No Surprises > Transparency pls > Track record o detachment > @Omougi @SOE: "Fix & not remove"?

[Seliri]

Omougi wrote:

Neskonlith wrote:

Ragemaster wrote:

 I think these problems can be solved without removing them from the game, they just will require careful balancing and out of the box thinking. Theres no reason we cant have mercs on naggy if for example they were to make them much much less useful iN PVP then they are in PVE.

Instead of just ripping out content that doesnt work well with pvp, which is the lazy mans approach imo, SOE should concenentrate on rebalancing PVP across the board and maybe implementing new changes / stuff that makes exsisting content "play nicer" with pvp. 

Exactly!

I prefer additive solutions that enhance, instead of subtractive that collectively punishes - why should subscribers settle for less than we had before?  

A lot of suggestions were indeed about removing features that are currently negatively affecting PVP. We are going to attempt to legitimately fix the problems instead of cutting out features that are causing them.

I think the community deserves to hear the boundaries & tolerances you're dealing with when it comes to brainstorming PvP invigoration.

This is 18th time or so you'll be trying to modify/"improve"/adjust PvP & all past renditions were heavily troubled, flawed, & riddled with indifference to community sentiment.

For me, it is very obvious that the problems are absolutely clear cut, with NO WIGGLE ROOM WHATSOEVER.

I've labored to compile & coherently/exhaustively assemble the build up/aggregation of PvP feedback & it'd be a shame to see the 45 PoAfEP go under-utilized.

This isn't just some light topic we can test in 1 week or even 1 month.

Please, no more sociopathy. =]

If whoever is in charge won't confess all of these things negatively & heavily detract from PvP, just say so in an itemized/exhaustive/thorough reply to this post & each point.

1.) Fame decay was wrong (utter apathy known when labor dissipates uncontrollably).

2.) A PvP rank system absent the +/- 1 rank range is wrong (see: #11 in the 45 PoAfEP).

2a.) Drastic PvP rank losses superceding the classic PvP rank system's negative fame hits...is wrong (breeds apathy, people like being able to gank/die & still progress in PvP ranks [see: classic PvP rank system]).

3.) PvP posters are wrong (they work against contested PvP presence).

4.) Writ agents in cities is wrong (they work against contested PvP presence).

5.) Nerfing cures is wrong (class contributions of individuality MUST BE RETAINED).

6.) Nerfing passive taunts is wrong -- Berserkers are also the only 1s w/ working passive taunts ATM (class contributions of individuality MUST BE RETAINED).

7.) Nerfed crow control is wrong (class contributions of individuality MUST BE RETAINED).

7a.) Dirge's Cacophany of Blades interruption removal was entirely uncalled for.

8.) Heirloom PvP tokens are wrong (see: #33 & Conclusive Rage in 45 PoAfEP).

9.) Low cost PvP gear is wrong (see: #33 & Conclusive Rage in 45 PoAfEP).

10.) Increased ground mount runspeed superceding old norms is wrong (works against contested PvP presence & class individuality contributions).

11.) Leapers/gliders/fliers wrongly end the attempted removal of permanent immunity (they work against contested PvP presence).

11a.) Possible alternatives I don't support are altitude/ceiling & runspeed caps for fliers/leapers/gliders.

11b.) Best option, of course, is disabling them 71.43% of the time (#25 in the 45 PoAfEP).

12.) 24/7 battlegrounds access on EQ2's only contested PvP server is wrong (it works against contested PvP presence).

12a.) Best option, of course, is disabling them 71.43% of the time (#22 in the 45 PoAfEP).

13.) Mundane warfield objectives are wrong (lifeless/uninspiring, not morale boosting).

14.) Guild strategists works against contested PvP presence.

15.) Zonewide entry works against contested PvP presence.

16.) 1 minute zoning immunity is wrong (it works against contested PvP presence).

17.) LVL locking starting at 30 & not 10 ends scores of contested PvP presence & endless, cyclical longevity.

17a.) PvP without extreme competency adoption curves is far more attractive to many.

17b.) PvP without see invisibility/stealth totems is far more attractive to many.

17c.) PvP without such exacerbated, overpowered classes is far more attractive to many.

