/Scout command to allow rpts for scouting far away from bg?

A conversation in another thread about intelligence and the use of stealth got me thinking about the rewards for such a task for a stealther. Honestly, I would hate taking up a scouting role as you would be vital to the success of the bg but at the risk of getting little-to-no rpt reward.

It would be neat if BG leaders could /bgscout <character name> and somehow grant them a percentage of rpts gained by BG leader's group for their efforts.

/shrug I'm just trying to think outside the box and make the game more strategic... flame away....
«1

Comments

  • I don't think this is necessary. There are enough ways to gather intel as the game stands without needing to provide an incentive.
  • It's not a bad idea at all tbh
  • edited January 11 PM
    I could see both sides to this. When I played live from pre-SI through Catacombs, having "scouts" for BG's was alot more important. We didn't have Realm War maps, and it was important to have stealthers or stealther groups to keep an eye on the border keeps to announce to BG's when enemies were leaving. Now with ports and the realm war maps, having stealthers as scouts is not quite as important as it once was. I still remember when they put in Camo to negate assassins spotting ranged stealthers that were trying to scout. Now camo is worthless against assassins. I think its a good idea, but not really needed in todays DAoC.
    Post edited by RonELuvv on
  • edited January 11 PM
    I suppose the inspiration for this was the other discussion about BG spying. I don't think that under any circumstance this would stop spying but the spying does prove that the need for intelligence beyond /rw does still exists.
    Post edited by Mace80 on
  • edited January 11 PM
    Having Stealther intel is great, but unrewarding for the stealthers to frequent Zerg areas as they would get nothing from it, besides being zerged down
    Post edited by BurkleyRIP on
  • Exactly Burkley
  • BurkleyRIP wrote: »
    Having Stealther intel is great, but unrewarding for the stealthers to frequent Zerg areas as they would get nothing from it, besides being zerged down

    Oh, as a stealther I get why this would be beneficial to stealthers in BG's, however, I just don't think it would have the desired effect of stopping "spying" from other people in other realms. I also think this could be abused pretty easily where you would have people logging in stealther alts, sitting stealthed in the middle of nowhere, getting rp's for doing nothing.

    Again, I like where the idea is coming from and I get the reason for it, I just don't think it is feasible to do this.
  • I mean you can get solo kills/stragglers while you're out doing that. You get a ton more rps for a solo kill than a kill in a zerg fight. It doesn't really seem necessary to me.
  • It's more about rewarding folks who help more than anything else
  • For once i agree with Xyroman
    Its an easy implantation (or should be) and the mis use of it cant be much gain for the abusers.

    For example a hunter/SB in Anna BG that have been tagged with the BGcommand give intel that its a standoff at eras between albs and hibs. Anna dare to venture to the area and 3 BGs get rps while the bgscout go towards maze area and report 8 mans inc behind Anna. Even if Mid bg wipe they get rps, the solo guy helps and get rps (cap needed) and may also find his own action.
    Should even have groupleaders that roam the next zone to be able to get tagged.
    Seems like a win win to me

    Or the different playstylers can just keep flaming each other in /reg like they done last 17 years
  • This would have been great for OF but I don't see any need for it as the game stands. BS resources are better spent fixing bugs and preparing for EC than adding another RP bonus to the game.
  • I estimate the work to 30min and the rest up to community.
    But ye, fixing bugs would be a priority
  • Given that stealth classes have a rather healthy performance in terms of RPS per Simon's graphs and the fact that providing intel on enemy Zergs is entirely voluntary, I don't feel there is a need for these types of rewards.
    RR12 Stormlord Wizard
    RR12 Warlord Cleric
    RR12 Warlord Minstrel
    RR12 Warlord Necromancer
    RR12 Perfector Heretic
  • I would argue that the stealth that are doing well with rpts are not the stealth that are scouting full time for their realms. Therefore, that is not an appropriate measure to determine need. That said, I was just trying to think of ways to help with realm communication/intelligence/loyalty.
  • We don't know if those stealthers are one and the same and even if they were, as I said it's a purely voluntary role. There are other roles that could be argued provide just as much or more help to the Zergs that also might earn less RPs such as ram drivers, siege engine operators, people putting up siege towers for distractions, etc. At what point is it decided to incentivize/reward a particular role over another?
    RR12 Stormlord Wizard
    RR12 Warlord Cleric
    RR12 Warlord Minstrel
    RR12 Warlord Necromancer
    RR12 Perfector Heretic
  • Those individuals are close enough to the zerg that they are getting the rpts that their groups get.
  • As Sovereign said, it's completely voluntary and it's not vital for BG play. Does it help? Absolutely. Does it guarantee success? Nope.

