Jump to content

Photo

Proposed Changes


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
903 replies to this topic

#141 mikkyld

mikkyld

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:35

I don't understand why HCS allows people to go down in levels and then move their VL down as well.

This was an unintentional oversight. Players have just started doing this purposefully by intentionally deleveling, sometimes 100s of levels then resetting their level up points. Thereby lowering their VL and players they can attack while the buffs remained unchanged until there was a forced reset. It is contrary to the intention of the Virtual Level!


well the easy fix would be to not allow the reset of points and thus leave the VL where it belongs and the people you can attack the same as well

#142 fs_fradiavolo

fs_fradiavolo
  • Guests

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:35

solution to the problems with prestige: get rid of prestige


+1 .. Get rid of it!



+1 ... I could agree: admit prestige and gvg changes were a failure and go work on nice new content :-)

#143 EJames2100

EJames2100

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:37

My Thoughts in Green

Hi all,

Hi

As mentioned by Forn yesterday we have just finished an exceedingly fun meeting interrupted by Hoof requiring Cake so we are posting this a little later than expected.

Hope the cake was good!

First on the Agenda is the PvP / Prestige System.

The proposed changes are :-

- No prestige gain from inactive accounts.
Indeed, I'd also say PvP but most won't like that(Dunno if this was changed or not).

- Prestige can only be gained from the same player once every 7 days.
Perfectly fine waiting time I think.

- No prestige gain from PvP against your own guild members.
Yes, hopefully this will also bring back Guild PvP, got a guildie near me I just wanna hit :D

- PvP rating will no longer effect the amount of prestige gained per combat.
Thank you, sucked when it did.

- The Top 100 players on the PvP ladder will recieve a weekly bonus.
Don't see why not, they worked for the spot.
Yeah yeah they all bought their points, but what did they buy their points with ?
Yes fsp, fsp also buys the tops lvling spots in FS too, it also buys SE Locs, it also buys Arena sets, fsp can buy almost everything in this game.


We feel these changes should improve PvP and remove most if not all abuse of the PvP system.
Hopefully an improvement :)

Second on the Agenda is Guild Conflicts.

After a length discussion and a number of good ideas to improve the system. We have decided to change the current system drastically. More details of this will follow soon. We plan to rectify the issues with people trading RP points aswell as other abuses of the system as it currently stands.
Hope to see some interesting ideas about this as GvG is a fun thing in this game.

Additional changes.

It will now cost double stamina to activate skills if you no-longer meet the level required to learn the skill.
No, not at all.
I'm sure they put in a lot of hard work and fsp into achieving that high lvl, they then made the decision to lose all of that when they wanted to be a low lvl and have things easier for themselves.
I see this as a bug in the game as do a lot of other people and should be fixed accordingly, it should be tied to your VL.



#144 mikkyld

mikkyld

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:38

Loosing levels does NOT increase you pvp or gvg level of targets in any way shape or form. Your pvp is +-5 of your VL and GvG is +-25 of your VL[/quote]

Yes I missed that bleltch said as long as the VL isnt reset. But when the VL is reset, the only real advantage is they new targets available.

#145 mikkyld

mikkyld

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:40

And I know you don't want me to keep them because it's a huge unfair advantage...



And now you can shut the frack up little forum troll, you ve made your point about wanting to keep abusing higher level buffs :lol:

.


You know I generally like your posts but I do not understand why you feel superior in this case. You troll every bit as much in pursuit of getting your ideas accepted - often it seems by sheer number of posts.

#146 Removed22342

Removed22342

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:41

I don't understand why HCS allows people to go down in levels and then move their VL down as well.

This was an unintentional oversight. Players have just started doing this purposefully by intentionally deleveling, sometimes 100s of levels then resetting their level up points. Thereby lowering their VL and players they can attack while the buffs remained unchanged until there was a forced reset. It is contrary to the intention of the Virtual Level!


well the easy fix would be to not allow the reset of points and thus leave the VL where it belongs and the people you can attack the same as well


There are some legit reasons for resetting level up points, such as changing strategy somewhere down the road or simply just because you've made a mistake when allocating them. But a reset should be tied to skill points as well, capping them towards the new VL (which is not how it works today since they're separated). I understand that a change like this would require a bit more work from HCS to implement but I hope they understand why some of us would like to see this happen.

#147 Spitfire666123

Spitfire666123

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Badge

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:42

I don't understand why HCS allows people to go down in levels and then move their VL down as well.

This was an unintentional oversight. Players have just started doing this purposefully by intentionally deleveling, sometimes 100s of levels then resetting their level up points. Thereby lowering their VL and players they can attack while the buffs remained unchanged until there was a forced reset. It is contrary to the intention of the Virtual Level!


well the easy fix would be to not allow the reset of points and thus leave the VL where it belongs and the people you can attack the same as well



no... a better fix is not to tie level in with Stat points... maybe Skill points instead :P

#148 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:43

And I know you don't want me to keep them because it's a huge unfair advantage...

