No Exp Book

[Khorvald]

One way to combat twinks would be to set restriction on talismans and potions. I think T1 will die out anyway as soon as T2 is released, so there will probably be a fix to allow T1 to join T2 scenarios so people could at least level. Maybe even bolster them to T2 RvR Lake levels as well.

Twinks can't be a problem if no one plays in the lower tiers. In fact there might be a few events for twink only T1 RvR or something like that but as I see it, the xp book seems rather useless in the grand scheme of things.

I would say it's far from useless. In addition to eliminating the annoyances I mentioned before it could help alleviate the potential issue that you bring up, no one playing in T1 once later tiers are released. I could see plenty of people keeping at least one character in T1 if the book were implemented.

[Tesq]

I know you wanna try to be constructive, but there always be ppl exploit it somehow, rank 39 that had lotd weapon + rr70+ where just make so much damage on t3 that you end dead stop.
Look at last event war have , de-booster worked great, had some issue with some set not scaling well ( but that can be fixed easily) but t1 never was so full of ppl. That can be done for each tier and each tier could make some difference to arrive at capital. Other good way could be found remove an exploitable itiem. Or otherwise put better restriction. Rank 39 no renow restriction was an error. Have to be said there were lotd bugged weapon, here won't be the case.

But A simple week de-booster rotation could make 1 tier x week full of ppl.... if you even put some linked to capital/relic you cannot go wrong. Put a no exp book will not make ppl remain on t1-t2-t3 forever they will simple use it for have better renow before enter on t4.

T1-T3 will remaind dead unless a de-booster occur

[Khorvald]

I know you wanna try to be constructive, but there always be ppl exploit it somehow, rank 39 that had lotd weapon + rr70+ where just make so much damage on t3 that you end dead stop.
Look at last event war have , de-booster worked great, had some issue with some set not scaling well ( but that can be fixed easily) but t1 never was so full of ppl. That can be done for each tier and each tier could make some difference to arrive at capital. Other good way could be found remove an exploitable itiem. Or otherwise put better restriction. Rank 39 no renow restriction was an error. Have to be said there were lotd bugged weapon, here won't be the case.

But A simple week de-booster rotation could make 1 tier x week full of ppl.... if you even put some linked to capital/relic you cannot go wrong. Put a no exp book will not make ppl remain on t1-t2-t3 forever they will simple use it for have better renow before enter on t4.

T1-T3 will remaind dead unless a de-booster occur

The LOTD weapons is another issue that could be addressed when/if they're implemented and in my opinion isn't a reason not to implement a no-exp feature of some kind.

As for the de-booster, I cannot speak to the effectiveness of it because I didn't play then but that could be an alternative.

[magter3001]

I would say it's far from useless. In addition to eliminating the annoyances I mentioned before it could help alleviate the potential issue that you bring up, no one playing in T1 once later tiers are released. I could see plenty of people keeping at least one character in T1 if the book were implemented.

People would definitely keep at least one twinked out character in T1 but they wouldn't play it as much as their mains or if there are no other players in T1. There is just no reason for someone to log onto a twink if there are only 5 people in the whole RvR zone.

I understand your reasoning behind it, but there are just too many variables concerning xp books and the possible twink situation coming from them. People will try and abuse every single little thing if it gives them an advantage over their opponents, and twinking from T1 and onward will do just that.

[Sulorie]

The de-bolster worked horrible, keeping set bonus and procs, even tactics. Some class mechanics were based on the original stats, giving huge stat buffs.
LotD was open for rank 32 upwards, don't come with evil rank 39 rr70+. Furthermore I would have no problem removing them or adjusting rank requirements.

Don't speak of equipment differences, when you could outheal geared rank 39 healers with a naked rank 24 dok out of group. Items are just a bad excuse.

[Khorvald]

I would say it's far from useless. In addition to eliminating the annoyances I mentioned before it could help alleviate the potential issue that you bring up, no one playing in T1 once later tiers are released. I could see plenty of people keeping at least one character in T1 if the book were implemented.

