lawyergod's Content
There have been 56 items by lawyergod (Search limited from 25-June 22)
#757786 Rules for founding a guild
Posted by
lawyergod
on 09 October 2012 - 14:16
in
General Discussion
#757313 Bounties and the time window to post 'em
Posted by
lawyergod
on 04 October 2012 - 23:35
in
General Discussion
TheEvilLyn,
I was speaking figuratively when I said "taken advantage of" (hence the quotation marks. If I was speaking literally, I would have left thouse out.). I highly doubt (like you), that the person specifically knew that I'm Jewish (I don't indicate this anywhere on my profile), and neither do I believe in any way, that the person knew that it was a Jewish Holiday when he/she decided to attack me. Oddly enough though, the majority of times I seem to get attacked are either on the Sabbath or during a Jewish Holiday, but that's besides my point. My point here, is that the game system allows for people such as myself, to be "taken advantage of" (so to speak), while we are most vulnerable, unable to protect ourselves, and unable to retaliate afterwards.
I too have lost mailbox items because of missing the window to collect them, however this is something thaavoidable by simply not putting up items before a holiday, when I know that I might end up missing being able to collect them if they don't sell, and then losing the items. Putting up a bounty after being attacked is slightly different in that you don't have a choice- the player attacks you or he/she doesn't. You have no influence on that really- and putting "please don't attack me" in the bio more often than not will actually cause people to attack you, not deter them. I've tried that approach before- it doesn't work.I AM Jewish, and frankly, I'm with Lyn on this one. I've been hit in PvP and been unable to retaliate, or missed a Global Quest or other Event, or any number of other things, numerous times while playing this game, both for religious and other reasons, and never once did I feel like the rules of the game itself were skewed against me because of my religion. Dumb luck happens.
Whether the 48-hour rule should change for OTHER reasons is a different matter (personally, I think two days is plenty, but there's an argument both ways), but to propose a change due to a primarily religious rationale is ludicrous to me. More than anything, it opens up the same sort of argument for every OTHER religion, ethnic group, or what have you. The rules of the game should be enforced independently of individual concerns, religious or otherwise; to ask otherwise is inherently unfair.
You are right in that a game shouldn't be swayed one way or another solely because of a minority of players who have religious obligations (such as ourselves). I am in no way saying that the game is biased against Jews. That would be ludicrous. If you read through my other posts, you will notice that I included my idea as benefiting other players as well. Why should a player be able to attack someone with impunity, steal gold and exp (and do it repeatedly with little to no time window in between), and not give the victim the same amount of freedom to be able to retaliate? There are plenty of other browser-based games that are PvP based, and there's no "window of opportunity" to retaliate, where if you miss it, you can do nothing about it. Utopia is one example I can think of, which my husband plays on a fairly regular basis. My idea will clearly benefit other people as well. I'm bringing in the religious example to add validity to my argument. I highly doubt the Cows would listen if I simply said "48 hours isn't long enough, remove the time limit pl0x!". I'm adding a valid reason for myself, why it is not long enough for me. It's not simply a matter of "take a couple seconds to log in every other day", as you would know. I'm simply asking that the window of time for placing bounties after being attacked to be a little bit more accommodating, or perhaps as accommodating as it is for players to attack someone.
[Wow, that's a long internal quote.]
I think that, even if you raise other points, bringing religion into the discussion at all actually weakens your argument, because its something that HCS cannot (or, at least, SHOULD not) consider when it is creating and enforcing the rules of its game. There ARE other reasons why the 48 hour limit might be extended (proposed both by yourself and by others in this thread), but religion, to me, simply cannot be part of that discussion.
I should point out, though, that your argument also seems to assume that the Bounty Board is the only method of retaliation for a PvP hit.
Why should a player be able to attack someone with impunity, steal gold and exp (and do it repeatedly with little to no time window in between), and not give the victim the same amount of freedom to be able to retaliate?
