Cyrano

Sorry they quit before they get anywhere close to that level. If you want to remove capes from game, try and get radu to trade em out of game, for say shop items of equal or lower price. Simples! I don't want to remove capes from the game, if prices are lower it's good for new players & frees up spawns that were being farmed for everyone else.. win win in my book.

To clarify, I meant I personally wouldn't use these as I see little point in changing nexus for just one item. The original proposal sounds reasonable if other folk want to use these. I don't agree with many of the suggestions like giving these a low price, allowing them to stack them to max in any nexus or have them lasting for long periods of time. If you make nexus that easy to obtain then you're effectively doing away with nexus requirements (except the human I notice). The examples above of NMW & steel helm do highlight a couple of points though, NMW can be made by very few (approx 10) players (though this type of expensive/unusual item might be worth using a potion for) & the steel helm (at 35k) is not expensive enough to warrant wasting a 15k potion on. So apart from completing tutorials, I think the number of players & the number of items this would be useful for is really quite limited.

I probably wouldn't use them because at 15k ea for the potion, transfer stones would still be more cost effective per point if mixing for more than a couple minutes. I'm undecided as to whether these should be implemented however I do agree these would provide a larger benefit to some player builds than others. If the price / duration / stackability of these was changed much from Radu's original proposal I would be against it because I think it would unbalance the game.

The price of every other cape & cloak has come down as well, so it's not limited to the nmt or due to the fact it doesn't break. From the point of view of encouraging new players to stay the game, raising these prices again is just putting barriers in their way that will make them less likey to stay in my opinion. Perhaps some tweaks or a new recipe is in order but nothing that will double or triple these prices.

I think this sounds like a good idea.

Hi everyone, after spending another few hours in an increasingly crowded ranging arena I would like to suggest some changes to ranging. This is mainly because the ranging arena can barely cope with the current players using it & I suspect like myself many players would prefer to level ranging by doing it rather than grinding xp in the arena on RT day. At the moment my ranging in the wild features a majority of shots with red messages, meaning I have to move, by which time the target has also moved giving another red message. I know some people pin dragons etc for training but there are a very limited number of these so it isn't a practical option for the majority in order to train. So I would like to suggest instead of too close or too far messages the shot is taken with a penalty to hit or damage but with more xp for a successful shot. Similarily terrain such as grass (& other types) allow the shot to be taken with a penalty to hit or damage but more xp if successful. With stone walls, tree trunks or any other completely solid object the shot is taken but blocked (ie a wasted arrow/bolt), but creatures on normal maps or players (allies/neutral/enemy) on pk maps would be hit if they get in the way. Just to clarify; I'm not suggesting this is implemented as a package, ideas people like could be added individually & others could be replaced with more worthwhile ideas or just ditched. I don't know how complex this would be to code but it is just a suggestion, if some or all of it involves too much work to be implemented then fair enough. You still wouldn't be able to fire once you are engaged in melee, however if not fighting then the closer the distance the bigger the penalty to hit/damage/bonus xp and the creature would automatically engage you in melee at this distance as it does now from a slightly further away.

Thanks for the answers to my questions. I voted no on the first question, I don't think it's ok to stand about & do nothing. I do agree with what some other people have said, that it would be good to have offensive spells & pure mages included on the helpful list. It would also be nice to have a clear definition of scouting activities so it doesn't become a source of arguments or an excuse for wandering about aimlessly. I voted yes on the second question, on the basis that there shoud be a basic equipment requirement for participation, perhaps with some clear definitions for mage/ranger/summoner equipment requirements. I don't think equipment requirements should be much higher than suggested here, because this may exclude some players from participating and also stops people making free choices about their own equipment (people who make silly choices are obviously going to lose rostos & equipment, but at 100+ I think that should be up to them).

I haven't voted yet, would it be possible to clarify; In the first rule will there be some allowance for people stopping to recharge mana or wait for cooldowns to clear? Will people be allowed to assist at the end in any way they choose eg range the monster even though they might not have AP or good bow, summon with low levels etc? In the second rule does col mean col only or include Rdholam or com too? Will mages, rangers & summoners have different requirements? If mages, rangers & summoners have different requirements, what specifically will these be? Sorry to be asking questions but I'm unclear on what exactly I would be voting for or against.

I liked Piper's suggestion of more xp, perhaps the invance should give double xp (though the time limit might need to be shorter) for all combat related skills (attack, defence, ranging, magic & summoning) but no xp for any other skills. Completely ditch the bonus xp at the end, then it wouldn't really matter whether folk went afk or went to storage for a rest or they wouldn't be getting any xp's for their non participation. Rangers, mages & summoners would get xp in the skill they are using which may make them less unhappy about the cost of taking part. My thought is (though I may be completely wrong) that this would require less rules, less restrictive equipment lists, less moderation & hopefully there would be less reasons for arguments or tantrums. I don' think there should be any rules regarding jumping bags (whether DB or drops) or not sharing out the drops, even though I disagree with this kind of behaviour. I think these should be dealt with by the individuals involved, either in game or in the disputes section of the forum in the same way as for any other time this happens.

I think that invances should be a fun team event for which there should be clear cut rules that are not so restrictive that they make players either unable or unwilling to take part. With that in mind I think there should be no minimum equipment requirement for the 40-60 (perhaps also 60-80) and a minimum requirement for an iron set (+RDHLM or COL) or Mage Set for all the others. I think rangers should wear the minimum armour & use only pk arrows or bolts (or better) but I don't think they should be required to take an elven or recurve bow for a walk outside the fort (on the walls perhaps but these break very easily in my experience). I think the other rules should be simple too; players should be actively participating, no harvesting, no sitting about afk (if you're sitting & not the gatekeeper you should be booted from the invance), a maximum of 2 minute breaks from combat to overcome cooldowns & mana depletions or to restock (you can easily have item list created for quick resupply). Participating in my opinion could be any of the following; gatekeeping, scouting, healing, melee combat, ranged combat, summoning & casting offensive spells. The gatekeeper should be picked by the team and the team should also decide whether they need up to 2 scouts to assist at the gate area (the scouts should be named players and should be actively to protecting the gate & assisting the team as much as is possible without compromising the gate defence). Some other thoughts I had (some of which have been mentioned in earlier posts) abandon minimum equipment requirements altogether, have a storage bot inside the fort, make invances automated in the same way as instances with a cooldown period but with larger team sizes (ie if it drops below the minimum number of players due to afk, lags etc.. the invance ends), provide less xp reward for victory, a communal pool of xp & gc (perhaps for achieving objectives during invance) which is shared equally at end of invance, dying in invance could be same as instance, die with rosto you reappear in fort or without one your invance is over.

I hope everything goes well for you.

I think the problem with this global is that the difference between normal chance of good & bad days and the global good & bad days is relatively small. This coupled with perhaps a run of randomly generated normal days gives the impression that this global does nothing, I think over a large enough sample things would even out & the reward become apparent. That said the last one did appear to be quite poor even if bad days are removed and we aren't aware of it happening. If indeed they're removed, then the above suggestion of a global message about the bad day being removed would be nice. I'm still donating stuff to the global & I see other folk are too, perhaps everyone preferred to take advantage of the day of half cooldowns & day of joule yesterday...

I don't think it would do too much harm to the game if maybe the tutorial & daily quest NPC's had markers or different coloured names to indicate what they're there for. Perhaps also the store & tavern keepers could provide extra information about people & places of interest to guide new players towards some (but not all) of the quests & some useful locations.

A very similar idea was proposed in this earlier thread http://www.eternal-lands.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=55859&hl=harvester

I don't agree with this suggestion as it favours larger established guilds and a figure of 20 players seems somewhat arbitrary. I've been guilds who have a large membership but you'd be lucky if 3 or 4 people logged on in a week. I suspect many guilds get rankings from inactive members and from alts who are in the same guild as the main. I would say, as my guild is amongst those you highlighted in the ranking tables with a high rank & fewer members, that we are currently over ranked. My suggestion would be that every guild is ranked without any exclusions but the method of calculation for the rank be changed. I'm not bothered if my guild dissapears from the ranking table as long as the system is made fair for everyone. I'm guessing at the moment that the individual members levels for a skill are added together then divided by the number of members to give an average level for that skill which is compared to other guilds average level for that skill. Explaining why guilds (of any size) with few low level players achieve a disproportionately high ranking & those with many low level players achieve a disproportionately low ranking.