Warfeilds ATTN: Devs!!!!!!

[PeteyWheatstraw]

Right now as it stands warfields reach capacity fast. But instead of players just staying out they get a invite from someone in the zone and zone in pushing the zone over capacity which then starts to create the dreaded lag that we once was forced to deal with during the days of the kylong plains zerg fest!

There should be a lock implemented on the zone to make it so when a zone reaches capacity there is not any way for others to get into the the zone. a zone at x2 capacity will never function properly. which it reaches quite fast.

my proposal is to make it so Warfields if capacity is reached spawn another zone on the same timer as its counterpart in a different zone. instead currently commonlands one warfield gets full moments later commonlands 2 spawns on a different timer, so those that went into commonlands 2 to try and let those in commonlands 1 enjoy their gameplay without pushing it over capacity are soon after flooded out with a onslaught of players forcing their way into commonlands 2 which has now reached capacity.

This will not change when you implement the diffent teired Warfields just more players will log onto their level 90 toons and still force over capacity on zones.

Please implement a lock on zones when it has reached capcaity. maybe if possible make it so equal numbers of each faction are allowed only. i dont know, all i do know is right now the forced x2+ capcity on the zones is not allowing all to enjoy openworld pvp!

[Wytie]

If your going to do that cap zones, based on faction, how much fun is a WF when only 1 faction was able to get in and fill the zone and lock everyone else out...

[Stylish]

Paill@Nagafen wrote:

If your going to do that cap zones, based on faction, how much fun is a WF when only 1 faction was able to get in and fill the zone and lock everyone else out...

This.

Less restrictions are better than more restrictions.

Upgrade the servers and offer incentives for open world pvp...move away from WFs being the pinnacle of pvp each night.

[crazyeyes321]

I also think the upcoming changes to warfields could use some tweaking.  6 tokens for winning and 2 for losing is rather lame and uninspiring compared to what can be made from completing writs during that same time.  I would much rather instead of a few extra tokens at completion the winning side recieve a buff of some sorts until the next warfields takes place. 

Make the buff tiered, since there are 3 different ones in the works, and each tier can either have the buff or not.  For example, say winning the warfield gives thats sides lvl 10-39 toons a 10% increase in AA xp while in effect.  Or maybe they do 5% more damage.  Something more beneficial than a few measly tokens. 

And since people like to swap to the winning side(especially when they will be able to keep masters soon), perhaps make the mobs on the side that has dominated a warfield for so long weaker as they win more and more often and the losing sides stronger so they can get a chance to win every now and then.

[PeteyWheatstraw]

yeah i did say that if you read through it better to make it so only half the zone capacity can be filled by a certain faction. how that would work for Exiles though i dont know, considering they are not thought of  as a Faction!

and frankly i would like less restrictions too but atm, due to freeport being flooded with groupies qeynos and exile factions are outnumbered drastically.

And if the outnumbered ness of it goes down and they make it so losers get 2 tokens and winners get 6. everyone will then move to freeport because qeynos cannot contend with a ratio of 5:1 freeport to qeynos. Exiles just bring in a even harder imbalance!

[Stylish]

When WFs were first implemented on Nagafen, the Qs outnumbered the FPs. Soon people flooded the Q side. Then all of a sudden like a light switch, it reversed. Point is, it will more than likely continue to fluctuate back and forth. The last couple nights seems like the Qs are at least at even numbers. If people would roll a char and stick with a faction, I believe the sides would always be somewhat even. Maybe not...

The main problem I see is, when a lot of people see even a slight advantage, they immediately get scared or salivate over welfare tokens and switch sides/play their opposite faction character. Idk.....

[Nemas Ravenor]

Simple fix to having players switch sides just to get easy tokens from the side with more nombers:  don't make pvp tokens heirloom.

People only switch over on one toon, usually an alt they don't care about, they rack up tokens and then when they reach enough for a full set they just go back to their original faction and voila, their mains have full sets of pvp gear.