Simply put, this is wrong; the Board isn't the only avenue of PvP retaliation. It's just the one that is easiest, fastest, and least risky for the victim (for lack of better terms, I'm using "attacker" and "victim" here), and poses the most risk to the attacker -- and thus, there is a time limit on it. There is NO such limit on hitting back yourself, hiring "mercs" to hit for you, etc. Personally, I don't like these options either -- I don't like to PvP -- but the options are there, so to say (or, at least, to imply) that ALL avenues of retaliation are closed if you can't bounty is not fair.
#757307 Bounties and the time window to post 'em
Posted by
lawyergod
on 04 October 2012 - 21:28
in
General Discussion
TheEvilLyn,
I was speaking figuratively when I said "taken advantage of" (hence the quotation marks. If I was speaking literally, I would have left thouse out.). I highly doubt (like you), that the person specifically knew that I'm Jewish (I don't indicate this anywhere on my profile), and neither do I believe in any way, that the person knew that it was a Jewish Holiday when he/she decided to attack me. Oddly enough though, the majority of times I seem to get attacked are either on the Sabbath or during a Jewish Holiday, but that's besides my point. My point here, is that the game system allows for people such as myself, to be "taken advantage of" (so to speak), while we are most vulnerable, unable to protect ourselves, and unable to retaliate afterwards.
I too have lost mailbox items because of missing the window to collect them, however this is something thaavoidable by simply not putting up items before a holiday, when I know that I might end up missing being able to collect them if they don't sell, and then losing the items. Putting up a bounty after being attacked is slightly different in that you don't have a choice- the player attacks you or he/she doesn't. You have no influence on that really- and putting "please don't attack me" in the bio more often than not will actually cause people to attack you, not deter them. I've tried that approach before- it doesn't work.
I AM Jewish, and frankly, I'm with Lyn on this one. I've been hit in PvP and been unable to retaliate, or missed a Global Quest or other Event, or any number of other things, numerous times while playing this game, both for religious and other reasons, and never once did I feel like the rules of the game itself were skewed against me because of my religion. Dumb luck happens.
Whether the 48-hour rule should change for OTHER reasons is a different matter (personally, I think two days is plenty, but there's an argument both ways), but to propose a change due to a primarily religious rationale is ludicrous to me. More than anything, it opens up the same sort of argument for every OTHER religion, ethnic group, or what have you. The rules of the game should be enforced independently of individual concerns, religious or otherwise; to ask otherwise is inherently unfair.
#757158 A solution to end the dropping levels intentionally gig
Posted by
lawyergod
on 04 October 2012 - 00:59
in
General Discussion
Is it really worth it being that petty over guild xp - it's not like it's causing you to any kind of hurt...
While I do think this, on the whole, is an overblown issue, the Guild xp issue IS something that should be addressed, I think. Saying that it "doesn't hurt people" isn't fair, since that sort of reasoning is what keeps the highest-level guilds where they are, and doesn't give lower-level guilds a chance to catch up. I am all for giving EoC players -- and any OTHER players, for that matter -- a chance to diversify how they play, try new things, and continue to enjoy the game. However, I also think that we should be trying to close the gap, at least somewhat, between higher-level and lower-level Guilds. And while I don't want to unfairly DIS-advantage higher-level players and Guilds, the argument that de-leveling and re-leveling constantly, while staying in an area 15 levels above where you got deleveled TO, and adding high amounts of Guild xp all the while, DOES have some merit, I believe.
What I would propose, therefore, would be to somehow lessen the contributed xp of deleveled players (EoC or otherwise) to correspond to their actual level. For example, if a level 450 gets deleveled to 430, stays in the 450 area, and hunts there, (S)HE gets the full xp given to their character, but his/her GUILD gets contributed xp equal ONLY to what it would get if a level 450 killed a level 430 creature (and then a level 431 creature, after leveling once, and so on). I do not think this would be unduly burdensome to players, particularly to EoC players, but it would also serve to lessen the power gap somewhat, and address what I feel is the only major issue raised in this thread so far.
