ForumWe need another BG
|
You want to increase thid cap to rr5 but cap yourself out at rr3 (with lvlcap) even tho the current cap is rr4. I refuse to believe that you mean what you say. A BG for lvl 50s is nonsense imo due to rvr splitting. |
|
I agree with Der_Eisbaer's opinion. Breamar's level gap (20-35) is way too big for lowbie to RvR there. 1) An ideal bg will be the minimum level player will con at least green to the cap level. It's silly to have greys running around in bg and if u kill them u don't even get anything out from them. BG=battleground=An RP place. 2) Cap Thid bg to RR4I9. Thid has the least action compared to the rest of the other 2 bgs and to xp from lvl 40-49, it takes much more time & kills. So, it'd be nice to have RR cap raised slightly higher. This will also motivate players to get RR5 in frontier. |
|
Yeah this is something that would help people get 5L0, however it would be a bit unfair to all who are 50 4l2 now, maybe do thid 50 4l9 for 2 or 3 weeks so they can get even. BTW BG setup for me with addition of 1 BG: first BG, Braemar lvl 20 - 26 RR cap 2l2 second BG, Wilton lvl 27 - 34 RR cap 3l2 third BG, Thidranki lvl 35 - 42 RR cap 4l2 fourth BG, Molvik lvl 43 - 49, RR cap 4l9 BTW BG setup for me with addition of 2 BG's: first BG, Braemar lvl 20 - 24 RR cap 2l0 second BG, Wilton lvl 25 - 29 RR cap 3l0 third BG, Thidranki lvl 30 - 36 RR cap 4l0 fourth BG, Molvik lvl 37 - 43, RR cap 4l5 fifth BG, Leirvik lvl 44 - 49, RR cap 4l9 "The past is what made the present, and is a guide line for the future." "A cynic is someone who knows the price off everything, but from nothing the value." "Memento mori, so you can live"
|
|
@nixian
I group as often as I can, but it's very hard to get a group going in an American time zone. If I even find someone my level, they often do not want to group if they are efficient solo and get better exp that way (like a cabalist or something.) |
|
that does not reflect my attitude correctly. lvl35 will be early enough   |
|
I definitely would like to see four BGs: 11-20, 21-30, 31-40, 41-49.
BGs provide an alternative where players actually do practice the skills they need to PvP. Those players who still want to PvE do not lose that option, but if it is found that most players prefer the BGs, then there will be fewer people ready to join the PvEs. But we can't force a majority to do an activity they don't like because a minority wants to. BGs are just as good for the community and, unlike an instant-50 approach, there is a curve where people gain new skills along with their new experiences so that they can properly discover their chars before reaching L50. The only way that this could be a threat to L50 PvP is if L50 PvP is found by players to be less enjoyable. When people progress through the BGs, they move towards becoming L50s just as they would were they PvEing. If, when they reach L50, they think "Hey, I had more fun in Thidranki than I have here", then this suggests that there's a problem with L50 PvP rather than with Thidranki. I do, however, agree that there should not be an L50 BG, so that players are not further spread out. The L50 "BG" is Emain and the frontiers are large enough for different playstyles to co-exist. I think that there are some design flaws behind the problem with zerging that emerged, but it's a very difficult problem for MMO designers to tackle this and the only easy answer is to create clearly defined "8v8", "pugging" "zerging", "solo" etc areas. But population numbers don't support such specialization and I think that what made DAoC fun was that all these different playstyles interacted together. It wasn't perfect, but it worked and that's why we're here. BGs, on the other hand, do not divide the population numbers, though they might encourage players to reroll if the BGs are more fun than the RvR. Taking away the "more fun" alternative won't make the game better, IMO. |
|
Such RR imbalances will be fixed with old RAs, when RAs in general are not as strong as they are today. You are right that higher RR chars/groups are ridiculously overpowered only by RAs, but that's gonna even out with old RAs when there are no RAs like charge3, purge3, AotG3, SoS etc. for high RR groups. So with old RAs you don't need to raise the Thid RR-cap. It's gonna be fine to start with 4L0 as you got all essential RAs around rr5~6 and cannot make your character as strong as you can with NF RAs in a way that leads to the mentioned high-RR-imbalance. Why ToA-RAs advance high RR groups more than old RAs do:
http://www.abload.de/img/whyoldrasaremorefairjozk.png |
|
I disagree because only high RR can afford many timered RAs and even if not going for timered RAs they have much higher passive abilities I think new RAs are more balanced between low and high RR |
|
Of course new RAs are more balanced considering the RR gap, that was one of the major ideas in designing NF. He's just posting the same post over and over again whenever this issue comes up. Next he'll quote an old post of his where he claims he proved that the old RA gap is smaller, and then I'll quote my post where I disproved him, and the circle of life will go on.
 |
|
True, you can buy more active RAs with OF RAs, but after you got the few must-have things like purge, mcl2+RP, moc and little passives (as a caster/healer e.g.) which you can buy around rr6, there's not much active RAs left that have a big impact like purge3 or charge3 or other NF RAs have. The easiest way to compare how NF improved the general strenght of RAs, not in plain numbers but also in cooldowns, is if you try to make two RA specs for, lets say a druid or bm, with one spec for NF and one spec for OF RAs. When you compare both results you might have actually more RAs on the OF side, but you don't got ridiculously op'ed RAs like purge3 or charge3. All you got are RAs you can use once every 30 min instead of 1.5, 5 or 15 min, thus making them way weaker and on the same time having them way cheaper to obtain, which is both low/medium RR friendly. Arguments like NF RAs were designed for a reason are invalid for a classic shard like Uthgard, since NF RAs were designed with ToA being implemented, so a lot of counters against NF RAs did exist in ToA only like speedtrap against sos, bodyguard against charge etc. Why ToA-RAs advance high RR groups more than old RAs do:
http://www.abload.de/img/whyoldrasaremorefairjozk.png |
|
Edit: Sorry hopscotch. Hit wrong button.
Blue |
|
Pure win right here. I give it the stamp of approval. |
|
I would more like to see old Thidranki at level 20.
It's done when it's done. Thanks for your patience.
Every bug gets fixed. Sooner or later. "It is an inescapable law of nature that the amount of satisfaction one gains from achieving something is related to how hard it is and easy things can only elicit a fleeting superficial sort of pleasure." Blue says, "you used macro tools or macro keyboard" Pala says, "i am disabled. and i have a mechanic left hand that can be programed. its hard to play woith one hand" [Appeal] Bxxxxxxxx: "why is RA first aid cann man i stealth use and not unstealth cann man ra if man use unstealth ?????????" BannedUser: "i was not using automate game action my hand was fall on keyboard during i was sleep .... i was completly fall on keyboard ..." |
|
Implement old bg system!!!!!!!!  |
|
<3^99999999... !  |
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests