33 replies to this topic

[EvilDognapot]

it just annoys me to see crits that aren't played. mages that only invis your party, lvl 3 thieves that hold your money and mana, or any and every exploit concerning the +10/-10 level cap. hell, even name holders. i'm not sure how to deal with this aside from just making more people pkable, but i figure it's a start. anyhow, the purpose of this thread is twofold. one purpose is suggest solutions, and the second purpose is to modify them until they're at a feasible state.

now to get the ball rolling, my initial suggestion is to make all crits pkable. i think it is not determental to newbs if only because it puts them into a sink or swim situation that i believe will produce better players (or bitter players, no difference really). new players will have to either learn to navigate nightmist, find safe places to train, people to train with, or they will simply go to the nearest animal they're capable of hitting and promptly get sent to the pub (which happens quite alot anyways). by doing this it will also allow the rest of us to kill the mage that lets someone's party escape into thin air, or the baby crit that's used as the personal banker for expeditions.

second idea. make parties of different levels have wider caps. example, a lvl 10 and a level thirty would leave you wide open because a level ten can be attacked by lvls 1-20, and a lvl 30 can be attacked by 20-30. so five archmasters and a lvl three should only be protected from crits lvls 13-20. see what i mean? this does also imply that if one crit in a party is vulnerable, that all crits in the party are vulnerable too. however, what business does a lvl 3 crit have with a bunch of experts?

don't like it? do better. i don't think it's right that crits which are used as tools for more powerfull crits should have any greater protections than the crits they are used by.

[Crane]

You have a point actually, regarding level 15 Mages being used to cloak a party and level 3 Thieves as mana/money holders. Generally, I find that low level thieves do not get very far before being killed by a monster, although the mage can prove annoying.

Removing the +/-10 level cap would help solve some of these problems for PKers, but there will be a lot of controversy over this. Of course, level 3 thieves can still enjoy the benefit of being under level 5. Hmmm... not sure about this one.

[deadman]

As i stated on Zelimos's topic, leave things the way they are dont like it to bad.

[EvilDognapot]

well i think there's room for improvement and eliminating exploitation of our newb protection would be beneficial. i don't see a downside here.

"wah, i can't be a jerk as easily as i used to"

"boo hoo, i can't use my lvl 3 portabank"

hardly a loss to the quality of gameplay.

this seems like a logical way to address the issue. i think widening the pk restrictions on parties with a wide range of levels is a fair solution because it allows the newb protection to be effective for newbs while eliminating the protection for players who don't need it and only exploit it.

[Tom]

supported,

[Magoo]

As i stated on Zelimos's topic, leave things the way they are dont like it to bad.

do you ever put ne thought into ur posts? moron

[Exodia]

he wont change the pk lvls back, was already suggestion while back on msn and he said no, cuz u cant pk the noobies that bad

[EvilDognapot]

he wont change the pk lvls back, was already suggestion while back on msn and he said no, cuz u cant pk the noobies that bad

that's why the second suggestion (the one i keep talking about) resolves the dilemma of removing protections for those who don't need it, without exposing newbs to any increased risk.

[Simulation]

Supported

[Ryuku]

Not supported, the whole idea of a lvl cap is so far advanced players can't stop the game for newer players (or so I beleive), so waiting south of NM with an arch thief clicking almost any crit that comes by won't happen, which is what most people would do. (not counting lvl 4s and under)

[EvilDognapot]

well ryuku, that's why i suggested that in order for any protections to be removed from any crits, they must join the party of higher level crits where they would become just as vulnerable as the higherst level crit in the party.

so... if you and a lvl 20-30 joined a party and began to hunt that one snake just south of NM... then yeah... you would be retarded... and you would most likely be pkd... both crits...

in the future, if anyone doesn't know what's going on, they can private message me and i'll explain it without looking like a condescending jerk to everyone who bothers to read the first post and every subsequent post where i repeat myself like a condescending jerk.

Edited by EvilDognapot, 12 March 2005 - 04:51 PM.

[Rappy_Ninja]

supported

[Ryuku]

You're just mad cause you can't pk the party, game wasn't build around pking you know, although it may be part of the game. I don't understand why you're killing such low lvls with such high lvls anyway, take up a challange, or atleast take a risk when trying to make the game worse for others.

Edited by Ryuku, 12 March 2005 - 10:26 PM.

[Metatron]

supported, as new player when there was no lvl cap Things werent that bad

[EvilDognapot]

take up a challange, or atleast take a risk when trying to make the game worse for others.

challenges like training or pking without storing items and gold on protected crits, or using protected crits to help your pk party get away?

i don't think the game was built around asshats exploiting protections built for newbs so they can pk easier, train longer, avoid losing gold if they are pk'd.

