Dudoes@Nagafen wrote:
Neskonlith wrote:
Dudoes@Nagafen wrote:
Seliri@Nagafen wrote:
Repeating your vision of population caps on PvP ranks doesn't make the idea any better.
hypocrite much?
As much fun it was to repost a few times to make sure it was seen before the orange spam buried it, I had hoped for riffs and elaborations on a core idea of scarce upper titles:
What would the pvp fame game be like if there were only a handful of top titles?
The other numbers can always be adjusted, but if there is only ONE Overlord, how vicious would the competition be?
One top title, one winner, one server full of ambition awaiting their turn.
Had nothing to do with what you said was pointing out Seliri repeating his same txt walls of 13 points of blah blah over and over. After telling you repeating doesnt make ur idea any better.
Your attempt to cherrypick my hypocrisy is indeed myopic.
When the same posters stop raging about their points with repetition, you'll see an equal number of viewers likewise agree with many of the controversies Dorsan and I, as well as others, have pointed out (see: a sample of the populace with tapered senses of objectivity in "Nagafen PvP - Open Webinar with the Devs" [some are also seen in this thread, via Mesiya, Gussjr, to some extent Peak, Drew, & others on EQ2Flames, such as Zzof, Hauzer {q149}, etc]).
What you fail to notice is that my aims gradually consolidate & condense the essence of dispute, to attempt a better illicitation of focused assessment from the particular obstinate groups.
Noting anxiety & anticipation from the likes of Kazzo, Vengeance, Ninka, Mingler, Beandip, Twelve, Rargon, & in the past from Dawnar, the consensus predominantly seems to be for the classic PvP rank system.
Plus, the ideas I've put forth would be substantially more positively impacting than fame decay or population caps on PvP ranks.
As such, their emphasis is deserved beyond the shallow antagonizing of those who root themselves unable to consider alternative perspectives.
Thanks Rothgar for all the responses, but I can only hope the boundaries are open to greater adjustment, as a given. ;D
GussJr wrote:
From scanning the thread is seems like the group zerg is still a concern for many of us...
Just a thought, but maybe instead of splitting the points earned from a kill between all members in the group...what about a "lock out"?
What I mean by a "lock out" is that maybe only the first person to engage another player is allowed to combat that player in a true 1v1 pvp fight while group members look on, hence locking out all the other players in the group from the fight.
...no sharing points from the kill needed...no zerg to worry about...
If someone runs from a fight, then perhaps once that toon reaches a certain distance from the player who engaged them it resets and someone else can engage the fight...
It would, in a way, force people to become better at pvp instead of leeching kill dings from a large group...
...just an idea
Locking PvP encounters is extremely abusable due to dual boxing.
Two characters could stay engaged & then one could engage at their leisure once their foes are preoccupied.
Though, it isn't necessarily too different when we regard flying mounts as they are.
Neskonlith mentions the accurate disagreement of class quality discrepancy!
(P.S. LOL @ Crismorn rage. It's just so laughably sensitive. Well shucks breh, I'm sorry you have trouble coping with the obvious objective I've been outlining.)