228 replies to this topic

[Chazz224]

Any new implementation that limits the options of a player on the bounty board or a person posting a bounty I see as a bad thing overall. I would suggest you re-consider and allow Counter Bounties into your plan here in order to pretend your interested in a balanced community instead of just seeing a bunch of novice players brutalize a person who was PvPing.  - but I find it doubtful given your stance on this topic so far. Maybe you will give this some more thought and if not that's cool too.

 

- Chazz

[Belaric]

Any new implementation that limits the options of a player on the bounty board or a person posting a bounty I see as a bad thing overall. I would suggest you re-consider and allow Counter Bounties into your plan here in order to pretend your interested in a balanced community instead of just seeing a bunch of novice players brutalize a person who was PvPing.  - but I find it doubtful given your stance on this topic so far. Maybe you will give this some more thought and if not that's cool too.

 

- Chazz

Hi Chazz,

 

It really comes down to if HCS were interested here - there is no indication of that. I am happy to talk through my ideas with everyone though - it can only make things better. I am not pretending to anything - I want the community, ALL the community to succeed. A game with a solid PvP contingent will be more attractive to gamers all over. It could easily be a key to increasing online numbers again. You know - other than taking the game fully mobile - which would be awesome.

 

If I could get just player setting retribution into the game and sacrifice counter bountying for that - I would agree. That alone would get rid of confusion over 10 stam vs 100 stam hits in a bounty and would improve the BB immeasurably on that basis alone. So yeah I'd take that deal if we were able to make it happen in game.

 

But to be honest I'd continue to make the argument that counter bountying can drive BH's away from the board if used repeatedly, as I believe it has - for years. This is not a sudden process, nor do I believe deliberately malicious - it is players playing and looking to maximise advantage - I think we are looking at the end of a long evolution of the board to its current state. And freely admit my analysis may be wrong. Other reasons for the BB being dead do not seem that complete either.

 

I do see your concern that immune BH's could simply smash people without restraint. And that it could lead to cocky attitudes as a result. But they can only smash to the set limit of the punishment - not further. And my point is - these immune BH's would still need to be good enough to defeat the board veterans anyway. EDIT: I submit that novice BH's would not be equal to the task of brutalising any seasoned PvP player. they would need to learn their trade first. Not being Counter bountied'd off the board gives them time to learn their trade. Yes it was harder in the old days - but we had bigger numbers and were able to deal with player turnover better in the old days - we lack that luxury now.End edit.  These new BH's would be new blood in the PvP system that is crying out for more players. More players! If more players in the community participate in any part of PvP they may be willing to try more and more and we end up with a better balanced and integrated community as a result. PvP comes out of the cold and becomes part of the mainstream. That truly is my hope. Would new BH's be mouthy idiots? We can't know unless we try. Look at your PvP tutorial thread - most people have no idea of the intricacies of PvP play. Severe Condition still bamboozles me. Hulk smash does not always work. There is a lot of learning for a newb. Some protection while losing to a PvP veteran on the BB seems fair to me  -  but I respect your difference of opinion there.

 

I really appreciate the thought you have put into challenging my ideas - it makes any outcome better.

 

So yeah, if I had to drop bountying the BH I would. It would not be my preference, but I'd do it.

Edited by Belaric, 04 April 2014 - 23:36.

[Chazz224]

Belaric........ You stubborn stubborn man - Listen and most of all Read Carefully here - For any Bounty Hunter in the game to accept a Bounty their must be one placed on the bounty board first. <-------- Read this over and over if need be.

 

Right now - the bounty board allows for soft 10 stam clears or rough 100 stam clears but nobody is really hitting anyone due to lack of gold on hand and lack of incentives around the general area concerning PvP. <------- I hope you understand the point.

 

By allowing a PvP free for all in a " Do what you want system" even where the Bounty Hunter can do as they please - Even than they still need to accept the Bounty first. If their is no Bounty - than their is nothing to accept - regardless of how much stam vs XP is lost. All this will do is create a higher incentive to destroy what's left - and warn others that if they attempt to play in PvP they are promised to lose their levels NO Matter how well they " TRY " an  defend them selves on the bounty board. Logically No One will PvP and anyone who does will just lose levels and become a Bounty Hunter or pure Leveler and this concept would destroy what's left - Not enhance any of the aspects around it.

 

Counter bounties are vital - they offer those on the board a means of defense - which even in your idle system wouldn't mean much - Just say sure go ahead and Counter Bounty - it doesn't matter when everyone will 100 stam you LOL <---- Just propose removing PvP from the game altogether and keeping the spare change in ladders - don't paint pretty pictures of a united community in this topic you can't it's unjust - it's unfair - YES it is BIASED - and totally false. I can't make this point any clearer to you or anyone else. I'm sorry for my lack of communication and limited ability of illustrating a point - a point that is clear - You want to Burn people at the cross for taking part in what maybe an aspect you your self have not totally got involved in, and don't know much about.

 

You think we have a lack of Bounty Hunters or something and the real problem is we have a Lack of People who PvP. We - the Game - The COMMUNITY needs people - more people to take part in this aspect - NOT fall victim to it <----- We can't get people to line up like the Germans did in WWII and expect people to show up. Things don't work like that in the real world or in game and to think so is insane - it's total anarchy, and I feel will hurt the game. <----- This is not fear of me losing levels - this is common sense - the community doesn't have enough people taking part in PvP now - Than anyone that does PvP you want to burn them on a cross and offer to put their name on a billboard for top rated moron lol But even better and what's funnier is you expect people to line up saying here I am wheres the gas I was promised? I don't think the people of this game or any other game would go for this idea. I know you mean well dude and it's sort of noble as I know you personally don't mean to harm the game or anyone but it's the road to hell as I've said before. We can agree to disagree.

 

- Chazz

Edited by Chazz224, 05 April 2014 - 00:13.

[Belaric]

For the sake of clarity: When I say 'you' in this I an not being personal Chazz - read it as 'PvP community', though I will try to use PvP community often to make it clear there are no personal attacks here. I respect your beliefs and your desire to keep the game going. I just happen to fundamentally disagree with you on almost everything here.

 

Belaric........ You stubborn stubborn man - Listen and most of all Read Carefully here Patronising much? - Not a good opening Chazz. - For any Bounty Hunter in the game to accept a Bounty their must be one placed on the bounty board first. <-------- Read this over and over if need be. <---- You are not helping me with this nice slice of condescension thrown on top. Make your point, don't try to talk down to me. And no that is not insulting you, that is pointing out your tone to me.

 

 

Right now - the bounty board allows for soft 10 stam clears or rough 100 stam clears but nobody is really hitting anyone due to lack of gold on hand and lack of incentives around the general area concerning PvP. <------- I hope you understand the point. I understand the point you are trying to make. Actually we have no idea how many gold hits are being made as nobody has any faith in the BB being fair and so may not be posting bounties. Is that clear enough? I'm sorry if I'm being spiky -but you cannot be patronising with each comment and not expect push back. Your point is not established fact. I understand it may be a factor. I say again that people being discouraged from posting and being driven away from taking bounties is a significant part of why the BB is dead. In addition to the gold factor you mentioned. I would like HCS to release the stats on gold hits per day done in the system versus bounties made. (They are a gold sink after all) That would show us if there is a discrepancy as I suspect, or if PvP is as inactive as you say.

 

If it is as inactive as you say - then - and this is a question you have not answered though I have asked it in a number of ways already - what do PvP players do all day? File their nails? Why do PvP guilds persist and thrive as yours does, if there is no PvP activity?

 

Cui Bono baby. There has to be some benefit. The established norm has been a dead BB - I must conclude that the PvP community likes it that way. I may be wrong but you have done nothing in your previous answers to dissuade me of that belief.

 

Does the dead BB actually benefit the PvP community? I think it must or you would not have tolerated it for so long.

 

But back you your points, I may be getting ahead of myself here.

 

 

 

By allowing a PvP free for all in a " Do what you want system" even where the Bounty Hunter can do as they please No they cannot - they can only do as the poster of the bounty asks. EVER. - Even than they still need to accept the Bounty first. If their is no Bounty - than their is nothing to accept - regardless of how much stam vs XP is lost. So you are saying PvP players will stop playing. No hits of any kind will be made. You'll go on strike. Let's see it. You are making a threat basically that you'll all leave en mass if this idea got implemented. Just because you'll get hit back for making hits and won't be able to counter bounty anymore. This does not square with the years of rhetoric I have heard from the PvP community that levels don't matter and dancing on the BB is fun, that playing a human opponent is much better than 1234R. Currently you don't get to dance on the BB much at all - this idea gives you the chance to do that. All this will do is create a higher incentive to destroy what's left according to the BB there is very little left to destroy, and yet there are still plenty of PvP players in the game. How do those two things square? You have yet to answer that question. - and warn others that if they attempt to play in PvP they are promised to lose their levels NO Matter how well they " TRY " an  defend them selves on the bounty board. Lets take this apart a little. You are saying you cannot defend yourselves on the board. (The TRY) in your gray text) I thought the PvP community liked and craved the challenge, that it was part of the fun of PvP for you. Why do you think you will be steamrollered on the board? Is it because the PvP community knows, better than most - how one sided the conflict truly is? You say that they will be promised to lose levels. In the current system people are supposed to lose levels - it is the 'risk' of dropping 5. It is my submission to you that not many levels are being lost at all because the BB is not being used, nor is fit for purpose. This suits the PvP community fine - less risk, more freedom to hit. It just leaves the rest of the community with a bad taste in its mouth. By discouraging people from bountying and driving off BH's the PvP community has removed risk, by an large, from its side of the equation. Risk only exists for those who challenge you on the board. They get delevelled regularly enough - why is what is appropriate for them not good enough for you? Logically No One will PvP and anyone who does will just lose levels and become a Bounty Hunter or pure Leveler and this concept would destroy what's left - Not enhance any of the aspects around it.Not logically at all. Man - if PvP players are actually afraid of conflict and competition why do you do it? Is PvP just a WIN button? Not much more challenging that 1234R hitting the unprepared when you are ready. Monsters get 2% hit chance too.

 

If you WANT a challenge, if you WANT to show your battle scars, you'll hit anyway. PvP is supposed to be in your blood. We can talk incentives. Take the gold sink out of PvP - have the gold stolen go 100% to the thief. I've mentioned others up thread. Make the bounties to lose multiple levels expensive enough - Chazz your math even if cut in half creates very generous bounties which are affordable to the posters at every level as an incentive for people to BH. And existing PvP players will not only be on the board - you can BH too, and given your experience and skill (which you seem to be downplaying further up this comment) you will be very successful at it. In fact BINGO - I've just seen an abuse you can profit from - a guildie or ally hits someone - gets posted - fat bounty goes up for 3 level loss - you collect it. Your buddy gets the hit - you get the BH gold. The ecosystem thrives - as long as the person posting feels they got their money's worth - and that is where the careful calculation comes in. This system even gives you two forums to show how badass you are and how little you care about levels, how much you enjoy taking on another human opponent. The PvP community is supposed to be the fearless ones - the rest of us are accused of being afraid of the BB, yet you seem convinced that losing 3 levels will be the end of your world.

 

In fact I'll be honest and say this really irritates me - you Chazz sound uncomfortable in the face of losing up to 3 every time. But we have been told for years that PvP players regularly risk losing 5, it was part of why the PvP community is more badass than the rest of us, unflinching and unafraid. Yes this system increases the likelihood that PvP players will lose levels. It will make the whole community happier and more comfortable with PvP and checks and balances on pvp will enter the game at long last. Currently the PvP community polices the PvP community. That has not inspired trust in the wider community. If you care about the whole community you'll go for it - as you can still hit - you can still dance the BB which is what has been held up as the highest and best form of PvP in game in these forums, and you can still regain those lost levels. Non PvP players have been lectured for years about how regaining levels is no bad thing. Now - in the face of losing up to 3 per bounty, you are backing away from the idea. It is counter to the entire ethos the PvP community has presented over the years. As has been said, in many ways over the years to non-pvp players - sack up and take your hits buddy. You want PvP, you'll get it, and this time it will be Fight Club, not an easy win off an intimidated and cowed populace. I challenge you to go for it. Your community will increase.

 

Counter bounties are vital - they offer those on the board a means of defense defending yourself on the board is not a means of defence? Counter bounty is not defence - it is retribution - which is rich considering the person on the board is the original aggressor. Do you have a right to retribution when you made the initial hit at your leisure at a time and with the gear and buffs of your choosing?  - which even in your idle system I do not see where you get this idleness from - unless you believe the whole Pvp community will leave - I think your view is too bleak, and you are too invested in the current system - no surprise as it gives you advantages in game - can you admit that? Can you admit the current system systematically advantages PvP players who get to hit and counter bounty, 100 stam their enemies, 10 stam their friends - if their friends even get posted. Can you see that this system is unfair to the general population? I'm still not saying it is an evil plot - it is the way the BB has evolved through use, but now it does not work. wouldn't mean much - Just say sure go ahead and Counter Bounty - it doesn't matter when everyone will 100 stam you LOL Sorry Chazz this makes no sense - there would be no counter bounty in my system. <---- Just propose removing PvP from the game altogether and keeping the spare change in ladders - don't paint pretty pictures of a united community in this topic you can't it's unjust - it's unfair - YES it is BIASED - and totally false. That, my friend is your assertion, and I believe it is baseless.There is clearly PvP in my system and incentives can be added to make the initial hits more attractive.  Given my suspicion that far more hits are made than get to the BB any added incentives will make PvP more attractive all around.  You can benefit from being BH's too, just as I said - at worst the BB would be no more dead than now - and how is that a good thing? I have asked a few times - is the dead BB an advantage to PvP players? I think it is. The PvP community is not willing to admit it.I can't make this point any clearer to you or anyone else. I'm sorry for my lack of communication and limited ability of illustrating a point - a point that is clear - You want to Burn people at the cross for taking part in what maybe an aspect you your self have not totally got involved in, and don't know much about.At last - the I don't PvP argument. I accept that completely - you can ignore my opinions on that basis if you want. And those who read this discussion can come to their own conclusions as to who has the better side of this story. Burn people at the cross - hardly. Punishment for aggressive in game activity - which was what the BB was originally created to do. The PvP community has claimed to be good with losing 5. Sometimes. It seems in practice the risk is very small as so few bounties get posted. Chazz has his reasons for this, I have mine.This way PvP players only lose three, and a fat bounty would be available to your friend to clear it. Not everyone will be able to afford 3 level bounties all the time. More gold enters the system - new players start out trying it and BH's then may switch codes. It seems you want to keep it a closed shop on the BB. I'd like you to be honest about that, as honest as you want me to be about killing PvP. I think it is clear from my ideas that I do not want to kill PvP. I do not think you have convinced me that you do not find a tamed and toothless BB entirely to your and the PvP community's liking.  

 

You think we have a lack of Bounty Hunters or something and the real problem is we have a Lack of People who PvP. If you give more people the chance to BH without being counter bountied off the board you have more people PvPing. QED. Unless PvP player do all decide to stop playing en mass. Cutting off nose to spite face springs to mind - but you would all be free to take that path.  We - the Game - The COMMUNITY needs people - more people to take part in this aspect I completely agree.- NOT fall victim to it <----- We can't get people to line up like the Germans did in WWII and expect people to show up. Dude. A reach. Nobody will be lining up - they'll be hitting people - for the gold with more incentives for the THRILL the PvP community insists is so infectious, and yet we do not see any evidence of that on the dead BB. ONE bounty as I type. So do you like the thrill of a skilled opponent, or do you like easy pickings? From this conversation is seems to be the latter, given your conviction that PvP players would be unable to defend themselves on the board.  Things don't work like that in the real world or in game and to think so is insane - it's total anarchy What we have now is one special interest group dominating one area of the game - PvP players and the BB - you don't want to give up your monopoly - I am not surprised. This is not anarchy - this would be imposition of laws and customs for all, clear and unambiguous. No more codes, no more unwritten rules, no more Dead BB to hide behind. There is no anarchy when limits are set on punishment. There is no anarchy when the outlaw quite rightly is unable to place a bounty on the agent of the law. There is no anarchy when people at all levels feel the system is FAIR and they no longer have to accept being random victims of PvP attack, suck it up and move along. That is my belief as to the current state of play in the game, and it has been for a very long time., and I feel will hurt the game. You know what I think hurts the game? PvP at low levels - it has been pointed out to me that those are the levels at which the current system breaks even or makes a profit most easily. new player retention is the hardest thing in this game. A few hits early on to retard ability to grow an develop a character will, in today's saturated game market, drive folk away. We are cutting ourselves off at the ankles. And I believe PvP is part of the problem. Crappy map system too. If players at all levels can see that whoever hits them suffers actual, real, adverse consequences as a result of that hit, they will have more faith in the game and keep playing. Why do you refuse to see this? I don't want to ban PvP even at low levels (up to 150) where it might not be such a bad idea - I want more folk to play to demystify it. But making it fairer on both sides is key. You, understandably think that you have surrendered enough over the years. I think the wrong battles have been fought and the wrong changes made. This imaginary system of mine is fair. To everyone. Or at least fairer than we have now. <----- This is not fear of me losing levels - this is common sense - the community doesn't have enough people taking part in PvP now - Than anyone that does PvP you want to burn them on a cross and offer to put their name on a billboard for top rated moron lol LOL! Nice joke! But again I feel you are being hyperbolic. The altenative is now - PvP players get to hit who they want when they want and suffer very little real consequences - it is anarchy  - and the PvP community benefits because there is no curb on your actions. Understandably the PvP community likes it this way. the rest of the population, which is slowly withering, does not. And further your lawlewssness may be slowly killing the game from the ground up, just as the BB was slowly killed off. There - I can do hyperbole too - and it might be true! LOL! But even better and what's funnier is you expect people to line up saying here I am wheres the gas I was promised? What's that rule about never invoking the nazi's? You've done it twice by association now. Never a sign of a strong argument.  I don't think the people of this game or any other game would go for this idea. I know you mean well dude and it's sort of noble as I know you personally don't mean to harm the game or anyone but it's the road to hell as I've said before. We can agree to disagree. We do.

 

I'll say it one more time.

 

IF the PvP community stands by its long enshrined ethos that levels don't matter and can be regained, and IF the PvP community actually walks the walk of saying that they like the challenge and thrill of active player versus active player conflict, THEN they have nothing to fear from my ideas. Play, fight human opponents on the BB, have fun - it might cost you some levels here and there, but they can be regained. More people will PvP as a result.

 

IF, however, the PvP community likes easy hits on unwilling targets who won't bounty them, likes to win guild wars through the use of allies and the BB, likes to counter bounty and gang up on individuals who hit back, and likes to hide behind unwritten and flexible codes that allow you to justify your passion - which is hitting the unready target, not the prepared opponent, THEN keep the system as it is, but do not expect any respect for it, and do not expect any sympathy when you have the temerity to complain that the BB is dead. You, my friends, made it that way through your own actions - you counter bountied the opposition into submission. You have won. Enjoy the victory.

 

 

HCS has the stats. It could put my argument to bed. What is the rate of 100 stam PvP attacks made daily versus the number of bounties posted daily? If there is little discrepancy, then maybe PvP is dead just because, and I am a mad conspiracy theorist - if there is a large discrepancy - then the BB is revealed as unfit for purpose in the current system. Look back over the last few weeks to get a realistic picture of activity - if you can. It may be illuminating.

 

Finally - Chazz I like you in game and admire your passion. I agree to disagree. On other topics we have and will again agree and work together to make ideas better. This time we have disagreed and made our ideas and positions clearer - even if we cannot reach agreement or fully appreciate the other person's viewpoint. Others can read this and see what they think. HCS can read this and see what they think. You and I both want a healthy thriving community. We will not always be on opposite sides of an argument, and I think that is a strength, not a weakness.

 

Belaric

 

 

 

- Chazz

Edited by Belaric, 05 April 2014 - 17:59.

[vastilos]

Ok, reading that green hurt my eyes so I had to stop. Just one thing though if you don't mind me saying, but under the current system you are not supposed to lose levels, if it was designed like that, then the first to take the bounty should be the only one to be allowed to take it, and the maximum punishment would be delivered regardless if the clearer used 10 stam hits on 100 stam hits while doing the clear. The current system makes it a risk (you have a risk of getting posted on the BB for a pvp hit, and if you do get posted, you have a risk of losing up to 5 levels) otherwise you would only need 1 player to deliver maximum punishment.

[Belaric]

Ok, reading that green hurt my eyes so I had to stop. Just one thing though if you don't mind me saying, but under the current system you are not supposed to lose levels, if it was designed like that, then the first to take the bounty should be the only one to be allowed to take it, and the maximum punishment would be delivered regardless if the clearer used 10 stam hits on 100 stam hits while doing the clear. The current system makes it a risk (you have a risk of getting posted on the BB for a pvp hit, and if you do get posted, you have a risk of losing up to 5 levels) otherwise you would only need 1 player to deliver maximum punishment.

Not designed to lose levels? In your own comment you show how the current BB makes level loss happen - risk of being counterbountied and dropped 5. Or just straight dropped 5 on the first posting without counter bounty, to be clear. The risk and intention/capability is there. As we have been told many times. And as has been demonstrated many times. In the current system the bounty hunter has the option of how severely to punish the outlaw. In my system the victim sets the punishment and the fee to the BH is to deliver that punishment. It reduces ambiguity.

 

Indeed the punishment could be completed with 10 stams - but you'd run the risk of being beaten to it by someone 100 stamming and doing the damage faster. Incentive is there to hunt aggressively for the posted fee. First person to the bounty, as now, has the best chance of completing it, but no guarantees, others can race, as now, to finish the bounty first. Competition is healthy. More that one player can participate in doing the damage, only the the biggest hitter wins the fee, and the BH medal tick. Currently many people can hit, but only the person who does the 10th hit gets the fee and the BH tick. The two approaches are quite similar.

 

Sorry about the green. Other colours seemed harder to read or muddy.

Edited by Belaric, 05 April 2014 - 18:10.

[vastilos]

Not designed to lose levels? In your own comment you show how the current BB makes level loss happen - risk of being counterbountied and dropped 5. Or just straight dropped 5 on the first posting without counter bounty, to be clear. The risk and intention/capability is there. As we have been told many times. And as has been demonstrated many times. In the current system the bounty hunter has the option of how severely to punish the outlaw. In my system the victim sets the punishment and the fee to the BH is to deliver that punishment. It reduces ambiguity.

 

Indeed the punishment could be completed with 10 stams - but you'd run the risk of being beaten to it by someone 100 stamming and doing the damage faster. Incentive is there to hunt aggressively for the posted fee. First person to the bounty, as now, has the best chance of completing it, but no guarantees, others can race, as now, to finish the bounty first. Competition is healthy. More that one player can participate in doing the damage, only the the biggest hitter wins the fee, and the BH medal tick. Currently many people can hit, but only the person who does the 10th hit gets the fee and the BH tick. The two approaches are quite similar.

 

Sorry about the green. Other colours seemed harder to read or muddy.

 

No worries about the colours lol. I think that the system was designed as a risk - as in you risk losing levels, and there is no guarantee that you will. If it was designed for you to lose levels, then you would lose them regardless of the amount of stamina used for the clear.

[tharzill]

I have to agree with Belaric; the current system does not work. I wish I could express my self as well as our resident author~ lol However I'll just suffice it to say I believe this system would be a great boon for FS as a whole. Belaric has said more eloquently than I the reasons why. 

[vastilos]

I have to agree with Belaric; the current system does not work. I wish I could express my self as well as our resident author~ lol However I'll just suffice it to say I believe this system would be a great boon for FS as a whole. Belaric has said more eloquently than I the reasons why. 

 

Ok, so how is the system supposed to work then? Is everyone that ends up on the BB supposed to lose their levels? Remember the punishment in place is already set so you lose double the exp than you would from a normal pvp attack, and you want more? If that's the case, then I want the Master Thief and Thievery to work 100% of the time (so I steal every single gold you're carrying).

Edited by vastilos, 05 April 2014 - 21:19.

[Belaric]

Ok, so how is the system supposed to work then? Is everyone that ends up on the BB supposed to lose their levels? Remember the punishment in place is already set so you lose double the exp than you would from a normal pvp attack, and you want more? If that's the case, then I want the Master Thief and Thievery to work 100% of the time (so I steal every single gold you're carrying).

Losing double the XP is no deterrent to people who do not care that strongly about XP in the first place, and the PvP community has told us through the years, REPEATEDLY, that they do not care about their levels. This is why those who do not like PvP are told to get their acts together and fight - "Lose 5? It is no big deal - you can get them back." That argument has been repeated on this forum many many times. A group of players has mocked other players for clinging to their levels like scared children. I'm putting the boot on the other foot. If the PvP community does not fear losing levels - let them lose levels in the pursuit of their game. You can regain them (and make gold doing so! LOL!). The rest of the game will feel that a balance has been struck, and the system is fairer. The PvP community has REPEATEDLY said they don't care.... until they do when the threat becomes real. Makes all the previous utterances about risk and losing levels look like shallow posturing to me.

 

At the very least put a sock in it about how the PvP community does not care about losing levels and how they can be regained SO easily.

 

Also - alone of all the aspects of game play - PvP has held itself to a higher standard (and told the rest of us about it - repeatedly) - that PvP play was superior to all other forms of play - that mashing monsters was 'easy' and PvP was harder. How is it harder to attack a player with their pants down and when they are asleep? (Or in hunt sets that are easy to bypass for the experienced PvP player in that range) Where is the superior difficulty in that? Buff activation fails and 2% miss chances occur against monsters too. Where is this superiority, if it is not demonstrated in battle against other players who come ready to play? That is not happening now given the dead BB - and it looks like the PvP community is happy with it that way. Where then is your superior game style?

 

Now I've got that off my chest, I agree that PvP players need more incentive to hit, and more reward for hitting.

 

I have suggested upping both thievery and MT enhancements.

 

I have suggested untying PvP from being a gold sink - as it has been pointed out that the game now has many other gold sinks, and if PvP is not effectively sinking gold anyway, maybe it is not needed. I will put in the caveat that of course the wider community has NO idea how many gold hits are actually taking place - only the PvP community's word for it. There isn't much trust there anymore in that word, especially one that could be so obviously self serving. "No - we're not doing any gold hits - nossir - it just isn't worth it anymore, what with the risk of losing 5 every time!!" Clink clink as he walks away past the empty BB. If HCS can give us the stats I have already said I'll stand corrected.

 

But anyway - and can you see why folk have lost trust? A self policing group that just happens to make its bones by hitting other players cannot be relied upon. Why wouldn't they decide to be a bit lax when it comes to policing themselves? Human nature - I'm not blaming the PvP community for taking advantage and enjoying it - I just think it should stop.

 

Back to the gold sink incentive - sure make 100% of the gold stolen go to the thief - not 100% of the victim's on hand money - as then they would have nothing left with which to post the hitter, potentially. The thief takes 100% of the gold lost, rather than the system now where a goodly chunk of gold gets sunk. That is a huge upgrade on the current system. The victim can't lose 100% of their gold - they need gold left which they can then choose to use - do they want to save it, or use it on a bounty? Even in this system it is clear the thief will not be bountied EVERY TIME - it is not always going to be financially possible. MT activates the player could be left high and dry - which is why MT does not activate that often, but I am agreeing ts activation rate could be upped. They will not always be able to afford to post harder hitting bounties if they lose too much gold - and the gold they spend on bounties is ALSO going INTO the PvP system! Which is a plus, no? IF the victim feels they get what they pay for in this system they may be moved to burn FSP for gold to post with. They may be moved to donate. I think they will get what they pay for. Certainly a lot more than they do now.

 

Also remember this system would increase the gold on the BB. There is nothing to stop current PvP players from enjoying more rewards there by doing bounties themselves.

 

So - up thievery, up MT, no more gold sink take - all the take goes to the PvP player. If gold hits really are not happening then the effect on game economy would be minimal anyway. A bounty system that costs more, but the players posting will be more prepared to pay more if they feel they are getting what they pay for. So more gold can be made on bounties. You lose levels - you gain gold every time you relevel. You are making gold in this system. Is it more than you are making now? Nobody knows. But then nobody knows how much the PvP community is making now.

 

The PvP community loses some levels, gains gold and activity. Has the chance to have active fun again.

 

Why do you prefer the status quo?

Edited by Belaric, 06 April 2014 - 14:53.

[vastilos]

Well, this is the way I see it.. I hit someone in pvp I have a chance of being put on the BB. While on the BB I have a chance to lose up to 5 levels. My punishment for being on the BB is losing twice the exp per hit for 10 hits than I would if I were to be hit off the BB 10 times. So the punishment there is me losing twice the exp per hit until my bounty is cleared. 

From what I'm reading and understanding, people have no faith in the BB because those who do a pvp hit do not lose the full 5 levels, even though our punishment is losing twice the exp per hit while on the BB. So in order to restore faith in the BB, the person who was attacked should be able to chose the punishment, which would probably end up in a 5 level loss for the attacker. So to make this fair, master thief and thievery should be work 100% of the time, and every single gold should be taken since it just went from being a risk (risk of being bountied and a risk of losing up to 5 levels) to a set punishment (and we know anyone that was attacked does/will want 5 levels taken from the attacker). So that seems like a fair balance to me.

Even if all gold is stolen from the attacker, they have fsp and gold in the bank they can use. Plus, the gold they are getting from killing creatures is free gold (just like exp gain per hour is free exp) so they technically are not losing anything.

[Belaric]

Well, this is the way I see it.. I hit someone in pvp I have a chance of being put on the BB.  While on the BB I have a chance to lose up to 5 levels. My punishment for being on the BB is losing twice the exp per hit for 10 hits than I would if I were to be hit off the BB 10 times. So the punishment there is me losing twice the exp per hit until my bounty is cleared.

From what I'm reading and understanding, people have no faith in the BB because those who do a pvp hit do not lose the full 5 levels, even though our punishment is losing twice the exp per hit while on the BB. So in order to restore faith in the BB, the person who was attacked should be able to chose the punishment, which would probably end up in a 5 level loss for the attacker. So to make this fair, master thief and thievery should be work 100% of the time, and every single gold should be taken since it just went from being a risk (risk of being bountied and a risk of losing up to 5 levels) to a set punishment (and we know anyone that was attacked does/will want 5 levels taken from the attacker). So that seems like a fair balance to me.

Even if all gold is stolen from the attacker, they have fsp and gold in the bank they can use. Plus, the gold they are getting from killing creatures is free gold (just like exp gain per hour is free exp) so they technically are not losing anything.

Thank you vastilos.

 

A) The max you would lose is 3.

 

I showed in my previous reply it is unlikely the attacked player would always be able to afford maximum level loss.

 

C) In my imaginary system the PvP player gets richer bounties to take than are current, and probably more of them. Hard to be fewer than currently. That is without my offering an increased activation to Thievery or MT which would put  more gold into PvP. I also offered the possibility of taking out the gold sink aspect and allowing the gold hitter to take all the gold and have none sunk. This massively increases the amount of gold to be gained, but still leaves the victim with gold on hand unless MT activates. They can therefore bounty you, but may not want to, and may not always be able to afford a 3 level bounty. This is not enough for you it seems. You would like to try to bankrupt a player and force them to rely on savings or FSP in order to bounty you. And savings would be hard to make if all their gold could be stolen every hunt. Doesn't seem a community friendly approach. This seems an obvious tactic to once again reduce the risk of bounty and the risk of your loss of levels by making sure the victim does not have enough gold to post a bounty in the first place.

 

I never knew PvP players were so concerned over their levels before - the PvP community has always stated its embrace of risking and regaining levels was one of the things that set it apart, the PvP community over many posts in this forum has told players unhappy with the PvP system that stam is free and levels can be regained. Why now are you so concerned over losing your own levels under this system, when you were apparently constantly at risk under the old?? I have not received an answer to that question. And I have now asked it more than once. So here you are trying to come up with a new way of ensuring the risk to you is minimal.

 

Or you are taking a deliberately absurd position in an attempt to then argue that my position is equally unreasonable. Which it quite clearly isn't. My imaginary system gives you more opportunities to play your style of game, to make more gold and have a more active community. Your counter proposal shuts down a player's ability to bounty, and is quite obviously self-serving.

 

"Technically not losing anything." This is another false argument that has been trotted out over the years. "They aren't losing anything as stam is free, therefore the gold earned with it is free, and the levels can be regained. What is the problem?" To paraphrase.

 

I'll turn it on you - if you know stam is free - why do you care about losing levels? You can get the stam and levels back. What is the big deal losing a few levels on the BB, if you get bountied?  Stam is free, levels are free - just hunt them back. And you'll get some of that 'free' gold at the same time! Technically you didn't just lose any levels because they are free!!! (this is what you are trying to say about gold - that technically the person stolen from did not lose any gold because it is freely gained via stam expenditure - so technically if you lose levels, you have also not lost anything, because they too are free and gained by stamina expenditure. I hope that clearly enough illustrates the absolute absurdity of claiming gold is free.) This has been the PvP community's message to those upset at losing levels in the past - why is that message not good enough for you too? I'm seeing some failure of being able to take even the thought of your own medicine here!

 

If the gold is so free - why are you stealing it? Why not simply go out and pick it up for yourself? You would rather another player do the work of earning the gold, and then you take it. Therefore at the very least YOU, the gold thief, put value on that gold. If they are not losing anything - why are you wanting to gain it?

 

Maybe when you hit them no gold should be taken, as it isn't anything worth losing by your argument. See - I can take absurd positions too. You do less work for it - one hit versus an hour of hunting (as an example). You have saved time and earned gold for a fraction of the stam that the victim you just robbed expended. But stam and gold are free. So why are you looking for ways to earn that gold for less stamina? As it costs less stam to make a hit than it does to hunt. Why do you value your stamina and seek to maximise your return on the stam you expend? Is it because it DOES have value to you, and is not, in fact 'free'? I think so.

 

There is a concept in business: the monetary value of time. You are stealing that value from a player. You act to preserve it in yourself. In stealing from another you do in one click what has taken them minutes or hours. You value your stamina, and the time it represents. So, actually, does the person you stole from. It is not free.

 

The stam takes time to gain - people wait to hunt. They want to earn gold from the hunt so they can invest in their character and turn the gold into tangible assets. They hunt - and (for example) have all their gold stolen from them. This means they cannot buy tangible in game assets, like potions and gear, or convert that gold into FSP, all of which which are not free, and cannot be regenerated over time, like the stamina from which it is derived, so the player has permanently lost the time it took them to gain that stam. The thief retards the victim's progress in the game, and advances his for far less stamina expended. In stealing their gold you have cost them the ability to improve. They have to wait again to regain stam - hours, maybe days. It takes you one hour to get back most of the stam you used in your hit. Time is money - you just rocked it in that equation.

 

So please do not try to tell me that technically it is free. The time people spend in games is not free - it could be spent elsewhere for more derived benefit. You cost people time, and time is money, to repeat the point. You know the gold is not free, and your own actions in stealing gold pretty effectively prove it. Otherwise - make the hit and send back the gold if it is so freely and easily gained. This technically the gold is free argument is yet another convenient fiction that has been propagated. Gold is effort and time expended in game. It can be turned into things that cannot otherwise be gained by sitting and watching the clock. In stealing gold you steal what it represents - time and effort. That is not free.

[vastilos]

Ok... First, people are not concerned with losing levels. And second, hitting someone who is too lazy to convert their gold into fsp and taking all of their gold will not leave them bankrupt, that's nothing but an exaggeration at best. You want the person that was attacked to chose the punishment (regardless if it's 3, 4, or 5 levels), then it would be fair to take all of their gold as a compromise. They will not be bankrupt... not even close. They don't want to use their own money to set a punishment, what are they going to use?  Imagination? Hopes and dreams?

The person who was attacked wants to feel satisfaction, well guess what, us players who do the attacks want satisfaction as well, and stealing all of the gold is that satisfaction.

[Belaric]

Ok... First, people are not concerned with losing levels. And second, hitting someone who is too lazy to convert their gold into fsp and taking all of their gold will not leave them bankrupt, that's nothing but an exaggeration at best. You want the person that was attacked to chose the punishment (regardless if it's 3, 4, or 5 levels), then it would be fair to take all of their gold as a compromise. They will not be bankrupt... not even close. They don't want to use their own money to set a punishment, what are they going to use?  Imagination? Hopes and dreams?

The person who was attacked wants to feel satisfaction, well guess what, us players who do the attacks want satisfaction as well, and stealing all of the gold is that satisfaction.

 

If you are not concerned with losing levels, why are you concerned about being bountied and losing up to 3? You are not being consistent. If you are prepared to risk losing 5 now - why is an increased risk of losing 1-3 so different? Is it because the current risk of losing 5 is pretty small, and under my imaginary system you see the chance of actually losing levels would be much higher? If this does not clearly indicate that you are concerned about losing levels, then I'm not sure what else does... except your desire to take 100% of the gold, that also tells me you are concerned about losing levels.

 

Because if you were free to take 100% of what people earn all the time, it would be hard to save anything in the long run. Taking all the gold is not a compromise - it is a clear attempt to make it harder for you to be bountied - ergo - you do care about those levels.

 

I have offered compromises - more gold than now via enhanced thievery and MT, drop the gold sink take and funnel all that to the gold hitter - more bounty reward than now - yet that is not enough for you and you are trying to move the goalposts with what amounts to a ridiculous counteroffer - of which I think I have already explained the weaknesses and which only reveals to me the fact that you really do not have a decent argument against this idea, and instead are forced to create a straw man. It also reveals how very much you do not want to actually be consistently punished on the bounty board. You do not want to lose levels. Despite the fact that they can be regained for free with free stam.

 

vastilos "it would be fair to take all of their gold as a compromise. They will not be bankrupt... not even close."

 

You realise that is contradictory on its face, right? If you take all their gold they are precisely bankrupt - you reveal the untenability of your position. You assume savings. Which would not exist if repeated gold hits taking 100% would happen. You are creating an absurd alternative. Why do you want to take all the gold if not to make the act of bountying harder? Why do you not want to be bountied? Because you'd lose levels. You can try to say you aren't concerned, but your entire argument speaks otherwise.

 

You are correct and I will agree with you - hopes and dreams cannot be used to set a bounty - and that is all you'd like to leave your victim, after taking all their gold. Do you want to force people to donate to bounty you? Interestingly drastic position.

 

Do you like the BB dead? Is it in your interests to minimise bounty board activity? It seems so. Why do you, as a PvP player seem to endorse a system that has at its heart an empty and inactive vessel? A dead BB? Is it because, as I suspect, you are actually doing quite well off the board and would rather remain off the board, thank you very much?

 

The person attacked is the wronged party. The attacker makes a choice to try to take a shortcut through the game and gain gold for very little stamina. The victim is due some satisfaction, because, as you admitted, the attacker has already gained the satisfaction of stealing gold. And thank you for coming clean that stealing gold is your satisfaction.

 

And finally - thank you again vastilos. It is important to talk, and to test ideas.

 

And these are just ideas - nothing proven, certainly nothing that is going to be implemented by HCS. HCS own the game and will do as they see fit and what best protects their bottom line, as they should. Maybe some ideas - yours or mine - will make them consider changes - which way we cannot know.

 

I do hope that when they do come to considering changes to PvP they clearly state what their plan is and let the forum community discuss it.

 

I would also hope that any change suggested is done as a trial, and is evaluated on the basis of that trial. Let the community know a change is coming, give a month's notice. Let us know that the change will last for a month (or a week - whatever - but some set period) and reaction to it will be evaluated, and it will be permanently implemented only if the whole community adapts well to it.

 

That would be the safest way to implement a change to PvP - which always arouses strong feelings in the community.

 

Let's see where we are in 6 months on the roadmap!

Edited by Belaric, 07 April 2014 - 03:53.

[BigGrim]

Having read the opening post, I like the idea and intent to read through this with Hoofmaster too, see what he thinks.

[Kedyn]

I'm going to have to read this later after I get home from work - but out of the first few, I definitely don't agree with the idea of no counter-bounties. I'll deliberate more in a post later tonight / tomorrow depending on how long it takes to catch up. 

[Chazz224]

Having read the opening post, I like the idea and intent to read through this with Hoofmaster too, see what he thinks.

Did you read all the comments in this thread Grim?

 

If not I truly Hoof does prior to pushing such a racial change through that would destroy the game and PvP altogether. This can be argued by many but the facts remain - if no one PvP's - there will be no bounty board. All you would be doing here is killing your own game and taking a pay cut even further - Best of luck and wishes with this one Grim.

 

It's no surprise with all the great suggestions and threads in PvP you decline to comment in any but this one which is by far the most Anti PvP thread up atm.... *shakes my head*

 

- Chazz

[Belaric]

Hello Kedyn I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

 

I'm going to try to demonstrate here why counter bounties have over the years caused the BB to wither. There is no blame or finger pointing here - I think the fundamental nature of counter bounty causes this, and it causes less activity even for those who honourably and effectively use it.

 

Counter bounty is vendetta. Someone hit you - you hit them back. Except a counter bounty lets you call on your friends and family to help you.

 

A player gets hit for gold. He talks to his guildies and they agree to do a delevel party. He posts the bounty and the delevel party of say 4 players in his guild knock the gold hitter down 5 levels.

 

The gold hitter counter bounties all 4 players in the delevel party. Friends in his guild and allies in other like minded guilds smack everyone in the original delevel party down 5. Say 20 hitters.

 

The guild of the original player is faced with a choice - can they counterbounty 20 players and delevel them all - do they have enough members and allies prepared to do that? They realise they do not.

 

The guild of the person who was originally attacked cedes the field to the team of the person who did the gold hit.

 

That guild now knows not to mess with gold hitters from X guild, as they cannot keep up in a counter bounty bonanza. They withdraw from PvP against those people.

 

The guild that supported their hitter because he got delevelled feels good that they had their man's back. They may or may not notice that they get bountied less often and don't get delevelled by that guild anymore. Or they do notice and realise they have a safer option to attack here and there for gold.

 

This happens with groups of players not for weeks or months, but years.

 

Counter bounty promotes a last man standing environment, and rewards teams of players who like PvP and who are prepared to outlast their opponents in a counter bounty bonanza.

 

The problem is it doesn't take too many counter bounty bonanza losses to convince folk not to try.

 

If bounty hunters get regularly counter bountied and keep losing levels, it becomes pointless for them to continue bounty hunting - they drop out. Again the person who originally did the gold hit counter bounties someone who is taking their bounty. For a good reason or not, the bounty hunter learns it is not worth his time to hit that person, or his friends.

 

This goes on for months and years.

 

The use of counter bounty as a method of standing up for your man who gets posted to the BB causes fewer and fewer people to try to clear bounties, and fewer and fewer people to post bounties in the first place, as fewer bounties get cleared, and for less damage, as to avoid being hit Bounty hunters start clearing with 10 stam hits. Even then they sometimes get counter bountied.

 

The people who still PvP and counter bounty have fewer and fewer opponents on the board.

 

Does that seem familiar? Does that not describe the BB now - empty?

 

Now this is simply a result of using the counter bounty as a way of always standing by your guildmate - because hitting for gold is legal in the game, and you want to let other players and guilds know that any PvP activity against you and yours will be fully prosecuted. This is fine - but it has the result of causing unsustainable losses on the part of those trying to take bounties, and in the end has the happy side effect of minimising losses on the side of those who do the initial gold hit.

 

The result is fewer and fewer people do initiate PvP activity against you - you win the war. At the cost of active PvP conflict.

 

This is my theory of why counter bounty does no favours to the PvP community ultimately as it drives out other players and makes your community smaller. Those who remain are strong and well organised, but fewer than even they were a few years ago as instead of being able to bounty and see some retribution had without risk of counter bounties escalating the conflict beyond their ability to sustain it, the rest of the community seeks other methods of protection from PVP - ways to hide their gold and ways to buy immunity from being hit. This results in less gold being available to the original gold hitters. Nobody is winning anymore.

 

Does that sound familiar to you, looking at the history of the game?

 

As I have said before - the PvP community's own excellence and dominance has counted against it in the end - they have neutralised opposition on the board, and caused the rest of the community to find ways of insulating themselves from PvP as they cannot compete on the BB.

 

Removing counter bounty allows more people to re-enter the system.

 

If people take advantage of bounty hunter immunity to be immature, to send taunting messages and generally be idiots as they think it is a free pass - report them, and use the ignore function. You don't have to let people talk smack to you, you can block them. Counter bounty is not meant as a way to crush speech. Keeping it for that purpose is not sufficient I think - given its long term negative effect on PvP as I see it.

 

PvP protection did not get lobbied for by accident - know what I'm saying??

[vastilos]

Congratulations, you just made sure guilds can no longer have wars with each other. And your demonstration of how counter bounties have caused the BB to wither is totally false and based on your assumption(s). 

 

"Counter bounty is vendetta. Someone hit you - you hit them back. Except a counter bounty lets you call on your friends and family to help you.

 

A player gets hit for gold. He talks to his guildies and they agree to do a delevel party. He posts the bounty and the delevel party of say 4 players in his guild knock the gold hitter down 5 levels.

 

The gold hitter counter bounties all 4 players in the delevel party. Friends in his guild and allies in other like minded guilds smack everyone in the original delevel party down 5. Say 20 hitters.

 

The guild of the original player is faced with a choice - can they counterbounty 20 players and delevel them all - do they have enough members and allies prepared to do that? They realise they do not.

 

The guild of the person who was originally attacked cedes the field to the team of the person who did the gold hit.

 

That guild now knows not to mess with gold hitters from X guild, as they cannot keep up in a counter bounty bonanza. They withdraw from PvP against those people.

 

The guild that supported their hitter because he got delevelled feels good that they had their man's back. They may or may not notice that they get bountied less often and don't get delevelled by that guild anymore. Or they do notice and realise they have a safer option to attack here and there for gold.

 

This happens with groups of players not for weeks or months, but years.

 

Counter bounty promotes a last man standing environment, and rewards teams of players who like PvP and who are prepared to outlast their opponents in a counter bounty bonanza."

 

You just described how guild war with each other, but I'm pretty sure you didn't take that into consideration. Your timescale of years is laughable at best. I would assume that low game population, no pvp incentives and well, no updates for anything pvp is why the BB is dead, not your over exaggerated reasons.

Also, where do you get the idea that counter bounty is vendetta?

Edited by vastilos, 08 April 2014 - 01:00.

[Belaric]

I did take guild wars into consideration. Up thread I have shown how they would be handled.

 

The BB was not created to facilitate guild wars, that is a purpose to which it has been put. It could still be used in guild wars under my imaginary system, which I have explained up thread.

 

You are free to disagree, I'm good with that - I'm pointing out a slow evolution where even relatively benign use of counter bounty leads to fewer and fewer players being interested in PvP, and looking for alternate forms of protection from PvP - which is in fact what happened - over the years in this game. I don't think it is unrelated - what is your theory for why the BB has withered, and why the wider community lobbied for PvP protection? I've explained mine for all to see and criticise.

 

My timescale seems fair - it coincides with the life of the game - the BB has not died quickly. Indeed it recently exploded into life with the GXP delevel craze, but that got shut down, and the BB went instantly from 7+ pages of activity to 1-2 bounties. Was that really a win for PvP? You had new large scale interest for the first time in years, and yes - folk posting in the FS box for free hits should have been reported - but killing off the activity that was stimulating gold and FSP exchange on the BB on a consistently large scale for the first time in years seems foolish in retrospect - given the BB almost instantly died again. Especially as the actual relevelling loophole was not closed - one which PvP players have used to regain their levels rapidly for some time I believe. It is still there, for everyone in the game to use.

 

I have offered you more PvP incentives in this thread vastilos.

 

The thing is - in the current system, if incentives were added - would new people be drawn in and stay if they ran into the buzz saw of counter bounties on the board? You know - if they didn't follow the right unwritten rules that they didn't know about when they got there?

 

No updates to PvP? There seem to have been quite a few - they all get complained about no matter what happens. Part of that may be that PvP always excites high passions, and any changes are strongly contested, on both sides. It is quite simply a hard subject to broach and discuss. Small wonder HCS has preferred to leave it be if they could. Also any change that is made is then blamed for making the situation worse. We are a tough crowd.

 

The vendetta thing was a metaphor. It is an escalating conflict, like vendetta, is what I meant. One person bounties, multiple hitters hit, they get counterbountied, they in turn could counter bounty every player that hits them - it is an ever escalating number of combatants, until one side dies or gives up. Sounds good initially as it adds numbers at the time to PvP, but ultimately it discourages people to keep playing that aspect of the game, and so - slowly, (over years potentially) causes contraction. As has happened, I believe.

 

You can see counter bounty escalation on the board now - sudden bursts of activity pages long that just as quickly dies away. If you think about that happening for years, but each time a couple of players deciding they've had enough of always losing to the same team(s) of dedicated and organised PvPers who can always out last and out hit them, you'll perhaps see why the number of players interested in PvP has dwindled, and why the board lies more or less empty most of the time. Or at least concede it makes a certain kind of sense, even if you continue to disagree and think it is simply lack of incentives for PvP that has caused its demise, nothing to do with the way PvP is structured that has led the best practitioners of the art to dominate and drive away any competition simply by the way the conflicts are currently capable of being conducted, not through malicious or evil intent - you've played your game, but it has driven away your playmates, whether you intended it or not. That is my view. Thunderdome - many players entered, only the few remain, and they make it hard for anyone new to hang around long with them, using the tactics they know will lead them to short term victories - as they have for years. This does not help PvP activity or numbers, IMHO.

Edited by Belaric, 08 April 2014 - 01:42.