92 replies to this topic

[michael65]

Feldshan, on 26 Jul 2021 - 17:44, said:

Not sure if you read my post farther up and not sure what your full complaint is here. If you had more than a set number of targets then nothing would change. If you didn't have a set number of targets then you would would be given a set number of targets.
Either that or just check for the next 20 (or whatever) number  of active players on either side of your level and have you be able to hit them and them you since no matter what each would show up on the other's list.
My main beef here is that hard coding in just level limits does not really solve the underlying problem of having enough targets to hit (which every other post here seems to be suggesting).

but next # of players above or below will have a limit on levels to be covered, right? for fairness, right? so, why not use limit instead of "fluid" option?

[Feldshan]

michael65, on 26 Jul 2021 - 20:36, said:

but next # of players above or below will have a limit on levels to be covered, right? for fairness, right? so, why not use limit instead of "fluid" option?

How would the limit for level range be more fair? To me the hard coded level limit is more unfair.

[yotekiller]

Corrupted, on 26 Jul 2021 - 13:12, said:

Make normal PvP ranges the same as GvG ranges:

1 - 300 (+/- 25)
301 - 700 (+/- 50)
701+ (+/- 100)

  This is the easiest solution, keeps the ranges consistent for both areas and the ranges work well.  This one gets my vote.

[KitiaraLi]

Arioche, on 26 Jul 2021 - 12:26, said:

<snip> this may negatively impact the game for those who do not pvp. <snip>

 

We also wish to protect players that do not partake in it.

 

Thank you!

 

~ Fallen Sword Team

 That is a very strange look on the game. Let me paste you some other ways to look at it (from the old forum, so the quote tags prolly doesn't work as intended).
 

 

Quote

You won't get banned for PvP - it's part of the game. (Hoofmaster)

 

 

Quote

Remember, this is a PvP game. (BigGrim)

 

 

Quote

We have already changed PvP and restrictions on attacking, if you do not wish to be attacked then there is the ability to opt out via your upgrade screen. (xakano)

 

The thought, at least up until til now, has never been for players to have a way out of PvP. There are instalments in game for players 'emselves and their xp, and that should be more than enough. Heck, you have even separated the logs/msg system, so they can avoid seeing in their logs if they have been hit, or not.

This game used to be huge, filled with a massive player base, who all partook in the game - and the forum. I am not saying it is the only reason, or heck, it might not even be a reason - but the more PvP has been shot to pieces, to appease those most vocal (and with the liveliest credit cards?) - the more the decline of the game (the more have left the game).

 

I got my first dominance medal back when you could get bashed around by anyone, at any level. That, was fun. Joining a ladder, where most only reside to earn a few tokens and lose some more xp, so their next hunt may be a little notch longer - is plain dull.

 

Oh, and I totally got of mark. My point is actually pretty simple: Stop acting like you're afraid we're all a bunch of babies, that will cry and whine if "the eeeeeevil" part of the game somehow manages to find its way to us, and start making the game more playable - by for instance increasing the PvP range.

Don't need no fancy pancy system, just make it +/- 100 level for all (except for new comers, let them keep their cushion).

There. Sorted. Can we move on to something that might actually need discussing now? 
 

Edited by KitiaraLi, 27 July 2021 - 04:49.

[Artzik]

yes seasons back, and Maehdros range suggestions sounds fair

Edited by Artzik, 27 July 2021 - 10:27.

[michael65]

Feldshan, on 26 Jul 2021 - 23:23, said:

How would the limit for level range be more fair? To me the hard coded level limit is more unfair.

perhaps i'm not clear

my understanding of your proposal:

1. keep hard limits.
2. if # of targets is below n, then softer limits would be used until n or greater # of targets is achieved.
3. since open ended soft limits might seem unfair, one would put limits on the softer limits.

"might seem unfair"? why should player A get to hit someone y levels below them, while B can only hit x. A clearly has an advantage.

if likely going to make use of wider limits anyway, then chuck softer limits in favor of the wider limits.

hard limits are easier to code.

[michael65]

KitiaraLi, on 27 Jul 2021 - 04:48, said:

That is a very strange look on the game. Let me paste you some other ways to look at it (from the old forum, so the quote tags prolly doesn't work as intended).
 
