This topic is locked
you know, this makes me want to 100 stam you every time i see you on the bounty board. I'm 57% into my crystal bh medal, and i've earned every bit of it. my longest bty was over 4 hours. i don't quit.[/quote]
You are welcome Psycho
PvP Ladder Suggestions (Take 3)
Started by Hoofmaster, Jul 30 2010 19:45
860 replies to this topic
#61
Posted 30 July 2010 - 21:46
i tried to take a 10 hit bounty and cos of you i lost 5 levels i like 1 hit bountys and always will[/quote]
you know, this makes me want to 100 stam you every time i see you on the bounty board. I'm 57% into my crystal bh medal, and i've earned every bit of it. my longest bty was over 4 hours. i don't quit.[/quote]
You are welcome Psycho
you know, this makes me want to 100 stam you every time i see you on the bounty board. I'm 57% into my crystal bh medal, and i've earned every bit of it. my longest bty was over 4 hours. i don't quit.[/quote]
You are welcome Psycho
#62
Posted 30 July 2010 - 21:48
It's a little off-topic, but one thing we could look at in regards to detecting what gold a player has is for it to consume one stamina to 'examine' the player to see if they have gold on them.
1) Deflect
2) You just increased the protect gold enhancement
3) You can be bountied
4) The new proposed minimum 10 hit bounty will take a minimum of 20 times the exp loss you inflict for a 10 stam attack
Now you would like it to cost stam to look to see if you might want to attack someone for gold?
#63
fs_billsbybil
fs_billsbybil
-
- Guests
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:00
OK so how about a Non-PvP class. I don't want PvP prestige, points, glory, or ladder of fame. I just want to play the LvLing/Quest/Titian aspect of this game. Why do others fight so hard against this. Letting the few players that hate PvP opt-out will not hurt PvP at all. I am willing to put up points for this class classification.......... :mrgreen:Hi all,
I've been reading over the feedback so far and here are my thoughts...
I think we should ditch the idea of the loyalty potion that protects from PvP. I wasn't overly sold on this idea in the first place to be honest.
Also I think there should be a minimum number of attacks on the bounty board - most likely 10, as this will help reduce any abuse of it for PvP Rating transfer in conjunction with the other suggestion change for only applying the transfer to the player that actually completes the bounty.
Please keep your feedback and suggestions coming. We are listening
- hoof
#64
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:04
I'm actually in favor of an opt-out that doesn't protect gold. Basically, the opted-out player could not lose XP or durability from an attack, and couldn't make any attacks (including BB), but could still be attacked for gold. You could also set their PvP rating to 0 so they couldn't be farmed for it. This would keep the gold price of FSP down in the marketplace; otherwise, day traders would push it up over 200k easy.
And was the loyalty potion going to be Deflect 400? I believe I had that idea a while back...
And was the loyalty potion going to be Deflect 400? I believe I had that idea a while back...
#65
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:15
Hi all,
I've been reading over the feedback so far and here are my thoughts...
I think we should ditch the idea of the loyalty potion that protects from PvP. I wasn't overly sold on this idea in the first place to be honest.
Also I think there should be a minimum number of attacks on the bounty board - most likely 10, as this will help reduce any abuse of it for PvP Rating transfer in conjunction with the other suggestion change for only applying the transfer to the player that actually completes the bounty.
Please keep your feedback and suggestions coming. We are listening
- hoof
Good idea on ditching the pot, would create a lot of scenario's where people could abuse it.
As far as minimum amt of attacks, sure but have some variety available maybe 5-10 attacks.
seeing how you did not mention anything about letting the bountier choose the stam for the bounty I hope that Idea was scrapped as well, as that really should be the choice of the person taking the bounty, all in all there should never be a restriction on any bounty on whether u can 10 stam or 100 stam.
The only other bonus for pvp points/the ladder should be the winner of the bounty should not be able to be countered so 1 they wouldn't lose their hard work of either getting the bonus of pvp points or just winning the bounty.
#66
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:21
OK so how about a Non-PvP class. I don't want PvP prestige, points, glory, or ladder of fame. I just want to play the LvLing/Quest/Titian aspect of this game. Why do others fight so hard against this. Letting the few players that hate PvP opt-out will not hurt PvP at all. I am willing to put up points for this class classification.......... :mrgreen:
There is no opt out in capturing players in Chess is there? I started playing this game for the PvP aspect of it. I have donated my fair share of real life money to this game. To have the PvP aspect of it continually chipped away and away and away. Would it be fair to me to change the product so completely that it was irreconcilable? When you started playing there was a pvp aspect and everyone was subject to this. So the game has not been changed for you in that aspect. In fact it is benefiting you more and more:
Less exp loss, the amount of exp lost has been drastically decreased at least 2 times now.
Less possibility to lose gold (they have altered the protect gold %)
Of course HCS has the right to alter their product in any way they see fit, but altering it to remove a huge portion of the game like allowing an opt out of pvp would change it so thoroughly that it wouldn't be recognizable when compared to the game I started playing.
#67
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:23
Pvp is an integral part of the game, you cant opt out of it any more than you can opt out of killing monsters. Games strategy requires adjustments be made to take into account pvp. It plays a huge role in everyone gameplay. And that's the way it should be.OK so how about a Non-PvP class. I don't want PvP prestige, points, glory, or ladder of fame. I just want to play the LvLing/Quest/Titian aspect of this game. Why do others fight so hard against this. Letting the few players that hate PvP opt-out will not hurt PvP at all. I am willing to put up points for this class classification.......... :mrgreen:
#68
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:27
The only other bonus for pvp points/the ladder should be the winner of the bounty should not be able to be countered so 1 they wouldn't lose their hard work of either getting the bonus of pvp points or just winning the bounty.
So I can 100 stam someone and as long as I finish the bounty first I can't be bountied?
#69
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:29
Or you can finish the bounty and keep the pvp points you get with absolutely no risk. Yea, that's a good idea. :roll:
The only other bonus for pvp points/the ladder should be the winner of the bounty should not be able to be countered so 1 they wouldn't lose their hard work of either getting the bonus of pvp points or just winning the bounty.
So I can 100 stam someone and as long as I finish the bounty first I can't be bountied?
#70
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:32
I agree with Kalish's idea as long as something is implemented to prevent potential abuse of people repeatedly opting out/in at will.
Those who enjoy and/or are really into pvp would be unlikely to opt out leaving plenty of viable targets for pvp rating, prestige etc.
Youd still be able to pvp anyone for gold leaving that part of it unaffected.
Those who enjoy and/or are really into pvp would be unlikely to opt out leaving plenty of viable targets for pvp rating, prestige etc.
Youd still be able to pvp anyone for gold leaving that part of it unaffected.
#71
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:33
i tried to take a 10 hit bounty and cos of you i lost 5 levels i like 1 hit bountys and always will[/quote]
you know, this makes me want to 100 stam you every time i see you on the bounty board. I'm 57% into my crystal bh medal, and i've earned every bit of it. my longest bty was over 4 hours. i don't quit.[/quote]
You are welcome Psycho
No. Thank you Tsink, was the best PvP experience i ever had
you know, this makes me want to 100 stam you every time i see you on the bounty board. I'm 57% into my crystal bh medal, and i've earned every bit of it. my longest bty was over 4 hours. i don't quit.[/quote]
You are welcome Psycho
No. Thank you Tsink, was the best PvP experience i ever had
#72
fs_coyotik
fs_coyotik
-
- Guests
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:35
you cant opt out of it any more than you can opt out of killing monsters.
That's not true. You CAN opt out of killing monsters, because it's YOUR decision only. You can do arena, you can farm, you can brew, you can level, you can attack others. In all those cases, you're the one opting IN and you can opt out by simply not doing it. You cannot, however, prevent others from attacking you if THEY decide.
For the record, I am against opt-out (except for newbies).
#73
DragonLord
-
- New Members
-
- 3,081 posts
Veteran
FALLEN SWORD
Pardoux
Level 1,558
- Australia
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:38
10 minimum is fine - otherwise you just get the ""buying 1-hit bounties" to "cheat" their way to the bounty medal. Be interesting to make the number higher tho, so that the aggrieved can, if they want to, make it a 25 hit bounty. Could mix it up a bit ...
25 hit bounty would take 50 minutes to clear with no loses .... with deflect on will take over 2 hours to clear....
That was just an example ... I'm no Bounty Hunter, so just throwing ideas out there, but the 1-hit bounty HAS to go, 'cos it's getting abused all over the place - and some even admit they see it as a VALID medal hunting tactic...
#74
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:41
That was just an example ... I'm no Bounty Hunter, so just throwing ideas out there, but the 1-hit bounty HAS to go, 'cos it's getting abused all over the place - and some even admit they see it as a VALID medal hunting tactic...
If someone doesn't point out that allowing more hits on bounties takes up more and more time it may get overlooked... it's nothing personal about your post, or you but it does need to be mentioned that there is an ancillary effect to increasing the number of hits.
#75
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:47
you cant opt out of it any more than you can opt out of killing monsters.
That's not true. You CAN opt out of killing monsters, because it's YOUR decision only. You can do arena, you can farm, you can brew, you can level, you can attack others. In all those cases, you're the one opting IN and you can opt out by simply not doing it. You cannot, however, prevent others from attacking you if THEY decide.
For the record, I am against opt-out (except for newbies).
There are no level 1 arenas
Farming = killing creatures
To say you can opt out of killing creatures is a bit ridiculous.
#76
fs_coyotik
fs_coyotik
-
- Guests
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:53
A counterbounty should be limited to whatever stam the hunter used.
Amd if, while you are asleep, someone does a 10-stam attack, then 3 100-stam attacks, followed by a 10-stam attack . . . which do you expect HC to use to set the bounty hits stam? I think it is too much to ask HC's code to keep track of. It would take more code, and might be seriously bugged up.
Since when is this a valid excuse for not making things better?
. All they'd need would be one more column in a database table, storing the max. value of stam used per attack. Since they would already have to keep track of whether a bounty is a normal one or a counter-bounty, it's not that much extra work.
Besides, the decision on what stam to require, if there is an ability to set it, ought to be on the person placing the bounty. A 100-stam only bounty might not get any takers: why take that bounty when you can do 10 others for the same amount of stam? Odds are a 100-stam bounty will take a lot longer to clear. Additionaly, under the current system, while that bounty is up, the attacker can attack you with impugnity. (Which is another problem that needs fixing. Every non-bounty-board attack should be bountiable IMO to prevent harrassment of off-line players.)
Well, all of your concerns could be solved by simply keeping track of TOTAL stam used in attacks (instead of max) - and allowing the victim to place a bounty with total XP loss (and/or stam per hit and number of hits) to match the beating you took.
#77
fs_billsbybil
fs_billsbybil
-
- Guests
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:55
Not so much you, but I can point out several players that have opted out of killing monsters for quite some time now. If you do chose not to attack monsters they never attack you. Why can't pure LVL players have the same option???Pvp is an integral part of the game, you cant opt out of it any more than you can opt out of killing monsters. Games strategy requires adjustments be made to take into account pvp. It plays a huge role in everyone gameplay. And that's the way it should be.
#78
fs_anavryn
fs_anavryn
-
- Guests
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:55
Since the other thread was closed before I had a chance to respond, I'll post my thoughts here (though it seems pretty unanimous at this point).
PvP Ladder Reset every two weeks - PvP tokens are allocated to the top 50 which can be exchanged for items. This will keep the playing field completely level. Every player will be able to get their PvP Rating through focused combat without having to do so for months on end. Allows players to buy exclusive Items from the PvP points earned.
Feedback: Excellent. Let's run with it. I'm still concerned with people selling PvP hits or bounties though.
The Bounty placer will decide the minimum stamina per hit and the number of hits. This allows the bounty placer to set the retribution as they see fit.
Feedback: Awesome. Even if retribution comes at a steep price, it will allow the bountier to get satisfaction for what they feel is an unprovoked attack.
Outside the bounty board, if an attacker loses the combat, they lose XP, gold and PvP Rating. This keeps PvP completely fair. There are no longer any safeguards against failing your attacks against other players. The winning defender cannot be Bountied.
Feedback: Again, excellent! This has been long overdue.
Increase the PvP target range to +/- 10 over level 200. Widens PvP for experienced players while still protecting newer players until they find their feet in the game.
Feedback: It's good to protect the lower level players, but I'm still not sold on this idea. What happened with the idea of being outside the Level/VL differential and not losing XP? This is a terrific idea which will prevent PvPers who do not care about being delevelled from constantly hitting one target for XP.
Players cannot be attacked after 30 days of inactivity. This is to prevent players from padding out their PvP ratings with 'safe' attacks, since inactive players will not Bounty them.
Feedback: Yes please. If a new PvP ladder is introduced, it seems only logical PvPers should have to attack a target that has a chance to attack back or bounty. Inactive players are easy targets that PvPers can feed on for easy hits. On the flip side, inactives take some of the pressure off levellers getting hit. It's a double-sided blade, but I'm still for it.
Addition of a new loyalty potion that allows people able to opt-out of PVP for an amount of time. Would not take effect if you are on the bounty board. Potion cannot be used if PvP has initiated by the user within the last 48 hours. This will allow players to protect themselves against PvP if they do not wish to partake for a certain amount of time. Due to the restrictions on its use however, they cannot use it to protect themselves against Bounties.
Feedback: Though the majority of people seem against it, I think it has potential. Unfortunately it can get exploited where an instigator mouths off to a target but the target cannot PvP because of the potion. No one should get off with verbal annoyance of other players, including other PvPers. This does not represent the majority of the players and it will eventually expire so the targets could be hit if they cause trouble. Perhaps have a 24 hour cool off period between uses (that will be unknown to the attempting attacker) before they can activate it again would be beneficial.
A Counter Bounty is limited to 10 stam attacks. A Bounty Hunter that is completing retribution on a Player who was placed upon the Bounty Board should not be unduly attacked in response for simply clearing a player from the Bounty Board.
Feedback: Great idea! Bounty hunters should not be penalized for fulfilling a bounty by being bountied again. In conjunction with the bountier determining the stam hits, this means people working for the medal over the FSP will do it easier, and those in it for FSP could still take high value bounties at a risk.
Snap shot taken of initial PvP ratings upon accepting the Bounty. No PvP rating transfer during the bounty. Only the winner of the bounty will gain a PvP Rating transfer for the equivalent amount of attacks plus a small bonus for successfully completing the Bounty. This helps prevent excessive PvP Rating loss for the Bounty Target while still allowing the Winning Bounty Hunter to gain PvP Rating for the Completed Bounty.
Feedback: Another great idea. All or nothing should give more incentive to finish a bounty quickly. This also insures the person being the bountied still comes out with less PvP loss.
An Attacker should get a message in their Logs when their attack is deflected. This simply helps prevent confusion regarding attackers getting Bountied.
Feedback: I'm indiffent, but I'm sure it will be helpful for PvPers.
PvP Ladder Reset every two weeks - PvP tokens are allocated to the top 50 which can be exchanged for items. This will keep the playing field completely level. Every player will be able to get their PvP Rating through focused combat without having to do so for months on end. Allows players to buy exclusive Items from the PvP points earned.
Feedback: Excellent. Let's run with it. I'm still concerned with people selling PvP hits or bounties though.
The Bounty placer will decide the minimum stamina per hit and the number of hits. This allows the bounty placer to set the retribution as they see fit.
Feedback: Awesome. Even if retribution comes at a steep price, it will allow the bountier to get satisfaction for what they feel is an unprovoked attack.
Outside the bounty board, if an attacker loses the combat, they lose XP, gold and PvP Rating. This keeps PvP completely fair. There are no longer any safeguards against failing your attacks against other players. The winning defender cannot be Bountied.
Feedback: Again, excellent! This has been long overdue.
Increase the PvP target range to +/- 10 over level 200. Widens PvP for experienced players while still protecting newer players until they find their feet in the game.
Feedback: It's good to protect the lower level players, but I'm still not sold on this idea. What happened with the idea of being outside the Level/VL differential and not losing XP? This is a terrific idea which will prevent PvPers who do not care about being delevelled from constantly hitting one target for XP.
Players cannot be attacked after 30 days of inactivity. This is to prevent players from padding out their PvP ratings with 'safe' attacks, since inactive players will not Bounty them.
Feedback: Yes please. If a new PvP ladder is introduced, it seems only logical PvPers should have to attack a target that has a chance to attack back or bounty. Inactive players are easy targets that PvPers can feed on for easy hits. On the flip side, inactives take some of the pressure off levellers getting hit. It's a double-sided blade, but I'm still for it.
Addition of a new loyalty potion that allows people able to opt-out of PVP for an amount of time. Would not take effect if you are on the bounty board. Potion cannot be used if PvP has initiated by the user within the last 48 hours. This will allow players to protect themselves against PvP if they do not wish to partake for a certain amount of time. Due to the restrictions on its use however, they cannot use it to protect themselves against Bounties.
Feedback: Though the majority of people seem against it, I think it has potential. Unfortunately it can get exploited where an instigator mouths off to a target but the target cannot PvP because of the potion. No one should get off with verbal annoyance of other players, including other PvPers. This does not represent the majority of the players and it will eventually expire so the targets could be hit if they cause trouble. Perhaps have a 24 hour cool off period between uses (that will be unknown to the attempting attacker) before they can activate it again would be beneficial.
A Counter Bounty is limited to 10 stam attacks. A Bounty Hunter that is completing retribution on a Player who was placed upon the Bounty Board should not be unduly attacked in response for simply clearing a player from the Bounty Board.
Feedback: Great idea! Bounty hunters should not be penalized for fulfilling a bounty by being bountied again. In conjunction with the bountier determining the stam hits, this means people working for the medal over the FSP will do it easier, and those in it for FSP could still take high value bounties at a risk.
Snap shot taken of initial PvP ratings upon accepting the Bounty. No PvP rating transfer during the bounty. Only the winner of the bounty will gain a PvP Rating transfer for the equivalent amount of attacks plus a small bonus for successfully completing the Bounty. This helps prevent excessive PvP Rating loss for the Bounty Target while still allowing the Winning Bounty Hunter to gain PvP Rating for the Completed Bounty.
Feedback: Another great idea. All or nothing should give more incentive to finish a bounty quickly. This also insures the person being the bountied still comes out with less PvP loss.
An Attacker should get a message in their Logs when their attack is deflected. This simply helps prevent confusion regarding attackers getting Bountied.
Feedback: I'm indiffent, but I'm sure it will be helpful for PvPers.
#79
fs_coyotik
fs_coyotik
-
- Guests
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:56
There are no level 1 arenas
Who's talking about level 1?
Farming = killing creatures
To say you can opt out of killing creatures is a bit ridiculous.
first of all, farming tends to be much less risky than levelling - and second, even if we scratch farming off the list, there remains a truckload of activities to do in the game, so one CAN opt out of killing creatures.
#80
fs_skramble
fs_skramble
-
- Guests
Posted 30 July 2010 - 22:56
Hi all,
I think we should ditch the idea of the loyalty potion that protects from PvP. I wasn't overly sold on this idea in the first place to be honest.
Also I think there should be a minimum number of attacks on the bounty board - most likely 10, as this will help reduce any abuse of it for PvP Rating transfer in conjunction with the other suggestion change for only applying the transfer to the player that actually completes the bounty.
Please keep your feedback and suggestions coming. We are listening
- hoof
Thank You Thank You Thank You, heading in the right direction in my opinion. Really like the idea of PvP rating only being transferred to the player that completes the bounty. Sick of one hit wonders
I do not think there should be a ten stam restriction on any bounty. If a players wants to toss one hundreds and suffer the consequences let them play.
I feel all attacks should remain bounty-able.
The XP loss whether higher or lower, nice and about time.
Cool idea of spending one stam to see gold onhand.
Suggestions (yeah again)
Give small amount of XP for successful attacks. Little higher XP for successful defending.
Rating increases on the BB should be 10% of normal hit (per kill), for much safer form of PvP
Look into increasing MT activation a tad. This year I am averaging 1 activation for every 84 hits.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users