So I'm not sure if this will work, but since I quoted too much, I'll try to post in a segmented fashion:
An error occurred
You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text
BadPenny, on 05 Sept 2014 - 18:57, said:
...but it's infinitely better than getting 1st just because your name happens to come 1st alphabetically
In my ladder experience, it's not alphabetical based. I could be wrong. On my ladder it's level based.
justinian9, on 05 Sept 2014 - 19:11, said:
I think HCS needs to watch the ladder(s) controlled by one crew, I dont think allowing them to attack each other will fix the issue. They will only attack with permission/agreement and to their advantage. Would have been better to limit number of crew allowed to join a ladder.
After thinking for awhile about this (and mentioned in a not-well-thought-out post), this really implies no change.
You rightly say that they can decide who gets the dominance and tokens. However, this doesn't appear to me to actually change anything to the detriment of those who are not in the controlling Guild.
I will think more and make a separate response to both the buff and ladder issue.
However, my general thought at this point is that it doesn't change anything negatively for those in a Guild dominated group. It does "fix" inadequacies with the old system. Again, more details hopefully to come in a separate post.
I would also like to point out that you can easily make those same agreements with Allies/friends.
sweetlou, on 05 Sept 2014 - 19:49, said:
Can we not make Prestige points gained between guildmate hits? Way too easily abused!!
I disagree here, but get your point. The reason I disagree is because Prestige is actively abused throughout FS.
My thought was that Prestige was implemented to increase PvP activity. It quickly became a way to make agreements.
I'd suggest, if you're coming from a leveler perspective which is where HCS has been going for ages, that this then benefits FS. You can smack a guildie and reduce the complaints.
sweetlou, on 05 Sept 2014 - 20:12, said:
One other question I have, do you finally need to attack another player to gain tokens? Because since the latest Ladder was conceived all you needed to do was be on the Ladder contrary to the description, "Note that only players who have either attacked or defended will be included in the ladder."
This is definitely true and surprised me long ago. I "think" that was tweeked because of the lack of Ladder participation.
My thought is that they should receive the tokens. Definitely debatable. However, I'm currently on a ladder with very few participants. It hasn't actually happened to me, but I've seen a competitor on the ladder when I took a break all by themselves.
I'm sorry, but I definitely think they should get a reward for taking the risk.
I do get your point though and in light of the new update (now undone it appears), I would suggest the following:
This is total noob comment, but I'll stick my neck out anyway. I "believe" that the top 5 get the tokens? Is that right?
If it is correct that the top 5 get tokens, then I would suggest that programming stays the same for those ladders with 5 or less. However, on the ladders with more than 5, then only those that have actually hit get the tokens.
However, I want to insist that this should only be implemented if the hitting Guildies is applicable.
Dulcharn, on 05 Sept 2014 - 20:43, said:
This is true. I wonder if it could be improved by this: When the target player is selected all the active buff names turn red? So you can instantly see which ones you can click to buff...
Great idea Dulcharn (o0. However, I would add that this only happens if buff level 175 or higher is activated.
Windbattle, on 05 Sept 2014 - 21:49, said:
Since we are allowing pvp of guild mates in pvp ladder, I suggest opening up bounties to guild mates as well. Guilds already get allies / friends to help "clear" them off the boards, so this just simplifies the process / promotes team activity within guilds. Please consider it.
Wind, it is no longer possible to bounty Ladder hits due to HCS changes.
Davros81, on 05 Sept 2014 - 22:02, said:
Yes to this idea of limiting participation. As it now stands there can be major exploitation on the ladders, making the dominance medal now a farce...
Dominance was already a "farce". However, I admit that a Guild "could" spread out the dominance a bit more instead of the highest level getting it all.
I'm not really sure though how much this has changed. Top level opts out to allow second or, assuming another target is present, simply 10 hit loses.
RebornJedi, on 05 Sept 2014 - 23:21, said:
At first look I don't care much for the PvP ladder guildmate update.. And I'm in a ladder with fellow mates.. Just seems too easy to abuse with purposely losing to guildmates to boost them up hourly. I could hit my guild mate naked with 10s every hour and smash my real opponent as well. That way I'm still bring my opponent down further and staying around their PvP rating and building my guildmate up more and more (little increments but still something)..
This is waaaay to abusable and don't see it promoting more ladder activity. I see more players being driven from the already sluggish, boring ladder system (only due to lack of targets and poor rewards)
This does allow PvP bands with guildmates to have more fun such as battling each other but I think the abusable tactics far out weighs the benefit. Please re think this update...
At RJ... My question is really the following and I would appreciated your enlightenment (don't read sarcasm into that as the question is quite serious and full of respect):
Do you really think anything has changed for the worse?
I'm still thinking, but what I see is that there is a zero negative for those boards already controlled by a Guild. They will definitely continue to control. But now they "can" use more stam, dump a bit more gold... and the status quo remains.
In other words, nothing changes for the non-Guildie that can't move up, but the Guild involved uses even more stam and dumps a wee bit more gold due to repairs.
I'm definitely not sure and intelligent input is appreciated. Later I hope to do a post on my personal opinion.
shindrak, on 06 Sept 2014 - 01:04, said:
Ladder should not reward players who stay there without hitting any opponent in ladder...
Disagree shin. There is a risk factor that needs to be rewarded. There is a "suggestion" further up on this when there are more ladder people than rewards that might solve your issue. But the base is, if I'm the only one with balls to be on my ladder, I need a reward for having taken that risk.
In short, I agree to an extent: Ladders with members below reward placement (if top 5) then their risk gets paid. Ladders with entrants above min (if 5) then those hitting get rewarded. In this last case, when there are several members on the Ladder, say 10. The PvP rating will be calculated only amongst those that have hit. Those having hit will receive rewards regardless of other PvP ratings.
Pardoux, on 06 Sept 2014 - 01:20, said:
Now the negative.
The "revamped" pvp ladder is, unfortunately, terrible. It's gone from a bad situation to an even worse one. Allowing guild mates to hit each other on the ladder simply increases the exploitation on the ladder
Pardoux, you know I respect you immensely. Could you give an explanation of why exactly it's gotten worse?
What my head is trying to get wrapped around is the following: It was exploitable before. But I can't see a negative for Ladder players that are not in the Guild in question.
In other words, the exploitation has changed its skin. However, I'm not sure the "non-Guildies" are worse off.
In that light (and as mentioned in an earlier post), I think the change is positive since it wastes stam, takes off XP and allows members of a Guild to fight against each other. I still see no net negative for the "non-Guildies".
I'm totally open to being educated, lol.
Zorg, on 06 Sept 2014 - 12:19, said:
We have chosen to revert the change 'Players can now attack fellow guild members if they share a PVP Band.' pending further review of the PVP Ladder system next week. More information will be posted about our planned changes when it becomes available.
Hope this post is taken into account, lol.
yodamus, on 06 Sept 2014 - 13:57, said:
here is what you are missing...for those of us that never used fsh..the new updates for buffs is great..quite a bit better than before, that is why you are seeing some saying new update for buffs is good.....for those of you that were already using fsh, the new update is bad because it does not do as much as fsh had done before...simple as that...so, it seems like all they have to do is incorporate the other things that fsh did for buffs, and we all would be happy..
Fully agree. So the gist of your message reinforces the idea that the updates to make FSH become fully implemented in game would actually benefit everyone.
I was against FSH five years ago and still am though I have used it since then. I believe all "foreign" scripts should be outlawed and always have.
The point of the comments here from those using FSH is to improve the game, even for those that have never used it.
I agree that the updates are better for the game. However, they need to go further.
That said, I thank HCS for finally making moves to implement fundamental issues that were unfortunately ignored for so long precisely because they were "available" to some.
HCS made a huge move when they put FSH info into the game. My original suggestion was to outlaw all scripts. Over the last 6 years it would have been more efficient as HCS implemented was was really important for the game.
A much more effective suggestion would be for HCS to actively communicate HCS approved scripts with an eye towards them actually being implemented.
In other words, instead of having an "FS Helper" suggestion in Resources, the link would list all of the HCS approved scriptsl.
I believe in HCS using gamers for free to improve their game. I also believe however that they need to increase the communication on that.
They are finally realizing that people are not going to actually work for free with FSH. The business plan needs to be changed.