And now you can shut the frack up little forum troll, you ve made your point about wanting to keep abusing higher level buffs :lol:

Meh... And what about you want to keep ur advantage with connection stuff via titan... You telling no to suggestions that could help against speed connection...
You've got ur stuff, I have mine... That's all :roll:

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#149 DaleJunior

DaleJunior

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,563 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:43


2. Also what about losing pvp, xp and cash for a loss. In my opinion if you attack someone, and lose, you should lose pvp rating, cash and xp. Right now just the target loses these. It should apply to the attacker also.


Any attack even a deflected one or a loss is subject to a bounty where the minimum you will loose it 20 times the exp of a 10 stam direct attack.

Loosing more during the attack would be a double punishment.


Hmm..but then again, not all attacks are bountied either. I remember once when you caught me with a couple million on me because the marketplace was moving slowly and hit me. Fortunately for me and my bankroll you lost the battle because I happened to be in one of my arena setups where the armor saved me. :D I didn't bounty you, as would a lot of people, because I lost nothing. I don't really care to spend my bounty tickets unless the attacker cost me something, so I'm kind of in agreement that if a person attacks you and loses, then they should lose a little something as well. Perhaps not as much as the victim would have lost had the attack been successful, but I've always felt that an attacker should at least risk something, even with the possible punishment of the BB. Something that could be discussed in future updates. Just a thought, and I felt I should chime in!

#150 rowbeth

rowbeth

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,108 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:44

I DEEPLY dislike the idea of completely removing any link between prestige gained and exiating PVP rating.

Whenever proposed changes to PVP get raised, there are always a large number of people who wish to enjoy PVP, AND a large number of people who wish to avoid it altogether. Somehow, whenever HCS introduces the topic, it is always from the perspective that makin PVP all-pervasive is a good thing, and all the changes make it more likely that PVP will get imposed on those of us who dislike it, whether we like it or not.

As I have said before, prestige was a backward step in this repsect, since it means that people had little control over what made them an attractive target to be hit. Now they will have none. When PVP just gave the attacker gold, I could reduce the risk of being hit by not holding much gold. When prestige first came in, I could at least make myself an unpalatable target by having a low PVP rating. Now I will have lost even that.

I know my dislike of PVP is a view that is not universally held - it probably isn't even a majority view; but it certainly is a common view - one held by a substantial number of players. Please, HCS, rethink this move. You could easily retain a threshold (< 1000, for example) where the PVP rating of the victim does reduce the prestige gained. A threshold like that would still leave lots of people indulging in PVP for prestige, yet allow those of us for whom it destroys the game to avoid it.

And please make no mistake - it will destroy all interest I have in investing either time or money in this game.


(PS - I would make similar comments about GVG. I really have no interest in it, and find it does nothing to attract me to invest in this game. While I can ignore it that is fine, but it still damages crystal equipment, which in turn costs real resources. In your attempts to "enhance" GVG you would do well to remember that it is not a Universal attractor of people (and hence of your income) to this game.)

#151 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:46

Aight - my 2 pennies on the matter:

No prestige gain from inactive accounts.


Thank U. Took a while for y'all to address this, but better late than sorry :-)

Prestige can only be gained from the same player once every 7 days.


The idea is good, but 7 days is a bit over kill. I say 48 hours sounds like it could kill of most of the abuse (not all, I know).

No prestige gain from PvP against your own guild members.


hehe, pls check Ur systems b4 U tweak 'em :roll:

PvP rating will no longer effect the amount of prestige gained per combat.


Yes, vey nice :) Why be punished just because Ure good at PvPing. Nice one!

The Top 100 players on the PvP ladder will recieve a weekly bonus.


Uhm.. why.. and what? If they get it, why shouldn't top 100 players? Top 100 hoarders etc etc etc Besides, it should be enough reward to just see Ur name on the list!

We feel these changes should improve PvP and remove most if not all abuse of the PvP system.


Yeah there are sum nice ideas there, but still no addressing on the thing sum of us have been craving for a long time. Looser = Looser. No matter who looses the combat, should loose XP, gold etc. Not only the attacked part! As it is, the PvP system favors the attacker to a point, where it is just silly.


It will now cost double stamina to activate skills if you no-longer meet the level required to learn the skill.


And why is that? Those who first spend alotta time leveling up, and after that spend even more time on leveling down again, should be punished?
I read the argument sumwhere, that it gives the downleveled player an unfair advantage.. to whom? Everyone can get lvl 175 buffs, sum just have to pay, while others have worked for 'em. So by saying it should cost double to cast lvl 700 buffs on Urself, if Ure down to lvl 200, is the same as saying it should cost double, for anyone above 700 selling buffs to anyone below. I say nay nay to this! Stop making this game about punishing those, that step outside the norms!

Thnx for reading, Kit

No one can deny that we changed this game and influenced it in such a way that NO ONE could compete with us.. so much so that they changed the rules. ~Abhorrence, chosen founder of Cerulean Sins


#152 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:46

Hmm..but then again, not all attacks are bountied either. I remember once when you caught me with a couple million on me because the marketplace was moving slowly and hit me. Fortunately for me and my bankroll you lost the battle because I happened to be in one of my arena setups where the armor saved me. :D I didn't bounty you, as would a lot of people, because I lost nothing. I don't really care to spend my bounty tickets unless the attacker cost me something, so I'm kind of in agreement that if a person attacks you and loses, then they should lose a little something as well. Perhaps not as much as the victim would have lost had the attack been successful, but I've always felt that an attacker should at least risk something, even with the possible punishment of the BB. Something that could be discussed in future updates. Just a thought, and I felt I should chime in!


That's the players choice to bounty or not. The point is that it is available. You're just making this post so you can point out you beat me on a 2% def win anyways. pfft

#153 Spitfire666123

Spitfire666123

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,096 posts
  • Badge

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:47


2. Also what about losing pvp, xp and cash for a loss. In my opinion if you attack someone, and lose, you should lose pvp rating, cash and xp. Right now just the target loses these. It should apply to the attacker also.


Any attack even a deflected one or a loss is subject to a bounty where the minimum you will loose it 20 times the exp of a 10 stam direct attack.

Loosing more during the attack would be a double punishment.


Hmm..but then again, not all attacks are bountied either. I remember once when you caught me with a couple million on me because the marketplace was moving slowly and hit me. Fortunately for me and my bankroll you lost the battle because I happened to be in one of my arena setups where the armor saved me. :D I didn't bounty you, as would a lot of people, because I lost nothing. I don't really care to spend my bounty tickets unless the attacker cost me something, so I'm kind of in agreement that if a person attacks you and loses, then they should lose a little something as well. Perhaps not as much as the victim would have lost had the attack been successful, but I've always felt that an attacker should at least risk something, even with the possible punishment of the BB. Something that could be discussed in future updates. Just a thought, and I felt I should chime in!


have you ever found yourself on the BB for a random attack that was deflected? if not... its infuriating >.<... the other person didnt lose anything, and yet they felt the need to cost me some xp lol... and once i was deleveled over a deflected hit :(

so yea... it works both ways ;)

#154 MaximusGR

MaximusGR

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:48

You know I generally like your posts but I do not understand why you feel superior in this case. You troll every bit as much in pursuit of getting your ideas accepted - often it seems by sheer number of posts.


Well, trolling is very different than supporting something with reasonable arguments..even if one disagrees with them..There is a discussion on intentional develeling for quite a while, those that abuse that feature are trying to sit on it and let no one take it away but without making a valid argument. Roan even admits its an unfair advantage :roll: And..number of posts?? I am not the one resorting to it in this subject..Whenever i do this i try to be productive in every one of them(not always with results though :lol: )

#155 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:49

There are some legit reasons for resetting level up points, such as changing strategy somewhere down the road or simply just because you've made a mistake when allocating them. But a reset should be tied to skill points as well, capping them towards the new VL (which is not how it works today since they're separated). I understand that a change like this would require a bit more work from HCS to implement but I hope they understand why some of us would like to see this happen.

Those are normal reasons to reset level up points. However, there is only one legit reason to reset level up points after intentionally losing 100s of levels - to retain your many high level buffs and lower any BB costs while having many more disadvantaged targets. One reason.

[Signature removed]

 

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM


#156 YouNoSeeMe

YouNoSeeMe

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,900 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:49

It will now cost double stamina to activate skills if you no-longer meet the level required to learn the skill.


And why is that? Those who first spend alotta time leveling up, and after that spend even more time on leveling down again, should be punished?
I read the argument sumwhere, that it gives the downleveled player an unfair advantage.. to whom? Everyone can get lvl 175 buffs, sum just have to pay, while others have worked for 'em. So by saying it should cost double to cast lvl 700 buffs on Urself, if Ure down to lvl 200, is the same as saying it should cost double, for anyone above 700 selling buffs to anyone below. I say nay nay to this! Stop making this game about punishing those, that step outside the norms!

Thnx for reading, Kit


+1

11ilrurjpg_zps06178485.png


#157 fs_deljzc

fs_deljzc
  • Guests

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:49

So another change to hit people in the face who are playing a different game then some professional complainers want.

