Posted 08 April 2014 - 09:53
Did you read all the comments in this thread Grim?
Yes. I did. You are the only dissenting voice and you are using staggeringly high levels of hyperbole in your arguments. Everyone else is actually discussing the idea and bouncing it around.
Leave any further hyperbole at the door please. Please do not assume anything will kill the game and do not make assumptions about what I am paid as frankly, that's not your concern.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 13:40
Posted 08 April 2014 - 14:39
The Myth of Risk
In this post I am going to try to demonstrate why the 'risk' inherent in the PvP system as it stands is heavily tilted towards the PvP player operating in a PvP guild.
I will now stress that this has been achieved using freely available in game mechanics - no foul play needs to have been indulged in - simply the application of allowed game play.
I have argued that these things have led to the demise of the BB, as is daily evidenced, and the withering of the PvP game itself.
My purpose is to demonstrate that saying 'risk' must remain in the system is disingenous if you are a PvP player defending that system, as 'risk' - or rather - the probability of being hit back or delevelled for your actions has been systematically reduced by PvP play style. Entirely within game rules. The PvP player has a low probability of being bountied, and then if bountied, a low probability of actually losing 5. This is not risky by any stretch of the imagination. The word risk implies chance of failure. PvP players, on each individual gold hit, are not running much risk at all.
How to begin?
I think with the forum scenario that best illustrates this position.
A player comes on line and complains that PvP players get to hit without warning, when they want, and geared up and buffed to ensure maximum advantage and a very high probability of a win and successful gold steal. They say this isn't fair. I think we can agree this kind of complaint has been put forth on the forum.
The PvP player's response is; "Ah, but we risk losing 5 for every hit! Yes we have an advantage - but we pay for it on the BB! Post a bounty or hit back! We're good with that!"
This is not exactly true.
The BB is dead - we can all see and agree on that. The BB is a measure of bounty activity.
I have argued that over the course of the game Counter Bountying (CB) has been used to drive competition off the BB. PvP players in PvP guilds are capable of escalating conflicts using CB beyond their opponents ability to sustain. A quick recap.
A player gets hit for gold. He bounties. His buddies do a delevel party. The Gold hitter - a PvP player in a PvP guild, counter bounties the entire delevel party. His guild and allies delevel everyone in that party. So for a 5 level loss, a 20 level penalty is extracted. The PvP side in each round inflicts far more damage than it receives. The conflict has gone from 1 on 1 to 4 on 1 to 16+ on 4. Can the side that was originally hit take on and delevel all 16? Unlikely - if they do, again the next round the numbers against them will be even larger. They cannot compete. They withdraw. The lesson is - do not mess with that PvP guild and its allies. This lesson is repeated multiple times over the last few years of the game. Delevel parties get rarer as fewer guilds see the point of risking putting their friends at risk for counter bounty and losing 5. It does not make much rational sense to exchange 20 levels for 5 on a consistent basis.
Bounty hunters. PvP players in PvP guilds counter bounty them - for whatever reason, and they do not need any - they could do it for simple rational utility - if they keep CBing BH's and dropping them 5 then BH's will go away and the PvP player will get more free gold hits as bounties will not be punished. Also - and as a happy side effect PvP players like to do PvP so counter bountying to them appears to be a way to keep their game lively. Except with every round of counter bounties you are inviting 4 of your friends to attack one other player, so the odds are always stacked in your favour. The risk, as it were, favours your side.
How do BH's react? Under the current system they either stop - or play nice, they clear the bounty using 10 stams and hope to avoid being CB'd. Either way the PvP players and guilds win - they can hit other people for 5 levels on the BB consistently, as they have the numbers and the will to do so, and they get soft cleared using 10 stams from either their friends, or from bounty hunters who don't want to be dropped.
This, over time becomes institutionalised, PvP playes and guilds can almost always inflict more damage on the Bb than they receive. Other players in the game, not being blind, recognise this fact. They also recognise that soft clears using 10 stam do not do very much damage to the gold thief who hit them, they can easily maintain their level, so the Bb does not help a PvE style player escape a PvP player's target range. To add insult to injury it becomes evident that if you post a bounty the gold hitters friends are the most likely to clear the bounty, (as BH's are thin on the ground, and players and guilds have been taught the lesson that delevel parties get bloodier for the non-PvP side than the PvP side) so the gold thief steals your gold, and then his friends win the bounty and cause him minimal level loss if at all. Rational players realise that the BB cannot help them. They stop using it.
The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. By CBing and doling out far more damage than they receive they have driven competition off the BB, both from other guilds who are not as committed to the PvP cause as they, and from independent BH's who find it hard to justify the loss of levels for the rate of reward - if they even win the bounty, given the network of PvP allies available to clear their buddies bounty using 10 stams.
This is a reward for PvP players for organising, getting guilds and allied guilds together. The entire game knows who you are and not to mess with you. It is a result of operating within the system you were given. A tamed and controlled BB that works for your side, and not for anyone else.
The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. They do not get bountied as often as a result of gold hits, they do not get delevelled as often by other guilds, and BH's do not hit them heavily as often for fear of CB and retribution.
So if we exchange the word 'risk' for chance or better still probability - we see that the probability of a PvP player losing 5 for a gold hit has been systematically reduced by PvP activity. All legally done. But detrimental to your own game. No-one is interested in playing anymore. Not much fun playing a game where you always lose. Conversley - the PvP community likes this game just fine, they win most of the time. But in winning they are losing players to play with - their game gets smaller, the gold available has got smaller. The PvP community starts asking for incentives to help their game, without realising that they are the reason their game is smaller.
Look at what happened - instead of using the BB - the rest of the game population - rational actors also - realised they needed defence from PvP activity, as they cannot stop the initial gold hit - the PvP player always has the advantage there, and they found that the BB could not work for them to try to deter further gold hits - the converse happened - they were dissuaded from using the BB. People lobbied for PvP protection. Mechanics within the game could not protect them, they asked for a new mechanic that would. They got it, after a long period of argument.
Gold was also protected. PvP players lost targets for gold, and for XP loss. Their game shrank further - as a consequence, I believe, of their dominance of the BB. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Of course the gold protection element has been removed, but as billybob pointed out to me - there are many more gold sinks in the game now, many more ways to hide gold. PvP players have found the pickings thinner, apparently. But it is hard to trust a gold thief when he tells you he can't find gold anymore.
It is also hard now to accept that 'risk' is the reason we should keep the current system. PvP players have acted rationally to reduce risk and maximise benefit to themselves on every front.
Ironically by reducing risk so drastically, they also lost benefit as a new mechanic was introduced that protected their potential targets' gold for a long time. And of course being hit for gold teaches players pretty quickly to hide it - another way in which PvP is self-defeating - you hit for gold, folk hide it, you complain there is less gold going around - why is that a surprise?
I would argue that the only area in which PvP players have not acted rationally is in their defence of PvP. If you have reduced risk on every front and you know you are getting punished less often and less heavily than you used to, it is a little rich/disingenuous/dishonest to keep claiming you are at "constant risk" of losing 5. You are at constant very low probability of losing 5 is closer to the truth. And if you do lose 5 you make sure everyone that dropped you loses 5 also. The other side loses more, every time. What is the proof of this? The dead BB and the disinterest of the rest of the game population in your game style is a pretty strong indication. The fact that PvP protection was clamoured for as the Bb could not provide a balanced system of punishment for those who choose to hit other players for gold. Can't give you proof - but those things are a pretty firm foundation for my argument.
We have to rely on your word that you are honourable, that when someone hits back, they won't be counter bountied. Some PvP players may accept a hit back and be cool with it. Others will CB. Bad apples - maybe, or maybe just rational actors - they know that over time if the enemy keeps losing 5 for every hit via CB, they will go away and leave the field to the PvP player. A clear advantage that a rational actor would seek. The person who hits back cannot know in advance if they will be applauded for the hit, or CB'd for it. A few CB's they'll stop trusting the propaganda that PvP players don't mind being hit back - even if some genuinely believe that - those that CB destroy the perception on the part of PvE players.
I don't want to take away your freedom to hit without warning and when it suits you.
I do want to take away the myth of risk and replace it with real risk.
Rules that are clear and apply to all.
One last time.
Arguing that there should be 'risk' for every hit, means risk of counter bounty. If arguing 'risk' for every hit meant allowing someone to hit back - well that possibility exists without CB being in the game. CB has been used for years by PvP players and guilds to dominate and drive other players off the BB. CB reduces real risk to PvP players, and increases it for those not in the PvP club. The result is one dead BB, ladies and gents. CB is not risky to PvP players, it is a weapon and it is protection for you.
Allowing a BH to be CB minimises risk to the player who did the original gold hit. It protects the aggressor. This system has killed the board and is killing PvP's long term survivability.
Using 'risk' as a defence for the current system is unrealistic when the risk is so one sided.
Edited by Belaric, 08 April 2014 - 14:59.
Good-bye and hello, as always.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 14:53
I don't mind changing the punishment aspect of the bounty board but all hits need to be bountiable. Bounty hunters get a reward for clearing bounties and also should have some risk applied. If you really want to limit the damage that can be done on a counter bounty make it so bounty hunters can only lose 1 level.
Thanks markaaron
That is much fairer if you want to keep CB. I think it could be done away with altogether, but that would be a compromise worth trying.
Good-bye and hello, as always.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 15:12
Under the current system, the bounty board can *thrive* via off the board hits, or counter bounties. Yes, atm it has been eerily quiet, but I believe its due to the fact fewer and fewer people play this game anymore, along with the fact gold is hard to find on hand, and that the cows tend to step in over any sort of repeated hits, wars and so on. Trust me, I know from experience, a few hits off the board can equal a suspension or a slap on the wrist. Why is someone going to pvp if the creators of the game seem to shun it themselves?
With your suggestion, counter bounties can no longer happen, meaning one less way of a *bounty* being placed. So your idea depends heavily on actual pvp combat occurring off the board.Also, it seems to me ( tho you may not intentionally be doing so) but you're vilifying counter bounties all together) Sure, there's some (not so nice) people who counter bounty everything, me personally I counter anyone who quits, or if someone randomly tries smashing for a medal etc.
Anyone who partakes in pvp runs the possibility of being bountied once they click *attack player*. That's regardless of whether its a bounty or an off the board hit. I don't understand why that should be changed. An attack is an attack. Are you saying that the bounty board is not player versus player?
You mention the bounty board/ pvp and one-sided in your post, which I can't understand, as the attacker/defender always has a *choice* . This idea of yours ( to me) seems to entail making the bounty board purely one sided. I get players want more punishment, or to *seek revenge* . However, maintaining the board as a chopping block for those who pvp ( off the board hits being the only *bountyable action) , yet a bounty free opportunity for those who want to smash/ gain bounty medals, or prestige isn't the way to go about it.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 15:37
The Myth of Risk
In this post I am going to try to demonstrate why the 'risk' inherent in the PvP system as it stands is heavily tilted towards the PvP player operating in a PvP guild.
I will now stress that this has been achieved using freely available in game mechanics - no foul play needs to have been indulged in - simply the application of allowed game play.
I have argued that these things have led to the demise of the BB, as is daily evidenced, and the withering of the PvP game itself.
My purpose is to demonstrate that saying 'risk' must remain in the system is disingenous if you are a PvP player defending that system, as 'risk' - or rather - the probability of being hit back or delevelled for your actions has been systematically reduced by PvP play style. Entirely within game rules. The PvP player has a low probability of being bountied, and then if bountied, a low probability of actually losing 5. This is not risky by any stretch of the imagination. The word risk implies chance of failure. PvP players, on each individual gold hit, are not running much risk at all.
How to begin?
I think with the forum scenario that best illustrates this position.
A player comes on line and complains that PvP players get to hit without warning, when they want, and geared up and buffed to ensure maximum advantage and a very high probability of a win and successful gold steal. They say this isn't fair. I think we can agree this kind of complaint has been put forth on the forum.
The PvP player's response is; "Ah, but we risk losing 5 for every hit! Yes we have an advantage - but we pay for it on the BB! Post a bounty or hit back! We're good with that!"
This is not exactly true.
The BB is dead - we can all see and agree on that. The BB is a measure of bounty activity.
I have argued that over the course of the game Counter Bountying (CB) has been used to drive competition off the BB. PvP players in PvP guilds are capable of escalating conflicts using CB beyond their opponents ability to sustain. A quick recap.
A player gets hit for gold. He bounties. His buddies do a delevel party. The Gold hitter - a PvP player in a PvP guild, counter bounties the entire delevel party. His guild and allies delevel everyone in that party. So for a 5 level loss, a 20 level penalty is extracted. The PvP side in each round inflicts far more damage than it receives. The conflict has gone from 1 on 1 to 4 on 1 to 16+ on 4. Can the side that was originally hit take on and delevel all 16? Unlikely - if they do, again the next round the numbers against them will be even larger. They cannot compete. They withdraw. The lesson is - do not mess with that PvP guild and its allies. This lesson is repeated multiple times over the last few years of the game. Delevel parties get rarer as fewer guilds see the point of risking putting their friends at risk for counter bounty and losing 5. It does not make much rational sense to exchange 20 levels for 5 on a consistent basis.
Bounty hunters. PvP players in PvP guilds counter bounty them - for whatever reason, and they do not need any - they could do it for simple rational utility - if they keep CBing BH's and dropping them 5 then BH's will go away and the PvP player will get more free gold hits as bounties will not be punished. Also - and as a happy side effect PvP players like to do PvP so counter bountying to them appears to be a way to keep their game lively. Except with every round of counter bounties you are inviting 4 of your friends to attack one other player, so the odds are always stacked in your favour. The risk, as it were, favours your side.
How do BH's react? Under the current system they either stop - or play nice, they clear the bounty using 10 stams and hope to avoid being CB'd. Either way the PvP players and guilds win - they can hit other people for 5 levels on the BB consistently, as they have the numbers and the will to do so, and they get soft cleared using 10 stams from either their friends, or from bounty hunters who don't want to be dropped.
This, over time becomes institutionalised, PvP playes and guilds can almost always inflict more damage on the Bb than they receive. Other players in the game, not being blind, recognise this fact. They also recognise that soft clears using 10 stam do not do very much damage to the gold thief who hit them, they can easily maintain their level, so the Bb does not help a PvE style player escape a PvP player's target range. To add insult to injury it becomes evident that if you post a bounty the gold hitters friends are the most likely to clear the bounty, (as BH's are thin on the ground, and players and guilds have been taught the lesson that delevel parties get bloodier for the non-PvP side than the PvP side) so the gold thief steals your gold, and then his friends win the bounty and cause him minimal level loss if at all. Rational players realise that the BB cannot help them. They stop using it.
The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. By CBing and doling out far more damage than they receive they have driven competition off the BB, both from other guilds who are not as committed to the PvP cause as they, and from independent BH's who find it hard to justify the loss of levels for the rate of reward - if they even win the bounty, given the network of PvP allies available to clear their buddies bounty using 10 stams.
This is a reward for PvP players for organising, getting guilds and allied guilds together. The entire game knows who you are and not to mess with you. It is a result of operating within the system you were given. A tamed and controlled BB that works for your side, and not for anyone else.
The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. They do not get bountied as often as a result of gold hits, they do not get delevelled as often by other guilds, and BH's do not hit them heavily as often for fear of CB and retribution.
So if we exchange the word 'risk' for chance or better still probability - we see that the probability of a PvP player losing 5 for a gold hit has been systematically reduced by PvP activity. All legally done. But detrimental to your own game. No-one is interested in playing anymore. Not much fun playing a game where you always lose. Conversley - the PvP community likes this game just fine, they win most of the time. But in winning they are losing players to play with - their game gets smaller, the gold available has got smaller. The PvP community starts asking for incentives to help their game, without realising that they are the reason their game is smaller.
Look at what happened - instead of using the BB - the rest of the game population - rational actors also - realised they needed defence from PvP activity, as they cannot stop the initial gold hit - the PvP player always has the advantage there, and they found that the BB could not work for them to try to deter further gold hits - the converse happened - they were dissuaded from using the BB. People lobbied for PvP protection. Mechanics within the game could not protect them, they asked for a new mechanic that would. They got it, after a long period of argument.
Gold was also protected. PvP players lost targets for gold, and for XP loss. Their game shrank further - as a consequence, I believe, of their dominance of the BB. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Of course the gold protection element has been removed, but as billybob pointed out to me - there are many more gold sinks in the game now, many more ways to hide gold. PvP players have found the pickings thinner, apparently. But it is hard to trust a gold thief when he tells you he can't find gold anymore.
It is also hard now to accept that 'risk' is the reason we should keep the current system. PvP players have acted rationally to reduce risk and maximise benefit to themselves on every front.
Ironically by reducing risk so drastically, they also lost benefit as a new mechanic was introduced that protected their potential targets' gold for a long time. And of course being hit for gold teaches players pretty quickly to hide it - another way in which PvP is self-defeating - you hit for gold, folk hide it, you complain there is less gold going around - why is that a surprise?
I would argue that the only area in which PvP players have not acted rationally is in their defence of PvP. If you have reduced risk on every front and you know you are getting punished less often and less heavily than you used to, it is a little rich/disingenuous/dishonest to keep claiming you are at "constant risk" of losing 5. You are at constant very low probability of losing 5 is closer to the truth. And if you do lose 5 you make sure everyone that dropped you loses 5 also. The other side loses more, every time. What is the proof of this? The dead BB and the disinterest of the rest of the game population in your game style is a pretty strong indication. The fact that PvP protection was clamoured for as the Bb could not provide a balanced system of punishment for those who choose to hit other players for gold. Can't give you proof - but those things are a pretty firm foundation for my argument.
We have to rely on your word that you are honourable, that when someone hits back, they won't be counter bountied. Some PvP players may accept a hit back and be cool with it. Others will CB. Bad apples - maybe, or maybe just rational actors - they know that over time if the enemy keeps losing 5 for every hit via CB, they will go away and leave the field to the PvP player. A clear advantage that a rational actor would seek. The person who hits back cannot know in advance if they will be applauded for the hit, or CB'd for it. A few CB's they'll stop trusting the propaganda that PvP players don't mind being hit back - even if some genuinely believe that - those that CB destroy the perception on the part of PvE players.
I don't want to take away your freedom to hit without warning and when it suits you.
I do want to take away the myth of risk and replace it with real risk.
Rules that are clear and apply to all.
One last time.
Arguing that there should be 'risk' for every hit, means risk of counter bounty. If arguing 'risk' for every hit meant allowing someone to hit back - well that possibility exists without CB being in the game. CB has been used for years by PvP players and guilds to dominate and drive other players off the BB. CB reduces real risk to PvP players, and increases it for those not in the PvP club. The result is one dead BB, ladies and gents. CB is not risky to PvP players, it is a weapon and it is protection for you.
Allowing a BH to be CB minimises risk to the player who did the original gold hit. It protects the aggressor. This system has killed the board and is killing PvP's long term survivability.
Using 'risk' as a defence for the current system is unrealistic when the risk is so one sided.
wow...best post ever on the forum..completly perfectly said and explained
Posted 08 April 2014 - 15:41
"My purpose is to demonstrate that saying 'risk' must remain in the system is disingenous if you are a PvP player defending that system, as 'risk' - or rather - the probability of being hit back or delevelled for your actions has been systematically reduced by PvP play style. Entirely within game rules. The PvP player has a low probability of being bountied, and then if bountied, a low probability of actually losing 5. This is not risky by any stretch of the imagination. The word risk implies chance of failure. PvP players, on each individual gold hit, are not running much risk at all."
You realize you just contradicted your self with this statement, and that makes your whole argument invalid as of this second.
Here are the definitions of risk:
1. A situation involving exposure to danger
2. The possibility that something unpleasant or unwelcome will happen
3. A person or thing regarded as a threat or likely source of danger
4. A possibility of harm or damage against which something is insured
5. A person or thing regarded as likely to turn out well or badly in a particular
6. Expose (someone or something valued) to danger, harm, or loss
7. Act in such a way as to bring about the possibility of (an unpleasant or unwelcome event)
8. Incur the chance of unfortunate consequences by engaging in (an action)
And those are from a dictionary, which makes your idea of risk in this game invalid.
Now from my perspective, in all of my years of playing, I don't think I have ever seen you on the bounty board once, ever, now you're trying to argue PvP methods, tactics (or whatever) when you have zero experience with PvP, other than probably being hit for your gold and you felt that the punishment delivered to the attacker wasn't up to your standards.
A PvP hit or hits have risk, and ending up on the bounty board or not, and losing levels or not is the risk the attacker is taking. It's up to the person who was hit to decide if they want to post the bounty or not. Some do, some don't. Don't try to bring an aspect of the game that you have little to no experience in to your standards.
Edited by vastilos, 08 April 2014 - 15:42.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 15:45
"CB has been used for years by PvP players and guilds to dominate and drive other players off the BB."
You have zero proof of this, and it's nothing but an assumption at best.
"They also recognise that soft clears using 10 stam do not do very much damage to the gold thief who hit them"
Ok, so the double exp loss the attacker suffers every hit on the BB wasn't considered, and if it was, you failed to mention it just to make your argument look prettier..
"The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. By CBing and doling out far more damage than they receive they have driven competition off the BB, both from other guilds who are not as committed to the PvP cause as they, and from independent BH's who find it hard to justify the loss of levels for the rate of reward"
How have PvP players insulated themselves from risk when they risk ending up on the bounty board with every hit they do? Again, more B.S. just to make what you wrote look prettier. You want to smash someone for the smasher medal, expect to be smashed back. 10 stamina clears are rarely counter bountied for a reason, but since you have zero pvp experience, I'll leave you to figure out why.
"So if we exchange the word 'risk' for chance or better still probability - we see that the probability of a PvP player losing 5 for a gold hit has been systematically reduced by PvP activity. All legally done. But detrimental to your own game. No-one is interested in playing anymore. Not much fun playing a game where you always lose. Conversley - the PvP community likes this game just fine, they win most of the time. But in winning they are losing players to play with - their game gets smaller, the gold available has got smaller. The PvP community starts asking for incentives to help their game, without realising that they are the reason their game is smaller."
So you believe that players should lose the full 5 levels for a gold hit? You think players are leaving the game because the attacker isn't losing the full 5 levels for the 10% of their gold on hand they lose? You draw too many conclusions from something you no nothing about. There have been plenty of posts on how to make yourself less of a target (aka don't hold millions of gold while hunting or trying to manipulate the fsp marketplace) and from the looks of it, people are listening, that's probably a good reason why there's less activity on the BB (just an assumption I am making).
The PvP community is asking for more incentive because people started listening to the PvP'ers who told them how to become less of a target and they started to listen carry less gold on hand now.
But I am willing to bet that thought never entered your mind... not even for a second.
I could pick apart your last post, but I have things that I need to do. But your entire post is nothing but speculation at best, nothing more, nothing less. And the fact that Grim is going to talk to Hoof about this already shows that it will end up happening, and the bounty board will wither and die away. Congratulations.
Now if you want, I can draw conclusions about how you never started commenting on any type of pvp thread until a member of the guild you are in got smashed for trash talking on a 10 stam clear. Which is probably the reason you are against "counter bounties" and you so harshly flame PvP.
One more thing, since you want to the bounty board run your way, then the smasher medal should be removed from bounty board hits, since people will then get to earn their smasher medals for free (which I bet you also some how forgot to take into consideration). Now with that said, Master Thief better work 100% of the time under your current B.S. system.
Edited by vastilos, 08 April 2014 - 17:42.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 17:43
Posted 08 April 2014 - 17:53
Under the current system, the bounty board can *thrive* via off the board hits, or counter bounties. Yes, atm it has been eerily quiet, but I believe its due to the fact fewer and fewer people play this game anymore, along with the fact gold is hard to find on hand, and that the cows tend to step in over any sort of repeated hits, wars and so on. Trust me, I know from experience, a few hits off the board can equal a suspension or a slap on the wrist. Why is someone going to pvp if the creators of the game seem to shun it themselves?
With your suggestion, counter bounties can no longer happen, meaning one less way of a *bounty* being placed. So your idea depends heavily on actual pvp combat occurring off the board.Also, it seems to me ( tho you may not intentionally be doing so) but you're vilifying counter bounties all together) Sure, there's some (not so nice) people who counter bounty everything, me personally I counter anyone who quits, or if someone randomly tries smashing for a medal etc.
Anyone who partakes in pvp runs the possibility of being bountied once they click *attack player*. That's regardless of whether its a bounty or an off the board hit. I don't understand why that should be changed. An attack is an attack. Are you saying that the bounty board is not player versus player?
You mention the bounty board/ pvp and one-sided in your post, which I can't understand, as the attacker/defender always has a *choice* . This idea of yours ( to me) seems to entail making the bounty board purely one sided. I get players want more punishment, or to *seek revenge* . However, maintaining the board as a chopping block for those who pvp ( off the board hits being the only *bountyable action) , yet a bounty free opportunity for those who want to smash/ gain bounty medals, or prestige isn't the way to go about it.
Hello Maehdros - thanks for the reply.
I will again be upfront and say I pretty much totally disagree with you. I will try to explain why.
You think the board can thrive off board based hits or counter bounties. The simple evidence of board inactivity speaks otherwise.
You think this may have something to do with dwindling game numbers. And gold being harder to find. Gold is harder to find because it is rational when faced with gold thieves in the game to take measures to hide it.
Numbers dwindling. Well, if you want to go there... there is one in game activity above all others that may have a negative effect on in game numbers, has a negative effect on players' in game experience, and may actively drive players out of the game.
That activity is PvP. If you want me to go into detail I can and will at length. I think you know the arguments.
So it is a little rich to say - "Well Pvp isn't active so much, because the game isn't active so much, which PvP may in fact have contributed to."
Unless you are prepared to say that PvP has had nothing to do with players quitting the game. Are you prepared to claim that?
Off board hits get banned. That is between you and HCS then. They seem to find some off board activities deleterious to the game and act to stop them. You feel they are being heavy handed. I have no axe to grind there, I have no evidence of it one way or another.
Yep. In my system off board activity leads to on board activity, as it was meant to. It depends entirely on off board activity. Because counter bounties and board to board activity, have, in my opinion and as I have argued, actually killed off the BB.
This leads me to ask you a question: What do PvP players do all day? I've asked it before, and no-one has answered. You are not on the BB, it is dead. Are you sitting around having a quiet chat and checking up on world news? Am I to believe that you are NOT doing hits off the board? You admitted in your own comment you do, and sometimes get banned for it. So either you are doing nothing and your game style is dead anyway. Or you are doing hits, and not being bountied. The second is my contention. If you give people a reason to bounty - decent punishment, and a reason to bounty hunt - decent reward and immunity from the Counter bounties which drove them from the board in the first place, you will have more board activity, more players playing PvP, more of the community involved and happy with the way PvP functions within the whole game, IMHO. You may disagree,and defend the current defunct system.
So yeah - I'm vilifying CB's generally. They have strangled the life out of the game style you love Maehdros, in my opinion, by making people disinclined to work the BB, or hit back, for fear of being CB'd. As I have explained at length up thread. Twice. In using them you are harming your own style of play. Don't believe me - just look at the board.
You see there is the problem. "Sure, there's some (not so nice) people who counter bounty everything". Your words. This act destroys faith in hitting back, in bounty hunting, in doing a delevel party. You can't blame some 'bad apples' and expect no negative consequences. Saying "they did it, but I'm okay!" Doesn't work, especially not if you are their ally/guildmate. Especially not if you participated in the counter bounty as a hitter. What is the rest of the game population to make of that position? They can't trust you. They don't trust PvP. They don't participate anymore - your game style gets smaller. You cannot get away with blaming poor choices to CB on "those guys" it is on your entire community, like it or not - it negatively effects your entire community, like it or not.
"Anyone who partakes in pvp runs the possibility of being bountied once they click *attack player*. That's regardless of whether its a bounty or an off the board hit. I don't understand why that should be changed. An attack is an attack. Are you saying that the bounty board is not player versus player?"
It should be changed because the BB is dead, and it is dead because, as I have explained, counter bounties have strangled your game. Bounties do not work. They are no deterrent, and precious little punishment currently, as any heavy punishment gets CB'd. In the short term you get more action, in the long term it drives people out.
An attack is not an attack. That is false. The initial attack is a premeditated strike on an unwary opponent in order to gain gold. That attacker has all the advantages. After he has made the attack he can act to defend himself, gear and buffs to make a hit back harder. He doesn't know when he'll be hit, true, but he has an idea he has it coming - unlike the first person. He gets put on the BB - he can defend himself. If he gets put on when he is offline - well that is no worse than attacking someone without warning is it? Seems fair. Counter bountying someone punishes the person who is trying to act for the initial victim, it is an attempt to obstruct natural justice, and I have argued that over the years it has worked - this is where we are on the BB.
The BB is player vs player. Nowhere do I deny it - you can only be hit by another player on the BB, so what is your point - how am I removing the P from PvP, by promoting PvP play on the BB? It has been held up as the highest art form - dancing on the BB was supposed to be fun and cool. The challenge of playing an active human opponent. And yet it no longer happens much, and you are trying to say that has nothing to do with your own actions or style of play. I think that there is a connection, and I have demonstrated it. You can feel free to disagree and come up with your own thesis.
I think that if the BB is dead, and PvP players and guilds persist and are active, then 1) benefit to PvP players and guilds extends from an inactive bounty board - the reduction of real risk to their players as explained upthread. 2) They are still playing PvP. If you were not, you'd have retired by now. As I have asked repeatedly - what are you doing all day if not PvPing? If you are not PvPing and just playing other aspects of the game, why keep the BB at all? Why defend a dead institution? Because you derive benefit from it. I can't prove that, it is a deduction. I asked for the relevant stats upthread. But the answers I have received have done nothing to dissuade me that my deduction is far off the mark. Therefore you are still hitting off the board and not being punished for it - which suits you fine, that is the win in your game style. It just is not helping the overall game anymore, IMO, as nobody else wants to play that way. Why else did the community ask for PvP protection, if not to defend themselves as they found the BB incapable of doing so?
Ahh - CHOICE - that old chestnut. Thanks for giving me the chance to address that. Do you really believe the choice is equal in PvP?
Choice exists on the PvP side, not the victim's side.
The PVP player chooses when and where to first hit. Advantage to the PvP side.
The person hit gets to *choose*
1) To ignore the hit and accept the loss. Choose to be a victim.
2) Hit back, and run the risk of counter bounty. Choose to be victimised twice.
3) Bounty and let a BH do their fighting for them. But the BH does 10 stam hits, or the target is soft cleared by his friends, who take the posters posted gold after doing little harm to their buddy. The choice to be a victim at second hand.
4) Organise a delevel party, running the risk that his friends who do a hit on a PvP player in a Pvp guild will all be deleveled. The choice to make his friends victims too.
What is appealing about those choices? The person who first hit has the last laugh in all of them. As I explained up thread any escalation of counter bounties favours the Pvp player, guild and allies as they 1) Like the pvp game and are motivated to play it, 2) have the numbers to keep coming back. Those who are not as committed will fold first most of the time, having lost more levels than they inflicted. So being big and ballsy and trying to fight it out just means more losses in the end on the victim's side. This is a lesson that has been taught over the years and well absorbed by the non-pVP playing community. As explained upthread.
The PvP player has the choice to counter bounty if hit back or bountied. Advantage to the PvP side. Every time.
Choice is an illusion you'd like us all to believe we have when we get hit - but all our options end up the same, with Pvp players on the ascendant. This is why the rest of the community
CHOSE TO WALK AWAY.
Or in fact chose 1) to be a victim, not make a fuss and not bounty - anything for a quiet life.
Choice like risk is decidedly one sided in the current system. And all in favour of the Pvp guild structure and the Bb as it exists now.
My idea makes the BB one sided? Maybe it seems that way to you given you do not see how the current system is so one sided in your favour. I'm offereing to balance something long imbalanced - to give the victim actual redress, and the PvP players actual competition and activity. My aim is to boost the whole community.
My system, as said upthread many times - gives more players the chance to participate. Yes Pvp players will get bountied more often (if you are actually doing any hits), but you will have the chance to take more and richer bounties. There would be more activity on the board, which can only be PvP - so you would get more chances to fight on the board against other players. More playing of your game - the Pvp game.
Want to PvP? Go hit someone - get bountied and duke it out! What is so hard to comprehend in that? You gold hit anyway, and then you get more opportunities to fight on the board against folk who are no longer afraid of being CB'd off the board and out of the PvP game. You get more playmates, and some of them will switch codes after a while. The price you pay? Some levels lost. The PvP community has always maintained it did not care that much about levels and that they can be freely regained. Is that true or not? So hit, fight, lose some levels, regain them, rinse and repeat.
"However, maintaining the board as a chopping block for those who pvp ( off the board hits being the only *bountyable action) , yet a bounty free opportunity for those who want to smash/ gain bounty medals, or prestige isn't the way to go about it."
I think it is. I think I've explained why. The board currently is a chopping block for those who do not Pvp regularly and who are not in the club - how is that in any way any better? What is your alternative suggestion? Because once again - if you are defending the status quo you are defending a dead system that favours the PvP side heavily, and has failed. The Pvp community can stick with it, but not be surprised that nothing continues to happen. As I have explained upthread - your excellence and skill in using legal game mechanics to dominate your game space has ironically killed it at the same time.
Good-bye and hello, as always.
Veteran
Posted 08 April 2014 - 17:55
Now if you want, I can draw conclusions about how you never started commenting on any type of pvp thread until a member of the guild you are in got smashed for trash talking on a 10 stam clear. Which is probably the reason you are against "counter bounties" and you so harshly flame PvP.
Know a little of the situation you're referencing here as friends with the BHer in question and those that deleveled the player.
Just for clarification, the reported "trash talk" occurred AFTER the BH'er was deleveled for the 10 stam clear.
Then as I understand it things got heated and things were said. The justification for the deleveling on a 10 stam clear was because it was felt the BHer should not have taken the bounty as it was too close to the expiration time. The BHer did complete the bounty.
Wasn't that the correct order of events?
-
Not getting into who was right/wrong, whatever, that's been hashed and re-hashed, just think the order of events since you bring it up are worth noting.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 18:04
well,OP.. thanks for the suggestion about pvp WHICH BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION YOU DONT TAKE PART IN....
point 1, it works against point 3..why would guildies wanna clear ya bounty if you cant be cleared quickly and cheaply..they aint gonna work for the poster..
point2, is the most stupid suggestion getting bandied round in FS at the minute....all it would do is bring yellow backs out of the shadows to smash peeps on the BB with no come back..
point 3, see point 1
point 4, meh... but id have the new medals if they were introduced 
i agree the BB could be busier and more active but the introduction of your ideas will not solve this ....
IMO the BB is quiet because
1,the player numbers are dropping week by week.
2, super pots means peeps dont hunt as often as they used to so less gold on hand at anyone time.
how about dropping the attack range when attacking someone higher than you, this would get the BB some life..
Posted 08 April 2014 - 18:12
"My purpose is to demonstrate that saying 'risk' must remain in the system is disingenous if you are a PvP player defending that system, as 'risk' - or rather - the probability of being hit back or delevelled for your actions has been systematically reduced by PvP play style. Entirely within game rules. The PvP player has a low probability of being bountied, and then if bountied, a low probability of actually losing 5. This is not risky by any stretch of the imagination. The word risk implies chance of failure. PvP players, on each individual gold hit, are not running much risk at all."
You realize you just contradicted your self with this statement, and that makes your whole argument invalid as of this second.
Here are the definitions of risk:
1. A situation involving exposure to danger
2. The possibility that something unpleasant or unwelcome will happen
3. A person or thing regarded as a threat or likely source of danger
4. A possibility of harm or damage against which something is insured
5. A person or thing regarded as likely to turn out well or badly in a particular
6. Expose (someone or something valued) to danger, harm, or loss
7. Act in such a way as to bring about the possibility of (an unpleasant or unwelcome event)
8. Incur the chance of unfortunate consequences by engaging in (an action)
And those are from a dictionary, which makes your idea of risk in this game invalid.
Now from my perspective, in all of my years of playing, I don't think I have ever seen you on the bounty board once, ever, now you're trying to argue PvP methods, tactics (or whatever) when you have zero experience with PvP, other than probably being hit for your gold and you felt that the punishment delivered to the attacker wasn't up to your standards.
A PvP hit or hits have risk, and ending up on the bounty board or not, and losing levels or not is the risk the attacker is taking. It's up to the person who was hit to decide if they want to post the bounty or not. Some do, some don't. Don't try to bring an aspect of the game that you have little to no experience in to your standards.
Hi vastilos
So you are choosing to nitpick over the definition of risk. Fine. I thought about consulting a dictionary - obviously should have done. You got me. I could edit that sentence and the rest of the point I make would still be valid. There is no contradiction in saying that the risk to a PvP player of any negative consequence to his act of hitting another player is low when he is not often going to be bountied, and not often be punished heavily when he is bountied. That is kind of a logical inference to be honest.
You ignore my position that PvP players talk about 'risk' when they are not at much 'risk' of losing levels in the current system. That by reducing activity on the BB you have reduced the chance that for any given hit you will be punished. Maybe you addressed that in your next post.
You state I have no experience with PvP and therefore have no right to talk about it. Fine - ignore what I'm saying. If it is so off base it should not be worthy of a reply.
You then go back to talking about all hits having risk. I agree. I just think that there is a lot more risk of negative consequences to a non-pVP player in the current system than PvP player. PvP has insulated itself from risk by driving away competition and making the bounty system unrewarding to those who try it.
If losing levels is not the risk the attacker is taking what is? Double XP loss? I have explained that that is not really sufficient - if it was people would still use the board.
The fact of the matter is the board is dead - your board is dead. The more you fight any possible change to the system - even as an idea like mine - the more you convince me you like it this way. Yet you don't seem able to explain or admit that.
I have pointed out now that the choice to bounty is also a false choice in the current system.
What are my standards? What are yours? How do you know they are so very different? PvP and the board are an integral part of the game and effect everyone, PvP active player or not. Therefore everyone can and should be entitled to an opinion.
Good-bye and hello, as always.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 18:17
Hello Maehdros - thanks for the reply.
I will again be upfront and say I pretty much totally disagree with you. I will try to explain why.
You think the board can thrive off board based hits or counter bounties. The simple evidence of board inactivity speaks otherwise.
You think this may have something to do with dwindling game numbers. And gold being harder to find. Gold is harder to find because it is rational when faced with gold thieves in the game to take measures to hide it.
Numbers dwindling. Well, if you want to go there... there is one in game activity above all others that may have a negative effect on in game numbers, has a negative effect on players' in game experience, and may actively drive players out of the game.
That activity is PvP. If you want me to go into detail I can and will at length. I think you know the arguments.
So it is a little rich to say - "Well Pvp isn't active so much, because the game isn't active so much, which PvP may in fact have contributed to."
Unless you are prepared to say that PvP has had nothing to do with players quitting the game. Are you prepared to claim that?
Off board hits get banned. That is between you and HCS then. They seem to find some off board activities deleterious to the game and act to stop them. You feel they are being heavy handed. I have no axe to grind there, I have no evidence of it one way or another.
Yep. In my system off board activity leads to on board activity, as it was meant to. It depends entirely on off board activity. Because counter bounties and board to board activity, have, in my opinion and as I have argued, actually killed off the BB.
This leads me to ask you a question: What do PvP players do all day? I've asked it before, and no-one has answered. You are not on the BB, it is dead. Are you sitting around having a quiet chat and checking up on world news? Am I to believe that you are NOT doing hits off the board? You admitted in your own comment you do, and sometimes get banned for it. So either you are doing nothing and your game style is dead anyway. Or you are doing hits, and not being bountied. The second is my contention. If you give people a reason to bounty - decent punishment, and a reason to bounty hunt - decent reward and immunity from the Counter bounties which drove them from the board in the first place, you will have more board activity, more players playing PvP, more of the community involved and happy with the way PvP functions within the whole game, IMHO. You may disagree,and defend the current defunct system.
So yeah - I'm vilifying CB's generally. They have strangled the life out of the game style you love Maehdros, in my opinion, by making people disinclined to work the BB, or hit back, for fear of being CB'd. As I have explained at length up thread. Twice. In using them you are harming your own style of play. Don't believe me - just look at the board.
You see there is the problem. "Sure, there's some (not so nice) people who counter bounty everything". Your words. This act destroys faith in hitting back, in bounty hunting, in doing a delevel party. You can't blame some 'bad apples' and expect no negative consequences. Saying "they did it, but I'm okay!" Doesn't work, especially not if you are their ally/guildmate. Especially not if you participated in the counter bounty as a hitter. What is the rest of the game population to make of that position? They can't trust you. They don't trust PvP. They don't participate anymore - your game style gets smaller. You cannot get away with blaming poor choices to CB on "those guys" it is on your entire community, like it or not - it negatively effects your entire community, like it or not.
"Anyone who partakes in pvp runs the possibility of being bountied once they click *attack player*. That's regardless of whether its a bounty or an off the board hit. I don't understand why that should be changed. An attack is an attack. Are you saying that the bounty board is not player versus player?"
It should be changed because the BB is dead, and it is dead because, as I have explained, counter bounties have strangled your game. Bounties do not work. They are no deterrent, and precious little punishment currently, as any heavy punishment gets CB'd. In the short term you get more action, in the long term it drives people out.
An attack is not an attack. That is false. The initial attack is a premeditated strike on an unwary opponent in order to gain gold. That attacker has all the advantages. After he has made the attack he can act to defend himself, gear and buffs to make a hit back harder. He doesn't know when he'll be hit, true, but he has an idea he has it coming - unlike the first person. He gets put on the BB - he can defend himself. If he gets put on when he is offline - well that is no worse than attacking someone without warning is it? Seems fair. Counter bountying someone punishes the person who is trying to act for the initial victim, it is an attempt to obstruct natural justice, and I have argued that over the years it has worked - this is where we are on the BB.
The BB is player vs player. Nowhere do I deny it - you can only be hit by another player on the BB, so what is your point - how am I removing the P from PvP, by promoting PvP play on the BB? It has been held up as the highest art form - dancing on the BB was supposed to be fun and cool. The challenge of playing an active human opponent. And yet it no longer happens much, and you are trying to say that has nothing to do with your own actions or style of play. I think that there is a connection, and I have demonstrated it. You can feel free to disagree and come up with your own thesis.
I think that if the BB is dead, and PvP players and guilds persist and are active, then 1) benefit to PvP players and guilds extends from an inactive bounty board - the reduction of real risk to their players as explained upthread. 2) They are still playing PvP. If you were not, you'd have retired by now. As I have asked repeatedly - what are you doing all day if not PvPing? If you are not PvPing and just playing other aspects of the game, why keep the BB at all? Why defend a dead institution? Because you derive benefit from it. I can't prove that, it is a deduction. I asked for the relevant stats upthread. But the answers I have received have done nothing to dissuade me that my deduction is far off the mark. Therefore you are still hitting off the board and not being punished for it - which suits you fine, that is the win in your game style. It just is not helping the overall game anymore, IMO, as nobody else wants to play that way. Why else did the community ask for PvP protection, if not to defend themselves as they found the BB incapable of doing so?
Ahh - CHOICE - that old chestnut. Thanks for giving me the chance to address that. Do you really believe the choice is equal in PvP?
Choice exists on the PvP side, not the victim's side.
The PVP player chooses when and where to first hit. Advantage to the PvP side.
The person hit gets to *choose*
1) To ignore the hit and accept the loss. Choose to be a victim.
2) Hit back, and run the risk of counter bounty. Choose to be victimised twice.
3) Bounty and let a BH do their fighting for them. But the BH does 10 stam hits, or the target is soft cleared by his friends, who take the posters posted gold after doing little harm to their buddy. The choice to be a victim at second hand.
4) Organise a delevel party, running the risk that his friends who do a hit on a PvP player in a Pvp guild will all be deleveled. The choice to make his friends victims too.
What is appealing about those choices? The person who first hit has the last laugh in all of them. As I explained up thread any escalation of counter bounties favours the Pvp player, guild and allies as they 1) Like the pvp game and are motivated to play it, 2) have the numbers to keep coming back. Those who are not as committed will fold first most of the time, having lost more levels than they inflicted. So being big and ballsy and trying to fight it out just means more losses in the end on the victim's side. This is a lesson that has been taught over the years and well absorbed by the non-pVP playing community. As explained upthread.
The PvP player has the choice to counter bounty if hit back or bountied. Advantage to the PvP side. Every time.
Choice is an illusion you'd like us all to believe we have when we get hit - but all our options end up the same, with Pvp players on the ascendant. This is why the rest of the community
CHOSE TO WALK AWAY.
Or in fact chose 1) to be a victim, not make a fuss and not bounty - anything for a quiet life.
Choice like risk is decidedly one sided in the current system. And all in favour of the Pvp guild structure and the Bb as it exists now.
My idea makes the BB one sided? Maybe it seems that way to you given you do not see how the current system is so one sided in your favour. I'm offereing to balance something long imbalanced - to give the victim actual redress, and the PvP players actual competition and activity. My aim is to boost the whole community.
My system, as said upthread many times - gives more players the chance to participate. Yes Pvp players will get bountied more often (if you are actually doing any hits), but you will have the chance to take more and richer bounties. There would be more activity on the board, which can only be PvP - so you would get more chances to fight on the board against other players. More playing of your game - the Pvp game.
Want to PvP? Go hit someone - get bountied and duke it out! What is so hard to comprehend in that? You gold hit anyway, and then you get more opportunities to fight on the board against folk who are no longer afraid of being CB'd off the board and out of the PvP game. You get more playmates, and some of them will switch codes after a while. The price you pay? Some levels lost. The PvP community has always maintained it did not care that much about levels and that they can be freely regained. Is that true or not? So hit, fight, lose some levels, regain them, rinse and repeat.
"However, maintaining the board as a chopping block for those who pvp ( off the board hits being the only *bountyable action) , yet a bounty free opportunity for those who want to smash/ gain bounty medals, or prestige isn't the way to go about it."
I think it is. I think I've explained why. The board currently is a chopping block for those who do not Pvp regularly and who are not in the club - how is that in any way any better? What is your alternative suggestion? Because once again - if you are defending the status quo you are defending a dead system that favours the PvP side heavily, and has failed. The Pvp community can stick with it, but not be surprised that nothing continues to happen. As I have explained upthread - your excellence and skill in using legal game mechanics to dominate your game space has ironically killed it at the same time.
Now under your idiotic BB rules, why would someone want to even attack anyone else in the first place? No attacks means no bounties, which means the bounty board go dead. You have ZERO experience with pvp, as you've said, you do not pvp, now you want the board changed to YOUR rules. My guess would be that you were a victim of a gold hit and cried because you didn't see the person who hit you lose all 5 levels. That's going to be my conclusion. Make those page long posts where you do nothing but draw your own conclusions and contradict yourself at the same time. The only people who support this fart of an idea are those who want pvp removed from the game, like yourself.
"You ignore my position that PvP players talk about 'risk' when they are not at much 'risk' of losing levels in the current system."
The bounty board punishment is losing twice the experience that you would if you got hit off the ladder. There is no mention of level loss, which you clearly want, and is completely stupid.
"If losing levels is not the risk the attacker is taking what is? Double XP loss? I have explained that that is not really sufficient - if it was people would still use the board."
Again, you and everyone that does not pvp wants level loss, and because it doesn't happen, you cry.
"I have pointed out now that the choice to bounty is also a false choice in the current system."
Here is your choice: Post a bounty or do not post a bounty. If the choice wasn't there, then the Bounty Board wouldn't be in the game. So, no offense intended, but what you just said there is something I would expect a french fry to say.
I honestly cannot wait for this change to happen and the game numbers to drop. Then I will be coming here every single day just to rub it in your face.
Your ignorance towards pvp really is amusing and provides a good read, but that's it. You're just like everyone else who doesn't like pvp, you cry until a change is made in your favor.
Edited by vastilos, 08 April 2014 - 18:27.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 18:17
Sigh your posts are soooo long lol...
Anyway I see that the argument has switched to "risk" which to a large extent is pretty minimal anymore.
Another possible thought to increase the "risk" for the attacker is to increase what they lose if they lose the combat?
Example if the attacker loses the loses are multiplied by 10x
(So they would lose 10x the xp and 10x the gold ) this would be for normal pvp only (not ladder or BB)
*if they lose they can not be posted, but if they win you can still post them.
They are long because I need to explain my position clearly. Sorry about that, but I think short posts could leave ambiguities.
I have not switched to risk - I was merely deciding that while I'm here I should point out that that frequently used defence of PvP as it stands - 'risk' - is not much of a defence given how the system currently works. So if it does get invoked I can just say - look there, your risk is fairly minimal if you think about it.
Good-bye and hello, as always.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 18:31
They are long because I need to explain my position clearly. Sorry about that, but I think short posts could leave ambiguities.
I have not switched to risk - I was merely deciding that while I'm here I should point out that that frequently used defence of PvP as it stands - 'risk' - is not much of a defence given how the system currently works. So if it does get invoked I can just say - look there, your risk is fairly minimal if you think about it.
The risk isn't minimal. What don't you understand? Even if someone on the BB is hit just once, they've already lost twice the exp as the person who was hit has. I don't understand how you don't get that. Oh wait, you want full level loss, forgot about that. You want the PvP system changed to suit you and everyone else who is against PvP. I forgot about that, sorry.
Anyways, I'm out of here. I could care less. Talking to you is like talking to a stone wall. You think you know what's best for a pvp, even though you don't pvp. You think your way is the best way because it suits the "anti-pvp" crowd that you yourself are in. You only want what's best for you, nothing else.
Edited by vastilos, 08 April 2014 - 18:38.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 18:58
"CB has been used for years by PvP players and guilds to dominate and drive other players off the BB."
You have zero proof of this, and it's nothing but an assumption at best. It is a deduction, as I said elsewhere, and reinforced by the fact that the BB is dead. I have made a detailed argument as to why and how that works. You are free to ignore it.
"They also recognise that soft clears using 10 stam do not do very much damage to the gold thief who hit them"
Ok, so the double exp loss the attacker suffers every hit on the BB wasn't considered, and if it was, you failed to mention it just to make your argument look prettier.. I have noted it, and pointed out multiple times that double XP loss to a breed of player who claim they don't care about XP loss is not much of a deterrent.
"The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. By CBing and doling out far more damage than they receive they have driven competition off the BB, both from other guilds who are not as committed to the PvP cause as they, and from independent BH's who find it hard to justify the loss of levels for the rate of reward"
How have PvP players insulated themselves from risk when they risk ending up on the bounty board with every hit they do? I hate to be rude - but did you read what I wrote? it is explained in lengthly detail - in that very post. You are exposed to a very LOW level of risk with every hit. Few people bounty you, and very few 100 stam you. The risk you are so proud of, and like to project to the rest of the game as high - is in fact very low, because few people use the BB in any fashion.. Again, more B.S. just to make what you wrote look prettier. You are free to believe that. You want to smash someone for the smasher medal, expect to be smashed back. I do not care about the smasher medal. How medals are obtained do not matter any more I believe, all that matters is how the individual gained them - the smasher medal is no more or less special than any other medal. If this system promptes smashing - great - you can get your smasher medal doing bounties too - they are open to all. 10 stamina clears are rarely counter bountied for a reason, but since you have zero pvp experience, I'll leave you to figure out why. The problem with the current system is I have to take your word on that - that 10 stam clears are very rarely CB'd. Why should I have to? Why should the rest of the game population accept the unwritten rules of the BB? Why should the initial aggressor get to choose whether or not to accept his punishment?
"So if we exchange the word 'risk' for chance or better still probability - we see that the probability of a PvP player losing 5 for a gold hit has been systematically reduced by PvP activity. All legally done. But detrimental to your own game. No-one is interested in playing anymore. Not much fun playing a game where you always lose. Conversley - the PvP community likes this game just fine, they win most of the time. But in winning they are losing players to play with - their game gets smaller, the gold available has got smaller. The PvP community starts asking for incentives to help their game, without realising that they are the reason their game is smaller."
So you believe that players should lose the full 5 levels for a gold hit? 3 levels - we've been here before. You think players are leaving the game because the attacker isn't losing the full 5 levels for the 10% of their gold on hand they lose? I think players are leaving the game because they have their game adversely and negatively affected by PvP, find no adequate redress, and decide a game in which PvP players are not held to account for their aggression is not for them. This is not the only reason players leave the game, but uniquely of all game styles PvP does actively adversely affect another player. That cannot be refuted - though you are welcome to try. You draw too many conclusions from something you no nothing about.Then my ignorance is widely and openly displayed - what do you have to fear from it? There have been plenty of posts on how to make yourself less of a target (aka don't hold millions of gold while hunting or trying to manipulate the fsp marketplace) and from the looks of it, people are listening, that's probably a good reason why there's less activity on the BB (just an assumption I am making).I agree that folk have learned how to hide gold. it has made it harder for gold thieves.
The PvP community is asking for more incentive because people started listening to the PvP'ers who told them how to become less of a target and they started to listen carry less gold on hand now.
But I am willing to bet that thought never entered your mind... not even for a second. PvP'ers told them... out of the kindness of your hearts, no doubt. You taught them - by hitting for gold. Don't try to get brownie points. I believe I have discussed gold loss upthread. With you in fact. It has entered my mind prior to this moment.
I could pick apart your last post, but I have things that I need to do. It'll still be there tomorrow. But your entire post is nothing but speculation at best, nothing more, nothing less. And the fact that Grim is going to talk to Hoof about this already shows that it will end up happening, and the bounty board will wither and die away. Congratulations.Thanks. <-- that was sarcasm. The BB IS withering and dying anyway as it is now - and yet you defend it so passionately. What do you gain from it? Why are you so resistant to change?
