NPC Buffer on each GA PVP.. seriously just do it! - Page 2 - Proposals & Suggestions - WarpPortal Community Forums

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

NPC Buffer on each GA PVP.. seriously just do it!


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#26 MarK1789

MarK1789

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 20 June 2015 - 03:32 AM

so overall your point is?


  • 0

#27 Feuer

Feuer

    They pay me to post

  • Members
  • 10958 posts
  • Twitter:@LovatianOwl
  • LocationCaves of Owlverick
  • Playing:ROSE Online
  • Server:Le' Forumz

Posted 20 June 2015 - 03:59 AM

Unless they fix it right the first time, 80% of the problems will remain. And playing PvP favorites is the reason the entirety of this game sucks at certain points. 


  • 0

#28 MarK1789

MarK1789

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 20 June 2015 - 04:52 AM

with all due respect to your opinion..

 

what seems to be going on for me is that when they apply a fix to something, a problem occurs to another thing that's why i'm looking for small things that can be modified and is for the betterment of the game but will not affect others things like the point of my suggestion which is to put npc buffers cause we all know that we can use buff pots inside GA but due to some reasons like dopel stated, most players are not using that feature.

 

Now, if there's an npc buffer on each spawn point in GA PVP that sells buffs equivalent to that of a complete buff set that the buff pot npc sells, most people being like "nah no buff no fun afk ggwp" will instead be like "oh theres a buffer here.. imma get some of these and try to get some kills of those campers lalala". Which i think is not bad for a temporary Fix since it affects greatly one of the most important aspect of a game which is to be fun.

 

Those buff pots are only use-able inside GA PVP games so why not just convert it to a direct buff from an npc and just put it in there? I don't see any bad-side effects about transferring it inside the GA PVP map but i see a lot of good effects, which is good for the game and the players


Edited by MarK1789, 20 June 2015 - 04:54 AM.

  • 0

#29 Feuer

Feuer

    They pay me to post

  • Members
  • 10958 posts
  • Twitter:@LovatianOwl
  • LocationCaves of Owlverick
  • Playing:ROSE Online
  • Server:Le' Forumz

Posted 20 June 2015 - 05:17 AM

Yes which goes back to my point about them being too influencing. The buffs are the core, they're so strong, that the community is struggling to come up with tweaks to adjust the fairness of matches. 

 

Which is why, instead of making some NPC buffer [which 100% reminds me of private servers....] why not just reduce the influence amount buffs have in the first place? If they did that, then they wouldn't need to invest time coding a buffer or potion seller inside GA etc, and the change would flow outward to the other aspects, fixing more as it does. And adjusting buff totals is significantly easier than coding new features trust me. Anything that cropped up as 'a problem' due to them lowering buff values could then be dealt with and once it's all done, the system will be stable as a whole, not full of spotty weird fixes that you have to learn for each different GA mode or other facet of the game like DG's. 


  • 0

#30 MarK1789

MarK1789

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 20 June 2015 - 05:26 AM

I also support the idea of reducing the amount of influence buffs give ever since.. But if the devs really think that it will be balanced that way they've already informed us that they have a plan to reconsider modifying the buffs cause it's been an issue for a very long time. But since i've not seen one bit of an information of them reconsidering that suggestion(or maybe i just missed it) I came up with this proposal.


Edited by MarK1789, 20 June 2015 - 05:29 AM.

  • 0

#31 Feuer

Feuer

    They pay me to post

  • Members
  • 10958 posts
  • Twitter:@LovatianOwl
  • LocationCaves of Owlverick
  • Playing:ROSE Online
  • Server:Le' Forumz

Posted 20 June 2015 - 09:56 AM

Then maybe that topics urgency should be stressed more urgently instead of distracting them with other things? 


  • 0

#32 MarK1789

MarK1789

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 20 June 2015 - 07:21 PM

it's been discussed for a very long time but i think no response even just a hint from the devs was given so i assumed they don't support it. 


  • 0

#33 VisitorX

VisitorX

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 296 posts

Posted 21 June 2015 - 04:42 AM

@leonis


  • 0

#34 MarK1789

MarK1789

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 260 posts

Posted 21 June 2015 - 06:46 PM

^lmao


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users