ForumNews: What do you want today?
|
eew champ lvls
please dont.. i dont want an extra lvl or 2 to pve when i ding 50 |
|
|
|
Never said it would be the best, but lets be honest - how long would it take to implement 1,65 patch and old RAs? The point here is: - People complain about casting speed, adding 1-2% to a few items; lets say being able to get 5% from common drops, and another 2-3% extra from high drops, would counter this. - Cure NS would be nice, but I can't really find a justification for it apart from balancing issues :p - People complain about Viper. Why? Because it was meant for a setting where people have more HP - this is (partially) solved with the boost from CL's. - People complain about having to use charges/potions all the time. CL's would also solve this, and give people who don't like to spend so much time focusing on being "the best they can be" a chance to compete. - Noone is saying to fully implement CL quests etc, as this would take a lot of time. This is just a valid suggestion for an easy fix while you work on a permanent solution. I doubt anyone really wants you to instantly reset server to 1,65 with Old RA's without thoroughly testing everything, and having broken abilities/bugs all over the place. @Nixian: CL's do not have a significant impact on game balance, as they are not a requirement to compete (such as ToA bonuses were). You don't HAVE to go and level them up before RvRing, but can instead level them through RvR. In any case, don't say you wouldn't do it if it meant that you never have to make/buy another barrel and remember to use pots :p I agree with the idea of implementing 1,65 and Old RA's - I disagree with implementing something half finished. That would just have an even worse effect on the server. PS: I am not suggesting to implement all CL abilties either, as a tank casting disease in this setting would be completely out of place. |
|
I'll take Old RAs over CLs and customised bonusses anyday and I think the majority of the server does.
|
|
Great, but that wasnt the point.
|
|
Why do you think the absence of cure NS is a balancing issue?
<em>When a stupid man is doing something he is ashamed of, he always declares that it is his duty.</em>
|
|
Well to me, the point is that CLs and ToA bonusses will never get implemented here.  |
|
I am totaly agains 1.65 sience this will be a big nerf for albion cleric .... no smite no shear ... just healbot ?! who will ever play a healbot ?!! Still i totaly support OF RA's |
|
Yes, this goes against the philosophy of the server, but it's a pretty nice balancing point. I know devs will react against these ideas but they should really think about them, maybe using a different way to reach them...but having that point in mind would balance this server a lot. |
|
I dont have a problem with OF RAs but in my opinion is a custom solution better then 100% OF 1.65 and I aggree with wheelchairbuff.
|
|
Just adding a small point here, to back up my suggestion for Cure NS:
Until patch 1.8X the immunity from NS was also removed when you were cured, thus making NS much like a disease spell. Having cure NS would lead to a more interesting gameplay, but not let NS'ers be the overpowered "casters-are-useless" tool they are now. |
|
Well if you decide to implement old RA system I may as well delete.
I have a battle spec druid so all of my RA are damage based mom, wp, mop, etc... Old RA's have none of that. Will Druids in this case get to keep the new casting RA's??? I expect not. I hope I find out before I waste any more time here. |
|
Aye old RAs will make me puke ... mastery of water ftw !!
Pesonally I wouldn't bother playing here if there was old RAs. |
|
The cleric is smiting since version 1.0. However if we switch back to 1.65, buffshears won't be removed. They are a nice feature that all realms have access to and they add a bith of depth to the rvr. Definitely we will never add championlevels to the game. |
|
You're treading in dangerous waters there nayru... Other classes can make some good cases for why their (insert abiliy here) obtained post 1.65 ought to be included as well. Just to give you an example, I can definitely make a case that archers should keep volley in bow spec and not be forced to spend 8 rps with the old ra system to get an inferior ability (5 shots in the old RA implementation as opposed to 6 with the bow spec implementation). That would be a custom change, and a needed one as far as archers are concerned. I'm sure there are other classes that have issues pertaining to them as well. In short, rationalizing the 'buff sheering' effect would be shaky ground at best in my opinion since you are adding post 1.65 game play features that werent designed with old frontier play. You're talking about custom changing the server but blue stated some place a few days ago that (to paraphrase) "uthgard wont add custom changes for the benefit of any class." We seem to get mixed messages in this area and it has been for quite some time, very ambiguous as to what uthgard staff will/will not implement as there are a number of custom changes already. If uthgard is going to be a custom server, then maybe this issue isnt just about old RAs and is more or less about actually biting the bullet and dealing with the can of worms that is "class/realm balance" or actually creating a feature implementation standard and direction for the server for which it is fixed in stone and not subject to whims of the week. Furthermore there is already a staff member (haldan) who has stated that OLD RA system is going to be implemented AS IS, which rather subverts the whole message of consistency here if you are saying that you will be adding in custom changes anyway. Again, people can reasonably argue why x,y,z RA or feature should be implemented or not implemented. If you're going down the route of picking and choosing then you are off to a bad start without involving community input on something like this. The old RA system clearly had faults, as does the new RA system. In my opinion it serves no use to avoid the issue of custom changes when discussing what, we the community, want out of rvr, even if we dont always know exactly what we want ourselves. At least the dialogue between staff/community would be there. The first issue that should be settled is whether or not we want the OLD RA system at all. If we think that it should be adopted then After that, we should decide on issues pertaining to "What will this mean to rvr and how do we customise it to fit uthgard's userbase' needs and desires?" Some clarity as to what kind of server uthgard is really being directed towards, would help considerably, as well as giving more information about what the OLD ra system means, how it would make sense for uthgard in your vision for the server etc. At the moment, the ambiguity and mixed messages are not really helping things... I think a 'vision of the server' needs to be presented to the people in the community and include whatever personal views/biases etc that you as staff members want to include that shows what direction you want the server to go in. There must be some basic things that can be presented to the community which are absolute, meaning you guys will never change your minds on. We shouldn't have to read 20 differen tthreads to get an idea of what the staff is going to do about overall game mechanics. It is especially frustrating when people find things are changed without notification in changelogs, and later on the rationale describing the change is buried in some obscure thread. Some transparency would be greatly appreciated. Here are some mock examples of the type of things people migh tbe interested in knowing: 1, If staff members dont like TOA bonuses etc then that can be clearly stated that uth will never have toa bonuses. 2. If animists / bondancers / necromancers are unliked and wont have thei rabilities fully implemented, then it should be clearly stated that "we think these classes are problematic and should we implement them, we wont have them set to their live functionality but to what we think is fair for them to have." 3. We think the old frontier map was too limiting and as such we will never implement this here on uthgard. 4. We think midgard has too much in the way of crowd control and as such we are reducing their effectiveness by 50%! 5. Classes and features post 1.65 patch will never be implemented! 6. We think (insert ability here) is too powerful for any class to have and are removing them. |
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests