Page 1 of 8
Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 5:57 am
by Sejanus
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?
Re: Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:29 am
by ValeraNox
be patient a young padawan
Re: Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 6:31 am
by Sejanus
That doesn't really answer any of my questions.
Re: Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:04 am
by Roodabega
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=12317
i think he explains it but if not sorry
Re: Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:11 am
by Styrkarr
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:
- T4 without forts, annihilator, RR45
(shortly followed by)
- 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)
- 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)
- City sieges, warlord gear, RR80
(???)
- 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.
Re: Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:20 am
by kweedko
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:
- T4 without forts, annihilator, RR45
(shortly followed by)
- 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)
- 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)
- City sieges, warlord gear, RR80
(???)
- 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.
Re: Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:26 am
by DeusMechanicus
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:
- T4 without forts, annihilator, RR45
(shortly followed by)
- 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)
- 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)
- City sieges, warlord gear, RR80
(???)
- 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
Re: Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:35 am
by Styrkarr
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:
- T4 without forts, annihilator, RR45
(shortly followed by)
- 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)
- 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)
- City sieges, warlord gear, RR80
(???)
- 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.
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.
Re: Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:36 am
by kweedko
DeusMechanicus wrote:
You're being a little bit toxic m8
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.
Re: Conq and up.
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2016 7:39 am
by RyanMakara
kweedko wrote:DeusMechanicus wrote:
You're being a little bit toxic m8
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?