I am not condemning that type of gameplay, but I find that the term is funny and fitting. I will continue using it as people who adhere to that type of gameplay seem to have no issue with it so far.
I are not bridge troll. :cry:
I are nice!
Posted 09 April 2010 - 19:51
I am not condemning that type of gameplay, but I find that the term is funny and fitting. I will continue using it as people who adhere to that type of gameplay seem to have no issue with it so far.
Posted 09 April 2010 - 19:53
I am not condemning that type of gameplay, but I find that the term is funny and fitting. I will continue using it as people who adhere to that type of gameplay seem to have no issue with it so far.
I are not bridge troll. :cry:
I are nice!
Posted 09 April 2010 - 22:36
No offense, max, but what would you call players that stop in a level range and prey on passersby, and level only to maintain their position?
Posted 09 April 2010 - 22:55
I took the term from Gravely, it was no issue when he used it.
The problem is that a lot of range extension suggestions are simply going too far. 60+ level ranges is simply not reasonable.
I must have missed him mentioning it, its unacceptable regardless where it comes from because we cant condemn a way to play the game..
As for range extension, think of it this way..I would like to have similar number of people available to attack regardless of being level 400 or 800..Higher level should not come with less PvP activity. And stat differences as levels increase are not that dramatic that would justify the 5 level range 'protection'.
Posted 09 April 2010 - 22:59
No offense, max, but what would you call players that stop in a level range and prey on passersby, and level only to maintain their position?
PvPers allergic to leveling?
Posted 09 April 2010 - 23:01
a rabid one?No offense, max, but what would you call players that stop in a level range and prey on passersby, and level only to maintain their position?
PvPers allergic to leveling?
I'm partial to the term "Bridge Puppy" .... for me, anyway.
Posted 09 April 2010 - 23:03
Posted 09 April 2010 - 23:05
<3 ambiguityVery, bry.... very
Posted 10 April 2010 - 06:52
...and the bounty board.
IF there is an issue with a player being attacked repeatedly, which is very rare, thats what XP lock is for..
Posted 10 April 2010 - 08:26
Well there was much wrong with the many mechanisms of the PvP. Fixing a few things is a good start(i.e. buffs like constitution and spellbreak, intentional delevelings and now xp loss), but it has been so long that PvP has needed some tlc. Instead we've seen the devs skip over the problems and introduce so many other upgrades that players have just become complacent with PvP and how it works no matter how many threads pop up. It has been around as long as the game itself, well before Titans, arena, etc. I strongly urge the devs to not stop tweaking PvP. Remember there are many things, if the devs agree, left to do. Like a few other things, the VL was implemented and left alone until intentional deleveling was recently addressed. All of the 'abuses' only degrade the quality of the game. Fixing them we'll see a few naysayers because of complacency, but overall players will greet the changes warmly much like other recent upgrades....and the bounty board.
IF there is an issue with a player being attacked repeatedly, which is very rare, thats what XP lock is for..
And both of these prove that the original term "bridge trolls" suits well - they both involve paying (even if not to the trolls themselves).
At the very least, HCS should fix the VL nonsense. Before it existed, instead of levelling out of range of your attacker, you could have him delevelled out of your range. Then VL was introduced supposedly to protect defenders from attackers who had been delevelled a lot and had advantage in levelup points (zomg, so big deal) - and in the process this important defensive mechanism was killed.
[Signature removed]
“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM
Posted 10 April 2010 - 10:19
how about we just allow me to take xp from players below my level and limit me in taking a max of five levels from a single player off the board
Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:35
how about we just allow me to take xp from players below my level and limit me in taking a max of five levels from a single player off the board
Yeah, this could be a concern. Capping it to VL-5 won't work too good, keeping track of how much you've taken can be not so straightforward either, player could level back up. And if it just stacks up you'd have to reset the counter at some point otherwise you'd be "done" with that player forever (?) after a certain amount of hits.
The Attacker can only drop someone 5 levels below their [own] Virtual Level ..so im level 10(1% into the level) and your 5(also 1% into the level)..i can attack you but i can't take xp..if you were level 9(1% in) and i was 10(also 1% in), i could attack you till you were level 5(1% into the level) but then i wouldn't take anymore xp below that point..if i was 10 and you were 10, i could drop you to level 5 and couldn't do anymore damage after that.
when it gets tricky is if im level 5 and your 10..i could drop you till 5 but by what i suggested above, i could keep dropping you till zero..so potentially the max amount of levels you can take from someone is 10 levels if you are 5 below their VL. even though it might seem a lil rough and the lil loophole is still open to 'abuse' of someone's levels. atleast i can't drop my levels with your levels and continue to do so until i seem fit or you get back online :twisted: eventually taking 10+ or even 25+ levels if i decide to dedicate that much time to destroying one's character
Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:44
Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:47
What if when the PvP range is extended, say at +/- 10 levels, then the XP loss outside the board would only still occur within +/- 5 levels. Such that the range for gold theft is extended but without the drawbacks of griefing?
Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:48
What if when the PvP range is extended, say at +/- 10 levels, then the XP loss outside the board would only still occur within +/- 5 levels. Such that the range for gold theft is extended but without the drawbacks of griefing?
Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:51
Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:53
What if when the PvP range is extended, say at +/- 10 levels, then the XP loss outside the board would only still occur within +/- 5 levels. Such that the range for gold theft is extended but without the drawbacks of griefing?
Not sure that would work ... someone could be 10 levels below VL even before you start to hit back.
Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:58
What if when the PvP range is extended, say at +/- 10 levels, then the XP loss outside the board would only still occur within +/- 5 levels. Such that the range for gold theft is extended but without the drawbacks of griefing?
Not sure that would work ... someone could be 10 levels below VL even before you start to hit back.
what do you mean by this?
Posted 10 April 2010 - 18:00
Posted 10 April 2010 - 18:04
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users