Jump to content

Photo

HCS : Experience losses still dependant on level difference


  • Please log in to reply
90 replies to this topic

#41 fs_regnier7

fs_regnier7
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2010 - 19:51

I am not condemning that type of gameplay, but I find that the term is funny and fitting. I will continue using it as people who adhere to that type of gameplay seem to have no issue with it so far.



I are not bridge troll. :cry:

I are nice!

#42 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 19:53

I am not condemning that type of gameplay, but I find that the term is funny and fitting. I will continue using it as people who adhere to that type of gameplay seem to have no issue with it so far.



I are not bridge troll. :cry:

I are nice!


Bridge puppy!!!!

#43 MaximusGR

MaximusGR

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 22:36

No offense, max, but what would you call players that stop in a level range and prey on passersby, and level only to maintain their position?


PvPers allergic to leveling? :lol:

#44 mikkyld

mikkyld

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 857 posts

Posted 09 April 2010 - 22:55



I took the term from Gravely, it was no issue when he used it.

The problem is that a lot of range extension suggestions are simply going too far. 60+ level ranges is simply not reasonable.


I must have missed him mentioning it, its unacceptable regardless where it comes from because we cant condemn a way to play the game..

As for range extension, think of it this way..I would like to have similar number of people available to attack regardless of being level 400 or 800..Higher level should not come with less PvP activity. And stat differences as levels increase are not that dramatic that would justify the 5 level range 'protection'.



doesn't look like a condemnation but a fairly accurate description to me. Players who stay at one range and "extract tolls" from people passing them are accurately described as bridge trolls.

A PC game world is just really wrong in my view.

#45 fs_regnier7

fs_regnier7
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2010 - 22:59

No offense, max, but what would you call players that stop in a level range and prey on passersby, and level only to maintain their position?


PvPers allergic to leveling? :lol:



I'm partial to the term "Bridge Puppy" .... for me, anyway.

#46 evilbry

evilbry

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,172 posts
  • New Zealand

Posted 09 April 2010 - 23:01

No offense, max, but what would you call players that stop in a level range and prey on passersby, and level only to maintain their position?


PvPers allergic to leveling? :lol:



I'm partial to the term "Bridge Puppy" .... for me, anyway.

a rabid one?

#47 fs_regnier7

fs_regnier7
  • Guests

Posted 09 April 2010 - 23:03

Very, bry.... very

#48 evilbry

evilbry

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,172 posts
  • New Zealand

Posted 09 April 2010 - 23:05

Very, bry.... very

<3 ambiguity

#49 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2010 - 06:52


IF there is an issue with a player being attacked repeatedly, which is very rare, thats what XP lock is for..

...and the bounty board.


And both of these prove that the original term "bridge trolls" suits well - they both involve paying (even if not to the trolls themselves).

At the very least, HCS should fix the VL nonsense. Before it existed, instead of levelling out of range of your attacker, you could have him delevelled out of your range. Then VL was introduced supposedly to protect defenders from attackers who had been delevelled a lot and had advantage in levelup points (zomg, so big deal) - and in the process this important defensive mechanism was killed.

#50 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 08:26


IF there is an issue with a player being attacked repeatedly, which is very rare, thats what XP lock is for..

...and the bounty board.


And both of these prove that the original term "bridge trolls" suits well - they both involve paying (even if not to the trolls themselves).

At the very least, HCS should fix the VL nonsense. Before it existed, instead of levelling out of range of your attacker, you could have him delevelled out of your range. Then VL was introduced supposedly to protect defenders from attackers who had been delevelled a lot and had advantage in levelup points (zomg, so big deal) - and in the process this important defensive mechanism was killed.

Well there was much wrong with the many mechanisms of the PvP. Fixing a few things is a good start(i.e. buffs like constitution and spellbreak, intentional delevelings and now xp loss), but it has been so long that PvP has needed some tlc. Instead we've seen the devs skip over the problems and introduce so many other upgrades that players have just become complacent with PvP and how it works no matter how many threads pop up. It has been around as long as the game itself, well before Titans, arena, etc. I strongly urge the devs to not stop tweaking PvP. Remember there are many things, if the devs agree, left to do. Like a few other things, the VL was implemented and left alone until intentional deleveling was recently addressed. All of the 'abuses' only degrade the quality of the game. Fixing them we'll see a few naysayers because of complacency, but overall players will greet the changes warmly much like other recent upgrades.

Sorry to run slightly off the thread's topic with you coyotik. I hope individual thread topics start(if they haven't been started already) covering VL, buff casting blockage, PvP points and the Dominance medal and so many others. And most of all I sincerely continue to stay positive that Hoof & Co. will continue to make the game better instead of letting it become dilapidated. It's never too late. :)

[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


#51 Removed22342

Removed22342

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 10:19

how about we just allow me to take xp from players below my level and limit me in taking a max of five levels from a single player off the board ;)


Yeah, this could be a concern. Capping it to VL-5 won't work too good, keeping track of how much you've taken can be not so straightforward either, player could level back up. And if it just stacks up you'd have to reset the counter at some point otherwise you'd be "done" with that player forever (?) after a certain amount of hits.

#52 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:35

how about we just allow me to take xp from players below my level and limit me in taking a max of five levels from a single player off the board ;)


Yeah, this could be a concern. Capping it to VL-5 won't work too good, keeping track of how much you've taken can be not so straightforward either, player could level back up. And if it just stacks up you'd have to reset the counter at some point otherwise you'd be "done" with that player forever (?) after a certain amount of hits.


true, it would be tricky..

you could base it off the bounty limit you have on your head since your last attack..so the target has a 48 hour safe period from losing more xp from the attacker once they are dropped five levels..but the attacker could drop you five..wait 48 hours, if the target is no longer active, and continue to attack to drop 5 more...this made easier if we were able to take xp from those below our level. i could just sit at my level and continue to attack over and over, destroying another's levels without moving lol

if they made it so you couldn't take xp until you were -5 level below your VL.(my VL is 10 and my actual level is 4, i can no longer take xp from other players. i would have to level up to 5 to have that ability) it could stop those, that are losing lots of levels due to PvPing, from purposely taking experience from other players when they dont have the 'same experience' as they do..this wouldn't stop the instances where its one player having a feud with another that is no longer active and they wish to destroy most of their levels for 'fun'...but it would limit those, who have been losing levels, from smacking players around their VL and taking xp

any system that could be suggested to stop the possibility of destroying 10's and 10's of levels easily, could have a loophole found within.

this is the only idea that i find sound in preventing too much destruction on one's character

The Attacker can only drop someone 5 levels below their [own] Virtual Level ..so im level 10(1% into the level) and your 5(also 1% into the level)..i can attack you but i can't take xp..if you were level 9(1% in) and i was 10(also 1% in), i could attack you till you were level 5(1% into the level) but then i wouldn't take anymore xp below that point..if i was 10 and you were 10, i could drop you to level 5 and couldn't do anymore damage after that.

when it gets tricky is if im level 5 and your 10..i could drop you till 5 but by what i suggested above, i could keep dropping you till zero..so potentially the max amount of levels you can take from someone is 10 levels if you are 5 below their VL. even though it might seem a lil rough and the lil loophole is still open to 'abuse' of someone's levels. atleast i can't drop my levels with your levels and continue to do so until i seem fit or you get back online :twisted: eventually taking 10+ or even 25+ levels if i decide to dedicate that much time to destroying one's character


some type of limitation in xp loss outside the board needs to be put into place if they made it so we are able to take xp from those below our level..tis my look at the situation

 


#53 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:44

What if when the PvP range is extended, say at +/- 10 levels, then the XP loss outside the board would only still occur within +/- 5 levels. Such that the range for gold theft is extended but without the drawbacks of griefing?

#54 Removed22342

Removed22342

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:47

What if when the PvP range is extended, say at +/- 10 levels, then the XP loss outside the board would only still occur within +/- 5 levels. Such that the range for gold theft is extended but without the drawbacks of griefing?


Not sure that would work ... someone could be 10 levels below VL even before you start to hit back.

#55 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:48

What if when the PvP range is extended, say at +/- 10 levels, then the XP loss outside the board would only still occur within +/- 5 levels. Such that the range for gold theft is extended but without the drawbacks of griefing?


+*high five*...lol almost wrote hive figh LOL

xp loss is the only reason i dont want to open up the attack range so this would stop my negative thoughts about the extension..

 


#56 Removed22342

Removed22342

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:51

Well, it would be nice once you get up a bit since the number of people within your range drops ...

#57 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:53

What if when the PvP range is extended, say at +/- 10 levels, then the XP loss outside the board would only still occur within +/- 5 levels. Such that the range for gold theft is extended but without the drawbacks of griefing?


Not sure that would work ... someone could be 10 levels below VL even before you start to hit back.


what do you mean by this?

 


#58 Removed22342

Removed22342

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 17:58

What if when the PvP range is extended, say at +/- 10 levels, then the XP loss outside the board would only still occur within +/- 5 levels. Such that the range for gold theft is extended but without the drawbacks of griefing?


Not sure that would work ... someone could be 10 levels below VL even before you start to hit back.


what do you mean by this?


If I read that right he wanted a XP lock at -5 levels from VL ... what if you're already 10 levels below your VL?

#59 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 18:00

say my VL and AL is 20 and your VL and AL are 26-30..if i attack you, no xp is lost..if you were 25 or below then xp loss occurs like how it does now

xp loss is based off your Actual Level compared to the target's AL(as it stands now)

 


#60 Bunnybee

Bunnybee

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 367 posts

Posted 10 April 2010 - 18:04

+1 on taking experience from players negative your level.

+1 for expanding pvp range. I would start it at 400 myself, I still have plenty of targets here around where I am. More is always better, but really it's okay. :P

As far as restricting exp loss within the expanded range...I'm just not sure. Tentatively I'd have to say my opinion on that leans toward no. An attack is an attack.

And now someone pass me some troll spray. I don't mean the "bridge" kind either. :roll:

Edit: While on this topic, I also see no problem with losing exp on a failed hit. On to deflected hits, I don't think you should be able to bounty intent. I don't mind too much when I get bountied for a deflect, I knew it might happen and accepted it before hand. Just seems a little screwy.


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: