suggested buffs for quest: AM LF QuestHunter
suggested buffs include frags: AM LF FI QF RF QuestHunter(maybe?)



3. drop stashes containing:
cosmic ~ 1 - 10 commons, 0 - 1 rare
dark ~ 1 - 15 commons, 0 - 10 rare, 0 - 5 unique, 0 - 1 leg, 0 - 1 crystal
 

Thanks for the info on the frag stashes. Buff wise though you got it messed up.
Suggested Buffs would be: Cons, AM, Reckoning, Unbreakable (skip LF as with higher AM and reckoning you don't need LF), Global Booster
Frag buffs added on top of normal suggested would be: Lady Luck, Find Item, and depending on how frag finder works maybe that and skip global booster so you can do max number of hunts targeting only the dark 5 kill count spiders. Also would use only AM 500 as well so that no stamina was wasted moving. For extra kick use a zombie brew, Pride and Buff Enhancer along with Brewing Master to get longer durations from your potions to have the time to burn more stamina looking for frags.

I can see higher doublers, but we don't need higher AL Lib and Cons along with distil to push them even higher. With a high level distil to push the Cons higher, and a high doubler it would be way too easy to hit end game with so little stamina during the double exp event. 

Instead why don't we just have the loyal potions be able to buy a bound fsp chest that are sold with the fsp offers? Doubler and Find item buffs would be better put in composing where they can be increased overtime without becoming unbalanced so easy. Really the good exp buffs should be with the fsp offers only, loyaliy could be the doubler types of buffs and the auction house could have some of the 150 buffs or something. Each way to get potions should have its own unique potions along with a few generic ones.

Why was the find player not updated to go with the attack player to easily show what targets you had and who could attack you? Right now Find Player still is the +/-10 levels while the attack player shows what ever your range is. 

It wasn't just an event sweetie, it was an short-lived all-out change to the whole PvP and bounty system, that failed due to the outcry of non-PvPer's being hit by anybody and everybody.  Although I missed it, as I was also inactive, I heard it was a free for all, anybody could hit anybody else, and bounties were automatic.... 

imho, with a few tweaks (make this opt-in only, like the ladder) leave the bounty system as is (maybe with a few minor tweaks, but auto bounties seems to take the "choice" out of the equation), install at least a minimal range system, ditch the ladder entirely and bring back PvP rating from ALL PvP (oh, and don't take away Dominance Medals like when the ladder was born), and Seasons would work a lot better than our current system. 

 

Not that I know all that much....
 

Still it wouldn't hurt to have a free for all limitedly (granted I would grumble about it too, but it would make things interesting and with a warning and maybe a cheap deal on pvp protection for one use, or free pvp protection at the start of the event). Have bounties during it be auto to allow even more mayhem based on how hard you hit people or what you got from them. Write it as an event where the shadow cast a spell that lasts 2 or 3 days and all safeguards are off the realm and darkness has won for those few days only.

It would be a way to maybe even test any new pvp settings to see what people think. 

Also have to throw out the idea of Hidden Coffer being changed to be more like Deep pockets and less like a neon sign saying something like " most likely to have gold here", seeing as I doubt people just place the buff on themselves when they don't have much gold. Would be nice if Cloak would cover that, but then it might be too easy if too many people start using it that way.

Another thing would be to either have a buff for the pvp, or non pvp person to get some of the gold back that is lost during the combat, or have the system take that amount and auto bounty a person if it would be enough to match the bounty creation amount the person getting hit would have to pay out. That way it would be possible to potentially get bountied twice, but if the gold gained from the hit was enough it would still be worth it.

Not totally the area to really talk about these, but they do factor into the reason non ladder pvp people are pvping besides the daily quest. Also understand the whole point about wanting to loose some of the gold, but I am sure that losses to stamina, other factors could be used to both protect gold and also drain more gold off players in the effort to protect the gold they have. Even a buff where you risk loosing all your gold in an effort to save gold would be an interesting gamble that some people might be willing to take if it was setup right.

perhaps i'm not clear
why should player A get to hit someone y levels below them, while B can only hit x. A clearly has an advantage.
 

Uh, why should Player A get 100 targets, while Player B only has 10? A clearly has an advantage.

No really, the 3000 to 3100 range only has ~6 targets. (+/-50 level zone if you are 3050). Expanding that to 3140 didn't even get many more targets. This was a surprise for me, thought the lowest zone would be more around the 4k area. Didn't check to see if there was an even lower zone or look that hard to find the level area where there could be even less targets.

If you don't like that idea that much. We could always make it easy and do it like the bounty board. No level restrictions, just hitting lower level players will get less and less of a return the lower level they are from a person even up to having no return. Hitting higher level players won't have any restrictions and maybe (or maybe not) even have bonuses. Though gold hoarders would hate this with rather a lot of passion as it would be open season on them from the lower levels. 

but next # of players above or below will have a limit on levels to be covered, right? for fairness, right? so, why not use limit instead of "fluid" option?

How would the limit for level range be more fair? To me the hard coded level limit is more unfair.

but would this be fair? isn't this just a "cheat" to get around hard numbers? if limit is put in to restrict "fluidity" for fairness, why not use limit instead?

Not sure if you read my post farther up and not sure what your full complaint is here. If you had more than a set number of targets then nothing would change. If you didn't have a set number of targets then you would would be given a set number of targets.

Either that or just check for the next 20 (or whatever) number  of active players on either side of your level and have you be able to hit them and them you since no matter what each would show up on the other's list.

My main beef here is that hard coding in just level limits does not really solve the underlying problem of having enough targets to hit (which every other post here seems to be suggesting).

The problem with hard coding in level ranges is that as the player base's levels fluidly move around you will time and time again have to keep revisiting the same problem. A dynamically changing pvp range based on the number of targets at any given time would ensure that no player looking to do pvp has a shortage of targets and also ensure that players can't just freely hold tons of gold in hand without banking for days on end.

Otherwise at some point in time when there are max levels around 10k, players in the 3k to 7k range would still have trouble finding enough targets. In which case we would still be right back where we started here.

Could always do a hard +/-10 levels and have a soft +/-(any number of levels) to get 10 active players into your level range. So no matter what people will have players in their target range. Then add in that if someone can hit you that it also adds them into your pvp range so that it doesn't cause you to get hit but not be able to hit back. 

Think the bounty board needs to be worked on as well, but that might be a whole other topic to tackle.