The following warnings occurred:
Warning [2] Undefined variable $forumjump - Line: 89 - File: showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code PHP 8.1.27 (Linux)
File Line Function
/inc/class_error.php 153 errorHandler->error
/showthread.php(1617) : eval()'d code 89 errorHandler->error_callback
/showthread.php 1617 eval




Your Level Affecting Your Roleplay
#1
I'd like to state that this is purely discussion and I would appreciate those of opposite stance do not point out anyone individually, and are willing to reply in civil and respectful manner. My ultimate reason for making this post. is to garnish enough support from the community, and hopefully in the end see if the whole Admin/GM team would be willing to yet again grace us with another roleplay enhancement. Please and thank you.





Quote:I think one of the problems with Northrend being dead, is it is a high-level zone, and the many monsters there (along with the huge aggro range on all mobs, and the fact that roleplay gear lacks stats means even 80s could have a hard time should more than one level 80-mob decide to attack) makes it relatively hard for a lower level to adventure around outside of towns. I completely agree though that Northrend is amazing, and I've not yet had the privilege of roleplaying with a large group of people there icly. Hell, I've not even explored the entire thing oocly, I just know from the few times that I've been there on someone under level 80, I was constantly being killed by level 70 to 80 monsters.


Ever since the first day I logged onto CotH's website, I've understood that level should not affect your ability to roleplay, I wish to point out that in Outlands and Northrend monsters are usually higher level than the cap of 50 for those who have not acheived Gruntship, or have unapproved profiles. Because of this cap, some character's roleplay has been hindered, as they're unable to travel freely without the risk of possibly dying to an abundance of monsters with extremely high aggro range. Now, I've read an argument against this claim, which went something similar to this: "The reason the monsters are so aggressive is it is to keep you away from areas you shouldn't easily be able to get to, if ic." Now, I understand that it is true that some areas our characters shouldn't be able to get to icly without a fight. At the same time, the sheer amount of some npcs found in certain areas is completely unrealistic from an ic point-of-view, but makes sense from an ooc pont-of-view because WoW is used to possibly fifty people all questing at the same time in one area.

This brings me to another argument I've heard: "If we were to remove so many npcs, it would begin to break make quests take longer, or make them easier." I also understand why one would argue that, but is this not a roleplay server? If it makes questing a little easier maybe some more difficult, I wouldn't mind, as it would be able to enhance our roleplay.




Now, I understand we should be switching to Cataclysm relatively soon. Therefore, these suggestions I'm going to list really wouldn't make sense to implement now, and therefore are more pointed towards something to get around to doing once the server makes the switch over, and things begin to calm down. I also don't know how difficult it would be to perform some of these suggestions, so I don't want to come off as 'demanding' these things be done, and I can completely understand why some would be impossible should I be informed of so.

1.) GMs/Admins (possibly hire a few Grunts for a limited amount of time) would go around and take away a good chunk of aggressive(red) npcs out of the world where they're just completely clustered together, to an amount that would make much more sense from an ic point-of-view.

2.) Universally lower the aggro range of all monsters down to 0, so that we're still able to identify what monsters would icly attack us, and which ones icly would remain neutral, and this would still allow us (those who roleplay on CotH) to avoid constant death from higher-leveled monsters.

3.) Universally lower the aggro range of all monsters down to a much smaller number, but still have it so aggressive monsters will still keep those who would wish to exploit rule #3 away from certain areas in roleplay.






If anyone else comes up with other suggestions in the replies, and wish for me to add it in with the list I've created, point out in your reply that you'd like me to do so, and I shall add it to the list with your name so we know who came up with what originally.
PM
Reply
#2
Quote:1.) GMs/Admins (possibly hire a few Grunts for a limited amount of time) would go around and take away a good chunk of aggressive(red) npcs out of the world where they're just completely clustered together, to an amount that would make much more sense from an ic point-of-view.

This is likely something we will not be doing. We do sometimes clear out mobs if an area will make a good RP zone at, such as Quel'danas and I believe Alcaz Island had mobs on it. One of the benefits and encouragements of the profile system is so that people profile their characters so that they can get access to things and areas they have not yet been able to go to yet. We also do want to try to leave questing alone, as it keeps people on the server and available for RP. We do alienate away from this sometimes, but only if we foresee a good amount of use in the areas cleared.

Going around and pruning everything? That does not seem like a very good option in my opinion.


Quote:2.) Universally lower the aggro range of all monsters down to 0, so that we're still able to identify what monsters would icly attack us, and which ones icly would remain neutral, and this would still allow us (those who roleplay on CotH) to avoid constant death from higher-leveled monsters.

3.) Universally lower the aggro range of all monsters down to a much smaller number, but still have it so aggressive monsters will still keep those who would wish to exploit rule #3 away from certain areas in roleplay.

This, on the other-hand, is something I fully support. I wouldn't suggest down to 0, however lowering it so that players can avoid the monsters while walking is a nice idea. Though, in cata, with flight being everywhere beyond the starting two zones of Silvermoon and the Drenaei zones, is it fully needed? We've already made it so flight is able to be learned below the level you'd normally learn it at, so really it's only the cost of the mounts that would get in the way of being able to avoid a majority of mobs.

In fact, in areas such as Northrend, this is already something that can be done. Getting the mounts can be a challenge however. Perhaps putting them in the OOC zone would be a good idea so players don't have to run to Outlands in order to get a mount. I believe you can pick them up at capital cities in Cata, however. Alliance in Stormwind and Horde in Org.
PM
Reply
#3
(02-02-2013, 01:38 PM)Reigen Wrote: This, on the other-hand, is something I fully support. I wouldn't suggest down to 0, however lowering it so that players can avoid the monsters while walking is a nice idea. Though, in cata, with flight being everywhere beyond the starting two zones of Silvermoon and the Drenaei zones, is it fully needed? We've already made it so flight is able to be learned below the level you'd normally learn it at, so really it's only the cost of the mounts that would get in the way of being able to avoid a majority of mobs.

In fact, in areas such as Northrend, this is already something that can be done. Getting the mounts can be a challenge however. Perhaps putting them in the OOC zone would be a good idea so players don't have to run to Outlands in order to get a mount. I believe you can pick them up at capital cities in Cata, however. Alliance in Stormwind and Horde in Org.

Now, while flying is great and all, it doesn't really do much for the way of RP, does it? It kind of kills the moment when everyone gets to [Huge Monster #345] and mounts up to fly over it, again and again. Also, people might not have a flying mount icly as they do take skill to ride, as well as the cost/time to own one.

Not that I am saying "President Regien, yer bad and should feel bad", I am saying that you didn't quite take into consideration those two major aspects. As Spiralin said, this is an RP server, so the major focus should be RP.

While I can see that people like to quest for money, or whatever else, people should be on to RP more often than dailies.

Also, Reigen, I still demand that one thousand gold you noob.
Do you have what it takes to join the Fighting Blues?
Do you have what it takes to defend your homeland?
Will you stand up in defense of the innocent? The weak?
Will you stand up in defense of Justice and the Law?

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRVE3uy8TjirssygDEKMi2...Ia13_WYQpw]



Reply
#4
Maybe a little thing to be done, though it may be really tedious for the GMs, would be thinning the mobs that are near roads and such? Keep the off-road areas filled still but mobs that stray very close to the roads are very dangerous and risk going and attacking/killing even 80s that may try to walk about? Or at least break the immersion of a RP happening when "hold on /switch weapons, /attack, /switch weapons, /continue RP" and that's assuming you have weapons to even combat higher level mobs.

I personally wouldn't be against lowering the range of aggro, but I would be against taking it away completely. But I'm someone who is very for-profiling and the like. Also, maybe my above suggestion may work well coupled with lowered range?

Note: I rarely travel around Northrend, so I have no idea what the mob placement is like. Just figured it might be a good suggestion. The same could go for Cata, really. Again, though, a downside is that it would be a tedious job and maybe seen as not worth it if the area won't be occupied/RPed in.
Frogspawned: RAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!
Frogspawned: Frogspawned flips a table.
Frogspawned: (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻

FROG, STOP FLIPPING TABLES. YOU'RE MAKING A MESS.

Frogspawned: ┬─┬ ノ( ゜-゜ノ)
PM
Reply
#5
(02-02-2013, 02:06 PM)Thoradin Wrote: Now, while flying is great and all, it doesn't really do much for the way of RP, does it? It kind of kills the moment when everyone gets to [Huge Monster #345] and mounts up to fly over it, again and again. Also, people might not have a flying mount icly as they do take skill to ride, as well as the cost/time to own one.

Not that I am saying "President Regien, yer bad and should feel bad", I am saying that you didn't quite take into consideration those two major aspects. As Spiralin said, this is an RP server, so the major focus should be RP.

While I can see that people like to quest for money, or whatever else, people should be on to RP more often than dailies.

Now, who said anything about the mounts being IC? If it's a huge monster elite type deal, then perhaps it should be taken as ICly there and a danger rather than 'Oh look, a two-story beast. Lets just walk in front of it'. The mobs should be taken in account when you go to RP in an area. People already do this now, however, when a mob attacks a lowbie and they all kill it before it kills their friend.

In my experience, a lot of fun can be had by keeping the mobs around. Just a few days ago, when walking from the barrens to Org, the group I was with spotted the nelfs that walk along the road in the barrens. Rather than ignoring it...Thargash charged them, yelling 'FOR THE HORDE' and we killed them. ICly. I cracked up so hard I had to follow someone because I couldn't see straight.



(02-02-2013, 02:06 PM)Thoradin Wrote: Also, Reigen, I still demand that one thousand gold you noob.

Never. You're not my favorite. :|

Piken Wrote:Maybe a little thing to be done, though it may be really tedious for the GMs, would be thinning the mobs that are near roads and such? Keep the off-road areas filled still but mobs that stray very close to the roads are very dangerous and risk going and attacking/killing even 80s that may try to walk about?

Perhaps making the mobs near the roads neutral is also an option, so that they are still there to present themselves if the traveling RPs choose to do so, but they are not killing your level 10 friend from STV to the arena.
PM
Reply
#6
Quote:Now, who said anything about the mounts being IC? If it's a huge monster elite type deal, then perhaps it should be taken as ICly there and a danger rather than 'Oh look, a two-story beast. Lets just walk in front of it'. The mobs should be taken in account when you go to RP in an area. People already do this now, however, when a mob attacks a lowbie and they all kill it before it kills their friend.



I agree that most monsters should be taken as ic, but this example does bring me back to the original suggestion that I believe so far, has had the most support, which is lowering aggro ranges. In that way, the mob will oocly not bother the group, but icly the group could maybe just do a mini-event where they retreat and find another way around, or charge forward and attack!



Edit: I'd also like to point out that it is pretty nifty to have the elite mounts at a lower level, which definitely does make ooc travel much easier. When icly travelling from one place to another, I believe many would not want to do it on ground mounts/flying mounts because that would simply make it go by too fast, and you would most likely miss out on many interesting ic encounters.
PM
Reply
#7
(02-02-2013, 02:22 PM)Spiralin Wrote: I agree that most monsters should be taken as ic, but this example does bring me back to the original suggestion that I believe so far, has had the most support, which is lowering aggro ranges. In that way, the mob will oocly not bother the group, but icly the group could maybe just do a mini-event where they retreat and find another way around, or charge forward and attack!

Which I did say I supported, lowering the aggro ranges. If this can be done or not I am unsure, that would be something Kretol would have see too and decide on if he wanted to do it. If we can shorten/lengthen the say rang, then I would think aggro range is possible to mess with, but I could be wrong.

EDIT:


Quote: I believe many would not want to do it on ground mounts/flying mounts because that would simply make it go by too fast, and you would most likely miss out on many interesting ic encounters.

I wasn't saying to do all the travel on mounts. Just pass by the ones that pose a danger, or using mounts to get to a starting destination. A lot of the High-level zones are highly dangerous to travel around by foot anyway, so that's an IC risk as well as an OOC risk. I know it can get annoying however to have to mount up, pass something by, then drop down again. I had to do it all the time. I personally made a few trips to get lower levels the FPs in high level zones before .taxi came around. Mostly to the tower in Outlands before a port was put there.

Besides, how else will us GMs jump you travelers if there are no mobs around? :(
PM
Reply
#8
Grizzlybear with me here, but.

Why not just make all of the mobs neutral?

Bam.
PM
Reply
#9
(02-02-2013, 04:33 PM)Norael Wrote: Grizzlybear with me here, but.

Why not just make all of the mobs neutral?

Bam.

Because then people won't treat them as a threat ICly, and OOCly.
[Image: desc_head_freemasons.jpg]

△Move along.△


△△
△△△
△△△△

PM
Reply
#10
(02-02-2013, 04:33 PM)Norael Wrote: Grizzlybear with me here, but.

Why not just make all of the mobs neutral?

Bam.

This was suggested a while back, actually.

Though, if I remember correctly Kretol was opposed to the idea. You would have to have his word for his official reasoning, but I assume it pertains to remaining blizzlike and the other reasons provided.

Personally I'd like to see some areas culled of NPCs, but I'm not certain that will ever be something taken up by the admins. That being said, I think clearing paths around roads could be a viable idea. I'd throw some work in for it at least :p
PM
Reply
#11
(02-02-2013, 05:15 PM)Rensin Wrote:
(02-02-2013, 04:33 PM)Norael Wrote: Grizzlybear with me here, but.

Why not just make all of the mobs neutral?

Bam.

Because then people won't treat them as a threat ICly, and OOCly.

People only treat them as an OOC nuisance I'm afraid.
PM
Reply
#12
(02-02-2013, 06:03 PM)Cassius Wrote:
(02-02-2013, 05:15 PM)Rensin Wrote:
(02-02-2013, 04:33 PM)Norael Wrote: Grizzlybear with me here, but.

Why not just make all of the mobs neutral?

Bam.

Because then people won't treat them as a threat ICly, and OOCly.

People only treat them as an OOC nuisance I'm afraid.

Naaaw. I'm speakin' from experience here, people also tend to ignore mobs ICly that don't attack. Hence why the guards were so bumped up a long while back.
[Image: desc_head_freemasons.jpg]

△Move along.△


△△
△△△
△△△△

PM
Reply
#13
To be honest, I don't know anyone who takes the mobs along the roads, and even half of the ones in the wooded areas seriously.

I don't think Lynxes, dragonhawks, wolves, so on are going to linger while a group of people are nearby. Even in reality they make an effort to avoid people.

I don't think every animal in WoW is rabid either.
PM
Reply
#14
As a side note: http://www.conquestofthehorde.com/Thread...de-Changes

After the switch to Cata, I'll see if I can customize it a bit more (as far as having different values for different locations (such as in an instance or out in the world)).
Reply
#15
Keep in mind, we'll have to be selective with this if we do so. Globally reducing aggro radii to zero, or turning everyone neutral, would lead to...problematic things. Like characters being able to easily get into opposite faction cities or bases. So, we'd need a solution that could work selectively without being too annoying to implement.
Have you hugged an orc today?
- I am not tech support. Please do not contact me regarding technical issues. -
PM
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  How do you deal with Roleplay ruts? KomodoTheCashew 10 3,948 09-23-2014, 02:44 AM
Last Post: cartoonkarl
  Roleplay and adult themes DanFernandez 34 7,747 06-22-2014, 07:15 AM
Last Post: Roxas65
  Your Favorite Character [To Roleplay] Xigo 47 8,521 03-06-2014, 07:09 AM
Last Post: Bovel
  Children of the Earthmother - A guide to tauren roleplay (incomplete) ghaskan 7 4,965 02-03-2014, 03:02 PM
Last Post: ghaskan
  Loxy: Level 21 Edgar 10 1,774 06-25-2013, 08:49 PM
Last Post: Thoradin



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)