Spell Damage Mitiagation WHEN:

[wreckognize]

This is a proposal to add in spell damage mitigation only when any member of a party is attacking an innocent player.

An example to demonstrate the logic:

Three players are in a party or guild, are cruisin' around despise level 1 looking for noobs to slay. One of the party members attacks a blue player. Each member of the party's spell damage is decreased by 10% times the # of party members. In this case, an e-bolt will cause 30% less damage than normal. So 3 ebolts is actually more like 2 ebolts.

The maximum reduction in spell damage will cap at 50%. Meaning having 6 members in your group is the same as having 5 members in the group, if any of them attacks an innocent. Each party member will be dealing now 50% of the normal spell damage.

Mind you, this only comes into effect when you are attacking innocent players. They're already up against the element of surprise, so there should be a way that the game balances out the man advantage in these cases.

 

[Karl Sagan]

This is a counter proposal for you to write your proposal out longhand on a piece of yellow legal paper and then cram it up your stupid ass fucker

 

[MANKRIK]

 

[Fattson]

So in the event that eqms goes up against a patrol of trin members, they're even more fucked than they were beforehand? I have to disagree with this. I don't think eqms should be favored in any way but I also don't think changes should be put in game that blatantly hinder what they do. If you really wanna fuck them, remove the ability for sallos users to set last target off screen.

 

[Ripstas]

Just remove sallos

 

[Derwolf]

So in the event that eqms goes up against a patrol of trin members, they're even more fucked than they were beforehand? I have to disagree with this. I don't think eqms should be favored in any way but I also don't think changes should be put in game that blatantly hinder what they do. If you really wanna fuck them, remove the ability for sallos users to set last target off screen.

you know you can set last targets off screen in steam right?

 

[Fattson]

you know you can set last targets off screen in steam right?

I did not. I've never used anything but razor. Pardon my ignorance.

 

[Derwolf]

I did not. I've never used anything but razor. Pardon my ignorance.

you are forgiven lord @Fattson. lets be honest if we removed sallos + steam not many people would still play here. Razor is great for dexxers, steam has great scripting abilities can be used by anyone in pvp and Sallos is a great client. The great thing about these clients is anyone has the ability to play on them and they all have their advantages and disadvantages

 

[shinapova]

I have an idea: after getting hit by a spell, ebolt for example, the victim should be able to resist 40~80% of the damage of the next ebolt for 4 sec (depends on how many ebolts hit the victim). This will force players to cast different type of spells in pvp situation, it would make pvp more fun for you guys, not just 1 or 2 spells for the entire match.

 

[Fattson]

you are forgiven lord @Fattson. lets be honest if we removed sallos + steam not many people would still play here. Razor is great for dexxers, steam has great scripting abilities can be used by anyone in pvp and Sallos is a great client. The great thing about these clients is anyone has the ability to play on them and they all have their advantages and disadvantages

I don't have an issue with any one client. I just think targets shouldn't be able to be set off screen. Takes skill out of it.

 

[Ripstas]

you are forgiven lord @Fattson. lets be honest if we removed sallos + steam not many people would still play here. Razor is great for dexxers, steam has great scripting abilities can be used by anyone in pvp and Sallos is a great client. The great thing about these clients is anyone has the ability to play on them and they all have their advantages and disadvantages

The server had more players when only razor was allowed. Soooooo

 

[Derwolf]

The server had more players when only razor was allowed. Soooooo

yeah when shane just said in irc last night we have more players than ever and pvp is booming. Sooooo

 

[GluttonySDS]

people talking about sallos taking the skill out of the game but dont have an issue with the macro abilities of steam/sallos? If anything, sallos is the most manual client of them.... best example is the steam purple pot scripts people like Heli use, cant automate any PVP on Sallos.

All 3 clients have their advantages and disadvantages -- find the one you like the most and use it.

 

[Ripstas]

Automated pvp includes setting up a hot key to pull pars. Wait. Wait. Let me go find one of your " I would quit if sallow wasn't allowed" posts.

 

[GluttonySDS]

As for spell mitigation -- what kind of joke is this? Why not make it so guilds cant have more than 5 people while we're at it...

 

[Ripstas]

yeah when shane just said in irc last night we have more players than ever and pvp is booming. Sooooo

Let me rephrase. We have more Brit bridge pvp. Less actual returning players/new players. I would rather the entire " we are elite pvpers" and Ebolt cannon zerglings go back to wherever they came from.

My opinion.

 

[Derwolf]

Let me rephrase. We have more Brit bridge pvp. Less actual returning players/new players. I would rather the entire " we are elite pvpers" and Ebolt cannon zerglings go back to wherever they came from.

My opinion.

Who to believe the shard owner who says we have more players than ever and new players coming in everyday or ripstas? Ez choice.

 

[LoNE WoLF]

I have a better idea. Set up a recall macro and get the fuck out if 5 people are trying to kill you. Or better yet,don't farm in dungeons until you are ready to take deaths doing so.

^ I learned this the hard way.

 

[wreckognize]

As for spell mitigation -- what kind of joke is this? Why not make it so guilds cant have more than 5 people while we're at it...

totally agree with you here, especially when it comes to entering RDAs. That's where the moneys at, so any type of EZ mode, like bringing more than 1 character for example, should be eliminated from it.

great idea glutts. Glad to see you're breaking out of the delusional state you've been in since you started wearing raged's sneakers.

 

[wreckognize]

Let me rephrase. We have more Brit bridge pvp. Less actual returning players/new players. I would rather the entire " we are elite pvpers" and Ebolt cannon zerglings go back to wherever they came from.

My opinion.

totally have to agree with you, except I think there was more action at the bridge before, albeit less organized.

problem is, if you got rid of steam and sallos by enforcing razor, people would just go back to EUO and then it's users would have a big advantage over legit players. Better to simply allow steam, and then try to block certain functions.

TBH I liked OP suggestion better when it was a simply damage mitigation for any players in a group that were within a certain # of tiles close to eachother, with the same 50% max decrease for 5 players in the same close vicinity of eachother, regardless of weather or not they were agressed with anyone.

BUT you see, the problem is that the PvP manager is biased because this suggestion interferes with his personal playstyle, so we're just going to have to wait for him to resign before we can have better balanced PvP overall on this shard.