Celtic Heroes

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

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#151
Pavillion wrote:
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.


I recall not too many hrung a ago we had more people there then bada did and had our high level dps lock group set up and bada and res started at exact same time and you got the lock...so we weren't prepared? If both groups hit at exact same time they should both have equal chance of locking
Thyra 204 rogue (Rosmerta)

Faolan Wariche 224 warrior (Arawn retired)

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#152
Pavillion wrote:
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.

I quoted my first comment for that, it has all my questions (or most).
#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

#156
Curry30423 wrote:Pav let's say u were doing aggy and a rival clan logged all their 150 alts and were not prepared at all and recklessly attacked and got lock over you guys, who were prepared but 180's. Would u still consider that fair?

What if I were to mention again the fact that we are a clan of 7 and we must reside to alts of different classes to resort to survival at any bossfights? Also not to mention that we've lost 5 Hrungs prior to this because we were admittedly unprepared? Resurgence was well prepared with 3 DPS groups camped at Hrung at a time. It is only when we've managed to catch them offguard that we were able to take this boss down.
What if I were to also remind you that those are the only bosses we're limited to at the moment due to both our levels and our size? Meanwhile the more higher leveled clan is taking on much more higher leveled bosses which ranges from 7-8 different varieties.
Last edited by Pavillion on Fri Jul 03, 2015 11:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pavillion. Arawn.

TheOath Family.

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#157
Large dominant clans can still recruit people that are newer and lower levels. If anything target lock provides incentive to bring in new lower level people to camp. I think clans should be rewarded for having a range of levels rather than only 220+

However,

As things are now though there is incentive to have people at certain levels for getting gear. And it's not always as one might first intend. People will eventually fill spots with permenant campers tweaked for the purpose of locking out others with average or below gear quality. Sometimes people will stop leveling, sometimes people will make lower level alts with unattainable gear for typical players.

Good luck locking a 100 event boss against someone with aggy spears, radiant es sets, etc,
Member of Aeon - Taranis - 24 boxer
220+ toons
Ravenleaf druid - Silverstring ranger
Stormsong warrior - Nwerb Mage - Eventide Rogue

Toon histogram:
Level_____|200+|150-199|100-149|50-99|20-49|1-19|
# of toons|_5__|___16___|____3___|__11__|__21_|407|

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#158
Irbetazenpj wrote:Pavi is busy killing aggy atm that they locked due to lock flaw again, give him a few minutes.

we actually had a few (6) lvl 170+ ready for the kill as we knew it would spawn real soon, i only remember seeing 1 or 2 lvl 160+ from your clan actually camping there and ready for the spawn. So its only right that we did get the kill xd js.. imma go back to utube cya. :lol:
i donut kno wut to put here

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#159
Pavillion wrote:
Curry30423 wrote:Pav let's say u were doing aggy and a rival clan logged all their 150 alts and were not prepared at all and recklessly attacked and got lock over you guys, who were prepared but 180's. Would u still consider that fair?

What if I were to mention again the fact that we are a clan of 7 and we must reside to alts of different classes to resort to survival at any bossfights? Also not to mention that we've lost 5 Hrungs prior to this because we were admittedly unprepared? Resurgence was well prepared with 3 DPS groups camped at Hrung at a time. It is only when we've managed to catch them offguard that we were able to take this boss down.
What if I were to also remind you that those are the only bosses we're limited to at the moment due to both our levels and our size? Meanwhile the more higher leveled clan is taking on much more higher leveled bosses which ranges from 7-8 different varieties.

Stop trying to avoid the question and answer it.
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

#160
Criminal wrote:
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.



I apologize i was told you were from Seed. I can revise that if you'd like in my original post.

The old system worked for most yes, people were able to actively get gear. On Arawn Bada and Uskoci were both capable of gearing players in a reasonable time frame. A much smaller clan that was comprised of mostly under 150's but above 120's named Braves wasn't so lucky, and they would've benefitted from target lock being introduced while both eg clans could still gear their 150's. The quest was easy enough to complete, and most Braves eventually got frozen later in V3. Some were driven away or to other clans due to the levek 150+, fully geared members of other clans monopolizing spawns.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests