860 replies to this topic

[Hoofmaster]

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

[Roan]

In another PvP related thread this suggestion was made.

Make it so 100 stam minimum must be used in bounties.

That way for 1 hit bounties... it must be a 100 stam hit.

[Roan]

Hoof can you please just confirm that a succesfull hit on the bounty board means you cannot be bountied back.

I hope not because some mercs are hired for delevels... If they manage to hit us and not lose they should be safe? No...

[kingtyrin]

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

Yes you are listening,that post is the best proof I have ever seen of this

With that said, your still missing XP loss for attacking downwards or upwards. Make it fair.

[Hoofmaster]

Hoof can you please just confirm that a succesfull hit on the bounty board means you cannot be bountied back.

In our proposed suggestions, you could still be bountied back, however players attempting the bounty would be limited to 10 stamina attacks.

Again this is only a suggestion

[Roan]

Thanks hoof for taking off the loyalty pot option btw
I was really disappointed at first when I saw it... But now you make me happy

[avvakum]

Are you kidding me? I've already been working on my “retirement speech” for 2 hours...

[Roan]

In our proposed suggestions, you could still be bountied back, however players attempting the bounty would be limited to 10 stamina attacks.

I think that should work only if the person was doing ONLY 10 stamina hits...
Otherwise, mercs would once again be free of almost any delevels...

[Hoofmaster]

With that said, your still missing XP loss for attacking downwards or upwards. Make it fair.

I don't see an issue with implementing this, especially in the higher band of PvP when it goes to +/- 10 levels for the attack range.

[Hoofmaster]

Are you kidding me? I've already been working on my “retirement speech” for 2 hours...

[Roan]

With that said, your still missing XP loss for attacking downwards or upwards. Make it fair.

I don't see an issue with implementing this, especially in the higher band of PvP when it goes to +/- 10 levels for the attack range.

Great to hear hoof The thing is when you got attacked by someone under your lvl you are losing some XP.
BUt when you attack back, the other doesn't. Pretty unfair and it was taking off the purpose of hitting back.

[kingtyrin]

Hoof can you please just confirm that a succesfull hit on the bounty board means you cannot be bountied back.

In our proposed suggestions, you could still be bountied back, however players attempting the bounty would be limited to 10 stamina attacks.

Again this is only a suggestion

But hoof, the trouble with this is people who delevel intentionally should be subject to the same treatment, no? What if when only ten stamina is used to clear you on the BB, then your counter bounty cannot be more then 10 stam clear, but if someone uses 100 stam to delevel you, then they should be subject to the full treatment? Does this not make sense? I mean, I think the counter bounty system as it is works fine, but if you really want to change it, I believe that would be much more viable

in fear I put that to confusingly I quote-

Sorry for sounding soft . But does this mean you can whack someone on the bounty board for 100 stam to take wotever and all that can happen to you is a bounty back for 10 stam hits?

Basically, my suggestion is, if they use 100 stam on you on the BB, then they should be subject to 100 stam when you counter. If they use 10 stam to clear you, then they can only counter for ten stam.

[abhorrence]

Hoof can you please just confirm that a succesfull hit on the bounty board means you cannot be bountied back.

In our proposed suggestions, you could still be bountied back, however players attempting the bounty would be limited to 10 stamina attacks.

Again this is only a suggestion

Can you explain the genesis of this proposal?

I attack someone with 10 stam
They in turn can remove 5 levels from me
My only option is to then place 10 stam bounties on them?
So any hit how ever minimal should have a possible punishment of 5 levels but the response to this is a meager bounty, or to have 100 friends all 10 stam that person?

Where is the equity in that?

[avvakum]

But I still think the FSH auto-gold search is too much. It might be okay if, like other FSH functions, it was time-limited, perhaps to 1 refresh per minute.
.

I've never liked FSH (it's automation imo), as strange it might sound I am all for forbidding "the FSH auto-gold search" :wink:

[Ryebred]

Are you kidding me? I've already been working on my “retirement speech” for 2 hours...

ROFLMAO : ) I'm glad your listening Hoof

[Bleltch]

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.

Yes on no potions.

Yes on 10 kill bounties only.

No on pvp rating being earned by hunters, unless it is severely nerfed the number of points transferred during bounties.

What happened to the idea of changing to a "gain" based point system?

[Ryebred]

But I still think the FSH auto-gold search is too much. It might be okay if, like other FSH functions, it was time-limited, perhaps to 1 refresh per minute.
.

I've never liked FSH (it's automation imo), as strange it might sound I am all for forbidding "the FSH auto-gold search" :wink:

I think it has everyone on their toes too much now... finding gold targets (actually holding) was easier before it

[kingtyrin]

What happened to the idea of changing to a "gain" based point system?

It would be my assumption by the way Hoof is talking of them that all the suggestions except the opt out potion-opt out thus far are still on the table, and rather then rehashing them once again like on thread 2, he is simply adding to the list on this one I hope