Poll: level restrictions, how ?
HrunsPanda - Archosaur
Posts: 1,136 Arc User
So, the previous poll shows a big support for some kind of level restriction on FC.
Now how would you like to see it implemented ?
There are a few things that need to be kept in consideration:
-People seem to dislike low level characters from powerleveling. They can however still be powerleveled by zhenning.
-People seem to dislike low levels from powerleveling. But what about people who level 80-100 by paying for their runs instead of doing them theirselves ? Do you want this or not ?
-There are people who run the whole instance, any changes may have an unintended negative effect on them. Those that do so at lower levels like 75-80 are actually the skilled players that we all love
-Depending on how PWI could implement it, level ranges might create sitations where you are 79 while your wife or husband just got 80 and now you cant FC together.
For the level range, this could be implemented with a set level range like PV. Another option could be to have a flexible level range where people can join the instance, but never can any player enter that is more than 10 levels remote from any of the players already in the instance or who has been in this instance. This would prevent 2 friends 1 level appart from not being able to play together, and it would actually serve the community with its current "customs" of using 10 level ranges to have this implemented in the game.
Finally, i added a pol option here that is not so much discussed in the other threads i believe: spread the experience trough more of the instance. This does not have to mean that you need to have your hypers running all the time or that you have to start them at every boss. I would suggest having about 2 or 3 points in the instance that are very good for hypering, so that it would make more sence to run the whole instance. The heads and mobs would then be reduced to make the total exp similar to what it is now.
option 1: no changes
option 2: Minimum level 75
option 3: Minumum level 85
option 4: PV like Level ranges
option 5: flexible level ranges
option 6: XP spread trough 2 or 3 points in the instance.
personally, i dont feel the need for any change since noobs will remain noobs anyway. powerleveling will be done anyway. And there are lots of people who would powerlevel characters that they can already play perfectly well after their years of gaming experience, possibly with those same characters (but making a different demon or sage now). Also i dont feel like i should tell anyone else how to experience his game.
Now how would you like to see it implemented ?
There are a few things that need to be kept in consideration:
-People seem to dislike low level characters from powerleveling. They can however still be powerleveled by zhenning.
-People seem to dislike low levels from powerleveling. But what about people who level 80-100 by paying for their runs instead of doing them theirselves ? Do you want this or not ?
-There are people who run the whole instance, any changes may have an unintended negative effect on them. Those that do so at lower levels like 75-80 are actually the skilled players that we all love
-Depending on how PWI could implement it, level ranges might create sitations where you are 79 while your wife or husband just got 80 and now you cant FC together.
For the level range, this could be implemented with a set level range like PV. Another option could be to have a flexible level range where people can join the instance, but never can any player enter that is more than 10 levels remote from any of the players already in the instance or who has been in this instance. This would prevent 2 friends 1 level appart from not being able to play together, and it would actually serve the community with its current "customs" of using 10 level ranges to have this implemented in the game.
Finally, i added a pol option here that is not so much discussed in the other threads i believe: spread the experience trough more of the instance. This does not have to mean that you need to have your hypers running all the time or that you have to start them at every boss. I would suggest having about 2 or 3 points in the instance that are very good for hypering, so that it would make more sence to run the whole instance. The heads and mobs would then be reduced to make the total exp similar to what it is now.
option 1: no changes
option 2: Minimum level 75
option 3: Minumum level 85
option 4: PV like Level ranges
option 5: flexible level ranges
option 6: XP spread trough 2 or 3 points in the instance.
personally, i dont feel the need for any change since noobs will remain noobs anyway. powerleveling will be done anyway. And there are lots of people who would powerlevel characters that they can already play perfectly well after their years of gaming experience, possibly with those same characters (but making a different demon or sage now). Also i dont feel like i should tell anyone else how to experience his game.
Post edited by HrunsPanda - Archosaur on
0
Comments
-
I Choose Lv 75.
i would love to see a high level EXP instance like FC too but doing this to the actually FC is not a good idea at all.
Make a FC for Lv 75+ and a FC (Maybe LIKE PV, same instance but stronger monsters, Lv 101 ones) for Lv 100+.
The lv 75+ Instance can still be opened and soloed from lv 105 players but The lv 100+ instance can only be opened from lv 100+ characters and doesnt allow people under lv 100 in this instance.
This way maybe we could get some better place to actually level our 100+ toons except in an instance for lv 75 toons.0 -
My choice is 100.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0
-
HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »So, the previous poll shows a big support for some kind of level restriction on FC.
Now how would you like to see it implemented ?
There are a few things that need to be kept in consideration:
-People seem to dislike low level characters from powerleveling. They can however still be powerleveled by zhenning.
-People seem to dislike low levels from powerleveling. But what about people who level 80-100 by paying for their runs instead of doing them theirselves ? Do you want this or not ?
-There are people who run the whole instance, any changes may have an unintended negative effect on them. Those that do so at lower levels like 75-80 are actually the skilled players that we all love
-Depending on how PWI could implement it, level ranges might create sitations where you are 79 while your wife or husband just got 80 and now you cant FC together.
For the level range, this could be implemented with a set level range like PV. Another option could be to have a flexible level range where people can join the instance, but never can any player enter that is more than 10 levels remote from any of the players already in the instance or who has been in this instance. This would prevent 2 friends 1 level appart from not being able to play together, and it would actually serve the community with its current "customs" of using 10 level ranges to have this implemented in the game.
Finally, i added a pol option here that is not so much discussed in the other threads i believe: spread the experience trough more of the instance. This does not have to mean that you need to have your hypers running all the time or that you have to start them at every boss. I would suggest having about 2 or 3 points in the instance that are very good for hypering, so that it would make more sence to run the whole instance. The heads and mobs would then be reduced to make the total exp similar to what it is now.
option 1: no changes
option 2: Minimum level 75
option 3: Minumum level 85
option 4: PV like Level ranges
option 5: flexible level ranges
option 6: XP spread trough 2 or 3 points in the instance.
personally, i dont feel the need for any change since noobs will remain noobs anyway. powerleveling will be done anyway. And there are lots of people who would powerlevel characters that they can already play perfectly well after their years of gaming experience, possibly with those same characters (but making a different demon or sage now). Also i dont feel like i should tell anyone else how to experience his game.
I agree with the last part of this post, power leveling will be done anyway. Not so long ago it was done with 'vortex leveling' in pq1's pit, also how people choose to experience the game is up to them, no one should have the right to tell another how to experience his/her game. If you don't like how someone plays due to being power leveled, the solution is simple; don't join squads with them, problem solved. b:victory0 -
1: Why another poll? 2: Level ranges has already been discussed, which means guess what? LEVEL RANGES, which includes a minimum, maximum, minimax, pv style etc 3: What the hell is Flexible level range?
For the level range, this could be implemented with a set level range like PV. Another option could be to have a flexible level range where people can join the instance, but never can any player enter that is more than 10 levels remote from any of the players already in the instance or who has been in this instance. This would prevent 2 friends 1 level appart from not being able to play together, and it would actually serve the community with its current "customs" of using 10 level ranges to have this implemented in the game.
I understand the, within 10 level ranges, that's for exp purposes, but why create an option thats exactly the same as pv. AGAIN LEVEL RANGES example: 71-80, 81-90, same as pv. Flexible = PV, no need for a poll option.
PWI devs are not idiots. The same things we talk about, is the same things they talk about. When they decide to discuss what to do with fc, which im sure it will go back to the same way, all options will be discussed, including pv style.
One poll is enough, we don't need 20 differant polls with made up options that all sound alike.R9s3 Beast w/Demon Facepalm0 -
You dont seem to understand the difference between flexible and not, read better and try to let it reach your brain while you read.
And sure they can discuss themselves at PWE. However, the official post that tells us it is gonna be fixed and our ideas will be taken into consideration tells us to expand the discussion on those ideas.
i quoteRegarding alternative "solutions," such as a level cap - I think we need to continue discussing this over a longer period of time. But for now, we're going to try to revert this change ASAP and re-enable hyper exp in FCC.
