fremster wrote:Can you explain why it is LOS abuse?

Allyk123 wrote:
OF keeps were not designed to facilitate animist pets being cast on windows. Keep lords were designed for battle within a keep room. In any other part of this game, this method of killing an NPC would likely get you in bother as you are exploiting the mob being unable to attack.

Contrary to what you believe, a keep lord has not attacked animists using this and I say that having watched four keep takes using this method earlier in the week. I would even go as far as t say the lord never even attacked the shrooms but given we had a cleric to heal the lord for most of those the benefit of the doubt will be given as far as pet aggro goes. I digress.

I define LOS in this instance as a mob being within range to kill the player as much as the player being able to kill the mob. This is not the case.

Allyk123 wrote:

Ebbie wrote:

Allyk123 wrote:Heres an even better tip:

Play the game the way it is meant to be played and stop ruining it for those who who are.

I'm curious how Animist shrooms killing a lord to take a keep ruins the game for you?

I also fail to see the LOS issue. Shrooms can see the lord when placed on the window ledge. Animist can see their ground target dot on the ledge. Now if you are talking about Volley going through ceilings, that is a true LOS issue. Volley should fail if you are under cover / in a room.

Back to shrooms, even if that was not the case all realms can use a focus shield pet to take Alb & Mid keeps as the lord is located too low and attacks targets in the back of the keep. Much like the 3 keeps that can be ninja'd with climbers, doors only need to be broken on Hib keeps (minus Crim and Crau). Pretty much the only well designed keeps in regards to Lord height placement / AI.

Not everyone wants to break doors, every keep, even for the extra RP incentive. I would argue more players are not playing here because the current meta revolves too much around keep takes/defense.

Play the game the way it is meant to be played is extremely subjective. As is ruining the fun for other players.

Because a keep take should be done by knocking down two doors and killing NPC defenders and / or players.... or by being clever with a team of stealth's if it's a traditional keep. I digress.

LOS abuse is when you are deliberately manipulating terrain to get an unfair advantage. Killing a Lord who cannot kill you is the very definition of abuse.

If (and let me stress IF, since i've never seen it on Alb or Mid) a similar tactic was used to take a keep then I would be calling it out the same way.

If you are not playing RVR to take keeps then that's fine and your prerogative entirely. That does not make it a valid excuse to abuse LOS however.

Rudra wrote:That the developers didn't plan it that way doesn't mean that you don't have to play the way it started 18 years ago.
Mankind has evolved, games keep evolving.
If you think so, we would throw stones today.
Your "definition" of LoS is completely wrong.
A caster (unless he has Gtae) cannot cast at LoS, regardless of which realm he belongs to.
So according to your "definition" all Gtae casters and archers with volley would be "cheats".
On this patch status and with OF it is possible to get certain keeps with one or two players.
We made a conscious decision to play here, if you don't like the patch status or the way the others play, you should consider whether you have chosen the right server.

Greetings Rudra / Irela / Partymonster

Antiks wrote:

Allyk123 wrote:
OF keeps were not designed to facilitate animist pets being cast on windows. Keep lords were designed for battle within a keep room. In any other part of this game, this method of killing an NPC would likely get you in bother as you are exploiting the mob being unable to attack.

Contrary to what you believe, a keep lord has not attacked animists using this and I say that having watched four keep takes using this method earlier in the week. I would even go as far as t say the lord never even attacked the shrooms but given we had a cleric to heal the lord for most of those the benefit of the doubt will be given as far as pet aggro goes. I digress.

I define LOS in this instance as a mob being within range to kill the player as much as the player being able to kill the mob. This is not the case.

Your assessment is factually incorrect. OF keeps specifically in Albion were and are in fact designed this way, and furthermore the dev/gms on this sever had made it clear that this was a feature when this was addressed from various situations in the past (E.G. Flumps group jumping through the windows of Excalibur above doors 1 & 2, and the first time the shrooms in windows was reported) and the devs/gms allowed it.

The lord does exactly what was described by Ebbie in his previous post, which you stated that you chose not to read since you're so triggered by your feelings and not interested objective reality or discussion.

lastly, your definition of LOS makes no sense to your argument or the facts presented.

Allyk123 wrote:OF keeps were not designed to facilitate animist pets being cast on windows. Keep lords were designed for battle within a keep room.

Allyk123 wrote: In any other part of this game, this method of killing an NPC would likely get you in bother as you are exploiting the mob being unable to attack.

Allyk123 wrote:Contrary to what you believe, a keep lord has not attacked animists using this and I say that having watched four keep takes using this method earlier in the week.

Allyk123 wrote:I define LOS in this instance as a mob being within range to kill the player as much as the player being able to kill the mob. This is not the case.

Allyk123 wrote: I think a bit of fairness in how the game is contested in RVR is something people should be sharing however.

I have stated the case quite clearly now and I have given very valid reasons on what is wrong with this. I will not change my opinion....

Antiks wrote:

Allyk123 wrote: I think a bit of fairness in how the game is contested in RVR is something people should be sharing however.

I have stated the case quite clearly now and I have given very valid reasons on what is wrong with this. I will not change my opinion....

Your opinion on fairness utterly subjective and is so narrowed in on one specific class and occurrence in the overall RvR/PvE wheelhouses. So are you going to advocate for fairness across the RvR playing field as a whole? Are you going to call out SoS that doesn't break on combat, or on "unfair" advantage of numbers in a fight, or on "add'ers" to a fight? What about all the people solo farming Dura ek? What about the theurgist pets that follow players through doors and walls or the necro pet even, or the shade being able to set GTs for gtaoe'rs with impunity? and the list goes on and on. Get over yourself.

Allyk123 wrote:I dont agree with Shrooming Albion Keep Lords, but that is an ability which works as intended. There is no argument to be had.

Ebbie wrote:

Ebbie wrote:I don't agree with a Realm Ability so I endorse abusing LOS

Pendalith wrote:Abydos is aware of this method and has the ability to move the lord to the roof if it was a cheat or los exploit, he has not issued any warnings ect on the issue. I personally have been on both sides of this argument and i understand the reasons at hand. When we have similar numbers dont hide in a keep, lets open field. And if you really want to defend a keep might i suggest a hib keep because of window reasons.

Allyk123 wrote:

Pendalith wrote:Abydos is aware of this method and has the ability to move the lord to the roof if it was a cheat or los exploit, he has not issued any warnings ect on the issue. I personally have been on both sides of this argument and i understand the reasons at hand. When we have similar numbers dont hide in a keep, lets open field. And if you really want to defend a keep might i suggest a hib keep because of window reasons.

A reasonable argument at last. It's nice to see someone who can understand this issue. My thoughts on moving the lord are the same although i'm sure this was an issue because of the coding. I'd be all for it if it were to ever be proposed again.