 
The thought, at least up until til now, has never been for players to have a way out of PvP. There are instalments in game for players 'emselves and their xp, and that should be more than enough. Heck, you have even separated the logs/msg system, so they can avoid seeing in their logs if they have been hit, or not.
This game used to be huge, filled with a massive player base, who all partook in the game - and the forum. I am not saying it is the only reason, or heck, it might not even be a reason - but the more PvP has been shot to pieces, to appease those most vocal (and with the liveliest credit cards?) - the more the decline of the game (the more have left the game).
 
I got my first dominance medal back when you could get bashed around by anyone, at any level. That, was fun. Joining a ladder, where most only reside to earn a few tokens and lose some more xp, so their next hunt may be a little notch longer - is plain dull.
 
Oh, and I totally got of mark. My point is actually pretty simple: Stop acting like you're afraid we're all a bunch of babies, that will cry and whine if "the eeeeeevil" part of the game somehow manages to find its way to us, and start making the game more playable - by for instance increasing the PvP range.
Don't need no fancy pancy system, just make it +/- 100 level for all (except for new comers, let them keep their cushion).
There. Sorted. Can we move on to something that might actually need discussing now?

response:

whine, whine
complain, complain

from unhappy levellers helps many to balance.

[michael65]

Maehdros, on 26 Jul 2021 - 12:46, said:

Perhaps a scaling pvp range based on your level. Glad to see some kind of love go there. An update to ladder potions would be nice as well. I know there's so many Le that need to be created so not going to bother asking for that. Cheers!
1 to 999 , +/- 10
1000 to 1999, +/- 20
2000 to 2999, +/- 30
3000 to 3999, +/- 40
4000 to 4999, +/- 50

  

Artzik, on 27 Jul 2021 - 10:26, said:

yes seasons back, and Maehdros [/size]range suggestions sounds fair[/size]

at level 700, +/- 10 seems too tight.

[Artzik]

1 to 999 , +/- 20
1000 to 1999, +/- 30
2000 to 2999, +/- 40
3000 to 3999, +/- 50
4000 to 4999, +/- 60

 

maybe that would work then

[Dulcharn]

This is a very reasonable proposal:

 

Maehdros, on 26 Jul 2021 - 12:46, said:

Perhaps a scaling pvp range based on your level. Glad to see some kind of love go there. An update to ladder potions would be nice as well. I know there's so many Le that need to be created so not going to bother asking for that. Cheers!


1 to 999 , +/- 10
1000 to 1999, +/- 20
2000 to 2999, +/- 30
3000 to 3999, +/- 40
4000 to 4999, +/- 50

[michael65]

Artzik, on 27 Jul 2021 - 17:23, said:

1 to 999 , +/- 20[/size]1000 to 1999, +/- 30[/size]2000 to 2999, +/- 40[/size]3000 to 3999, +/- 50[/size]4000 to 4999, +/- 60[/size]
 
maybe that would work then[/size]

nicer, but start +/- 20 somewhere from 600-700.

[Pardoux]

michael65, on 27 Jul 2021 - 21:47, said:

nicer, but start +/- 20 somewhere from 600-700.

 

I'm intrigued why PvP bands thousands of levels above you are of such concern ?

Increasing available targets for some bands is almost essential, but if you take it TOO far, then you start risking non-pvping-player activity.

I'm happy with the suggestion that Arztik made ..

[Feldshan]

michael65, on 27 Jul 2021 - 16:49, said:

perhaps i'm not clear
why should player A get to hit someone y levels below them, while B can only hit x. A clearly has an advantage.
 

Uh, why should Player A get 100 targets, while Player B only has 10? A clearly has an advantage.

 

No really, the 3000 to 3100 range only has ~6 targets. (+/-50 level zone if you are 3050). Expanding that to 3140 didn't even get many more targets. This was a surprise for me, thought the lowest zone would be more around the 4k area. Didn't check to see if there was an even lower zone or look that hard to find the level area where there could be even less targets.

 

 

If you don't like that idea that much. We could always make it easy and do it like the bounty board. No level restrictions, just hitting lower level players will get less and less of a return the lower level they are from a person even up to having no return. Hitting higher level players won't have any restrictions and maybe (or maybe not) even have bonuses. Though gold hoarders would hate this with rather a lot of passion as it would be open season on them from the lower levels. 

[michael65]

Pardoux, on 27 Jul 2021 - 21:51, said:

I'm intrigued why PvP bands thousands of levels above you are of such concern ?
Increasing available targets for some bands is almost essential, but if you take it TOO far, then you start risking non-pvping-player activity.
I'm happy with the suggestion that Arztik made ..

Feldshan, on 28 Jul 2021 - 01:09, said:

Uh, why should Player A get 100 targets, while Player B only has 10? A clearly has an advantage.

No really, the 3000 to 3100 range only has ~6 targets. (+/-50 level zone if you are 3050). Expanding that to 3140 didn't even get many more targets. This was a surprise for me, thought the lowest zone would be more around the 4k area. Didn't check to see if there was an even lower zone or look that hard to find the level area where there could be even less targets.


If you don't like that idea that much. We could always make it easy and do it like the bounty board. No level restrictions, just hitting lower level players will get less and less of a return the lower level they are from a person even up to having no return. Hitting higher level players won't have any restrictions and maybe (or maybe not) even have bonuses. Though gold hoarders would hate this with rather a lot of passion as it would be open season on them from the lower levels.

instead of commenting on my post, both of you should read each other's post. quote 1 is argued against by quote 2 that too few targets in 3000-3100 range. quote 2 is argued against by the popularity of position of quote 1 for hard limits.

as to my interest, this affects the fs community and i hope you don't screw this up. you asked, i answered.

as to soft limits, you made the case for wider limits not necessarily soft limits.

Edited by michael65, 28 July 2021 - 04:16.

[KitiaraLi]

michael65, on 27 Jul 2021 - 17:00, said:

response:

whine, whine
complain, complain

from unhappy levellers helps many to balance.

As in the rest of the world, if you have nothing interesting or relevant to bring to the conversation, just stay out of it.

[BigGrim]

KitiaraLi, on 28 Jul 2021 - 05:10, said:

As in the rest of the world, if you have nothing interesting or relevant to bring to the conversation, just stay out of it.

Not your position to tell people not to engage in conversation. Please don't do it again.

 

~ Grim  

[BadPenny]

a lot of games I play, use an algorithm based on a percentage of one's level +1 if a player is a lower level, with no restrictions if you're brave enough to try a higher level player.  Even this will cause some disparity, but it would alleviate the horror of getting a Legendary PvP DQ and having 0 "eligible" targets.

 

As for what constitutes an "active player" the way it is set up now, with the same criteria as eligibility to get prestige or be a viable GvG target should remain the same... it's a good centralized system and needs no changes (yet)

 

I also would leave PvP protection as it stands....  there is no reason to hit somebody with protection for a DQ or for Prestige, and if somebody wants to protect their gold really badly, it's way too easy to convert said gold to FSP, and a proper defense setup is still a decent deterrent.....


 

[Undjuvion]

Artzik, on 27 Jul 2021 - 17:23, said:

1 to 999 , +/- 20
1000 to 1999, +/- 30
2000 to 2999, +/- 40
3000 to 3999, +/- 50
4000 to 4999, +/- 60

 

maybe that would work then

 

this aint far off what i see as a  decent improvement, still kinda prefer Corrupted's proposal tho, for consistency.

[michael65]

BadPenny, on 28 Jul 2021 - 10:53, said:

a lot of games I play, use an algorithm based on a percentage of one's level +1 if a player is a lower level, with no restrictions if you're brave enough to try a higher level player.  Even this will cause some disparity, but it would alleviate the horror of getting a Legendary PvP DQ and having 0 "eligible" targets.
 
As for what constitutes an "active player" the way it is set up now, with the same criteria as eligibility to get prestige or be a viable GvG target should remain the same... it's a good centralized system and needs no changes (yet)
 
I also would leave PvP protection as it stands....  there is no reason to hit somebody with protection for a DQ or for Prestige, and if somebody wants to protect their gold really badly, it's way too easy to convert said gold to FSP, and a proper defense setup is still a decent deterrent.....

  

Undjuvion, on 28 Jul 2021 - 13:46, said:

this aint far off what i see as a  decent improvement, still kinda prefer Corrupted's proposal tho, for consistency.

the consensus seems to be for hard limits.
juvi likes gvg ranges or mahaedros' (sp?) ranges. these two are popular.

but...
i. ranges under level 1000 probably need adjusting.
ii. ranges still not wide enough for purposes of DQ. does fs need wider DQ ranges?
except those on the ladder, pvpers can level/delevel to find a level rich in targets. any widening should be acceptable to most pvpers.

[BigGrim]

Let's keep the topic on track. Derailing, personal attack posts removed.

 

~ Grim