Doja

Please do not use the term OCD unless it is related to Ol' Chickens Distillery.  Thank you. 

When looking at prospective skills in the trainer menu before purchase, too little information is given.  Two key pieces of information must be given that are currently absent:

(1) Cool down time;

(2) Requirements.

Having played a tank my entire time in Eldevin, there was no information in the Trainer window that Repentence requires essence.  It being a better tank skill than Glaciate (what a horrible skill) I purchased Repentence.  But being that I don't use essence, now I can't use it.  I want my 1000 gold back please (and you can remove the skill).  Thank you.

So that people who have gone already in a day will have some reason other than pure compassion to go again and help others.

I now see a major problem with this "new" system.  People passing can have an influence.  Other bugs may also exist.

Please just return loot to the former method!

If there is an issue with tiebreaks going to the same person, there are many ways to have a tiebreak roll without skewing everything else.

Seriously, I'm going to stop playing if loot rolls aren't random.

This is actually the result of trying to counter the case where the RNG rolls repeatedly lean towards giving certain players all the group loot. So it's mostly intentional but the end result still leans towards rolling 100 too much.

There's room for improvement in this behaviour and it shouldn't take much to adjust the way it skews.

Sorry for the teething problems but this part of the system is completely new.

This is an interesting comment.  Previously, to my knowledge, all five players made an RNG roll between 1-100.  The highest roll received the item.

This comment seems to imply that there is now some additional mechanic that either penalizes a person who has already won loot or boosts a roll of someone who has not won any loot.  If this is the case I, for one, am appalled.

RNG rolls can be uneven but over the long run should even out.  Anybody with any sense understands this.  But an argument can be made for trying to even out short term distribution.

However, if HCS is implementing some additional mechanic beyond a simple RNG roll, it is essential that you not only tell the user base it exists but also explain the precise mechanics of how it functions.  Loot distribution is a major element of the game.  Everyone can understand a simple RNG mechanic, but once it goes beyond that you need to explain how the system is making its determination.  Right now, it appears, there is a complex system disguised as a simple RNG roll.

I'm a little disturbed that such a change was omitted from the original patch notes.  It was only after the clear bug that this was mentioned.  Then, we are told that the bug is fixed.  If it wasn't for a continuation of excess 100 rolls, most would have assumed we were back to a basic RNG system.  Clearly, now, there is a greater system at work.  So please give a detailed message to the user base describing how this new loot system works, because clearly it is not designed to be a simple RNG formula.

In other news, my value in Eldevin just increased 1000%.

You can start by reading my experience here:  http://forums.hunted...537#entry873989

Without a buff, the disadvantages of a low level player compared to a high level player in PvP are numerous:

1) Fewer Attribute Points from Leveling Up

2) Fewer Attribute Points from Equipment

3) Less Armor Rating from Equipment

4) Lower DPS from Weapons

5) Lower Gem Bonuses in Equipment (unless some player actually takes the time and resources to invest powerful gems in the armor of an alt)

6) Lack of use of purchased skills above the character's level

7) Lack of use of talents, including certain skills, above the character's level (above his number of talent points)

EDIT: (8) Lack of use of better food and potion buffs.

Now, there are bonuses that lower level characters get:

1) 150 HP per level below 45

2) 50 Armor per level below 45

3) 12 DPS per level below 45

Comments

The first question is what is the ideal goal?  Obviously, a low level player should not be stronger than a pimped out high level character.  But if you're going to include them in the same PvP competitions, then the low levels need a buff in order to encourage them to enter.  Right now, that buff is far too low.

In comparing the above lists, there are clearly things missing that aren't accounted for.  A low level has no access to more skills or talents than he has unlocked (note: I agree it should be this way).  He's also way short on attribute points.  While to some extent this can be made up for in DPS and HP, the attribute bonuses of haste, dodge, accuracy, and critical are all unaccounted for.

I'm not going to do serious math as to how much the bonuses for being below level 45 offset, but my level 19 mage has less DPS (with the bonuses) than my level 45 tank (think about that for a moment).  And my actual experience was worse.  When attacking mages, I did virtually no damage - perhaps in part because their sorcery gives spell dodge but I'm not given an accuracy buff to make up for that.

Final Analysis:  Low level characters lack the necessary skills and talents to really interact in PvP.  The only thing a low level character can really do is attack.  Whatever buffs are given, they have to be enough so that a low level character can deal damage to strong opponents.  Let the low level have the highest DPS there which the skilled players can offset with their skills and talents.  That might be a bit over the top, but the point is simple.  No low level is going to do PvP if his attacks don't hurt the enemies.  There's very little options he has due to lack of talents and skills for a build, so he has to be buffed enough to hurt even the strongest players in the game.  Otherwise, you may as well exclude low levels from PvP or create staggered PvP tiers where only certain level ranges can enter.

