Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Twinks, what's thei purpose?Follow

#102 Dec 07 2006 at 4:53 AM Rating: Decent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Edit: Smiley: king

Allegory wrote:
Poldaran wrote:
I believe the majority of anti-twinks(obviously not you, but you're definitely different than most) hate having to fight enemy twinks, and do not dislike twinks on their own side quite so much.


I pretty much disagree. But even if you aren't pissing off all 19 other people in a wsg match, you're probably pissing off at least the 10 on the other side. You can cut this number down further with various situations, but you're still pissing off a good 30-35%% mininum with every time a twink enters a WSG match.


I'd be willing to settle on an agreement of 30-35%, though my number includes the other side's twinks as well(since it's my mission when I queue to **** off DD twinks on the other side).

The reason I believe I don't irritate the people on my side all that much is because I often see the same vocal people who ***** about the other side's twinks make comments about how awesome it is having me on their side. This is also a main source of my belief that many who hate twinks(and even the majority) hate the fact that they have to fight the other side's twinks, not so much hate for twinks on their side.

That isn't to say they wouldn't gladly give up their side's twinks if it meant no twinks on the other side, but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

I feel that you overestimate the average player's intelligence/sense of fairness/etc and I'm sure you feel I underestimate them.

That, more than anything, IMO, is where we truly differ...or at least the biggest source in our difference of opinion on the numbers.

Edit: Added a little bit to the last line for clarity.
Edited, Dec 7th 2006 6:05am by Poldaran

Edited, Dec 7th 2006 6:15am by Poldaran
#103 Dec 07 2006 at 5:12 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Oops major typo there. I meant to say I pretty much agree. Lol.


I do think you get a bit more of a positive additude in BG than most twinks though. For one you are a paladin and not a rogue. SecondI'm pretty sure that you are helping you team by healing and cleansing, and misc. rather than trying to be a warrioradin and farming HKs. Third I'm pretty sure you're not an ******** (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong^^) and don't spit on the corpses of the people you kill like I too often see in general.
#104 Dec 07 2006 at 5:23 AM Rating: Decent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Allegory wrote:
Oops major typo there. I meant to say I pretty much agree. Lol.



Smiley: lol

Allegory wrote:
I do think you get a bit more of a positive additude in BG than most twinks though. For one you are a paladin and not a rogue. SecondI'm pretty sure that you are helping you team by healing and cleansing, and misc. rather than trying to be a warrioradin and farming HKs. Third I'm pretty sure you're not an ******** (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong^^) and don't spit on the corpses of the people you kill like I too often see in general.


Probably true. Heals = love.

As to the ****************** I have /rofl'ed a couple Shamans after they died(the ones who don't purge) and then I /lol'd at one level 12 who took 1 sword hit and died of fall damage while he was trying to steal our flag and jumped off of the graveyard.

And then of course, I have been known to /moo at Taurens when I'm chasing them in order to get them to turn around and fight me rather than continue running with the flag.

And it's been well over a month since I killed anyone directly. That's what the warrior I queue with is for.
#105 Dec 07 2006 at 5:28 AM Rating: Decent
Hey Allegory,
I don't have a twink yet (cause I probably will at some time finish transforming my shaman into a twink), but I already /spit on my foe's corpse once I'm done with him.
Not if it was a tough fight, though, tough fights get a /bow, but a mediocre or easy fight gets /spit at least once.

You gotta motivate your enemy to do his best to spill your innards, and /spit /spit /laugh does that remarkably.
#106 Dec 07 2006 at 5:41 AM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
In a spite of boredom I created this highly offensive gif. Skills enough to be a regular webcomic writer? I think so!
#107 Dec 07 2006 at 5:42 AM Rating: Decent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
danieldakkak wrote:
I probably will at some time finish transforming my shaman into a twink


Nerf Shamans.

Scratch that. Shamans are okay.

Nerf Purge.

#108 Dec 07 2006 at 7:09 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,996 posts
Quote:
You gotta motivate your enemy to do his best to spill your innards, and /spit /spit /laugh does that remarkably.


Um ... no. That isn't any form of competitive spirit; that is just poor sportsmanship and bragging about it is graceless at best.
#109 Dec 07 2006 at 8:16 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,574 posts
Allegory wrote:
You made one reference to your relation to twinking in your second post....I went with the most probable interpretation, I'm sorry I was wrong.


Thank you for rereading my posts. I’m puzzled that someone could miss the entire paragraph where I said my characters were mains who found or bought all their gear themselves, and thus by definition were not twinks. But I’m glad we have that sorted out.

Allegory wrote:
However I am confused even more now, because you say you are talking about 30-39 and 40-49. There are, just about, no twinks in the the brackets above 29. How can you say you enjoy fighting twinks in these brackets when here twinking means much less and there are few to no twinks?


Please accept my word that there are plenty of characters in the 30-39 and 40-49 brackets equipped with excellent gear bought for them by the same player’s high-level characters: twinks, in other words. I play with and against them all the time. They’re relatively easy to spot, just as they are in the early brackets. Kang the Decapitator is a common warrior twink weapon, generally with Crusader. Hunters dual-wielding the Axe of Rinji with +15 agi and shooting Hurricane are a common sight. You can spot people wearing the Glowing Brightwood Staff and the elite cloth robe (name escapes me) a mile away.

I enjoy facing those opponents much more than I do players with suboptimal gear. They are a greater challenge, especially when you face an organized PVP group of 5-10 of them.

So that’s one sense that I enjoy facing twinks.

The other sense is that I remember the twinks I faced in the past fondly, since I learned a great deal about PVP by fighting them. I left the 19 and 29 brackets because I was impatient for higher-level talents and skills, not because the twinks ruined the experience for me.

(Well, actually, one of my characters left the 29s bracket accidentally, when an unexpected map reveal pushed him to 30. Oops!)

Once Burning Crusade comes out, I expect the 39 and 49 brackets to become the hot new twink areas, since from what I’ve seen of the new enchants, they’re generally restricted to items level 35 and above, meaning they could give a 39 or 49 an incredible edge. Should be interesting.

Now that one of my characters is 58, pitting his PVP reward gear against raiders, I’m enjoying that challenge too.

#110 Dec 07 2006 at 8:36 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,574 posts
Rhodekylle wrote:
Quote:
You gotta motivate your enemy to do his best to spill your innards, and /spit /spit /laugh does that remarkably.


Um ... no. That isn't any form of competitive spirit; that is just poor sportsmanship and bragging about it is graceless at best.


Warriors can’t taunt in the BGs with Challenging Shout, but they sure can with /spit. Anyone who has ever played street basketball knows the value of trash talk--and knows how to block it out and stay focused on the game.

One of my characters seldom emotes in the bgs. When you’re cloth, you don’t want the attention. Sometimes I’ll /bow to someone about to die, just to mitigate any desire for revenge they might have.

My other character emotes all the time in an attempt rattle the opposition. /chicken to bubbling Paladins...not because I actually think it’s a cowardly move, but on the off chance that it will make them hesitate next time. /golfclap /bye to people I sap, in hopes that they waste time after the CC wears off trying to find me, rather than focusing on the BG objectives. /violin /mourn to anyone who is getting creamed at one of our strongpoints, potentially making them mad enough to make another suicide run. My longtime opposition got to know my emotes pretty well, and made me laugh many times by firing them back at me at appropriate moments. I love the people I play against, and it’s always great to find a kindred spirit.

I don’t /spit because I’ve always thought it was overused. But I guess that emote is widely effective in holding PVP aggro.

My advice to PVP players is to let it slide off you. Tell yourself, “OK, he’s trying to taunt me, but I’m making my resist roll.”

#112 Dec 07 2006 at 10:22 AM Rating: Decent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
emmitsvenson wrote:
But I guess that emote is widely effective in holding PVP aggro.


I've found that the quickest way for me to gain PvP aggro is to cast heal spells. That seriously irritates people.
#113 Dec 07 2006 at 11:15 AM Rating: Decent
***
1,574 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
I've found that the quickest way for me to gain PvP aggro is to cast heal spells. That seriously irritates people.


Hard to dump that aggro, too, although a Holy Priest did try casting Fade while I was busy Mindflaying him to death the other day.

Might have been a simple mistake on his part. More than once I’ve accidentally cast Mind Soothe rather than Mind Control on people, since I’ve got them right next to each other on my UI. I’m sure they made fun of me in their chat for that.
#114 Dec 07 2006 at 11:28 AM Rating: Default
Hey
Guess
What
I
Found!
I
Wanted
To
Buy
Gold
And
Saw

o
l
o
o
t
.
c
o
m

They
Have
Power
Leveling!
#115 Dec 07 2006 at 11:56 AM Rating: Good
***
3,801 posts
shenabakekang wrote:
Hey Guess What


You make twinks seem like the peak of ethics. (was a goldseller posting)




What it all boils down to is that the low level twinks (the ones that are undeniably overpowered) are powered by enchants. The fact that Blizzard did not but level restrictions on enchants is a MISTAKE. Player crafted blacksmithing items have level requirements. Leathercrafted items have level requirements. Tailored items, Potions, Engineering trinkets all have level requirements. Hell even armor kits have level requirements.

And Enchanting is the only one that doesn't. Yes, it was overlooked, and the only reason nothing has been done about it is because, like it or not, there's a large number of players that have some level of twink. "fix"ing it would **** off a lot of people, and be a bad business move.
#116 Dec 07 2006 at 12:07 PM Rating: Good
****
5,645 posts
Quote:
The fact that Blizzard did not but level restrictions on enchants is a MISTAKE.


Mistakes get fixed. There have been how many patches since go live, don't you think that if blizzard wanted to fix it they would have? The fact is they chose not to because it's fine the way it is.

Quote:
Player crafted blacksmithing items have level requirements. Leathercrafted items have level requirements. Tailored items, Potions, Engineering trinkets all have level requirements. Hell even armor kits have level requirements.


By your own claims the lack of level restrictions on enchants must have be correct. Otherwise alot of QA analysts would have gotten fired. This was not an "oops we forgot enchanting restrictions" type of moment, it would have been discussed many times and clearly a unanimous decision by the group that decides these things must have come up with "leave it the way it is, it's fine".

I mean people ***** and complain when one class gets X buff or Y nerf, but when blizz puts buffs in that EVERY ONE can use/enjoy people ***** about that too.

Seriously people get it together, it's in there by design whether you think it should be or not. So either embrace it like a lot of smart people have or keep on fighting it, i'm sure you think you're making a point by not "twinking", but it's hard to see that point when you're face down in the dirt with a flaming dagger sticking out of your back.
#117 Dec 07 2006 at 12:55 PM Rating: Decent



Doublepost.

Edited, Dec 7th 2006 4:04pm by FFGamer
#118 Dec 07 2006 at 12:58 PM Rating: Decent
Sorry TseTsuo xD , read your post wrong -.-;;;;

Stupidity on my part ftw... anywho, rate me down if you like <_<
#119 Dec 07 2006 at 1:28 PM Rating: Good
**
264 posts
Quote:
This was not an "oops we forgot enchanting restrictions" type of moment, it would have been discussed many times and clearly a unanimous decision by the group that decides these things must have come up with "leave it the way it is, it's fine".


No, it was probably more of a "Who would waste a rare/expensive libram on something they'll outlevel in 2 weeks?" kind of thing, and now it's too late to back all those enchants out.
#120 Dec 07 2006 at 2:07 PM Rating: Decent
*
62 posts
No, Blizzard isn't afraid to mess with enchanting for fear of pissing a signifigant customer base off. Disenchanting 2.0.1 anyone? Capping disenchantment based on enchantment proves they know it can be abused and proves if they don't like the abuse, they can stop it.

The reason they won't level cap enchanting itself is it's a money sink. You buy Crusader on your Bad-*** Sword of Alliance Slaying +10 at level 19 and you won't get the mats back come level 24, when other swords are available and you need that Crusader ench once again. Money sinks are what balances the uncapped drops.

They didn't expect anyone to actually stay at level 19 or 29 for a long period of time (Or any level but capped for that matter), so they didn't see an issue. And to them, twinking still isn't an issue. It might make a few pissed enough to quit, but I'd wager far more push harder to get a character to cap, just so they can twink too. Add to that the already prevalent attitude of "new stuff, gotta have" that comes with every patch and you can count on keeping a solid base of customers, even if all they want is a tricked out BG toon.
#121 Dec 07 2006 at 2:24 PM Rating: Decent
*
62 posts
Double post. No idea how that happened...

Edited, Dec 7th 2006 5:27pm by Allaunder
#122 Dec 07 2006 at 5:31 PM Rating: Good
***
3,801 posts
KittyMonk wrote:
Quote:
This was not an "oops we forgot enchanting restrictions" type of moment, it would have been discussed many times and clearly a unanimous decision by the group that decides these things must have come up with "leave it the way it is, it's fine".


No, it was probably more of a "Who would waste a rare/expensive libram on something they'll outlevel in 2 weeks?" kind of thing, and now it's too late to back all those enchants out.


I have to agree, and I think it mainly has to do with the fact that enchants are "spells" that are "cast", rather than items that are made.

After all, if they had no reservations about people being able to increase the stats on items, why do armor kits have level requirements? Armor kits are basically a +armor enchantment.

It wasn't a major concern originally in the game because, initially, there were no BG's, and thus, no reason for someone to make a character which would stop at a certain level.
#123 Dec 07 2006 at 8:34 PM Rating: Decent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Ialaman wrote:
shenabakekang wrote:
Hey Guess What


You make twinks seem like the peak of ethics. (was a goldseller posting)




What it all boils down to is that the low level twinks (the ones that are undeniably overpowered) are powered by enchants. The fact that Blizzard did not but level restrictions on enchants is a MISTAKE. Player crafted blacksmithing items have level requirements. Leathercrafted items have level requirements. Tailored items, Potions, Engineering trinkets all have level requirements. Hell even armor kits have level requirements.

And Enchanting is the only one that doesn't. Yes, it was overlooked, and the only reason nothing has been done about it is because, like it or not, there's a large number of players that have some level of twink. "fix"ing it would **** off a lot of people, and be a bad business move.


IIRC, Shield spikes don't have level requirements.
#124 Dec 07 2006 at 8:46 PM Rating: Decent
Quote:
Maybe it was coming from that game that stuck me with that mentality but i f'n hate people who half *** it and wear sh*tty gear in BG's. What's up with these lazy people?

Right now i am level 41. the teen, twenties, and thirtys brackets were completely ruined for me-all because of twinkers. From the very beginning at level 18 i started WSG and i hated it because of twinks- i love AB but same problem
So you call me lazy because i dont want to spend hours in raids trying to get the "best gear". .. its not like ill be in the X9's for more then a week or so.
#125 Dec 07 2006 at 10:40 PM Rating: Decent
So what classifys a twink exactly, one who has enchants with good gear or one who has just real good gear?

What I'm trying to say is just because someone has good gear, does not mean they are a twink, it just means they are smart enough to look up what armor is best at each level, and then smart enough to go find it Smiley: wink

Also if one tryed hard enough they could save enough money on their OWN, and buy the enchants themselves. Except for Crusader and the really good ones and such, lol yeah right a lvl 19 could have that much G by himself...

So if one was to do this would that make him a twink*? I don't think so. But instead of doing all that I typed above, I simply got my lvl 60's G to get the gear for me :) In the end it just saved me time...
#126 Dec 07 2006 at 10:41 PM Rating: Decent
And oh yeah...

Smiley: deadhorse
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 472 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (472)