Well the community has voted for level restrictions, so now lets talk about how we want that to be implemented.0 -
In my opinion "no restriction" has no place in a poll that is basically about "how should level restrictions be implemented, if they are implemented?"[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Weekly Japanese/English bilingual webcomic
thejapanesepage.com/ebooks/yuki_no_monogatari_manga0 -
Easiest thing, in my opinion, would be to put a cultivation-restricting 'door' like those for Lothranis/Mommaganon ... let's say culti 79.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0
-
A poll won't change PWI's mind, although it may help guiding it.
In my opinion, it should be 75+. It would be very hard to set up a system of letting alternative characters below that level in, which is what people want at the moment. This may anger people because they get their money from solo'ing FCs.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
R8 101 Barb - Deleted by PWI. Customer care = 10/10!0 -
Mayfly - Dreamweaver wrote: »In my opinion "no restriction" has no place in a poll that is basically about "how should level restrictions be implemented, if they are implemented?"
you are right, i admit guilty b:surrender0 -
Well, I'm sure if v4liance wants to gather data from this thread, he can ignore that top option for the sake of consistency with the topic. :PHrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »you are right, i admit guilty b:surrender
In all seriousness, and in spite of our epic wall-o-text-o-thon in the other thread... thank you for making this one. I will fully admit that I wouldn't even bother to make a poll on an idea I personally disagreed with.
That aside... as I alluded to in my latest post on the other thread, I've voted for 75+ here. I imagine that should please your inexplicably-large clientelle of 75+ powerlevelers. o.o[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yes, I'm still a stubborn holdout in favor of the old game. Haters gonna hate. ;]
Other Active Characters:
LigerKing (Barb), Girasole (BM), Shamsheer (Sin), ArborSoul (Mystic).0 -
-
What do you mean by flexible level range? Like if someone level 80 joins the squad, anyone else who joins has to be within 10 levels of them? Or like a squad leader can set a specific level range and anyone else will be kicked? or like there are different stages of difficult based on the level range of the squad ala TT?0
-
I wanna just vote on all of them...[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Licensed tail brusher of ƙɑƙʊɱɑʊ ~ only the fluffiest
Outrunning centaurs since 2012~0 -
105s be all mad cause 99% of the 105s did dragoon FC and really cant play like a true 105 that didn't dragoon glitch. Id like to see pwi bring everyone back to lvl 100 and then see what people vote in on the poles i know for a fact all them 105s that went back to 100 would be raging at no hypers in FC.
all im saying is when any of you got to 100 you power lvled your next character to 100 i did it to does that make me a bad player no. for example its hard to believe but i did my very first lunar last night and i had to teach the people that have ran it many time how to do it. cause they said it was common for a squad to wipe 5+ times in here i just laughed.0 -
oVenusArmanio wrote: »What do you mean by flexible level range? Like if someone level 80 joins the squad, anyone else who joins has to be within 10 levels of them? Or like a squad leader can set a specific level range and anyone else will be kicked? or like there are different stages of difficult based on the level range of the squad ala TT?
I mean that say i and a friend of mine open the instance, Im lvl 80, hes lvl 82. From that moment, only players between lvl 72 and 90 are able to get in with us because they have to be within 10 levels from both of us.
Now a lvl 76 comes in. This narrows the range to players between 72 and 86 for new players.
Now a lvl 84 comes in. This narrows the range to level 74 to 86.
You end up with a squad within 10 level range but you dont have to restrict it to an exact range, you can have a range from say 78 to 88 just as well as 70 to 79 or 80 to 89. It can depend on the players that join your squad so you have maximum flexibility when creating a public squad.
(i expected not too many votes because this proves to complicated for the average PWI player. Any time i WC for FC and state a range from 74 to 86, i get PMs that the level range is too large)0 -
This is a good idea, but I would amend it to being within ten levels of the opener only. Openers must be 85+ so this would effectively apply a minimum hyper level of 75.HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »I mean that say i and a friend of mine open the instance, Im lvl 80, hes lvl 82. From that moment, only players between lvl 72 and 90 are able to get in with us because they have to be within 10 levels from both of us.
Now a lvl 76 comes in. This narrows the range to players between 72 and 86 for new players.
Now a lvl 84 comes in. This narrows the range to level 74 to 86.
You end up with a squad within 10 level range but you dont have to restrict it to an exact range, you can have a range from say 78 to 88 just as well as 70 to 79 or 80 to 89. It can depend on the players that join your squad so you have maximum flexibility when creating a public squad.
(i expected not too many votes because this proves to complicated for the average PWI player. Any time i WC for FC and state a range from 74 to 86, i get PMs that the level range is too large)
That being said, it's probably too complicated to be necessary when we could just restrict the whole thing to 75+ to begin with.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yes, I'm still a stubborn holdout in favor of the old game. Haters gonna hate. ;]
Other Active Characters:
LigerKing (Barb), Girasole (BM), Shamsheer (Sin), ArborSoul (Mystic).0 -
Yes, the difference would be the buying heads between lvl 75 and 90. If you only make a lvl 75 restriction, that would still be possible. If you make a flexible level range, it would make this impossible.
10 levels from the opener would indeed be good since most people who sell heads do so with lvl 100 chars, that would already stop buying below lvl 90 and be a lot simpler and easier to implement. Interesting side effect would be the opportunity for people to solo and sell at lower levels and ask much more money for their heads rooms
Would be an interesting new aspect to the whole thing imo 0 -
^+1....there is already a poll. This poll is not going to change a thing.R9s3 Beast w/Demon Facepalm0 -
Personally, the poll should be single-selection, not multiple select, and should be organized a lot more fluently with the current ideas.
Example
1. Min Level 75
2. Min Level 85
3. Min Level 95
4. Min Level 100
5. Revert it back to a farming instance.
And you can only choose one selection.
What you have...
no restriction (pointless, and has already been discussed in this thread.)
min lvl 75 (good)
min lvl 85 (good)
PV like level range (This won't happen. It's way too complex to implement and doesn't really apply any true limits to the instance, only to the squad.)
flexible level range (Still haven't seen an explanation for this. It's basically how it is now.)
2 or 3 points of XP throughout FC (This would make the entire instance pointless, It would be better to revert ti back to the solo/squad farming instance it was originally designed to be.)
Actually, given the current ranges, for below 50, the gap would be 20 levels, for 51-75 it would be 15 levels, for 76-99 it would be 10 levels, and 100+ would be 3 levels.Miugre - Heavens Tear wrote: »This is a good idea, but I would amend it to being within ten levels of the opener only. Openers must be 85+ so this would effectively apply a minimum hyper level of 75.
That being said, it's probably too complicated to be necessary when we could just restrict the whole thing to 75+ to begin with.
But, as I said already, Implementing the entrance quest for that type of system would be extremely complex and not likely something we will see from the Wanmei dev's.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
i put no restriction how could you make money on game??????0
-
-
Busaneck - Archosaur wrote: »105s be all mad cause 99% of the 105s did dragoon FC and really cant play like a true 105 that didn't dragoon glitch. Id like to see pwi bring everyone back to lvl 100 and then see what people vote in on the poles i know for a fact all them 105s that went back to 100 would be raging at no hypers in FC.
all im saying is when any of you got to 100 you power lvled your next character to 100 i did it to does that make me a bad player no. for example its hard to believe but i did my very first lunar last night and i had to teach the people that have ran it many time how to do it. cause they said it was common for a squad to wipe 5+ times in here i just laughed.
Nobody's "mad" and you know nothing of people's motives. Trivializing opposing opinions is small and unproductive. The fact that you just did your first lunar demonstrates the problem. People skip the game in favor of plevel. The fact that many players don't know how to play their toons is also a symptom of plevel (though neither exclusive nor universal to plevelers).
And no, not all of us above 100 were pleveled.
..... um ..... what was your point again?[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
How would it not be a true limit to the instance if you have to cho[/I]ose between lvl 75-85, 85-95 or 95+ for example. It would be more limmiting than just a lvl 75 limit.PV like level range (This won't happen. It's way too complex to implement and doesn't really apply any true limits to the instance, only to the squad.)
In my openingspoint i said it in 1 line. Because that one line if translated in C++, is all that your PC needs to implement the whole idea. I had hoped my readers would be at least as intelligent as my PC but they are not. So i explained it again in great detail a few posts above yours.flexible level range (Still haven't seen an explanation for this. It's basically how it is now.)2 or 3 points of XP throughout FC (This would make the entire instance pointless, It would be better to revert ti back to the solo/squad farming instance it was originally designed to be.)
Why would that make the entire instance pointless ? Most players who do actually play FC already use their hypers at multiple points in the instance. And like that, we gain a significant portion of our exp already before entering the exp room. By making this portion more significant, people would be more compelled to do the whole instance instead of just buying the exp room.
Sorry i dont understand what you are trying to say here.Actually, given the current ranges, for below 50, the gap would be 20 levels, for 51-75 it would be 15 levels, for 76-99 it would be 10 levels, and 100+ would be 3 levels.0 -
Y'know, I'm curious, because I haven't been on your server in awhile... about what percentage of Archosaur server powerlevels? The impression I got last year suggested that at least 50% of its small population do it... and if the faction I would up in briefly is any indication, it's more like 70-80%. o.o At least back then.GlenRoss - Archosaur wrote: »Nobody's "mad" and you know nothing of people's motives. Trivializing opposing opinions is small and unproductive. The fact that you just did your first lunar demonstrates the problem. People skip the game in favor of plevel. The fact that many players don't know how to play their toons is also a symptom of plevel (though neither exclusive nor universal to plevelers).
And no, not all of us above 100 were pleveled.
..... um ..... what was your point again?[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yes, I'm still a stubborn holdout in favor of the old game. Haters gonna hate. ;]
Other Active Characters:
LigerKing (Barb), Girasole (BM), Shamsheer (Sin), ArborSoul (Mystic).0 -
Starting to feel like Miugre with all these nested quotes, but here goes....
It's not limiting the use of the instance, or the use of hypers, just the ability of the squad. Really the only thing you'll do there is exclude the instance to 95+ players because these days putting an 85-95 squad together with people who actually know what to do or who can listen to instructions and learn is damn near impossible.HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »
How would it not be a true limit to the instance if you have to cho[/I]ose between lvl 75-85, 85-95 or 95+ for example. It would be more limiting than just a lvl 75 limit.SylenThunder - Sanctuary wrote: »PV like level range (This won't happen. It's way too complex to implement and doesn't really apply any true limits to the instance, only to the squad.)
Trying to put together a squad below 75 won't work, because of the inability of the player to actually do the instance without +12 gears.
In the end, it's just going to frustrate the player base, and the only imposing factor will be no more selling to low levels, and it will be even harder to find squads. PV already does this quite well, and gives exp very similar to FCC.
Ok, I had to read your first post like 4 times to single it out because it was blended into another subject. I don't believe the game has the capability to code something to this extent, but I can tinker with it on my server later.HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »
In my openingspoint i said it in 1 line. Because that one line if translated in C++, is all that your PC needs to implement the whole idea. I had hoped my readers would be at least as intelligent as my PC but they are not. So i explained it again in great detail a few posts above yours.SylenThunder - Sanctuary wrote: »flexible level range (Still haven't seen an explanation for this. It's basically how it is now.)
In either case, you still end up with a similar issue as to with PV stype, for which, we already have PV. The solution there would be to kill FCC and just remove the once-daily limit to PV.
Ok, it would be pointless, in that this is basically what's being done with selling FCC heads already. It's still not imposing any kind of limitation other than limiting the amount of exp gained on full runs. And basically, that's how the original farming instance was. but it was a lot harder.HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »
Why would that make the entire instance pointless ? Most players who do actually play FC already use their hypers at multiple points in the instance. And like that, we gain a significant portion of our exp already before entering the exp room. By making this portion more significant, people would be more compelled to do the whole instance instead of just buying the exp room.SylenThunder - Sanctuary wrote: »2 or 3 points of XP throughout FC (This would make the entire instance pointless, It would be better to revert ti back to the solo/squad farming instance it was originally designed to be.)
People won't be more complelled to do the whole instance, because the people buying the exp rooms, just want that exp NOW. They don't want to invest the time into doing a full run. You'll just have people selling the rooms with exp.
This was in relation to Miugre's post, which is basically making a statement similar to your "flexible levels" idea. I was just expanding it to include the actual break points in the game. The reason we choose the 10-level ranges in the higher level runs in because that's were you get a decent squad range without a significant dip in the overall amount of experience gained.HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »
Sorry i dont understand what you are trying to say here.SylenThunder - Sanctuary wrote: »Actually, given the current ranges, for below 50, the gap would be 20 levels, for 51-75 it would be 15 levels, for 76-99 it would be 10 levels, and 100+ would be 3 levels.
All I did was expand it to contain the values for all of the level ranges and what the spans for those level ranges are. Admittedly, if you limit the entrance to 85, half of what I stated is pointless. It was mostly there for informative reasons.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
Hey, now! I write walls-o-text, I don't do nested quotes almost ever. Well, except in PMs sometimes. :PSylenThunder - Sanctuary wrote: »Starting to feel like Miugre with all these nested quotes, but here goes....
Have done it on other forums, though. Ever seen a quote pyramid so big it breaks the page? XD[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Yes, I'm still a stubborn holdout in favor of the old game. Haters gonna hate. ;]
Other Active Characters:
LigerKing (Barb), Girasole (BM), Shamsheer (Sin), ArborSoul (Mystic).0 -
although i do also prefer no limitations, i do think you are a bit negative about the 85-95 squad possibilities
I did manage to level from 75 to 100 primarily by making FC squads to do the full runs.
And that would in fact be the only thing that i'd see as positive to the whole idea of making level range limitations. If people can no longer buy exp rooms, they are gonna have to play the instance. Meaning there will be more people playing it and thus easier for me to fill my squad b:laugh (i dont like a minimum lvl 75 limitation though not because i use FC below 75, but because i use zhenning to level new alts whom i then learn to play in FC b:victory and i dont need longer lines waiting for the pits b:shocked)
Could you elaborate a bit more on those level gaps you speak about ? because when i was doing FCs about 4 months ago, i actually studied the exp formula and came to the conclusion that the proper level range for a squad is simply 20 levels. I started teaching people about this and make squads with a range larger than 10 whenever i could. And practice proved it to be right.
More important than the level range is the break points above level 90 where your exp goes rapidly downward from being more than 2 levels above the lvl 88 mobs.0 -
I actually enjoy some of your walls, even though I don't always agree. It's at least interesting to read, which is much more than you can say about a lot of people out here.Miugre - Heavens Tear wrote: »Hey, now! I write walls-o-text, I don't do nested quotes almost ever. Well, except in PMs sometimes. :P
Have done it on other forums, though. Ever seen a quote pyramid so big it breaks the page? XD
I was just making a poke at ya cause it was coming close to a wall with a lot of little quotes.
The nesting is my own thing. I do it mainly to keep a solid chain of reference so as not to lose people who didn't bother to read some of the previous posts. (Mainly because they will respond, and then make themselves look really stupid in doing so.)
My negativity on the abilities of those ranges is based on my experiences on my server over the past two years.HrunsPanda - Archosaur wrote: »although i do also prefer no limitations, i do think you are a bit negative about the 85-95 squad possibilities I did manage to level from 75 to 100 primarily by making FC squads to do the full runs.
And that would in fact be the only thing that i'd see as positive to the whole idea of making limitations. If people can no longer buy exp rooms, they are gonna have to play the instance. Meaning there will be more people playing it and thus easier for me to fill my squad b:laugh
For example, right now it is "common knowledge" that your squad must be 100+ to attempt to do Delta. This is actually even promoted by older players who know damn well that it's not true. (Or should because I was doing runs with them in the 80's with a mix of Legendary and 3* gear.) It's a combination of the mindset that you have to be 100 to do anything useful, and additionally the lack of a good quantity of actual skilled players to choose from. Gear is replacing skill. Which is why I feel so strongly about limiting FCC, and truly, I believed the game was on a downward spiral since they introduced Oracles and BH's. But then I'm an old player who started out on games like Meridian59 and I believe in the grind, and putting effort into your character rather than buying it.
I will gladly get on my Cleric, Veno, Seeker, Barb, Wizard, Psy, or Mystic and do training runs in Delta or FCC. Sadly, over the past year, it takes longer to form a squad than it does actually running it so I've given up the practice.
I'm still curious though. Why did you make it multiple choice, and why did you leave out some of the recommendations from the other thread that I listed in my previous post?[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0 -
the other threads have grown so huge i didnt read too much of them.
I have thought about including 70 and 80 as options, but figured 75 and 85 would be enough and i wouldnt need to go into too much detail. Higher than 85 seems to me the same as totally shutting down the instance and has already been voted against in the other poll. Also, higher than 85 is not logical for a lvl 88 mobs instance anyway.
The multiple choise is a bad choise i made. I realised that very soon after positing but i couldnt change it. I did it initially because i thought it would be reasonable to want both a level limit and for example the spread XP.
The results surprise me a bit btw. Because it seems everyone wants to stop people from powerleveling 1 - 75, but noone seems to care about the selling of heads and mobs to the lvl 75+ people. While i was of the impression that about 99% of the powerleveling done in FC is actually lvl 75+ buying rooms.
Now i think maybe in the line of devoloping an overview of what the community wants maybe i should have made a poll not about possible changes to be implemented, but about what issues people want to be solved and what issues they do not care about before starting to get into the ways to solve these issues.
Also for me its the oposite. I dont care about people powerleveling to 75, i could however apreciate it if people were forced to play FC between 75 and 100 so i got some people to play with. Its just that im principally against forcing people. I dont want to be forced to anything myself, so i shouldnt force anyone else to do anything.
Other than that im also pretty old and started playing on a 8086, but times change and by playing an F2P (PTW) game, we choose to participate in the extremest of changes. And as i made clear already, i dont hide that i zhen new toons myself. I do so because i want a demon barb as well as a sage barb, i do so to make buffing slaves. I do so because i need a second cleric on another account for multiclienting. But the reasons why pleveling is ok or not has been discussed enough i think
Edit: Good to see you don't have a sin btw
You know, a BM can be quite fun to play though 0 -
Miugre - Heavens Tear wrote: »Y'know, I'm curious, because I haven't been on your server in awhile... about what percentage of Archosaur server powerlevels? The impression I got last year suggested that at least 50% of its small population do it... and if the faction I would up in briefly is any indication, it's more like 70-80%. o.o At least back then.
I couldn't even begin to analyze the numbers but whenever I open up to wc I see fc every few seconds. And it's not even "making an fc squad" anymore. It's always, "selling fc heads", "want to buy fc heads", "level 40 cleric wants to buy fc heads". People don't even have enough fortitude to be carried through the halls anymore. They come in for the last 3 minutes, collect their exp and get back to talking smack about how great they've become.
As several here have suggested, I have to speculate that a great many who vehemently oppose the limits are the pushers who don't want to see their addicts taken from them. If that weren't the case, I don't think they'd fight so hard against level restrictions which still allow hypering.[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]0
Categories
- All Categories
- 181.9K PWI
- 697 Official Announcements
- 2 Rules of Conduct
- 264 Cabbage Patch Notes
- 61K General Discussion
- 1.5K Quality Corner
- 11.1K Suggestion Box
- 77.4K Archosaur City
- 3.5K Cash Shop Huddle
- 14.3K Server Symposium
- 18.1K Dungeons & Tactics
- 2K The Crafting Nook
- 4.9K Guild Banter
- 6.6K The Trading Post
- 28K Class Discussion
- 1.9K Arigora Colosseum
- 78 TW & Cross Server Battles
- 337 Nation Wars
- 8.2K Off-Topic Discussion
- 3.7K The Fanatics Forum
- 207 Screenshots and Videos
- 22.8K Support Desk