/expoff

[Antipatra 0]

Or whatever that command was to turn off experience gain.

[windslav 2]

After all the media uproar, how do you people still manage to miss that it's a vanilla server?

[Antipatra 0]

After all the media uproar, how do you people still manage to miss that it's a vanilla server?

 

Why does this bother you? Because it's not "blizzlike"? Kindly show yourself the door.

[Ironsides 35]

Why does this bother you? Because it's not "blizzlike"? Kindly show yourself the door.

 

They've already got it at level 60.

[cybaster 31]

What do you want this tool for?  Might it have something to do with poisoning the newbie battlegrounds with twinks that have the best in slot for that bracket in every single slot?

[Storfan 24]

Or whatever that command was to turn off experience gain.

 

Please return to retail.

[Tholren 7]

What do you want this tool for?  Might it have something to do with poisoning the newbie battlegrounds with twinks that have the best in slot for that bracket in every single slot?

 

Basically this. Let's not add features that bring further inbalance.

[Antipatra 0]

That people could stay in battlegrounds wasn't the cause of the imbalance. 225+ enchants not working on anyone below level 40 would solve most of the problems. You could simplify that by just not allowing mongoose and crusader on weapons below level 40, and also +100hp... all of which should have not been allowed to begin with. There are others that I'm forgetting, though. It could work with tweaking.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Antipatra

[Tholren 7]

How do any of those things relate to .expoff?

[Antipatra 0]

How do any of those things relate to .expoff?

 

This is a discussion. If there is a problem, you look for a way to fix it. Certain types of twinking is an acceptable argument against this, so you find ways that mitigate it. If that was your only concern, then there is nothing left for you to talk about.

[Zappa 7]

It would be great if we focus all our energy and bring it into the first thread:

https://forum.elysium-project.org/index.php?showtopic=23886

 

Because this is the third thread regarding the same topic.

 

Still hoping they gonna implement it soon. 

[Tholren 7]

Discussions generally require logical connections between what is stated and the main issue at hand. None of the other unbalance issues relate to the .expoff command. Not to mention that, if anything, adding a command that will further contribute to Twinking unbalance should be immediately excluded on the basis of its' very consequences. Forcing something to change, only to have to fix the problems the very same change brings is redundant at best, and thus should not be encouraged.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Tholren

[Antipatra 0]

Discussions generally require logical connections between what is stated and the main issue at hand. None of the other unbalance issues relate to the .expoff command. Not to mention that, if anything, adding a command that will further contribute to Twinking unbalance should be immediately excluded on the basis of its' very consequences. Forcing something to change, only to have to fix the problems the very same change brings is redundant at best, and thus should not be encouraged.

 

Thanks for trying, but you're wrong. On many things. Putting more words in between them won't change that.

[Tholren 7]

Naturally you'd think me wrong because you disagree with my opinion. But please, explain your logic. I have explained mine. Simply stating I'm wrong isn't much of a discussion.

[Antipatra 0]

Naturally you'd think me wrong because you disagree with my opinion. But please, explain your logic. I have explained mine. Simply stating I'm wrong isn't much of a discussion.

 

The question isn't about whether or not the proposed fixes "relates" to the problem, it's whether or not the proposed fixes affects anyone in a negative way, other than those that would take advantage of it (ie. battleground twinks). You have not given a good reason why these enchantments should affect anyone under level 40, or item level 40, therefore, the changes are an acceptable solution to the problem. Most of what you said just doesn't make sense.

 

Also, refusing to argue with someone doesn't necessarily mean "admission of defeat". It could also mean I don't have the patience to deal with your rambling.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Antipatra

[Tholren 7]

So, in a discussion regarding the possible existance of a .expoff command you expect me to provide solutions to the other unbalance issues that revolve around low level pvp? I simply followed the main issue you raised, saw what effects it would have and said it was a poor idea to implement. But sure, I'm the one not making sense.

[Antipatra 0]

So, in a discussion regarding the possible existance of a .expoff command you expect me to provide solutions to the other unbalance issues that revolve around low level pvp? I simply followed the main issue you raised, saw what effects it would have and said it was a poor idea to implement. But sure, I'm the one not making sense.

 

See addendum.

[Tholren 7]

If you really consider what I'm saying as "rambling" then you are rather intransigent. Never did you refuse to further discuss with me, nor have I stated that you admitted defeat at any point. Perhaps you're reading some nonexistent passive-aggressiveness between the lines. But since you decided to go through the dismissive route regarding my arguments, I too will present you with my inner edgyness, for I too can write something up in order to sound assertive in my ideas, whilst being cool and unnecessarily offensive and dismissive.

 

Your idea is horrible and it has absolutely no place on this server, so please, stop occupying even this nonphysical space with such idiocy.

[Antipatra 0]

You're arguing just to argue. It's annoying, and stupid, and pretty childish, tbqh. If you don't like my suggestion, kindly get the вау out. You said your piece, so leave.

 

Thanks.

[Tholren 7]

Quite the contrary, but I expected you to miss the point on that post as well. It has become rather clear to me that you are only interested in discussing subjects with those who agree with your suggestions. Positive feedback or nothing, right? Anyone who disagrees is a rambling idiot. I'll remember this in the future and simply avoid further interactions with that functioning tumor you take for a brain.

[GoForTheMoon 0]

you're both dummies tbh

 

Please return to retail.

this guy is more dumb though

[Antipatra 0]

Thanks

[gotmilk0112 10]

You can twink just fine without exp lock. You just have to plan better and for dungeon drops, have someone else clear everything up until the boss you need.

[Athena 3]

I was very active in the 19 bracket during vanilla and TBC (maximized gear, fishing boots/head) and I don't see why you wild require XP to be disabled. Just explore as much of the map as possible while leveling. I could safely engage in PvP as a Horde in Westfall so I'm sure you can too.

[Antipatra 0]

You can twink just fine without exp lock. You just have to plan better and for dungeon drops, have someone else clear everything up until the boss you need.

 

A neutral argument that could favor either side. You will certainly see these people even if there isn't a way to turn it off. Turning it off just makes it easier. It is less restricting, since you can do other things without fear of leveling out, such as playing with friends, or guildies, and helping them gear up.

 

One could argue there is no difference between going to 60, not farming BIS gear and getting wrecked in the process, and being level 19, not farming BIS gear (and getting wrecked in the process), which seems to be the main argument against it; "I don't want to do any work to be good in that bracket, so no one should have better gear than me"... other than there are ways to twink yourself far beyond the norm, such as expensive enchants... which is easily fixed, like I already suggested.

Edited December 25, 2016 by Antipatra