I doubt anyone is going to switch back and forth on mains all the time just because of numbers so they do it on scrub toons.  I'd vastly prefer it if people had to play the character they wanted to have the good gear on instead of just playing a single alt to load up gear on all their toons.

[TalisX1]

Nemas Ravenor wrote:

Simple fix to having players switch sides just to get easy tokens from the side with more nombers:  don't make pvp tokens heirloom.

People only switch over on one toon, usually an alt they don't care about, they rack up tokens and then when they reach enough for a full set they just go back to their original faction and voila, their mains have full sets of pvp gear.

I doubt anyone is going to switch back and forth on mains all the time just because of numbers so they do it on scrub toons.  I'd vastly prefer it if people had to play the character they wanted to have the good gear on instead of just playing a single alt to load up gear on all their toons.

If the status cost change is intended heirloom will be pretty much moot.

Switching mains will be no issue come tuesday because you will no longer lose your masters/Experts on betrayal. It'll take you two hours tops to switch back and forth and you will be good to go.

Silat

[Killque]

I dont see a problem with this getting implemented, and is in fact quite a good idea.

Say a zone has 150 Max players, divide that by the number of factions (3 including exiles) and that is the number of players allowed in the zone from that faction. Once one of the faction limits are met on a zone, a new zone is created with the same timers as the original zone to prevent players from going from one zone to the next to get more tokens etc.

150 / 3 = 50

50 Qeynos Max50 Freeport Max50 Exile Max

This will help balance the teams so you do not have 100 Freeport vs 50 Qeynos or vise versa.

[Neskonlith]

Pop caps are a weak solution that turn Warfields into closed Arenas where greys clog up useful spots.

SOE merely needs to keep closing up the loopholes that grey leeches abuse for easymode Tokens.  No more immune greys + allowing updates from grey kills would solve that particular leeching issue without adding restrictions.

[Messia]

Stylish wrote:

When WFs were first implemented on Nagafen, the Qs outnumbered the FPs. Soon people flooded the Q side. Then all of a sudden like a light switch, it reversed. Point is, it will more than likely continue to fluctuate back and forth. The last couple nights seems like the Qs are at least at even numbers. If people would roll a char and stick with a faction, I believe the sides would always be somewhat even. Maybe not...

The main problem I see is, when a lot of people see even a slight advantage, they immediately get scared or salivate over welfare tokens and switch sides/play their opposite faction character. Idk.....

perhaps if the freeporters were playing their 90s instead of 40s the numbers would have never dropped ... the population difference increased to freep because once people exiled boom the 90s started playing again.  And NOT losing your masters when you switch factions is easily the WORST IDEA EVER ... because it gives no sacrifice for betraying your city.  They continually nerf things retardedly then make it easy for the faction switchers to go back and forth since they now lose NOTHING.  Honestly maybe some developers need to lose their job and get a reality check as to what is broken in the game and FIX THOSE THINGS instead of addressing things that the majority of the people are happy with.

HIRE some new people who are in touch with your player base.

[Messia]

Killque wrote:

I dont see a problem with this getting implemented, and is in fact quite a good idea.

Say a zone has 150 Max players, divide that by the number of factions (3 including exiles) and that is the number of players allowed in the zone from that faction. Once one of the faction limits are met on a zone, a new zone is created with the same timers as the original zone to prevent players from going from one zone to the next to get more tokens etc.

150 / 3 = 50

50 Qeynos Max50 Freeport Max50 Exile Max

This will help balance the teams so you do not have 100 Freeport vs 50 Qeynos or vise versa.

so when only one person in your group happens to make it thru then what? oh sorry you guys are SOL? ... i'm sorry get a better computer if you lag out that much ... i mean i have lag but its still playable.

[Teufell]

Stylish wrote:

When WFs were first implemented on Nagafen, the Qs outnumbered the FPs. Soon people flooded the Q side. Then all of a sudden like a light switch, it reversed. Point is, it will more than likely continue to fluctuate back and forth. The last couple nights seems like the Qs are at least at even numbers. If people would roll a char and stick with a faction, I believe the sides would always be somewhat even. Maybe not...