He entered fight at 200k ish hp left.  Did you taunt?  I think PL's ranking is based on threat.  

I did taunt, thank you.  Figured it was the least I could do to help at that point. 

Yeah I was there all that time and you just showed up with your big bad threat T_T

I'm humbled by your compliment. 

The title says the suggestion: Upon a PvP death, buffs (whether from skill, food, or potions) should not be removed.

Reason 1:  The reason there is no equipment durability loss from PvP death is because so many do not want to pay that cost that PvP would become nonexistent.  Losing buffs is also a penalty.  Its not such a high penalty that it kills PvP, but its not a penalty that's needed.  In general, players need to be more encouraged to engage in PvP, not less.

Reason 2:  Especially in 4-on-4 PvP, buffs should not be removed.  Generally, the stronger player/team will kill the weaker player/team first.  At this point, the weaker player/team loses their buffs and is now at an even greater disadvantage.  The player team could possibly rebuff, but not when... (1) The buff is from a class before PvP started and that class is not on your team inside PvP area; (2) Sitting to eat after dying takes too long and penalizes your team, especially in capture the flag; (3) The buff is from an obelisk.  Its very disheartening after getting slayed to know that the next time you enter you will have even less of a chance.

As a potion seller, this suggestion goes against my self-interest.  Players will use more potions if they have to rebuff after each death.  But from the simple perspective of fun, once you die in a PvP area you are confronted with an unappealing reality: "Because I just died, I'm likely to die if/when I go back in.  Which means if I use a potion its likely to only last for a couple minutes.  But if I don't use a potion, then I'm at an even greater disadvantage than I was before when I died."

Just let potions and buffs last for the full time unless there is a death by creature.

I've now tried random dungeons as both a 45 and a 16.  So far every run has consisted of one lower level person and four end game players.  Race through and done.

This is exactly why elsewhere I've stated that those searching in random dungeon should be placed in queue with low levels already in a queue (as Irradiated also suggests).  Based on this statement, four level 45s get the random dungeon done for the day and only one low level gets help.  If randomly searching players get placed in an existing queue of low levels waiting for their preferred dungeon, it is much more likely that multiple low levels will get help at once.

Also, concurring with Bieeest, it would be nice if there was some incentive for high level players to do random dungeon more than just once per day.  I should note that this could be abused by having four level 45s help one low level (possibly an alt).  So the rewards need to be thoughtfully decided, but more incentive is better.

less populated servers aren't safe either it is total bs there should be pvp based on skill because if there was the skilled pvpers would then face each other not the low lvls that are easy pickings the way it is now just sucks so if pvp is there focus right now they need to fix it to give the less skilled pvpers a chance to survive

Well, I'm not expecting it to be safe.  Nor do I expect it to be based on skill or luck (the general problem with this is that PvP in mmorpgs inherently revolves around character strength; a rather static variable from one minute to the next).  For weaker players (and builds) the allure of resources is suppposed to outweigh the risk (although, honestly, there's not much risk - just lost resources).

The issue I have is that for a stronger player its essentially one shot kill.  One shot keeps a weaker player from escaping, and its game over.  At least allow the element of the hunt and the chase.  Sometimes the fox catches the rabbit, sometimes the rabbit gets away.  But that's not the current way it works on Trapper's Atoll.  The fox has all the advantages, so this rabbit's kicking it on Euro server where, in fact, it is quite safe.

EDIT: If there's thinking that implementing this would make it too easy to get away, maybe remove a row boat or two.

EDIT 2:  Ok, not that safe, lol.

The sort button is right next to the close button in the inventory window, and depending on your resolution both can be quite tiny.  Every time I accidentally hit the sort button I lose 10 minutes of my life to carefully rearranging my sacks and items just as I like to keep them.  It would be very nice to have an option to disable the sort button, or at least simply space the three buttons further apart.

Yes, I know pressing "i" will close the window so I'll try to train myself to do that, but I'm a natural clicker.

Anyhow, there's no reason for the buttons to be so small and be spaced so closely together.

I know exactly the grind that Licker is referring to as I would gather extensively around level 16-20.  I would be happy if I gained one gold per day after all expenses were paid.  And I was a subscriber from about day three.  However, now I am never pinched for gold playing as a tank the entire time and I'm not yet to the runs that yield the big money.

New Player Perspective:  The issue that Licker touches upon, although its not simply repair costs, is that it can be very difficult for a new player to get a grasp on how to economically play this game.  I'm not saying that repair costs can't be discussed from a high level perspective, but the focus is on how new players will view the game - where there might be a make/break aspect that causes them to keep playing or quit.

Tricks to Mastering the Economy:  I'm by no means the richest player in this game (in real money or game currency, but I'm focusing on game currency here) but earning gold has become a non-issue for me.  However, the methods I use may either: (1) not be available to all players; (2) may not appeal to certain players; and (3) are generally unknown to new players (i.e., a new player would have no idea unless they are told).  These are as follows:

(1) Selling EP for Gold:  If I really need gold I can usually sell EP from my subscriber account for gold.  Obviously, this is not available to many players who don't have subscriber accounts.

(2) Selling Flakes for Gold:  My number one revenue stream is selling flakes for gold or EP.  To any player who doesn't want to do daily professions quests, or to whom such quests are boring, this is not a viable option. [Other players earn money by selling large quantities of gathered resources.  I don't do this myself, but similarly this method requires doing a very mundane boring task to earn gold.]

(3) General Rule - DO NOT DIE:  I do die and when I do I pay the repair costs (although at lower levels a side trick is to simply craft yourself new gear if you're not using something fancy).  But dying is not good.  This game penalizes you heavily for it.  When fighting solo, this simply means being careful and not going places that are too dangerous.  But most deaths, I believe, come from going into a dungeon with an inadequate group.  Therefore, I'm quite stingy about what group I go with. 

I think the greater issue is with dungeon difficulty, not repair costs.  A level 20-23 player will want to go to Ohdar for equipment.  Realistically, though, even a full group of level 20-23 players won't be able to make it through.  Dungeon runs more often than not require at least one or two players considerably higher level.  But this is counter-intuitive to a new player.  Why wouldn't a group of level 20-23 adventurers be able to handle a level 20 dungeon?  And the queue style grouping for dungeons only adds to this problem.  A level 15 player unlocks Vault, gets a quest there, queues for it, and joins 4 other players his level and they get slaughtered.  Then the repair costs kick in, and they've earned practically nothing on the run.

Alt Experience:  I have several alternate characters.  My approach with them is so much different than a new player.  I make sure to have them craft equipment so they stay strong for their levels.  I don't go on any suicidal dungeon runs.  I don't fight above my level.  And guess what?  I don't even have to pass them gold, because playing like that you will earn more money than you spend.  But its only because of my experience that I know to play like this.  A new player will have no idea.

This is a tricky subject and I'm not simply claiming that this should blindly be included.  But in all the other mmorpg games I've played (not saying "all" games, just the few I've played) items have existed which you can use to unbind an item.  I don't think the absence of such an item here was an oversight, considering its existence in other games.  This effect could be positive but I think its worth discussing.

Why Gems Only?  Although there is no associated item, a player can pay 50 EP to remove a gem from an item.  A similar concept for equipment/vanity would create an additional revenue stream (although it would also create a large resale market as well).  But the initial point should be this: Whether such a purchase (unbinding) should exist needs to be determined by the item type.  Clearly, there was a determination that allowing the unbinding of gems was beneficial.

Equipment:  Allowing equipment to become unbound would have a massive effect on the game.  There would also likely be a number of irritated players who describe some great item they vendored because they had something better, but which would have had a fantastic resale value to a lower level.  The design in this game really focuses on forcing each player to attain their own equipment.  Equipment cannot simply be passed on when the player using it outgrows it.  I think that the design in this area should remain the same.

Vanity:  Vanity, on the other hand, I think should be able to become unbound for an EP cost (25-50 EP seems like a good price).  Since vanity has no stats, there is no competitive balance issue inherently built into the game that would be changed by allowing this.  Many players currently complain about the lack of a vanity market between players.  One reason for this, I believe, is that for a player to purchase a vanity item from another player he either: (1) Must commit to keeping that vanity item for life because he will equip it; or (2) It is merely a traders purchase whereby he is willing to store it until he can sell it for more later.

I believe that the second hand market for vanity items would be much greater if a potential purchaser knows that he can use it for a while and be able to resell it later if he either gets tired of it or if he realizes it doesn't look as good as he'd hoped (often newer players don't have a precise idea of what a vanity item looks like - the buyer is unable to "show off" the item because he can't equip it or it will become bound).  This would also lead to more mixing and matching of various sets to get unique looks.  Its difficult to picture how a unique mix and match will look and its costly to try out a look when binding the item means no possibility of later resale.

As it stands, I have my one set and have no interest in buying vanity without a clear idea of how it will look and with the realization that trying something means I'm attached to it forever.  Additionally, with no costume shop (another forum I agree with) there's also a space issue.  But space issue or no, I think the game and the second hand market would benefit from vanity items being unbindable.

The cowbell emote needs, well, more cowbell.  Make it longer.  And trumpet too!