#757098 A solution to end the dropping levels intentionally gig
Posted by
lawyergod
on 03 October 2012 - 17:34
in
General Discussion
The drawbacks I've seen raised here are few, and frankly unconvincing. Â One is that they get deleveled and contribute xp back to their guild when they level up. This isn't a huge thing to me personally, but if it bothers so many, I'd think it should be possible to calculate guild xp based on VL, instead of actual level, to solve that problem.
The complaint about the Smasher medal, to me, is insubstantial. Â Medals, by nature, give no advantage to any player, and are there for bragging rights, essentially. If someone else benefits from the actions of an EoC player (or ANY player, for that matter, since there are probably players getting themselves deleveled at all level ranges), but this benefit is purely aesthetic ... while it is an issue, its a very minor one, ultimately.
#755292 Should the PvP Smasher Medal Be changed Back?
Posted by
lawyergod
on 16 September 2012 - 03:04
in
General Discussion
In real life, do you have pvp protection walking down the street when a mugger robs you? Heck no.
Is that really the metaphor you want for PvP? A random mugging?
Generally speaking, even though I do not PvP, I DO believe it's an important part of the game, and does need to be reignited a bit. (Note, though, that I do NOT believe this is "a PvP game," as I know some people have quoted one of the HCS members (I forget who) as saying. Frankly, whoever said that is WRONG. This is a game with PvP as a PART of it. Just as leveling is a PART of it, and inventing, and GvG, and many other aspects of the game, are PARTS of the bigger whole.)
Anyway, that said, PvP DOES need a boost, in my opinion; I'm not sure Smasher is the way to do it, though. To put it very simply, the vast majority of non-PvP-ers (NOT "levelers" -- see below -- but ALL facets of the FS community who did not participate actively in PvP), were not happy about the part of PvP they disliked the most, 100-stam hits, being incentivized. Of course, the gold and xp loss (and durability loss on gear) are irritating at all levels, but it is the 100-stam hit that irks people the most. And this was rampant.
And, as has been stated in previous threads, it is debatable at best whether the Bounty Board is a viable deterrent to a determined, "hardcore" PvP-er, since many such players (1) do not value their levels, and (2) can take a perverse sort of pride in being deleveled.
What I might propose, therefore, is a sort of compromise -- there's that word again! -- where the Smasher hit is available at all times, as a selectable option pre-attack (much like you have to choose between a regular attack and a Guild Conflict attack, at present). Using a Smasher hit instead of a normal hit uses 100 stamina, takes gold and gives a point towards the Medal, but DOESN'T take xp. (This STILL leaves the option of 100-stamming someone for xp if you want, but such a hit doesn't go towards the Smasher Medal. I would save this sort of hit as a punishment if someone offends you or a friend or something, and you're out for blood.)
Personally, I would make Smasher hits (as I've proposed them) bounty-able, but possibly with a lower cap on how many levels could be lost -- instead of five levels, maybe three, since the hit didn't take any xp from the victim. Beyond that, I think I would restore the old parameters. (As I remember them, it was one hit per target, per week. Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Also, note that having the Smasher hit as a selectable option would allow the parameters to be better enforced; I know that a LOT of players wound up hitting targets for 100-stam hits a lot over those first two days, thinking that each hit went towards the medal. With this system, the game could warn you that it wouldn't count, and it would just be a normal 100-stam hit.
This would not solve the overarching issue of reigniting PvP. It would, however, provide a way for one of the more beloved aspects of PvP to come back to the forefront, without it being too much of a burden on that portion of the FS community that wouldn't participate in it. (That is the very essence of compromise.)
*** Aside: I LOATHE the way both sides of the issue in these sort of threads frame the issue as "PvP-ers" vs. "Levelers." I am on record, MANY times, as saying that lumping all "non-PvP-ers" into a single group, and assuming a single viewpoint from them, is unfair, as there are many ways to play this game outside of both leveling AND PvP. Rather than the VAST majority of the participants in this thread so far (either more-or-less-hardcore "levelers" or more-or-less-hardcore PvP-ers), I'd want to hear from some Inventors, or Farmers, or GvG-ers, or the like. Their opinions matter too.
