Kaios wrote:valid points
Yeah, I know, I know, PvP is shit, skill should mean more than stats, inability to defend a base, all that stuff is right, but that wasn't the point of my (rather raw) proposal.
We have Rage, that gives a
slight advantage in PvP, but makes the game much more dangerous overall; then we have Non-Rage, that provides the advantage of relative safety. Recent changes, judging by the wailing PvPers in most threads, made non-Rage characters almost unkillable in PvP, yet able to participate meaningfully in most PvP activities. This is not a well-balanced system. Having read all the arguments presented in this thread, I agree that we should not think in absolutes (immortality or inability to do ANY PvP etc). Whatever the means or specifics should be, I still stand by the idea of having not 2, but 3 character groups:
- good for PvP but vulnerable (i.e. "Rage"),
- mediocre in PvP, mediocre in survivability (i.e. neither skill is purchased),
- very bad at PvP but very tough to kill for good (i.e. "Civillian", or whatever the opposite of "Rage" is, you guys go to great length to discredit an idea just on a technicality of its name... vegetarians, seriously?)
Ofcourse the skills should be mutually exclusive after purchase, you can't have both. I thought that was implied, but I've seen some confusion on this issue.