Jump to content
Forums

Is 14 players clan an exploit in the game ?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Galador said:

Okay, so help me understand.  You're saying you can't PVP unless you have a war going?  Alternatively, do they, in their configuration, have the ability to force you to do something you don't want to?  Other than body count, what is it "specifically" about a war that determines the out come of a PVP engagement?  As a 'nonfactor' as some have had occasion to call me, I have engaged in PVP and seiges, regardless of whether a war was ongoing or not.  So what is different about this?

What I am gathering from this is not to declare war just because, but to prevent those in a clan you can't declare war on from messing with others because when war is declared their actions are most likely to stop to prevent from opening it. And @ChocolateChip makes a good point with having a long enough penalty for rejoining a clan for those who choose to drop clan to participate in such activities. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 225
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

There have been so many changes in the game as of late and I feel like we should reevaluate not being able to declare war to a clan that has less than 15 players in it. There are several people taking

I haven't been in a castle-owning clan for a number of years.  Haven't really cared to participate tbh.  However, I have participated in sieges, and at times we were able to take a castle.  This conve

The 14 man clan mechanic was one of a couple things that were put into to place to protect against the big clan that goes around declaring wars on smaller clans and halting progression on a one sided

13 minutes ago, YourMaster said:

What I am gathering from this is not to declare war just because, but to prevent those in a clan you can't declare war on from messing with others because when war is declared their actions are most likely to stop to prevent from opening it. And @ChocolateChip makes a good point with having a long enough penalty for rejoining a clan for those who choose to drop clan to participate in such activities. 

'penalty for rejoining a clan' @ YourMaster ... I highly doubt that NCsoft would be able to configure the game to allow/require players to define why they are leaving a clan.  Which means that all players would be penalized for the price you want a few to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As others have described the war system can be abused both ways. If both clans had to accept war and there was a considerably longer penalty for leaving clan there wouldn't be much room for abuse. However, I'm absolutely certain that doesn't suit the needs of griefers and they'd fight tooth and nail to not have such a system be put in use. When you omit half the truth to get a solution to a very real issue, but tailored to your desires, you may as well cut the bs and say what you had in mind in the first place.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Dargor said:

As others have described the war system can be abused both ways. If both clans had to accept war and there was a considerably longer penalty for leaving clan there wouldn't be much room for abuse. However, I'm absolutely certain that doesn't suit the needs of griefers and they'd fight tooth and nail to not have such a system be put in use. When you omit half the truth to get a solution to a very real issue, but tailored to your desires, you may as well cut the bs and say what you had in mind in the first place.

It cannot be abused both ways because PK system changed a lot . Now talking about sieges or swords pvp , while players in clans with 14 + members get war activated by pvp ing in siege and if flagged , the other players in clans under 14 players do not activate war when killing other players so if not flagged one has to PK them when they move from safe zone to pvp area , where they can kill other players without war starting for them . This system is unfair at this moment and doesnt apply to the game as curently is .

Edited by Divekio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it is not fair either that as defender of a castle you suddenly get "certain clans" showing up that are NOT signed because they have their own castle and they throw a war before they arrive.

Either you have to suck it up and take the war or abandon the castle entirely.
This is a major turn off for any kind of meaningful pvp imho.

Ideas for fixing the war system and making it more fun for all:
https://forums.lineage2.com/topic/18861-war-system-bugs-ideas-for-fixesreplacements/

Edited by Anything
edited link to potential fix
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Anything said:

Actually it is not fair either that as defender of a castle you suddenly get "certain clans" showing up that are NOT signed because they have their own castle and they throw a war before they arrive.

Either you have to suck it up and take the war or abandon the castle entirely.
This is a major turn off for any kind of meaningful pvp imho.

If any go to siege must face war consequences as you say , and that should be for all clans not only for 15 members + .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Divekio said:

If any go to siege must face war consequences as you say , and that should be for all clans not only for 15 members + .

What about small clans that just want to farm the open field and because they're in your lowbies spot you declare war on them? Is that a a consequence people should face? Stfu already 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Divekio said:

If any go to siege must face war consequences as you say , and that should be for all clans not only for 15 members + .

Under normal rules clan wars should have a exception from triggering on a siege field from both castles and fortresses.
This was confirmed a few times by GM's to be broken but requiring a fix.
It was fixed for a short time when level cap was still level 99 but then on a later update broke again (think with the Tauti update).

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Divekio said:

It cannot be abused both ways because PK system changed a lot . Now talking about sieges or swords pvp , while players in clans with 14 + members get war activated by pvp ing in siege and if flagged , the other players in clans under 14 players do not activate war when killing other players so if not flagged one has to PK them when they move from safe zone to pvp area , where they can kill other players without war starting for them . This system is unfair at this moment and doesnt apply to the game as curently is .

So if someone in a clan that has declared war to mine decides to set up his macro on top of mine I have the wonderful choices of a) start a war in a pve clan, b) drop tag to pk, c) find another spot. As for consequences for participating in siege, lots of people stopped participating in that altogether due to the inevitable later grieving, not to mention a 14 member clan that can actually pose a threat to a bigger clan will have no problem dropping wars within minutes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Dargor said:

So if someone in a clan that has declared war to mine decides to set up his macro on top of mine I have the wonderful choices of a) start a war in a pve clan, b) drop tag to pk, c) find another spot. As for consequences for participating in siege, lots of people stopped participating in that altogether due to the inevitable later grieving, not to mention a 14 member clan that can actually pose a threat to a bigger clan will have no problem dropping wars within minutes.

My topic here is about how people abuse the 14 members clan system . I understand your saying, what i talk about here is how this players abuse this system to grief others or take unfair advantages in sieges,swords or pvp, while the system itself is designed to protect players who want pve and none of that .

Edited by Divekio
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Divekio said:

My topic here is about how people abuse the 14 members clan system . I understand our saying, what i talk about here is how this players abuse this system to grief others or take unfair advantages in sieges,swords or pvp, while the system itself is designed to protect players who want pve and none of that .

Yes, but your alternatives can result in other ways of abuse which is exactly what I am pointing out. And promises or good intentions of any clan or its leader doesn't provide any assurance about the whims of all other clans and their respective leaders. In other words you and your members might promise not to abuse a system were wars can be declared on any clan regardless of the number of members, but any and all other leaders in the server might declare on every clan they come across.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Divekio said:

My topic here is about how people abuse the 14 members clan system . I understand your saying, what i talk about here is how this players abuse this system to grief others or take unfair advantages in sieges,swords or pvp, while the system itself is designed to protect players who want pve and none of that .

The system doesn't protect people who want to pve, it actually hinders their ability to when a bully such as yourself wants to bully. The 14 member clan is just protecting itself from bullying and making it so they have the control when and where they want to pvp. Nothing more, nothing less. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ABnD said:

The system doesn't protect people who want to pve, it actually hinders their ability to when a bully such as yourself wants to bully. The 14 member clan is just protecting itself from bullying and making it so they have the control when and where they want to pvp. Nothing more, nothing less. 

It is not that when they go arround and pk other players and participate in mass pvps or sieges with clans that dont have the same upper hand as they have and for that the system has to be changed or not allow this players flag .

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Divekio said:

It is not that when they go arround and pk other players and participate in mass pvps or sieges with clans that dont have the same upper hand as they have and for that the system has to be changed or not allow this players flag .

So you're telling me a 14 member clan can wipe the floor with your clan? Sounds like you're just upset because 14 people have that big of impact when your big bad clan doesn't even matter. And you realize anybody can pk right? And another thing to note, said clan is constantly shouting to help lowbies in IT and bigger clans come in and pk the lowbies in party too.

Edited by ABnD
Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone take a shower without getting wet? I'm afraid not. then how does a clan that cannot have wars being able to siege? where is all about pvp, this is a siege, a clan war another for a territory 

so, the solution should be simple, a clan that doesn't want wars, should not be able to attend siege. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Aleira said:

it was a summary of what you said.  totally allowed in the media world.

It is so obvious now for all the players on the NCSOFT server that you guys are just toxic , exploiting game bugs and same time reporting others for making honest mistakes as a teleport who most people tought was part of game . For this toxicity you spit the l2 community sadly i hear will be smaller , some people will quit because they are tired of your toxic game play , and an example of the game you play is this post. I hope GM's will look at this and take actions as they did with the teleport . 

Link to post
Share on other sites

just let the topic die... there is no arguing with divekio.  He is too stubborn to see any perspective but his own twisted reality. 

there have been some valid points made, but in the end, it comes down to 1 of 2 things... either bullies being uphappy that they cannot bully as effectively as they wish, or players recently banned and grasping at straws and lashing out at others in an effort to blame others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Aleira said:

just let the topic die... there is no arguing with divekio.  He is too stubborn to see any perspective but his own twisted reality. 

there have been some valid points made, but in the end, it comes down to 1 of 2 things... either bullies being uphappy that they cannot bully as effectively as they wish, or players recently banned and grasping at straws and lashing out at others in an effort to blame others.

The ones who bully are the ones in the 14 members clan , for all the rest the PK system was adjusted so go be toxic in other place .

Edited by Divekio
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Divekio said:

It is so obvious now for all the players on the NCSOFT server that you guys are just toxic , exploiting game bugs and same time reporting others for making honest mistakes as a teleport who most people tought was part of game . For this toxicity you spit the l2 community sadly i hear will be smaller , some people will quit because they are tired of your toxic game play , and an example of the game you play is this post. I hope GM's will look at this and take actions as they did with the teleport . 

First person I blocked in Chronos was you when I first started back. Nothing but toxic vomit comes from you. Those who live in glass houses Divekio...

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ABnD said:

First person I blocked in Chronos was you when I first started back. Nothing but toxic vomit comes from you. Those who live in glass houses Divekio...

And if you have a glass jaw you should watch your mouth... we talk about 14 players clans here and the way they use it as an unfair advantage. What are you talking about ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Divekio said:

And if you have a glass jaw you should watch your mouth... we talk about 14 players clans here and the way they use it as an unfair advantage. What are you talking about ?

You're accusing them of being toxic when in fact it's well known you're nothing but that... it's called hypocrisy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...