Jump to content

Perry the Platypus

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Perry the Platypus

  • Birthday 01/20/1994

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. BG has been running every single day since Oct 19, and had been running every day up until Oct 17 before that. Lack of PvP may be true, though as mentioned in other topics, our focus is more on BG/PvM (with new PvM content coming in the next update), with PvP not being a priority for us. As far as the actual topic of WoE times, it may be best to set up a poll for this soon, but I'll leave the topic up for a bit to see some more feedback first. It does seem like it may be best to shift at least one of the times though, based on what's been posted here so far.
  2. The required players for BG is already quite low in my opinion, with even 5v5 being fairly small teams for objective based gameplay. I think lowering it any further would be detrimental to the actual experience of BG, and would ultimately just devalue BG Tickets by making them far easier to get. :( As far as adding new items to the shop, I'm all for adding new repeat purchases, though Refine Tickets specifically would be a no since it would heavily devalue DCs (Refine Tickets are the most purchased item in the Donation Shop atm), and while I'll never make a play to win server, we do unfortunately still need some income to keep the server running. If there's other items you'd be interested in seeing (even new ones) you're more than welcome to suggest them though. :o
  3. Sorry for the late reply! We're looking into this issue now - I just replied to your forum PM now to get some additional details as well.
  4. If you could start a new topic for this and include some additional details, such as how you're starting the client, what operating system you're using, and anything else that you think may help (such as any steps you've already tried), I can take a look at this for you. :o
  5. My cynical side would be worried about people trying to game the system, and this could actually result in people intentionally throwing matches (possibly trying to be subtle about it so it's not easy to prove) or similar "tactics" simply to get back to a state where they can duo. There's also a few cases where I think it could have false positives (or false negatives) that might make it a bit unfair in how it's implemented, unless the MMR system was first adjusted to provide a more accurate representation of individual player skill. If there was to be a restriction it would likely be better to do something a bit more consistent, like only being able to duo with a specific player for X number of games every Y hours/days, but this might just make it more awkward than anything else, and would also give an advantage to players who have multiple friends they could duo with.
  6. The duo queue system itself won't be removed for reasons that were already discussed in the previous topics where it came up, though I will be looking at removing a different part of the matchmaking system instead. As I mentioned in a previous topic, the issue isn't with duo queues themselves, as if one duo queue is enough to ruin a match, it'd be an unbalanced match regardless of whether or not duo queues were enabled. The issue is that when the pre-match queue is identical every time, the teams will generally be the same (or very close) until player MMR shifts enough that the queue order changes - under normal circumstances this should only take a few games, but if you have a couple long-time veterans who have an unusually high MMR, and a couple newbies with unusually low MMR, it can take longer, and that ends up making the problem seem worse. This is compounded by the fact that the role balancing and MMR systems directly conflict with each other's effectiveness (trading classes will inevitably mess up MMR balancing, and MMR balancing makes role balancing harder). Since the role balancing system is a bit more fleshed out than it was in the past, it's probably at a point where the MMR system can be removed completely, and the role balancing system adjusted to work more effectively instead of having to work around MMR. Basically what this means is that the queue can be shuffled randomly instead of always being ordered the same way, so outside of some very niche scenarios the teams should constantly be changing during long periods of Battlegrounds. This will inevitably mean that some matches will place more veterans on one team than the other, but at the very least the teams will be shuffled each match, so it won't be as likely to get put into (or against) the same team multiple times in a row.
  7. The winners for October have been selected! First Place: @rozzy Second Place: @Byul Third Place: @Dusle Prizes have been mailed to each of the winners - thank you to everyone who posted new guides and wiki content! Submissions for November are being accepted and new winners will be selected at the start of next month. <3
  8. Hi! Unfortunately we can't extend the promo or offer late promo rates, so you'd have to wait for the next promo. :( The next one will likely be the annual Christmas promo, though we don't have the exact dates for it yet.
  9. I'm unsure what you mean about a lack of versatility; as far as I'm aware we have the largest range of both viable and actively used classes out of any super high rate in the last 5-10 years (including our previous server). You mention classes not being able to kill, but isn't the whole point of versatility (and diversity) that every class has its own strengths and weaknesses, and is able to contribute/excel at its own role? Turning every class into a carbon copy 1v1 machine isn't really "diversity" and isn't, in my opinion, something that any server should strive to achieve. You mention Snipers specifically in your post, but they were never really designed to be a hardcore 1v1 DPS bot. They're designed to be a hybrid utility class with kiting potential, and they currently perform that role quite well when played properly. There's certainly a few classes that need some improvements in performing their roles, and some of them may be damage related (Gunslingers for example will have a focus on keeping their DPS role when they get their balancing pass), but others will receive changes that fit their intended roles. If your focus is solely on 1v1 PvP as opposed to team environments, then you may have misunderstood the current intentions of our balancing changes. Our server's focus is on BG and PvM, not on solo PvP, and our balancing changes will reflect that. Once we're happy with the state of balancing in BG/WoE we'll start looking at solo PvP balancing, but until then it would simply be impractical to split our time between both, as balancing is extremely complex and time consuming (well, it should be...a lot of SHRs just rush it for the cash grab). As far as the lack of activity, I assume you mean lack of content to participate in (correct me if I'm mistaken here), and that's something we're working on right now as well. We've started writing the first custom instanced dungeon and hope to start final testing for it within the next few weeks (sooner if time allows), and we'll also be starting on one or two new epic gear quests very shortly as well. I understand things have been a bit slow in that regard, but we have a very small dev team (there's only two of us), and much of my time is split between not just content updates and the aforementioned balancing efforts, but also website updates, client updates, and a lot of other development tasks, as well as administrative duties and some lingering off and on health issues that sometimes get in the way of my work, unfortunately. That being said we do hope to start getting some of the content out very soon as I mentioned, and I am trying to clean up my workflow / offload a few administrative duties over time as well to hopefully give me some more time to focus on get content out in the future. Hopefully that clears a few things up but if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, you're more than welcome to ask. :o
  10. Unfortunately we can't return the costs in this case since it was working as intended. :( For future cases I'd recommend temporarily storing the copies that you're not transferring to/from before doing the transfer. Basically what happened is, since it has no way to effectively determine the actual source/destination (since there's multiple enchant slots/types, unlike refines where it's a single value that's either higher or lower), it transferred from the enchanted headgear to the other enchanted headgear. It didn't quite return them exactly as is, just that the only change was the 3rd slot going from 37 -> 39 and vice versa on the other headgear.
  11. Just checked the logs now and it looks like it did transfer the enchantments, but the only actually difference between the two headgears was that one had a 37 roll on the 3rd enchant while the other had a 39 roll - the enchants were otherwise the same. Unfortunately there isn't really an effective way to determine which headgear the player wants to use for the transfer if they have more than one, which is why the NPC says you should only have one of the item in your inventory before you do the transfer. :o
  12. Changing/removing the quest is another interesting idea; would certainly make it a bit more costly to spam them, at the very least, and might make some players think twice about spamming them (and/or get BG started a bit more often). Something worth pointing out since I think a few of these posts are exaggerating the effect a bit - Speed Potions currently give +40 movement speed, compared to Wind Walk's +30. They're less than a Peco's worth of an increase, and while that is still fast, it really makes very little difference in castle maps. Regrouping to common defense points is around 18-20 seconds in most castles, or 30-35 seconds to the Emperium, with both a Peco and Speed Potions. Using Wind Walk instead of Speed Potions is only about 2-3 seconds slower. The issue is more about the size of the maps than the item itself. If you want the math, default movement speed is 150ms per cell. Let's say you have a Peco (+15), Sleipnir (+10), and Wind Walk (+30) for +55 total. So that's 150 - 55 = 95ms per cell. A Speed Potion would bring that to 85ms per cell, so it's only about 10% faster, which realistically doesn't make that much of a difference inside most castles as they're already pretty small maps to begin with. The difference is noticed more so when chasing (such as during BG, or cleaning up after fights), and a cooldown honestly wouldn't affect that much since 5 seconds of an advantage is already long enough to get away in most cases. The only thing this would really affect would be rush breakers, but there's already a lot of tools to deal with them, and a reduction in the movement speed bonus would work just as well as a cooldown here. That's why I think reducing the movement speed bonus to 35 instead of using a cooldown would be better, as it would actually have an impact that would be noticed outside of niche scenarios where someone messes up their positioning badly enough that 5 seconds isn't long enough to correct it. This is actually false; Speed Potions, like most other movement speed bonuses, don't stack with other bonuses. The exceptions to this are Pecos, linked Chase Walk (works as a negative speed debuff for some reason), Union (not exactly viable atm), Cart Boost's initial speed buff, the Bard/Dancer link effect, and epic footgears.
  13. We actually have a somewhat similar idea to this already planned. :o There is a little bit of a difference in that there'd likely be more one than one stone (they could be spawned randomly on the map as you suggested though, every X seconds), but the idea would be that someone on your team would pick up the stone and try to stay alive for long enough to earn points with it (at which point the stone would be "consumed"). There is a bit of a concern with it often being harder to chase than to run away, but we could possibly look at some other ideas to make it harder to hold on to the stone without dying.
  14. I think I'd be more inclined to reduce the movement speed bonus a bit (presumably from +40 -> +35 so it'll still be useful) rather than giving it a cooldown. It would ultimately have the same end result of slowing them down, just that people could still wastefully spam them so they have to spend more BG Tickets they wouldn't be devalued quite as much as a BG incentive. As usual with balancing suggestions though, it would be great to hear some more feedback from other players first.
  15. I'll echo the sentiment that it's basically what Pecos are designed to do (gotta go fast). With the recent reduction in their movement speed there is a notable difference now in terms of catching up with them, especially if you have someone on your team that can slow them (Gypsy, Sniper, Whitesmith, etc) or lock them into place for a moment (Professor, Stalker, etc).