Jump to content

Photo

Game Update v1.6521


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#61 fs_deljzc

fs_deljzc
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 15:58

In all honesty, when you change your mind like this in 24 hours it just makes the decision makers at Hunted Cow Studios look like idiots.

Do you think if the President of the United States makes a decision and then comes out 24 hours later and says "woops, we'll just listen to feedback", he would get any respect? Not even close.

All this does is undermine your authority and ability to make logical decisions in the first place.

What I want to know is... "What was the logic and decision making process that led to the decision to charge higher level guilds more gold in GvG?" Who was the person that suggested this and what were his reasons behind it? What was the HCS group response? Was there debate and discussion?

I'm more confused and less hopeful there are any constructive changes being made to this game. You might as well throw darts after a dozen beers, make the change and wait for who shouts the most about it. That seems to be the M.O. with changes in the game.

Grow some cajones and make solid, good decisions the first time that you actually thought through and then stick to your decisions for at least a week.

This "woops, I guess we riled up too many people" decision making process is embarressing.


We don't always get updates right however we do change these to do whats best for the game. We feel this is a better solution that leaving things broken.

We are also considering making inactives not count towards the 4 player limit.


Maybe I was harsh in my original comment, but I am still frustrated.

You ask for "comments" and "input" but you never truly come out with your opinion on what really needs to be fixed.

There is a large segment of the gaming community that had no issues with the way GvG was being run. There were complaints about the number of FSBox ads, but as far as "trading" GvG points, there was a very large group that believed it wasn't hurting anything in the game.

You obviously can't appeal to that segment of the community or listen to their feedback if you philosophical don't agree with GvG being that way.

We need more feedback from YOU on what you want to accomplish before we can really help solve the problems in the game for you. We need more information.

You still haven't answered the logic behind the update yesterday. What was your thinking behind making higher level guilds pay more for conflicts? What was your logic and what was the goal of that change?

I'm honestly confused what you are hoping to accomplish. I will be glad to offer more constructive suggestions (and I have on many, many boards here) if I think they are in line with the goals you see for the game.

How about just answering the following questions:

1. Is it the intent to make GvG only a confrontation and aggessive mechanism of the game? Do you want strict winner/losers, highly competitive participants?
2. Is it the intent to make GvG rating matter other than bragging rights?
3. Is it the intent to allow guilds that don't want to participate in GvG a game mechanism to either make them less attractive targets or avoid GvG altogether?
4. Is there desire to increase or decrease the number of GvG conflicts?
5. Do you want more or less small, GvG specific guilds?
6. Do you consider GvG a gold sink and an important part of the GvG game mechanism?
7. Are you currently happy with the current stamina output vs. profit potential of the RP for Epic component system?

These are just a few examples that cause all us players to just argue back-and-forth about our opinions, but that's not feedback. And because the sampling of players that participate on the forum is so small, it's not even an accurate reflection of the true opinion in the FS community.

Your position on these points will ultimately decide the direction of the game. Not ours.

You say you listen to our feedback, but that's really not true. You have an opinion on what you want GvG to be way before you start "listening" to us. It would help if you explain what you want to accomplish first in a lot more detail than "We're thinking of changing GvG, what do you think?"

#62 fs_wwmmww

fs_wwmmww
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 17:54

I really don't understand why change conflict costs if you want to solve some RP problem? If any problems with RP gain change something there. I would suggest not give RP to winner if opposite guild doesen't hit back - winner get only Rating. If loosing guild did their hits - winner gets RP based on amount of attacks that they get:
0 attacks - winner gets 0 RP only Rating
1-5 attacks - winner gets 1RP and Rating
...
46-50 attacks - winner get 10RP and rating
If somebody think that ppl would start conflict to miss all attacks - set that winner get RP only if he complete all attacks, otherwise - just Rating
and leave conflict costs as it was before - based on Rating and 10000 gold min

#63 BandLaw

BandLaw

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 799 posts

Posted 04 February 2010 - 17:57

Hoof, Cows, etc.

I have a suggestion about GvG and the updates thus far.

1) I think the updates about GvG cost and min participants = 4 are good!

2) I would like to see, suggest, etc. that the higher the level the person involved in the conflict, the wider the attack range be. For instance, a level 50 can attack +/- 25 (as is now), but a level 150 +/- 35, level 250 +/- 50, level 350 +/- 75, and level 450+ +/- 100 levels.

It would open up more targets, especially at the higher levels while preserving the souls of the lower levels (and their sanity).

Feedback/thoughts?

#64 fs_rma316

fs_rma316
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 18:05

I really don't understand why change conflict costs if you want to solve some RP problem? If any problems with RP gain change something there. I would suggest not give RP to winner if opposite guild doesen't hit back - winner get only Rating. If loosing guild did their hits - winner gets RP based on amount of attacks that they get:
0 attacks - winner gets 0 RP only Rating
1-5 attacks - winner gets 1RP and Rating
...
46-50 attacks - winner get 10RP and rating
If somebody think that ppl would start conflict to miss all attacks - set that winner get RP only if he complete all attacks, otherwise - just Rating
and leave conflict costs as it was before - based on Rating and 10000 gold min


I kind of like this idea. Not all of it, but the part about no RP if the guild doesn't fight back. I personally believe that GvG is a waste of my guilds time, and resources, so, I don't participate in them, and normally neither do any of the other members in my guild, so, we have become somewhat of a target. I think it would help guilds like mine stay out of GvG's if the people stopped getting RP from attacking a guild that they know isn't going to fight back.

#65 fs_mihaajlo

fs_mihaajlo
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 18:11

Huh, sorry I miss something? This update fix gvg-trade-Rp operations? Fix issue about clone accounts that have been opened since you made new epic items and offer collecting Rp for 1fsp+10k gold?
Just to make it clear: HCS terminate all accounts that say "open" we wont hit back, free gvg, we are not defending.... and yet HCS says 50k+1fsp per conflict..... yes? no? :shock:

#66 fs_kagerou804

fs_kagerou804
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 18:28

I really don't understand why change conflict costs if you want to solve some RP problem? If any problems with RP gain change something there. I would suggest not give RP to winner if opposite guild doesen't hit back - winner get only Rating. If loosing guild did their hits - winner gets RP based on amount of attacks that they get:
0 attacks - winner gets 0 RP only Rating
1-5 attacks - winner gets 1RP and Rating
...
46-50 attacks - winner get 10RP and rating
If somebody think that ppl would start conflict to miss all attacks - set that winner get RP only if he complete all attacks, otherwise - just Rating
and leave conflict costs as it was before - based on Rating and 10000 gold min


I kind of like this idea. Not all of it, but the part about no RP if the guild doesn't fight back. I personally believe that GvG is a waste of my guilds time, and resources, so, I don't participate in them, and normally neither do any of the other members in my guild, so, we have become somewhat of a target. I think it would help guilds like mine stay out of GvG's if the people stopped getting RP from attacking a guild that they know isn't going to fight back.


I agree, some of this I like and I don't like. Not issuing RP if without returning attacks is an nice -idea-, not that it should be implemented.

Why not cutting the amount of stamina it takes to defend? It will make defending more practical and maybe more guilds will take part in both sides of GVG. My biggest issue is that people don't return attacks

#67 fs_deljzc

fs_deljzc
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 18:33

That's the problem.

If none of us understand the logic behind the decision to connect Guild Level vs. GvG Cost or understand what Hoof was trying to accomplish by making that change, how can any of us offer advice on what to do next?

I don't understand what the GOAL of the last change was. Tying costs to Guild level wasn't once suggested by ANYONE on this message board. Not once. So the idea had to originate from someone at Hunted Cow. And the person who made the idea had to have a thought on what positive change would happen and the other members at HCS had to agree with that change. Don't people think I'm correct on that?

More and more I see changes being made only to stop complaints, not to accomplish a clear goal of improvement.

Every change will bring complaints, so the goal of a change in the game CAN NOT be to lessen complaints. That's not a realistic outcome. You can't make decisions to try and make everyone happy.

There has to be a very specific, clear result that the Hoofs wants to occur based on a change. This idea they'll just try something different and see what happens, who finds loopholes, who cries the loudest seems wrong to me.

Am I wrong on this?

#68 fs_toc13

fs_toc13
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 18:33

0 RP if no attacks are returned?
So- why bother getting 50/50 & actually being good?

A defending guild sees 50/50 & decides it's not worth their effort to return attacks. Because of this the attacking guild gets punished?
If they see 49/50, they may decide to return attacks.

Any system where the defending guild gets to 'decide' if someone gets RP or not is fundamentally flawed

#69 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 04 February 2010 - 18:45

Still wondering when permission to enter GvGs will be implemented,,,,sitting there with FOUR open spaces gets a lil stressful,,especially when you can still join a GvG by taking a bounty more then 25 levels off you!

#70 Kedyn

Kedyn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 04 February 2010 - 18:52

In no way should it be implemented that there should be no RP rewarded if the defending guild doesn't attack back. There is no logic behind this. If this were to happen, then about 2% guilds may strike back (these are the ones who care about their rating).

There are many reasons why guilds don't strike back. The attacking guild scores 50/50 (no way to win, just tie now).. the defending guild doens't want to waste their stamina in striking back, they do not want to do GVG. That's fine, but if you link gaining RP from the defending guild trying to land attacks back, then I for one will tell my guild to NEVER strike back. There is no reason to. This would cut the RP gain down to zero just about.

We need to come up with a way to try to reward guilds who want to successfully defend. Maybe if they get a draw.. both sides get 5 points.. or the defending guild wins the 10 RP. This is one major flaw that is still being overlooked.

On to the next part, the 4 man minimum for guilds to participate in GVG is a good idea. The 4 members should be considered active members, and within the 7 days limit to attack back (each target in the guild should be targets). Inactives should not count against the 4 man minimum since you can't attack them back. This should also include the targets that have not logged on for 7 or more days.

One final note, I think the GVG system needs a little revamping in the level ranges. +/- 25 levels at the lower levels is a much bigger difference than at the higher levels.. Maybe HCS can tier this out.. maybe every 50 or 100 levesl the +/- range increases. This will help the higher level players who have to search for hours to find targets within their level range. It can start out with +/- 10 at level 100, +/- 20 at 200, +/- 30 at 300, +/- 40 at 400 and maybe even +/- 50 at 500. The gear at lower levels is a bigger difference than at higher levels, I believe (check the difference between a level 10, 25 and 50 set). I think there can be a cap on the amount of levels that you can attack on+/-. This is just an idea.. and my own attitude towards GVG

#71 fs_kagerou804

fs_kagerou804
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 19:25

After reading Kittles post, I think I'm backing down from saying it's a good idea not to reward RP if other guilds don't fight back (just keep in mind I never suggested it should be implemented). I want guilds to strike back, and I also want other guilds to feel that their hard earned FSP, gold and stam was well spent.

rma316 is part of one voice- GvG is a waste of his guild's time, so how can we make GvG more appealing?


Here is my suggestion.
Don't change RP, the way it is now is pretty much fine.

Remove the buffs all together from RP

Introduce a new point system called SP ----Standoff Points
In a force draw, each guild wins 5 SP, which can be used for buffs.

This will get more people involved with GVG. Maybe add some more guild buffs in the SP system.

I was suggesting reducing the stam cost for returning fire for GVG, but instead this would give guilds large and small a chance to at least gain something from GVG

#72 BalianRW

BalianRW

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts

Posted 04 February 2010 - 19:34

2) I would like to see, suggest, etc. that the higher the level the person involved in the conflict, the wider the attack range be. For instance, a level 50 can attack +/- 25 (as is now), but a level 150 +/- 35, level 250 +/- 50, level 350 +/- 75, and level 450+ +/- 100 levels.

I think opening up the top end would be ok, but not the lower end. If anything the lower end needs to be less than 25 for everyone now.

I really don't understand why change conflict costs if you want to solve some RP problem? If any problems with RP gain change something there. I would suggest not give RP to winner if opposite guild doesen't hit back - winner get only Rating. If loosing guild did their hits - winner gets RP based on amount of attacks that they get:
0 attacks - winner gets 0 RP only Rating
1-5 attacks - winner gets 1RP and Rating
...
46-50 attacks - winner get 10RP and rating
If somebody think that ppl would start conflict to miss all attacks - set that winner get RP only if he complete all attacks, otherwise - just Rating
and leave conflict costs as it was before - based on Rating and 10000 gold min

So the only way a guild would get RP would be if the guild they started a conflict with attacks back. If anything this would MAJORLY increase the amount of RP trading that is going on.

Why not cutting the amount of stamina it takes to defend? It will make defending more practical and maybe more guilds will take part in both sides of GVG. My biggest issue is that people don't return attacks

OMG, what an idea. Can you imagine how many guilds would actually attack back of the stamina per attack was only 1. But then again this might lead to more RP trading just that the defending guild would be the only one making hits. However if you coupled it with a version of the suggestion above, where the defending guild only gets RP based on the number of attacks from the attacking guild, that should eliminate the trading.

Also, if the defending guild successfully defends (i.e. completes an equal number of successful combats as the attacking guild, regardless if either guild completed all 50) the defending guild should get the awards as the winner.

#73 Kedyn

Kedyn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 04 February 2010 - 19:35

After reading Kittles post, I think I'm backing down from saying it's a good idea not to reward RP if other guilds don't fight back (just keep in mind I never suggested it should be implemented). I want guilds to strike back, and I also want other guilds to feel that their hard earned FSP, gold and stam was well spent.

rma316 is part of one voice- GvG is a waste of his guild's time, so how can we make GvG more appealing?


Here is my suggestion.
Don't change RP, the way it is now is pretty much fine.

Remove the buffs all together from RP

Introduce a new point system called DP ----Draw Points
In a force draw, each guild wins 5 DP, which can be used for buffs.

This will get more people involved with GVG. Maybe add some more guild buffs in the DP system.

I was suggesting reducing the stam cost for returning fire for GVG, but instead this would give guilds large and small a chance to at least gain something from GVG


I first want to start by apologizing if my post was rude.. it was never meant to be an attack on anyone.

I like where you are thinking about this, and agree that maybe decreasing stamina usage to give some incentives to fighting back. The draw points idea is a pretty cool idea, but unless your guild is a leveling guild (which uses the RP for the buffs), I don't see much use for hitting back still. Maybe if they introduce buffs that are only attainable through DP, then this will want more guilds to fight back. I'm just drawing a blank right now at work trying to figure out more ways to reward guilds who want to defend against attack.. but I do like your thinking on this. :)

#74 fs_kagerou804

fs_kagerou804
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 19:46

After reading Kittles post, I think I'm backing down from saying it's a good idea not to reward RP if other guilds don't fight back (just keep in mind I never suggested it should be implemented). I want guilds to strike back, and I also want other guilds to feel that their hard earned FSP, gold and stam was well spent.

rma316 is part of one voice- GvG is a waste of his guild's time, so how can we make GvG more appealing?


Here is my suggestion.
Don't change RP, the way it is now is pretty much fine.

Remove the buffs all together from RP

Introduce a new point system called DP ----Draw Points
In a force draw, each guild wins 5 DP, which can be used for buffs.

This will get more people involved with GVG. Maybe add some more guild buffs in the DP system.

I was suggesting reducing the stam cost for returning fire for GVG, but instead this would give guilds large and small a chance to at least gain something from GVG


I first want to start by apologizing if my post was rude.. it was never meant to be an attack on anyone.

I like where you are thinking about this, and agree that maybe decreasing stamina usage to give some incentives to fighting back. The draw points idea is a pretty cool idea, but unless your guild is a leveling guild (which uses the RP for the buffs), I don't see much use for hitting back still. Maybe if they introduce buffs that are only attainable through DP, then this will want more guilds to fight back. I'm just drawing a blank right now at work trying to figure out more ways to reward guilds who want to defend against attack.. but I do like your thinking on this. :)


Yeah, I'm not suggesting what buffs could be added, but options are opened. As far as reducing the cost of stam for defending, it may not be necessary with the DP idea.

#75 fs_wwmmww

fs_wwmmww
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 19:56

good idea to share RP in a draw
good idea use less or no stam if deffending
good idea add more guild buffs - if it'll be some lvling buffs this should attract guilds that usually not strike back because they save stam for lvling

... and I still beleive in 0 RP if no return attacks - all above mentioned plus some tactics in GvG could help get them :lol:

#76 fs_kagerou804

fs_kagerou804
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 20:01

good idea to share RP in a draw
good idea use less or no stam if deffending
good idea add more guild buffs - if it'll be some lvling buffs this should attract guilds that usually not strike back because they save stam for lvling

... and I still beleive in 0 RP if no return attacks - all above mentioned plus some tactics in GvG could help get them :lol:


I think the problem with splitting RP is that it could be abused. Therefore, creating Draw Points- used only for buffs- will take help eliminate (obviously, not entirely) some of the abuse that goes on. I'd say 5 points each way for each guild.

