Battlegrounds

[Lawyer Dog]

Battlegrounds could use a change to adjust the rewards to rates. Perhaps x10 the medals/points per fight.

[Dook]

Lol no.

There would be an inflation of OP weapons in the server. No thank you.

[Lawyer Dog]

x10 is just an example (Castle chests are x10, and also from PvP), but it wouldn't even be enough to make them very easy, because getting a round going is very hard for regular Battlegrounds, and while KvM will likely be easier, it will still take a long while to get enough points for even one weapon.
Even if this was a 1/1/1 server the rates of battlegrounds would warrant being higher because of how hard it is to get battlegrounds going with the amount of players we have.

x10 is very reasonable considering our rates.

[Castile]

It seems pretty logical. The current requirement for getting a round of battlegrounds going appears to be GMs making global announcements multiple times. If not a rate increase, perhaps lowering the amount of people required for a round? 5 vs 5 seems sort of optimal, but really even 6 vs 6, 7 vs 7 etc. would be rather helpful.

It's difficult to judge if any of this would be "unbalancing" assuming no one even has any of this equipment yet. And again, if people actually do have this equipment I'll bet anything that it's the larger guilds that have people to spare for this kind of thing. So would it be unbalanced for smaller groups to have the exact same access? Under 5 vs 5 conditions, no one would be "left out" if there actually WERE 20 people willing to compete. As for the items themselves being overpowered somehow... Well, I'm not sure what to say to this. Do you mean overpowered in PVM? Against biolabs 3 enemies? Mad props to anyone that takes down the biolab MVPs with any of the battlegrounds weapons. I'm not saying it's possible. I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm just saying I would really like to see someone do it without a chemist using a bazerald.

An inflation of OP weapons? Huh? I'm confused. These items are character bound. Not everyone will even be able to utilize a whitesmith to upgrade these things. The higher +s will only make a big difference for KVM items, and even then we're looking at 20+ hours per weapon with the current rates. I suppose eventually a lot of people will have one of these items, but uh, that's kind of exactly the point.

[Resolve]

lowering the player requirement is dangerous, as a guild can just make an alt guild and battle themselves over and over, right?

[Sakaretsu]

lowering the player requirement is dangerous, as a guild can just make an alt guild and battle themselves over and over, right?

Yeah probably.

Is dual clienting afk chars on the opposing team allowed though?

[Resolve]

lowering the player requirement is dangerous, as a guild can just make an alt guild and battle themselves over and over, right?

Yeah probably.

Is dual clienting afk chars on the opposing team allowed though?

well, there are times when the GMs are not around. So unless they can put up an automated system to enforce that...[insert grim scenario here]

[Lawyer Dog]

If a guild is willing to break the rules and dual client battlegrounds for a 7v7 why wouldn't they be willing to do it for a 10v10? If anything the higher player requirement would make it more likely, as it is harder to get a round going.

[Sakaretsu]

If a guild is willing to break the rules and dual client battlegrounds for a 7v7 why wouldn't they be willing to do it for a 10v10? If anything the higher player requirement would make it more likely, as it is harder to get a round going.

Kinda true but it makes it easier to abuse

[Lawyer Dog]

If a guild is willing to break the rules and dual client battlegrounds for a 7v7 why wouldn't they be willing to do it for a 10v10? If anything the higher player requirement would make it more likely, as it is harder to get a round going.

Kinda true but it makes it easier to abuse

It makes it easier to actually play legit on the battlegrounds too. Catering it to the rule breakers at the expense of the legit players is not a good practice. If you made it 40 vs. 40 it would be harder to dual client an entire team but that doesn't make 40 vs. 40 a good idea, because you wouldn't be able to do it legit reasonably.