Celtic Heroes

The Official Forum for Celtic Heroes, the 3D MMORPG for iOS and Android Devices

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#141
Irbetazenpj wrote:
Pavillion wrote:
ThyraUnited wrote:Not a thing, Big. I am not quite sure why Pavi keeps thinking this is just about our little section of Celtic Heroes. Wretch's 4 dl toons don't matter to Rhiannon or morrigan or Donn etc...but the level lock issue does. As Criminal has stated several times, it is on every world. There are clans everywhere who just sit and camp bosses and don't level past them for the lock advantage. What if a group of 8 clanless people level 190-195 were camping snorri, are they trying to stop another group of people from getting gear?

The intent, ThyraUnited. The intent is what matters. Most of these level 190-195 players you've mentioned are fully equipped with anything a top clan can offer them, meaning most of everything. Also, why do you keep assuming a clan only consists of level 190-195 players? Like I've mentioned before. Do not forget your lower level counterparts. There are 14 able players at or around level 180. Please, do not forget your own clan members.


Intent has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. You say a lot of words but keep repeating the same message. We get it u like the current lock system because u get an unfair advantage and u would like to keep it. Problem is about ten times more people don't like it and don't think it's fair which is why this topic was started. I couldn't care less what clan I am competing against or clanless people or a bunch of clans combined. In any scenario highest dps group should win lock regardless of level. If you say it's not fair I am yet to see a valid argument why you think it's not fair and please save the poetic epithets of speech. I want a bullet point answer.


A so-called 'unfair' advantage is exactly why I have to mention my intent. If higher leveled players do not need drops then please let the lower leveled players get the bosses. Level lock is crucial to us lower leveled players. We desperately want to complete our quests to experience the game fully and to take down the bosses provided to those who have not yet conquered and to utilize the same gear available to you to be available to us. That way we can experience the game just as you have, and level and train with these items or experiences.
Last edited by Pavillion on Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Pavillion. Arawn.

TheOath Family.

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#143
Pavillion wrote:
Curry30423 wrote:IMO,level lock is just stupid. All higher levels are forced to grind low level bosses because those provide some of the best gear in the game besides luxury. They level because they want to get stronger and progress. With level lock they can't do that. No way in all of the multiverses should lower levels be able to kill a boss just because they are closer level to it. That's just nonsense. The people with more firepower should be able to lock the boss because they leveled to that point for a reason. The reason being they wanted to be strong. Now what's the point of getting that high and becoming that strong when you get outlocked by people closer to the bosses level? Imo the lock system is flawed and needs fixing.


Yes but you seem to portray these lower leveled players as a threat without realizing that they're actually players who would love to progress on their own. I understand your current situation as an endgame player where the loot comes from lower leveled bosses (much lower leveled). But don't you expect Gelebron and other endgame bosses?

If the lower leveled players want to progress then they should level instead of staying at one level just so others don't lock first on the boss. And as far as eg bosses go many people expected a lot from necro and even mordy but most of the time the drops are crap. I wouldn't doubt it if people dont expect much from gelebron.
All chicken we're created equal
U disrespect chicken I disrespect u

Lightchamp
- chieftain of lazy drunks
- 223 Dg ranger


Image


._.

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#145
Pavillion wrote:Critical points were not made.
1) The preparedness that it takes for your 'rival clan' to actually take on Hrung outweighs the lock system on a scale. Meaning there should not be an excuse such as that of blaming a system which has already shaped our gameplay throughout these years, and instead you must blame yourselves for not preparing for a boss like Hrung. You can not expect to 'outlock' a prepared group with only 2 campers. Yes, the facts may be there. Level 180's may outlock 225's, but you have failed to mention that those 180's exist as players of their own free will. It takes effort to gather any number of people and I'm sure that Resurgence must understand this especially since the fact that this is a clan of 300 or so active members we're talking about here.

2) This being said, the number of Resurgence members have increased in the past month due to a recent merge with the clan Blaze. Although size should not matter in terms of lock, levels do, correct? According to your claim, the reason for your loss is mainly our 'deliberate' motive of staying at a level. However, you must not forget the 20 or so players Resurgence has recently absorbed which further outweighs the balance in terms of size. Now, let's also not forget that those players have realized the dire situation of the current clan rivalry and that those players happen to also be at 'lock' level. Please do not 'deliberately' coin out certain points without having reviewed your own situation as a clan general that you are. These players of whom you have forgotten are well-deserved members and must be recognized and placed into the equation. Your 'rival clan' does not make up all of the 'lock' level players nor do they even make up any of a considerable population. Please, lay this reasoning aside as it should not have been stated from the start, and it is only now that a clan with strategy and well-preparedness has led you to this forum with a complaint in such a mindless manner. Lead your members and end the shaming of a game mechanic.

3) This is competition. Even though I consider Celtic Heroes as a fun, social game, I still see the need for competition. It is what drives this game forward. You must recognize that competition was what had formed Resurgence in the first place and that no competition would only bring a game of tormented boredom, one that would lead players to focus on menial tasks such as simple attendance at boss raids. This in turn can only mean one thing: a sharp decrease in player activity. This is a case which could have been prevented if only competition had stayed in place, placing players into a mindset of achieving greater goals and newer heights. This competition does not necessarily have to exist between certain clans. It's just there and you must appreciate it. Only those who have received too much can care for so little. Let the common player play his or her game freely. Do not, with all due respect, change their game for the better of yourself.

I'm sorry if I've managed to offend anyone. I only speak dearly. It is my only wish for this game to progress from its current position as is rather than to step back just to change a mechanic that was already there for the better of the upper hand. I speak not only for myself but for all who can not and would not stand for a world of a single reign with means of no divide, a divide that must exist for the harmony of different races of individual thinking and ideas. I can't stand for greediness. Please forgive me, Smellyunder. I can't stand for your points.


Yes having countless alts parked at hrung who locked in instantly when hrung spawned, triple devicing n sharing accounts and then exploiting the logic defying lock system to outlock a full group of much higher level players. That is preparedness. I say it is bullsh*it.

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#146
Wretched wrote:It was just an explanation of how this thread has progressed with you comparing Bada's members to Seed's members.

What? Did u even read any post? The hell I have to do with Seed? I dont know a single member of their clan.
Stop going off the main issue, ur always giving points that arent related even by a little to the issue presented by this thread, only in order to justify the lvl lock that used to not exist, yet ppl did just fine.
@Pavi, ur trying to picture me some perfect ideal clan that is only friendly and does everything for others, so far Ive seen ur side and it seemed cool, a good clan, while another side saying ur lying, Im rather torn.

I'll go back to my original comment, but instead of rewritting it I'll just quote it :

Criminal wrote:
pigman wrote:Speaking as an unbiased (clanwise) outside individual, it is wrong that if two clans are at a boss who need the drops (i.e. Dl bosses) or at a loot boss with gear useful to the higher levels (i.e. Hru) the higher leveled group should not be at a disadvantage in gaining items they need simply because they are a higher level. It is punishing people for playing the game to the "end"


Just as an example, a new player joins the game, plaus clanleas untill they are 200, looks to join anclan and when they do they need to be geared. Their clan now has to go up against lower levels who are going to outlock them when they need the drops too

This comment was just a perfect example to show that this lvl based lock is pointless and rather harmful.

@Pav, I think u dont get the most basic idea of this topic, yes, both dominant clan and their rival clans should enjoy all aspects of the game, but only if they put the same amount of effort.
The dominant clan is dominant because it worked hard to be that way, the rival clans these days barely work half as hard and simply get everything handed to them due easier lvl lock for example. Back at the day we had dominant and rival clans without this lock system, and they didnt complain about it, each clan knew that the more effort he'll put into it the stronger it'll become, while the lvl based lock system encourages putting less effort and still get even more rewarded.

Explain me the logic in less effort = bigger rewards, explain me the logic of lvl 220 not standing a chance vs a lvl 180, 40 lvls of difference, when the lvl 220 put a lot more effort in his character, worked harder and did much more, and the 180 just stopped lvling at 180 because he knew it'll give him the advantage.
If there is some common sense in it, maybe the argument in favor of target lock would be valid, but just like u expect the dominant clan to imagine being in ur shoes, trying doing the same, work harder than ur rivals and have less chances to win, then we'll see if ur still happy about 'fair' chance for everyone.


Its not Free-For-All if a certain group gets favored.


If u have anything further to say @Pavi, I at least expect u to answer a single question of those I brought up.
#NerfMages #AvoidBalance #WhyPlayARogue #MeatShieldOnly #HealingSlavesOnly

OP dps warrior on Belenus, hot af melee druid on Nuada. #Elementals #Apex

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#147
Intent has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion. You say a lot of words but keep repeating the same message. We get it u like the current lock system because u get an unfair advantage and u would like to keep it. Problem is about ten times more people don't like it and don't think it's fair which is why this topic was started. I couldn't care less what clan I am competing against or clanless people or a bunch of clans combined. In any scenario highest dps group should win lock regardless of level. If you say it's not fair I am yet to see a valid argument why you think it's not fair and please save the poetic

A so-called 'unfair' advantage is exactly why I have to mention my intent. If higher leveled players do not need drops then please let the lower leveled players get the bosses. Level lock is crucial to us lower leveled players. We desperately want to complete our quests to experience the game fully and to take down the bosses provided to those who have not yet conquered.[/quote]

If we didn't need these drops we wouldn't be camping them like we don't camp priest and King anymore. The fact is we do need them but currently many gave up camping snorri and aren't even though many need those drops simply because the lock system shuts them out of a chance to get these. Now ur clan needs them too, our clan needs them, why is it that yes should get an advantage over ours because our members are higher level? It makes no sense to anyone with a logical mind and it never will.

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#148
Criminal wrote:If u have anything further to say @Pavi, I at least expect u to answer a single question of those I brought up.

Can you ask those questions again? I couldn't find them but I would like to answer them.

Smellyunder wrote:Yes having countless alts parked at hrung who locked in instantly when hrung spawned, triple devicing n sharing accounts and then exploiting the logic defying lock system to outlock a full group of much higher level players. That is preparedness. I say it is bullsh*it.

Smellyunder. Triple devicing is a skill set. Sharing accounts is against the rules. Surely your clan must understand that just as we do (or do you?). Camping a boss is an effort that can be embraced by all. You can't blame another's preparedness for the fault of your own. You must ask your clan to camp bosses with effort just as we have.
Last edited by Pavillion on Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Pavillion. Arawn.

TheOath Family.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests