The aliases for /trade (wts, wtb, wtt) have been removed.

can someone explane?^^

These aliases allowed you to write /wts, /wtb and /wtt instead of /trade.

Try a look at these:

This is form Pathcnotes 1.70! See yourself what we miss if we go 1.69

http://support.darkageofcamelot.com/kb/ ... php?id=756

Code: Select all

- There is no longer a range restriction on inviting a player into your group with the "/invite [name]" command.

Code: Select all

- Added alliance and ranks to the list of /gc commands when just typing /gc.

Code: Select all

- Typing "/groundset 0" moves the height of your ground target back down to the default if it had previously been raised or lowered, in addition to setting your ground target position at your feet.


Code: Select all

- Ground targeted area of effect spells no longer experience a dropp off to the amount of damage caused to targets which are further from the center of the effect.

We even do not have this Fix yet!

Code: Select all

- Players are no longer required to have 1 skill point in Siegecraft to control, aim, and fire siege equipment.

Good for the Relic and Keep raids!

This is just 1.70!

1.71:

http://support.darkageofcamelot.com/kb/ ... php?id=771

Code: Select all

 - Camp bonuses have been greatly increased in value. They will take longer to reach their new high value and longer to deplete. An extremely overhunted camp will now take longer to return to a high camp bonus than it previously did. This will not impact the minimum amount of experience players will gain from a camp, but if the camp is continuously overhunted it may take longer to return to the higher camp bonuses.

Yea, lower Camp Bonus and more time is needed to refresh. Good for the actually XP System!

Code: Select all

 - Fixed a bug that allowed players to get RP credit for enemy-players that were damaged a significant amount of time prior to their death. This caused a significant dilution of realm points in many cases, especially in keep/tower sieges and other large battles. This change will now give more RPs to the players that actively participate at the time an enemy is killed.
 

No more leeching via ae spam!



This list goes further as with the patch notes. I really hope staff will rethink to go to 1.69.

Old RAs == YES

Old Patch == NO!

Staff said clear bugs will not be re-implemented.

Many of your examples fall under that descriptions afaik.

Well Zarkor, Bugfixes after 1.69 are Custom and not Classic. So why don't we go 1.80 instead of Rollback and customizing as its just be?



Then implement Trebs in OF, Give SM Charm Ability, fix Pathing, fix melee Damage etc etc.

Its far away form classis though.

Iceer wrote:Well Zarkor, Bugfixes after 1.69 are Custom and not Classic. So why don't we go 1.80 instead of Rollback and customizing as its just be?

Because bugfixes don't mean new spells/styles/abilities, patch limits do.

Zarkor wrote:

Iceer wrote:Well Zarkor, Bugfixes after 1.69 are Custom and not Classic. So why don't we go 1.80 instead of Rollback and customizing as its just be?

Because bugfixes don't mean new spells/styles/abilities, patch limits do.

Well, such fixes as the ram thingy and /invite name command arent bugs. How do you wanna handle that?

Iceer wrote:Well, such fixes as the ram thingy and /invite name command arent bugs. How do you wanna handle that?

They just make the game more player-friendly, just like Teleporters for instance.

Sure, they're custom then, who cares?

It's classic with the intended fixes Mythic should have corrected earlier, as well as additional conveniences that were added later that should have been implemented much earlier, ie.....delayed content.

Oh, and hi Crush .

EternitySphere wrote:It's classic with the intended fixes Mythic should have corrected earlier, as well as additional conveniences that were added later that should have been implemented much earlier, ie.....delayed content.

like all the balance fixes that made the game better than the crap *classic* we are going to?

Zarkor wrote:Staff said clear bugs will not be re-implemented.

Many of your examples fall under that descriptions afaik.

Indeed. For example decreasing the range for invitations makes no sense and has nothing to do with balance in any case.