Defense Talisman Changes

[Lexington]

For the record I'm OK with switching this to aggressor only (or making it so if you attack back you ALSO lose). But I still find it laughable that people would quit over such a thing.

Laughable.... What the %($*$ is so funny to find out you've been working on a specific item, for 100's of hours + millions in gold, to achieve it's maximum benefits to find out someone decided to pull the rug out from underneath you. Time is the most valuable thing to most mature UOF players. If it's shown that the dev team doesn't care about that time... that's why some players would quit!

I'm trusting in what @halygon said... things can be reverted.

 

[Nekronos]

Uhhh it’s absolutely going to happen all the time... word gets out that you can disable someone’s talisman...you are not giving people enough credit for being annoying...

 

[AreYouKidden]

Because a bug exists for any length of time, doesn't justify not fixing it.

Laughable.... What the %($*$ is so funny to find out you've been working on a specific item, for 100's of hours + millions in gold, to achieve it's maximum benefits to find out someone decided to pull the rug out from underneath you. Time is the most valuable thing to most mature UOF players. If it's shown that the dev team doesn't care about that time... that's why some players would quit!

I'm trusting in what @halygon said... things can be reverted.

This is a correction towards the actual vision, not a nerf in my eyes. While I understand the frustration, if you only leveled a defense talisman, in order to have an advantage in dungeon PvP - then you were probably working it for all the wrong reasons to begin with, as it's intent was PvM content enhancer, to protect you from creatures not to indirectly enhance PvP.

 

[jkg8787]

Laughable.... What the %($*$ is so funny to find out you've been working on a specific item, for 100's of hours + millions in gold, to achieve it's maximum benefits to find out someone decided to pull the rug out from underneath you. Time is the most valuable thing to most mature UOF players. If it's shown that the dev team doesn't care about that time... that's why some players would quit!

I'm trusting in what @halygon said... things can be reverted.

I like the subtle implication that I'm not mature. Lol.

Because the item has been "wrong" (lack of a better term) since implementation. I'd say the same thing if there was an item that increased Eval Int to 200% but cost 5 million and 250 hours of training. Your investment into a broken mechanic means nothing to me personally. Although I can empathize with your plight.

It still works as intended. I even said I'm ok with changing it to aggressor only in an attempt to reach a middle-ground.

 

[jkg8787]

Because a bug exists for any length of time, doesn't justify not fixing it.


This is a correction towards the actual vision, not a nerf in my eyes. While I understand the frustration, if you only leveled a defense talisman, in order to have an advantage in dungeon PvP - then you were probably working it for all the wrong reasons to begin with, as it's intent was PvM content enhancer, to protect you from creatures not to indirectly enhance PvP.

I have a feeling the "but but but but the griefers" is maybe a defensive reaction to seeing a nerf to an item they prize and value. But I can also understand how it'd be frustrating to use an item for 12 months and then one day log on to do the same thing and some dickhead runs by and gets you killed. I totally get that. But I still think using quitting as a leverage to get what you want is ridiculous. Most of the people saying that would be back within a week once they cooled down a bit.

Anyways like I said make it aggressor only (or also upon reciprocation) and you've basically reached a middle ground that both sides really can't argue against.

 

[Lexington]

Because a bug exists for any length of time, doesn't justify not fixing it.


This is a correction towards the actual vision, not a nerf in my eyes. While I understand the frustration, if you only leveled a defense talisman, in order to have an advantage in dungeon PvP - then you were probably working it for all the wrong reasons to begin with, as it's intent was PvM content enhancer, to protect you from creatures not to indirectly enhance PvP.

It was never a bug... it was the mechanic! It was talked about way back when it was introduced! The dev team made the decision to leave it the way it was so 100's of players took on the quest to level it. You can't just change it now!

 

[jkg8787]

You can't just change it now!

They can and did.

Bug/exploit whatever. Semantics. It had an UNINTENDED side-effect. Call that whatever you want. This is an attempt to correct that.

You don't like the direction of the correction (that's fine). Let's discuss it without threatening to quit the server in an attempt to gain leverage through some sort of outrage-theater.

Do you agree that making it Aggressor only (or reciprocal) is a good middle ground?

 

[Lexington]

I like the subtle implication that I'm not mature. Lol.

Because the item has been "wrong" (lack of a better term) since implementation. I'd say the same thing if there was an item that increased Eval Int to 200% but cost 5 million and 250 hours of training. Your investment into a broken mechanic means nothing to me personally. Although I can empathize with your plight.

It still works as intended. I even said I'm ok with changing it to aggressor only in an attempt to reach a middle-ground.

LOL... never said you weren't mature. I will guess you never did level one of these tho. If you did you'd be as butt hurt as the others that are complaining!

 

[jkg8787]

LOL... never said you weren't mature. I will guess you never did level one of these tho. If you did you'd be as butt hurt as the others that are complaining!

I agree I took that sentence in the worst possible connotation. Upon re-reading I can see you probably were not suggesting that. Forgive me.

As above: "Do you agree that making it Aggressor only (or reciprocal) is a good middle ground?"

 

[Lexington]

They can and did.

Bug/exploit whatever. Semantics. It had an UNINTENDED side-effect. Call that whatever you want. This is an attempt to correct that.

You don't like the direction of the correction (that's fine). Let's discuss it without threatening to quit the server in an attempt to gain leverage through some sort of outrage-theater.

Do you agree that making it Aggressor only (or reciprocal) is a good middle ground?

Not a bug or exploit!!

I'm not going to quit... I have multiple play styles. Not everyone is like me tho. The player that spent all their time and fortune on a defense tali might tho. Hell I likely would if I didn't have my other characters.

Sorry for not responding to the aggressor comment... I didn't read that earlier . You're still affecting the PK's and the consensual PVP community the same way. You need to respect their time and effort the same as the blues!

 

[Clearwater]

This is awesome! Time to jump on my stealther and start stalking defensive dexxers with great armor and vanq weapons! I am going to be rich!
Thanks Staff!

 

[jkg8787]

Not a bug or exploit!!

I'm not going to quit... I have multiple play styles. Not everyone is like me tho. The player that spent all their time and fortune on a defense tali might tho. Hell I likely would if I didn't have my other characters.

Sorry for not responding to the aggressor comment... I didn't read that earlier . You still affecting the PK's and the consensual PVP community the same way. You need to respect their time and effort the same as the blues!

Semantics again. Not really interested in going down that road.

And I did technically single you out for the quitting comment but I wasn't necessarily directing that towards you specifically. My bad for not being more directed in my text. I was speaking to basically the first 1/3rd of the thread saying they are quitting.

Your final point is most interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it but I did enjoy the "hot take" aspect of it. I'd imagine the crux of this issue is stemming from an (admittedly small) number of Defense Talisman reds Min-Maxing their Blue murdering sprees.

It does raise a good point. Should two groups of Reds (hypothetical) battling for control over a Champ spawn also lose access? I get your point of it being consensual and still being punished. But my immediate reaction would be to suggest that the overall goal of this change is to "flatten" the playing field. I imagine if it was changed to be Aggressor/Reciprocal based that would end up with both groups unable to use the Talisman. Which would be a "flat" playing field but also kinda makes having a Talisman useless.

 

[Lexington]

Semantics again. Not really interested in going down that road.

And I did technically single you out for the quitting comment but I wasn't necessarily directing that towards you specifically. My bad for not being more directed in my text. I was speaking to basically the first 1/3rd of the thread saying they are quitting.

Your final point is most interesting. I'm not sure how I feel about it but I did enjoy the "hot take" aspect of it. I'd imagine the crux of this issue is stemming from an (admittedly small) number of Defense Talisman reds Min-Maxing their Blue murdering sprees.

It does raise a good point. Should two groups of Reds (hypothetical) battling for control over a Champ spawn also lose access? I get your point of it being consensual and still being punished. But my immediate reaction would be to suggest that the overall goal of this change is to "flatten" the playing field. I imagine if it was changed to be Aggressor/Reciprocal based that would end up with both groups unable to use the Talisman. Which would be a "flat" playing field but also kinda makes having a Talisman useless.

I see you points but honestly... I think it needs to be left the way it was. To many player have invested a lot of time leveling... in addition gold or donation coins acquiring relics to simply change it. Like is said before it is an option for any player . What makes it difficult for new player is the outrageous cost of the relics theses day. Would be nice to see a price drop so it would be more affordable for the new guys.

 

[JackPalance]

Uhhh it’s absolutely going to happen all the time... word gets out that you can disable someone’s talisman...you are not giving people enough credit for being annoying...

This is correct -

This is UOF- this is absolutely going to happen all the time- especially at champs, RDAs, and other high end spawns-

 

[Chediak]

I'd go with aggressor only.

 

[jkg8787]

What makes it difficult for new player is the outrageous cost of the relics theses day. Would be nice to see a price drop so it would be more affordable for the new guys.

100% Agree with that. Honestly to be frank I think I ultimately just do not like the fact that the difference in competition between Meta Mage/Dex/Tamer and a regular 7x is so steep. I will also honestly state that I am 100% biased towards NEWER PLAYERS as I am only about 5months in here. I imagine I would feel different if I was on the other side. It's quite clear that there is bias on both sides. I still like to think that ultimately I like to "balance" towards a flat playing field. I won't call talisman "pay to win" but I do use "pay to win" as an example of an universally despised game mode. The reason for that extreme example is to show that the average person prefers to play a game where all characters are equal (or at least have the potential to be. You know what I mean I hope... I'm not like... a gaming-communist LOL just saying that balance is an art form for game devs and I dont think theres even been a perfectly balanced PvP game that has subclass/skills/types to take account for).

To sum my ramble up. I prefer equal footing. But I understand how grinding and earning rewards and all the skinner-box stuff is rewarding too.


I still say tweak the changes. But like the comment that originally started this its laughable to me to threaten to quit. How about people string more than 2 sentences together to explain why.

Most game communities would KILL to have such good interaction between community and developers like happens here. So convince them why.

 

[jkg8787]

I'd go with aggressor only.

My initial reaction.
Countered by Lexingtons suggestion that making it like that effects "consensual PvP"
Countered by "ok lets make it reciprocal".
Countered by "well then whats the point of having it work"
Countered by "TO KILL FREAKIN MONSTERS"

I dunno. Thats how it goes for me.

 

[jkg8787]

Mature gamers lets discuss the Skinner Box and how its a waste of all our lives to grind and just up the loot tables on EVERYTHING.

Wooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[TyroneG]

LOL at those responding to just get your own defense talisman to level the playing field...

Again I am going to state that at a certain point you need to make a stance. Do you want PVM additions (talismans/metas/etc.) to be applicable in PVP or not - need to make that stance and stick to it regardless of if it is gonna make people upset or angry, whether or not it has existed in that capacity for a week or a year, or whether or not people paid millions of gold and/or spent a lot of time acquiring it.

 

[AngloSpanglo]

I understand the aggressor only or murderer argument but honestly people like flube and others like him are good for the game. The only PK's i see with defense tali are solo ones. I don't want to nerf them either and they put a loot of time into their talis