18.) City PvP rules in T2 contested zones is wrong (it works against contested PvP presence).

19.) Lowbie PvP gear w/ Toughness & critical mitigation is wrong (these defenses were intended to combat CB/Pot with high critical chance in SENTINEL'S FATE, FOR NINETIES [90s]).

20.) Wizards having castable spire portals works against contested PvP presence (instant travel best limited through Druid exclusivity & call home spells).

21.) Global bells work against contested PvP presence.

22.) Druid/wizard/spire guild hall amenities work against contested PvP presence.

23.) PvE/PvP separation ruins incentive to PvP for many raiders when gear from their preferred play method is useless (see: #7 in the 45 PoAfEP).

I appreciate the...initial...attempt at ending permanent immunity.

I like that level locking is back, but no contested drops to farm & #19 (lowbie toughness/CM) keep me from going there again.

It was nice to have warfields introduced, but low PvP gear cost, the trouble with servers crashing, & their zone population caps limited their growth & interest (yeahrp, even though innovation behind the objectives isn't morale boosting...).

Changing the PvP range from 8 to 10 was also a positive change that helped retain the cyclical longevity of min-/maxing in any 1 tier.

Opening up Qeynos & Freeport to drop city PvP rules was very beneficial & stimulating, but there's still no current/meaningful PvP progression. n_n

However, it is clear that the bad far outweighs the good in EQ2 PvP, as it stands...O_o...

[Souse]

Seliri wrote:

Omougi wrote:

Neskonlith wrote:

Ragemaster wrote:

 I think these problems can be solved without removing them from the game, they just will require careful balancing and out of the box thinking. Theres no reason we cant have mercs on naggy if for example they were to make them much much less useful iN PVP then they are in PVE.

Instead of just ripping out content that doesnt work well with pvp, which is the lazy mans approach imo, SOE should concenentrate on rebalancing PVP across the board and maybe implementing new changes / stuff that makes exsisting content "play nicer" with pvp. 

Exactly!

I prefer additive solutions that enhance, instead of subtractive that collectively punishes - why should subscribers settle for less than we had before?  

A lot of suggestions were indeed about removing features that are currently negatively affecting PVP. We are going to attempt to legitimately fix the problems instead of cutting out features that are causing them.

I think the community deserves to hear the boundaries & tolerances you're dealing with when it comes to brainstorming PvP invigoration.

This is 18th time or so you'll be trying to modify/"improve"/adjust PvP & all past renditions were heavily troubled, flawed, & riddled with indifference to community sentiment.

For me, it is very obvious that the problems are absolutely clear cut, with NO WIGGLE ROOM WHATSOEVER.

I've labored to compile & coherently/exhaustively assemble the build up/aggregation of PvP feedback & it'd be a shame to see the 45 PoAfEP go under-utilized.

This isn't just some light topic we can test in 1 week or even 1 month.

Please, no more sociopathy. =]

If whoever is in charge won't confess all of these things negatively & heavily detract from PvP, just say so in an itemized/exhaustive/thorough reply to this post & each point.

1.) Fame decay was wrong (utter apathy known when labor dissipates uncontrollably).

Fame decay was, indeed, in the wrong direction. The direction they had to move in, from people being stuck with titles and not pvping enough to share fame around, was removing zones and places to hide, of which, they did not address correctly. I agree.

2.) A PvP rank system absent the +/- 1 rank range is wrong (see: #11 in the 45 PoAfEP).

2a.) Drastic PvP rank losses superceding the classic PvP rank system's negative fame hits...is wrong (breeds apathy, people like being able to gank/die & still progress in PvP ranks [see: classic PvP rank system]).

I agree that the new fame systems were implemented in the wrong direction as well. The old system offered an inclination of activeness, increasing the rate of immersion within PvP fights.

3.) PvP posters are wrong (they work against contested PvP presence).

Indeed PvP posters are in the wrong direction as well. They do work against an openworld PvP environment.

4.) Writ agents in cities is wrong (they work against contested PvP presence).

Writ agents were implemented to offer a disperse of PvP openworld density and hubs around specific places. This was originally implemented to take out PvP server lag, and help others from any confusion they may have gained from being so overloaded with PvP. Writ agents in cities is not a bad thing if, say, the writ agent can be silenced XD, though I would not disagree in implementing a PvP writ agent in major contested zone hubs.