The main problem I see is, when a lot of people see even a slight advantage, they immediately get scared or salivate over welfare tokens and switch sides/play their opposite faction character. Idk.....

I believe it reversed right after you did not have any advantage of actually winning the wf anymore. It paid as much to do wf on a t4 toon and as freeport was dominating in that tier even then, that was easier. perhaps some even moved their t9's to fp as well because the t9 swung from q to even to fp.

The advantage is now on fp side t9 and t4 even after it will pay off to win again so I dont think the tide will turn anytime soon. I might be wrong.

Anyhow it will be great if the next gu eliminate the grey zerg and make them pvp in their own tier. It all depends on where the fastest tokens will be I think.

Would love to see an addition to wf, so that greys couldnt get pvpupdates from reds during wf. that would eliminate the grey zerg for good imo.

[Vlahkmaak]

With the new server performance - which is great  (did I say how great the server runs these days compared to days of yore?) - there is very little to non existent lag even with all the ninja BG invites.   I have a pretty craptastic rig and enjoy pretty smooth game play when I do join a BG grp or run solo.  The population limits were added due to extremely sub par server performance.  I would argue this is no longer the case and the population limits could be dropped completely.

[Ralpmet]

If they drop the pop cap's then wf's will come up less. However, if they keep the old "pop cap" without a lockout then i can see no issues with that. Would save a lot of stress on the chat server I'd think.

"OMG INVITE TO CL!"

'it's in cl2'

"Looking for cl2 invite!"

"INVITE CL2 PLZ"

"RAID INVITE CL2"

ect ect, fills the chat up fairly quick.

[Stylish]

Messia@Nagafen wrote:

Stylish wrote:

When WFs were first implemented on Nagafen, the Qs outnumbered the FPs. Soon people flooded the Q side. Then all of a sudden like a light switch, it reversed. Point is, it will more than likely continue to fluctuate back and forth. The last couple nights seems like the Qs are at least at even numbers. If people would roll a char and stick with a faction, I believe the sides would always be somewhat even. Maybe not...

The main problem I see is, when a lot of people see even a slight advantage, they immediately get scared or salivate over welfare tokens and switch sides/play their opposite faction character. Idk.....

perhaps if the freeporters were playing their 90s instead of 40s the numbers would have never dropped ... the population difference increased to freep because once people exiled boom the 90s started playing again.  And NOT losing your masters when you switch factions is easily the WORST IDEA EVER ... because it gives no sacrifice for betraying your city.  They continually nerf things retardedly then make it easy for the faction switchers to go back and forth since they now lose NOTHING.  Honestly maybe some developers need to lose their job and get a reality check as to what is broken in the game and FIX THOSE THINGS instead of addressing things that the majority of the people are happy with.

HIRE some new people who are in touch with your player base.

Completely agree. Next up: Faction Mirrors via marketplace.  Woops maybe I shouldn't have said anything...

[Bosconi]

PeteyWheatstraw wrote:

Right now as it stands warfields reach capacity fast. But instead of players just staying out they get a invite from someone in the zone and zone in pushing the zone over capacity which then starts to create the dreaded lag that we once was forced to deal with during the days of the kylong plains zerg fest!

There should be a lock implemented on the zone to make it so when a zone reaches capacity there is not any way for others to get into the the zone. a zone at x2 capacity will never function properly. which it reaches quite fast.

my proposal is to make it so Warfields if capacity is reached spawn another zone on the same timer as its counterpart in a different zone. instead currently commonlands one warfield gets full moments later commonlands 2 spawns on a different timer, so those that went into commonlands 2 to try and let those in commonlands 1 enjoy their gameplay without pushing it over capacity are soon after flooded out with a onslaught of players forcing their way into commonlands 2 which has now reached capacity.

This will not change when you implement the diffent teired Warfields just more players will log onto their level 90 toons and still force over capacity on zones.

Please implement a lock on zones when it has reached capcaity. maybe if possible make it so equal numbers of each faction are allowed only. i dont know, all i do know is right now the forced x2+ capcity on the zones is not allowing all to enjoy openworld pvp!

Killque wrote:

I dont see a problem with this getting implemented, and is in fact quite a good idea.

Say a zone has 150 Max players, divide that by the number of factions (3 including exiles) and that is the number of players allowed in the zone from that faction. Once one of the faction limits are met on a zone, a new zone is created with the same timers as the original zone to prevent players from going from one zone to the next to get more tokens etc.

150 / 3 = 50

50 Qeynos Max50 Freeport Max50 Exile Max

This will help balance the teams so you do not have 100 Freeport vs 50 Qeynos or vise versa.

1.) You're self righteously asserting a few fallacies (root of all contention is pride, saying you see where you don't, that you're entitled to this or that, and in this case, you think you're entitled to trivialize a variety of more significant concerns).

 a. You think people care more about a zone being "overpopulated", than simply having convenient access.

 b. You think motivation to participate (AKA MORALE) should be negatively affected by shallow & short-sighted, infinitely fallible "fixes".

  I. City PvP at the launch of warfields was EXTREMELY substantial, & fairly enjoyable despite latency issues (see: Bosconi & Seliri in 6th & 8th place for city kills).

  II. The only reason city PvP was so boistrous, had been due to the ABSENCE of population caps in warfields. People didn't have to fussle with inordinate boundaries that interrupt freeflowing & liberal action. CHOICE was PRESERVED.

 c. You think disabling group/encounter entry into an over-capacity zone will accomplish anything of justice.

  I. One faction will be fated to consist of stacked groups & overpowered/equipped competitors, whereas the other won't.

  II. Killing 3-priest, 2+ tank groups that all have items like the Ring of Blood & Rage or the Soulshattering Band requires a zerg force.

If population caps won't be removed like they NEED to be, then sure, having the second instance revolve around the same timer as the core warfield instance would be fine.

But, the above 7 reasons isolate substantial contradictions with such regulations, should the coherent premise of intuitive gameplay be a priority.

That, & chat channels don't need to be spammed & sexually abused just so people can leech tokens, as there are still always going to be parts of the map you can just run to & AFK in, where people likely won't bother you due to such extreme distance from the chokepoints.

Warfields being distributed by chunks of 3 tiers, with simultaneous initiation, is very likely going to erase most all terribly extreme latency issues (i.e. changes incoming in GU#58, in 5.5 days). 

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

1.) Warfields

E. Start all warfields at the same time to distribute population/server load.

  - Staggered warfields initiation in multiple instances decreases gameplay quality due to elevated latency (greater congestion).    - Even when trying to organize in 1 (when warfields start at the same time), many do their own thing regardless of coordination calls, as when 1 finishes, the other tends to have 2 towers down. F. Warfields instance population caps are pointless  - Is it understood that warfields instancing is broken, in that players can enter whichever instance their groupmate is in, even if it reads as "full" to ungrouped players?  - These only ensure the imbalanced faction locks opposition out, as Freeportians barely ever seem to mass invite their peers to "Go to" the respective warfields instance, as Qeynosians do.  - Unifying the start of warfields & distributing them by tier will effectively destroy lag issues.  - Consolidating warfields timers & removing ineffective instance population caps that only bloccade competition will be enough to promote performance, until warfields can be added to each tier's zones.

crazyeyes321 wrote:

I also think the upcoming changes to warfields could use some tweaking.  6 tokens for winning and 2 for losing is rather lame and uninspiring compared to what can be made from completing writs during that same time.  I would much rather instead of a few extra tokens at completion the winning side recieve a buff of some sorts until the next warfields takes place. 

Make the buff tiered, since there are 3 different ones in the works, and each tier can either have the buff or not.  For example, say winning the warfield gives thats sides lvl 10-39 toons a 10% increase in AA xp while in effect.  Or maybe they do 5% more damage.  Something more beneficial than a few measly tokens. 

And since people like to swap to the winning side(especially when they will be able to keep masters soon), perhaps make the mobs on the side that has dominated a warfield for so long weaker as they win more and more often and the losing sides stronger so they can get a chance to win every now and then.

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

1.) Warfields

 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.  - Creating in-demand warfields victor effects, operable in PvE as well, will ensure the attraction to them is strong & consistent.

[Killque]

Messia@Nagafen wrote:

Killque wrote:

I dont see a problem with this getting implemented, and is in fact quite a good idea.

Say a zone has 150 Max players, divide that by the number of factions (3 including exiles) and that is the number of players allowed in the zone from that faction. Once one of the faction limits are met on a zone, a new zone is created with the same timers as the original zone to prevent players from going from one zone to the next to get more tokens etc.

150 / 3 = 50

50 Qeynos Max50 Freeport Max50 Exile Max

This will help balance the teams so you do not have 100 Freeport vs 50 Qeynos or vise versa.

so when only one person in your group happens to make it thru then what? oh sorry you guys are SOL? ... i'm sorry get a better computer if you lag out that much ... i mean i have lag but its still playable.

Come on, use common sense here.

Zone is at 49 capacity, a group of 6 wants to join. Obviously 49+6 =/ 50 so a new zone spawns and you 6 zone into CL2 or whatever.

or

Zone is at 50 capacity, 1 of those 50 gets a group together with guildies in their guild hall. WHen they zone into the zone, instead of zoning into the zone with 50 making it 55, they zone into a new zone and the 1 player in the maxed zone can right click on someone and do go to player similarly to how it is done now.

I shouldn't have had to explain this.

[Killque]

Neskonlith wrote:

Pop caps are a weak solution that turn Warfields into closed Arenas where greys clog up useful spots.

SOE merely needs to keep closing up the loopholes that grey leeches abuse for easymode Tokens.  No more immune greys + allowing updates from grey kills would solve that particular leeching issue without adding restrictions.

With the new BG changes greys should not be an issue. Population caps per zone do present a very good solution.

[Neskonlith]

Killque wrote:

Neskonlith wrote:

Pop caps are a weak solution that turn Warfields into closed Arenas where greys clog up useful spots.

SOE merely needs to keep closing up the loopholes that grey leeches abuse for easymode Tokens.  No more immune greys + allowing updates from grey kills would solve that particular leeching issue without adding restrictions.

With the new BG changes greys should not be an issue. Population caps per zone do present a very good solution.

Pop caps = Arena.  Greys will burn up population slots that could have gone to in-range players who are subsequently locked out. 

SOE intended removing immunity from open-world to bring back risk, but the new 8 level restriction inside the T10 warfield serves to reduce risk because it works one-way only - it allows immune greys to keep leeching from the 90s.

[Neskonlith]

The new WF token rewards are a pittance compared to the T2 writ rewards, and the new 8 lvl restrictions invite immunity abuse.  A naked lvl10 can gain 20-25 Tokens simply by leeching off a higher tier WF.

As long as a T2 can get same writ rewards as a T10, and as long as greys can abuse immunity to leech Tokens, the greys will follow the 90s for freebies - this is why a pop cap for KP will suck when the greys flood the zone.

No updates from red-cons = end of grey leech issue.

[Killque]

Neskonlith wrote:

Killque wrote:

Neskonlith wrote:

Pop caps are a weak solution that turn Warfields into closed Arenas where greys clog up useful spots.

SOE merely needs to keep closing up the loopholes that grey leeches abuse for easymode Tokens.  No more immune greys + allowing updates from grey kills would solve that particular leeching issue without adding restrictions.

With the new BG changes greys should not be an issue. Population caps per zone do present a very good solution.