[Wolfgang]

I remember back when there was no real level cap. Sometimes it wasn't that bad.

But I also remember trying to go ANYWHERE outside of Nightmist, and getting killed less than a minute after leaving the city. And it was usually by someone who had usually reached Master.

A lot of times when I'm training, I'll bring a thief between levels 16 and 20 with me, just so if someone attacks, I have a place I can put my gold, or maybe just get rid of them if they're weak enough. But other than the theif and the low level alt, I generally don't have anyone else in my party.

But lets say I'm using a level 20 theif to help me protect my level 10 cleric. That way, anyone who can attack my cleric can be attacked by my thief.

That means, if your rule is put into effect, my cleric could be killed by anyone level 5 and up.

so five archmasters and a lvl three should only be protected from crits lvls 13-20.

Couldn't this also be used to have a group of Experts or Archmasters team up with a low level alt so that they could attack people of lower levels?

For example:
Level 30 fighter, level 30 ranger, level 30 berserker, level 4 thief (covert) walks into the forest. A level 10 sees the two archmasters, but figures he's safe because of the level cap. And then he dies. Or even if he does run, he could still easily be caught or killed, or even tracked.

I'm not sure quite how to word this but:
I thought about suggesting "well, why don't' you just take the average of levels in the party, and if it falls outside the range of the party, the party should be able to attack anything of that range or above. But then I did some math.
If you've got a party of high level crits, its not so bad:
(30+30+29+30+25+30)/6 = 29

But then lets say a person decides to roll a bunch of level 1s to take with them:
(1+30)/2 = 15.5
1+1+30+30/4 = 15.5
As long as you have one level 1 for every level 30, thats a 15 level difference allowed. And while, yes, these are both extreme and theoretical numbers, but they're the ones you'd see popping up.

edit: Added the quote and everything below it.

Edited by Wolfgang, 16 March 2005 - 09:20 PM.

[Ryuku]

Just cause somethings bugs you doesn't mean it's going to change, like the other guy said, running around NM with ful arch party and a covert lvl 5 thief, you can kill everyone, stop arguing about it, it won't change.

[EvilDognapot]

um, it's unintentionally exploitable and can be resolved. that's the reason it bugs me. you may remember the stamina trick, it didn't bug me, but i never went to pandilex to tell "just quit it, just cuz it bugs u don't mean u gotta do something about it".

so if this doesn't bug you then that's cool, it doesn't change the fact that it's being exploited for the wrong purposes and it doesn't have to be that way. besides, if it doesn't bug you then i would be wrong to believe that if it were resolved you'd have feelings about it one way or the other, right?

edit: and for wolfgang, i thought it would be best to only affect the parties vulnerability, any crit in the party can only attack the levels it's currently allowed to attack.

so in your example, the level 10 would be just fine, however it could kill a lvl 5 crit, or attack the level 30 crits with impunity.

Edited by EvilDognapot, 17 March 2005 - 02:35 AM.

[Zelimos]

supported. I prefered the old way

[hellomoto]

here's an idea. keep the level 10 cap, in a sense: crits 10+ levels below you can be PKed, but don't lose EXP, and crits that are higher level than you (I.E., lvl 22 pk's lvl 27) lose 10% more exp(not 10% of their max EXP, just an additional 10% of the EXP they already lose from being PKed).

Oh, and if you PK your own alt, you lose EXP regardless, so that it doesn't take the place of recall.

[Sourcream]

I dont see the problem.... Using a low lvl crit to hold your gold isnt wrong is it? its called being wise. and all thought it eats up tons and tons a mb's of space

Things are good now and dont need to change. if they removed the lvl cap then newbies whom dont understand the game will be like how do i get to know the game when somoene pks you everytme you go out of a city?

Just my thoughts :|

[Wolfgang]

Things are good now and dont need to change. if they removed the lvl cap then newbies whom dont understand the game will be like how do i get to know the game when somoene pks you everytme you go out of a city?

You run. Very far. Very fast.

Thats what I had to do :x

(I'm playing devils advocate.)
(sorta).

[Ryuku]

um, it's unintentionally exploitable and can be resolved. that's the reason it bugs me. you may remember the stamina trick, it didn't bug me, but i never went to pandilex to tell "just quit it, just cuz it bugs u don't mean u gotta do something about it".

so if this doesn't bug you then that's cool, it doesn't change the fact that it's being exploited for the wrong purposes and it doesn't have to be that way. besides, if it doesn't bug you then i would be wrong to believe that if it were resolved you'd have feelings about it one way or the other, right?

edit: and for wolfgang, i thought it would be best to only affect the parties vulnerability, any crit in the party can only attack the levels it's currently allowed to attack.

so in your example, the level 10 would be just fine, however it could kill a lvl 5 crit, or attack the level 30 crits with impunity.