Since GvG and prestige were introduced our guild became much more active, guild chat lived up, diplomatic chat between guilds multiplied tenfold or more. Players who almost quit found new purpose.

But because some people think it's not in line with their dreamgame it must change, probably some of those dreamers have access to decision makers in some capacity, as they are served on command, and not the first time.

I think with the destruction of GvG and prestige more and more medium level players will disappear into inactivity again.

So sad. :|


So you are saying your guild can not GvG honestly and must trade RP points to be active and fun?



Everyone who calls RP trading "cheating" or "dishonest" or anything similar needs to go read the definitions of those words. Doing what is allowed within the legal framework of a game (or RL) is not cheating; it is gaming. If schools allow you to read others' work or have your books open to use, it is surely easier, but it is not cheating. And neither is trading RP when HCS allows it.

If HCS made the cost of initiating the same for any guild against any guild and if they made the rule that a tie means 5 rp each guild, then it would not require trading to save gold or stamina. That ought to make GvG more competitive - especially the tie=split RP part.

If they don't make changes like that and if they allow a system where people find it advantageous to accept defeat, then people will do so. Period. And no matter how much it irks many of you, it is not cheating.

FTR, I don't like pure trades but I do not return fire if a guild goes 50/50 - ties are worse than kissing your sister in this case due to wasted stamina. But if they don't get to 50, then we will try to win. It seems simple to me and doesn't waste that much gold or stamina.



I agree with this 100%.

I need a lot more specifics on how things will get fixed before I can say I'm for or against the GvG problems.

Even with all the pre-arranged conflicts and agreeing not to fight back, the prices on the RP prizes are still extrordinary (400-1000-2500 FSP).

How are you going to make guilds use their stamina to fight back? Are you going to Big Brother every PM to police what guild founders "talk about"?

The current rule that higher GvG ratings cost exponentially higher costs to initiate conflicts seems problematic as well. Why is this even there? It just causes vast amounts of spam in the FSBox looking for people to kill them for free to lower their rating.

I actually think the GvG system is fine. So what if guilds are talking and arranging things. It's acting as a huge stamina sink right now that is not pushing gold into the economic system. That's a good thing.

The only thing I would change is the minimum participants should be two (not one). I don't consider "solo guilds", guilds at all. They are just solo players. One-person guilds should be allowed to start conflicts.

#158 Removed22342

Removed22342

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:53

Perhaps not as much as the victim would have lost had the attack been successful, but I've always felt that an attacker should at least risk something, even with the possible punishment of the BB. Something that could be discussed in future updates. Just a thought, and I felt I should chime in!


People loose levels for deflected attacks (combats that doesn't even take place), so I'd say there's plenty of risks present in the game as-is for us evil players.

#159 MaximusGR

MaximusGR

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:54

And I know you don't want me to keep them because it's a huge unfair advantage...

And now you can shut the frack up little forum troll, you ve made your point about wanting to keep abusing higher level buffs :lol:

Meh... And what about you want to keep ur advantage with connection stuff via titan... You telling no to suggestions that could help against speed connection...
You've got ur stuff, I have mine... That's all :roll:


Very different...

I live 7500 miles from the servers, i suffer from slow connection speed and so does my guild lately, so my objection to what was suggested about "leveling the play field" had neither personal nor guild interest in mind, i was explaining why it would not produce the results others were expecting..

I simply dont want "stuff" that others cant have and i dont want you to have something you should not, as yourself have admitted(by calling it unfair)..It is nice while its lasting but it wont be forever, just like all overseen exploits of this game.

#160 fs_deljzc

fs_deljzc
  • Guests

Posted 14 January 2010 - 19:57

I also want to point out another opinion.

Fallen Sword is still primarily a D&D style adventure game. You hunt monster, you save up gold, you buy better equipment, you hunt more monsters and you level. It is unique in how it does all this and offers an enormous social interaction, but it's still this type of game at it's core.

PvP and GvG should always remain "side shows" to this and not be a requirement to play the game or enjoy the game.

I know there is a very vocal group here on the message boards that want PvP and GvG to be apart of every players' lives when they are on-line, but I would caution HCS strongly to be careful whatever changes they propose keeps both GvG and PvP a minor part of the game and not a major part of the game.

I think you will be upsetting a rather large non-vocal group (the vast majority in my opinion) if upcoming rules make GvG or PvP so profitable or hard to defend against that choosing not to be apart of it becomes impossible.

As GvG currently stands it is already hard to avoid conflicts (often requiring very low ratings) if your members don't enjoy it.

This group of "passive players" do not have the knowledge or the personalities to post 100's of messages over here on the message boards stating they like PvP to be hard. But many are good, spending consumers of your game product.

Please keep them in mind during your changes.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: