Welcome to the Wizard101 Message Boards


Player Guide
Fansites
News
Game Updates
Help

Follow important game updates on Twitter @Wizard101 and @KI_Alerts, and Facebook!

For all account questions and concerns, contact Customer Support.

By posting on the Wizard101 Message Boards you agree to the Code of Conduct.

Agree or oppose level locks on worlds

AuthorMessage
Archon
Feb 07, 2011
3175
fireproof1111 on Dec 19, 2012 wrote:
So what you are saying is that if im playing and i need assistance in a world and no people are on that have completed storyline, that i should not be allowed to bring in my brother who is only level 35 to help me in azteca?
Wow that seems pretty stupid if you ask me. And selfish,egotistical and dont forget down right rude. Why should there be a Progression or level lock. Simple question Why?

And please donot say because low levels are jumping into your battle circles because so do higher levels. So you cant use that one as an excuse.

What this is all about is that people with dual accounts or alot of friends an family on to help them is making people with single accounts or solo with no friends BOO HOO about not being able to keep up with everyone else. Thats all this is, It has nothing to do with low levels being in worlds, Thats just the excuse thats being used.
I have about had enough of people saying low levels shouldnt be in a world, Time to man up and play the game if you cant progress its not my fault its probably your own or maybe your tempers are getting in the way of progression.
The game has changed it is a bit more difficult now so any help whether it be lower level or not should be happily accepted. As for the lowbies jumping in battle with you well just flee and let them there if they are hurting you.
First of all, being rude and insulting other posters is uncalled for... If this is how you treat people in-game, then I hope I never run into you.

Also, if you even read my post, you'd see that I don't want a level-lock~ I want a QP lock, and my reason is simple: low-levels are not equipped for post-Dragonspyre combat and, therefore, have no business being there. If your brother is level 35, he does not have the tools required to fight in Azteca~ low or no resistance, no access to critical or block, and (depending on his school) no healing abilities mean that he will be reliant on others to keep him alive the entire time... and if he jumps into someone else's battle (other than your own)? He's now an inconvenience to that person and has disrupted his or her gaming experience.

Yes, some high-level players are guilty of this as well. And, you know what? I handle them the exact same way~ delete from friends, flee the battle, and switch realms. I don't care if you're level 8 or 80; if you disrespect me, I'm not wasting my time or pips to help you. That being said, most high-level players can hold their own in combat and are self-reliant/probably won't spam "I need healing" ad nauseum.

I used to be a solo player~ now, my buddy-list is full, and I love questing with friends. But there are times when I want to enjoy the game by myself, and I expect that all of my friends, regardless of level, will respect that.

-

Gunslinger said:


"My first question is this Why should lower levels not be allowed into a world?
How many times has a lower level person jumped into a battle with you an was unhelpful?
How many times has a higher level person jumped into battle with you?
Do you think higher level people will stop jumping into battles if this would be in effect?
And back to the first question again."

In order:

1. Because they haven't earned access and are ill-equipped for combat/reliant on others for survival;
2. enough times to consider it a serious problem;
3. enough times to consider it less of an issue because they were self-reliant, and
4.yes, if there was a QP lock in place.

-

The entire Spiral seems to be afflicted with a lack of respect, and this entitled, self-indulgent attitude is hurting the game. To quote another poster on this board, I was raised to think of others before myself, but common courtesy seems to be a thing of the past.

-von

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
DragonLady1818 on Dec 22, 2012 wrote:
@ Lastdaygunslinger and Fireproof.If you go back and READ what I am agreeing with, you will see that I do NOT agree with level locks. I do agree with Von's suggestion of a QUEST PROGRESSION lock. If a player has not completed the necessary quests to enter a world, they should not be able to JOIN any battle.

Von nor I agree with level locks. Yes, I am aware that Paying and Crowns players have the right to enter any world but, they should not be able to pick up quests or join battles they have not earned. In fact they can't pick up main quests if they have not completed pryor requirements. I don't care if they want to have a look at the newest worlds, but I do care when they join a battle they are not equipped to handle and adding another enemy... A Quest Progression lock would also put a damper on some of us that have and do occasionally use a lower level wizard from one of our other accounts, so this is not an unreasonable suggestion if we are willing to make that sacrifice.

Yes, I have had lower levels join my battle and just SIT there doing nothing to help with an added enemy. I have also had HIGH levels join and flee leaving me with an extra enemy to fight and them laughing about it. I also REMEMBER those players names and I certainly hope I don't see them in a battle needing help. I don't have a problem with helping others but, don't burn me by joining and fleeing. That is just as discourteous as lower levels joining a battle they have no business in. Playing with respect and courtesy goes a long way.
For what i am defending a level lock is a progression lock. The point im defending is lower levels helping higher levels with battles hence they would need to be in the battle and which a progression lock would stop this from being an option anymore.
So by disagreeing to a level lock but agreeing to a progression lock would still leave those people that use lower level help without any assistance. As ive said numerous times sometimes there are no "level appropriate" people on.
I completely understand that some of you have a problem with lower levels being in higher worlds but i grow weary trying to explain why it doesnt seem like a level or progression lock would be the answer so "to each their own" i guess but the lock will never happen so i dont feel the people that use lower levels have to worry anyway.
If KI would decide to address the situation by looking at any of the threads i have on these forums or any other forum they will clearly see that only 6-8% agree to the lock and the rest oppose so if they do anything like a normal business they follow the majority and 92% opposing a lock seems to me that the majority has spoken.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
Dr Von on Dec 22, 2012 wrote:
First of all, being rude and insulting other posters is uncalled for... If this is how you treat people in-game, then I hope I never run into you.

Also, if you even read my post, you'd see that I don't want a level-lock~ I want a QP lock, and my reason is simple: low-levels are not equipped for post-Dragonspyre combat and, therefore, have no business being there. If your brother is level 35, he does not have the tools required to fight in Azteca~ low or no resistance, no access to critical or block, and (depending on his school) no healing abilities mean that he will be reliant on others to keep him alive the entire time... and if he jumps into someone else's battle (other than your own)? He's now an inconvenience to that person and has disrupted his or her gaming experience.

Yes, some high-level players are guilty of this as well. And, you know what? I handle them the exact same way~ delete from friends, flee the battle, and switch realms. I don't care if you're level 8 or 80; if you disrespect me, I'm not wasting my time or pips to help you. That being said, most high-level players can hold their own in combat and are self-reliant/probably won't spam "I need healing" ad nauseum.

I used to be a solo player~ now, my buddy-list is full, and I love questing with friends. But there are times when I want to enjoy the game by myself, and I expect that all of my friends, regardless of level, will respect that.

-

Gunslinger said:


"My first question is this Why should lower levels not be allowed into a world?
How many times has a lower level person jumped into a battle with you an was unhelpful?
How many times has a higher level person jumped into battle with you?
Do you think higher level people will stop jumping into battles if this would be in effect?
And back to the first question again."

In order:

1. Because they haven't earned access and are ill-equipped for combat/reliant on others for survival;
2. enough times to consider it a serious problem;
3. enough times to consider it less of an issue because they were self-reliant, and
4.yes, if there was a QP lock in place.

-

The entire Spiral seems to be afflicted with a lack of respect, and this entitled, self-indulgent attitude is hurting the game. To quote another poster on this board, I was raised to think of others before myself, but common courtesy seems to be a thing of the past.

-von
Just to clear things up here. A progression lock is the same as a level lock when it comes to what i am defending von.

If a person wants to use low level assistance they should be allowed to do so. And they could not do that with a LL or PL.

It seems the only option here is to say everyone has a right to their own opinion and leave it at that. But i can almost garuantee there will be no such lock ever put in this game for to many reasons to list. So instead of all of us beating each other up on these message boards lets just agree to diagree.

Explorer
Jan 17, 2010
77
Before Azteca Update I honestly didn't mind it so much...but when a level 14 or something teleports to the world and then gets in your fight it ruins ya badly.

I think a 10 level lock would be a nice add....a level 70 can be ok in Azteca but say a level 60 and lower normally isnt so great. Avalon is harder too but no where near the same caliber of difficulty.

To most other worlds...it isnt really needed but there are those that get rewards i dont think they should get from battles that they obviously were no help in being outside a level grouping.

Up to DS i think anyone would be ok i think..

CL and ZF should be atleast 50

AV and AZ I personally think 60 and higher is ok but....

Do I actually think KI would ever do this? Their was a Update that locked world progress though...are tehy still in? But teleport has never been prevented...but i think with Worlds becoming worse it should be highly considered.

Defender
Feb 24, 2012
192
You guys all need to calm down, This has gotten way out of hand and is just an eyesore now. Both sides of this argument need to realize something,
Has it changed yet? No.
Will it change? No one really knows, But so far it hasnt and this issue has been around before second arc came out.
So i dont see why they would wait until now to fix something unless it really isnt broken.
There has always been a quest lock in worlds you havent been to yet and to me that is all thats needed, Because of the higher xp value.

Armiger
Jan 11, 2012
2497
I'd like to interject a comment here and ask what you thought of my reply, or if you even saw it. I know it's a heated discussion, and people feel strongly about it on both sides. I feel like I offered a middle ground and it just got ignored in the fight of YES vs NO on a locking system. So, I would ask both sides read my post, and see how they feel about it. And keep in mind, it's a player option!!

Defender
Mar 09, 2011
121
I absolutely oppose progression lock, too! Recently i've created another wizard (Devin DarkFlame, level 30 thaumaturgess) who's already in Mooshu. I've set a personal goal to be as young (level-wise) as i can be while completing the game with Devin. If there's a progression lock, you will have a very mighty upset Necromancer/Thaumaturgess/Theurgest to answer to.

The JadePierce Team
Katherine DeathHunter, Devin Darkflame, and Alyssa FireTamer

Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2425
Just Add Bacon on Dec 24, 2012 wrote:
I absolutely oppose progression lock, too! Recently i've created another wizard (Devin DarkFlame, level 30 thaumaturgess) who's already in Mooshu. I've set a personal goal to be as young (level-wise) as i can be while completing the game with Devin. If there's a progression lock, you will have a very mighty upset Necromancer/Thaumaturgess/Theurgest to answer to.

The JadePierce Team
Katherine DeathHunter, Devin Darkflame, and Alyssa FireTamer
A "Quest Progression" Lock would not cause you any problems as long as you completed the main story quests to gain access to the next area/world no matter what your actual level is. You also need to keep in mind that there are a few that you HAVE to be a certain level to enter regardless. When this happens, you will need to do some side quests to reach that level.

Myself, I make it a point to complete as many main and sides as I can before moving on. My Main Life has only bypassed one side at this point and that is TOTH.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
dayerider on Dec 18, 2012 wrote:
while this may have been mentioned before, perhaps have a segmented level lock where you can designate the lowest level of player who can port to you, ensuring that ones who would only jeopardize a battle couldn't port but helpful friends could. it's not a perfect solution, but at least it yields a middle ground rather than all or nothing. More options are always preferred to less, so perhaps something like this:

1) All friends can port
2) Only friends above "X" level
3) Only friends who have opened the world
4) No friends

I know the "only ones who have opened" has been suggested before. Also, this way, you could have multiple options at once, like saying "All friends above level 52 who have unlocked the world" which yields a fifth option. So perhaps a conditional system where:

Porting Options
[] All Friends
[] Above __ Level
[] Who can access your current world
[] Nobody

Where the middle 2 options would be greyed out until you checked off All Friends.
Day anything that would nvolve a players option to lock is fine but unfortunately the people that agree to this lock will say its not the people in the world doing poor deeds its the low levels porting in.

Defender
Feb 24, 2012
192
Dr Von on Dec 22, 2012 wrote:
First of all, being rude and insulting other posters is uncalled for... If this is how you treat people in-game, then I hope I never run into you.

Also, if you even read my post, you'd see that I don't want a level-lock~ I want a QP lock, and my reason is simple: low-levels are not equipped for post-Dragonspyre combat and, therefore, have no business being there. If your brother is level 35, he does not have the tools required to fight in Azteca~ low or no resistance, no access to critical or block, and (depending on his school) no healing abilities mean that he will be reliant on others to keep him alive the entire time... and if he jumps into someone else's battle (other than your own)? He's now an inconvenience to that person and has disrupted his or her gaming experience.

Yes, some high-level players are guilty of this as well. And, you know what? I handle them the exact same way~ delete from friends, flee the battle, and switch realms. I don't care if you're level 8 or 80; if you disrespect me, I'm not wasting my time or pips to help you. That being said, most high-level players can hold their own in combat and are self-reliant/probably won't spam "I need healing" ad nauseum.

I used to be a solo player~ now, my buddy-list is full, and I love questing with friends. But there are times when I want to enjoy the game by myself, and I expect that all of my friends, regardless of level, will respect that.

-

Gunslinger said:


"My first question is this Why should lower levels not be allowed into a world?
How many times has a lower level person jumped into a battle with you an was unhelpful?
How many times has a higher level person jumped into battle with you?
Do you think higher level people will stop jumping into battles if this would be in effect?
And back to the first question again."

In order:

1. Because they haven't earned access and are ill-equipped for combat/reliant on others for survival;
2. enough times to consider it a serious problem;
3. enough times to consider it less of an issue because they were self-reliant, and
4.yes, if there was a QP lock in place.

-

The entire Spiral seems to be afflicted with a lack of respect, and this entitled, self-indulgent attitude is hurting the game. To quote another poster on this board, I was raised to think of others before myself, but common courtesy seems to be a thing of the past.

-von
I was not purposely trying to be rude but i am fed up with people complaining about low levels in higher worlds. See for me i can handle people jumping into my duels and fleeing it doesnt bother me one bit and myself as well as most i know use low levels alot to help them with harder battles so by doing any of these things that some of you are proposing would noty allow anyone to port in lower levels which means alot of mad people out there that wasnt doing anything wrong but in turn got there hands shackled because a few of you out there are mad because someone invaded your space, When by the way it isnt your space anyway, This is a multiplayer game and anyone can come into anyones battle. This truely gets on my nerves. So my view on it is simple if its not broke dont try an fix it. I dont care who thinks they are right or wrong and i dont care whos side wins but when it is going to screw up alot of peoples way they game just to make like 10 people happy is just stupid.
And if someone wants to argue this by saying that 10 people is just a presumption and i dont know that well your right but ive checked the gunslingers threads and the polls are lookin to me that hardly anyone wants a lock or block on anything.
Want to try and tell me that these forums dont hold the true number of members then go out and get your tallies to prove your point or just sit back and quiet down because you have no proof either.
This gets just down right frustrating due to no one actually having any type of solid proof to their assumptions, none of you do, yeah even me.
So either go out and prove your theories or stop wasting everyones time.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
DragonLady1818 on Dec 25, 2012 wrote:
A "Quest Progression" Lock would not cause you any problems as long as you completed the main story quests to gain access to the next area/world no matter what your actual level is. You also need to keep in mind that there are a few that you HAVE to be a certain level to enter regardless. When this happens, you will need to do some side quests to reach that level.

Myself, I make it a point to complete as many main and sides as I can before moving on. My Main Life has only bypassed one side at this point and that is TOTH.
Golden let me explain what i am defending;
Some people like to use a lower level toon to assist them in higher level battles when no level appropriate people are on. Now if that lower level has not progressed to that specific area of the game and does not hold a spiral key to enter then they must port in to assist.
If they havent progressed in the quest line how do they assist other wise?
So in turn a quest progression would still affect what i am defending.

Armiger
Jan 11, 2012
2497
Gunslinger, what Im talking about doing is having the PLAYER control the filters of who can and can not port in. Let's use this example:

You're on my friend's list and want to port to Celestia. I have it set so that only people, level 50 or above, who have opened the world themselves can port in to help me. Since you've finished Azteca, you can port in. If your second wizard, who hasn't finished krokopatra, tries to port in, (s)he can't because they haven't unlocked Celestia themselves AND is not level 50 or above.

Does that make it more clear? I set who I will allow to port to me, not KI. This way, you can have different controls from me and shut off porting all together if you want to.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
dayerider on Dec 26, 2012 wrote:
Gunslinger, what Im talking about doing is having the PLAYER control the filters of who can and can not port in. Let's use this example:

You're on my friend's list and want to port to Celestia. I have it set so that only people, level 50 or above, who have opened the world themselves can port in to help me. Since you've finished Azteca, you can port in. If your second wizard, who hasn't finished krokopatra, tries to port in, (s)he can't because they haven't unlocked Celestia themselves AND is not level 50 or above.

Does that make it more clear? I set who I will allow to port to me, not KI. This way, you can have different controls from me and shut off porting all together if you want to.
If KI would spend the time and money on that update it would work.
But you will hear others on these forums point out that the person porting in will have free reign over the area after they port in so they still wouldnt be happy.
If KI would input a boot option so you can boot a player after wouldnt work because it would be abused also.

Armiger
Feb 25, 2009
2425
lastdaysgunslinger on Dec 26, 2012 wrote:
Golden let me explain what i am defending;
Some people like to use a lower level toon to assist them in higher level battles when no level appropriate people are on. Now if that lower level has not progressed to that specific area of the game and does not hold a spiral key to enter then they must port in to assist.
If they havent progressed in the quest line how do they assist other wise?
So in turn a quest progression would still affect what i am defending.
I understand PERFECTLY what you are defending.

Apparently, you have not read one of my posts regarding this issue. I have 2 accounts and at one point needed help with a particular dungeon, Although I had a wizard on the second account that did have access to the area, I needed a life wizard. The life wizard on that second account did not have the key but I did use her to help with the dungeon. Now as I also stated, there are several of my friends that also have second accounts and have done the same thing. I for one am willing to make that sacrifice in order to keep lower levels from jumping into my battles.

As to how they assist? They don't. As I said before, I don't care if they port and look around but not join battles.

Defender
Feb 24, 2012
192
RottenHeart on Dec 22, 2012 wrote:
Perhaps we should let inexperienced athletes compete in the Olympics. Perhaps the NBA and NFL too. Everybody has the right to play, so why shouldn't everybody be allowed to play? And experienced players really need the assistance too. Absolutely, I'm sure I could give George St. Pierre some really good tips for his next UFC fight.

Oh... but I'm talking about something completely different. Apples and oranges. Silly me, pay no attenion! My examples refer to games where you must practice and gain experience and progress based on skill, achievements, winning competitions and recognized abilities. Sometimes there are acceptance criteria to move from one playing level to the next. RPG games don't involve elements like like real world games. If you want to skip right to the end you absolutely should. Because RPG games are not intended to have story lines and paths of progression.
Im sorry but this one made me laugh so i have to put my 2 cents in.
I think you are correct rotten, And also since 80 people out of the 3000000 want ufc fighters to wear head gear that should be implemented immediately as well. You know because those 80 people should get what they want even though the circuit would colapse afterward but thats ok because those 80 people would be happy then.
But thats just my opinion on the take of the few verses the many i guess.

Please put these type of responces on the central forum or the wizard class forum. I have to hear the responces.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
DragonLady1818 on Dec 27, 2012 wrote:
I understand PERFECTLY what you are defending.

Apparently, you have not read one of my posts regarding this issue. I have 2 accounts and at one point needed help with a particular dungeon, Although I had a wizard on the second account that did have access to the area, I needed a life wizard. The life wizard on that second account did not have the key but I did use her to help with the dungeon. Now as I also stated, there are several of my friends that also have second accounts and have done the same thing. I for one am willing to make that sacrifice in order to keep lower levels from jumping into my battles.

As to how they assist? They don't. As I said before, I don't care if they port and look around but not join battles.
Read my posts and youll see i understand what your talking about, I just disagree with you thats all.
People should not be held back from a world. I dont care what level they are. I agree there are people out there that do not belong in some battles but when a player wants that lower level with them they should have that option to use.

Armiger
Jan 11, 2012
2497
lastdaysgunslinger on Dec 27, 2012 wrote:
If KI would spend the time and money on that update it would work.
But you will hear others on these forums point out that the person porting in will have free reign over the area after they port in so they still wouldnt be happy.
If KI would input a boot option so you can boot a player after wouldnt work because it would be abused also.
Well, here's my take on it. It's not a 100% fix, but it makes it MUCH harder for porting to be abused. Sure, there are work arounds for it, but if you figure (sake of example) the filters like the following, it leaves very little chance for work around:

Let only friends port to Celestia, who are level 60 and above who have already unlocked the world themselves.

That's a pretty strong filter since it carries multiple conditions. I have friends on my list who easily could over-ride it since they're further than me, but think of it this way... if people can get past that, AND they don't help you, you know who they are and can remove them. So not only does it help with porting, but it also helps matain a "professional" friends list.

There is no one fix for it. Boot options, as you say, could easily be exploited. Even if you could boot an enemy once it joined in if somebody leaves, it could be abused. perhaps have an "auto stack" number system, like when more than one enemy joins the battle when a new friend joins, so if they leave, if NO damage has been done, the enemy leaves too.

Again, this is not a simple answer. People have been asking for this type of thing across many systems of RPG/MMORPG/Facebook Game, etc and I have yet to see anything like it be implemented (tho admittedly, my background of online RPGs in ANY form is quite small).

Personally, I think that more discussion is needed to fully flush out ideas, but hopefully KI will see my idea as a happy middle ground and try to implement something like it or the exact option. It looks great for them because they can say, "Hey, we've listened to you and are trying this option which we think is quite fair, though not a perfect fix.". It would give us SOME help.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
I think something truely needs done to prevent people fleeing from battles as long as they do not hinder a persons play strategy to do so.
That is the real reason for people wanting a level lock in the worlds right. So maybe we should focus on ways to prevent the fleeing instead of preventing the port.

Survivor
Sep 19, 2012
1
I OPPOSE!!!
I am assuming all this is because of low levels coming in on your battle not on your friends list, creating another opponent and leaving. Well, I have had this happen several times and it is frustrating. OK, now when that person comes in our battles, the game knows that wiz is there and adds the extra opponent. So "WHY" can't the game recognize when a wiz flees after so many, lets say a second or 2 after they have created the extra opponent, that the opponent leaves also? Or even ask you if you would like to battle the extra. I will leave as is for now and think on this some more.
STILL I OPPOSE the level lock....

Archon
Feb 07, 2011
3175
fireproof1111 on Dec 26, 2012 wrote:
I was not purposely trying to be rude but i am fed up with people complaining about low levels in higher worlds. See for me i can handle people jumping into my duels and fleeing it doesnt bother me one bit and myself as well as most i know use low levels alot to help them with harder battles so by doing any of these things that some of you are proposing would noty allow anyone to port in lower levels which means alot of mad people out there that wasnt doing anything wrong but in turn got there hands shackled because a few of you out there are mad because someone invaded your space, When by the way it isnt your space anyway, This is a multiplayer game and anyone can come into anyones battle. This truely gets on my nerves. So my view on it is simple if its not broke dont try an fix it. I dont care who thinks they are right or wrong and i dont care whos side wins but when it is going to screw up alot of peoples way they game just to make like 10 people happy is just stupid.
And if someone wants to argue this by saying that 10 people is just a presumption and i dont know that well your right but ive checked the gunslingers threads and the polls are lookin to me that hardly anyone wants a lock or block on anything.
Want to try and tell me that these forums dont hold the true number of members then go out and get your tallies to prove your point or just sit back and quiet down because you have no proof either.
This gets just down right frustrating due to no one actually having any type of solid proof to their assumptions, none of you do, yeah even me.
So either go out and prove your theories or stop wasting everyones time.
there's no theory to prove~ low levels don't have access to the stats required to fight at the high levels, pure and simple... and that, my friend, is a fact. when you can show me a level 25 with access to high resistance, critical, block, and the astrals, who is completely self-sufficient in avalon or azteca, we can talk about your "theories".

you may be fed up with people "complaining" about low-levels in high-level zones, but maybe i'm tired of low-levels disrupting my game-play... i may play with ports off, but maybe the guy who's afk in three points doesn't and his level 16 friend ports in, then joins my battle and begs for healing. ports off is not a legit solution, end of.

hardly anyone wants a lock? where are you getting your stats? didn't you realize that 80% of stats are made-up on the spot? lol.

on a more-serious note, your "stats" are biased, as this forum is only available to paying members (crowns players aren't considered "members") and not all 30 million players have central accounts. i don't need tallies or heavily-biased "stats" to make my case, and i don't have to prove anything to you.

as for your demand that i "sit back and quiet down", this is a public forum and i don't require your permission to voice an opinion. just because you don't like what i (and others) have to say doesn't make it any less valid... if you can't handle me disagreeing with you, that's not my problem. if you only wanted to hear from people who agree with you, say so next time and the rest of us will gladly avoid the ensuing headache.

i find it hilarious that you started your post by apologizing for being rude, then started up again. if you're looking to debate it out, by all means make your case; if you're trying to pick a fight, you won't get one from me... but hey, just keep right on being rude to me, and see where it gets you.

-von

Armiger
Jan 11, 2012
2497
I don't know if it's been posted before, I don't recall it, but if it was, consider this my agreement with the idea:

to have a limit as to how many people can join a battle in the player's options screen. If you choose 2 people, then after you and a companion are in a fight, NOBODY else can join it until the other person flees. This way, at most you'd only have 3 opponents and you could stop another one from getting in.

This combined with my idea of increased player filters for porting, together would make it MUCH harder to abuse AND be player controlled at all times. This way, KI doesn't have to get into the messy fight of "you restrict us too much" or "you have no filters, I hate that" etc

Survivor
Jan 02, 2011
27
While I do agree that a low level joining a battle is annoying,I don't think a definite level lock would be that heplful.I mean some people want to sight see so if they're with their friend who has completed the game up to that point I think that's ok and higher levels need help too.So I don't really oppose it or agree so I'll stay neutral but I do ask for help from lower lvl friends or friends who just haven't gotten to the world I'm in(CL) .
So honestly thats my opinion for what it counts.

Survivor
Jan 18, 2011
27
lastdaysgunslinger on Dec 28, 2012 wrote:
Read my posts and youll see i understand what your talking about, I just disagree with you thats all.
People should not be held back from a world. I dont care what level they are. I agree there are people out there that do not belong in some battles but when a player wants that lower level with them they should have that option to use.
Ok. here is My opinion as the expert of opinions:
First off as for my vote, Yes to banning low levels from joining battles without permission and No to putting restrictions on them so they can't even vist the worlds. some people sneak low levels in to show them how amazing the spiral is and some people do it to stay as partners for life or keep the family together. And some people do it for the education darn it! how do you expect the higher ups to tutor their lower piers if a "field trip" can't be put in.

Also gunslinger, i hate to say this but please let people say what they wanna say.I find it Totally hilarious the way von and fireproof are fighting. its cracks me up and gives me a good laugh for once!

Ashley winter, almost a promethean rank wizard and a know-it-all

Survivor
Jul 17, 2011
20
I halfway approve and disapprove.
The reason why i approve, is because I get tired of seeing low levels go to a high level world with their high level friend, and then the high level friend take them into a dungeon, just to the lower level friend can raise levels quicker. I think you should just play the game fairly, so that you don't just go into a dungeon, and get all the levels you want.

I dissaprove also, because when people buy a membership or buy a place with crowns, they have the right to go anywhere they want, because they bought a membership, and just holding them back from going isn't right to me either.

Geographer
Feb 19, 2010
935
winter goddess on Jan 4, 2013 wrote:
Ok. here is My opinion as the expert of opinions:
First off as for my vote, Yes to banning low levels from joining battles without permission and No to putting restrictions on them so they can't even vist the worlds. some people sneak low levels in to show them how amazing the spiral is and some people do it to stay as partners for life or keep the family together. And some people do it for the education darn it! how do you expect the higher ups to tutor their lower piers if a "field trip" can't be put in.

Also gunslinger, i hate to say this but please let people say what they wanna say.I find it Totally hilarious the way von and fireproof are fighting. its cracks me up and gives me a good laugh for once!

Ashley winter, almost a promethean rank wizard and a know-it-all
They can never restrict battle circles or it would screw the game up completely. I have seen a few people trying to split this up into 2 sections, Some donot want people invading on their battles but also donot want a level lock on lower leveled toons. This kind of defeats the purpose on the post but i understand you donot like invaders in your battles. Pleae keep in mind that no battle circle is owned by anyone so that option will probably never be used by KI.

Yes bamzam we are all hear to give the comic relief that is needed in these forums so it doesnt get boring in here. But my statements mostly are trying to get answers or show perspective.

Take care and safe journeys.