5.) Nerfing cures is wrong (class contributions of individuality MUST BE RETAINED).

Anything that decreases the effectiveness and contribution of each class at the CORE ARCHETYPE is a wrong move. Curing is a PRIEST thing, and needs to be left alone.

6.) Nerfing passive taunts is wrong -- Berserkers are also the only 1s w/ working passive taunts ATM (class contributions of individuality MUST BE RETAINED).

Anything " " " " " " " " " " " CORE ARCHETYPE " " " ". Taunts are a FIGHTER thing, and need to be left alone.

7.) Nerfed crow control is wrong (class contributions of individuality MUST BE RETAINED).

" " " "....at subclass contributions is a wrong move. Crowd control, however, is a bit overpowering when placed in areas of high class diversity. It is, however, a wrong move to nerf crowd control to decrease effectiveness AT THE CORE. This includes quantitative representational reliance of each crowd control ability, determined by how often the ability appears in the class's arsenal and how long each crowd control effect lasts. I'd say that stuns and all crowd control effects aside from fear, root, and mez, should have a % chance to break, instead of having immunity. This would offer what people fear within a point of class diversity, in which players who do not rely on crowd control can unleash their DPS capabilities in full force without retaliation. For basis comparison and understanding how contesting mechanics can intervene on eachother within a situation of vast versatility, you need to have consideration for both mechanics, and apply them both, a counter force (healing for DPS, damage breaking control effects), and a collaboration force (DPS breaks control effects, while healing is stopped by interruption (this is why Paladin heals are OVERPOWERED(situationall of course! (that means, not in the numbers!)))

7a.) Dirge's Cacophany of Blades interruption removal was entirely uncalled for.

8.) Heirloom PvP tokens are wrong (see: #33 & Conclusive Rage in 45 PoAfEP).

Definitely. A toon should PvP for tokens used for solely that toon. If you were to PvP on one toon to save up tokens for another, the entire purpose of that class's progression and use of skill within a learning progression is NULLIFIED!

9.) Low cost PvP gear is wrong (see: #33 & Conclusive Rage in 45 PoAfEP).

Definitely! I remember when PvP gear was very difficult to obtain. When you finally got it, you were overcome with accomplishement, and when you saw people with it, you admired them to no end!

10.) Increased ground mount runspeed superceding old norms is wrong (works against contested PvP presence & class individuality contributions).

This works against many of the classes that have movement hindering aspects to their abilities. That, as well as hindering openworld PvP for anyone who wants to fight, as those who run with 130% runspeed will always be successful. In PvE yes, but in PvP, no! I'm sure no one will care that their runspeed isn't 130% on nagafen in a very early tier, and if they do, they're not there for the PvP!

11.) Leapers/gliders/fliers wrongly end the attempted removal of permanent immunity (they work against contested PvP presence).

Going AFK in a WF way up there until it ends to get tokens seems like an exploit to me and many others. Fliers in PVP? You need some hardcore PvP compensation for that!

11a.) Possible alternatives I don't support are altitude/ceiling & runspeed caps for fliers/leapers/gliders.

11b.) Best option, of course, is disabling them 71.43% of the time (#25 in the 45 PoAfEP).

Disabling them for further/punctuated use would probably hinder the purpose and immersion that flying mounts provide. Oh well! It's PvP! I don't think they should be disabled for a few days at a time, but I do think they should be disabled completely and consolidated into ground mounts for PvP servers though!

12.) 24/7 battlegrounds access on EQ2's only contested PvP server is wrong (it works against contested PvP presence).

12a.) Best option, of course, is disabling them 71.43% of the time (#22 in the 45 PoAfEP).

Though that's true that BG's break up openworld PvP potential, I'm not sure if disabling it for the weekdays would be efficient.. well, it would be efficient, but I'm sure there are other alternatives. IT would work! but I'm still not sure if it's the best option... o.O

13.) Mundane warfield objectives are wrong (lifeless/mundane, uninspiring, not morale boosting).

Definitely!

14.) Guild strategists works against contested PvP presence.