Pop caps = Arena.  Greys will burn up population slots that could have gone to in-range players who are subsequently locked out. 

SOE intended removing immunity from open-world to bring back risk, but the new 8 level restriction inside the T10 warfield serves to reduce risk because it works one-way only - it allows immune greys to keep leeching from the 90s.

Population caps = Arena? Really? What on earth gives you that impression? Apparently you are okay with one side having 100 people and the other side having 20. I am not sure how that is any better.

You continually mention this grey leech. I just dont get it. Here is a good thread on leeaching, I suggest you read it, comprehend it.   http://forums.station.sony.com/eq2/...topic_id=487852

You fail to understand my previous point about the warfield changes. They are changing where warfields take place for different level ranges. Ant, Zek, Kylong etc. If greys enmass pile into Kylong to try and leeach, they will have a heck of a time getting past the mobs as well as the 50+ lvl 90s that are duking it out.

The grey leech needs to be ignored from this standpoint. It is really a non issue unless you are alone, and if that is the case, the greys should be the least of your problems as 10+ White cons come charging at you.

[Neskonlith]

Killque wrote:

You continually mention this grey leech. I just dont get it.

No GH flag, no CoV, just a simple run over to the WF.  Here is my new lvl10 warlock on Testcopy as of a few minutes ago:

Just waitin' on a Warfield, bring on the 90s!  woo! woo! T10 Token Train now boarding!

The new system will continue to allow grey leeches to get the same 5 Token reward as T10s, but without all the hassle of actually competing.  The WF participation Tokens mean nothing compared to writ completions... and how many writs can a lil grey leech get credit for in a WF event?

[Killque]

If you think getting 5 tokens once every 2+ hours by sitting afk in a warfield is winning, by all means. You may think you are getting 5 free tokens, but in acutallity, you are wasting your own time.

They are fixing this anyway with the new update so I really dont know why you are crying about it still.

[Bosconi]

Killque wrote:

If you think getting 5 tokens once every 2+ hours by sitting afk in a warfield is winning, by all means. You may think you are getting 5 free tokens, but in acutallity, you are wasting your own time.

I agree.

Because battlegrounds prices PvP equipment too low compared to overland PvP token prices (token gaining efficiency favors battlegrounds EXTREMELY so), the only purpose overland PvP serves is for the niche scene of being seen by other Nagafenians, and maybe again some day, a competitive PvP ranking system.

[Sprin]

Killque wrote:

 If greys enmass pile into Kylong to try and leeach, they will have a heck of a time getting past the mobs as well as the 50+ lvl 90s that are duking it out.

Did you just start playing this game yesterday? seriously... have you ever been to KP? there used to be lvl 1 adventure toons with high level tradeskill toons that would harvest in KP all day long... every day...

The mobs in KP are so spread apart that gettin anywhere in the zone as a lvl 1 is just a matter of running there... As for the mobs being a "problem" when leeching? nope... you guessed it, when you have 20 freeps and 20 Q's fighting each other, exactly how many mobs do you think will survive the 1200 AOEs being spammed by those 90's every second?  none, zero, nada, zilch....

Grays will have no problem getting to the WF and no problem leeching as they do now... there is zero difference between the WF's now and what they will be, just in a different location and the leeches wont get the 5 free tokens at the end... of course it wont be 5 anymore, it will most likely be 3 for them, so its really not a trade off at all...

Option A. Go leech off 90's and fill 5 writs for 25 tokens

Option B. Go to EL and sit there for 30 minutes and get 3 tokens

Hmmm... gee, I wonder what they will do? 

You add into that the fact that the Devs, in their infinite wisdom, are going to lower the cap for the zones, and you will just have 30 lvl 90 Freeps, 50 lvl 35-lvl 50 freeps and a couple of Q's...   or vice versa...

The new WF system isn't going to stop leeching at all... in fact it will make it easier... as I pointed out in another thread, KP has HUGE redwood trees and bigger rocks to hide behind, making it easier for them to leech anywhere in the zone

[Neskonlith]

Ghettoblaster@Nagafen wrote:

...there is zero difference between the WF's now and what they will be, just in a different location and the leeches wont get the 5 free tokens at the end...

