit of bias in regard to flatly agreeing with this feature, but I do suggest passive implements for faction balance!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">See Part 3 of the "<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=481953" target="_blank">EQ2's PvP Panacea</a>" thread in my signature for the concept fully realized!</span></p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><p>Nothing in that thread which you link in half your posts addresses faction balance.  Buying spells is trivial for actual "active" players.  Simply removing penalties from betrayal does absolutely nothing as long as the current pvp reward system is designed in a way which actively encourages players to outnumber their opponents by as large a margin as possible.</p><p>As long as the writ system magically dupes tokens for each person who tosses a throwing knife at a target, players will continue to join the larger faction to get all the benefits with no downsides at all.</p><p>Even aside from the poor faction balance, the idea of forcing a target into combat is drastically flawed as long as allies of the attacker can continue to chase the target at max run speed.</p><p>Dropping both players in a 1v1 into combat has nearly no effect, if you can kill them under these circumstances you could have killed them by casting a root or a stun.  The change has 0 benefit unless you outnumber your opponent.  It allows swarms of players an assured kill on anything that gets within max range of any member of the group.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Dunno bro, I know a lot of people, myself included, that could probably rally others to go Freeportian to help balance factions if a faction balance system was implemented like I suggest.</span></p>

Taldier
08-17-2010, 08:34 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><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><ul><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><strong>We are changing the on take hostile action to now put you in combat.   </strong></span><ul><li><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><strong>This will be a first of many changes to bring back risk to open PvP.</strong> </span></li></ul></li></ul><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">This doesnt increase risk.  It simply makes it pointless for anyone who isnt a q to even leave their guild hall.  There is no risk to 30 vs 1 if you arent even allowed to move.  "Risk" implies some probability under 100%, that is the defintion of the word.  This change only creates certainty of pointless death and free rewards for anyone on the opposing team who happens to be nearby.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Is attacking someone going to put everyone on your faction into combat?  Because if it doesnt, you are simply making a single range attack drop someone into combat so that the rest of the swarm can run them down while still maintaining 100% runspeed.</span></p><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">FAIL.</span></p></span></span><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I must confess a bit of bias in regard to flatly agreeing with this feature, but I do suggest passive implements for faction balance!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">See Part 3 of the "<a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?topic_id=481953" target="_blank">EQ2's PvP Panacea</a>" thread in my signature for the concept fully realized!</span></p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><p>Nothing in that thread which you link in half your posts addresses faction balance.  Buying spells is trivial for actual "active" players.  Simply removing penalties from betrayal does absolutely nothing as long as the current pvp reward system is designed in a way which actively encourages players to outnumber their opponents by as large a margin as possible.</p><p>As long as the writ system magically dupes tokens for each person who tosses a throwing knife at a target, players will continue to join the larger faction to get all the benefits with no downsides at all.</p><p>Even aside from the poor faction balance, the idea of forcing a target into combat is drastically flawed as long as allies of the attacker can continue to chase the target at max run speed.</p><p>Dropping both players in a 1v1 into combat has nearly no effect, if you can kill them under these circumstances you could have killed them by casting a root or a stun.  The change has 0 benefit unless you outnumber your opponent.  It allows swarms of players an assured kill on anything that gets within max range of any member of the group.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Dunno bro, I know a lot of people, myself included, that could probably rally others to go Freeportian to help balance factions if a faction balance system was implemented like I suggest.</span></p></blockquote><p>One or two active groups does not balance out the difference on the current population scale.  Freeport is drastically outnumbered at all hours of every day.</p><p>Unless you are suggesting that half a dozen elite groups of cyborg warriors with no need to sleep or leave their computers are prepared to join freeport purely for fun with no actual benefits for doing so, the numbers simply dont add up.</p>

Joemomm
08-17-2010, 08:35 PM
<p>Don't we already have players outrunning attackers while THEY are in combat, to the point of being able to get out of combat in only a handful of seconds of running? With all that happening, what makes you think it really matters if hostile actions put a player into combat? Either they will fight, or they will run and escape like so many already do. At the very least being dropped into combat MIGHT make some consider fighting first and running last instead of now when someone sees an enemy, waits for them to attack so they can have run speed advantage, then takes off.</p><p>Oh and as for factions not being balanced, I will say that with freeport having fewer players, the ones who do come out to fight are usually VERY impressive and difficult to kill. I find myself thinking a lot when fighting in WF's that if freeport can crank out maybe 2 more full groups of T9 twinks like the ones that are normally out, they just might start to win quite a bit. Having so many on the Qeynos side has made a LOT of players lazy and so used to mooching off kills that they are squishy little flys with no idea what to do when a hammer gets dropped on their face by a coordinated attack. Keep fighting the good fight!</p><p>--Squealz</p>

Taldier
08-17-2010, 08:37 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Don't we already have players outrunning attackers while THEY are in combat, to the point of being able to get out of combat in only a handful of seconds of running? With all that happening, what makes you think it really matters if hostile actions put a player into combat? Either they will fight, or they will run and escape like so many already do. At the very least being dropped into combat MIGHT make some consider fighting first and running last instead of now when someone sees an enemy, waits for them to attack so they can have run speed advantage, then takes off.</p></blockquote><p>This is exactly why the proposed change has 0 effect in a 1v1 or any situation involving even odds.</p><p>It only guarantees that anyone attacked by multiple players will have 0 chance to ever escape them.</p>

EndevorX
08-17-2010, 08:46 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span >One or two active groups does not balance out the difference on the current population scale.  Freeport is drastically outnumbered at all hours of every day.</span></p><p>Unless you are suggesting that half a dozen elite groups of cyborg warriors with no need to sleep or leave their computers are prepared to join freeport purely for fun with no actual benefits for doing so, the numbers simply dont add up.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">But I AM one of those amidst such an elite group...=</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Anyways, you'd be in the wrong to doubt such a passive faction balance system as I suggest, as the balance of power would undoubtedly swing in favor of the underdog, over time.</span></p>

Azol
08-18-2010, 05:02 AM
<p>I like the changes so far.</p><p>But we have to re-work the fame system, as it should reflect the "risk vs reward" changes.</p><p>Looks like the road to healthy PVP system WILL be paved with good intentions of PVP developers. <img src="/smilies/3b63d1616c5dfcf29f8a7a031aaa7cad.gif" border="0" alt="SMILEY" /></p>

MindFury
08-18-2010, 11:57 AM
<p><span ><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><strong>We are changing the on take hostile action to now put you in combat.</strong></span></span></p><p>I want to know clearly what this means. I don't want assumptions from other players...I do want a dev to clear this up!...</p><p>If already stated assumptions are correct, and this is a case of "getting hit forces you in to combat" you might as well kiss what play time I do have for this game, good-bye. It was a <span ><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><strong>VERY</strong></span></span> clear indication to you folks back when this was in game after SF went live, that people would not accept this, if this is what's going to be pushed/forced on to us, screw that.</p><p>All my characters on Nagafen are Q's...at the moment it's stated there are far more Q's than Freeps (unsure if this is correct, or if the Freeps are all just hiding) so going from that....taking WF's as just one example...50 lvl 90 Q's in zone, 10 lvl 90 Freeps...one hit from any of those 50 Q's and you as a Freep, find yourself forced in to combat, anyone with half a brain can see 10 vs 50 isn't going to be much of a challenge/fight...it'll be over in a matter of 30 seconds if that.....where is the logic in this (if this is truely what is meant by "on take hostile action" which it does rather sound like) BTW DEVS....try speaking clear english so your paying customer base has no doubts as to [Removed for Content] you mean by something..really lol..sheesh.</p><p><strong>I am </strong><strong>100% against</strong> <strong>forcing anyone in to pvp combat simply because they were hit by another player</strong>....a lvl 30 runs up and hits you, a lvl 90, with mezz (which amazingly lands on a lvl 90 player go freakin' figure) and now you find yourself forced in to combat so his 20 lvl 90 friends can catch up to you and demolish you. Bad form SOE. I dislike runners as much as the next person, especially when the idiots attack you first, realize they're not going to win, and then run...but forcing anyone in to combat simply because you hit them, is b.s. and I won't be part of that type of game play. I want as many even/fair fights as I can get. I want a challenge, a true challenge, as do most of your players (true challenge is an even/fair fight, a true show of skill/talent) but I do not want it like this, I do not wish to enter a zone solo, attempt to travel to wherever I am headed, and run across 15 people hell bent on an easy kill, get hit once by one of those 15 people, and find myself forced to stand there and die to all 15 hell bent on that easy kill...<strong>it does not promote pvp, it kills it.</strong></p><p>After just shy of 6 yrs in this game, I've seen far too much going down hill lately, nd this is just another step in killing the game off, if this is truely what's meant by this "on take hostile action"...when you have the majority of players who run in large packs to accomplish even simple kills, an action like this will do nothing but promote even more hiding and running than goes on now. Forcing a solo or duo or trio to die to 25 swammers is not the way to promote anyones interest.</p>

raydenwins
08-18-2010, 11:59 AM
Like the 8 lvl pvp range. Skeptical of the mentored retaliation. Based on observation of how creative some are at exploiting bugs and/or cheating, I'm guessing this will be a problem at some point. Immunity fix is cool too. Fame system is broken btw.

Neskonlith
08-18-2010, 12:28 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Based on how many players I saw quit due to the "broken resist & forced combat bugs" at SF launch, I'm curious how the new forced combat change will play out.  My first guess is that swarms will likely increase for safety in numbers.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I also wonder what will happen to PVE when evac totems no longer work because of a single arrow fired from 50m?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Some of the lame restrictions were put into place to prevent even lamer griefing - so I wonder if removing these restrictions is part of a "<em>griefing is fun</em>" campaign, or is it more that SOE forgot the mistakes of the near past and we are now doomed to repeat them?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">lol</span></p>

Ahlana
08-18-2010, 01:14 PM
<p>I am mixed I suppose on the "in combat" part. Ohilin can you clarify, is it indeed like back when SF started (that one hit puts you immediately into combat?)</p>

Olihin
08-18-2010, 01:49 PM
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">Greetings,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In response to the inquiries regarding "On take hostile action, you are now in combat".</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, the idea is that you take damage and you are now in PvP combat. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">No, this is not the final change that would increase risk in PvP.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, we want to revamp Fame but that is large in scope and therefore not something I want to even bring up at this time since it won't be delivered in a time frame that pleases anyone.  </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, I know that many will not like the change since it does make open PvP a lot more challenging but there are many ways to avoid PvP in game now that this change will only affect those that want to PvP.  </span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The change will make being in open PvP a lot more challenging then it currently is.  Although the mindset of most is currently the swarm, evil faction players will currently be at a disadvantage.   The balance is community maintained and it fluctuates constantly so it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them.  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I thank those that thoroughly read the OP and provide their feedback along with suggestions.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p>

Epiph
08-18-2010, 02:04 PM
<p>Thank you for clearly stating the obvious, I will be uninstalling this game now, ty.</p>

EndevorX
08-18-2010, 02:19 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, we want to revamp Fame but that is large in scope and therefore not something I want to even bring up at this time since it won't be delivered in a time frame that pleases anyone.  </span></li></ul></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Why or how is this large in scope?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I'm really confused about how this can be difficult when the old code probably exists somewhere and could be slipped in...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">lol, I don't mean to be expectant or illustrate an air of entitlement, I'm just honestly not comprehending the way the fame system is being pictured.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;"><em><strong>- E D I T -</strong></em></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I don't think he's ignoring the requests of the community (see: rest of the above changes).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Maybe someone higher up the development ladder is being a bureaucratic Stonewall Jackson! haha.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Props to Olihin for being what Domino is seen as for tradeskilling toward the PvP community.</span></p>

Epiph
08-18-2010, 02:36 PM
<p>Because he simply doesn't care, he is like every other SOE employee I've ever come across.  I'll come back to this game when they reinstate a proper fame system, and not this carebear bs that they have now.  Keep ignoring the request of the community mr Pvp dev, it will result in more & more losses of subscriptions.</p>

raydenwins
08-18-2010, 03:04 PM
Serious issue with being forced into pvp combat when warfields are imbalanced terribly. If I participate in a wf with a guildmate on our 70s, a dozen or more greys mixed with even con will party on our faces even easier now. I'm used to soloing several even con, but taking on raid-like numbers vs a couple of us is obviously not going to work. I'm already miffed daily, as I attend warfields when up and notice no freep presence a lot. Unfortunatly, the workaround for the outnumbered freeps will be, not to attend warfields. The change will scare freeps out even more than now. Btw, If I were to exert the effort and form a 70s group of 6, noone would engage us. The raid of greys would obviously not engage us unless there are only one or two of us. So if I want to compete for kills, am I supposed to take eq2 steroids or something? Maybe that's the fix lol. Automatically make the outnumbered faction "epic-like" during warfields.

MindFury
08-18-2010, 03:57 PM
<p>Well thank you for letting us know just how blatantly idiotic folks are. We tell you time and time again how things are, and you continue to screw them up to the point you drive dedicated paying players away from a game they've enjoyed for 6 years. Thank you for not giving one crap about what the player base wants.</p><p>On a server that is all about ganking and swarming with large numbers vs those who are solo or in very low numbers, this action is completely counter productive to increase pvp. So you want to force someone who's attempting to run, to stop and die just for you, cuz you feel you are entitled to that kill and how dare anyone run...great...screw you...I want a fair freakin' fight. I have no clue [Removed for Content] is the matter with you people lately, I don't know if it's the simple fact you're wanting this game to die off so you can push the next generation or what, but I tell ya, this is the biggest mistake you could have made in regards to keeping this 6 yr veteran in this game.</p>

EndevorX
08-18-2010, 04:03 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, I know that many will not like the change since it does make open PvP a lot more challenging but there are many ways to avoid PvP in game now that this change will only affect those that want to PvP.  </span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The change will make being in open PvP a lot more challenging then it currently is.  Although the mindset of most is currently the swarm, evil faction players will currently be at a disadvantage.   The balance is community maintained and it fluctuates constantly so it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them. </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I'd like to note that if this is implemented, it should definitely be a major priority to implement a passive faction balance system like the one I've been vying for.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><span><span style="color: #ff6600;">See Part 3 of the "<a href="list.m?topic_id=481953" target="_blank">EQ2's PvP Panacea</a>" thread in my signature for the concept fully realized!</span></span> ;o</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I predict many Freeportians shall rage over this, and rightfully so!</span></p>

Novusod
08-18-2010, 04:22 PM
<p>These PvP updates are lame.</p><p>Something needs to be done about Q VS Freep imbalance in warfields.</p><p>Grey rezing. I have seen pvp battles turn because grey healers will come in and rez level 90s mid fight and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. In Sword2 pvp this was a bannable offence because it was a level range exploit. Eq2 pvp players are free to exploit level range protections with impunity. WTB unlimited PvP range levels.</p>

Olihin
08-18-2010, 04:37 PM
<p>Greetings once again,</p><p>In regards to the issues with faction balance and concerns about low levels affecting your experience in Warfields.   I am currently taking some of the suggestions made about tiering them but breaking them into 3 separate sections.  </p><ul><li>T2-T4 commonlands/antonica</li><li>T5-T7 everfrost/lavastorm</li><li>T8-T10 kylong/jarsath</li></ul><p>In each case, the tower guardians would be set to not be targetable by anyone over the level range.   Players that choose to visit the other zones can but will not be rewarded based on their level.   I also wish for them to have them spawn at the same time to avoid confusion.   This is something that I hope will decrease the concerns many have with the in combat change.   I am PMing some of you to get more thoughts on this and locations were the towers would fit nicely.  </p><p>Please also remember that this is all pending time available from other tasks I am required to do for expansion and battleground duties.  </p><p><span style="font-size: large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p>

EndevorX
08-18-2010, 04:46 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Greetings once again,</p><p>In regards to the issues with faction balance and concerns about low levels affecting your experience in Warfields.   I am currently taking some of the suggestions made about tiering them but breaking them into 3 separate sections.  </p><ul><li>T2-T4 commonlands/antonica</li><li>T5-T7 everfrost/lavastorm</li><li>T8-T10 kylong/jarsath</li></ul><p>In each case, the tower guardians would be set to not be targetable by anyone over the level range.   Players that choose to visit the other zones can but will not be rewarded based on their level.   I also wish for them to have them spawn at the same time to avoid confusion.   This is something that I hope will decrease the concerns many have with the in combat change.   I am PMing some of you to get more thoughts on this and locations were the towers would fit nicely.  </p><p>Please also remember that this is all pending time available from other tasks I am required to do for expansion and battleground duties.  </p><p><span style="font-size: large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Sounds pretty excellent. ;o</span></p><p><span><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">I think this is an intermediary step that is best if development time is truly as restricted as it may seem.</span></strong></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">But, I also truly consider that having warfields relegated into their own specifically tiered zones would be best.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">This is because the 2 tiers below the highest tier probably won't have the objective scaled appropriately for them, and they are also likely to be irrelevant to their faction's overall victory.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Spreading out activity throughout the world might also be more probable with warfields relegated into their own specifically tiered zones.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">That way, many underused zones like Thundering Steppes/Nektulos Forest, Sinking Sands/Pillars of Flame, and Tenebrous Tangle/Barren Sky would be more popular, effectively creating appealing niches for particular tiers of play (also allowing for a cooler variety of warfields towers if warfields objectives will never be rennovated).</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">However, with overland PvP ranges being made a universal 8, it's possible that the lesser 2 tiers could still be instrumental in victory.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">That largely depends upon whether or not objectives are scaled in difficulty to the point that they are doable by T2</span><span><span style="color: #ff0000;"> (namely 10s)</span></span><span style="color: #ff0000;">, T5</span><span><span style="color: #ff0000;"> (namely 40s)</span></span><span style="color: #ff0000;">, and T8 (namely 70s) players <strong>(which could make them trivially easy for the highest tiers in such segments)</strong>.</span></p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">The reason why I say the lesser 2 tiers would only be instrumental if the objectives were scaled with "namely the bottom of the lowest tier for warfield's objectives", is because these lowbies would have to be 10-11, 40-41, or 70-71 to avoid getting sexually abused by 20s, 50s, or 80s.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">I do think that the suggested segmented warfields system could replenish T7 and 80-81 level locked activity, though.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">So, it's possible that debuting warfields in a segmented way, and then switching to zones truly relegated with tier-specificity could be best.</span></strong></p><p><strong><span style="color: #0000ff;">Given that simultaneous warfields initiation is noted as well, I highly suggest warfields population caps be entirely removed, because they tend to demoralize players from even being willing to attempt participation.</span></strong></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">If you have a Qeynosian Defense in Kylong Plains and a Freeportian Defense in Jarsath Wastes, it's very likely for the distribution to have a natural health, especially if the other 4 warfields begin at that time.</span></p></span></p>

Crismorn
08-18-2010, 04:50 PM
<p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>These PvP updates are lame.</p><p>Something needs to be done about Q VS Freep imbalance in warfields.</p><p>Grey rezing. I have seen pvp battles turn because grey healers will come in and rez level 90s mid fight and there is absolutely nothing we can do about it. In Sword2 pvp this was a bannable offence because it was a level range exploit. Eq2 pvp players are free to exploit level range protections with impunity. <strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">WTB unlimited PvP range levels.</span></strong></p></blockquote><p>/agree</p>

Taldier
08-18-2010, 05:20 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Greetings,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In response to the inquiries regarding "On take hostile action, you are now in combat".</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, the idea is that you take damage and you are now in PvP combat. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, I know that many will not like the change since it does make open PvP a lot more challenging but there are many ways to avoid PvP in game now that this change will only affect those that want to PvP.  </span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The change will make being in open PvP a lot more challenging then it currently is.  Although the mindset of most is currently the swarm, evil faction players will currently be at a disadvantage.   The balance is community maintained and it fluctuates constantly so it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them.  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I thank those that thoroughly read the OP and provide their feedback along with suggestions.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-large;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>I highly suggest you look up the word "challenging" in the dictionary.</p><p>Outrunning 5+ people who are running at 100% runspeed when you are running at 0-10% runspeed is only "challenging" in the sense that outrunning a bus on the freeway is "challenging".</p><p>Simply because people want to pvp does not mean they desire to engage in every single lopsided fight that they get within max bow range of.</p>

Sydares
08-18-2010, 05:25 PM
This thread is a great idea. Any chance of a PvE equivalent?

EndevorX
08-18-2010, 05:30 PM
<p><cite>Sydares wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>This thread is a great idea. Any chance of a PvE equivalent?</blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">LOL. Bro, then they wouldn't be PvE servers. ;D</span></p>

Apiar
08-18-2010, 07:04 PM
<p>Don't agree with the hostile action forces you into combat.  Why would I want to stand there and die 9 vs 1??  Of course I am going to try and retreat and run.  Fight or flight principle.  Plus, most runners don't actually get away as it stands now, at least the ones that run from me when I play my 45 ranger.  Evac is far more annoying then running will ever be.</p><p>Also, I don 't agree with the 8 level restriction for Stonebrundt or Sundered.  There are lvl 75-77 out there harvesting from opoosite faction in a well known spot and without the ability to kill them they can harvest with impunity.  Some are obviously farmers selling the rares for plat.  Some are using speed hacks to get away from PvP now.  There are only like 6 agro mobs in the whole area.  PvP in these zones should continue to be unlimited.</p><p> How about fixing the issue with wf's spawning in unavailable instances because some dork decided to AFK away in ANT2 or CL2.  When the wf ends in these zones, close the instance out and force the AFK'ers into ANT1 or CL1.</p><p>Remove the cap requirements on the instances.  The new servers are performing nicely so no need to any longer cap zone population making people spam for group invites to get into zone.</p>

EndevorX
08-18-2010, 07:39 PM
<p><cite>Apiar wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Don't agree with the hostile action forces you into combat.  Why would I want to stand there and die 9 vs 1??  Of course I am going to try and retreat and run.  Fight or flight principle.  Plus, most runners don't actually get away as it stands now, at least the ones that run from me when I play my 45 ranger.  <span style="color: #ff00ff;">Evac is far more annoying then running will ever be.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Also, I don 't agree with the 8 level restriction for Stonebrundt or Sundered.  There are lvl 75-77 out there harvesting from opoosite faction in a well known spot and without the ability to kill them they can harvest with impunity.  Some are obviously farmers selling the rares for plat.  Some are using speed hacks to get away from PvP now.  There are only like 6 agro mobs in the whole area.  PvP in these zones should continue to be unlimited.</span></p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;"> How about fixing the issue with wf's spawning in unavailable instances because some dork decided to AFK away in ANT2 or CL2.  When the wf ends in these zones, close the instance out and force the AFK'ers into ANT1 or CL1.</span></p><p><span style="color: #008000;">Remove the cap requirements on the instances.  The new servers are performing nicely so no need to any longer cap zone population making people spam for group invites to get into zone.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">If someone is engaged when hit, they can't evacuate.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I agree with the rest of the points I've highlighted with multiple colors!</span></p>

Novusod
08-19-2010, 12:54 AM
<p>I am boycotting PvP and warfields until they remove the take damge be put in combat nonsense. Seriously that has to be the worst change ever.</p>

Ralpmet
08-19-2010, 12:56 AM
<p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I am boycotting PvP and warfields until they remove the take damge be put in combat nonsense. Seriously that has to be the worst change ever.</p></blockquote><p>It's not even live yet is it?</p>

EndevorX
08-19-2010, 02:44 AM
<p><cite>Ralpmet wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Novusod wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I am boycotting PvP and warfields until they remove the take damge be put in combat nonsense. Seriously that has to be the worst change ever.</p></blockquote><p>It's not even live yet is it?</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">It isn't, not until October.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;"><strong>Lowbie PvP Survivability</strong></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">PvP gear wards/reflect bonuses should be replaced</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Toughness' damage mitigation component shouldn't scale, but assume the conversion rate at top tier</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Lowbie PvP with enhanced survivability only drastically augments the overpowered classes in tiers below the top, like Wardens and Shadowknights</span></p>

max.power
08-19-2010, 11:21 AM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, the idea is that you take damage and you are now in PvP combat. </span></li></ul></blockquote><p>I'd really like to know from where, whom and how many players you got your feedback from about this. Wasn't it obvious at the start of SF as this bug was around that the majority was against it? Escaping - especially when you are facing a force where fighting is pointless - should always be an option.</p><p>I've seen players complaining massively about players breaking combat too soon to be able to run away though, why not address this instead of forcing PvP combat? Can't it be changed to:</p><p><strong>As long as you receive hostile action </strong><strong>IN PvP combat, combat can't break.</strong></p><p>But well... we will see what happens when your change goes live.</p><p>On a side note: Couldn't we get a /pvpsurvey now and then on the PvP servers that cover most of the PvP topics? I'm afraid you will never get an idea what the <strong>majority</strong> of the population wants just relying on the forums/PMs and chat now and then on the servers. PvP changes are bouncing back and forward whenever one of the extreme factions (casuals/hardcores) is the loudest it seems. One faction complains complains complains till things get changed, then the other side hits in when the change went live already and complains complains complains till we get a change in the other direction - and the circle continues and never ends.</p><p>/pvpsurvey could give you a real feedback. Feedback from casuals, hardcores and everyone in between. Black on white. Then you can post the results and implement the changes, always backed up by the survey results. Possible or too expensive/time consuming to give us this?</p>

Wytie
08-19-2010, 11:44 AM
<p>I will love the put incombat change, I loved it before and will love it again.</p><p>I always though it was dumb that the person who attacks 1st was always at the combat disadvanatge, because if you burned your target down to fast or too quick they would *always* be better off running  due to the out of combat advantages players have.</p><p>Great change imo!</p>

Zacarus
08-19-2010, 12:02 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Greetings,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In response to the inquiries regarding "On take hostile action, you are now in combat".</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, the idea is that you take damage and you are now in PvP combat. </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">No, this is not the final change that would increase risk in PvP.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, we want to revamp Fame but that is large in scope and therefore not something I want to even bring up at this time since it won't be delivered in a time frame that pleases anyone.  </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, I know that many will not like the change since it does make open PvP a lot more challenging but there are many ways to avoid PvP in game now that this change will only affect those that want to PvP.  </span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The change will make being in open PvP a lot more challenging then it currently is.  Although the mindset of most is currently the swarm, evil faction players will currently be at a disadvantage.   The balance is community maintained and it fluctuates constantly so it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them.  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I thank those that thoroughly read the OP and provide their feedback along with suggestions.</span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>Rangers rejoice!</p>

Ssue
08-19-2010, 12:04 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">In response to the inquiries regarding "On take hostile action, you are now in combat".</span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, the idea is that you take damage and you are now in PvP combat. </span></li></ul></blockquote><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #ff6600; font-size: small;">Please revisit this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>This was horrible at the start of SF when it was bugged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Fight or flight should always be an option for players.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>New characters, and those moving into new tiers that haven’t acquired gear will be the victims of those who do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Solo questing will be very difficult at best.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>I know people complain about runners, we all do at some point, but that is part of open world PvP.</span></p><p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: #ff6600;">If people want to shoot fish in a barrel, they should go to Gears of Klal’Anon!</span></span></span></p>

Olihin
08-19-2010, 02:34 PM
<p><span style="font-size: medium;">Greetings,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">We are reviewing your feedback and taking it into consideration.   I will have an updated list of changes and what will most likely be final once we are done compiling the list.  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In the meantime, please continue to inform your friends online to review the posted changes, so that we can get more eyes and opinions on this matter.   </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Thank you! </span></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p>

Apiar
08-19-2010, 03:28 PM
<p>I would much rather see combat speed increased for the attacker than the person attacked be thrown in combat.  For example, if I open with a snare on a target, even with the snare, the person attacked can run faster than the person that snared the invidual.  Just take everyone's run speed and allow them to run 25% in combat.  If you have less than 25%, you get reduced to the amount you have.</p>

Stylish
08-19-2010, 03:38 PM
<p>Having an 8 level agro/attackable gap in the WFs is a great idea. It makes sense as you cannot get tokens at 70 by killing a 60 anyway.</p><p>This will also allow people to pvp at 80 again if they choose to without being hammered by the X3 of 90s. All that great pvp gear at lvl 80 (yes it was good at 80) will be of use again instead of people skipping it entirely.</p><p>It just makes sense.</p>

PeaSy1
08-19-2010, 04:47 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Greetings once again,</p><p>In regards to the issues with faction balance and concerns about low levels affecting your experience in Warfields.   I am currently taking some of the suggestions made about tiering them but breaking them into 3 separate sections.  </p><ul><li>T2-T4 commonlands/antonica</li><li>T5-T7 everfrost/lavastorm</li><li>T8-T10 kylong/jarsath</li></ul><p>In each case, the tower guardians would be set to not be targetable by anyone over the level range.   Players that choose to visit the other zones can but will not be rewarded based on their level.   I also wish for them to have them spawn at the same time to avoid confusion.   This is something that I hope will decrease the concerns many have with the in combat change.   I am PMing some of you to get more thoughts on this and locations were the towers would fit nicely.  </p><p>Please also remember that this is all pending time available from other tasks I am required to do for expansion and battleground duties.  </p><p><span style="font-size: large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>this is great and all but we need to see more incentive to actually win then to just collect 5 tokens win/lose.....</p><p>and the fame issue is more of a problem than this wf malfunction</p>

Taldier
08-19-2010, 05:10 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>On a side note: Couldn't we get a /pvpsurvey now and then on the PvP servers that cover most of the PvP topics? I'm afraid you will never get an idea what the <strong>majority</strong> of the population wants just relying on the forums/PMs and chat now and then on the servers. PvP changes are bouncing back and forward whenever one of the extreme factions (casuals/hardcores) is the loudest it seems. One faction complains complains complains till things get changed, then the other side hits in when the change went live already and complains complains complains till we get a change in the other direction - and the circle continues and never ends.</p><p>/pvpsurvey could give you a real feedback. Feedback from casuals, hardcores and everyone in between. Black on white. Then you can post the results and implement the changes, always backed up by the survey results. Possible or too expensive/time consuming to give us this?</p></blockquote><p>First they'd have to hire someone who knows how to create surveys that will actually provide information.  If they made it anything like their normal surveys and the exit surveys when you cancel your sub it would just be a series of vague questions that they can interpret however they want.</p><p>1. On a scale of 1 to 5 how happy are you with warfields         (note: if you say you are unhappy we will assume you desire an even larger massive zerg orgy and give out even more free tokens for everyone)</p><p>2. On a scale of 1 to 5 how happy are you with the current pvp gear progression          (note: if you say you are unhappy we will assume that you want it to be even easier because we cant conceive of the fact that players actually want the game to be MORE difficult)</p><p>3. On a scale of 1 to 5 are you happy with the amount of damage characters are doing         (note: if you say you are unhappy we will either give everyone nuclear rocket launchers or assume you mean you are doing to much damage and nerf you even more)</p><p>...</p>

EndevorX
08-19-2010, 05:52 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Greetings once again,</p><p>In regards to the issues with faction balance and concerns about low levels affecting your experience in Warfields.   I am currently taking some of the suggestions made about tiering them but breaking them into 3 separate sections.  </p><ul><li>T2-T4 commonlands/antonica</li><li>T5-T7 everfrost/lavastorm</li><li>T8-T10 kylong/jarsath</li></ul><p>In each case, the tower guardians would be set to not be targetable by anyone over the level range.   Players that choose to visit the other zones can but will not be rewarded based on their level.   I also wish for them to have them spawn at the same time to avoid confusion.   This is something that I hope will decrease the concerns many have with the in combat change.   I am PMing some of you to get more thoughts on this and locations were the towers would fit nicely.  </p><p>Please also remember that this is all pending time available from other tasks I am required to do for expansion and battleground duties.  </p><p><span style="font-size: large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>this is great and all but we need to see more incentive to actually win then to just collect 5 tokens win/lose.....</p><p>and the fame issue is more of a problem than this wf malfunction</p></blockquote><div><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>1.) Warfields</strong></p><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></p></blockquote></div><p><div><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">PvP Ranks</span></strong></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Now for the classic fame system with 1 week reuse/30 sec casting toggle/reset from participating in the PvP rank establishment.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Also restrict fame gain while dead, to avoid greys leeching from mains to sell fame hits.</span></p></blockquote></div></p>

KniteShayd
08-21-2010, 12:53 AM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Greetings,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In response to the inquiries regarding "On take hostile action, you are now in combat".</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #00ffff;">Yes, the idea is that you take damage and you are now in PvP combat.</span> </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">No, this is not the final change that would increase risk in PvP.</span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, we want to revamp Fame but that is large in scope and therefore not something I want to even bring up at this time since it won't be delivered in a time frame that pleases anyone.  </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, I know that many will not like the change since it does make open PvP a lot more challenging but there are many ways to avoid PvP in game now that this change will only affect those that want to PvP.  </span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The change will make being in open PvP a lot more challenging then it currently is.  Although the mindset of most is currently the swarm, evil faction players will currently be at a disadvantage.   The balance is community maintained and it fluctuates constantly so it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them.  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">I thank those that thoroughly read the OP and provide their feedback along with suggestions.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-large;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>I sincerely hope that when this is implemented (hi-lited in blue), you take the restrictions off for PvE/PvP transfers. I know there was mention of this in/at Fan Faire already.</p><p>This change would seal the deal for me to never want to PvP outside of the BG's. I already left the server (before the Venekor/Naggy merge) because I became disenchanted with the game and with the state of PvP. But aside from that, I am starting to enjoy the game again and am not wanting to look for a replacement.  I spent a whole lot of time and effort on my toons in PvP, and have never wanted to delete them because of that. I am patiently waiting for the PvE/PvP Xfer restrictions to be lifted, so that I can enjoy them once again. This can be said for a few people I know, who both want to tranfer to <strong><em>AND</em></strong> from PvP.</p>

Chakos
08-21-2010, 04:38 AM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #ff0000;">Yes, the idea is that you take damage and you are now in PvP combat.</span> </span><span style="font-size: medium;">  </span></li><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, I know that many will not like the change since it does make open PvP a lot more challenging but there are many ways to avoid PvP in game now that <span style="color: #99cc00;">this change will only affect those that want to PvP.  </span></span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The change will make being in open PvP a lot more challenging then it currently is.  Although the mindset of most is currently the swarm, evil faction players will currently be at a disadvantage.   <span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ffff00;">The balance is community maintained and it fluctuates constantly</span> </span>so it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-large;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Total crap: as many have already pointed out, all this does is force small groups / solo players to give free updates to the opposing force -- there is no chance to win against such odds, and no "challenge" for either side. You can claim a challenge for FP, but that implies a chance at victory, which you remove.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #99cc00;">NO. This change will affect everyone, even those that are wanting to quest, harvest, etc. Not everyone is in PvP mode all the time, even on a PvP server. This change removes your supposed "many ways to avoid PvP" -- even running would no longer be an option, as several have pointed out that only 1 enemy needs to hit you, slowing your run speed, allowing the swarm to trample you at full speed.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ffff00;">True, balance IS community maintained. That the balance fluctuates constantly has been false ever since Onyx went Q and WFs were rewarding 15 tokens to the winning side -- ever since those 2 events happened, Q has massively outnumbered FP. You say it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them; right now what works best is being Q, period. As your (meaning SOE) continued dumbing down of the game proves, a great percentage of the population enjoy the easy path to success. The population will not balance itself at this point, particularly with more and more reasons to be a Q are introduced -- there HAS to be some incentive. As long as you, Olihin, our PvP dev has outed himself as a Q, balance is screwed.... who would want to give up their pocket dev? This change will do nothing to make open PvP more challenging; FP is already challenged, and this sure as heck doesn't make it more challenging to be a Q.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ffff00;"><span style="color: #ffffff;">Implementing this will kill pvp, particularly if transfers to pve are allowed. Sounds like the more challenging Pvp will consist of finding any open pvp at all.</span></span></span></p>

Ralpmet
08-21-2010, 12:52 PM
<p>First of, until breaking combat is fixed then there is absolutely no point in changing how entering combat works. Cool, 5 people engage me? Quick! stealth, sprint, and be ooc 3 seconds later.</p><p>Second, could we please get the way we break combat returned to how it was pre-expansion? Prior to this expansion I NEVER, EVER, EVER, had this much trouble with runners. I'm seeing classes break combat that I've literally never seen break combat before this xpac, and it's driving me nuts.</p>

Ilovecows
08-21-2010, 05:31 PM
<p>I agree with most of these ideas, but i would like to say that there needs to be something that stops you from being swarmed.  before i was able to run away from a group at 85% run speed and most of the time get away, but now i have no chance of living against a group.</p><p>Instead of forcing people to stop running there needs to be more of a punishment for running than for staying and fighting.  for example, you lose infamy for running so people wouldn't run to keep their titles.  And also make it so that you cannot get writ updates, status, infamy, or WF reward for x amount of time, say 10 minutes.</p><p>With this very few people would be running</p><p>splitting the WFs, awesome idea, pretty much everything, awesome ideas.  glad they are being listened to.</p><p>edit:</p><p>I just remember one big problem for me in pvp is when i am killing someone, they often start to run when they are at, say, 20% hp, and sprint away and often get out of combat so when i catch up to them i finish them off, and don't get credit because they are beow 50% hp when i attack them.  this NEEDS to be fixed as soon as possible.  if someone runs from me and i kill them i should still get credit for killing them shouldn't i?</p>

EndevorX
08-21-2010, 07:37 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I agree with most of these ideas, but i would like to say that there needs to be something that stops you from being swarmed.  before i was able to run away from a group at 85% run speed and most of the time get away, but now i have no chance of living against a group.</p><p>Instead of forcing people to stop running there needs to be more of a punishment for running than for staying and fighting.  for example, you lose infamy for running so people wouldn't run to keep their titles.  And also make it so that you cannot get writ updates, status, infamy, or WF reward for x amount of time, say 10 minutes.</p><p>With this very few people would be running</p><p>splitting the WFs, awesome idea, pretty much everything, awesome ideas.  glad they are being listened to.</p><p>edit:</p><p>I just remember one big problem for me in pvp is when i am killing someone, they often start to run when they are at, say, 20% hp, and sprint away and often get out of combat so when i catch up to them i finish them off, and don't get credit because they are beow 50% hp when i attack them.  this NEEDS to be fixed as soon as possible.  if someone runs from me and i kill them i should still get credit for killing them shouldn't i?</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I think the problem that you'd have if you instated fame loss for having hate with someone, and then losing that hate before you or they died (i.e. fame loss for running), what you'd find is...</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">...many would purposely engage and flee, to incur fame loss on themselves and their target, just for kicks.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">The point of fame loss from those ranked above, below, or on par with your title is to suppress strategies that support zerging/massive hoards.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">In the classic fame system, taking intelligent risks as an individual is a focus, such that</span> <strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">returning to fight after having been squashed can be minimalized, should fame loss still be possible while on someone's recent (1 out of three changes needed, the other 2 being a 1 week reuse, 30 sec casting TOGGLE that resets your rank and disables fame participation, and the final modification being that no fame gain should be possible while dead)</span></strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">.</span></p><p><span style="color: #800000;"><em><strong>- E D I T -</strong></em></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><em>IMO, facing respawn-zergers should be a component to the difficulty of maintaining a high title, or progressing through the ranks.</em></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><em>As an aside, the classic fame system still positively counteracts zerging/massive hoards, for the reason I mentioned below.</em></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">With fame decay as it is, under no risk of loss, many don't mind being very careless, engaging potent PvP groups while having no priests, being solo, or in weak duos/trios.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">In our current case of fame decay & no risk of loss, many are more liable to leech off of other groups and contribute to that ganking mentality, because they don't care if the powerful enemy group spots them leeching and takes advantage of their susceptibilities, which could otherwise result in successful fame subtraction/addition.</span></p>

EQ2Player
08-21-2010, 08:25 PM
<p>Pretty nice changes, especially the Warfield ideas.</p><p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">   <span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ffff00;">The balance is community maintained and it fluctuates constantly</span> </span>so it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them.  </span><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ffff00;">True, balance IS community maintained. That the balance fluctuates constantly has been false ever since Onyx went Q and WFs were rewarding 15 tokens to the winning side -- ever since those 2 events happened, Q has massively outnumbered FP. You say it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them; right now what works best is being Q, period. As your (meaning SOE) continued dumbing down of the game proves, a great percentage of the population enjoy the easy path to success. The population will not balance itself at this point, particularly with more and more reasons to be a Q are introduced -- there HAS to be some incentive. As long as you, Olihin, our PvP dev has outed himself as a Q, balance is screwed.... who would want to give up their pocket dev? This change will do nothing to make open PvP more challenging; FP is already challenged, and this sure as heck doesn't make it more challenging to be a Q.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ffff00;"><span style="color: #ffffff;">Implementing this will kill pvp, particularly if transfers to pve are allowed. Sounds like the more challenging Pvp will consist of finding any open pvp at all.</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p>Incentives, bonuses, or something that can aid in balancing the sides should be on the table. Although I agree that the players should be empowered to take care of this itself, this game and others have proven that mechanics need to be in place to help things along (Examples of RP bonuses: Warhammer, DAOC) etc.</p><p>Clearly, a third faction (Exile) would play a balancing act to the sides. This was evidenced in DAOC with three sides keeping a checks-and-balances system, while its removal was also a downfall as evidencied in Wahammer and EQ2 now.</p><p>IMO</p>

EndevorX
08-21-2010, 08:41 PM
<p><cite>EQ2Player wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Pretty nice changes, especially the Warfield ideas.</p><p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium;">   <span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ffff00;">The balance is community maintained and it fluctuates constantly</span> </span>so it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them.  </span><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ffff00;">True, balance IS community maintained. That the balance fluctuates constantly has been false ever since Onyx went Q and WFs were rewarding 15 tokens to the winning side -- ever since those 2 events happened, Q has massively outnumbered FP. You say it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them; right now what works best is being Q, period. As your (meaning SOE) continued dumbing down of the game proves, a great percentage of the population enjoy the easy path to success. The population will not balance itself at this point, particularly with more and more reasons to be a Q are introduced -- there HAS to be some incentive. As long as you, Olihin, our PvP dev has outed himself as a Q, balance is screwed.... who would want to give up their pocket dev? This change will do nothing to make open PvP more challenging; FP is already challenged, and this sure as heck doesn't make it more challenging to be a Q.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><span style="color: #ffff00;"><span style="color: #ffffff;">Implementing this will kill pvp, particularly if transfers to pve are allowed. Sounds like the more challenging Pvp will consist of finding any open pvp at all.</span></span></span></p></blockquote><p>Incentives, bonuses, or something that can aid in balancing the sides should be on the table. Although I agree that the players should be empowered to take care of this itself, this game and others have proven that mechanics need to be in place to help things along (Examples of RP bonuses: Warhammer, DAOC) etc.</p><p>Clearly, a third faction (Exile) would play a balancing act to the sides. This was evidenced in DAOC with three sides keeping a checks-and-balances system, while its removal was also a downfall as evidencied in Wahammer and EQ2 now.</p><p>IMO</p></blockquote><p><div><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, I know that many will not like the change since it does make open PvP a lot more challenging but there are many ways to avoid PvP in game now that this change will only affect those that want to PvP.  </span></li></ul><p><span style="font-size: medium;">The change will make being in open PvP a lot more challenging then it currently is.  Although the mindset of most is currently the swarm, evil faction players will currently be at a disadvantage.   The balance is community maintained and it fluctuates constantly so it is best to let the players figure out what works best for them.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I'd like to note that if this is implemented, it should definitely be a major priority to implement a passive faction balance system like the one I've been vying for.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;"><span><span style="color: #ff6600;">See Part 3 of the "<a href="list.m?topic_id=481953" target="_blank">EQ2's PvP Panacea</a>" thread in my signature for the concept fully realized!</span></span> ;o</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">I predict many Freeportians shall rage over this, and rightfully so!</span></p></blockquote><div><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><strong>3.) Faction Balance - Yes, players can choose what faction they play in, but why let the life of the game suffer?</strong></p><p> 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 136 spell-reserving slots of SUCCESSFUL betrayal to the opposite faction, as the same class.</p></blockquote></div></div></p>

EQ2Player
08-21-2010, 09:23 PM
<p>I'd rather see something that unites guilds and provides incentives to working together, and bonuses to the underdog rather than simplifying betrayal...if I read all that right.</p><p>Simplifying betrayal may open up a portal to numerous other problems. Plus, I'd like to think Betrayal to another faction should largely be a Lore / Ideals choice moreso than trivializing it down to a numbers vs. numbers issue.</p><p>Edit: but, some pretty cool other ideas in there man</p>

Culsu
08-21-2010, 09:25 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">At this time, we are still allowing the ability for Grey con players to engage Red con players....more discussions on this topic in the future. </span></blockquote><blockquote>If you feel it's necessary to keep this in, then at least make it not worthwhile for a grey to attack a higher level, no writ updates, not able to loot chests, no fame updates etc.  Personlly I think level limits should apply both ways.</blockquote><blockquote>Personal wishlist:  Let me be able to select an option to turn of PvP titles.  I don't care if its updating in the background for others who think it's important to see it, but I personally don't PvP for title and I don't see a need to have to see it on all the players as well, I mean I can turn off seeing the other titles they use, so why not PvP titles?</blockquote>

Waking
08-23-2010, 10:25 PM
<p>Looking around keeps you from being swarmed.</p><p>If you see someone who you don't want to fight, run. Don't wait until they are in attack range.</p><p>I LOVE the FORCED COMBAT idea. If you don't want to fight, go sit in the city.</p>

Jazzia
08-26-2010, 06:49 AM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="font-size: medium;">Greetings,</span></p><p><span style="font-size: medium;">In response to the inquiries regarding "On take hostile action, you are now in combat".</span></p><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium;">Yes, the idea is that you take damage and you are now in PvP combat. </span></li></ul></blockquote><p>OK, in that case, I'd like an honest and staright answer to the following question : are you gonna allow transfers from PvP to PvE (EQ2live servers that is, I do NOT consider copying to EQ2X a transfer !) or not ? Yes/No/Not in the foreseeable future , please <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Depending on the answer, I will just delete all my toons (no, you CAN'T have my stuff <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/69934afc394145350659cd7add244ca9.gif" border="0" />) on PvP and move on or wait until you finally allow a transfer. For god's sake, you can copy your PvP toon to Test, so [Removed for Content] is the issue with transfers to PvE ?!</p>

Aphraael
08-26-2010, 04:31 PM
<p>RE: Forcing Combat</p><p>This just blows me away to even think that this is an option Devs are considering. I have always played pvp in any game I have played.  I played on RZ in eq1 (for over 4 years), ilidan in WoW, Shadow Bane, Starwars Galaxy, Warhammer, AOC and various others I can't think of atm. I love to pvp but this change would send me to another game more realalistic about this matter.</p><p>The problem is not runners. The ability to run if out numbered is a normal reaction even if used to keep you from never pvping. Some people just like the hint of danger.  The ability to get away or avoid the masses is in itself a game and part of pvp. I have laughed at runners and been a runner if needed. I have been prod of myself just to out smart a grp after me and be able to get away. The ability to pick a fight or get away if you chose not to pvp for any reason is normal.</p><p>This one thing is so STUPID it is game breaking to me.</p><p>The PROBLEM is breaking combat once entered. Once you or your grp make that choice and attack you should not be able to run a short distance and have it break. Those are the runners that are annoying. They attack hoping for the easy kill and if it does not happen just run off.</p><p>I have never gotten upset because someone just didn't fight and ran. I get horribly upset that someone attacks and runs when it is not going how they planned.</p><p>The Grey Zerg is out of control, they need more consequences if they chose to attack. Right now they define to many battles. They only stay on the outskirts of battles waiting for the higher levels to fight. Can you imagine the griefing with that and forced combat?</p><p>Devs need to come back down to earth and think of pvp in a more actual battle type of way instead of force the noobs to stand there while I kill them mentality so many pvpers have. Think more of if you start it it is not going to go away so you better be rdy to fight. If not the grp or person then has to use their abilities to stop you not a forced combat.</p><p>I am all for taking away immunities. In eq1 we had none anywhere when I started. Putting in the nexus ruined that. The 30 seconds we get when entering a zone is more than enough, Maybe increase it to a minute or even two after death to give a person time to buff etc and decide to call or stay.</p><p>Unsure on the toughness issue. People need to be able to survive. Making pvp a scout or caster one shot is not fun for anyone except the classes doing it. Survivability does seem out of control for some classes or is it just good grp work. Sorry if you have to think how to take people or a grp out but that is actually good pvp not I hit you first you are dead. As far as this issue I leave it to the more informed and hope they consider all classes need a chance to survive intial damage.</p><p>Allowing Mentors to attack if attacked I am all for. I still do not believe it should be a grp thing where if the grp is attacked the 90 mentored down can attack (we have seen that abused) but more of if the 90 or higher level mentoring is themselves  attacked they can fight back.</p><p>Can't think of much more atm. Is that enough Seliri? I voiced my oppinion thanks for pushing me to it. I do realize that if we want to be heard we must speak instead of complaining after it is done.</p><p>I do hate to be the type if this is done I will quit type of person but the forced combat would push me out the door. I will not be a target for the griefer mentalities.</p><p>Aphraael Level 90 Monk Naggy</p>

Olihin
08-26-2010, 04:41 PM
<p>We are no longer considering the forcing you into combat when hit change.  With immunity being limited to cities and newbie areas via the Carnage Flag and known quest hubs, we don't feel that adding this would benefit PvP in a positive way. </p><p>What we will have is the 60 second timer upon zoning, re-spawning.   So most open areas will not allow you to AFK without risk. </p><p>I need to update the OP with all the changes and updates based on feedback.   I apologize for the confusion. </p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p>

Epiph
08-26-2010, 04:52 PM
<p>So do something with the fame system instead.</p>

Olihin
08-26-2010, 04:56 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So do something with the fame system instead.</p></blockquote><p>If I fixed everything at one time I would not have anyone posting here.   <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" /></p><p>But really...for you fame might be the win win but for others it is not.   We have to make changes as we have resources available, the code changes for Fame to be effective are requested but there is a huge list of things that take priority then this.  It would only affect two servers.</p><p>Everything in due time, thank you for your patience. </p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p>

Aphraael
08-26-2010, 04:59 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>We are no longer considering the forcing you into combat when hit change.  With immunity being limited to cities and newbie areas via the Carnage Flag and known quest hubs, we don't feel that adding this would benefit PvP in a positive way. </p><p>What we will have is the 60 second timer upon zoning, re-spawning.   So most open areas will not allow you to AFK without risk. </p><p>I need to update the OP with all the changes and updates based on feedback.   I apologize for the confusion. </p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-large;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>Sounds good, am excited for the changes then. I can live with most changes as long as they promote having to think and use of strats.</p><p>I do think we need to make pve more of a part of pvp though. Takes both to have a good game. People need ways to be different or goals to work for. Everyone says they hate the grind yet a grind is what makes something worthwhile. So I guess it is making grinds doable and considering time spent for reward. Everything should not be a guarantee for you to have. Should be a guarantee you can acquire it if you choose to do the task required.</p>

Epiph
08-26-2010, 05:06 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>So do something with the fame system instead.</p></blockquote><p>If I fixed everything at one time I would not have anyone posting here.   <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/ed515dbff23a0ee3241dcc0a601c9ed6.gif" border="0" /></p><p>But really...for you fame might be the win win but for others it is not.   We have to make changes as we have resources available, the code changes for Fame to be effective are requested but there is a huge list of things that take priority then this.  It would only affect two servers.</p><p>Everything in due time, thank you for your patience. </p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>You've had over 2 years to fix this on-going problem.  If you looked at the newly stickied "PVP ISSUES" thread, Fame is at the top of the list.  While it may not be on top of your list, It's on top of the communitie's list of things that needs to be RE-EVALUATED.  Regardless if you agree with me or not, Fame was 1 of the key factors that made people group-up to go out & PVP.  I gurantee if you looked back at your records you'd see that a good deal of people quit this game after the fame removal update went live.  How hard is it to load an old code & tweak it?  It's not hard & it would take a max of 2 days IF THAT!   Unless your PVP team consist of just yourself & you have no underlings, than it would take longer.  But this is an ongoing problem that has been around for over 2 years, please ffs fix the game.  I refuse to play until you impliment a win/loss system, & I'm not the only one.</p>

Leko
08-26-2010, 05:36 PM
<p>Nice, Thanks for listening to us at Fan Faire.</p>

asaron
08-26-2010, 08:38 PM
<p>Might aswell call this  a removal of content if your going to force a carnage flag on lowbies trying to pvp/ quest in the  lowbie zones.  I mean come  on  you are pretty much forceing us to only quest in zones we are alligned with.      Was this idea promoted by one of these  worthless cheaters that are posting in this thread?  Seriously how much sc for a new pvp dev   heck ill pay double that for a new senior producer!   Faction biased pvp dev,  clueless senior producer  heck all we got left is  is a awesome tradeskill dev .   Stop wowification in 2010  and by all means stop allowing known cheaters to post and influence others.</p>

Ralpmet
08-26-2010, 08:56 PM
<p><cite>asaron wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Might aswell call this  a removal of content if your going to force a carnage flag on lowbies trying to pvp/ quest in the  lowbie zones.  I mean come  on  you are pretty much forceing us to only quest in zones we are alligned with.      Was this idea promoted by one of these  worthless cheaters that are posting in this thread?  Seriously how much sc for a new pvp dev   heck ill pay double that for a new senior producer!   Faction biased pvp dev,  clueless senior producer  heck all we got left is  is a awesome tradeskill dev .   Stop wowification in 2010  and by all means stop allowing known cheaters to post and influence others.</p></blockquote><p>Excuse me, I'm the first person to post about carnage flagging newbies who decide to fight someone who is outside of their level range, and you are calling me a worthless cheater? That's fairly rude of you to make claims about people just because they don't want you to get free tokens for cheapshot+runaway.</p>

asaron
08-26-2010, 09:07 PM
<p><cite>Ralpmet wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>asaron wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Might aswell call this  a removal of content if your going to force a carnage flag on lowbies trying to pvp/ quest in the  lowbie zones.  I mean come  on  you are pretty much forceing us to only quest in zones we are alligned with.      Was this idea promoted by one of these  worthless cheaters that are posting in this thread?  Seriously how much sc for a new pvp dev   heck ill pay double that for a new senior producer!   Faction biased pvp dev,  clueless senior producer  heck all we got left is  is a awesome tradeskill dev .   Stop wowification in 2010  and by all means stop allowing known cheaters to post and influence others.</p></blockquote><p>Excuse me, I'm the first person to post about carnage flagging newbies who decide to fight someone who is outside of their level range, and you are calling me a worthless cheater? That's fairly rude of you to make claims about people just because they don't want you to get free tokens for cheapshot+runaway.</p></blockquote><p>First off you are not the known cheater i was referring too and second what does carnage flagging have to do cheapshot+ runaway.   You can't fight somone outside of your level range unless  you are attacking a red or its an unlimited zone in which case tha twould have absolutely nothing to do with the newbie zones .</p>

Ssue
08-27-2010, 04:36 AM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What we will have is the 60 second timer upon zoning, re-spawning.   So most open areas will not allow you to AFK without risk. </p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-large;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>If there is going to be a 60 second timer after re-spawn then revive sickness needs to be shortened to 50-59 seconds also.  Otherwise people are going to be continually rolled at revive points with no hope of ever being 100% battle ready.</p>

Ssue
08-27-2010, 04:40 AM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>If you looked at the newly stickied "PVP ISSUES" thread, Fame is at the top of the list.  While it may not be on top of your list, It's on top of the communitie's list of things that needs to be RE-EVALUATED.</blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">This is very far from the top of my list!</span></p>

EndevorX
08-27-2010, 01:06 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote>If you looked at the newly stickied "PVP ISSUES" thread, Fame is at the top of the list.  While it may not be on top of your list, It's on top of the communitie's list of things that needs to be RE-EVALUATED.</blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff9900;">This is very far from the top of my list!</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Since they probably think it takes too long to redo warfields participation/victory bonuses, there's not much else to honestly do bro, so I'm going to have to disagree and say implementing the classic fame system with the revisions I mentioned in the 1st reply to this thread are pretty freakin' high on the list of things to do, considering how easy it'd be to at least incorporate the old code.</span></p><div><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>RE: Forcing Combat</p><p>This just blows me away to even think that this is an option Devs are considering. I have always played pvp in any game I have played.  I played on RZ in eq1 (for over 4 years), ilidan in WoW, Shadow Bane, Starwars Galaxy, Warhammer, AOC and various others I can't think of atm. I love to pvp but this change would send me to another game more realalistic about this matter.</p><p>The problem is not runners. The ability to run if out numbered is a normal reaction even if used to keep you from never pvping. Some people just like the hint of danger.  The ability to get away or avoid the masses is in itself a game and part of pvp. I have laughed at runners and been a runner if needed. I have been prod of myself just to out smart a grp after me and be able to get away. The ability to pick a fight or get away if you chose not to pvp for any reason is normal.</p><p>This one thing is so STUPID it is game breaking to me.</p><p>The PROBLEM is breaking combat once entered. Once you or your grp make that choice and attack you should not be able to run a short distance and have it break. Those are the runners that are annoying. They attack hoping for the easy kill and if it does not happen just run off.</p><p>I have never gotten upset because someone just didn't fight and ran. I get horribly upset that someone attacks and runs when it is not going how they planned.</p><p><span style="color: #0000ff;">The Grey Zerg is out of control, they need more consequences if they chose to attack. Right now they define to many battles. They only stay on the outskirts of battles waiting for the higher levels to fight. Can you imagine the griefing with that and forced combat?</span></p><p>Devs need to come back down to earth and think of pvp in a more actual battle type of way instead of force the noobs to stand there while I kill them mentality so many pvpers have. Think more of if you start it it is not going to go away so you better be rdy to fight. If not the grp or person then has to use their abilities to stop you not a forced combat.</p><p>I am all for taking away immunities. In eq1 we had none anywhere when I started. Putting in the nexus ruined that. The 30 seconds we get when entering a zone is more than enough, Maybe increase it to a minute or even two after death to give a person time to buff etc and decide to call or stay.</p><p>Unsure on the toughness issue. People need to be able to survive. Making pvp a scout or caster one shot is not fun for anyone except the classes doing it. Survivability does seem out of control for some classes or is it just good grp work. Sorry if you have to think how to take people or a grp out but that is actually good pvp not I hit you first you are dead. As far as this issue I leave it to the more informed and hope they consider all classes need a chance to survive intial damage.</p><p>Allowing Mentors to attack if attacked I am all for. I still do not believe it should be a grp thing where if the grp is attacked the 90 mentored down can attack (we have seen that abused) but more of if the 90 or higher level mentoring is themselves  attacked they can fight back.</p><p>Can't think of much more atm. Is that enough Seliri? I voiced my oppinion thanks for pushing me to it. I do realize that if we want to be heard we must speak instead of complaining after it is done.</p><p>I do hate to be the type if this is done I will quit type of person but the forced combat would push me out the door. I will not be a target for the griefer mentalities.</p><p>Aphraael Level 90 Monk Naggy</p></blockquote></div><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">hehehe, thanks for posting Lndi! =P</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff9900;"><strong>Balancing Offense from the Greys - <span style="color: #ff0000;">Revenge Flag</span></strong></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Though I mentioned earlier that I felt the grey zergers/gankers are a strategic component players need to deal with when they consider their engagement location, we can all realize that, for the majority of tiers (T5-T9, 40-89), </span><strong><span style="color: #ff6600;"><em>there are players who are going to be pretty lonely, without many other competitors or allies</em></span></strong><span style="color: #ff6600;">.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Because of that, I think there should be a system should be implemented to address the concerns that arise when there are massive hoards of greys, on the order of x2s to x8s. A flag system can be created to operate in isolated, direct cases, over faction-wide circumstances. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">For instance, this flag could be called the </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">Revenge Flag</span><span style="color: #ff6600;">, and once a grey attacks a red, that red can come back to attack that grey, until that grey dies. </span><span style="color: #ff6600;">If the grey dies after becoming </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">Revenge Flagged</span><span style="color: #ff6600;"> from attacking a red considered player, then they lose their </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">Revenge Flag</span><span style="color: #ff6600;">, and the red can no longer hit them.</span></p>

Chakos
08-27-2010, 07:20 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">Because of that, I think there should be a system should be implemented to address the concerns that arise when there are massive hoards of greys, on the order of x2s to x8s. A flag system can be created to operate in isolated, direct cases, over faction-wide circumstances. </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff6600;">For instance, this flag could be called the </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">Revenge Flag</span><span style="color: #ff6600;">, and once a grey attacks a red, that red can come back to attack that grey, until that grey dies. </span><span style="color: #ff6600;">If the grey dies after becoming </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">Revenge Flagged</span><span style="color: #ff6600;"> from attacking a red considered player, then they lose their </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">Revenge Flag</span><span style="color: #ff6600;">, and the red can no longer hit them.</span></p></blockquote><p>A revenge flag is not enough -- they expect to die, as it is, when they attack a red... they want the hit so that if that red drops, and every red they touched prior to dying, gives them a writ update. I agree that greys should continue to be allowed to attack outside of their range; however, no writ / fame / status updates from any toon outside of their range.</p><p>The alternative would be that the red gets an update from killing greys that attack him / her first. The problem with this is it opens the "penalty" to easy exploitation from those of a mind to do so. Hence the no updates for greys attacking outside of their level range instead -- they just help their allies get updates, but their leech attempt nets them nothing.</p>

Ralpmet
08-28-2010, 12:36 AM
<p><cite>asaron wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Ralpmet wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>asaron wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Might aswell call this  a removal of content if your going to force a carnage flag on lowbies trying to pvp/ quest in the  lowbie zones.  I mean come  on  you are pretty much forceing us to only quest in zones we are alligned with.      Was this idea promoted by one of these  worthless cheaters that are posting in this thread?  Seriously how much sc for a new pvp dev   heck ill pay double that for a new senior producer!   Faction biased pvp dev,  clueless senior producer  heck all we got left is  is a awesome tradeskill dev .   Stop wowification in 2010  and by all means stop allowing known cheaters to post and influence others.</p></blockquote><p>Excuse me, I'm the first person to post about carnage flagging newbies who decide to fight someone who is outside of their level range, and you are calling me a worthless cheater? That's fairly rude of you to make claims about people just because they don't want you to get free tokens for cheapshot+runaway.</p></blockquote><p>First off you are not the known cheater i was referring too and second what does carnage flagging have to do cheapshot+ runaway.   You can't fight somone outside of your level range unless  you are attacking a red or its an unlimited zone in which case tha twould have absolutely nothing to do with the newbie zones .</p></blockquote><p>Probably because cheapshot can't be outirght resisted, so grey scouts commonly leech using it+running away? I'm going to assume you had no idea what you were talking about at all since you had apparently not read the thread.</p>

Chakos
08-28-2010, 01:12 PM
<p>It sounds to me that Asaron is referring to the lowbie zones of opposite alignments auto carnage flagging those who are of appropriate range who may go there to quest / pvp at the appropriate level, not lowbies getting carnaged when they attack outside of their level range.</p>

Olihin
08-30-2010, 04:10 PM
<p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It sounds to me that Asaron is referring to the lowbie zones of opposite alignments auto carnage flagging those who are of appropriate range who may go there to quest / pvp at the appropriate level, not lowbies getting carnaged when they attack outside of their level range.</p></blockquote><p>This is intended.  The fact that you have zero risk for being in a enemy controled area is being removed.  Now you have a slight risk, and that is only if you are questing in an area patrolled by factioned players.  </p><p>This is not a negative change and questing is PvE anyway...pffft! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p>

Neskonlith
08-30-2010, 06:22 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What we will have is the 60 second timer upon zoning, <span style="color: #ff00ff;">re-spawning</span>.   So most open areas will not allow you to AFK without risk. </p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-large;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Is the revive sickness penalty going to be reduced to be 60s as well?  Isn't it 90s or so currently?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If a player is going to receive a significant penalty longer than their immunity timer, might as well consider forcing a re-spawn back in home city on death since revive camping will be made viable with victims still under penalties, and their likely escape from campers will be to simply call out.</span></p>

Thinwizzy
08-30-2010, 06:28 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>What we will have is the 60 second timer upon zoning, <span style="color: #ff00ff;">re-spawning</span>.   So most open areas will not allow you to AFK without risk. </p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Is the revive sickness penalty going to be reduced to be 60s as well?  Isn't it 90s or so currently?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If a player is going to receive a significant penalty longer than their immunity timer, might as well consider forcing a re-spawn back in home city on death since revive camping will be made viable with victims still under penalties, and their likely escape from campers will be to simply call out.</span></p></blockquote><p>Or if its an issue, you can be smart and choose a different respawn point.</p>

Neskonlith
08-30-2010, 06:46 PM
<p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I was thinking of Warfields where the fighting is going to start to revolve around revive points for easy writ update pickings, and then we would likely return to the EoF/KoS days of whiney forum threads crying about "scrubs" zerging from revive because of the decision to fight near a revive point.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I'd have thought that competitive fights would be more desirable for fun PVP, but I suppose there are those who as yet still cling to the old days of overwhelming odds to ensure zero risk in PVP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Nonetheless, be interesting to try out all the new stuff coming up!</span></p>

Stuckx
08-30-2010, 06:51 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I was thinking of Warfields where the fighting is going to start to revolve around revive points for easy writ update pickings, and then we would likely return to the EoF/KoS days of whiney forum threads crying about "scrubs" zerging from revive because of the decision to fight near a revive point.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I'd have thought that competitive fights would be more desirable for fun PVP, but I suppose there are those who as yet still cling to the old days of overwhelming odds to ensure zero risk in PVP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Nonetheless, be interesting to try out all the new stuff coming up!</span></p></blockquote><p>People like you are the reason why Nagafen has gone down the drain..You say PVP is better now than it was in KOS/EOF..and yet you'd have to be blind deaf and dumb to believe something so stupid. PVP is horrible now. People only come out every two hours for warfields only for the Q's to zerg the freeps with four times their number..</p><p>Atleast in KOS/EoF People were actively playing,instead of just sitting AFK infront of a BG merchant staring at the terrible gear that allows for absolutely no uniqueness.</p><p>There's nothing competitive about PVP now. It's just a bunch of people all wearing the same gear,staring at a BG merchant waiting for a warfield so they can collect free tokens while AFK.</p>

Neskonlith
08-30-2010, 07:24 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><em>People like you are the reason why Nagafen has gone down the drain..You say PVP is better now than it was in KOS/EOF..and yet you'd have</em> to be blind deaf and dumb</p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">If I had a free character slot, I'd roll up a mean wizzie named Pinball, with crazy flipper fingers.  How do you think he does it?  I don't know...</span></p><p><em>to believe something so stupid. PVP is horrible now. People only come out every two hours for warfields only for the Q's to zerg the freeps with four times their number..</em></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Out of 4 Warfields I helped kill towers in over the weekend, Qeynos only outnumbered us in 1 instance, but let's ignore that little observation.  From what I see, it is a random mix as to how many players will be in a given instance because of that population cap.</span></p><p><em>Atleast in KOS/EoF People were actively playing,instead of just sitting AFK infront of a BG merchant staring at the terrible gear that allows for absolutely no uniqueness.  </em></p><p><em>There's nothing competitive about PVP now. It's just a bunch of people all wearing the same gear,staring at a BG merchant waiting for a warfield so they can collect free tokens while AFK.</em></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Yeah, back then players went AFK on the docks, and they were often just a bunch of people wearing the same OP PVE gear that allowed for absolutely no uniqueness if you wanted to have an advantage.</span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">KoS/EoF PVP is the Elvis of EQ2 - it's code has left the building.  Just let it go, because man, it's gone!</span></p>

Stuckx
08-30-2010, 07:35 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">KoS/EoF PVP is the Elvis of EQ2 - it's code has left the building.  Just let it go, because man, it's gone!</span></p></blockquote><p>And the server is worse off for it,as everyone can plainly tell.</p>

Chakos
08-31-2010, 04:46 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It sounds to me that Asaron is referring to the lowbie zones of opposite alignments auto carnage flagging those who are of appropriate range who may go there to quest / pvp at the appropriate level, not lowbies getting carnaged when they attack outside of their level range.</p></blockquote><p>This is intended.  The fact that you have zero risk for being in a enemy controled area is being removed.  Now you have a slight risk, and that is only if you are questing in an area patrolled by factioned players.  </p><p>This is not a negative change and questing is PvE anyway...pffft! <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-large;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>There has never been zero risk for being in an enemy controlled areas... hell, that's one of the main reasons for going there. So much for looking for looking for level appropriate pvp in an area you would expect to find it lol</p><p>As far as your attitude about pve, it NEEDS to be incorporated into pvp, not further separated from it. Read the thread, many have stated it much more effectively than I could. Further separating pve and pvp HURTS pvp, as has been seen since this last expansion.</p>

Neskonlith
08-31-2010, 05:44 PM
<p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As far as your attitude about pve, it NEEDS to be incorporated into pvp, not further separated from it. Read the thread, many have stated it much more effectively than I could. Further separating pve and pvp HURTS pvp, as has been seen since this last expansion.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Actually, many PVE raiders are demanding a return to a one-sided PVE integration where their zero-PVP risk items from PVE instances remain godmode in PVP, to allow them to gear up in complete safety and then PVP in complete safety with no risk and no competition to their OP PVE gear.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Revamped TSO PVP gear was made separate but equal, and suddenly PVE players demanded that PVP gear be made useless in PVE since PVP has made zero-PVE effort.  Sounded reasonable at the time?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">However, the flip-side to that demand is what is now biting at those players: <em>what has a PVE player done in PVP to earn the right to have a PVE drop to be more powerful than a PVP reward in PVP?  </em></span><span style="color: #ff0000;">The PVP rewards are earned from PVP effort.  The PVE items are earned from PVE effort in the safety of closed and immune instances with no PVP required.  PVE drops at best should merely be equal on a PVP server.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin is making changes to provide a PVP solution to PVP issues on a PVP server.  </span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p>

Chakos
08-31-2010, 08:12 PM
<p>I am not suggesting that PvE gained gear should be superior than PvP based gear; just that a COMPLETE seperation of the two is harmful to both.</p><p>Keep in mind, not everyone plays on a pvp server for the exact same reasons. Myself, for example, became hooked on pvp the first time I got jumped while PvEing while testing Naggy out when it had first opened. THAT is why I came here: normal pve had become dull and monotonous, pvp added that extra excitement that it had begun lacking for me. All pvp all the time is boring for me and many others; but mixing the two, it brings an excitement that neither holds for long on their own.</p><p>Those who play here just to pvp 24/7 should have gear that helps them to excel in it. Am just saying that those who do it for other reasons should still be able to compete, even if the playing field isn't exactly even. As it is, in t9 you will get steamrolled if not geared out in pvp gear specifically. It is not an issue 79 and below; the MC armor, at least, has toughness on it, albeit less than the pvp armor; the jewelry is not so OP that you have to have it - even the ward is manageable, outside of t2 (where the ward is OP compared to the damage players in that tier are able to hand out lol). Hell, just allow fabled armor (any fabled armor, not just raid obtained) in t9 to have toughness on it -- less than PvP armor, including the level 90 MC toughness gear, but have it nonetheless.</p>

Stuckx
08-31-2010, 08:23 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>As far as your attitude about pve, it NEEDS to be incorporated into pvp, not further separated from it. Read the thread, many have stated it much more effectively than I could. Further separating pve and pvp HURTS pvp, as has been seen since this last expansion.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Actually, many PVE raiders are demanding a return to a one-sided PVE integration where their zero-PVP risk items from PVE instances remain godmode in PVP, to allow them to gear up in complete safety and then PVP in complete safety with no risk and no competition to their OP PVE gear.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Revamped TSO PVP gear was made separate but equal, and suddenly PVE players demanded that PVP gear be made useless in PVE since PVP has made zero-PVE effort.  Sounded reasonable at the time?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">However, the flip-side to that demand is what is now biting at those players: <em>what has a PVE player done in PVP to earn the right to have a PVE drop to be more powerful than a PVP reward in PVP?  </em></span><span style="color: #ff0000;">The PVP rewards are earned from PVP effort.  The PVE items are earned from PVE effort in the safety of closed and immune instances with no PVP required.  PVE drops at best should merely be equal on a PVP server.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Olihin is making changes to provide a PVP solution to PVP issues on a PVP server.  </span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>You're an idiot..Try to put it however you want,but the fact is..THE FACT..PVP servers are suffering. Vox is all but dead,and Nagafen is well on it's way to being a barren waste land with nothing but a handful of people standing around the BG vendors occasionally Queing up to do some awful routine where they do the exact same thing over and over again...all just so they can stockpile those 5,000 tokens they have while they wait for the next season of awful cookie cutter PVP gear to come out.</p><p>Seperation of PVE and PVP..making PVE gear worthless in PVP was the absolute stupidest thing SoE could ever do. You're obviously one of the simple minded type..the type that doesn't like to work for their gear so they can get that leg up on the competition..no..you'd rather have it handed to you,even though that gear is absolutely awful and looks exactly like what everyone else is wearing. You don't want to put in any effort to actually play the game..you're just here because you want a glorified first person shooter where instead of pressing one button,you get to press twenty in some random order in the middle of a zerg fest and hope you kill someone.</p><p>The PVP system is in an awful state right now,and only people like you can't seem to grasp that concept,despite the fact that it's next to impossible to find groups for PVE unless you're in one of the big guilds that hasn't fallen apart..even then..none of them actually cares about a PVE instance,since the gear isn't useful.</p><p>But still..even as the server continues to crumble around you..the raiders and hardcore players leaving because PVPing all day gets boring when you don't have the desire to do PVE content to offset it..you continue to come here and post the perfection of the current system.</p><p>For that..you sir win the [Removed for Content] of the year award. When all the good players who enjoyed the game before SOE screwed it up by seperating PVE and PVP leave..I hope you have fun standing around the BG vendors with the handful of crusaders and sorcerors that stuck around because they get off on being invincible.</p>

Neskonlith
08-31-2010, 10:05 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>wharrgarbl</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">What can I say?  Haters gonna hate.  Perhaps what we need now is a screenie of a froglok riding a dolphin tea-bagging a fallen character in a warfield while /say "<em>Quit gettin' mad at video games</em>". </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/97ada74b88049a6d50a6ed40898a03d7.gif" border="0" />  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Protip: raiders are getting what they demanded from SOE back in TSO revamp!  Olihin has already stated previously that the gear separation is because of the raiders who screamed for separated PVE and PVP gear, so he segregated it to make you all happy.  Now you appear to be mad because he listened to "experts" like you?  Poor Olihin can't win with you.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">The PVP system is in an awfully fun state right now, and people like me who haven't been actively alienating the majority of people in chat channels can't seem to find it difficult to find groups for PVE.  I'm still running lots of instances just fine, so are my friends, but that's likely because we're nice, polite people who manage to play well with others in-game.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I will concede that I notice a lot of chat-channel trolls guild-hopping as their snobby guilds implode under the weight of egos, but all that must be SOE's fault, right?  Some of those very same people I notice like to /ragequit often, being rude, and they sure do seem to enjoy isolating themselves in-game with arrogance - but again it must be SOE's fault or the sky is falling or whatever.  DOOOOOM!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Heck, posts proclaiming the death of EQ2 were popping up in 2005.</span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/2786c5c8e1a8be796fb2f726cca5a0fe.gif" border="0" /></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You have yet to reasonably justify why you think PVE drops are automatically entitled to godmode PVP templates when such PVE items come from immunity instances without requiring any PVP at all on a PVP server.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">The "<em>24-man PVE line-dance is hard work</em>" excuse is bogus, especially when it is possible to farm an x4 with an x2 for "<em>Shorthanded Victory</em>".  You appear to want to gear up in immunity and have that PVE gear be the best in PVP without any PVP effort at all, and you appear to not like to work in PVP for your gear so that you can have competitive PVP fights.  You appear to want everyone to be in the same boring cookie-cutter PVE sets.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You are lucky Olihin is determined to allow smurfs-at-heart the choice and the option to use bluebie drops from non-PVP immunity instances, but that stuff should only be at their best the equal to PVP rewards so that players can have the option to choose from either one and remain competitive in PVP.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">PVP solutions for PVP issues on a PVP server FTW! </span></p>

Stuckx
08-31-2010, 10:10 PM
<p>And you only further prove your ignorance of what makes a PVP server worth playing on in EQ2. I'm not the only one that thinks you're an idiot,especially when you try so hard to sound like Crismorn,King of trolls.</p><p>By the way. Why on earth would Raiders cry about wanting their gear to become useless in PVP? You must have dug pretty deep to come up with that excuse as to why PVE gear is now worthless. Show me a post on it and I might believe it,but all the REAL PVPers..the ones who worked their [Removed for Content] off raiding so they could be better than everyone else,would never have cried about that..you must be confused.</p><p>You keep rambling on about how theres no risk in getting gear through PVE..like there's any risk in getting it through PVP? Oh wow..run out to a warfield,die and go afk..free tokens. Or do a BG and zerg over and over for a couple tokens at the end of a match.</p>

Neskonlith
08-31-2010, 10:12 PM
<p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I am not suggesting that PvE gained gear should be superior than PvP based gear; just that a COMPLETE seperation of the two is harmful to both.</p><p>Keep in mind, not everyone plays on a pvp server for the exact same reasons.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">True, but Olihin has already stated that he was catering to PVE raider demands to separate the PVE and PVP gear.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">For a brief time near the end of TSO, we finally had players having an option to either PVP or PVE for competitive gear, but that condition of competitive PVP was unacceptable to the PVE farmers, and they subsequently nagged Olihin and cyber-stalked him until SOE agreed to segregate the gear types.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Now the PVE farmers are mad because Olihin did what they demanded.</span></p>

Stuckx
08-31-2010, 10:17 PM
<p>The PVE 'farmers' as you call them..did not demand that PVE gear be made useless in PVP. You seem to be severely confused. I recall PVE SERVERS crying about PVP gear being easy to get..but never did I see a PVP player whining about PVP gear.</p>

Neskonlith
08-31-2010, 10:19 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>no rebuttal</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Here's a piece of advice: try using logic in a discussion, and perhaps you might be able to convince me that your position has valid points to take into consideration.  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">There have been plenty of threads in which others opposed my viewpoint, and they provided evidence that convinced me that I needed to modify my belief.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Justify why a PVE drop from an immunity zone which bypasses all PVP risk and effort must automatically be entitled to having a superior PVP template over PVP rewards that require PVP to earn.</span></p>

Stuckx
08-31-2010, 10:26 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>no rebuttal</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Here's a piece of advice: try using logic in a discussion, and perhaps you might be able to convince me that your position has valid points to take into consideration.  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">There have been plenty of threads in which others opposed my viewpoint, and they provided evidence that convinced me that I needed to modify my belief.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Justify why a PVE drop from an immunity zone which bypasses all PVP risk and effort must automatically be entitled to having a superior PVP template over PVP rewards that require PVP to earn.</span></p></blockquote><p>You want the proof? Look at the state of the server compared to Kos/EoF or even TSO for that matter. It's no where near is flourishing as it was then.</p><p>I'm not saying a PVE drop should instantly make a player godmode. PVP gear is there to reward PVP players for their efforts. But to make PVE gear completely useless was a mistake. This game was not made with PVP in mind..we all know that,but PVP used to be fun when combine with instances and raiding. When you take away the desire to do either of those things for PVP players..you're taking away 75% of the game from them. A game can't survive with only 25% of it being played.</p>

Neskonlith
08-31-2010, 10:37 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Here's a piece of advice: try using logic in a discussion, and perhaps you might be able to convince me that your position has valid points to take into consideration.  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">There have been plenty of threads in which others opposed my viewpoint, and they provided evidence that convinced me that I needed to modify my belief.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Justify why a PVE drop from an immunity zone which bypasses all PVP risk and effort must automatically be entitled to having a superior PVP template over PVP rewards that require PVP to earn.</span>  </p></blockquote><p>You want the proof? Look at the state of the server compared to Kos/EoF or even TSO for that matter. It's no where near is flourishing as it was then.</p><p>I'm not saying a PVE drop should instantly make a player godmode. PVP gear is there to reward PVP players for their efforts. But to make PVE gear completely useless was a mistake. This game was not made with PVP in mind..we all know that,but PVP used to be fun when combine with instances and raiding. When you take away the desire to do either of those things for PVP players..you're taking away 75% of the game from them. A game can't survive with only 25% of it being played.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Here is the post where Olihin clearly explains why the PVP and PVE gear is segregated the way it is:</span></p><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Ajjantis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>1. </strong></span>BEFORE raid gear was superior than anything. </p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>2. </strong></span>THEN they brought in pvp gear which did counter most of the raid gear making things even in pvp. </p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: small;">1. This is true and this was huge problem for everyone except the 24 on the raid rosters <span style="color: #ff00ff;">of our</span> very limited successful raid guilds, their alts and whomever was rich enough to buy the loot rights.   In fairness, I would say 100 people found this to be the true golden age of PvP.   Everyone else?  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;">2.  This caused the 100 people previously mention to PM me to no end about the unfairness that now maybe 100 more people would have the gear that competes with their raid gear.   This change also exposed the huge desire of everyone to want to participate in PvP and gave hundreds of other players hope of competition.   The reaction against the "copy paste" armor was huge, positive or negative the need for a new approach was requested.  </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Full thread can be found here</span>: <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=60&topic_id=484325">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=484325</a></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">While the majority of Nagafen players enjoyed the revamped TSO PVP armor, it was raiders who had PVP godmode equipment that hated it enough to make SOE prevent PVP and PVE gear from being interchangable.  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">SOE then took steps to prevent interchangability, to prevent player options of playstyle, to prevent player choice on equipment... and here we are today.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">It isn't "the scrubs" who are ruining PVP, if anyone it's those Nagafen PVE raiders who refused to allow any PVP competition on a PVP server.</span></p>

max.power
09-01-2010, 05:10 AM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">While the majority of Nagafen players enjoyed the revamped TSO PVP armor, it was raiders who had PVP godmode equipment that hated it enough to make SOE prevent PVP and PVE gear from being interchangable.  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">SOE then took steps to prevent interchangability, to prevent player options of playstyle, to prevent player choice on equipment... and here we are today.</span></p></blockquote><p>To be honest, I think what the hardcore raiders wanted was having gear from raid mobs not be buyable with PvP tokens anymore. Instead of removing this gear from the PvP vendors (what they wanted), Olihin went a route raiders didn't think of: PvE gear was separated from PvP gear through the new stat "Toughness".</p><p>I see and understand the desire for PvE gear being usefull in PvP too and in my opinion we could have continued with the system we had in TSO: Altered versions of raid gear buyable at PvP vendors. Expensive. Some raiders would have still been upset that "their" loot can be bought from every random scrub simply via PvPing (or "zerging" how they call it) but raid gear would have worked in PvP.</p><p>On a side note: I don't understand why raiders are so upset about the system we have now. Many drops from raid encounters are still much more powerful than any gear from the vendors and guilds that can kill hardmode mobs are having an advantage over people only equipped with PvP gear. That's an undeniable fact!</p><p>Regardless, going back to a "TSO style" PvP system would mean IMO:</p><p>- Let Toughness only work in BGs. Those that like to do them can/have to buy their gear from the BG vendors and only this gear has Toughness on it. After all: A PvP server is a battleground on it's own with it's own ruleset since PvP and PvE are connected to eachother.</p><p>- Crit Mit in PvE = Crit Mit in PvP</p><p>- Altered versions of raid gear buyable via PvP tokens. Weaker in PvE but stronger in PvP and more expensive than it is now. Yes, "random scrub xyz" would be able to buy gear from hard mode mobs, the question is: Could raider live with that fact (again)? And has Olihin enough resources at hand to design all that gear for PvP?</p><p>- "The Zerg"(tm) will be back big time, like it was in KP. Are we prepared for that? <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/8a80c6485cd926be453217d59a84a888.gif" border="0" /></p><p>Personally I can't decide which system I like more, both have/had advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes I want my PvE gear work in PvP 1:1, then I'm very glad that it's not that way when fighting top end raiding guilds.... <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/136dd33cba83140c7ce38db096d05aed.gif" border="0" />.</p>

Blambil
09-01-2010, 05:03 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><snip><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">Some final changes to mention, and I am sure will be the topic of discussion here:  </span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We are considering allowing you to attack back when mentored.</span><ul><li><span style="font-size: medium; font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif;">We will make sure to add a clear indicator that the target/group has mentored.</span></li></ul></li></ul></blockquote><p>please, dear devs, YES!!</p>

EQ2Player
09-02-2010, 01:27 AM
<p>Immunity:</p><p>Please consider some anit-camping mechanics. Some NPC guards (non-epic) or whatever clever idea. Something to keep the Buzzards away.</p><p>- edit: regarding guards, just some heroic ones to keep people on their toes.</p>

Chakos
09-02-2010, 11:56 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Here is the post where Olihin clearly explains why the PVP and PVE gear is segregated the way it is:</span></p><p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Ajjantis wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>1. </strong></span>BEFORE raid gear was superior than anything. </p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;"><strong>2. </strong></span>THEN they brought in pvp gear which did counter most of the raid gear making things even in pvp. </p></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: small;">1. This is true and this was huge problem for everyone except the 24 on the raid rosters <span style="color: #ff00ff;">of our</span> very limited successful raid guilds, their alts and whomever was rich enough to buy the loot rights.   In fairness, I would say 100 people found this to be the true golden age of PvP.   Everyone else?  </span></p><p><span style="font-size: small;">2.  This caused the 100 people previously mention to PM me to no end about the unfairness that now maybe 100 more people would have the gear that competes with their raid gear.   This change also exposed the huge desire of everyone to want to participate in PvP and gave hundreds of other players hope of competition.   The reaction against the "copy paste" armor was huge, positive or negative the need for a new approach was requested.  </span></p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Full thread can be found here</span>: <a href="http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/posts/list.m?start=60&topic_id=484325">http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=484325</a></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">While the majority of Nagafen players enjoyed the revamped TSO PVP armor, it was raiders who had PVP godmode equipment that hated it enough to make SOE prevent PVP and PVE gear from being interchangable.  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">SOE then took steps to prevent interchangability, to prevent player options of playstyle, to prevent player choice on equipment... and here we are today.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">It isn't "the scrubs" who are ruining PVP, if anyone it's those Nagafen PVE raiders who refused to allow any PVP competition on a PVP server.</span></p></blockquote><p>The raiders weren't complaining because they wanted their raid gear to be godmode for pvp; the issue they had was the crit mit on pvp armor allowed non raiders to bypass working their way up the raid ladder, skipping / minimalizing time spent in lower raid zones prior to being able to move to higher difficulty ones. The fix would have been to have changed PvP armor to PvP only crit mit, as you have on pvp gear now, leaving crit mit on raid armor to work in both pve and pvp. Instead, Olihin completely separated the two, making pvp totally separate from pve rather than allowing them to complement each other.</p><p>So no, it is not those Nagafen PvE raiders who refused to allow any pvp competition on a pvp server, it was heavy handed devs with an eye towards BGs, not PvP.</p>

Neskonlith
09-03-2010, 11:19 AM
<p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The raiders weren't complaining because they wanted their raid gear to be godmode for pvp; the issue they had was the crit mit on pvp armor allowed non raiders to bypass working their way up the raid ladder, skipping / minimalizing time spent in lower raid zones prior to being able to move to higher difficulty ones.</p><p><span style="color: #ff00ff;">The fix would have been to have changed PvP armor to PvP only crit mit, as you have on pvp gear now, leaving crit mit on raid armor to work in both pve and pvp.</span> Instead, Olihin completely separated the two, making pvp totally separate from pve rather than allowing them to complement each other.</p><p>So no, it is not those Nagafen PvE raiders who refused to allow any pvp competition on a pvp server, it was heavy handed devs with an eye towards BGs, not PvP.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">The TSO PVP armor was introduced for the last few months of the TSO expansion and it only allowed longer access to the starter raid encounters, but it did not magically imbue newbies to PVE raiding with experience and skill to progress in TSO PVE raids.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">"<em>Bypassing the Raid Ladder</em>" is a bogus excuse when beginning roadblock mobs like Thet, Switchmaster or even Strange Stalker were easily sufficient to halt the progress of newbs in shiny PVP gear, despite TSO being out for about a year at that point.  No newbs in PVP gear were suddenly farming Ykesha or Anashti or Gynok, only more starter raid trash was dropping.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Revamped PVP gear was most disruptive in that it revitalized the one-sided PVP game by narrowing the PVE/PVP gear gap, it allowed PVP players to finally have a slim chance to compete against OP PVE gear in PVP encounters instead of the zero chance they had prior.  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You think that it is perfectly fine for PVP gear to be nerfed down to non-interchangeable on a PVP server, while PVE gear on a PVP server remains the most powerful and versatile?  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">OP PVE gear is gained from actively avoiding PVP, so why should such items be automatically entitled to have a superior PVP template that trivializes PVP encounters?  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">If zero PVE effort equals zero PVE rewards, then zero PVP effort must equal zero PVP rewards on a PVP server.  There are more than enough blue servers in EQ2 that cater exclusively to the PVE playstyle, but Nagafen is tagged PVP.</span></p>

Thinwizzy
09-03-2010, 11:23 AM
<p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>The raiders weren't complaining because they wanted their raid gear to be godmode for pvp; the issue they had was the crit mit on pvp armor allowed non raiders to bypass working their way up the raid ladder, skipping / minimalizing time spent in lower raid zones prior to being able to move to higher difficulty ones. The fix would have been to have changed PvP armor to PvP only crit mit, as you have on pvp gear now, leaving crit mit on raid armor to work in both pve and pvp. Instead, Olihin completely separated the two, making pvp totally separate from pve rather than allowing them to complement each other.</p><p>So no, it is not those Nagafen PvE raiders who refused to allow any pvp competition on a pvp server, it was heavy handed devs with an eye towards BGs, not PvP.</p></blockquote><p>The complaint was not so much that the pvp crit mit was usable in pve, it was more that it only took a matter of days to get enough crit mit through pvp to make raid progression much easier than it was intended.</p>

Chakos
09-03-2010, 05:58 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">OP PVE gear is gained from actively avoiding PVP, so why should such items be automatically entitled to have a superior PVP template that trivializes PVP encounters?  </span><span style="color: #ff0000;">If zero PVE effort equals zero PVE rewards, then zero PVP effort must equal zero PVP rewards on a PVP server.  There are more than enough blue servers in EQ2 that cater exclusively to the PVE playstyle, but Nagafen is tagged PVP.</span></p></blockquote><p>I've got to agree with Stuckx, you are an idiot. Yes, Nagafen is tagged PvP -- but it hasn't removed PvE elements, so PvE is STILL a part of the game on our server. To take that portion and separate it entirely from PvP is stupid and it HURTS PvP -- how you have become so blind to this boggles my mind. And raid gear is NOT gained from "actively avoiding PVP" as you say; it is gained by participating in all aspects this game offers on a PVP server.</p><p>Nowhere did I say raid gear should be automatically entitled to a superior PVP template; I said PvE gear should not be useless in PvP -- just as PvP gear is not useless in PvE, not by a longshot.</p><p>As far as trivializing PvP encounters... do we even play on the same server? Lol... when an entire faction regularly faces 3:1 or worse odds on a regular basis, then PvP encounters are already trivialized for the higher population side.</p>

Neskonlith
09-03-2010, 07:29 PM
<p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I've got to agree with Stuckx, you are an idiot. Yes, Nagafen is tagged PvP -- but it hasn't removed PvE elements, so PvE is STILL a part of the game on our server. To take that portion and separate it entirely from PvP is stupid and it HURTS PvP -- how you have become so blind to this boggles my mind. And raid gear is NOT gained from "actively avoiding PVP" as you say; it is gained by participating in all aspects this game offers on a PVP server.</p><p>Nowhere did I say raid gear should be automatically entitled to a superior PVP template; I said PvE gear should not be useless in PvP -- just as PvP gear is not useless in PvE, not by a longshot.</p><p>As far as trivializing PvP encounters... do we even play on the same server? Lol... when an entire faction regularly faces 3:1 or worse odds on a regular basis, then PvP encounters are already trivialized for the higher population side.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Too bad PVE raiders weren't thinking about how PVP was still part of the game on Nagafen, and their demands to Olihin to remove PVE useful aspects from PVP gear to keep it separate would hurt the game.  How you can be blind to what Olihin wrote boggles my mind:</span> "...<span style="font-size: small;"><em>to PM me to no end about the unfairness that now maybe 100 more people would have the gear that competes with their raid gear</em>..." <span style="color: #ff0000;">- <span style="font-size: x-small;">I suppose those raiders must have been too wrapped up cyber-stalking Olihin into nerfing PVP competition to bother thinking of the greater good of the game, or the consequences of bunny-boiling.</span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-small;">To pretend PVE raiding is not bypassing PVP is amusing, maybe I can try to use that double-speak to convince Olihin that my crafting Epics need a massively OP PVP template for the risk and effort involved!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-small;">As for the "3:1 or worse odds" excuse for giving up on PVP: I just finished an Antonica Warfield with a victory over Qeynos - a dozen of us Freeport 90s versus ten or so Qeynos 90s - but I suppose since it is such a large zone, there could have been a few hundred QQs hiding somewhere AFK with bags filled with thousands of AFK Tokens... lol</span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p>

Stuckx
09-03-2010, 07:33 PM
<p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I've got to agree with Stuckx, you are an idiot.</p></blockquote><p>QFE +1</p>

Stuckx
09-03-2010, 07:34 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p> "...<span style="font-size: small;"><em>to PM me to no end about the unfairness that now maybe 100 more people would have the gear that competes with their raid gear</em>..."</span></p></blockquote><p>Ever consider the more likely fact that Ohlihin was just making up an excuse so he could justify his absolutely awful new PVP system?</p><p>Seems more likely in my opinion.</p>

Stuckx
09-03-2010, 07:38 PM
<blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-small;"> I just finished an Antonica Warfield with a victory over Qeynos - a dozen of us Freeport 90s versus ten or so Qeynos 90s - but I suppose since it is such a large zone, there could have been a few hundred QQs hiding somewhere AFK with bags filled with thousands of AFK Tokens... lol</span></blockquote><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Also,lol at proving my point. Q's outnumbered freeport MASSIVELY the last time I played..there were well over fifty..maybe even a hundred Q's lagging out the warfields when they were active..</p><p>So what's this about PVP being so great now? How come it went from a hundred Q's in one zone to ten or fifteen? I suppose you must be right though..Ohlihin's new system is absolutely perfect..encouraging PVP..why..I can't remember the last time I saw more than five Q's in one zone..Sure glad we got this new system.</p>

Chakos
09-04-2010, 01:37 AM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Too bad PVE raiders weren't thinking about how PVP was still part of the game on Nagafen, and their demands to Olihin to remove PVE useful aspects from PVP gear to keep it separate would hurt the game.  How you can be blind to what Olihin wrote boggles my mind:</span> "...<span style="font-size: small;"><em>to PM me to no end about the unfairness that now maybe 100 more people would have the gear that competes with their raid gear</em>..." <span style="color: #ff0000;">- <span style="font-size: x-small;">I suppose those raiders must have been too wrapped up cyber-stalking Olihin into nerfing PVP competition to bother thinking of the greater good of the game, or the consequences of bunny-boiling. <span style="color: #00ffff;">It doesn't matter how many times raiders PMed him - a bad decision is still a bad decision. Is also funny that you mention the greater good of the game, which your short-sighted stance fails to bother thinking of, as well.</span></span></span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-small;">To pretend PVE raiding is not bypassing PVP is amusing, maybe I can try to use that double-speak to convince Olihin that my crafting Epics need a massively OP PVP template for the risk and effort involved!  <span style="color: #00ffff;">Thanks for missing the point, again, and continuing to demonstrate your stupidity</span></span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000; font-size: x-small;">As for the "3:1 or worse odds" excuse for giving up on PVP: I just finished an Antonica Warfield with a victory over Qeynos - a dozen of us Freeport 90s versus ten or so Qeynos 90s - but I suppose since it is such a large zone, there could have been a few hundred QQs hiding somewhere AFK with bags filled with thousands of AFK Tokens... lol  <span style="color: #00ffff;">Keep putting words in my mouth to fuel your failed logic: I never said anywhere I'd given up on Pvp, only that the population imbalance trivializes the Pvp, something you claim to be against. Of course we can win WFs on occasion; Q doesn't always show up --- but then, that isnt the norm. If they show up, we lose, even if our side manages to show up as well. The occasional near balanced fights are great, they just aren't as common as I think many would like to see</span></span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>I'm now done responding to your ignorant posts, as they will lead nowhere. You can't cure stupid, as the saying goes, but I'll hope one is found for you, anyway.</p>

Neskonlith
09-04-2010, 01:22 PM
<p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><span style="color: #00ffff; font-size: x-small;"><span style="color: #ff00ff;">It doesn't matter how many times raiders PMed him - a bad decision is still a bad decision.</span> Is also funny that you mention the greater good of the game, which your short-sighted stance fails to bother thinking of, as well.</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ffff; font-size: x-small;">Thanks for missing the point, again, and continuing to demonstrate your stupidity</span></p><p><span style="color: #00ffff; font-size: x-small;">Keep putting words in my mouth to fuel your failed logic: I never said anywhere I'd given up on Pvp, only that the population imbalance trivializes the Pvp, something you claim to be against. Of course we can win WFs on occasion; Q doesn't always show up --- but then, that isnt the norm. If they show up, we lose, even if our side manages to show up as well. The occasional near balanced fights are great, they just aren't as common as I think many would like to see</span></p><p>I'm now done responding to your ignorant posts, as they will lead nowhere. You can't cure stupid, as the saying goes, but I'll hope one is found for you, anyway.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">I see what it is you are trying to say: <em>Olihin needs to ignore further raider input as a proven bad decision</em> - possibly as raiders are too narrowly focused on the PVE portion of the game.  I'd respond to that by pointing out ignoring raider input would be an overreaction, and that it might be better for SOE to just use more than a grain of salt when considering PVE raider feedback to adjust PVP in the future.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Thanks for also missing my point and responding with more unnecessary insults!  Stuckx's ongoing bitterness I can understand as his conjie former main was nerfed at the beginning of TSF and he has not gotten over the trauma of that event yet, months later.  Why does discussing potentially disruptive in-game PVP balance topics upset you so much that you feel the need to attempt to derail?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Everyone who PVPs on Nagafen already knows that open-PVP and Warfields are random - and that's the point!  You never know who or how many opponents you will be facing.  If you seek the comfort of knowing the size and composition of your opponents, I'd suggest you stay with BeeGees as they will always have the same level opponents of a set maximum number per instance.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Thanks for your contributions!</span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p>

Stuckx
09-04-2010, 04:24 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>I've got to agree with Stuckx, you are an idiot.</p></blockquote><p>QFE +1</p></blockquote><p>QFE again,since every post this guy makes only further proves his stupidity.</p>

Shuai
09-13-2010, 02:31 PM
<p>Neskon... yeah you're an idiot.</p><p>Your mind is so narrowly centered on one aspect of the game that you trivialize the other aspects. The current implementation was either a misunderstanding of the complaints people had in regards to the old system, or simply following the reactions of people like you.</p><p>What we want on a pvp server is the ability to pvp as part of our pve experience. That involves pursuing UNIQUE gear for our character allowing ourselves the ability to differentiate ourselves. When gear is so simple to get, and people can put little to no effort other than maintaining a pulse at their computer for cookie cutter pvp gear, it promotes laziness and limits the "need" to actually explore the game. What was wanted, at least for me, as someone who pve's to enhance my own characters pvp experience was for pvp gear to be good, but raid gear to be the best. Not god mode, but slightly better than the pvp gear. Also so no shortcuts are taken to reduce (but not eliminate) pvp gear's crit mit in pve. maybe at 50% of it's pvp value.</p><p>Personally I simply want to pursue pve content, actually play all aspects of the game, and have that in turn increase my characters pvp effectiveness. Sure I won't deny that I pvp with some pve gear on (although if you pvp with pve LEFT SIDE ARMOR on you're a [Removed for Content], the pieces I'm referring to are 2 raid jewelry items and a couple instance jewelry drops). I just wish I could pvp with an armor set that I CHOSE and combined. Not the pre-defined pvp gear already picked out for my class. The ability to make yourself unique is the biggest draw mmo's can give.</p><p>The main argument against pve gear in pvp situations is just that you think if you spend your time doing something other than pvp, it shouldn't increase your pvp experience. Just take a moment, and instead of getting upset and butt hurt over this post, people want a better EQ2 experience, not simply one area. Take a comprehensive view of the game in general instead of the easy mode aspect of gearing out a toon that is currently our pvp system.</p>

Darkor
09-13-2010, 02:52 PM
<p>Noone is saying that the pvp in the past, long before toughness and BGs got introduced, was perfect. I played a healer as a main and in full fabled gear + all masters ive got one shotted by rangers - it was insane and not fun. The Devs understood that 2 second fights were not good and decided to do something against it. But what they implented was simply lazy and poor. I mean add a flat dmg reduction to armor is silly. Does this dmg reduction even consider which classes get most out of it? I dont think so. A healer in full toughness gear is nearly unkillable, ive seen zerkers and shadow knight stand 1 minute + against 2-3 groups. These are all factors that were not considered when introducting toughness gear. I hate fighting a cloth caster whos mitigation and toughness level is so high that i have no chance to dmg him at all with his crazy wards.</p><p>PvP Critical mitigation was perfect. It reduced the crazy dmg while still giving a chance to kill people. I dont know why we had to get toughness + pvp crit mitigation. Its not right and has no room on a pvp server.</p><p>The pvp is totally ruined right now and our pvp dev does not want to accept it sadly.</p>