Now if you want, I can draw conclusions about how you never started commenting on any type of pvp thread until a member of the guild you are in got smashed for trash talking on a 10 stam clear. Which is probably the reason you are against "counter bounties" and you so harshly flame PvP.I've been waiting for this one to come up. I have not flamed you or anyone here - I asked Rekluse to chill out when he posted in a way that could be seen as antagonistic to Pvp players - look upthread. I'm sticking to the argument, playing the ball, not the man. You are trying to play the man, by the way, and that is a poor form in an argument, but I'll let it go. The simple fact is you are wrong. I cannot offer proof - but I think this is a very long and detailed way of going about my evil plan - no? I have watched and avoided PvP threads for years because they became violent flamefests and rarely if ever moved the argument forward. I have noticed the same patterns come up and been dissatisfied with them, (risk, choice, etc.) but did not feel strongly enough to say anything, nor did I have any credible alternative. I do now, so I have spoken up, as is my right. I have been supportive of PvP globals and have suggested formats for them, some similar to the ones being discussed on another thread. I ghave been supportive of positive changes to the PvP ladder and agreed with many of Chazz suggestions for it. I think Ryebred's suggestions for GvG are excellent. I can talk and agree with PvP players on these and other subjects, but I can continue to disagree on PvP. In fact over the course of this thread I have learned more of why I think PvP as it stands is bad for the game. I think PvP is part of the game that should be supported, but is currently poorly functional at best - see your BB. You may continue to doubt my motives, and cast a shadow on my character as a result, there is nothing I can do about that.
One more thing, since you want to the bounty board run your way, then the smasher medal should be removed from bounty board hits, since people will then get to earn their smasher medals for free (which I bet you also some how forgot to take into consideration). Now with that said, Master Thief better work 100% of the time under your current B.S. system.I have elsewhere argued that to fight against a change based on it effect on a medal is no longer valid seeing as the new Guild medals thread had a cross-section of the community being okay with medals being exploited if it meant more activity. So it does not matter anymore how the smasher medal is obtained - just like it doesn't really matter how defender of the realm is obtained. How the medal is gained is only important to the player who earns it. I argued against that, (which would help your cause here) but was ignored.
As for master thief. No. We talked about that already. If you want to continue to be unreasonable about it I'll say I've reconsidered taking the gold sink out of the Pvp incentive loop, as the gold sink is the main way PvP contributes to the whole community. If, as I suspect, you are still doing gold hits off the board and not even being bountied for them, then I am not sure you need any extra bonus to MT or Thievery either, the imaginary system would increase gold in the PvP system by bigger bounties and more activity alone, (if it worked) perhaps no need to adjust any other areas.
Good-bye and hello, as always.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 19:09
well,OP.. thanks for the suggestion about pvp WHICH BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION YOU DONT TAKE PART IN....
point 1, it works against point 3..why would guildies wanna clear ya bounty if you cant be cleared quickly and cheaply..they aint gonna work for the poster..
point2, is the most stupid suggestion getting bandied round in FS at the minute....all it would do is bring yellow backs out of the shadows to smash peeps on the BB with no come back..
point 3, see point 1
point 4, meh... but id have the new medals if they were introduced
i agree the BB could be busier and more active but the introduction of your ideas will not solve this ....
IMO the BB is quiet because
1,the player numbers are dropping week by week.
2, super pots means peeps dont hunt as often as they used to so less gold on hand at anyone time.
how about dropping the attack range when attacking someone higher than you, this would get the BB some life..
Hello leefylee! I hear you - no need to yell. Feel free to discount my ideas then.
Guildies would want to clear your bounty because the point is if the punishment is set, there is no need to fear guildies soft clearing each other, so why keep the restriction. No other reason. Anyone is then open to take a bounty. If you don't want to take it... don't.
Yellow backs? Nice way to talk about your fellow gamers. Bonus. I have explained that the 'come back' you like is probably what has emptied the board - but you are welcome to keep it that way.
Your reasons for why the BB is less active may be true.
If you extend the attack range without extending the deterrent what do you get? Some new activity, some higher level players buying PvP protection to minimise the embarrassment of being hit by some one much lower level than them, and the same old same old. The structural problems with the way the BB works which I have explained would remain the same.
Good-bye and hello, as always.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 19:22
The risk isn't minimal. Yes it is and I've explained why. You have failed to explain why it isn't. What don't you understand? Even if someone on the BB is hit just once, they've already lost twice the exp as the person who was hit has. I don't understand how you don't get that.Dude I don't get how you don't understand that a community that has been told by PvP players "we don't care about losing levels" realises that taking maybe one level off a pvp player on the Bb is no deterrent, and no punishment for that activity. The results speak for themselves - no bounties get posted - why post a bounty when you know a soft clear is going to happen and your attacker's buddies are the most likely recipients of your bounty gold? Why be victimised twice? Oh wait, you want full level loss, forgot about that. You want the PvP system changed to suit you and everyone else who is against PvP. I forgot about that, sorry. No problem - the PvP system currently suits you perfectly well, I understand why you wouldn't want it changed. Full level loss is important as it helps the target delevel the Pvp player and have a chance of getting out of range - and... how come you are now bothered about your levels? The PvP community has told players in the past that they are easy to regain and shouldn't cry over them - many many times - why are you so bothered about needing to regain them yourself in this system? Is it because you don't want to lose levels, just like your targets? Not so different after all. And you can't claim you're not bothered because you keep bringing it up.
Anyways, I'm out of here. I could care less. Talking to you is like talking to a stone wall. I feel you, brother. You think you know what's best for a pvp, even though you don't pvp. I live and play in a game system that is in part shaped by its PvP system - I have every right to my opinion. You think your way is the best way because it suits the "anti-pvp" crowd that you yourself are in. You only want what's best for you, nothing else. As do you, frankly, nothing you've said has shown me otherwise. I want what is best for the game.
Good-bye and hello, as always.
Posted 08 April 2014 - 19:32
Now under your idiotic BB rules, why would someone want to even attack anyone else in the first place? No attacks means no bounties, which means the bounty board go dead. You have ZERO experience with pvp, as you've said, you do not pvp, now you want the board changed to YOUR rules. My guess would be that you were a victim of a gold hit and cried because you didn't see the person who hit you lose all 5 levels. That's going to be my conclusion. Make those page long posts where you do nothing but draw your own conclusions and contradict yourself at the same time. The only people who support this fart of an idea are those who want pvp removed from the game, like yourself.
"You ignore my position that PvP players talk about 'risk' when they are not at much 'risk' of losing levels in the current system."
The bounty board punishment is losing twice the experience that you would if you got hit off the ladder. There is no mention of level loss, which you clearly want, and is completely stupid.
"If losing levels is not the risk the attacker is taking what is? Double XP loss? I have explained that that is not really sufficient - if it was people would still use the board."
Again, you and everyone that does not pvp wants level loss, and because it doesn't happen, you cry.
"I have pointed out now that the choice to bounty is also a false choice in the current system."
Here is your choice: Post a bounty or do not post a bounty. If the choice wasn't there, then the Bounty Board wouldn't be in the game. So, no offense intended, but what you just said there is something I would expect a french fry to say.
I honestly cannot wait for this change to happen and the game numbers to drop. Then I will be coming here every single day just to rub it in your face.
Your ignorance towards pvp really is amusing and provides a good read, but that's it. You're just like everyone else who doesn't like pvp, you cry until a change is made in your favor.
I'll let Maehdros make a considered reply to my reply to him.
If the answer is - no off board hits are happening - that is why there are no bounties - then we are at an impasse because there is no way of proving that. I did ask HCS about the gold hit data. i doubt they'd share that to settle a forum argument, but if they can identify it, they'll know who is making most sense and will act accordingly.
I believe off board hits are happening, and if a simple system that was fair and punished those hits existed - we'd see more bountied and more board activity. Which is what PvP players want. But the PvP community cannot let go of CB's. Why?
Is the PvP community really inactive? Are you making no hits and that is why the BB is dead?
Why then are you still here? What then do you still do?
You still do not answer those questions.
Wow vastilos - you'd like the game numbers to drop just so you can rub it in my face. We have a winner here folks.
If the game benefitted and thrived, if numbers went up, I'd be happy - would you?
Edited by Belaric, 08 April 2014 - 19:44.
Good-bye and hello, as always.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