Option A. Go leech off 90's and fill 5 writs for 25 tokens

Option B. Go to EL and sit there for 30 minutes and get 3 tokens

The new WF system isn't going to stop leeching at all... in fact it will make it easier...

No updates from red-cons will go a long ways towards removing reasons for a grey leech to be in an active KP WF. 

[Wytie]

Neskonlith wrote:

Ghettoblaster@Nagafen wrote:

...there is zero difference between the WF's now and what they will be, just in a different location and the leeches wont get the 5 free tokens at the end...

Option A. Go leech off 90's and fill 5 writs for 25 tokens

Option B. Go to EL and sit there for 30 minutes and get 3 tokens

The new WF system isn't going to stop leeching at all... in fact it will make it easier...

No updates from red-cons will go a long ways towards removing reasons for a grey leech to be in an active KP WF. 

No updates for reds would obliterate the grey leeching problem imo.

[Sprin]

Paill@Nagafen wrote:

Neskonlith wrote:

Ghettoblaster@Nagafen wrote:

...there is zero difference between the WF's now and what they will be, just in a different location and the leeches wont get the 5 free tokens at the end...

Option A. Go leech off 90's and fill 5 writs for 25 tokens

Option B. Go to EL and sit there for 30 minutes and get 3 tokens

The new WF system isn't going to stop leeching at all... in fact it will make it easier...

No updates from red-cons will go a long ways towards removing reasons for a grey leech to be in an active KP WF. 

No updates for reds would obliterate the grey leeching problem imo.

It would, but Oilihin stated a while ago that he wasnt willing to do this, becasue he seems to be stuck in the past where attacking a red was anything other then a x6 of grays leeching off 90's... back when you could have a fight against a red conn'd player 15-20 levels above you and it was a challenge to win that fight... that type of fighting doesnt exist anymore... any grays attacking reds are done in WF's leeching off 90's...

[Stylish]

Ghettoblaster@Nagafen wrote:

Paill@Nagafen wrote:

Neskonlith wrote:

Ghettoblaster@Nagafen wrote:

...there is zero difference between the WF's now and what they will be, just in a different location and the leeches wont get the 5 free tokens at the end...

Option A. Go leech off 90's and fill 5 writs for 25 tokens

Option B. Go to EL and sit there for 30 minutes and get 3 tokens

The new WF system isn't going to stop leeching at all... in fact it will make it easier...

No updates from red-cons will go a long ways towards removing reasons for a grey leech to be in an active KP WF. 

No updates for reds would obliterate the grey leeching problem imo.

It would, but Oilihin stated a while ago that he wasnt willing to do this, becasue he seems to be stuck in the past where attacking a red was anything other then a x6 of grays leeching off 90's... back when you could have a fight against a red conn'd player 15-20 levels above you and it was a challenge to win that fight... that type of fighting doesnt exist anymore... any grays attacking reds are done in WF's leeching off 90's...

For the most part this is true. However, there is a group of three of us locked at lvl 81 that fight 90s during WFs. We are a coercer/wiz/warlock trio. We were all locked at 70 because there used to be great battles in SS/KP at that lvl. However, when WFs were introduced we went to 81 for the extra 50 AA and better fights. (The SS/KP lvl 70 dried up)

We love the challenge of fighting 90s and do fairly well. We die when a group gets on us but have taken out many 90s in the process, especially if its just 1-2 of them at once. We do not consider ourselves leeches since the 90s can attack us before we engage them. With numbers evening up I plan on taking the coercer to 90 however. Just got old seeing 30 Qs vs 6 FPs or more recently the opposite. We were/are looking for decent fights like there used to be alot of....and we've found, for the most part, better strategic fights at 81 then at 90.

Hope this makes some sense...we simply miss the days before the zerg.