Jump to content

Photo

Game Update v1.652


  • Please log in to reply
435 replies to this topic

#161 Keysi

Keysi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:40

There is an idea that i think could work.

Base the cost of initiating a GvG to the Guild PvP ladder(updated hourly at every xx:00)

Initiating against top GvG guild costing 10K, against second 20K , 3rd guild 30K and so on..At the same time, introduce a +1 RP gain/hour for being in the top 10 of the GvG ladder.

This will mean that EVERY guild will want to be up there in the top 10 but at the same time, because it will be a cheap target, it will be targeted many times from lower gvg rated guilds and be challenged to defend in order to maintain high GvG rating.

The high cost down the ladder will be there to protect guilds that dont GvG that much from being overfarmed, and the "reward" of top rated guilds will be that they will mostly try to defend their place spending a lot of stamina, but also given the ability to gain RP and keep GvG rating high without having to initiate as much as they do today for high costs.

thoughts?



AWESOME!!! :D

#162 Zordor

Zordor

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Badge

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:42

I have to throw this in there for people...

800k for initiating a conflict is NOT THAT MUCH! Before this update we were paying upwards of 1.5 million gold per conflict. I've heard that RA was paying upwards of 2.3 million. So how exactly does this update make it impossible for high xp guilds to compete?

The discrepancy was far worse before the update - so props to HCS from me

#163 shylocke

shylocke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 56 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:44

There is an idea that i think could work.

Base the cost of initiating a GvG to the Guild PvP ladder(updated hourly at every xx:00)

Initiating against top GvG guild costing 10K, against second 20K , 3rd guild 30K and so on..At the same time, introduce a +1 RP gain/hour for being in the top 10 of the GvG ladder.

This will mean that EVERY guild will want to be up there in the top 10 but at the same time, because it will be a cheap target, it will be targeted many times from lower gvg rated guilds and be challenged to defend in order to maintain high GvG rating.

The high cost down the ladder will be there to protect guilds that dont GvG that much from being overfarmed, and the "reward" of top rated guilds will be that they will mostly try to defend their place spending a lot of stamina, but also given the ability to gain RP and keep GvG rating high without having to initiate as much as they do today for high costs.

thoughts?



AWESOME!!! :D


and the ritch get ritcher while the poor get poorer.

#164 fs_madmorbius

fs_madmorbius
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:45

what has guild XP to do with GvG? :?

Yeah how does this work hoof? Can we get the formula for this?


We have decreased the price significantly but instead tied it to your guild level based on your current XP lock. This will prevent any lowering of your GvG rating to hit guilds for a very low gold cost.



at 240k per conflict this is a reduction how? you have to leave your guild your happy in and make a 4 man guild to GVG afordably now? I think i liked the prices before you were penalized for being in guild who happens to be ranked in the top 250 for XP. I can't wait to find out what FFF has to pay for a conflict if mine is that bad already.

#165 MaximusGR

MaximusGR

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:46

Excellent Idea!
Even tho real time or even hourly updates will cause a little server strain its still the best idea I've seen on this subject so far.

But in order for it to work you would have to make it a 5 or 10 RP gain per hour for the Top10.
Not very many people would be concerned about 1 RP an Hour when they are making 100 a Day.

Still a great Idea tho.. +1


We were actually discussing it with evilbry and Zordor, i am surprised you actually dismissed it earlier today when evilbry posted it..Glad you like it now though :P

#166 lurkindoc

lurkindoc

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 25 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:46

I have to throw this in there for people...

800k for initiating a conflict is NOT THAT MUCH! Before this update we were paying upwards of 1.5 million gold per conflict. I've heard that RA was paying upwards of 2.3 million. So how exactly does this update make it impossible for high xp guilds to compete?

The discrepancy was far worse before the update - so props to HCS from me


i was paying 10k per conflict , so it does make a massive difference

#167 celendais

celendais

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:47

I have to throw this in there for people...

800k for initiating a conflict is NOT THAT MUCH! Before this update we were paying upwards of 1.5 million gold per conflict. I've heard that RA was paying upwards of 2.3 million. So how exactly does this update make it impossible for high xp guilds to compete?

The discrepancy was far worse before the update - so props to HCS from me


This is not relevant for most of guilds. Your cost was of course too high before but now everyone -except the multiaccount 4 player guilds with no XP- get penalized.

#168 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:47

There is an idea that i think could work.

Base the cost of initiating a GvG to the Guild PvP ladder(updated hourly at every xx:00)

Initiating against top GvG guild costing 10K, against second 20K , 3rd guild 30K and so on..At the same time, introduce a +1 RP gain/hour for being in the top 10 of the GvG ladder.

This will mean that EVERY guild will want to be up there in the top 10 but at the same time, because it will be a cheap target, it will be targeted many times from lower gvg rated guilds and be challenged to defend in order to maintain high GvG rating.

The high cost down the ladder will be there to protect guilds that dont GvG that much from being overfarmed, and the "reward" of top rated guilds will be that they will mostly try to defend their place spending a lot of stamina, but also given the ability to gain RP and keep GvG rating high without having to initiate as much as they do today for high costs.

thoughts?


This. Although I would introduce decaying RP gain per hour, so that it wouldn't be possible to get free RP items just from sitting on top of the rankings. You'd always gain RP, but you get 1 for the first hour, then 1 for every 2 hours following until 12 hours, then 1 for every 4 hours until 24 hours, decaying all the way down to 1 for every 6 hours. Great benefit, means you're effectively winning conflicts for free, but you're not going to s*** fangs of meng zhang.

#169 fs_chibibucky

fs_chibibucky
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:49

Est. Gold Cost [ ? ]: 469,000

thats what it says for ANY guild i try to conflict no matter what there lvl is.

when i hover over the [ ? ] beside it is does not say anything.


i had a list going for today and got all buffed up and now i got nothin' :(

#170 fs_deljzc

fs_deljzc
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:49

@Radneto, simple "yes" n "no" question: is this update which will fix gvg trading (friendly gvg, farming RP or whatever you call it....)???
1 man guild problem: make it that defenders can hit back with let say min 5 players always, whatever is the number of attackers, problem solved (easy)....
guild itembox= nice update, agree with that....
The only way to make it fair is that you make defending in gvg worth, you lose gvg, you lose something (I really think -5rp for losing, 3Rp each side for equal is fair), to implement this, simple disconnect RP from titan hunting and gvg....
Do all this have sense??



why is it people seem to propose solutions that are all stick and no carrot.
GvG requires you to spend fsp, gold and stamina if you are the initiating guild. It costs stam to defend gvg. If you want to stop trading you have to address what makes it attractive. Threats don't work, making things "illegal" doesn't work (ask any historian how wel prohibition worked out) You want people to do something, give them a positive reason to do it.

If somebody idn't care about gvg rating why would they burn 500 stam for no gain. If there had been a way for the losing guild to earn rp for making all 50 attacks, I never would have turned to trading gvg conflicts. But where my choice was risk fsp gold and stam and get nothing or make an agreement with people who felt the same way and we both get something we wanted hmmmmmm what to do.

You want people to fight back, reward them for doing it whether they win or not. Fix it so it makes sense to fight back.
Think like the traders here if you want to "fix" this. Not everybody cares about rating or the "purity of GvG". If they did, trading would not have been a problem. From the evidence of the number of guilds that advertised (tip of the ice berg), there is a significant number of players that do not hold a purist view of gvg.
you people to fight back in gv, give them a reason that isn't "do it or we will take your stuff away"


I agree this is the crux of the matter and until this issue is resolved nothing will change.

Back before RP points had value, our guild still had a "No retaliation" policy on GvG conflicts. I wrote a long article over on our guild website why using the stamina to "defend" against a conflict was a complete and utter waste of stamina.

That our guild felt no attaction to our GvG ranking or rating (no reason too).

Then RP's became valuable. Just like your guild decided, it became a matter of stamina vs. profit. Planned GvG's became better use of stamina. We use 500 stamina to get 10 RP points, you use 500 stamina to get 10 RP points. Simple math, agreeable to a MAJORITY of logical guild founders out there.

This isn't a "cheat". This isn't a way to "game the system". It's just simple math. What are the most profitable ways for a guild and it's members to use stamina.

Why do people want to overanalyze it beyond that? Why do people think all of us that paricipated in friendly GvG's with friendly people are some sort of immorale players? That's ludicrous.

All the recent change does is change the MATH behind the profit of GvG conflicts. It still will come down the price the Epic components fetch at auction, the time and cost in stamina and the cost of initiating a conflict.

That formula still holds true.

#171 fs_firewing22

fs_firewing22
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:50

I have to throw this in there for people...

800k for initiating a conflict is NOT THAT MUCH! Before this update we were paying upwards of 1.5 million gold per conflict. I've heard that RA was paying upwards of 2.3 million. So how exactly does this update make it impossible for high xp guilds to compete?

The discrepancy was far worse before the update - so props to HCS from me


RA was paying tht high because it WANTS TO BE NO.1...... not all of us have same goals.

#172 Zordor

Zordor

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Badge

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:50

I have to throw this in there for people...

800k for initiating a conflict is NOT THAT MUCH! Before this update we were paying upwards of 1.5 million gold per conflict. I've heard that RA was paying upwards of 2.3 million. So how exactly does this update make it impossible for high xp guilds to compete?

The discrepancy was far worse before the update - so props to HCS from me


This is not relevant for most of guilds. Your cost was of course too high before but now everyone -except the multiaccount 4 player guilds with no XP- get penalized.



Is this honestly a bad thing? The epic prices will stay high, and won't drop so low, it's not worth it to try and make them anymore. It's a much fairer cost all the way around in my opinion. Although, I think it would be better to have the base cost around 100k, and scale upwards from there.

#173 fs_citizenx

fs_citizenx
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:51

We were actually discussing it with evilbry and Zordor, i am surprised you actually dismissed it earlier today when evilbry posted it..Glad you like it now though :P


I wasnt listening to Evilbry because the dude calls people selfish yet he's the one that wants to change the system to better suit his needs bugger what anyone else says... Completely contradicting himself...

If he had chosen better words I might have taken him seriously...

Still think this is the Best Idea by far... But it would have to be 5 or 10 RP per/hr.

And then as someone else said a few posts back we would need to add a reward for a conflict draw.

Those 2 things and the GvG System is fixed!

#174 Zordor

Zordor

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Badge

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:51

I have to throw this in there for people...

800k for initiating a conflict is NOT THAT MUCH! Before this update we were paying upwards of 1.5 million gold per conflict. I've heard that RA was paying upwards of 2.3 million. So how exactly does this update make it impossible for high xp guilds to compete?

The discrepancy was far worse before the update - so props to HCS from me


RA was paying tht high because it WANTS TO BE NO.1...... not all of us have same goals.


Of course. RA wants to be on top, and they're willing to pay the price to be there. What's so much different for FFS wanting to be on the top of the xp guilds, and having to pay a higher price?

#175 fs_nimav

fs_nimav
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:52

There is an idea that i think could work.

Base the cost of initiating a GvG to the Guild PvP ladder(updated hourly at every xx:00)

Initiating against top GvG guild costing 10K, against second 20K , 3rd guild 30K and so on..At the same time, introduce a +1 RP gain/hour for being in the top 10 of the GvG ladder.

This will mean that EVERY guild will want to be up there in the top 10 but at the same time, because it will be a cheap target, it will be targeted many times from lower gvg rated guilds and be challenged to defend in order to maintain high GvG rating.

The high cost down the ladder will be there to protect guilds that dont GvG that much from being overfarmed, and the "reward" of top rated guilds will be that they will mostly try to defend their place spending a lot of stamina, but also given the ability to gain RP and keep GvG rating high without having to initiate as much as they do today for high costs.

thoughts?


-100

#176 fs_zekelord

fs_zekelord
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:54

how does the Guild Mailbox work? if the items aren't removed in the 48 hours are they destroyed?
if so this is potentially a very big problem.

#177 paingwin

paingwin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,075 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:56

I dislike adding more GvG / PvP features, as currently there is no practical way to protect yourself while you are offline. Main reason for this are buffs, DC225 (even 175) is way too powerfull in GvG / PvP. Also other offensive (and some defensive) buffs give such huge advantage on attacker, that whole GvG / PvP issue is unbalanced.

Changing min participant helps agains one man (or really small) guilds, bit it doesn't solve anything.

So, I suggest balancing whole GvG / PvP thing in couple of easy fixes:
- complitely remove buff effects in GvG (deflect can stay)
- HellForged stats don't apply, only basic stats
- Level Up points don't apply

With these changes player can have offline gear that helps him to defend himself, while now everyone is practically sitting duck

I know these suggestion will cause PvP's and GvG's to cry in agony, but aside that, would they balance things?


ok well first thing is this. if you are wanting to remove all buffs from GvG, deflect is a BUFF. so if ALL buffs go then dflect itself would be gone. If you ask me deflect is pointless in GvG anyway. as far as forgings and level up points are considered, this is GvG, not the arena. if you arena style battle, go to the arena. im not a hardcore GvGer yet but i can tell you the only ones benefitting from this would be those who dont need to GvG in the first place.

#178 celendais

celendais

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,424 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:57

I have to throw this in there for people...

800k for initiating a conflict is NOT THAT MUCH! Before this update we were paying upwards of 1.5 million gold per conflict. I've heard that RA was paying upwards of 2.3 million. So how exactly does this update make it impossible for high xp guilds to compete?

The discrepancy was far worse before the update - so props to HCS from me


This is not relevant for most of guilds. Your cost was of course too high before but now everyone -except the multiaccount 4 player guilds with no XP- get penalized.



Is this honestly a bad thing? The epic prices will stay high, and won't drop so low, it's not worth it to try and make them anymore. It's a much fairer cost all the way around in my opinion. Although, I think it would be better to have the base cost around 100k, and scale upwards from there.


Fairer to whom? To small never-leveling guilds that do only GvG, yes and to top GvG-rated guilds that now save some money.

But not fairer to most guilds that are jack-o-all-trades .

Getting RP either the previoulsy smart way ( friendly trade AS THERE IS NO INCENTIVE TO DEFEND) OR the hard way ( "hardcore GvG" which is also ludicrous concept as people pick the weakest target anyway ) is now financially 500% more expensive for a middle sized guild.

Give us a GvG-board instead. LIVE COMBAT- ADVERSARY UNKNOWN- ONLINE PEOPLE ONLY. No picking weak targets- no deflect- no kicking- no nothing. Real Stuff instead of sneaky sneaky "combat".

#179 fs_theoryman

fs_theoryman
  • Guests

Posted 03 February 2010 - 19:58

If you are going to link XP lock to GvG cost I suggest to plateau the cost after level 100 because that is the highest level need for all structures (or add more structures at higher levels and plateau the cost at that level).

#180 mikkyld

mikkyld

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 03 February 2010 - 20:00

deljzc is correct that people will do the logical, easiest thing to make gains every time when they have the choice, the will and the means to do so. What I said earlier in another thread still seems like the way to go:

Give some RP for ties, give more RP for wins, give even more RP for wins when the opponent did all 50 attacks. That should resolve most issues with how RP is acquired.


Make the cost of a GvG the same for all guilds. Make it a small amount or a large amount as you wish but make it the same. That should get rid of any need to lower rating to reduce costs.

Provide weekly RP bonus for guilds who earned the most GvG rating that week - that also would encourage guilds to want to win all GvG, or at least not lose them. Note that weekly is better than rewarding guilds with long standing ranking because most guilds avoided gvg like the plague in the past.

Let me reemphasize that giving some ridiculous amount of reward to a guild on the top of the rankings because they wasted their stamina months and years ago when GvG was very nearly worthless is patently unfair to everyone else. If you insist on rewards for ranking, then either the weekly approach (which I know can be done since it is being done for recruiting as I type) or a complete reset of GvG rankings so that all guilds are on equal footing is the best way.

I have no problem with guilds who did GvG when most wouldn't even consider it getting rewarded but I note they were already rewarded when HCS made the 10 rp per GvG ein retroactive.

that seems to me to have been enough serendipity :)


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: