Recent Topics

Ads

Conq and up.

Chat about everything else - ask questions, share stories, or just hang out.
User avatar
Sejanus
Posts: 145

Conq and up.

Post#1 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 5:57 am

So what's the word on these armor sets? I know they aren't implemented yet, and given how long it took to get them on retail, what's the defining word on em? Are they held back due to currency concerns? Waiting til more players are in tier 4? Are they being held til more of t4 is completed?
Image

Ads
ValeraNox
Posts: 51

Re: Conq and up.

Post#2 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:29 am

be patient a young padawan
Mahmoud - WH 40/57

User avatar
Sejanus
Posts: 145

Re: Conq and up.

Post#3 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:31 am

That doesn't really answer any of my questions.
Image

Roodabega
Posts: 38

Re: Conq and up.

Post#4 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:04 am

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12317


i think he explains it but if not sorry

User avatar
Styrkarr
Former Staff
Posts: 98

Re: Conq and up.

Post#5 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:11 am

Genisaurus wrote:Actually, no, I meant things like forts and city sieges. Dungeons are something we would like to do, but at the moment we're waiting for Londo to finish his instance tool, and that's at least two months away. If I had to come up with a rough roadmap based on what I had said, it would look something like this:
  1. T4 without forts, annihilator, RR45
    (shortly followed by)
  2. Forts, conqueror, RR55.
    (At this point we focus on designing a new RvR campaign system. Potentially plateau dvelopment on new content here for a while)
  3. New RvR campaign, RR65, maybe invader depending on how we could work it in
    (instance builder should be working by now, so the goal is fixing cities)
  4. City sieges, warlord gear, RR80
    (???)
  5. something cool, Soveriegn gear.
The instance tool should be done between phases 1 and 4. City sieges would be the priority at this point, followed by other dungeons. Phase 5 might just be merged with phase 4.
Image
CCM

User avatar
kweedko
Posts: 519

Re: Conq and up.

Post#6 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:20 am

Styrkarr wrote:
Genisaurus wrote:Actually, no, I meant things like forts and city sieges. Dungeons are something we would like to do, but at the moment we're waiting for Londo to finish his instance tool, and that's at least two months away. If I had to come up with a rough roadmap based on what I had said, it would look something like this:
  1. T4 without forts, annihilator, RR45
    (shortly followed by)
  2. Forts, conqueror, RR55.
    (At this point we focus on designing a new RvR campaign system. Potentially plateau dvelopment on new content here for a while)
  3. New RvR campaign, RR65, maybe invader depending on how we could work it in
    (instance builder should be working by now, so the goal is fixing cities)
  4. City sieges, warlord gear, RR80
    (???)
  5. something cool, Soveriegn gear.
The instance tool should be done between phases 1 and 4. City sieges would be the priority at this point, followed by other dungeons. Phase 5 might just be merged with phase 4.
So you basically messed up with gear progerssion (t3) ani for 45, conc and forts 55, warlord and city sieges wtf am i reading. Stop raeping the balance.

DeusMechanicus
Posts: 54

Re: Conq and up.

Post#7 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:26 am

kweedko wrote:
Styrkarr wrote:
Genisaurus wrote:Actually, no, I meant things like forts and city sieges. Dungeons are something we would like to do, but at the moment we're waiting for Londo to finish his instance tool, and that's at least two months away. If I had to come up with a rough roadmap based on what I had said, it would look something like this:
  1. T4 without forts, annihilator, RR45
    (shortly followed by)
  2. Forts, conqueror, RR55.
    (At this point we focus on designing a new RvR campaign system. Potentially plateau dvelopment on new content here for a while)
  3. New RvR campaign, RR65, maybe invader depending on how we could work it in
    (instance builder should be working by now, so the goal is fixing cities)
  4. City sieges, warlord gear, RR80
    (???)
  5. something cool, Soveriegn gear.
The instance tool should be done between phases 1 and 4. City sieges would be the priority at this point, followed by other dungeons. Phase 5 might just be merged with phase 4.
So you basically messed up with gear progerssion (t3) ani for 45, conc and forts 55, warlord and city sieges wtf am i reading. Stop raeping the balance.
You're being a little bit toxic m8 :roll:

User avatar
Styrkarr
Former Staff
Posts: 98

Re: Conq and up.

Post#8 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:35 am

kweedko wrote:
Styrkarr wrote:
Genisaurus wrote:Actually, no, I meant things like forts and city sieges. Dungeons are something we would like to do, but at the moment we're waiting for Londo to finish his instance tool, and that's at least two months away. If I had to come up with a rough roadmap based on what I had said, it would look something like this:
  1. T4 without forts, annihilator, RR45
    (shortly followed by)
  2. Forts, conqueror, RR55.
    (At this point we focus on designing a new RvR campaign system. Potentially plateau dvelopment on new content here for a while)
  3. New RvR campaign, RR65, maybe invader depending on how we could work it in
    (instance builder should be working by now, so the goal is fixing cities)
  4. City sieges, warlord gear, RR80
    (???)
  5. something cool, Soveriegn gear.
The instance tool should be done between phases 1 and 4. City sieges would be the priority at this point, followed by other dungeons. Phase 5 might just be merged with phase 4.
So you basically messed up with gear progerssion (t3) ani for 45, conc and forts 55, warlord and city sieges wtf am i reading. Stop raeping the balance.
:roll:

That was posted 3 months ago. It's just to show you a guideline. We messed up nothing, it's just that things can be changed with time.
Image
CCM

Ads
User avatar
kweedko
Posts: 519

Re: Conq and up.

Post#9 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:36 am

DeusMechanicus wrote:
You're being a little bit toxic m8 :roll:
And what, they froged up not me. Not everybody gonna kiss you in the bum if you doing it wrong.
Styrkarr wrote:
That was posted 3 months ago. It's just to show you a guideline. We messed up nothing, it's just that things can be changed with time.
Guideline of messing up with thin ballance war got on live.

ani is t3 set, sw was nerfeed all except stupid third branch, zeal still got not working abils, rez bebuff not applyed on dots that already on the target(if that the same with heal debuff then you frogged up so bad), some classes got no 3 sets for 3 different branch specs, sure you messed up nothing not a bit. :mrgreen:
Last edited by kweedko on Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:54 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
RyanMakara
Posts: 1563

Re: Conq and up.

Post#10 » Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:39 am

kweedko wrote:
DeusMechanicus wrote:
You're being a little bit toxic m8 :roll:
And what, they froged up not me. Not everybody gonna kiss you in the bum if you doing it wrong.
Styrkarr wrote:
That was posted 3 months ago. It's just to show you a guideline. We messed up nothing, it's just that things can be changed with time.
Guideline of messing up wih thin ballance war got on live.
Which it's why it may be subject to change based on actual argument and discussion surrounding its implementation. So, what are your actual arguments to prove the 'thin balance' between Conq to Sov?
Image

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot], Bing [Bot], RalloGC and 9 guests