+- heRO-Server Forum (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum)
+-- Forum: Game Related (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Suggestions/Questions (https://www.pandoraonline.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=19)
+--- Thread: New MVP Domination Rule (/showthread.php?tid=12180)
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Ultima_Pi - 11-07-2009
So... I'll clarify once more.
Code:
-------------------------------
M??P I?????? I
MV P I??HW?? I???? H
M????I???????I
-------------------------------V-Valk
P-Pally
H-High Priest
W-Wizard
I-Ice Wall
- wall (in terms of RO, somewhere you can't walk)
Legal?
-------------
How does walking in, dealing an insignificant amount damage, tele'ing out, and obtaining MVP anyways apply to "-Your attack causes no effect or real damage to the MVP except to lure it away"
Does "non-MVP" include Mini-Bosses?
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - GM-Ayu - 11-07-2009
If all these members there are all the same party then that's still acceptable, because pulse strike does have an effect to destroy all ice wall in place. Putting the HP behind the 2nd wall isn't unusual to prevent a wipe after a pulse strike. That way HP is still up to ress wiz who can wall again and etc. This is assuming HP is also part of the party.
Now if say there's another wall behind the entire party, the what's the wall doing there? Nothing but prevent entry then.
///
If the damage is 'insignificant' then the game wouldn't have given that player the MVP. In light of valk reflect (i'm guessing that's what you're asking), if someone comes in to do 10000 dmg only, and you are purely relying on reflect which will give the mvp to someone else, it would be considered strategic fault where your strategy cannot handle friendly, legalized competition. You did say even in your question, the other guy only came in to do damage but the attack's effect did *not* lure it away. The clause specify that the minimal/neglectable damage is illegal only if it's to lure it away.
Again in light of valk, it'll be legal if some random hunter is DSing then tele away to try to 'mvp' in vain if it's not for other players' influence. It's illegal if this hunter DS it once while the reflecting pally is down so valk will start chasing him instead, only to lure it miles away.
///
Non mvp includes minibosses (anyone that doesn't give "MVP" status).
RE:??New MVP Domination Rule - Ultima_Pi - 11-07-2009
GM-Ayu Wrote:If all these members there are all the same party then that's still acceptable, because pulse strike does have an effect to destroy all ice wall in place. Putting the HP behind the 2nd wall isn't unusual to prevent a wipe after a pulse strike. That way HP is still up to ress wiz who can wall again and etc. This is assuming HP is also part of the party.
Now if say there's another wall behind the entire party, the what's the wall doing there? Nothing but prevent entry then.
*headdesk
Priest (in between IWs), Wiz, and a Pally in Party 1. Pally and other Priest (outside IW) in Party 2. Priest of party 2 cannot reach Pally.
?
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - GM-Ayu - 11-07-2009
For your situation, it'll be illegal then (that's why i said if all the members listed in your diagram is in the same team then blahblahblah.) The 2nd wall there, if the high priest isn't in the same party as the HW, isn't serving any purpose except to block out the HP. That would be doing something purely to avoid others killing the MVP.
Now assume if all the players are on the same party in this following...
Code:
-------------------------------
Valk??Pally???I??HW????I???HP????X
-------------------------------Let x also be location of another ice wall.
The I are all ok cause they serve a direct protective purpose against the mvp even though blocking is involved, protecting the HP (of the same party as the HW and Pally)
The x wall is not ok cause they serve no purpose but to block people.
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - azurerogue - 11-07-2009
By the by...??this is, in my opinion, the WORST rule in heRO history.??Good luck with all the hassle this causes.??
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Yuriohs - 11-08-2009
Would it have been easier just to say griefing is allowed or not allowed?
Anyways, im thinking about the situations that happen with me.
I was MEing dracula. A champ came, tried to asura, but I SW'd the cell. Champ brought friends /swt, a Creator and a Sniper. Their plan seemed like it, was to wait until I"m casting ME, for someone to shoot it/AD it to keep ti damaged while the champ comes in to asura.
Well, when before I ME'd, I lured Drac near orge tooth and tanked it while the party came back.
Once the Sniper started shooting, I pnumea'd then I hid and it triggered his Hells Judgement. The only reason it killed the sniper, was because the orge tooth was working his magic damaging him. Whoever that creator was needed to be geared, because he dropped as well.
Champ tried to asura, dracula was Saftey Walled.
I got the killl.
But if I didn't get the kill, I had screenshots ready.
But my questions is, what do you plan on doing if the party gets the mvp by breaking your rules gets the items. Will the other party that got wronged received the items? or will you just take away the items from the other party
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Aaronock - 11-08-2009
Would have been easier to just say MvP are FFA or not FFA at this point after reading this topic :<
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Fyrus Carmin - 11-08-2009
I agree, this rule seems far too complicated to be applied correctly.
RE:??New MVP Domination Rule - Ultima_Pi - 11-08-2009
GM-Ayu Wrote:Now assume if all the players are on the same party in this following...
Code:?????????????????????? V
-------------------------------
Valk??Pally???I??HW????I???HP????X
-------------------------------
?????????????????????? ^
Uh... well I'd just walk past wall X at that point, that's a pretty fail IW.
I'd assume breaking down the marked IW is illegal, because that's strategy interference, correct?
Let's say they just started, and decided not to have the marked IW up. It's been Pulse Striking and thrashing at the first IW, but it hasn't fallen. The backup HP is still there, just out of visible range of Valk. Valk's HP has now fallen by a significant amount.
I only know that the marked IW isn't up because they can't see me (Cloak). I call in my HP and Pally (because I can). They throw up the marked IW now that my people are here.
Is the burden on me to prove that they did it to block me?
-----
As an alternative, I decide to go on the other side of the IW. Reapply this from an earlier post:
The only viable workaround that doesn't involve having the MVP Tele is to... get on the other side of the Ice Wall.
This implies "-Your presence in the elimination of the MVP tears down the strategy of the dominating player/party" and '-Your attack causes no effect or real damage to the MVP except to lure it away".
Assuming I'm setup, my pally has to walk in to get the MVP and bring it back to my party. Am I in the wrong if he reflects even 1 point of damage? Would I be in the wrong if he had no gears on and no Reflect Shield active?
Now, let's assume I'm not in the wrong as long my pally did no damage while luring. If the opposing party's pally comes in to lure it back to their party, are they in the wrong? Keep in mind we're using the same strategy, just on different sides of the MVP.
And to top it all off, are both pallys taking screenshots/second? Maybe it's just my (shiny new) laptop, but that temporarily lags me a bit.
RE: New MVP Domination Rule - Matrim Cauthon Jr - 11-08-2009
Yeah, would be easier to just say they are FFA or not FFA. Or make every MVP a Quest MVP or only available by Bloody Branch (but we'd need more private rooms for that).