Though this is true, the guild strategist flag works very well to offer raids their purpose of fast preperation and re-preperation. Taking them out wouldn't be a very good idea, but consolidating their purpose to increase the potential for openworld PvP is a good idea, such as only being able to place them in instances and other non-contested zones.

15.) Zonewide entry works against contested PvP presence.

This is true, and I think it should be disabled for PvP servers!

16.) 1 minute zoning immunity is wrong (it works against contested PvP presence).

This is way too long! I've never seen so much wait time until two people can fight unless there are mobs around! It's a pain for PvPers who wish to fight, and it's way unnecesary for those who wish to get away, of which hinders openworld PvP potential and offers non-immersive qualities to gameplay.

17.) LVL locking starting at 30 & not 10 ends scores of contested PvP presence & endless, cyclical longevity.

Definitely! I miss being able to have PvP in ALL tiers! It was very fun and immersive, and VERY unique for an MMO PvP system!

17a.) PvP without extreme competency adoption curves is far more attractive to many.

wat jk lol It's not too hard to understand for those who are into it, but for new players, it can be challenging. The game is about progression and learning about development of your character through hard prowess in work ethic, so I'm sure understanding PvP mechanics will not be tought or challenging for those who are new AND learning how EQ2 works XD

17b.) PvP without see invisibility/stealth totems is far more attractive to many.

I AGREE! Invisibility and stealth offer unpredictability and far more tension within PvP mechanics. (more fun!)

17c.) PvP without such exacerbated, overpowered classes is far more attractive to many.

Definitely! An overpowered class is a sure fire sign that a developer should GET ON THAT!

18.) City PvP rules in T2 contested zones is wrong (it works against contested PvP presence).

I do wish T2 PvP was more viable.

19.) Lowbie PvP gear w/ Toughness & critical mitigation is wrong (these defenses were intended to combat CB/Pot with high critical chance in SENTINEL'S FATE, FOR NINETIES [90s]).

I miss having DPS in lower tiers... that is, without having to get the latest gear twinked to infinity.

20.) Wizards having castable spire portals works against contested PvP presence (instant travel best limited through Druid exclusivity & call home spells).

I don't think this is a problem, as long as Wizards have a long casttime for each portal.

21.) Global bells work against contested PvP presence.

I agree. Travel was one of the many immersion techniques used in EQ2, and hindering that hinders the PvP aspects of openworld as well! I wish to have immersion and PvP in both kinds of gameplay styles.

22.) Druid/wizard/spire guild hall amenities work against contested PvP presence.

Guild hall ammentities related to these works of travel are hindering to openworld PvP, AS LONG as they were not utilized outside of passive/safe sources such as a guild hall. I don't think these are a problem. It's just like having a druid constantly hang out in your guild hall, casting a portal for you when you need it.

23.) PvE/PvP separation ruins incentive to PvP for many raiders when gear from their preferred play method is useless (see: #7 in the 45 PoAfEP).

There are so many issues and feedback on this, it's hard to state something from any side of the argument without going off topic/off-mechanic (if you would understand that). Overall, there should be a support for both playstyles to get gear suited for their respective playstyles, however, the gear should be versatile in function. Meaning, the gear should work alright in both situation, but be specialized in the specific playstyle. For example, a PvE gear set should have lower toughness for PvP gear sets, but PvP gear should have less furry and multiattack in comparison to PvP gearsets. OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT)

I appreciate the...initial...attempt at ending permanent immunity.

I like that level locking is back, but no contested drops to farm & #19 (lowbie toughness/CM) keep me from going there again.

It was nice to have warfields introduced, but low PvP gear cost, the trouble with servers crashing, & their zone population caps limited their growth & interest (yeahrp, even though innovation behind the objectives isn't morale boosting...).

Changing the PvP range from 8 to 10 was also a positive change that helped retain the cyclical longevity of min-/maxing in any 1 tier.

Opening up Qeynos & Freeport to drop city PvP rules was very beneficial & stimulating, but there's still no current/meaningful PvP progression. n_n

However, it is clear that the bad far outweighs the good in EQ2 PvP, as it stands...O_o...

I like that you're offering a united viewpoint for PvP progression, but, there are certain mechanics that you can put more emphasis on, such as emotional significance and non-thought associated social progression within a game. A game should poke at the emotions and provide intensity for the player playing it. Not just a flourishing growth, but an intense and immersive game.

I know I probably responded to this post wrong, but I didn't want it to fall to the bottom. I just did  what I thought I was supposed to do, and added on my opinion on everything stated as an issue. o.o I hope it helps XD

I, for one, think they should focus on class mechanics, and core class mechanics in order to find a flow of progression that flows by the understand of the game for both the developrs and many of the other creators. Of course, it would be too tedious and encompasses difficulty of a whole lot of things... but when did difficulty ever become a hinder point? What do you think the original developers had to go through to create this game? XDD They had far more problems than there are now!

[Seliri]

I of course think it is absolutely wrong to:

allow wizards to cast spire portals anywhere, even with a long cast time

have anything but city bells for travel in guild halls (no druid/spire/global/guild strategist)

returning the delay to spire porting with the item obtainable from hailing the NPC is vital

adding that delay & item obtainable from a druid ring NPC is vital, as well

this way, PvP could be pursued through camping the primary means of travel

i also dont think absolutely removing glider/leaper/flier usability is feasible considering SOE will likely always be hardliner in seeing it as a feature despite its horrific impact upon the more important PvP feature

[Souse]

Seliri wrote:

I of course think it is absolutely wrong to:

allow wizards to cast spire portals anywhere, even with a long cast time

have anything but city bells for travel in guild halls (no druid/spire/global/guild strategist)

This seems very viable, but they'd have to remove this for PvP servers, as PvE servers will complain (well, not as much as you'd think.. they'd jus think it was unfortunate, while the loud mouths will speak up).

returning the delay to spire porting with the item obtainable from hailing the NPC is vital

adding that delay & item obtainable from a druid ring NPC is vital, as well

this way, PvP could be pursued through camping the primary means of travel

Instant druid ring travel via the bush was a big mistake. Applying delay to the spires would be very nice, as I remember there being so much PvP action near them.. and to compensate, there should be less means of travel that would outshine the spires. PvP needs to be filled with tactics, ambushing, and copious amounts of freedom for any playstyle. Specifically, in groups, priests and fighters should want to be together, and not solor. Mages should be the ones stalking the travel hubs and questing areas, while scouts should be the ones seeking out their prey for PvP (as they have more and better tools for doing such. Mages would better fill their purpose if no one could see invisibility!

i also dont think absolutely removing glider/leaper/flier usability is feasible considering SOE will likely always be hardliner in seeing it as a feature despite its horrific impact upon the more important PvP feature

that's true.. they do like their content, despite what anyone else says, (unless they didn't develop it *cough* spell effects that made efficiency of graphical card use worse *cough*) and taking away from what another game has! GASP! That's economical suicide! (not really XD ... no one really wanted them in the first place!)

For those wanting to respond, take out the colon, or whatever you want to in the subject line.. and you're good to go.

[Seliri]

Tumultuous@Nagafen wrote:

Seliri wrote:

I of course think it is absolutely wrong to:

allow wizards to cast spire portals anywhere, even with a long cast time

have anything but city bells for travel in guild halls (no druid/spire/global/guild strategist)

This seems very viable, but they'd have to remove this for PvP servers, as PvE servers will complain (well, not as much as you'd think.. they'd jus think it was unfortunate, while the loud mouths will speak up).

returning the delay to spire porting with the item obtainable from hailing the NPC is vital

adding that delay & item obtainable from a druid ring NPC is vital, as well

this way, PvP could be pursued through camping the primary means of travel

Instant druid ring travel via the bush was a big mistake. Applying delay to the spires would be very nice, as I remember there being so much PvP action near them.. and to compensate, there should be less means of travel that would outshine the spires. PvP needs to be filled with tactics, ambushing, and copious amounts of freedom for any playstyle. Specifically, in groups, priests and fighters should want to be together, and not solor. Mages should be the ones stalking the travel hubs and questing areas, while scouts should be the ones seeking out their prey for PvP (as they have more and better tools for doing such. Mages would better fill their purpose if no one could see invisibility!

i also dont think absolutely removing glider/leaper/flier usability is feasible considering SOE will likely always be hardliner in seeing it as a feature despite its horrific impact upon the more important PvP feature

that's true.. they do like their content, despite what anyone else says, (unless they didn't develop it *cough* spell effects that made efficiency of graphical card use worse *cough*) and taking away from what another game has! GASP! That's economical suicide! (not really XD ... no one really wanted them in the first place!)

For those wanting to respond, take out the colon, or whatever you want to in the subject line.. and you're good to go.

pshhh as if readers/users/deh audience would be that incompetent!

you clearly were only attempting to project the subliminal acknowledgement of this thread's importance... ;D

[Elomort]

returning the delay to spire porting with the item obtainable from hailing the NPC is vital

adding that delay & item obtainable from a druid ring NPC is vital, as well

this way, PvP could be pursued through camping the primary means of travel

Instant druid ring travel via the bush was a big mistake. Applying delay to the spires would be very nice, as I remember there being so much PvP action near them.. and to compensate, there should be less means of travel that would outshine the spires. 

What you are proposing there would mean 2 sets of code would need to be maintained by the developers. One set for the huge PVE audience where these restrictions were not in place and one for the tiny number of PVP players so that they were.

Every time the developers did anything they would need to do it twice, once for each code set.

I think you would find it won't be feasable.

[Seliri]

Elomort wrote:

returning the delay to spire porting with the item obtainable from hailing the NPC is vital

adding that delay & item obtainable from a druid ring NPC is vital, as well

this way, PvP could be pursued through camping the primary means of travel

Instant druid ring travel via the bush was a big mistake. Applying delay to the spires would be very nice, as I remember there being so much PvP action near them.. and to compensate, there should be less means of travel that would outshine the spires. 

What you are proposing there would mean 2 sets of code would need to be maintained by the developers. One set for the huge PVE audience where these restrictions were not in place and one for the tiny number of PVP players so that they were.

Every time the developers did anything they would need to do it twice, once for each code set.

I think you would find it won't be feasable.

uh, why did you remove the color coding & quote attribution?i wrote in dark orange, Tumultuous in blue.

sadly, you are wrong, & it's feasible.

no amount of heresy & casting of doubt can say or justify otherwise.

[Elomort]

Seliri wrote:

uh, why did you remove the color coding & quote attribution?i wrote in dark orange, Tumultuous in blue.

Because they make it harder to read, especially for one with colourblindness or other visual deficiencies.

[Elomort]

Seliri wrote:

sadly, you are wrong, & it's feasible.

no amount of heresy & casting of doubt can say or justify otherwise.

Heresy? What the heck?

Notwithstanding the fact that you are not the Spanish inquisition (because they are never expected)... There was nothing heretical in my words at all. I did not insult your religion or put forward ideas that might have suggested I am a witch or trying to undermine the fabric of morality in your country.

As for being wrong... I suppose you have a copy of the source code of this game so that you can state with documentary proof that it is as trivial as you seem to believe?

[Seliri]

Elomort wrote:

Seliri wrote:

sadly, you are wrong, & it's feasible.

no amount of heresy & casting of doubt can say or justify otherwise.

Heresy? What the heck?

Notwithstanding the fact that you are not the Spanish inquisition (because they are never expected)... There was nothing heretical in my words at all. I did not insult your religion or put forward ideas that might have suggested I am a witch or trying to undermine the fabric of morality in your country.

As for being wrong... I suppose you have a copy of the source code of this game so that you can state with documentary proof that it is as trivial as you seem to believe?

EQ2X & regular EQ2 were run simultaneously with no issues.

minor mechanical mods specific to PvP have been ongoing for a long time now.

u pharocouaokroauro tripn & stand as an impasse to dah morale boosting restoration Nagafenians clamour for.

[Elomort]

Seliri wrote:

Elomort wrote:

As for being wrong... I suppose you have a copy of the source code of this game so that you can state with documentary proof that it is as trivial as you seem to believe?

EQ2X & regular EQ2 were run simultaneously with no issues.

They had the same datafiles. You were able to install the launcher and copy all the assets between one installation and the other.

This is very different to a major change like putting the spires back to 5 minutes and needing the object the NPC gives you on hail or removing all the bushes (or adding back in the need for druids to explore and discover them)

That change would need 12GB of assets specially maintained just for a tiny number of PvP'ers.

Things like jumpers and easy transport are in the game to stay I fear. Better to spend time discussing things that can be addressed like level locking and how it allows the grey ghosts to turn off new players and balance issues.

[Seliri]

Elomort wrote:

Seliri wrote:

Elomort wrote:

As for being wrong... I suppose you have a copy of the source code of this game so that you can state with documentary proof that it is as trivial as you seem to believe?

EQ2X & regular EQ2 were run simultaneously with no issues.

They had the same datafiles. You were able to install the launcher and copy all the assets between one installation and the other.

This is very different to a major change like putting the spires back to 5 minutes and needing the object the NPC gives you on hail or removing all the bushes (or adding back in the need for druids to explore and discover them)

That change would need 12GB of assets specially maintained just for a tiny number of PvP'ers.

Things like jumpers and easy transport are in the game to stay I fear. Better to spend time discussing things that can be addressed like level locking and how it allows the grey ghosts to turn off new players and balance issues.

lmfao @ acting like "12 GB of assets" (if that projection is at all reasonable) would even be a big deal to a fairly significant & successful company such as SOE.

there's no excuse to not compromise or act like it isn't rational to expect appropriate compromise.

do so & you wrongly misplace your loyalties.

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Warhawk@Nagafen wrote:

I guess one thing thats been running through my mind is how many people wouldn't of left if they would at least communicate with us their plans for the future of nagafen, and when it will occur, instead of these incredibly vague statements that are few and far between. At least I know for sure I'd be more inclined to stick around if i had any idea where they were going with this next update?

Or maybe I'm completely wrong, idk every day i try to log in and have a positive outlook on this game but only getting a burst of pvp every 2 hours for 20 minutes or so is kinda killing any hope I had for this game. I'm tired of running through contested dungeons and never running into another soul, I miss the feeling of going through like RoV or Fallen Gate and crapping my pants when i see a group of con players from the other side. Meh, nostalgic

Warhawk accidentally made a new thread, instead of looking with his eyes to realize there was already a more thorough topic on the matter.

[songsta]

word, didnt realize this is what this thread was about. Try to simplify your titles bro, i thought this mighta been about like options ya know?

[Seliri]

Warhawk@Nagafen wrote:

word, didnt realize this is what this thread was about. Try to simplify your titles bro, i thought this mighta been about like options ya know?

track record of detachment...a want for no surprises, & transparency! ;o

i dunno why but that comes off as clear to me. :[

options like...what?

[Kurindor_Mythecnea]

Seliri wrote:

Warhawk@Nagafen wrote:

word, didnt realize this is what this thread was about. Try to simplify your titles bro, i thought this mighta been about like options ya know?

track record of detachment...a want for no surprises, & transparency! ;o

i dunno why but that comes off as clear to me. :[

options like...what?

I'm ancient Seliri & I support new Seliri's movement.

[Seliri]

Infernalbeauty@Nagafen wrote, in "PvP Update Announced..":

I am not even participating in this teir9 garbage anymore once this change takes place. So once again we have to fight raiders in absurd gear ? What fun is that ? l would rather head right back down to teir4 for my PVP, to hear the whiners call hacks in a zone when their mercs are causing it,and up against a x4 of freeps you cant win against with a group of 4, than even waste my time on this new rubbish. Raiders you wanted this you got it. The moaning paid off didn't it ? Now you can go owning 3rd progression guilds in your best gear. Better yet go slap around poor noobs that don't raid,and only can get SS instance gear in their hands. Eventually that's going to be garbage once the raiders get their hands on the best. Full geared !!

Pathetic ! ...I also enjoyed wearing full PVP armor that cost 40k, topped  very low stats  jewelry,weapons,and charms from 2007. I can still see the dust on it !! I sneeze everytime I macro on my PVP jewelry !!!

Rock on !!! PVP is back kids !!! From the raiders choice !! LONG live Naggy !!!lol

the point is that we still do not know the method in which PvP & PvE gear will be unified.

dat dere opaqueness of war. ;{