Blaine the Gypsy
Grandmaster
@eppy
Thank you for listening to all of us players whom have pleaded their case about the defense talisman change. It goes to show no matter what how strong this community is and will be.
Thank you UOF Staff
Thank you for listening
- Thread starter Blaine the Gypsy
- Start date
Thank you for listening to all of us players whom have pleaded their case about the defense talisman change. It goes to show no matter what how strong this community is and will be.
Thank you UOF Staff
Lexington
Grandmaster
I'm glad something was changed... still don't agree tho. They way it did work was perfectly fine. Now it's unfair to Red, Orange and Grey players.
Genocide Pete
Adept
Nah, no one should be praised in this case, as this topic had already been argued from every angle BEFORE the ham-fisted talisman disable. Those arguments should have been considered prior to making the change.
On a related note, this iteration was also dismissed as flawed because it disincentivizes PVPers from initiating combat since whoever attacks first loses their talisman bonus.
On a related note, this iteration was also dismissed as flawed because it disincentivizes PVPers from initiating combat since whoever attacks first loses their talisman bonus.
I swear 90%+ of that thread agreed on "reciprocation" = disabled too. Sooo... another great job? Lol.
You don't understand what he's saying.
Now if two reds or two oranges fight, the first one loses talisman to attack the other doesn't.
Ranker
Master
Well they were not meant for pvp, So if no one attacks then no one loses it. Sorry I know it sucks for pvpers but this change was meant for pvpers, Not pvMers being pked or trolled. So again I am happy with the change.
I do sympathize, But this is what it was supposed to curb/stop.
Silly Santa
Grandmaster
Genocide Pete
Adept
Here's what should happen:
- Characters with GM arms lore should never have their talisman disabled, as they're unequivocally not PVP characters to begin with.
- Becoming flagged against a player for PVP combat should start a six-second timer after which any hostile action against that player causes one to lose one's talisman bonus for the duration of the flag. This will prevent stalemates between PVPers and give non-PVPers time to cancel their auto-attack if they don't wish to engage. It's important to note that the timer is character-specific, so as to prevent the loss of talisman bonuses when auto-attacking newly-flagged combatants.
- Slayer armor should work against meta pets as it does against normal pets to both mitigate the meta advantage for tamers and offset the loss of the resilience bonus against PVP tamers (which was an intentional implementation). Looting slayer armor from people would also add a fun element to the game. If slayer weapons working against pets is a concern, disable them against both metas AND non-metas (currently they work against white wyrms and normal dragons).
- The swamp dragon bonus should work in PVP. While swamp dragons are similar to resilience talismans in function, they are MUCH weaker and easier to acquire (relics aside, a level 10 talisman mitigates 250% of the damage that a swamp dragon mitigates). It's good both for the economy and for player motivation when players can save to acquire a small PVP advantage like the swamp dragons provided. Removing this mechanic hurts player confidence and investment in exchange for a trivial leveling of the playing field.
- Players should be compensated for their loss. We can talk about the intention of mechanics all we want, but the reality is that the mechanics functioned as they did for YEARS and players had a reasonable expectation that they could invest their time and gold to take advantage of those mechanics. People like me who have leveled resilience talismans and bought relics, swamp dragons, and pet summoning balls purely for the sake of PVP have taken a heavy blow both to our wealth and our morale because of this change. We should be allowed to exchange these lost investments for something of equal value.
Lexington
Grandmaster
You obviously didn't read or weren't involved in any of the conversations that took place when it was introduced! It works the way you want it to... that's all!
This modification still screws over lots of players who leveled it for the intended propose... and yes that purpose was verified by both Shane and Eppy well over a year ago!
No offence but #@$@ I hate when people comment on shit they aren't educated on!
Zog'orium
Grandmaster
Wonder what happens if people start to loot others kills knowing that many won't risk losing the use of their tali in a dungeon to issue justice.
Right. So when 2 people consensually agree to PvP why would 1 person PvPing lose it and another person PvPing keep it?
Hoisted by your own petard methinks.
TrustyPatchez
Master
I target defence dexxers on my thief all the time for this very reason..
tankian
Grandmaster
Its fine how it is now. It's put in place to prevent someone intentionally disabling another player's talisman just so he dies while doing champs ECT. While in middle of spawn. Instant death without defending himself. Plus I'm sure if the person with the talisman chooses to fight back. He also becomes an aggressor and his talisman becomes disabled
Blaine the Gypsy
Grandmaster
Then maybe some clarification is in order if possible on how it works? @eppy
Lexington
Grandmaster
Not sure why I care so much as I'm not one but...Sorry this will never be fine in my eyes... its #&$& to many people!
StegcO
Grandmaster
Resuming:
If both Tali remains on for aggressor/defender
* PVPers can fight without Malus
* PvMers will be fucked up against a PK
If both Tali got disabled for aggressor/defender
* PvPers can fight without Malus
* PvMers got fucked up in the middle of ChampSpawn
If only aggressor got Tali disabled
* Malus for the aggressor in Faction fight
* PvMers will be safe aginst Grief
If only defender got Tali disabled
* Bonus for PvPer aggressor
* Malus for PvMer
I understood correctly?
If both Tali remains on for aggressor/defender
* PVPers can fight without Malus
* PvMers will be fucked up against a PK
If both Tali got disabled for aggressor/defender
* PvPers can fight without Malus
* PvMers got fucked up in the middle of ChampSpawn
If only aggressor got Tali disabled
* Malus for the aggressor in Faction fight
* PvMers will be safe aginst Grief
If only defender got Tali disabled
* Bonus for PvPer aggressor
* Malus for PvMer
I understood correctly?
ProdigyOsi
Grandmaster
Wait, is this precedent that if you complain enough you get what you want? #givethemfirebreath
AreYouKidden
Grandmaster
@eppy @Shane I second the thanks for this change - if the original design of talismans was to not have any affect on PvP, then this is how it should have been all long, based off the aggressor flag. A couple of other talismans have minimal impact on PvP, and could be looked at along the same vision as the defense tali change. The meta daemon runs fast, and attacks fast, if a mage goes aggressor, it should probably change to a regular daemon. And the zerker has a relic that makes them teleport - if they are the aggressor that also probably shouldn't work.
The swampy change I don't 100% agree with, I felt that was a minimal investment and all classes could acquire it - but at least the egregious one was fixed.
The swampy change I don't 100% agree with, I felt that was a minimal investment and all classes could acquire it - but at least the egregious one was fixed.