Post-Kunark Sky items

guineapig · #1 02-08-2011, 03:52 PM

In that case the ability to maintain aggro on mobs while invulnerable should be removed early as well... for balancing reasons of course.

Here's the thing, I know you are saying "for the sake of the GMs" but I think what you really mean is "for my sake".

azeth · #2 02-08-2011, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

In that case the ability to maintain aggro on mobs while invulnerable should be removed early as well... for balancing reasons of course.

Prove that isn't classic, k thx.

guineapig · #3 02-08-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azeth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Prove that isn't classic, k thx.

It is classic. And so is keys not being soulbound. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So you agree with me then?

azeth · #4 02-08-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It is classic. And so is keys not being soulbound. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Know what isn't classic though? 4-5 GMs managing 1k+ people, so... I don't know where you're going with this, but sometimes in the real world we make compromises.

guineapig · #5 02-08-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azeth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Know what isn't classic though? 4-5 GMs managing 1k+ people, so... I don't know where you're going with this, but sometimes in the real world we make compromises.

You are correct, sometimes compromises should be made.
Like the fact that invulnerability agro wasn't abused on live as early on as it's being abused here? Which is why it took so long for them to nerf it? Perhaps the nerf needs to happen early for that reason? As a compromise?

When you look at posts about DA'd people keeping aggro circa 1999-2000 people were actually complaining about it, not bragging about how OP it was. It wasn't until people thought of ways to gain massive aggro before becoming invulnerable and using it to trivialize content that the developers had to step in and put a stop to it.

You can't have it both ways. Let's be strict here but not there, let's be lenient here but not there. I'm just saying. How much easier do you want things to be for you? It just ends up making the server look bad.

Cars · #6 02-08-2011, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You are correct, sometimes compromises should be made.
Like the fact that invulnerability agro wasn't abused on live as early on as it's being abused here? Which is why it took so long for them to nerf it? Perhaps the nerf needs to happen early for that reason? As a compromise?

You can't have it both ways. Let's be strict here but not there, let's be lenient here but not there. I'm just saying. How much easier do you want things to be for you? It just ends up making the server look bad.

That topic is such a soft spot for me, guilds that pride themselves on doing more with less and racing other guilds for the challenge are perma camping an item that takes the difficulty out of raid content. Lost all credibility as far as I am concerned. Sorry to derail

azeth · #7 02-08-2011, 04:13 PM

Know what also isn't classic? 4 months of forced sky progression due to an expansionless time period.

^ No dig at devs whatsoever, moreso identification of why we now raid out of necessity i.e da tanking our way through sky.

guineapig · #8 02-08-2011, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by azeth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Know what also isn't classic? 4 months of forced sky progression due to an expansionless time period.

^ No dig at devs whatsoever, moreso identification of why we now raid out of necessity i.e da tanking our way through sky.

Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything. Argument is invalid.