Are you on Highwatch, Lake of Tears, or Valley of Titans? Please read and give feedback!

2456761

Comments

  • counterpointcounterpoint ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    Fleett wrote: »
    Why not PvP at 60 instead of 65 so you could get an early experience of it?...

    I think because PvP at 65 is the way K-TERA works, so it's something they could choose to do without any reprogramming, just using an option that they previously didn't use.

    For the same reason...
    Our suggestion:
    Players at 65 can opt into pvp or neutral, which would be permanent to the character. PvP can PK others and get PKed. Neutral would be immune to this but cannot PK others. There would be some indicator like outlaw that shows who's a PvPer and who's neutral.
    ...I think something like this wouldn't be possible, because it'd require programming.
  • Level 65 PvP is a good idea. Newer players are generally the ones afraid to enroll on PvP servers so if this new role is advertised well enough, it should generate quite a bit of interest.
  • i have characters on HW and i choose it just because is pve....(even tho is not my main server). the game right now starts at lvl 65.. so wouldnt matter too much that pvp is only at 65... im RLY bad with pvp, and i will suffer in this merge... but i rather have that merge... its TOO lonely... (one of the reasons i moved my main to TR)
    So i dont rly like it but i agree with it...
    the way you guys are doing it made me rly happy.. trying to find a good solution for all and asking on forums :dizzy:
  • BaldurdashBaldurdash ✭✭✭
    edited July 2016
    PlagueFWC wrote: »
    VALLEY OF HIGHWATCH'S TEARS!

    I'm crying rn

    For players who chose a PVE server, open world PvP can be distressing even if only at 65.

    Our suggestion:
    Players at 65 can opt into pvp or neutral, which would be permanent to the character. PvP can PK others and get PKed. Neutral would be immune to this but cannot PK others. There would be some indicator like outlaw that shows who's a PvPer and who's neutral.

    I like this idea, but I would not make it permanent, perhaps a once a month choice like the guild master decision for crusades.
  • Haggard86Haggard86 ✭✭✭✭
    Treeshark, while you want to discuss names later, I say discuss it now. To many players, the name is their identity, and how you decide to handle names could very easily make players choose one option over the other.

    As far as the pvp discussion, I'm against it as a highwatch player. I joined highwatch for 2 reasons, it was listed as recommend and it was pve.

  • I'm crying rn

    For players who chose a PVE server, open world PvP can be distressing even if only at 65.

    Our suggestion:
    Players at 65 can opt into pvp or neutral, which would be permanent to the character. PvP can PK others and get PKed. Neutral would be immune to this but cannot PK others. There would be some indicator like outlaw that shows who's a PvPer and who's neutral.

    I understand where your coming from, but in my experience on MT, this hasn't really been the case. I've wandered the lands incognito and even idled in PK zones and come back after hours without coming back dead. But maybe i'm lucky and an outlier?
  • PlagueFWCPlagueFWC ✭✭✭
    Treeshark wrote: »

    I'm crying rn

    For players who chose a PVE server, open world PvP can be distressing even if only at 65.

    Our suggestion:
    Players at 65 can opt into pvp or neutral, which would be permanent to the character. PvP can PK others and get PKed. Neutral would be immune to this but cannot PK others. There would be some indicator like outlaw that shows who's a PvPer and who's neutral.

    I understand where your coming from, but in my experience on MT, this hasn't really been the case. I've wandered the lands incognito and even idled in PK zones and come back after hours without coming back dead. But maybe i'm lucky and an outlier?

    The only real PK zones are usually velika outskirts and daily quest spots.
  • If you're gonna do a server merge then you shouldn't change the mechanics of the server... idk about most people but I enjoy making level 20s and pk'ing other 20s. It's completely different from lvl 65 because it's less about gear and more about player skill. If you're gonna merge the servers then you should make vot and lot merge into mt so there's no need to change any mechanics, and Highwatch and tr (since its equally dead) into ch so there's still a big pve server. And if you think that would over load servers then let me assure you the 20 people in vot make 0 difference
  • I've been playing on HW for over a year now and during this whole time I experienced the server slowly dying with each wave of so called "transfer season". Hell the past few months have been pretty dead in Highwatch when it comes to end-game content and there was a thread on the forum addressing that problem and the population in HW in general. I can't speak on the behalf of VoT/LoT but I think everyone knows those servers are classified as dead. I'm pretty sure a server merge would benefit all three servers. Considering the population of VoT and LoT is way lower than HW, those servers would gain a lot more than HW but in general I can see no downsides of the merge. The merge would be a QoL improvement for everyone.

    Concerning the PVP aspect, more pvp is always good for the pvp community and with the crusade/alliance coming to an end gvgs might become a thing again rather than trash talking in global ( pretty sure that's impossible to prevent though!).

    It is surprising to see this thread pop-up, seems like our cries and efforts to make hw great again have been heard and seen.
  • AngelishAngelish ✭✭✭
    shinjuki wrote: »
    If you're gonna do a server merge then you shouldn't change the mechanics of the server... idk about most people but I enjoy making level 20s and pk'ing other 20s. It's completely different from lvl 65 because it's less about gear and more about player skill. If you're gonna merge the servers then you should make vot and lot merge into mt so there's no need to change any mechanics, and Highwatch and tr (since its equally dead) into ch so there's still a big pve server. And if you think that would over load servers then let me assure you the 20 people in vot make 0 difference

    TR is dead? Since when?
  • Since a few months... compare it to MT from like 2 years ago and it doesn't even have half the population
  • AngelishAngelish ✭✭✭
    There's always plenty of people on when I go there. Its still the second most populated.
  • edited July 2016
    pleasE YES
  • UltemeciaUltemecia ✭✭✭
    Angelish wrote: »
    shinjuki wrote: »
    If you're gonna do a server merge then you shouldn't change the mechanics of the server... idk about most people but I enjoy making level 20s and pk'ing other 20s. It's completely different from lvl 65 because it's less about gear and more about player skill. If you're gonna merge the servers then you should make vot and lot merge into mt so there's no need to change any mechanics, and Highwatch and tr (since its equally dead) into ch so there's still a big pve server. And if you think that would over load servers then let me assure you the 20 people in vot make 0 difference

    TR is dead? Since when?

    Kinda hard to understand, but they meant Highwatch was dead.
  • No i meant tr is dead, only MT and CH have a decent population left
This discussion has been closed.