#755052 An idea to change the BB
Posted by
lawyergod
on 14 September 2012 - 03:03
in
General Discussion
your right, lumping all under "leveler" was unfair. it is easier and better to say PVPer and nonPVPer (which is how i normally classify really)
I should point out that grouping as PvP-er vs. Non-PvP-er isn't much better. It still lumps ALL the players in the game who don't PvP into a single group, and assumes all of them to have a single mindset, which again, isn't fair. (Though frankly, I'm not sure I'm much better myself, when I speak of "PvP-ers" as a single mindset, when PvP, of itself, comprises multiple activities -- gold hits, the Ladder, the Board, etc.)
By creating an additional system that rewards PvP success and creates a system of retribution, RATHER than XP loss I don't see what the issue is. If you are one that actually does care about XP loss you won't lose XP anymore. If you do t care about XP loss, well I'm sorry but the board was intended to give "victims" recourse and now they will have an opprotunity to get it.
To try to clarify, the intent here is an "ADDITIONAL" system, presumably in addition to any sort of existing xp loss from bounties. As I understand it, there would be an additional reward system from PvP, that would give some sort of tangible benefit -- though it would have to be differentiated from Ladder tokens -- but that this benefit could be lost, or taken, on the Board.
the idea is there but i cant get over the proposition that to punish someone for attacking someone else is to take away something that doesn't even exist yet. if the cows laid down your idea of the pvp levels first to see if players even care about it....then propose a punishment based on that system?
I am certainly not the most influential of voices as to a new reward system for PvP, being a limited-to-nonexistent PvP-er (in any form -- I'm learning!), but continuing to throw ideas around, from the absurd to the profound, is the way to get there.
The only limitations on ideas, as I see it, is that it can't be a benefit that HCS already has monetized in some way. For instance, I was ABOUT to propose that the new benefit gave you a temporary "buff" (not able to be stolen with Spell Leach) that increased stam gain for 12 hours, or 24 hours, or something like that. The thought was that, for any type of PvP-er, OR for people who want to hit full faster and level, OR for pretty much anyone in between, it would motivate people to attack more, and get their stamina back faster. Buuuuuuut, since HCS has monetized stamina gain via Upgrades, I don't think that's likely. Oh well.
#755011 An idea to change the BB
Posted by
lawyergod
on 13 September 2012 - 23:03
in
General Discussion
You're not wrong, but you're kinda missing the point. In fact, you're kinda EXEMPLIFYING the point. Simply put, if losing levels on the Bounty Board is a source of pride to a lot of people, particularly the sort of people most likely to BE on the Board, then it might not be the deterrent it was designed to be, and some sort of re-balancing might be necessary. I have no idea as to what it might be, personally -- I don't do the Board at all -- but THAT is the question that is being asked here.
actually i have to disagree with you here. Mae isnt saying that the loss of levels dont hurt just that the pain is worth it when defending guild/friends/ something you believe in. PVPers are not exempt from being knocked out of gear, out of a certain range they want to be in or being put in a position where they are forced to make up lost levels.
To be blunt a majority of PVPers do not enjoy leveling at all. in fact it is down right painful for many, my self included there. personally i think leveling is the worst part of the game. i do it as i have to to get to new gear or buffs or level ranges. fact is losing levels on the BB is a good punishment the problem with it is that Levelers are so adamant that they only want to level that they wont stand up for each other and drop people levels so a lot of times only min damage gets done. rather than complaining that more damage needs to happen everyone needs to step up and use the BB the way it was intended first.
We can not avoid your end of the game, why then should you get nothing but free passes from our end...
rant done
Frankly, I'm not trying to state an opinion of my own here. I don't do the Board, pretty much at all, so I'm in no position to say whether it's an effective deterrent. However, I did think that Mae (if that's the nickname s/he goes by) did not do a very good job of staying on point, and instead began talking about why people might take pride in losing levels -- which is all true, but also speaks to this possibly not being an effective deterrent. THIS response, on the other hand, is on point, albeit a little ranty. And its a point well taken. Maybe being deleveled out of gear IS enough of a deterrent. I don't know. But that's the conversation that should be happening here.
An aside, and a bit of a rant of my own, frankly, I think that looking at the debate as "PvP-ers vs. Levelers" understates the complexity of the issue. Simply put, there are a LOT of ways to play this game, and thusly a LOT of different viewpoints to consider. (Personally, I think of myself as a Farmer, first and foremost. I wish I had time to get back to it; I miss it.) Lumping an opinion like mine, or a GvG-er, or Inventor, or Arena player, or Buff Seller, or whatever, all together under the "Leveler" umbrella is a bit unfair.
#754988 An idea to change the BB
Posted by
lawyergod
on 13 September 2012 - 20:38
in
General Discussion
A suggestion from the Achievement thread:
I like these ideas and I have one to add
How about an achievement for The number of levels lost on the bb or something along the same lines?
Given this suggestion, do we think the bounty board is an adequate source of recourse?
Someone losing levels fighting for what they believe in, or defending their guildmates/ friends. Does that sound better?
There's plenty of reasons for which a player can lose levels, be it on purpose or due to a re action for something they did. I'm sure many would proudly wear an achievement that states they've lost levels sticking up for their guild mates( or others) and have no problem risking xp and levels to do so when the time calls for it.
You're not wrong, but you're kinda missing the point. In fact, you're kinda EXEMPLIFYING the point. Simply put, if losing levels on the Bounty Board is a source of pride to a lot of people, particularly the sort of people most likely to BE on the Board, then it might not be the deterrent it was designed to be, and some sort of re-balancing might be necessary. I have no idea as to what it might be, personally -- I don't do the Board at all -- but THAT is the question that is being asked here.
#754827 PvP Global Event -- Compromise
Posted by
lawyergod
on 12 September 2012 - 12:18
in
General Discussion
#754823 PvP Global Event -- Compromise
Posted by
lawyergod
on 12 September 2012 - 11:58
in
General Discussion
Firstly, please realize that this is not intended to BE straight PvP. And its on purpose, because ultimately, "PvP-ers" (defined here as people who view PvP as their primary reason for playing FS) are a minority in this game. They're a VOCAL minority, and a sizable one (I'd estimate 25-30 percent, max), but ultimately a minority.
As such, a PvP-BASED (note the wording; this is intended to be an event BASED on PvP, NOT a PvP event) Global Event has to take the core aspects of PvP, without making it unenjoyable for the remainder of the community. (And, in case you haven't noticed, most "non-PvP-ers" don't like losing their gold and xp.)
Finally, a question from an admitted non-PvP-er: what is it, exactly, that makes THIS point so singularly important? Because frankly, everyone who has responded in this thread thus far has proven willing to compromise, to give up a little for the sake of trying something new, EXCEPT for you PvP-ers, on the issue of xp loss.
#754769 PvP Global Event -- Compromise
Posted by
lawyergod
on 12 September 2012 - 01:53
in
General Discussion
Sad to see the state this game is in now a days. Players bickering, not even able to come to a compromise, mention the word pvp and you get the evil eye. :|
Thus far, at least, people have been nothing but civil and constructive in this thread, and we ARE working towards what I hope will be a nice compromise, at least as far as this hypothetical Global Event is concerned. A workable compromise on PvP OUTRIGHT is not a challenge I am prepared to tackle at the moment. I'm tired.
#754767 PvP Global Event -- Compromise
Posted by
lawyergod
on 12 September 2012 - 01:25
in
General Discussion
for the ones talking no losses in a PVP global. here is the problem i have with it.
As it stands there are people trying to advocate reductions in XP lost in PVP. further there are others that want it removed completely. yet still there are others that are fine with it staying but are trying to make areas of PVP "risk free"
XP loss and gold loss add the risk to PVP. in fact some times it is fun to see the XP loss there. however, if you take everyone that has never even looked at PVP and send them on a hitting spree for rewards but you take all the losses out of it and say 50% enjoy it, they are enjoying a version of PVP with no risk. so then when they try the real thing and encounter the XP loss and bounties and such many will freak and want the no risk PVP back
basically my 2 cents. if you want a compromise then make it a 10 stam event so they still taste it and really everyone needs to remember that it is just a game. XP comes and goes. its just numbers on the screen really...
to tired to comment on the rest. sorry. will look at it again when i am less tired
I understand being tired. I posted this thread at the start of my workday, and JUST got home now, 13 hours later.
While you're right in that this wouldn't be "pure" PvP, as I've proposed it. What I'm trying to do is strike a balance between the competitive aspects of PvP, and the cooperative nature of the Global Quests, which otherwise would be antithetical to one another. This will, hopefully, give the people who participate in the PvP component (who, hopefully, AREN'T just "PvP'ers in the traditional use of the term, but are also people who DON'T normally PvP, and are thus given a chance to play around with the mechanics with little to no consequence) an easy metric by which to rank themselves relative to others -- hopefully, similar to the Ladder -- without being too much of an imposition on those who might not want to participate.
I'm trying to be fair to both sides. It still needs tweaking, you're right, but I do think this is a very good starting-off point. More constructive (or deconstructive, if people can find systemic flaws in the idea) feedback is what's needed, though. We need to see how this could end up being unfair to people -- for instance, the kill swapping example, which I still don't have an answer for.
#754742 PvP Global Event -- Compromise
Posted by
lawyergod
on 11 September 2012 - 21:15
in
General Discussion
(1) I'd say that a "Global Quest attack" (or whatever you call it) would be selected before you hit someone, akin to how you select Guild Conflict attacks. This would allow people to engage in actual PvP as well if they want, as well as allowing them to do the PvP portion of the event without giving up PvP protection, if any. (For lower level players, who have the protection to start, this is important, I think.)
(2) Personally, I wouldn't want total equipment protection -- no gold or xp, as already stated, but I WOULD see hits to durability. Again, this could be made flexible, though, to encourage lower-level participation -- especially since not all lower levels can AFFORD millions of gold in repairs, whereas for higher levels, it would just be a gold sink. So ... maybe something like up until level 100, no durability loss, reduced loss up until level 300, full durability loss beyond that.
(3) There DOES need to be a mechanism to protect against kill trading -- though, again, the two tiers would be separate, so if you only PvP, you'd only qualify for the one tier. Besides xp loss, does the Ladder address this somehow?
(4) I gave no thought whatsoever to attack ranges. I don't think I'd want the strict GvG ranges, though -- this is intended to be fun, with limited risk. So, for starters, I'd say that you can attack ANYONE higher than you (I know a few people who would look forward to love tapping me a few hundred times). For a lower boundary, I don't have specific numbers, but it would need to be progressively increasing, so the level 1400s in the game aren't unfairly disadvantaged by having far less targets than people below them. But it needs to be balanced too, since a level 1000 attacking a level 200 would ALSO be unfair.
**** Edit: I'm now reconsidering this position. While higher-levels DO, unavoidably, have less targets available to them, each target ALSO is likely to have far more kills than lower-levels, who might struggle just to make it to the Ruby tier. With this in mind, I am (a) thinking that we SHOULD just stick with the GvG ranges, at least as lower boundaries, and (
****Edit 2: Alternatively, we could also set an upward cap on how many kills can be taken per PvP hit, so as to prevent unfairness at higher levels (i.e. every hit at level 1400 yields 300 kills, whereas hits at level 140 are lucky to yield 30 kills).
#754705 PvP Global Event -- Compromise
Posted by
lawyergod
on 11 September 2012 - 14:30
in
General Discussion
With PvP there is one side that inevitably loses something... What is lost? If someone attacks me for the PvP portion of this do I lose Global Kills? If so what would be an example of how many kills I will have to make up?
If this is the case it will definetly get people to do more than the minimum in case they are, essentially, farmed for kills.
If you don't lose your kills and there is no XP or Gold lost then what is the point?
**Devil's Advocate to above stated point**
Global Events are essentially a stamia sink that created no gold or xp gained. There have been complaints by some it is to monotonous. Fair point adding a PvP aspect would solve that... However, the pvp aspect should be treated the same; that is only as a stamina sink. There should be no windfall for those that participate in the PvP aspect. If everything is to be fair and equal.
*** Confused enough yet? ***
(1) Yes. I am confused.
(2) As I personally envision it, Gross Kills (SOLELY from creature kills) would count towards the sort of tier rewards we already have, and Net Kills (the PvP element) would count towards a wholly new reward. So you could have a GROSS total that qualifies you for the Ruby tier, get rewarded, but still have a NET total of zero if you do nothing in the PvP and get farmed for kills.
#754701 PvP Global Event -- Compromise
Posted by
lawyergod
on 11 September 2012 - 13:40
in
General Discussion
Personally, I think a wholly PvP-oriented Global Event would ignore the spirit OF Global Events -- that being that the community is working together to achieve something. PvP, of itself, is inherently competitive, and thus would not comport itself well to such an event, if it is the sole component thereof.
What I propose, therefore, is a two-pronged Global Event. The first one works primarily like what we already have: kill X number of special creatures, qualify for tiers, etc. The second part is where the PvP would come in: basically instead of taking gold or xp, you take Global Event kills towards your own total, and ... maybe the top 10, or top 25, or something like that, get a special reward on top of whatever tier they qualify for normally.
For purposes of fairness, I think the most logical way to do this would be that you HAVE to qualify for the Ruby tier before you can participate in the PvP portion, and you can only PvP for kills above and beyond the tier qualification -- i.e. you can't PvP someone below 3,750, the number in the last Global Quest. This would prevent someone who doesn't want to participate in the PvP portion from losing out on being able to earn his tier normally.
I freely admit that this idea needs some refining, but I think it's a good one in principle. Feel free to let me know what you think.
Update: another way of implementing my idea would be to track "Gross Kills" (that being kills on the creatures themselves) and "Net Kills" (a total adjusted for the PvP element). This, I think, would preserve the integrity of the current Top Contributors list, give us ANOTHER Top list to strive for (Most Kills Taken, maybe), and would allow people to participate in the PvP before hitting Ruby. I think only Gross Kills would count towards your tier though, since that seems most fair, and Net Kills count towards a separate reward --possibly even a separate set of TIERS, if HCS wants to make it that involved.
#754638 PVP WORLD EVENT
Posted by
lawyergod
on 10 September 2012 - 22:27
in
General Discussion
What I propose, therefore, is a two-pronged Global Event. The first one works primarily like what we already have: kill X number of special creatures, qualify for tiers, etc. The second part is where the PvP would come in: basically instead of taking gold or xp, you take Global Event kills towards your own total, and ... maybe the top 10, or top 25, or something like that, get a special reward on top of whatever tier they qualify for normally.
For purposes of fairness, I think the most logical way to do this would be that you HAVE to qualify for the Ruby tier before you can participate in the PvP portion, and you can only PvP for kills above and beyond the tier qualification -- i.e. you can't PvP someone below 3,750, the number in the last Global Quest. This would prevent someone who doesn't want to participate in the PvP portion from losing out on being able to earn his tier normally.
I freely admit that this idea needs some refining, but I think it's a good one in principle. Feel free to let me know what you think.
Update: another way of implementing my idea would be to track "Gross Kills" (that being kills on the creatures themselves) and "Net Kills" (a total adjusted for the PvP element). This, I think, would preserve the integrity of the current Top Contributors list, give us ANOTHER Top list to strive for (Most Kills Taken, maybe), and would allow people to participate in the PvP before hitting Ruby. I think only Gross Kills would count towards your tier though, since that seems most fair, and Net Kills count towards a separate reward -- possibly even a separate set of TIERS, if HCS wants to make it that involved.
#753882 Scavenging Caves & Achievement News.
Posted by
lawyergod
on 05 September 2012 - 18:14
in
General Discussion
#752117 Upcoming Achievements (and suggestions!)
Posted by
lawyergod
on 25 August 2012 - 15:04
in
General Discussion
As for Guild Achievements, though, again on further reflection, I would like to see these give unique bonuses, which aren't achievable through Relics -- which already exist in the game as a method for Guilds to improve their stats, as a whole. Relics focus primarily on gains (stamina, xp, and I think even some gold), max stamina, and base stats. I would like to see Achievements, then, give different benefits, such as extra Guild Inventory slots, discounted Mercenary costs, access to special Mercenaries not normally available -- just some possible examples, the point being that these benefits are not available otherwise. I think that by differentiating the benefits from Achievements from the benefits derived from Relics, it would prevent the power gap between new and established Guilds from getting greater than it already is, while also adding interest for established Guilds, as they would be able to attain a benefit that they can't already get through their Relics.
#751763 Achievements!
Posted by
lawyergod
on 24 August 2012 - 17:52
in
General Discussion
If this is be avoided, though, I am all for the Achievements system. (Since I was one of the people who first brought up the idea of "Guild Medals," I should be.) Achievements that could give extra auction slots or component slots, for instance, or an extra Guild Store slot, or permanent access to a special mercenary not normally available -- things like THIS would, I think, make the feature fun and exciting, without ruining the competitive balance of other aspects of the game.
#751739 Suggestion: PvP Protection Change
Posted by
lawyergod
on 24 August 2012 - 17:26
in
General Discussion
Such is the case with PvP Protection (and with the Smasher medal, referenced early on in this thread, so it's on my mind. The issue with Smasher, in a nutshell, is that it incentivized the one aspect of PvP that non-PvP'ers disapprove of most, which led to the massive outcry against it). I think the best possible balance, of the choices given, is the second choice (as most middle-of-the-road choices ultimately are). By maintaining the option for PvP Protection, you give those players who are (or feel) bullied an out, and give people who need the protection for one reason or another -- e.g. someone has 30 pages of auctions up, and expects to be inundated with gold for a short time -- a way to protect themselves. But by lowering the protected gold, it prevents abuse OF the protection. Personally, I think I would go a step further as well, and remove (or shorten, to 14 days) the 28-day protection option, as that seems a bit over the top, and/or possibly raise the price for PvP protection outright.
#738035 Fallen Sword App Update (and a cheeky wee screenshot!)
Posted by
lawyergod
on 01 June 2012 - 11:57
in
General Discussion
#734598 Update v2.036
Posted by
lawyergod
on 14 May 2012 - 21:08
in
General Discussion
2) A few example of how the GvG Bands work would be nice ...
Having already had to figure this out for myself -- being right at the edge of 700 -- I might be able to explain it. Basically, when you go lower than your level range (i.e. me, as a level 700-plus, attacking a level 600-something), the lower range's criteria takes effect. In my case, the level range drops from 100 to 50. This makes my effective level range, at 719, from 669 to 819.
#734589 Update v2.036
Posted by
lawyergod
on 14 May 2012 - 19:42
in
General Discussion
Ok, new issue. Now it says I'm capped at 25 hits, even though I'm the defender in this conflict.
I'm plus-1'ing this for myself, since I WOULD like to be able to finish the conflict before it expires. It would suck if we lose the RP because the system isn't working like it's supposed to. (And yes, I know its Guild-vs-Guild and another Guildie could take it, but I'd rather do it myself if I can -- and I SHOULD be able to.)
take a screen shot and send a ticket into the cows ... although its about 7 pm their time. so they might have closed up shop for the day.
We ran into the same problem as well. It might have to do with conflicts initiated before the update. they didn't transfer over or something. that is my guess
Ticket submitted, we'll see what happens. We JUST had another conflict initiated against us, so we should know soon enough whether it makes a difference whether the conflict was initiated before or after the change. However, I'm in the same boat -- the one I was trying to defend was initiated against us yesterday.
#734572 Update v2.036
Posted by
lawyergod
on 14 May 2012 - 18:52
in
General Discussion
Ok, new issue. Now it says I'm capped at 25 hits, even though I'm the defender in this conflict.
I'm plus-1'ing this for myself, since I WOULD like to be able to finish the conflict before it expires. It would suck if we lose the RP because the system isn't working like it's supposed to. (And yes, I know its Guild-vs-Guild and another Guildie could take it, but I'd rather do it myself if I can -- and I SHOULD be able to.)
