Rage vs. non-Rage

[azrid]

More like 3 people with 50 stats. Thats not very hard to do.
I guess in the eyes of some people the line where good players start is very low.
Is this thread people complaining of potentially losing their 20-30 stat characters?
Those characters are not very hard to replicate and will only get easier as the world goes on and higher q tools become dirt cheap.

[Sevenless]

More like 3 people with 50 stats. Thats not very hard to do.
I guess in the eyes of some people the line where good players start is very low.
Is this thread people complaining of potentially losing their 20-30 stat characters?
Those characters are not very hard to replicate and will only get easier as the world goes on and higher q tools become dirt cheap.

I'm not sure if you got what I was saying. Trying to solo an ant dungeon is stupid hard, spamming it with characters makes it trivial.

I think the disconnect here with players is that "Ants are easy, I can probably solo this!" and it leads to false expectations. In a group of 3 people you can smash the dungeon at a sprint, with 1 person you get overwhelmed due to the combat mechanics.

[2d0x]

...The whole idea is to get better at the game. The more knowledge and skill you have the higher chance of your survival.
You could also learn when raider types play. Or make friends with them...

And together we will ride the rainbow on pink ponies, scattering confetti. What is obviously a cheerful nonsense!

...Is this thread people complaining of potentially losing their 20-30 stat characters?..

Weird question. Re-read the opening.

...Those characters are not very hard to replicate and will only get easier as the world goes on and higher q tools become dirt cheap.

But some people play (want to play, have the opportunity to play) here and now. Perhaps this is how to come to a restaurant where they will say to you: “come in half a year; there will be less visitors, cheaper prices and better food”. Probably, but you have already come.

[MooCow]

I'm not sure if you got what I was saying. Trying to solo an ant dungeon is stupid hard, spamming it with characters makes it trivial.

I think the disconnect here with players is that "Ants are easy, I can probably solo this!" and it leads to false expectations. In a group of 3 people you can smash the dungeon at a sprint, with 1 person you get overwhelmed due to the combat mechanics.

You can do a wow dungeon easy with 5 people, but try to do it yourself and you get wrecked. Because of the action economy (cooldowns) two players with 50 stats are more than twice as strong as one player with 100. They also, individually, have about 25% of the lp investment. 5 people with 50 are much much stronger than 1 person with 250 with 4% of the lp investment per character.

I think dungeons should have a recommended group size and player level, that is visible in game.

[azrid]

But some people play (want to play, have the opportunity to play) here and now.

Those people need to accept the new difficulty level if they aren't good enough players to defeat this hard content.
Developers intention was to make earlygame harder which makes the whole game harder for perpetual early gamers.
I don't like changes to the game that encourage skipping content like all the things I mentioned you can do to avoid death.

[2d0x]

...Developers intention was to make earlygame harder which makes the whole game harder for perpetual early gamers...

The complexity of the early game stems from the fact that otherwise the late game will become unbearably simple.

...I don't like changes to the game that encourage skipping content like all the things I mentioned you can do to avoid death.

You mentioned obvious things and particular cases. You cannot escape death, no matter how hard you try and whatever measures you take.

[nero1141]

Can we made that when rage people attack non rage first, then all players can attack that rage player regardless if they are rage or non rage?

[2d0x]

Can we made that when rage people attack non rage first, then all players can attack that rage player regardless if they are rage or non rage?

Then a situation is possible: a crowd of non-Rage characters arrives and deliberately interferes with the player with Rage. When attacking, the whole crowd rushes at the attacker and he practically has no chance.

[Aceb]

The only solution I would personally accept, would be that if a Rage person X attacks non-rage person Y, all people who are currently in party with that person, have ability to attack. After all, if You attack one person from party, You should attack everyone else in that party as well, since they are together.

By product of all of this is leaving holes for non-rage fighters to fight rage fighters. Hard to balance.


and by product of my idea would be two clicks for entire parties to aggro everyone in proximity, since if one person aggroes one party, second one will do as well

[nero1141]

Then a situation is possible: a crowd of non-Rage characters arrives and deliberately interferes with the player with Rage. When attacking, the whole crowd rushes at the attacker and he practically has no chance.

thats same can be said in reverse scenario like in the first post:

Let's imagine situation that three of my non-Rage friends walk throught the forest. It's shiny day and suddenly (woop!) two rage-pirates appear in front of them. Two pirates attack one of my friend and ... none of two other friends can actually help the third one. They just stay and watch as their friend is being killed. So if I choose non-PvP character, then I actually don't get non-PvP character, I just get character who can't defend anyone, only myself and only in those cases when I am attacked by one stupid Rage-man. But we all know that no Rage-men would manhunt alone.

but in the later non rage cant do anything in return