92 replies to this topic

[Arioche]

Hello everyone!

 

This is a thread for pvp-related feedback and suggestions.

 

Recently there has been some talk about increasing the PvP Attack Ranges. While we're all for the idea, we need to be careful with how we go about this, so we'd like to hear more of your thoughts before we go forward with anything.

 

As it stands, the current attack range (+/-10) has been causing some issues for those who actively partake in pvp. However, if we increase the range too much, this may negatively impact the game for those who do not pvp. 

 

We're currently still deliberating on how to go about tackling this issue. We acknowledge that some of the problems with pvp is the system itself. We also wish to protect players that do not partake in it.

 

Thank you!

 

~ Fallen Sword Team

[Filletminion]

Even Tiddly winks has Risk, every game needs it to be alive.

This is the most Fraught Discussion in the game.

 

Personally Bring back PvP seasons. you guys did a load of work on the original and by the end of the first season the bugs were addressed then you canned it.

 

It Seems a bit silly that one group of players are the only ones who will ever get that medal or have the chance to.

[Maehdros]

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


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

[LLAP]

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

Thank you!

PvP protection, XP protect and Deflect are viable options... This is a PvP game.

[Corrupted]

Make normal PvP ranges the same as GvG ranges:

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

[LLAP]

It Seems a bit silly that one group of players are the only ones who will ever get that medal or have the chance to.

I would love to have been playing when this was happening.👍 Would love to see it return.

[Edith3000]

What about us snowflakes who prefer not to PVP

I would like however, that for the DQs all kills are counted. Not my problem if there are only three active players and I need to kill 10. If there are 10 accounts listed on find player, I should get credit for all 10 kills.

Edited by Edith3000, 26 July 2021 - 13:15.

[Edith3000]

PvP protection, XP protect and Deflect are viable options... This is a PvP game.

Not really. It is a big component yes, but not the only one.

[Feldshan]

Could always do a hard +/-10 levels and have a soft +/-(any number of levels) to get 10 active players into your level range. So no matter what people will have players in their target range. Then add in that if someone can hit you that it also adds them into your pvp range so that it doesn't cause you to get hit but not be able to hit back. 

Think the bounty board needs to be worked on as well, but that might be a whole other topic to tackle. 

[michael65]

my proposal from "shot in the dark" thread:

levels range
600-999 +/- 25
1000-1999 +/- 50
2000-2999 +/- 100
3000-3999 +/- 150
4000-4999 +/- 200
5000-5999 +/- 250

premise: starting with a hypothetical common 100 level gear, generally the stats total would be twice gear level. the 100 level common gear is not greatly different from 90 and 110 level common gear. so, +/- 10% would be a good starting point for discussion.

a. some might feel 10% is too great, so why not 5% ? others like specific values, so why not 5% of lowest level of a level range?
note: 600-999 proposed levels was 500-999 giving the +/- 25. why change? levels in the 500s have dark realms and epic quest, too much to worry about. also, easier to argue jump from 10 to 25.

b. please remember some DQs require pvp.

c. combatant with lowest level determines if attack happens. principle: if x can attack y, then y should be able to attack x. done in gvg.

d. from personal experience, starting around level 350 pvp attacks increased. i usually bounty attacks, so the attacks are risky and a sign of desperation. so an increased attack range might be needed around 350. but ...

Edited by michael65, 26 July 2021 - 14:25.

[shindrak]

Even Tiddly winks has Risk, every game needs it to be alive.

This is the most Fraught Discussion in the game.

 

Personally Bring back PvP seasons. you guys did a load of work on the original and by the end of the first season the bugs were addressed then you canned it.

 

It Seems a bit silly that one group of players are the only ones who will ever get that medal or have the chance to.

Yea bring PvP seasons back 

[shindrak]

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


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

I agree with these numbers , it will not disturb Passive players and it will give a little wider range for pvp focused players !

[Undjuvion]

Make normal PvP ranges the same as GvG ranges:

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

 

i dont think this is so bad, if it were aligned with GvG itd allow some consistency in game, make things easy for everyone to remember.

[Undjuvion]

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


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

 

this aint bad at EOC, tho how will this allow players 1400 to about 4k to ever partake in gold hits, its better than how it is tho i prefer Corrupted's suggestion, lets give pvp a chance!

[michael65]

What about us snowflakes who prefer not to PVP
I would like however, that for the DQs all kills are counted. Not my problem if there are only three active players and I need to kill 10. If there are 10 accounts listed on find player, I should get credit for all 10 kills.

there are monthly and 8+ day players, attacking them means "win button" for attacker since unlikely to be bountied, more likely guild gear stripped, and more likely have durability issues since becoming a target.

fs should be enjoyed by all, including monthly warriors.
also, would burden guilds that try to protect members

[Feldshan]

The problem with hard coding in level ranges is that as the player base's levels fluidly move around you will time and time again have to keep revisiting the same problem. A dynamically changing pvp range based on the number of targets at any given time would ensure that no player looking to do pvp has a shortage of targets and also ensure that players can't just freely hold tons of gold in hand without banking for days on end.

 

Otherwise at some point in time when there are max levels around 10k, players in the 3k to 7k range would still have trouble finding enough targets. In which case we would still be right back where we started here.

[michael65]

The problem with hard coding in level ranges is that as the player base's levels fluidly move around you will time and time again have to keep revisiting the same problem. A dynamically changing pvp range based on the number of targets at any given time would ensure that no player looking to do pvp has a shortage of targets and also ensure that players can't just freely hold tons of gold in hand without banking for days on end.
 
Otherwise at some point in time when there are max levels around 10k, players in the 3k to 7k range would still have trouble finding enough targets. In which case we would still be right back where we started here.

but would this be fair? isn't this just a "cheat" to get around hard numbers? if limit is put in to restrict "fluidity" for fairness, why not use limit instead?

[michael65]

Make normal PvP ranges the same as GvG ranges:
1 - 300 (+/- 25)
301 - 700 (+/- 50)
701+ (+/- 100)

gvg uses group attacks at two minute intervals not affecting xp nor gold.

for pvp, the ranges are too wide except 1000+ levels. what could be the problem?
whine, whine
complain, complain
from unhappy players

[EpicPiety]

I agree with reinstating PvP seasons. It was bound to be extremely successful however because of it's buggy implementation and auto opting everyone in, it caused a problem and it got canned. Bounty board would need to be reworked through PvP seasons because how it was implemented wasn't the way it ought to have been imo.

[Feldshan]

but would this be fair? isn't this just a "cheat" to get around hard numbers? if limit is put in to restrict "fluidity" for fairness, why not use limit instead?

 

Not sure if you read my post farther up and not sure what your full complaint is here. If you had more than a set number of targets then nothing would change. If you didn't have a set number of targets then you would would be given a set number of targets.

Either that or just check for the next 20 (or whatever) number  of active players on either side of your level and have you be able to hit them and them you since no matter what each would show up on the other's list.

My main beef here is that hard coding in just level limits does not really solve the underlying problem of having enough targets to hit (which every other post here seems to be suggesting).