    Intel gathering isn't restricted to stealthers either. We had a Bard on Saturday stalking the Mid BG. I've personally stalked Paindancerr's BG with my Eldritch to see which keep(s) they'd go for when we had all six relics. It's unnecessary to provide an incentive to "fix" something that isn't broken.
  • Sovereign wrote: »
    We don't know if those stealthers are one and the same and even if they were, as I said it's a purely voluntary role. There are other roles that could be argued provide just as much or more help to the Zergs that also might earn less RPs such as ram drivers, siege engine operators, people putting up siege towers for distractions, etc. At what point is it decided to incentivize/reward a particular role over another?

    This makes zero sense. Ram Drivers are a huge part of a group and require heals. Biggest thing being is that RAM DRIVERS are apart of a "GROUP" and they are always within range of the groups RPS. (kills at the keep and bonus)

    A stealther even if grouped-- if providing intel is out of RANGE for the rps. How do you even try to make this comparison......


    I don't play stealthers but this is a pretty good idea.



    "I think what he is doing is good. For a long time Albs not have very good leaders. Natebruner is perfect, his accuracy, his pushing"
    HERORIUS


    "Nate calling out fights in the Alb public bg has been a recent source of entertainment for me, most of those folks have never heard anyone call targets during US prime." Teddie

    "First off I am pretty sure most Mids agree that Albs previous leaders were weak and Nate is actually bringing out action." Impounded

    Discord me: Natebruner#3781
  • rps for typing in chat ? I think that's pushing it a bit much ;p lol
  • Huehuaehue wrote: »
    rps for typing in chat ? I think that's pushing it a bit much ;p lol

    used to be you would try to save door repairs for your intel folks. But that's not much really.
    If the group leader had a command to give a percentage of the group rps to the intel player of their choice - that would be cool.
    "I think what he is doing is good. For a long time Albs not have very good leaders. Natebruner is perfect, his accuracy, his pushing"
    HERORIUS


    "Nate calling out fights in the Alb public bg has been a recent source of entertainment for me, most of those folks have never heard anyone call targets during US prime." Teddie

    "First off I am pretty sure most Mids agree that Albs previous leaders were weak and Nate is actually bringing out action." Impounded

    Discord me: Natebruner#3781
  • Natebruner wrote: »
    Sovereign wrote: »
    We don't know if those stealthers are one and the same and even if they were, as I said it's a purely voluntary role. There are other roles that could be argued provide just as much or more help to the Zergs that also might earn less RPs such as ram drivers, siege engine operators, people putting up siege towers for distractions, etc. At what point is it decided to incentivize/reward a particular role over another?

    This makes zero sense. Ram Drivers are a huge part of a group and require heals. Biggest thing being is that RAM DRIVERS are apart of a "GROUP" and they are always within range of the groups RPS. (kills at the keep and bonus)

    A stealther even if grouped-- if providing intel is out of RANGE for the rps. How do you even try to make this comparison......

    I don't play stealthers but this is a pretty good idea.

    The comparison being that ram drivers don't get to participate in killing/healing/rezzing which directly affect the RP's they get from the bonuses at keep fights. Hands down, most siege operators under the current system (outside of catapults) earn less RP's due to volunteering to fill roles that gain less RPs compared to the other roles. Sure, they get RPs from the group but so could then stealthers tailing enemy BG's.
    RR12 Stormlord Wizard
    RR12 Warlord Cleric
    RR12 Warlord Minstrel
    RR12 Warlord Necromancer
    RR12 Perfector Heretic
  • It's unnecessary to provide an incentive to "fix" something that isn't broken.

    exactly

    intel can easily be gained by capturing easily capturable points which spawn cups/hammers/trees. i've seen purple towers drop in seconds from a bg - the whole scouting thing is purely an example of re-active RvR.

    stop waiting for the enemy to make the first move !

  • BurkleyRIP wrote: »
    Having Stealther intel is great, but unrewarding for the stealthers to frequent Zerg areas as they would get nothing from it, besides being zerged down

    +++
    Vicomtessa Muylasav, wildly swinging arms around. Vicomte Muylock, calling curses on enemies. Lord Muylaetrix, calling upon winter storms. some other chars with names starting with Muyl.
  • edited January 15 PM
    Sovereign wrote: »
    Natebruner wrote: »
    Sovereign wrote: »
    We don't know if those stealthers are one and the same and even if they were, as I said it's a purely voluntary role. There are other roles that could be argued provide just as much or more help to the Zergs that also might earn less RPs such as ram drivers, siege engine operators, people putting up siege towers for distractions, etc. At what point is it decided to incentivize/reward a particular role over another?

    This makes zero sense. Ram Drivers are a huge part of a group and require heals. Biggest thing being is that RAM DRIVERS are apart of a "GROUP" and they are always within range of the groups RPS. (kills at the keep and bonus)

    A stealther even if grouped-- if providing intel is out of RANGE for the rps. How do you even try to make this comparison......

    I don't play stealthers but this is a pretty good idea.

    The comparison being that ram drivers don't get to participate in killing/healing/rezzing which directly affect the RP's they get from the bonuses at keep fights. Hands down, most siege operators under the current system (outside of catapults) earn less RP's due to volunteering to fill roles that gain less RPs compared to the other roles. Sure, they get RPs from the group but so could then stealthers tailing enemy BG's.

    yep running a ram is basically 'taking one for the zerg' and earning your group and yourself less rp and reducing your own irs. (kobby savages are not good ram operators but i end up doing it way too much :( )
    Post edited by Muylae on
    Vicomtessa Muylasav, wildly swinging arms around. Vicomte Muylock, calling curses on enemies. Lord Muylaetrix, calling upon winter storms. some other chars with names starting with Muyl.
  • Huehuaehue wrote: »
    rps for typing in chat ? I think that's pushing it a bit much ;p lol

    it would be a great way to rp pl an alt in godrborg or equivalent as BG leader ! :)
    Vicomtessa Muylasav, wildly swinging arms around. Vicomte Muylock, calling curses on enemies. Lord Muylaetrix, calling upon winter storms. some other chars with names starting with Muyl.
  • tald wrote: »
    It's unnecessary to provide an incentive to "fix" something that isn't broken.

    exactly

    intel can easily be gained by capturing easily capturable points which spawn cups/hammers/trees. i've seen purple towers drop in seconds from a bg - the whole scouting thing is purely an example of re-active RvR.

    stop waiting for the enemy to make the first move !

    say that against herorius with 50+ when your realm has equal numbers in /who NF, including the bb's and the afks in godrborg....
    Vicomtessa Muylasav, wildly swinging arms around. Vicomte Muylock, calling curses on enemies. Lord Muylaetrix, calling upon winter storms. some other chars with names starting with Muyl.
  • If it shows up who are bg scouts it would be very obvious if a leader was rp PLing their own toon.

    Those saying this isn't needed.... I would argue to the contrary. My in-game experience is that our bgs have been far more successful when we have stealther intel. Fact is, there isn't quite a long line of stealthers (on Alb at least) lining up for that thankless and rp-less job. Yes, they can flank in a group etc...but that isn't the kind of intel I am talking about. I'm talking about shadowing the enemy bg and giving constant/real time intel.

