Celtic Heroes

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

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#241
Zyz wrote:Then essentially once you hit 190 or someone mentioned you can be lvl 200 and not hit by the lock deal then there's no point in leveling...only camping which is essentially doing nothing but staring at a wall.

Then the answer it would seem is to level to 200 and get as luxed out as possible and then outlock those that stay under 199.

Let me ask you this since you're saying the lock system is working. 2 fighters step in the ring. 1 fighter has spent more time getting stronger and more prepared and capable of doing more damage. But then the judges tell the more prepared fighter that he has to score 25% more points than the other fighter in order to win rather than whoever scores the most points winning. Nobody in their right mind would say the scoring system is fair.

I'll agree that keeping others from getting gear to keep others down is childish, immature, and shouldn't be playing the game. But it's also silly for someone that starts hitting that past 180 level that doesn't have their dl weapons should get penalized because they want to level.

2 people interview for a job. Both are qualified for the position. 1 has a master's degree. 1 has a bachelor's degree. The hiring manager goes with the one that spent less time increasing their knowledge. This sounds perfectly fine, right?

Yes I know it's a game and not real life. But with the way it is, it's hit a certain level and stop until you have your dl weapons which could take months or even a year.

These analogies make the same mistake as the one criminal used earlier by directly linking progress to level. Level is more like age, except you can control how fast you level/age. Target lock would say favour a 7 year old child on a theme park ride designed for children 5-10 over a 20 year old. That 20 year old can still go on the ride, but if there is such a demand for that ride, it really is "too bad, so sad" even if they would still enjoy the ride.

There are many things to look at in this analogy. For instance, the point is to have fun, like in this game, and so that 20 year old can have fun on rides designed for a 20 year old. Assuming you could pause age, you could stay at age 7 to get what you want from a ride and then move on. Like level, age progresses in only one direction and you have to prepare for it.

Like bosses, you have to find the ride, know what it's about, wait for it, etc. At 20, you may understand more of the finer details and therefore get more out of the ride ("be stronger"), but it is ultimately reserved for people who fall in the age range.

Target lock is not perfect, but it is in general doing it's job with a couple of added bonuses which are, in respect to the situation above, the ability to 'pause' age/level and having full awareness at all ages/levels.

We could do analogies for and against all day, but in the end I think that because target lock existed before the tower increased levels, people should have complained before leveling and running into the problem. It's like trying to not pay for a steak that is bad, despite eating all of it. One main counter argument I see is that you can't expect people to stay stagnant whilst waiting for OTM to 'maybe-maybe not' change target lock. The thing is, these are all decisions that you are allowed to make.

OTM screwed up icemages, and so I complain about the root of the problem. I saw from level 160ish (when icemages received a super nerf) that leveling was going to be more painful. I chose to go on...leveling as an icemage. I don't complain about firemages, saying they deserve a nerf blah blah. The root of the problem is simply icemages need an improvement. The root of higher level problems is the loot system and availability of bosses.

Tired so please forgive grammatical, spelling, and continuity errors.
Image

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#242
^^ Okay except there are/were a lot of us on android not aware that this issue existed until too late. In my situation, I'm in a clan that on our sever has been killing dl for a lot longer than other clans. Because of the dismally low rate of 6* snorris and crowns, we have a lot of clan mates without weapons. So we continued to level thinking higher level = stronger.

In the meantime, other clans leveled up and one in particular started camping snorri. Since they needed the same color crowns we did, they started grouping with another clan that there wasn't much competition for the same color crowns.

So now we have to camp or we will miss out. And if they group and we group and start killing, they will get lock because we have many members over 200 and they do not. So even though we have put more time and effort into dl raids, they will get the drops by lvl lock default. There wasn't a big sign or memo once we hit a certain level warning us about this issue that could come up.

So now we have a situation where we have to gear alts or some mains have stopped leveling and gear them with hrung dmg gear and lots of lux. We'd love to be done with snorri but we still have a lot of clan mates that need dl weapons.

So we have the very small clan that literally parks some of their toons and watches tv until 170 and 180 spawns, calls other clans, kills , and gets gear.

So, yes, this system is rewarding those that are putting in less effort. I'm sorry but camping is stupid. And level lock is great if it helps those clans against clans that just want to prevent them from getting gear. But often this level lock screws the stronger players because of lower lvl exploitation.

What else is there to this game aside from leveling? The amount of time it takes to complete raids isn't that lengthy. So there's standing around and chatting. Creating alts (leveling). And ?

The ride analogy is fine except there are far better rides as you get older. I think the fighter analogy is much better.
Zyz 220 Druid
Noah Fences 220 Rogue

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#243
BlackMamba wrote:Target lock was added to the game because of thousands of low levels complaining about how they would start boss, then a high level group would swarm in later and take it due to their superior dps. Before this was implemented, aggy was the highest level boss. Most high levels had their full frozen and there was no need for warden, meteoric, or any lower tier frozen bosses. Basically all the target lock did was create a chance for low levels to get drops they needed. When carrowmore was released, it worked out pretty well. High levels had very little need for frozen, and once they started doing mordy/hrungnir even aggy wasn't as important so low levels still retained an advantage locking bosses for drops they needed. Fast forward some, and now people are 220+ in need of items dropped from 180-190 bosses.

While target lock isn't a great system anymore, it isn't the root of this issue. Compare snorri to pyrus, for instance. Pyrus is guaranteed one lion from main 6*, 2 from higher 6*, a fairly low chance from a 5*, and even lower (but still not negligible) chance to drop from a 4*. Snorri is guaranteed 0 from a 4*, 0 from a 5*, and there is no 6* "harder" version that gives more drops. Even worse, frozen weapon only required 2 lions whereas dl main and offhand needs 8.

Modifying target lock won't make everyone happy. Fixing spawn rate of 6* snorri will. We haven't seen a 6* in about 4 days now and this behavior is typical. At that rate, it would take 32 days to gain enough crowns to fully gear someone, and that is only if the colors are all the same. There is a reason why very few people ever camp pyrus. The drop rate is high enough that most people who meet level requirement have their weapon (and if not, you can camp a couple days or even buy them for pretty cheap). What percentage of 180+ have both mainhand and offhand? like 25%? After nonstop camping a single spawn for 2 years? OTM, we could care less about spawn window or target lock if the drop rate was higher. And by higher, I mean about 4 times higher. Because that is what it should be. With the current system of target lock, I would have to make a 180-190 level rogue to help my clan get more crowns. But in order to have good enough dps to lock, I would need crowns for my main and offhand. Crowns that dozens of people in clan still need, who would be ahead of me in line for. Vicious cycle isn't it?

Moving on to hrungnir and mordy; same thing. Why are the best drops in the game coming from bosses 40 levels lower than those who kill them? When carrow update came the high levels stopped camping aggy. Why go for a 50 dmg ring from aggy when I can get a 100 damage from hrung? Why get a 10 skill dmg ring from aggy when I can get a 2x10 skills damage ring from mordy? Why get a crap trident when I could get a great halberd? People had no use for aggy anymore and moved on to the bigger and better bosses that were closer to their level. But still, drop rate for the nice items was too low and clan banks are being flooded with mighty bolas rings, mighty armor rings, and dark focus halberds. So hrung and mordy are still being downed, usually within an hour of spawn, because so many kills are needed to gain drops that people want. And now, level cap is increased without a new boss being released so people are punished for leveling by letting lower level clans gain these drops.

Tl;dr version:
1. New boss(es) should be added that are closer to the level of the current endgame players (210/220) at any given time
2. Mordy and hrung loot is too diluted to ever, in a hundred years, give every high level the gear they desire.
3. The rate of crowns per day from snorri is abysmally low leading to 200+ (plat buyer! ;) )main toons in every clan waiting for their wep and offhand.

OTM, if you're not going to fix target lock at least look at those three points. Hundreds of people have been begging for those changes for years, when will our voices be heard? How come polls can't be created and if a lopsided enough vote occurs, something be done about it?



I agree with this. Aggy became obsolete bec of hrung mordris and necro loots. Now, we need new bosses that gives better loots than the current eg bosses so we can stop farming them? And it's not about greed, especially for a huge clan, good drops rarely drops, imagine 2 godly damage rogue braces dropped after 300+ kills.
World: Epona
Clan: Enigma
Gabee/war
Fpj/druid

World:ARAWN
Gabee/Rogue
BeastKing/Ranger
FPJ/Druid

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#244
^And u have both of them u lucky ***. Off-topic on that part.

@Vraelen, "These analogies make the same mistake....." , "Level is more like age, except you can control how fast you level/age."

I'll have to disagree with u on the analogy here, especially as I see that ur lvl 190+? I wont say so just yet, because Im not from Arawn, but just like I said I believe in my first post on this topic, like u expect me as a higher lvl from a dominant clan that has existed for most of the time the game exists to try and be in ur shoes, I expect u to do the same (and Im aware BadaBing exists for a while, but I believe its not the same BadaBing).
Having fun and having an advantage are two totally different things, u can have fun at lvl 180, that doesnt mean ur supposed to get an advantage for 'pausing' ur 'age' just because u wanna have fun. Dont we all wanna have fun? Since when lvl 180 boss is limited to lvl 180? By that same logic, if ur lvl 181, dont go to snorri, dont go to money bosses, dont farm on hawkhursts, dont kill aggy and so on.
I wont turn it into analogies showdown, but I'll disagree with the 'level = age' and 'having fun = having an advantage', in a game level decides the most for u as a player (maybe class decides more), and as a player u shouldnt pass on contact that u have passed it's lvl just because its forced on u, if it would have been that way, none of us would go past lvl 180.
Let me take an example of a clanless person, that clanless person has lvled to 180 and got familiar with the lvl 180's clan, he didnt like the ppl there and continued to lvl, he reached lvl 205 and decided he wanna join some clan, perhaps the dominant one will accept him. The dominant clan voted and accepted him in, after a while he was supposed to get his dl mainhand, but alas, he couldnt, he passed lvl 180 and could no longer kill snorri, he shall forever be stuck without dl mainhand which will never let him progress to edl that is available only on higher LEVEL (205 for just full armour) because hes no longer 180 and didnt want to join a clan of ppl that stay at lvl 180, perhaps he didnt get along with them perhaps he wanted to lvl with his clannies. What a sad situation this lvl 205 is stuck at, to never enjoy a dl mainhand, he camped and camped and camped, he couldnt win the lock and so he tried to improve himself with different gear, he camped and continued to call his 200+ strong clannies to help but they just couldnt get the lock often enough to just kill snorri and enjoy the aspect of the game that these 180's enjoy too...

Well, this was a rather long and slightly exaggerated example, but I believe it passes my point. Ppl who want to ENJOY dl as much as u, the low lvl, wanna enjoy it, shouldnt be limited on lvling and clan's average lvl, just because there are ppl abusing the flawed system, he wanna enjoy just like u, why wont u let him?


EDIT: just for the record, the example doesnt resemble myself, Im in my clan since Im lvl 122 and before Ive been in the rival clan, I dont have dl sword or shield as I passed them down so others could get it because there isnt enough to gear us all + ppl who join, and my warrior is a main, not an alt.
#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

#245
Just thought I'd point out again a lvl200 suffers no lock penality compared to a lvl180 on a lvl180 boss like necro mord hrung and snorri.

People who stay at lvl180 die easier, have 20 less ability points and 100 less stat points. There is much better gear you can equip at 200 over 189. The optimal level to lock is actually 20 level above the boss in question.

From 200-205 you go from approx 15% to 17.5% needed to lock a 180 which is actually a fairly large difference. By 220 it's 25%. It's close to 0.5% per level penality past 20, a formula that holds well for small level differences.


It's just amusing to see 90% of the complaints about how target lock works actually have no idea how it actually works.

I agree it needs help but if people want to have their opinions heard it helps to tune them to coincide with reality first.
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

#247
the current lock system should only be on frozen armour bosses and bellow, and possibly aggy. since gelebron hasnt been released yet, mord, necro, and hrung are ur main boss raids, and dl is still needed for ur clan or urself that still hasnt gotten mainhand because 6 star never spawns.

for all bosses with dl, edl, and raid bosses, the lock system should be which ever group has best dps, or which ever player has the best dps and his/her group gets the drops.

ofc u should have ur dl weap at lvl 200, but the fact that some players dont meens some spawn rates/drop rates have to be changed.
lvl 1+ Mage on Donn

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#249
King181 wrote:the lock system allows weaker clans to compete with the higher clans. Keep the game alive and not have one single clan who dominate the server.


It also rewards weaker clans for being weaker. I can understand why u would want to keep it, but as a high level player i dont. System needs changing to benefit both

Re: Letting weaker players win endgame bosses

#250
Zyz wrote:^^ Okay except there are/were a lot of us on android not aware that this issue existed until too late. In my situation, I'm in a clan that on our sever has been killing dl for a lot longer than other clans. Because of the dismally low rate of 6* snorris and crowns, we have a lot of clan mates without weapons. So we continued to level thinking higher level = stronger.

In the meantime, other clans leveled up and one in particular started camping snorri. Since they needed the same color crowns we did, they started grouping with another clan that there wasn't much competition for the same color crowns.

So now we have to camp or we will miss out. And if they group and we group and start killing, they will get lock because we have many members over 200 and they do not. So even though we have put more time and effort into dl raids, they will get the drops by lvl lock default. There wasn't a big sign or memo once we hit a certain level warning us about this issue that could come up.

So now we have a situation where we have to gear alts or some mains have stopped leveling and gear them with hrung dmg gear and lots of lux. We'd love to be done with snorri but we still have a lot of clan mates that need dl weapons.

So we have the very small clan that literally parks some of their toons and watches tv until 170 and 180 spawns, calls other clans, kills , and gets gear.

So, yes, this system is rewarding those that are putting in less effort. I'm sorry but camping is stupid. And level lock is great if it helps those clans against clans that just want to prevent them from getting gear. But often this level lock screws the stronger players because of lower lvl exploitation.

What else is there to this game aside from leveling? The amount of time it takes to complete raids isn't that lengthy. So there's standing around and chatting. Creating alts (leveling). And ?

The ride analogy is fine except there are far better rides as you get older. I think the fighter analogy is much better.

I can't really comment on the lock system in respect to android... I'm not sure what OTM has done and within what period of time. I think I already made a point about vertical progress vs horizontal progress, which I said to counter the idea that everything is about levelling. However, I will comment on one of the last statements you made, "The ride analogy is fine except there are far better rides as you get older." This statement is precisely the point I am trying to make. The problem is not the ride rules for age, the problem is the availability and perhaps type of rides for older people.
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hpd, Xsyklz and 25 guests