A little bit, especially since more usually = ~15-20, and no... you aren't fighting them "solo"
If im not getting any heals and creeps have the numbers to ignore all other freeps... it makes little difference.
If he has a clue, sure he can.
Unless you still have a magical burg bag that negates all tracking talismans, Im stamping that statement with a big red "false". More enemies = more to deal with.
Maybe your perspective is so much different that mine because of the differences in race. A hobbit burg can get away from a couple wargs, but a good-sized warg pack would have to be pretty awful to fail against little old me.
They might as well bypass the squishy RK, but it's the burgs choice if he wants to die or not between all of his skills.
Once a freep steps away from the one shotters, a talented group of creeps can kill whatever they please. End of story.
The only kind of burg that usually has issues with tracking are hobbits because of the sheer number of wargs out
Welcome to my shoes.
Even then with a properly geared stealth bag and stealth speed at 100% they're easy to avoid.
/sprint
Look, none of this is to say I cant survive when I want. I can scout on alts. I can stay within range of safety at all times. I can wait for all my cooldowns to be up at all times. I can wait for noobs in places good creeps rarely ever go. I can even spy, making sure none of the groups or players good enough to kill me are on... but none of that would be very sporty, would it?
Last edited by ellestone; Jun 23 2011 at 04:41 PM.
If he has a clue, sure he can. Expected to survive when you HiPs'd at 10% morale or when you got hit with 5 DoT's below 50%? surprise.
Between safe fall, HiPs and the combination of TnG and KO you almost have to put in effort to die.
I concur with what Dungus said in response. Once you step away from 1-shotters, a decent team of Creeps can take down any Freep class should they decide to. Player skill just makes it tougher on them, but doesn't make it impossible.
Remember Preposterones typical rating and the sheer amount of infamy his raids got from people focussing on....just him? Same goes, it's their own prerogative but it won't end well, typically. And it's just a little funny that someone would go after the most survivable class in the game instead of...a 4-5k runekeeper, or such.
Prep used to get back-to-back-to-back-to-etc. bubbled. What does he have to do with this conversation?
You're right, they have it easier. Since safe fall is an even more infallible get out of jail card and it's only got a 1m cooldown. The only kind of burg that usually has issues with tracking are hobbits because of the sheer number of wargs out, since Uruks seem to spend most of their money on CC pots and the like.
There are only a handful of spots in the 'moors where you can get broken legs in order to use safe fall. Granted it's the burglars decision to fight in areas that don't have it, but safe fall is not one of those skills that you will rely upon every skirmish you get involved in.
Originally Posted by morpheme
You interpret "freep-centric" as "freep-biased." I meant that it's centered exclusively around Freeps and Freep behavior. It's a poor perspective to hold precisely because its game mechanic-centric, not player-centric. PvM, rather than PvMP.
Poor perspective in your eyes, but a factual and practical perspective nonetheless. The game is still PvMP, but the game is governed by mechanics. You can play to the mechanics, or against them, but you will also reap what you sow. If you feed, or play carelessly, then you will end up helping your opponent. If you play strategic, you will make it tough on your opponent. It's as simple as that.
Furthermore, you conflate advancement with advantage. In fact, the degree to which creeps advance through rank has diminished. It doesn't measure up to the avenues of advancement that freeps have available, and whether it leads to "advantage" is questionable.
While the idea of ranked skills being an "advantage" is questionable, the question is easily noticed when you see ranked Creeps using the additional skills they acquire after they rank. To the majority of Creeps, they see those skills as advantageous.
Bunk. You defined "winning" as fighting only from a position of advantage, with minimal risk of defeat, and achieving that predictable result. "Farming" is just the pattern of doing that repeatedly. Not different topics at all.
Actually, I didn't define winning at all. I merely stated a small part of winning - which would be fighting from a position of advantage. A player may win from a disadvantaged position as well, but the odds are diminished, and therefore the question of risk/reward gets tasked to the player who is making the decision. Sometimes they make the decision to engage and lose (which would make it the wrong decision), sometimes they make the decision to engage, and win (which would make it the right decision). If you were to enter the pick-6 lottery, and the admin of the lottery gave you the chance to pick 2 of your numbers after the winning numbers are revealed, would you take the advantage? Whether you do or not, I guarantee your odds to win would increase, though it wouldn't be the only way that someone could potentially win.
OP's evaluation of their playstyles was never shown to be inaccurate--just his interpretation of their motivations.
Both were.
The OP wants the moors to be played for renown which comes as the result of active, risky competition, which s/he feels is more fun. At no point does OP reject strategy or strategic attack. Strategy can be applied just as easily toward the goal of maintaining action, risk, and fun.
Just as much as you state that strategy can be scaled, so can renown gain. Technically, 1 renown every month is still progress; perhaps not as quickly as the OP would like, but progress nonetheless.
My opponents need not fear me; they simply need to get used to returning from the rez circle.
If everyone played for kills rather than not dying, ratings would most likely be significantly lower.... or higher, since most freeps don't know what they're actually capable of.
This thread is such a wonderful coupon of our server's culture. I especially enjoy how clear it is that almost everyone posting feels the problem is someone else's. Carry on.
I concur with what Dungus said in response. #Once you step away from 1-shotters, a decent team of Creeps can take down any Freep class should they decide to. #Player skill just makes it tougher on them, but doesn't make it impossible.
Prep used to get back-to-back-to-back-to-etc. bubbled. #What does he have to do with this conversation?
I would have thought someone who speaks in fluent hypothetical would have figured it out. Prep was a great example of a high rating target that many people would attempt to take down and fail, giving creeps a tonne of infamy in the process.
Originally Posted by olagaton3434
There are only a handful of spots in the 'moors where you can get broken legs in order to use safe fall. #Granted it's the burglars decision to fight in areas that don't have it, but safe fall is not one of those skills that you will rely upon every skirmish you get involved in.
Yeah, those spots are only WTAB, STAB, and the two Rez circles.. Or any of the keeps. Certainly none of the most frequented spots.
Since I'm sure you'll mention that PvP happens elsewhere 5% of the time I'll add in that is in fact in the burglars control, if fighting elsewhere leaves you without an exit strategy than that is in fact the burglars own choice if he wants to take the risk.
"There may come a time for valor without renown, for those without swords may surely still die upon them."
Once a freep steps away from the one shotters, a talented group of creeps can kill whatever they please. End of story.
#
Refer to the article I linked for slither about speaking in absolutes. Talent really has a limited scope in this horrendously unbalanced game, it is my own opinion that a well played intelligent *man burglar* is unkillable if he comes prepared and knows his and his enemy classes well. Refer to legendarygoats wartab in the burglar forums.#
Originally Posted by ellestone
Welcome to my shoes.
/shrug. You picked a hobbit burglar like I picked an Elf champion, hardly the ideal class race combo for PvP. #Just don't complain about having it hard when you probably knew the difference.
Originally Posted by ellestone
Look, none of this is to say I cant survive when I want. I can scout on alts. I can stay within range of safety at all times. I can wait for all my cooldowns to be up at all times. I can wait for noobs in places good creeps rarely ever go. I can even spy, making sure none of the groups or players good enough to kill me are on... but none of that would be very sporty, would it?
When others pay for your sub, they can dictate just how "sporty" you have to be.
Last edited by Thorandril; Jun 23 2011 at 11:46 PM.
"There may come a time for valor without renown, for those without swords may surely still die upon them."
If everyone played for kills rather than not dying, ratings would most likely be significantly lower.... or higher, since most freeps don't know what they're actually capable of.
Why not play for both? Not up for the challenge? Do you just want to dumb down the game? Besides, playing for kills rather than not dying is not playing to certain classes strengths.
Originally Posted by Thorandril
I would have thought someone who speaks in fluent hypothetical would have figured it out. Prep was a great example of a high rating target that many people would attempt to take down and fail, giving creeps a tonne of infamy in the process.
Preps build was unlike anything a Freep toon can accomplish (sans maybe a guardian), and he constantly had the willing and able support of his team nearly all the time. When he didn't, he died his fair share. And I wouldn't consider his rating high. He was typically in the 15-1600 range. Rarely above that.
Yeah, those spots are only WTAB, STAB, and the two Rez circles.. Or any of the keeps. Certainly none of the most frequented spots.
Since I'm sure you'll mention that PvP happens elsewhere 5% of the time I'll add in that is in fact in the burglars control, if fighting elsewhere leaves you without an exit strategy than that is in fact the burglars own choice if he wants to take the risk.
Considering Safe Fall is broken atm, why are we having this conversation?
Originally Posted by Thorandril
Refer to the article I linked for slither about speaking in absolutes. Talent really has a limited scope in this horrendously unbalanced game, it is my own opinion that a well played intelligent *man burglar* is unkillable if he comes prepared and knows his and his enemy classes well. Refer to legendarygoats wartab in the burglar forums.#
LOL, we don't know the means in which legendarygoats achieved his wartab. What we do know is that he achieved his wartab prior to Moria, which was before the massive nerfing of Burglars, the implementation of the rating system (rather than raw %'s), and the ever-expanding plethora of burg-counters given to Creeps.
My opponents need not fear me; they simply need to get used to returning from the rez circle.
Preps build was unlike anything a Freep toon can accomplish (sans maybe a guardian), and he constantly had the willing and able support of his team nearly all the time. #When he didn't, he died his fair share. #And I wouldn't consider his rating high. #He was typically in the 15-1600 range. #Rarely above that.
right, but we can both agree that 1,500 range is certainly above average. Which is somewhere between 1.1-1.2k.
Considering Safe Fall is broken atm, why are we having this conversation?
#
How, exactly? Works fine every time I use it.
LOL, we don't know the means in which legendarygoats achieved his wartab. #What we do know is that he achieved his wartab prior to Moria, which was before the massive nerfing of Burglars, the implementation of the rating system (rather than raw %'s), and the ever-expanding plethora of burg-counters given to Creeps.
#Actually, what we do know is that it was acheived recently if you looked through his boast-threads at all .#
However if you mean to imply he farmed, he willingly supplies evidence to the contrary since I assumed he anticipated being accused of such.
"There may come a time for valor without renown, for those without swords may surely still die upon them."
just dont complain about having it hard when you probably knew the difference.
Didnt complain about having it hard. Really, I've said the opposite in a few posts now.
When others pay for your sub, they can dictate just how "sporty" you have to be.
I pay my own sub, and didnt tell you how to play anything. How about you back off the defensive for a minute. Im tired of chasing you. You're really fast.
Last edited by ellestone; Jun 24 2011 at 01:06 PM.
I pay my own sub, and didnt tell you how to play anything. How about you back off the defensive for a minute. Im tired of chasing you. You're really fast.
I didn't say you did.. You listed a few ways to increase your survival chances. I simply agreed that they weren't any less valid for being "unsportsmanlike".
"There may come a time for valor without renown, for those without swords may surely still die upon them."
I didn't say you did.. You listed a few ways to increase your survival chances. I simply agreed that they weren't any less valid for being "unsportsmanlike".
Poor perspective in your eyes, but a factual and practical perspective nonetheless. The game is still PvMP, but the game is governed by mechanics. You can play to the mechanics, or against them, but you will also reap what you sow. If you feed, or play carelessly, then you will end up helping your opponent. If you play strategic, you will make it tough on your opponent. It's as simple as that.
While the idea of ranked skills being an "advantage" is questionable, the question is easily noticed when you see ranked Creeps using the additional skills they acquire after they rank. To the majority of Creeps, they see those skills as advantageous.
Whether people enjoy pushing the shiny new buttons on their bars doesn't demonstrate anything. In fact and in practice, it's questionable whether there's any overall advantage to deny creeps by denying them infamy.
Actually, I didn't define winning at all. I merely stated a small part of winning - which would be fighting from a position of advantage. A player may win from a disadvantaged position as well, but the odds are diminished, and therefore the question of risk/reward gets tasked to the player who is making the decision. Sometimes they make the decision to engage and lose (which would make it the wrong decision), sometimes they make the decision to engage, and win (which would make it the right decision). If you were to enter the pick-6 lottery, and the admin of the lottery gave you the chance to pick 2 of your numbers after the winning numbers are revealed, would you take the advantage? Whether you do or not, I guarantee your odds to win would increase, though it wouldn't be the only way that someone could potentially win.
The purpose of pick-6 is to have fun playing?
The OP wants the moors to be played for renown which comes as the result of active, risky competition, which s/he feels is more fun. At no point does OP reject strategy or strategic attack. Strategy can be applied just as easily toward the goal of maintaining action, risk, and fun.
Just as much as you state that strategy can be scaled, so can renown gain. Technically, 1 renown every month is still progress; perhaps not as quickly as the OP would like, but progress nonetheless.
I stated that the OP's variety of fun can be pursued strategically--that the passive-aggressive sort you're promoting doesn't have the monopoly on strategy. Whether renown gain can be "scaled" has nothing to do with that.
right, but we can both agree that 1,500 range is certainly above average. Which is somewhere between 1.1-1.2k.
Above average, yes. High rating, no. At least, not in my opinion.
How, exactly? Works fine every time I use it.
Sometimes it doesn't work before you fall. Sometimes it doesn't work after you fall. It should work in at least one of those situations, but it doesn't.
#Actually, what we do know is that it was acheived recently if you looked through his boast-threads at all .#
However if you mean to imply he farmed, he willingly supplies evidence to the contrary since I assumed he anticipated being accused of such.
No, I'm not accusing him of farming. I'm stating that we don't know what creeps he fought. What circumstances he fought within. Whether he played in heavily populated areas. Whether his opponents played to their potential, and actively attempted to stop him from achieving his goal(s). Whether his opponents utilized everything they had at their disposal (i.e. tracking talismans). Whether his opponents were skilled at their class. Etc. Obviously his wartab is an anomaly, which means I take it with a grain of salt. Is his wartab possible? Absolutely, and I won't deny that. Is it indicative of everyone's experience? Absolutely not.
Originally Posted by morpheme
Whether people enjoy pushing the shiny new buttons on their bars doesn't demonstrate anything. In fact and in practice, it's questionable whether there's any overall advantage to deny creeps by denying them infamy.
Happy, rewarded people perform better than sad, unrecognized people. It's been proven many times. Whether the skills actually help give their team an advantage is unknown, but the acquisition of such skills certain rewards the players for their efforts. And if we really wanted to, we could probably look closer at specific skills that automatically add features to existing skills, which is a clear example that the skill has improved, and offered the player an advantage within the skill that they didn't have before.
The purpose of pick-6 is to have fun playing?
The purpose of a game is to have fun playing? I would argue that.
I stated that the OP's variety of fun can be pursued strategically--that the passive-aggressive sort you're promoting doesn't have the monopoly on strategy. Whether renown gain can be "scaled" has nothing to do with that.
I stated that the game can currently be played for renown which comes as the result of active, risky competition, which s/he feels is more fun. I also stated that active, risky, and fun are relative terms that one must understand don't apply the same to everyone. They are all scaled, depending who you are talking to.
My opponents need not fear me; they simply need to get used to returning from the rez circle.
Happy, rewarded people perform better than sad, unrecognized people. It's been proven many times. Whether the skills actually help give their team an advantage is unknown, but the acquisition of such skills certain rewards the players for their efforts. And if we really wanted to, we could probably look closer at specific skills that automatically add features to existing skills, which is a clear example that the skill has improved, and offered the player an advantage within the skill that they didn't have before.
So what you really advocate is trying to make others have a lousy time, regardless of whether there is any objective benefit to your character or your team in doing so. A common term for that is griefing.
The purpose of a game is to have fun playing? I would argue that.
I never doubted that you would.
I stated that the game can currently be played for renown which comes as the result of active, risky competition, which s/he feels is more fun. I also stated that active, risky, and fun are relative terms that one must understand don't apply the same to everyone. They are all scaled, depending who you are talking to.
I'm familiar with the tenet that language is arbitrary. Thanks for this bit of doubletalk as a demonstration, I guess.
If you want to continue demonstrating it, I'm sure you can find or craft a definition of griefing that would suit your purpose. Alternatively, I suppose you could attempt to defend the practice. In fact, here's a post you might use as a model, if you wish.
I'm not particularly interested though. Just wanted to cut through the specious "mechanics-based" rationalizations and have a look at what you were really pushing.
So what you really advocate is trying to make others have a lousy time, regardless of whether there is any objective benefit to your character or your team in doing so. A common term for that is griefing.
Now you're just reaching. Should we even continue this....?
I never doubted that you would.
Cool!
I'm familiar with the tenet that language is arbitrary. Thanks for this bit of doubletalk as a demonstration, I guess.
If you want to continue demonstrating it, I'm sure you can find or craft a definition of griefing that would suit your purpose. Alternatively, I suppose you could attempt to defend the practice. In fact, here's a post you might use as a model, if you wish.
I'm not particularly interested though. Just wanted to cut through the specious "mechanics-based" rationalizations and have a look at what you were really pushing.
Do you feel you've succeeded?
My opponents need not fear me; they simply need to get used to returning from the rez circle.
After posting the original comment, I would not have expected the conversation to degrade so quickly and so deeply into a sniping session. This is clearly a reflection of the issue at hand - people will go to great lengths so that they can feel superior to others, whether it comes from turtling in the Moors and/or ganking in order to drive up a rating, or from picking apart comments in the forums in an effort to sound superior. For those posts that are related to the initial idea, or are just funny/quirky like the one above - keep them coming. For the rest - thanks for the entertainment, and remember, most HMOs cover psychological counseling.
After posting the original comment, I would not have expected the conversation to degrade so quickly and so deeply into a sniping session. This is clearly a reflection of the issue at hand - people will go to great lengths so that they can feel superior to others, whether it comes from turtling in the Moors and/or ganking in order to drive up a rating, or from picking apart comments in the forums in an effort to sound superior. For those posts that are related to the initial idea, or are just funny/quirky like the one above - keep them coming. For the rest - thanks for the entertainment, and remember, most HMOs cover psychological counseling.
Welcome to Nimrodel!!!!!
Now appearing daily with 2 shows on weekends in GW2
Lol, in case someone/ones dont get it, The starring guy's last name, Issa, is Jesus from Arabic
Originally Posted by ellestone
Burgs are still the best single class in the moors in my opinion.
I think I can eat burgs if we fought over at GV forest or some place with nice trees. Happened alot. Especially to man burgs. Way easier to root and keep rooted. imo. It's a BA's perspective.
After posting the original comment, I would not have expected the conversation to degrade so quickly and so deeply into a sniping session. This is clearly a reflection of the issue at hand - people will go to great lengths so that they can feel superior to others, whether it comes from turtling in the Moors and/or ganking in order to drive up a rating, or from picking apart comments in the forums in an effort to sound superior. For those posts that are related to the initial idea, or are just funny/quirky like the one above - keep them coming. For the rest - thanks for the entertainment, and remember, most HMOs cover psychological counseling.
What's better is when they don't have to go to great lengths to feel that superior to others -- when it just comes natural.
My opponents need not fear me; they simply need to get used to returning from the rez circle.
I think removing or (possibly) adjusting the rating system would be a step in the right direction, whether it offers a complete solution to the problems pointed out by Thularil or not.
As I understand it, the overall goal is to make combat occur more freely, reduce the frequency of cheap tactics (ex: "ganking"), and make PvP less about "e-peens" and more about having casual competitive gameplay without being punished for not using sissy tactics. The best way to do that is to make PvP combat a "Everything to win, nothing to lose" situation. With the rating/wartab system that is currently in place, you have something to lose (K/D ratio, rating) every time you step into battle, and people tend to go out of thier way to avoid losing for this very reason.
Everyone has different goals in mind when they step into the PvP arena; some people are in it to win (to some people, winning is everything), some people are in it for the recognition (some people care about thier "e-peens", whether they want to admit it or not.), some people are in it for the rewards, and some people play for (casual) fun.
Removing ratings won't really affect people who are strictly out to win. Those people will always do everything they can to stack the odds in thier favor (i.e, cheap tactics., avoiding fair fights, etc.) There's no easy way of changing that.
Removing ratings and wartab stats would undoubtedly upset the people focused on showing off, and I for them, this what I have to say... if they really want to prove something, then instead of a focus on kill/deaths/rating, they need a way to show true skill... which is not something the numbers can currently show very well. A very high K/D ratio can be achieved by unskilled players by means of cheap tactics and the advantage of superior numbers, especially if game mechanics are already unblanced in thier favor. Because of that, there's not really much that can be used to distinguish skilled players from people who play like sissys. Personally, I laugh a little when some of the larger K/D wartabs are posted... replace "Kills below rating" with "defenseless little children", and maybe you'll get it. I just read the whole thing off as "I got 80,000 more kills than deaths by picking on the weak! I'm awesome!". Not that all tabs in that ballpark are achieved like that... but in reality, if you were to pick fair fights all the time, you'd roughly win half and lose half (i.e., KD of roughly 1.0). If not, odd are that the fights weren't fair, hehe.
As for everyone else (Those seeking the rewards and/or a good time), if ratings were removed, they could afford to rush out and be careless/carefree, and just have fun with it. Sure they'll probably fall in battle more often than not, but atleast they'll still be making progress towards thier goal (fun, infamy/reknown) without being punished with a rating that artificially labels them as "losers" for thier choice of playstyle.
Aside from removing the ratings completely, I like Thularil's alternative of making ratings tied it to outposts taken, keeps taken and/or time defended. Adding to that idea, here are my thoughts on how ratings could be changed:
Ratings are meant to be a measure of combat prowess... but that is not what they measure, and I don't see any way of truly measuring combat prowess (i.e., ratings cannot be made to do what they are really meant to do). How about having them show initiative and accomplishment instead? It could be a measure of how many kills/captures you've made/quests you've done/etc. compared to other characters. As you get out there, do things get into fights, capture keeps, etc. your rating will climb. As you stagnate, your rating will slowly fall (since your rating is a measure of how much more/less you've accomplished than others.) Death would not penalize you, and in fact getting yourself into risky situations may very well increase the rewards/rating (similar to how you can raise the tier/difficulty on skirmishes for better rewards.) On the flip side, ganging up on people and turtling would yield little/no reward, and eventually result in a shrinking of rating if that's what you spend most of your time doing.
That was by no means comprehensive... but it's something.
Sorry, I didn't read that wall of text, but let me put my spin on it.
In ToR there are no ratings, there is no wartab, death means absolutely nothing. I still see people on both sides avoid death like the plague. When ToR gets rated Warzones I predict the careful players will play even more carefully.
Its not the system, its the people.
Now appearing daily with 2 shows on weekends in GW2
Grand Member Online status:
Reputation:
Originally Posted by Thorandril
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Senior Member Online status:
Re: PvP - The Problem is Rating
right, but we can both agree that 1,500 range is certainly above average. Which is somewhere between 1.1-1.2k.Preps build was unlike anything a Freep toon can accomplish (sans maybe a guardian), and he constantly had the willing and able support of his team nearly all the time. #When he didn't, he died his fair share. #And I wouldn't consider his rating high. #He was typically in the 15-1600 range. #Rarely above that.
Senior Member Online status:
Poster of Note Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Dirtyblonde 65 Burg (Nimrodel) | Notblondie (Nimrodel) | Scratchs (Elendilmir)
Member Online status:
Grand Member Online status:
Member Online status:
Century Member Online status:
Proximity Tank - Tha Respect Crew
Senior Member Online status:
~Mirkwoodian - r7
Reply With Quote
Posting Permissions