    Don't get me wrong... I don't play a stealther (I have them but can't stomach them anymore) nor am I married to this idea. I just haven't really heard a good argument against it. I know nothing about coding so obviously if it were an insanely hard implementation I wouldn't want BS to prioritize such a thing. However, if it were easy to implement then why not?
  • I sometimes give fake intel, to keep people off my money. Not much to be had nowadays as far as rps, why share whats left with the larger population. I mean unless you cant kill what is roaming around, like a BG, however even then we usually wait till siege starts, then try and get the quest.
  • Mace80 wrote: »
    If it shows up who are bg scouts it would be very obvious if a leader was rp PLing their own toon.

    Those saying this isn't needed.... I would argue to the contrary. My in-game experience is that our bgs have been far more successful when we have stealther intel. Fact is, there isn't quite a long line of stealthers (on Alb at least) lining up for that thankless and rp-less job. Yes, they can flank in a group etc...but that isn't the kind of intel I am talking about. I'm talking about shadowing the enemy bg and giving constant/real time intel.

    Don't get me wrong... I don't play a stealther (I have them but can't stomach them anymore) nor am I married to this idea. I just haven't really heard a good argument against it. I know nothing about coding so obviously if it were an insanely hard implementation I wouldn't want BS to prioritize such a thing. However, if it were easy to implement then why not?

    Again, shadowing a BG isn't tied to stealthers. I did it for Rescu at times on my Sorc when I wanted to stay solo. Picked off stragglers and got RPs. Did the same thing last night on my Eld against the Mid BG. Completed my solo kill task doing it. This /scout command won't fix your intel problem. Instead, you'll have people RP PL themselves in private anon BGs.
  • Haha bg players always looking for ways to increase rps that doesn't involve killing of people in rvr
    Bodukejr- hunter
    Thegenerallee-shadowblade
    Misleadinglooks-warrior

    Grumblejr-hero
    Danceswithdebuffs-champion
    Faatkid-druid
  • edited January 15 PM
    Boduke, I solo/smallman more than I'm ever in BGs. Thanks though.... I'm just offering suggestions/starting conversations rather than complaining about everything under the sun with zero suggestions for improvement. If/when I do join a BG I never do this role, nor do I see myself doing it.

    It doesn't have to be stealthers.... ya'll are too hung up on details of a spitball moonshot idea.

    Also, it'd be very hard to get away with "rp PLing" a toon. It'd be displayed in /bg groups who is doing it and if that person isn't giving intel in BC then it'd be obvious what they were doing.
    Post edited by Mace80 on
  • Beatle, yea I didn't think of private BGs... a few slight tweaks could remedy that situation.
  • Boduke wrote: »
    Haha bg players always looking for ways to increase rps that doesn't involve killing of people in rvr

    Fatkid, we had a fight a few weeks ago at the island docks. You were unattackable for like 4 minutes and it appeared as though you were bugged riding on an invisible horse. It was super frustrating. Once you got range you unloaded on me...I could attack you for a slight bit of time but then you were unattackable again. It was the weirdest thing I've ever had happen in DAOC.
  • Mace80 wrote: »
    If it shows up who are bg scouts it would be very obvious if a leader was rp PLing their own toon.

    Those saying this isn't needed.... I would argue to the contrary. My in-game experience is that our bgs have been far more successful when we have stealther intel. Fact is, there isn't quite a long line of stealthers (on Alb at least) lining up for that thankless and rp-less job. Yes, they can flank in a group etc...but that isn't the kind of intel I am talking about. I'm talking about shadowing the enemy bg and giving constant/real time intel.

    Don't get me wrong... I don't play a stealther (I have them but can't stomach them anymore) nor am I married to this idea. I just haven't really heard a good argument against it. I know nothing about coding so obviously if it were an insanely hard implementation I wouldn't want BS to prioritize such a thing. However, if it were easy to implement then why not?

    In short, my counter arguments would be:
    • It's a voluntary role that is not essential but a luxury so is there a need to incentivize this role?
    • There are other roles with the same pitfall that could be considered not near as voluntary such as ram operators so if scouts warrant such an incentive why not other roles and at what point is enough enough?
    • The potential for abuse is great not to mention chaos in general. Imagine people creating tons of BG's in order to RP level alts, assuming private BG's don't qualify, can you imagine doing /who BG and seeing 20+?
    • It's easier now more than ever before to earn RP's, does this game really need /scout RP?
    • Would the time spent on creating this new RP system be better spent in some other area?
    RR12 Stormlord Wizard
    RR12 Warlord Cleric
    RR12 Warlord Minstrel
    RR12 Warlord Necromancer
    RR12 Perfector Heretic
  • edited January 15 PM
    As I said earlier, if it is a complicated coding problem I obviously don't want them to spend a ton of time on it. But if it is easy... I think it is worth looking in to.

    I think rewarding realm cooperation and cohesion is needed at this juncture of the game.

    You are right about the potential for exploitation. Obviously slight tweaks would need to be made to prevent this...because... people suck...

    I honestly just like discussing ideas, brainstorming possibilities, etc... I like changes from BS as they keep the game evolving and changing. I'm not someone who can play the same exact game for a long time and not get bored and walk away. Everyone crying for "the way things once were" perplexes me ...if the game never changed...many would leave out of boredom.

    /shrug...I honestly posted this to get a discussion going and thought I'd pitch something pretty far out of the box. I get tired of the complaining and was hoping for a productive conversation.

    Everyone says "fix what is broken" I'm pretty sure they would have done that by now if they knew how. Or...there is the issue of disagreeing what is broken and what is not... So in that light, what changes would you suggest to keep things fresh and evolving?
    Post edited by Mace80 on
  • Mace80 wrote: »
    Everyone says "fix what is broken" I'm pretty sure they would have done that by now if they knew how. Or...there is the issue of disagreeing what is broken and what is not... So in that light, what changes would you suggest to keep things fresh and evolving?

    Endless Conquest. Send in suggestions regarding how it should be implemented (i.e. what restrictions should apply). There needs to be a balance between subs and F2P such that we can retain players without forcing a subscription. Provide suggestions for the MTX store as that will be the primary money maker from F2P players. Identify and fix quest bugs that new players will use to level up and acquire gear. Perhaps add active bonuses for the startup guilds (MTX store option?). Essentially set the groundwork to build a community.
  • As is usually the case, I have to agree with @Sovereign on this. I'm not saying it's a horrible idea, I just don't see the need or how this really does anything to improve or fix anything that will make a solid difference.

    Will it stop people from spying with bots? Nope. Will it suddenly bring more people into bg's to fill those roles? Nope. As Sovereign already stated, rp's are not hard to earn amd between claimed keep spam and the realm war map, you don't really need anyone special for scouting.

    I do think this would have been a great idea back in the classic days.
  • Mace80 ya it's a bug from lagging off a boat I can't do anything either I get message your are currently riding, I have to wait for the boat to get to location before game sees me as off boat
    Bodukejr- hunter
    Thegenerallee-shadowblade
    Misleadinglooks-warrior

    Grumblejr-hero
    Danceswithdebuffs-champion
    Faatkid-druid
  • Boduke wrote: »
    Mace80 ya it's a bug from lagging off a boat I can't do anything either I get message your are currently riding, I have to wait for the boat to get to location before game sees me as off boat

    yea it sucked lol I thought it might be something along those lines.
  • Mace80 wrote: »
    Everyone says "fix what is broken" I'm pretty sure they would have done that by now if they knew how. Or...there is the issue of disagreeing what is broken and what is not... So in that light, what changes would you suggest to keep things fresh and evolving?

    Endless Conquest. Send in suggestions regarding how it should be implemented (i.e. what restrictions should apply). There needs to be a balance between subs and F2P such that we can retain players without forcing a subscription. Provide suggestions for the MTX store as that will be the primary money maker from F2P players. Identify and fix quest bugs that new players will use to level up and acquire gear. Perhaps add active bonuses for the startup guilds (MTX store option?). Essentially set the groundwork to build a community.

    I prefer to have those conversations here. You submit feedback and that is the end of it...I enjoy the discussions, sharing ideas, bouncing ideas. I know BS would say to submit feedback but they see these boards as well.

    IMO This is our game. And constant negativity toward each other and the game itself will only hasten its fall. Productive discussions on growth and development >>>> feedback forms (to me anyway)
  • edited January 15 PM
    RonELuvv wrote: »
    As is usually the case, I have to agree with @Sovereign on this. I'm not saying it's a horrible idea, I just don't see the need or how this really does anything to improve or fix anything that will make a solid difference.

    Will it stop people from spying with bots? Nope. Will it suddenly bring more people into bg's to fill those roles? Nope. As Sovereign already stated, rp's are not hard to earn amd between claimed keep spam and the realm war map, you don't really need anyone special for scouting.

    I do think this would have been a great idea back in the classic days.

    When I've been in BGs, despite all of the Realm War Map intel, real-time, in-field intel has been the most beneficial to our success. I don't think it'd fix everything (as I stated above) but it would improve things IMO.
    Post edited by Mace80 on
  • Mace80 wrote: »
    Mace80 wrote: »
    Everyone says "fix what is broken" I'm pretty sure they would have done that by now if they knew how. Or...there is the issue of disagreeing what is broken and what is not... So in that light, what changes would you suggest to keep things fresh and evolving?

    Endless Conquest. Send in suggestions regarding how it should be implemented (i.e. what restrictions should apply). There needs to be a balance between subs and F2P such that we can retain players without forcing a subscription. Provide suggestions for the MTX store as that will be the primary money maker from F2P players. Identify and fix quest bugs that new players will use to level up and acquire gear. Perhaps add active bonuses for the startup guilds (MTX store option?). Essentially set the groundwork to build a community.

    I prefer to have those conversations here. You submit feedback and that is the end of it...I enjoy the discussions, sharing ideas, bouncing ideas. I know BS would say to submit feedback but they see these boards as well.

    IMO This is our game. And constant negativity toward each other and the game itself will only hasten its fall. Productive discussions on growth and development >>>> feedback forms (to me anyway)

    I started an EC suggestion thread for this reason. People are more likely to respond when they disagree with something rather than offer up new ideas whether they be "good" or not. No one likes being told their ideas are bad but it gets discussions, such as this one, going. You may feel like this is our game, but it really isn't. We pay for access. All we can do is offer up our opinions. The rest is up to Broadsword and EA. Ultimately, the player decides whether or not paying $15/month is worth the experience.
  • I agree with ya mace80, discussions should be in open not tossed into trash can (feedback), I don't agree this is our game.. if it was our game these people in charge wouldn't have required losing what 40% population before they backtracked pet/sin patch
    Bodukejr- hunter
    Thegenerallee-shadowblade
    Misleadinglooks-warrior

    Grumblejr-hero
    Danceswithdebuffs-champion
    Faatkid-druid
  • edited January 15 PM
    Well obviously it isn't ours in the literal sense. I mean it is ours in a figurative sense. In so far as we need to take more responsibility in its health. Mythic, EA and BS have obviously not done everything perfectly BUT we as a community have been negative toward them, the game and perhaps worse of all, each other for too long. I see one of the biggest issues with population being a toxic playerbase. We EAT OUR OWN far more often than we pat each other on the back and say good fight etc...

    The really unique thing that MMORPGs brought to the industry is the centrality of player to player interactions to playing environment. I think that has eroded to the point that it doesn't matter what BS does....unless the players start taking ownership of their share of the upkeep, DAOC will die. (LOL I just reread this and it comes off very melodramatic but no less true IMO)
    Post edited by Mace80 on
  • Mace80 wrote: »
    Well obviously it isn't ours in the literal sense. I mean it is ours in a figurative sense. In so far as we need to take more responsibility in its health. Mythic, EA and BS have obviously not done everything perfectly BUT we as a community have been negative toward them, the game and perhaps worse of all, each other for too long. I see one of the biggest issues with population being a toxic playerbase. We EAT OUR OWN far more often than we pat each other on the back and say good fight etc...

    The really unique thing that MMORPGs brought to the industry is the centrality of player to player interactions to playing environment. I think that has eroded to the point that it doesn't matter what BS does....unless the players start taking ownership of their share of the upkeep, DAOC will die. (LOL I just reread this and it comes off very melodramatic but no less true IMO)

    I concur in so far as players are the ones responsible for creating and maintaining a community.
  • Well the problem I see with hostility, is the fact player base is so small coupled with the issue that you have access to all 3 realms and 1 night are being run over by xx next night your on the same realm and people don't forget.

    The negativity I have towards the staff is because they put there own selfish vision of what the game should be in and caused massive damage and than refused to go welp we fked up we will revert til it was 2 late.
    Bodukejr- hunter
    Thegenerallee-shadowblade
    Misleadinglooks-warrior

    Grumblejr-hero
    Danceswithdebuffs-champion
    Faatkid-druid
  • Mace80 wrote: »
    I honestly just like discussing ideas, brainstorming possibilities, etc... I like changes from BS as they keep the game evolving and changing. I'm not someone who can play the same exact game for a long time and not get bored and walk away. Everyone crying for "the way things once were" perplexes me ...if the game never changed...many would leave out of boredom.

    /shrug...I honestly posted this to get a discussion going and thought I'd pitch something pretty far out of the box. I get tired of the complaining and was hoping for a productive conversation.

    It's not my intention to shut down the conversation so I apologize if that is what you are interpreting. I'm merely providing my point of view on your suggestion in the spirit of discussion. It's an interesting suggestion and I fully understand the rationale behind it, I however disagree that it's needed. My summary of points are my thought process that has lead me to that conclusion, nothing more.
    RR12 Stormlord Wizard
    RR12 Warlord Cleric
    RR12 Warlord Minstrel
    RR12 Warlord Necromancer
    RR12 Perfector Heretic
  • Sovereign wrote: »
    Mace80 wrote: »
    I honestly just like discussing ideas, brainstorming possibilities, etc... I like changes from BS as they keep the game evolving and changing. I'm not someone who can play the same exact game for a long time and not get bored and walk away. Everyone crying for "the way things once were" perplexes me ...if the game never changed...many would leave out of boredom.

    /shrug...I honestly posted this to get a discussion going and thought I'd pitch something pretty far out of the box. I get tired of the complaining and was hoping for a productive conversation.

    It's not my intention to shut down the conversation so I apologize if that is what you are interpreting. I'm merely providing my point of view on your suggestion in the spirit of discussion. It's an interesting suggestion and I fully understand the rationale behind it, I however disagree that it's needed. My summary of points are my thought process that has lead me to that conclusion, nothing more.

    I second that. I'm all about having a discussion about anything. That is how games get changed (for better or worse). I just don't think it would really improve or fix anything. It's not as if there is a large amount of people that just want to scout for BG's sitting around. Sure, there are a few, but not enough to warrant this imo. However, I have enjoyed the discussion regardless if I agree with it or not. :)
  • Well I couldn't ask for much more than that. Positive discourse can only lead to good things.

    Ron, I think that might be a part of my rational for it. It would actually incentivize recon as right now there is little reward to it. Another feasible play style can't be all that bad.
  • Boduke wrote: »
    Mace80 ya it's a bug from lagging off a boat I can't do anything either I get message your are currently riding, I have to wait for the boat to get to location before game sees me as off boat

    If this occurs again you want to type /mou (I believe) and it will disembark your character @Boduke . That way you won't need to wait for the boat to complete it's route. This has happened to me multiple times as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.