Neskonlith
09-13-2010, 03:18 PM
<p><cite>Shuai wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>copy pasta post with convoluted logic</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Your mind is so narrowly centred on one aspect of the game that you trivialize the other aspects.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You dislike cookie-cutter PVP gear, but you have no issues with cookie-cutter PVE gear.  When such cookie-cutter PVE gear is easy to get and/or can be purchased via SLR, it promotes laziness and limits the "need" to actually explore the game.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Looking up some of the quitters and has-beens haunting the forums, I see very few 90/90/250/450s - but I do see a lot of 90/0s - so how is it they try to claim to be experiencing "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" when often there is obvious no character development beyond that required strictly for raiding?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Apparently, "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" must conveniently only refer to PVE raid zones.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Happy Hunting!</span></p>

Toxicz
09-13-2010, 03:31 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Shuai wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>copy pasta post with convoluted logic</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Your mind is so narrowly centred on one aspect of the game that you trivialize the other aspects.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You dislike cookie-cutter PVP gear, but you have no issues with cookie-cutter PVE gear.  When such cookie-cutter PVE gear is easy to get and/or can be purchased via SLR, it promotes laziness and limits the "need" to actually explore the game.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Looking up some of the quitters and has-beens haunting the forums, I see very few 90/90/250/450s - but I do see a lot of 90/0s - so how is it they try to claim to be experiencing "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" when often there is obvious no character development beyond that required strictly for raiding?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Apparently, "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" must conveniently only refer to PVE raid zones.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Happy Hunting!</span></p></blockquote><p>It amazes me to how stupid you are. You talk about "<em>all aspects of the game</em>", but in reality you have no clue. I highly HIGHLY doubt you are a raider and have killed anything that's moderately hard therefor you have no clue to what it takes to kill those mobs. You talk about the "<em>all aspects of the game</em>", but yet you wont' allow PVE gear into the other aspects when it is obviously more time consuming to obtain and therefor should be better for "<em>all aspects of the game"</em>. You Sir are a hypocrite</p><p>And asks for the crafting... theirs only 2 types of Tradeskill besides tinkering/adorner that means anything now days; Alchemist and Provisioner, and im pretty sure theirs enough of those already. And with how much plat people have now, buying it is much faster and easier than leveling it up. Oh and not every class needs 250 aa... most of it is just fluff after 230... Sorry, but your just dumb.</p>

Neskonlith
09-13-2010, 03:42 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It amazes me to how stupid you are. </p><p>Sorry, but your just dumb.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">While a passionate response on the forums is laudable, try to save it for in-game and re-read the thread:</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">PVE raiders first claimed to play "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" when they obviously don't play all aspects of the game.  PVE raiders are the ones who first demanded no PVP in PVE - it is not I who is posting without a clue.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Thanks for ignoring the facts and the timeline of the events we are discussing, your contribution to advancing the discussion was ...illuminating!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Happy Hunting!</span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p>

Toxicz
09-13-2010, 04:05 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It amazes me to how stupid you are. </p><p>Sorry, but your just dumb.</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">While a passionate response on the forums is laudable, try to save it for in-game and re-read the thread:</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">PVE raiders first claimed to play "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" when they obviously don't play all aspects of the game.  PVE raiders are the ones who first demanded no PVP in PVE - it is not I who is posting without a clue.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Thanks for ignoring the facts and the timeline of the events we are discussing, your contribution to advancing the discussion was ...illuminating!</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Happy Hunting!</span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Nice quotes. So are you saying people who don't craft aren't experiecing the whole game? I'm pretty sure crafting is the smallest part of the game. Theirs a reason we play on a pvp server; that is when we don't raid we pvp, simple as that. I'm sorry if you enjoy all aspects of the game except raiding, or just can't get into a good raiding guild ( I wonder why? )</p><p>But what am i getting at, your the guy who posts the same stuff over and over just with different wording. Ohilin might listen to you one day... and when that day comes I'm pretty sure this game will go down the drain.</p>

Taldier
09-13-2010, 04:20 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Shuai wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>copy pasta post with convoluted logic</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Your mind is so narrowly centred on one aspect of the game that you trivialize the other aspects.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You dislike cookie-cutter PVP gear, but you have no issues with cookie-cutter PVE gear.  When such cookie-cutter PVE gear is easy to get and/or can be purchased via SLR, it promotes laziness and limits the "need" to actually explore the game.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Looking up some of the quitters and has-beens haunting the forums, I see very few 90/90/250/450s - but I do see a lot of 90/0s - so how is it they try to claim to be experiencing "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" when often there is obvious no character development beyond that required strictly for raiding?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Apparently, "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" must conveniently only refer to PVE raid zones.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Happy Hunting!</span></p></blockquote><p>Lulz at being so desperate that you grab onto crafting as an integral point of the game.  Yes, clicking a couple buttons repeatedly for days to level crafting is such amazing epic content.  Replacing it with tetris or the gems game from eq1 would be far more entertaining.</p><p>I mean does anyone ever "just craft" while crafting?  I've always sat there watching tv or reading something while clicking the buttons so I didnt get bored.  That question is assuming of course that half the 90 crafters didnt just use a bot anyway...</p><p><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Anything that could be done entirely by a simple computer algorithm with absolutely no human thought involved is not a game, its just a repetitive grind process.</span></p><p>...</p><p>Oh wait, I guess that definition includes getting the absurdly easymode pvp gear since theyve carebear'd the whole system down to the difficulty level of crafting.</p><p>target groupmemberx, autofollow, cast: blue aoe1, click revive if group is dead, repeat...</p>

Epiph
09-13-2010, 05:24 PM
<p>That guy is a [Removed for Content], I don't care if I get a warning.  Seriously, it's people like that idiot (not even going to mention his name) that ruined PVP in the first place.</p>

Neskonlith
09-13-2010, 05:28 PM
<p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes, clicking a couple buttons repeatedly for days to level crafting is such amazing epic content. </p><p>I mean does anyone ever "just craft" while crafting?  <span style="color: #ff00ff;">I've always sat there watching tv or reading something while clicking the buttons so I didnt get bored.</span> </p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">PVE character progression can be gain via questing or grinding... just like crafting progression.  I suppose if you ignore the Tradeskilling Timeline completely, it might seem like a long boring grind, but the fact remains that there are a lot of tradeskill quests out there, with more being added as the rest of the game evolves.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">These would be things you'd realize if you actually played "<em>all aspects of the the game</em>", so let me help out you a little:</span></p><p><a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Tradeskill_Timeline">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Tradeskill_Timeline</a></p><p><a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Sentinel%27s_Fate_Crafting_Timeline">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Sentinel%...afting_Timeline</a></p><p><a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Betrayed">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Betrayed</a></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Huh, certainly looks like a lot of interesting crafting quests and content - but then again, all those quests do require a lot of effort and risk to complete by getting updates and materials in open-world.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Domino's crafting improvements FTW!</span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" /></p>

Epiph
09-13-2010, 05:32 PM
<p>I bet you live in San Francisco</p>

Charmnevac
09-13-2010, 06:23 PM
<p>lol</p>

Taldier
09-13-2010, 07:02 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>[email protected] wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Yes, clicking a couple buttons repeatedly for days to level crafting is such amazing epic content. </p><p>I mean does anyone ever "just craft" while crafting?  <span style="color: #ff00ff;">I've always sat there watching tv or reading something while clicking the buttons so I didnt get bored.</span> </p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">PVE character progression can be gain via questing or grinding... just like crafting progression.  I suppose if you ignore the Tradeskilling Timeline completely, it might seem like a long boring grind, but the fact remains that there are a lot of tradeskill quests out there, with more being added as the rest of the game evolves.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">These would be things you'd realize if you actually played "<em>all aspects of the the game</em>", so let me help out you a little:</span></p><p><a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Tradeskill_Timeline">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Tradeskill_Timeline</a></p><p><a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Sentinel%27s_Fate_Crafting_Timeline">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Sentinel%...afting_Timeline</a></p><p><a href="http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Betrayed">http://eq2.wikia.com/wiki/Shadows_of_the_Betrayed</a></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Huh, certainly looks like a lot of interesting crafting quests and content - but then again, all those quests do require a lot of effort and risk to complete by getting updates and materials in open-world.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Domino's crafting improvements FTW!</span></p><p><img src="/eq2/images/smilies/283a16da79f3aa23fe1025c96295f04f.gif" border="0" /></p></blockquote><p>Oh yes, hailing npcs, clicking something, and then repeatedly clicking the same buttons is so much more interesting.  How could we miss that...</p><p>Complex quest steps like:"Harvest 3 of each You can also buy them if you dont want to harvest"</p><p>All that risk of buying things off the broker and even going out into a contested area once or twice to briefly talk to an npc who isnt covered by immunity?  OMG!</p><p>I did do the full line of gathering quests to get the cloak btw.  Unbelievably boring.  Of course there was pretty much no pvp involved since it had already been reduced to grinding each other at a central location by then.</p><p>...</p><p>Is grinding experience off of easy mobs equally trivial?  Of course.  Thats why you dont get anything meaningful from it and no one brags about "the 'amazing' accomplishment of getting to lvl 90".</p><p>If you cant tell the differences between those repetitive processes and actually entertaining thought-requiring gameplay then you are beyond help.  Raiding still requires it and pvp used to require it even more so than raiding.  Now pvp has been dumbed down to the same level of difficulty as "grinding mobs" or "grinding crafting".</p><p>It is a boring repetitive process that has lost any sense of requiring effort or intelligence.</p>

Shuai
09-13-2010, 07:15 PM
<p><cite>Neskonlith wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Shuai wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>copy pasta post with convoluted logic</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Your mind is so narrowly centred on one aspect of the game that you trivialize the other aspects.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">You dislike cookie-cutter PVP gear,<span style="color: #33cccc;"> Cookie Cutter implies everyone is geared the same. Go inspect all the top raiders and see how *exactly* the same their gear is. There are far fewer people geared the same with raid gear because it takes much more effort to do so. If pvp gear wasn't so easy to get, and getting it was like it was for the first 6 months of TSO it wouldn't be so cookie cutter either.</span> but you have no issues with cookie-cutter PVE gear.  When such cookie-cutter PVE gear is easy to get and/or can be purchased via SLR, it promotes laziness and limits the "need" to actually explore the game.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Looking up some of the quitters and has-beens haunting the forums, I see very few 90/90/250/450s - but I do see a lot of 90/0s - so how is it they try to claim to be experiencing "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" when often there is obvious no character development beyond that required strictly for raiding?</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Apparently, "<em>all aspects of the game</em>" must conveniently only refer to PVE raid zones.</span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Happy Hunting!</span></p></blockquote><p>Oh by the way Nesko, 90/90/250/450. and I claim experiencing all aspects of the game. Sorry if that experience is too narrow minded for you. Oh, 20k+ pvp kills, avid raider. Anything else you'd like to know about my resume?</p>

Neskonlith
09-13-2010, 07:40 PM
<p><cite>Shuai wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>Oh by the way Nesko, 90/90/250/450. and I claim experiencing all aspects of the game. Sorry if that experience is too narrow minded for you. Oh, 20k+ pvp kills, avid raider. Anything else you'd like to know about my resume?</p></blockquote><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">Good for you, for being exceptional!  </span></p><p><span style="color: #ff0000;">However, some of the former players still posting here are claiming that those other aspects of the game are not necessary to play in order to "<em>play all aspects of the game</em>" - which didn't make sense, as EQ2 is more than just raiding.</span></p>

KniteShayd
09-14-2010, 07:27 AM
<p>I can't help from seeing (according to the forums), that since I came back and after the server merge, That Q's out number Freeps.</p><p>All I can do is BRBAFKROFLMAO!</p><p>It wasn't like that for the longest time on Venekor. So I have no symapthy for the crying Freeps, as those who were on Venekor can testify to this.</p><p>I have run solo with my T4 since coming back in June, and yet have to see a group of more that 3 Q's. Perhaps you all are talking about being rolled by 4x's, because you are in end-game tiers.  But I know from experience, in lower tiers this is not true. My 62, has yet to even see a group of anyone. When I run around I have only encountered 3 con-ing players at WF's, and only 2 out in the adventure ares. It appears to me, the 60's are pretty dead. As for T4, the WF's are a testament to the 3-6 T4-T5 groups on the freepside swarming any con-ing Q who chooses to show up...</p><p>Ok, now back to the thread, I'm glad you guys are NOT enabling insta combat mode. Thank you.</p><p>Still waiting on word for transfers.</p>

Proud_Silence
09-14-2010, 06:21 PM
<p><cite>Olihin wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p><cite>Chakos wrote:</cite></p><blockquote><p>It sounds to me that Asaron is referring to the lowbie zones of opposite alignments auto carnage flagging those who are of appropriate range who may go there to quest / pvp at the appropriate level, not lowbies getting carnaged when they attack outside of their level range.</p></blockquote><p>This is intended.  The fact that you have zero risk for being in a enemy controled area is being removed.  Now you have a slight risk, and that is only if you are questing in an area patrolled by factioned players.  </p><p><strong>This is not a negative change and questing is PvE anyway...pffft!</strong> <img src="/eq2/images/smilies/49869fe8223507d7223db3451e5321aa.gif" border="0" /></p><p><span style="font-size: x-large; color: #ff0000;">Olihin</span></p></blockquote><p>[Removed for Content] show me how i can reach 250 AA through pvp...what a lame comment from pvp dev, seriously....</p><p>Regarding mentored players attacking back: Totally moronic idea. Will be exploited massively. It will take away the fun for people playing the actual lvl range. imagine a lvl 70 necro trying to solo in Sanctum of scaleborn; now a lvl 90 stupidly OP crusader comes in, mentored to 70, with his stupid exploiting RAF lvl 3 toon standing at entrance, demolishing the entire zone for loot/AA farming.</p><p>ATM the necro at least has the option to attempt to kill the mentored player, if he can actually fight back, the true lvl 70 toon might as well just log off cause no way in hell you can kill a lvl 90 toon mentored to ...well any lvl if he can fight back.</p><p>The more i think about this, the more stupid exploits pop to mind...wanna lvl up an entire group in contested zones without the slightest fear of getting killed ? easy, just have you lvl 90 tank and healer friend mentor you, and it is literally impossible to kill that group.</p><p>I read somewhere that you Olihin are a veteran MMORPG player with a lot of pvp experience. Reading about your ideas strongly shows something else.</p><p>Dude the stonewill proc and battle frenzy has been screwed up HARDCORE for months and you can't bloody fix that first, before adding new broken stuff ??? Having 15 triggers of battle frenzy instead of 30 sec duration.... DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND HOW GAME BREAKING THIS IS ???? 15 triggers can be gone in 2 second !!!!</p>