You make it sound like this idea's already been implemented.

[Horny]

rofl, not supported. it's bad enough i gott hide from ppl that are 10+/10- my lvl rofl. and why change the game. it's fine the way it is

[EvilDognapot]

um, it's unintentionally exploitable and can be resolved. that's the reason it bugs me. you may remember the stamina trick, it didn't bug me, but i never went to pandilex to tell "just quit it, just cuz it bugs u don't mean u gotta do something about it".

so if this doesn't bug you then that's cool, it doesn't change the fact that it's being exploited for the wrong purposes and it doesn't have to be that way. besides, if it doesn't bug you then i would be wrong to believe that if it were resolved you'd have feelings about it one way or the other, right?

edit: and for wolfgang, i thought it would be best to only affect the parties vulnerability, any crit in the party can only attack the levels it's currently allowed to attack.

so in your example, the level 10 would be just fine, however it could kill a lvl 5 crit, or attack the level 30 crits with impunity.

You make it sound like this idea's already been implemented.

you can tell because i refer to the exploitations it would solve in a present tense, and the idea itself in a hypothetical manner as if it hadn't happened yet. i guess maybe the hypothetical part was confusing, sorry.

[Kakarott]

You have a point actually, regarding level 15 Mages being used to cloak a party and level 3 Thieves as mana/money holders. Generally, I find that low level thieves do not get very far before being killed by a monster, although the mage can prove annoying.

Removing the +/-10 level cap would help solve some of these problems for PKers, but there will be a lot of controversy over this. Of course, level 3 thieves can still enjoy the benefit of being under level 5. Hmmm... not sure about this one.

Have you ever Heard of Covert but i dont support the topic at all

[Sean]

You have a point actually, regarding level 15 Mages being used to cloak a party and level 3 Thieves as mana/money holders.  Generally, I find that low level thieves do not get very far before being killed by a monster, although the mage can prove annoying.

Removing the +/-10 level cap would help solve some of these problems for PKers, but there will be a lot of controversy over this.  Of course, level 3 thieves can still enjoy the benefit of being under level 5.  Hmmm... not sure about this one.

Have you ever Heard of Covert but i dont support the topic at all

Did you have to post in every topic that is over 2 months old?

[Àðìðàs]

dont know how old this is or w/e...but i like the idea.....but how about make it so that thief simply cannot covert till say..lvl 10?....that'd make it so ppl couldnt take a lvl 1-9 thief arround and hold mana/gold and not worry about dieing and lose alot of mana/gold. then thiefs wouldnt be exploited.

i also idea that thieves should lose stamina while moving covert in a party like they would as if they was one leading(themselves or a party). Isn't it supposed to be basicly that in a party you "follow" someone? Because at the moment if you invite a thief and then covert thief and then move with the leader thief doesn't lose stamina, isnt that like picking up the thief and carrying it, which isnt what is going on.

[Gaddy]

For those of you flaming Doggy here, you're not reading what he said.

This idea means that all crits in the party are able to BE HIT by other players with any level that could hit any of your levels. So, training level 12s with an arch cleric would mean the level 12s could be hit, because you're not a noob anymore and don't really need the level cap.
However, it doesn't mean that your level 30 cleric could hit some level 10s in the forest unless they were attacking your level 12s first.




Otherwise I've mis-understood something.



Edit- Highly supported.

Edited by Gaddy, 26 May 2005 - 08:27 PM.

[tool]

now to get the ball rolling, my initial suggestion is to make all crits pkable. i think it is not determental to newbs if only because it puts them into a sink or swim situation that i believe will produce better players

Supported on this idea. Newer players now have the option of learning the game with the help of a pacifist, something i never had when i started many years ago. As i said before, in times of war, women and children are slaughtered, hence your lvl 1-9 crits. Same thing.


The idea of the pking lvl cap i belive was to alow the newer players to go out and explore the nm world and get familiar with all areas, but like i said, with the addition of the paci, anyone with a map can get to anywhere now, and get themselves familiar with any area.


But, if staff feels the need not to go back to the pre-historic days of non stop blood shed, then doggies second idea is the best solution. If you travle with higher lvls on a lower lvl crit, or are partied up with higher lvls and you guys stop to fight that clan you are waring with, then you opt for the chance of loosing your valued exp.

Do you think the huns or the romans ever stopped to say, well, let's kill the greeks, but leave the young lad in armor and sword alone because he is small and cute? i think not

Edited by tool, 28 May 2005 - 04:10 PM.