This is essentially what I had in mind for "draw points".

Don't change RP, the way it is now is pretty much fine.

Remove the buffs all together from RP

Introduce a new point system called SP ----Standoff Points
In a force draw, each guild wins 5 SP, which can be used for buffs.


This will get more people involved with GVG. Maybe add some more guild buffs in the SP system.

HCS added new buffs not too long ago, I think this system would benefit from the route they were taking.

And as far as using less stam for defending- maybe issuing draw points and at the same time reducing the stam cost is a bit excessive.

#77 BalianRW

BalianRW

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 755 posts

Posted 04 February 2010 - 20:23

... and I still beleive in 0 RP if no return attacks - all above mentioned plus some tactics in GvG could help get them :lol:

As it is, most guilds don't attack back if the attacking guild goes 50/50 or even 49/50. Without some incentive TO attack back I don't see how this will do anything, except kill GvG. Since there would be no reward for 90%+ of the initiated conflicts, no one would initiate a conflict. With fewer conflicts there will be less RP in play, and thus less Epic items / Epic item components in play, thus the price of the Epic items will skyrocket. The other side effect to this would be a HUGE increase in the number of RP trades. I know they have been deemed illegal, but people will just make the deals without using the HCS system (i.e. e-mails, personal chat, etc). If the prices of the the Epic Components jump (which would be inevitable) the reward would far outweight the risk, and thus more deals.

The only way you are going to get guilds to attack back are:

1) Give some sort of reward to do so (like giving a win to the defending guild, if they draw, or giving X amount of RP to the defending guild for each Y number of combat wins)

and/or

2) Lower the stamina cost to defend a conflict. My suggestion on mitigating the abuse of this is in my post just up above.

#78 Xainth

Xainth

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 208 posts

Posted 04 February 2010 - 22:11

I think its great you let the players have input on how you make the game, however, you obviously can't please everyone. Some complained before and after this update. Can't make anyone happy here it seems.

Personally, 4 gvg participants isn't a good thing in my book. 1 is fine. I think the problem was when 1 person would attack and get their 50 hits then quit the guild, so it would grantee a win for that guild. Those are cowards in my book, who win by cheating. If you could lock the participants in that guild till the conflict is over, I think that would solve a lot of problems.

As for the fee for GvG, I suggest keep it at the gvg rating. I didn't see a problem with that. Those who are big time gvg guilds let them pay extra for having a great record.

Don't let the players beat you into changing it how they want. You can listen to us but you don't have to give in 100%. Most games don't let their players give input. So you have to play it how the rules are made. Seems like this game is full of complainers.

I use to love it before all I heard was (do this do that and you'll get kicked.) Dang I feel like I'm in junior high again. Let us have some freedom please, to play. Let members use the ignore button if they don't wanna hear from someone. Cursing is has a feature block on it. While I don't curse, I have it checked so I don't have to see it.

Lets have fun. Shesh I grow tired of all this crap and drama a lot of players bring to this game.

#79 fs_ziojoe

fs_ziojoe
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 22:38

I have a few suggestions, please comment

1. Instead of basing cost on GVG or a flat rate of 50k, make the cost based on win:total conflict ratio.

The closer it is to 1 the lower the cost, ie they more you win, the less you pay. This would quickly eliminate the trading because if you traded you would be at best around 50%, so if the cost was 10k (.95-1) and 20k (..9-.95) and 10k more every 5%, then it would cost a guild at 50% 100k. The Numbers can be changed, but this would benefit a guild that particpates in GVG, has a high rating and wants to GVG more.

2. To encourage retaliation, a draw should reward the defending guild either half or all of the RP, since the initiating guild has the advantage of picking their target and planning ahead.

3. Get rid of the guild mail box, or at least have an option to not use it if you don't want it.

4. There should be no requirement to retaliate or lose RP, that doesn't make sense.

For the moment i think the 50k is a good fix, it will at least reduce the need to lower G Rating. This I believe was the foremost complaint.

#80 fs_bigbob66

fs_bigbob66
  • Guests

Posted 04 February 2010 - 23:31

Thank you Cow,,, Just a thought,,,, if a Guild gets 50 hits in on my Guild how can I ask a Guilde to defend and use there stam ? even if we get the 50 fits in, we get nothing for the stam now the Guild Ratting really means little... if we could get at least a few RP for a defend think that would change a lot.


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: