| Tunage - them or us? | Mon Sep 21 13:10:46 2009 MST |
| It's inevitable that as player characters advance and group together
that the top monsters will be attacked on a regular basis. Might I
suggest that these 'elite' players get newer challenges to stretch
them - downtuning whole guilds or the player combat affects everyone
else so that effectively you're punishing 99% of the players for the
apparent crime of 'being good at the game'. I know it's a delicate
process, but noone in game has got all the guilds they could
possibly get to turn them into Superman though I'm sure Chemosh
works at the Daily Planet.
Hargie |
| >Tunage - them or us? | Mon Sep 21 13:15:52 2009 MST |
| should make it so that once you hit a certain worth you either get
sent to another
port where everything is much harder (like going from hero to god in
god of war) or
you stay on the mud but you never gain more power. |
| >>Tunage - them or us? | Mon Sep 21 13:16:33 2009 MST |
| obligatory "i miss 4k" comment. |
| >>Tunage - them or us? | Mon Sep 21 13:18:51 2009 MST |
| Maybe a new tier of SUPER elite eq. You can reinc away 5g or 10g for
1 piece of l33tness. could be mad tp's, could be unsaccable. Could
be only usable by that player. Maybe add a clan flag so clannies can
use it too (wow, real usefulness for clans?).
I'm sure theres some tasty things that would make it so everyone
wants "their piece". Maybe a custom piece made for the player by a
wiz? |
| >>>Tunage - them or us? | Mon Sep 21 13:22:33 2009 MST |
| >>>Tunage - them or us? | Mon Sep 21 13:51:55 2009 MST |
| On Mon Sep 21 13:16:33 2009 White wrote post #83:
> obligatory "i miss 4k" comment.
Obligatory "who the fuck is going to maintain said port" comment. |
| >>>>Tunage - them or us? | Mon Sep 21 15:22:16 2009 MST |
| On Mon Sep 21 13:51:55 2009 Wildchild wrote post #86:
> On Mon Sep 21 13:16:33 2009 White wrote post #83:
> > obligatory "i miss 4k" comment.
>
> Obligatory "who the fuck is going to maintain said port" comment.
it would seem that most of the 'out of tune' problems came in with
dual guilds and so on. level caps kept things even and made split
bodies a good thing.
I know that it is a VASTLY unpopular idea to limit people to one
guild or a certain level. but it would make things actually possible
to tune
e.g. level 170 warrior + healer could theoretically solo
indefinitely, level 170 necro + unraveller likewise.
level 95 or 105 (capped at max for guild) requires more thought and
effort to be able to go on forever
any flames can be addressed to satan |
| >>>>>Tunage - them or us? | Mon Sep 21 15:37:57 2009 MST |
| A have a few points.
All of the players so far pushing for tunes are coming from
the point of view where they admit to consistently doing
the same things they are now complaining about others being
able to do. I question the motivation of this. If it is
unreasonable why did you wait until you did all you wanted to
before speaking out? its hypcritical in the extreme.
Personally, I don't agree with any player being able to solo
such large eq monsters, but call me old fashioned.
Some of the posts here border on the absurd. No, all guilds should
not be able to tank top eq, under any circumstances.
No, it is totally ridiculous to suggest that we just 'whip up'
new challenges for players who play like mad.
As I said before, if you want to code something
Beranis, I'll mentor you, but if you flippantly
post about just punching out stuff like that again,
you'll get on my ignore list for good. |
| >Tunage - them or us? | Mon Sep 21 17:48:13 2009 MST |
| I don't see any other power than that of player vs eq mob as interesting. If you have a level 200 who can solo 500k rate, wtf cares? With exp penalties for higher level players that is unlikely in the extreme. Once a player has reached a certain point more exp will do very little to increase his power.
As for soloing eq i'm perfectly fine with people soloing some smaller eq mobs. I don't see a huge problem with people soloing 3tp mobs. Don't really see a problem with the speed either. Necros have already put down alot of time getting to the point where they can solo, so if they can do the actual kill swiftly, i don't really care.
As far as who can tank what i'm of the opinion that warriors should be by far the best eqtanks. I don't believe that's the case at the moment, but perhaps we're moving towards it. I don't mind other guilds being able to tank all but the very top of the eq mobs, which i think should be for warriors only. In many cases i believe it's the mobs that needs to be changed though, nto the guilds. It's possible to code a very easy 10 tp mob, i can set it to have 1 hp and everyone iwll be able to kill it. Note that when i say top i mean 7 and 10 tp mobs.
Perhaps Daneel will figure out how to implement the tanking skill later too. Will perhaps appease people whining about dragon's tanking (tho i'm sure they'll just find soemthing else to whine about). We are a very limited number of active wizards now though, so don't expect us to do any major changes. |
| >>>>>Tunage - them or us? | Tue Sep 22 01:14:25 2009 MST |
| On Mon Sep 21 15:22:16 2009 Mamoru wrote post #87:
> dual guilds and so on. level caps kept things even and made split
> bodies a good thing.
> I know that it is a VASTLY unpopular idea to limit people to one
> guild or a certain level. but it would make things actually possible
> to tune
> e.g. level 170 warrior + healer could theoretically solo
> indefinitely, level 170 necro + unraveller likewise.
> level 95 or 105 (capped at max for guild) requires more thought and
> effort to be able to go on forever
> any flames can be addressed to satan
If we should cap at 95 or 105, what's the use of having guilds like
Navigator, Mnav, Enchanter, etc?
They would never be used.
For the cap to actually be player friendly and not just there to
screw us over, it would still have to be a higher cap
somewhere around 130 at least |
|