People would definitely keep at least one twinked out character in T1 but they wouldn't play it as much as their mains or if there are no other players in T1. There is just no reason for someone to log onto a twink if there are only 5 people in the whole RvR zone.

I understand your reasoning behind it, but there are just too many variables concerning xp books and the possible twink situation coming from them. People will try and abuse every single little thing if it gives them an advantage over their opponents, and twinking from T1 and onward will do just that.

What you seem to be missing however is that simply disabling exp by itself is not twinking. If you're wearing all white gear and disable exp you're not suddenly a twink. If steps were taken like I mentioned in previous posts to restrict the use of talismans and potions to appropriate levels then there would be no twinks in the traditional sense.

T1 will eventually have fewer players than other tiers no matter what. Having the no exp book would give the few players that are there a chance to cap out their renown before moving on to T2 if they so desire. Alternatively they could just level out of T1 without worrying about renown then use the no exp book to make sure they cap renown before moving on to T3. I'm not seeing a downside here. Having it in the game opens up more options than not having it.

What other variables are you concerned about? I'm not being snide, I'm genuinely curious. Maybe you've thought of something I haven't considered. I think that's worth discussing.

@Sulorie I'm not really sure who you're addressing but you're clearly exaggerating with your last statement.

[Marley]

I always tried to push my chars to max out Rank so I could make that sweet T4 RvR gains. Sure I died a lot but the overall gain time was reduced as well as the burst in the end which was nice.

Capture2.PNG (7.11 KiB) Viewed 2216 times

It gave more of a progress feeling and I wanted to be where the action was, in T4.

[Khorvald]

I always tried to push my chars to max out Rank so I could make that sweet T4 RvR gains. Sure I died a lot but the overall gain time was reduced as well as the burst in the end which was nice.

Capture2.PNG

It gave more of a progress feeling and I wanted to be where the action was, in T4.

While your graph looks nice, anyone can create one and attach baseless claims to it on the internet. Do you have a source for that information? In my personal experience going in to T4 with low RR was a huge exercise in frustration.

[Marley]

The graph just shows my usual Rank vs Renown Rank ratio just to illustrate what i was doing, that's why i cut the hard numbers away on the left side. So the graph is correct regarding the data on my RR vs R progress on my toons (with a few RR/R up and down) but it's from my memory and screenshots so to call it 100% valid would not be fair, but then again it was not intended to be either.

But (correct me if I'm wrong here) on the live servers the RR gain was based on

• Higer RR kills Lower RR = Less RP.
  Lower RR kills Higher RR = More RP.

That in itself would be motivation enough to get up there, spend some time in the RvR lakes / SC's and be demolished just to maximize gain over time. Futhermore I know lot of people did get frustrated with the difference, but that depended a lot of the type of action and class you where playing. A R40RR30 AM would get so demolished by a RR80 WE as an example but for a RR30 Tank it would be a different story with a little better outcome (not much but still a little better) so you would have to take that into consideration. I did it mostly because I felt that my motivation was lacking and I felt that it went a lot faster to gain RR in T4. Factors to take into consideration would be: Zone locks, RR difference between players, size of warbands, SC availability.

If we jump back on topic (sorry!)
In my personal opinion twinking is not logical because it halts progress. Since you lock down your Rank as soon as you max out your RR there is no more progress. This is the LARGEST demotivator ever for me. I can see that some people like it and want it, I'm not going to raise a flag and support it because I feel it takes some focus away from T4 BUT if it would make the server bloom with more players overall I would raise that flag so high that you could see it from the deathstar

[Sulorie]

@Khorvald:
I meant Tesq, who was claiming that T3 twinked out chars were a pain. It is always easier to blame the enemy for losing. I don't think so.

My last statement was not exaggerated at all. It happened not only once. Good positioning and situational awareness is more worth than items.
It becomes different in T4 as gear gaps are much bigger, when entering with low rr.
All in all T2-T3 had the best item balance, because even new toons got their items fairly quick.