Jump to content

Photo

My View of GvG Changes


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:01

First of all, all of this must be worked around the fact that we need RP less RP in the game.
Too much RP is getting in the game rigth now.

1. Make it that guilds lose 5 RP per defeat if they don't hit back.
Let's say I attack a guild and get 50/50, they are not many of them that hit back.
If this rule is introduced, most of them will hit back as they could be losing RP.
In order not to lose the RP, they must complete the 50 hits.
As soon as the 50 hits are completed, they won't lose any RP from being defeated.

2. Change the RP awarded for conflicts
A 50 hits conflict should get 5 RP.
A 75 hits conflict should get 7.5 RP. (yeah... weird I know :? )
A 100 hits conflict should get 10 RP.
With this, less RP would enter the game and if we want to get same amount of RP per conflicts, we must use more stam.

3. Let's take care of GvG rating
After 5 days without any conflicts initiated on other guilds, 5 GvG rating per day should be removed.
That way, we will know which guilds are really active in GvG and those that aren't.
An incentive for being in top 10 should be given out. Those guild are often targeted and need to defend more often then others, using more stam for defence and counter hits.
I suggest we introduce GvG points (call it like you want) that would be awarded each days to the top 10 GvG guilds (amount depending on their position)... With those points, they should be able to buy usefull potions for GvG (guild bound).

4. Let's bring in higher levels to GvG
With what I heard in other threads, after level 400, there is a decay in available targets for PvP/GvG.
It is unfair that those players, because of their level have more difficulties finding targets to hit.
We need to extend the ±25 levels range.
I'm not sure of the amount it must be extended, but this can be discussed.

5. New items and buffs pack must be introduced
A thread is already up about this so no need to get into details.

* More to come as I think about it *
* Please keep that clean of spam, flaming and bitching. I really want to see feedback on how to make GvG better and spice it up a bit *

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#2 EJames2100

EJames2100

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:11

So someone hits one of our members and gets the full 50/50, no-one else in range and the guy's on a weekend break.
We lose RP because of that ?

Making losses isn't any real way to get a guild to fight back, in-fact it will just make guilds hate it even more.

#3 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:12

It migth happen, yes.
But it won't happen often.
It will force better protection when guilds have a player that can't come on.

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#4 fs_spiiderxse

fs_spiiderxse
  • Guests

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:13

Brilliant just plain Brilliant but one thing all the newbs that GVG will not get as many fsp for their conflicts and cause the lower levels to scratch their way along again this would cause many GVGers to quit and GVG may falll down the toilet I think it would be good to make it to were RP you get from the Conflict would be based on their GVG rating and yours?

#5 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:18

RP used to be that way but it's not the way it should be.
Otherwise, guilds at the top don't get any.
It's been changed because some people where giving out GvG rating in order to get more RP after...

And if this can kill all the low lvl 4 man guilds around in FS (which I don't think it will), it would be awsome.

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#6 EJames2100

EJames2100

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,387 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:22

You shouldn't be punished for not wanting to participate, simple as.
Encouraged to participate(Say get so much of the Rp from getting 50/50 draw) sure, but not punished.

#7 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:23

Yeah... I've been thinking about getting some RP for 50/50 draws...
But it makes it easy for people to trade RP that way.

I know my suggestion ain't perfect and that it needs alot of work.
That's why I posted so we can get feedback and suggestions and work on it. :)

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#8 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:24

First of all, all of this must be worked around the fact that we need RP less RP in the game.
Too much RP is getting in the game rigth now.

+1!!!!!!!!

1. Make it that guilds lose 5 RP per defeat if they don't hit back.
Let's say I attack a guild and get 50/50, they are not many of them that hit back.
If this rule is introduced, most of them will hit back as they could be losing RP.
In order not to lose the RP, they must complete the 50 hits.
As soon as the 50 hits are completed, they won't lose any RP from being defeated.

If you do this, you have to make a conflict end as soon as a conflict is lost anyways I think. (if one guild gos 50/50, once the other guild losses one, the conflict should resolve) Sure, they could only hit back once and lose on purpose, so put a minimum of 25 not to lose RP. BIGGEST PROBLEM- what is to happen with negative RP?

2. Change the RP awarded for conflicts
A 50 hits conflict should get 5 RP.
A 75 hits conflict should get 7.5 RP. (yeah... weird I know :? )
A 100 hits conflict should get 10 RP.
With this, less RP would enter the game and if we want to get same amount of RP per conflicts, we must use more stam.

THis is an obvious, why was it not this way from the start?

3. Let's take care of GvG rating
After 5 days without any conflicts initiated on other guilds, 5 GvG rating per day should be removed.
That way, we will know which guilds are really active in GvG and those that aren't.
An incentive for being in top 10 should be given out. Those guild are often targeted and need to defend more often then others, using more stam for defence and counter hits.

Agreed. This would also take care of the guilds on the pvp ladder with less then four members. If anything, they should decay at a faster rate because no one can initiate.

I suggest we introduce GvG points (call it like you want) that would be awarded each days to the top 10 GvG guilds (amount depending on their position)... With those points, they should be able to buy usefull potions for GvG (guild bound).

Disagree, the top gvg guilds do not need anything to further their advantage, they should work with the same stuff everyone else has to as far as potions are involved. Perhaps better rp bought pvp buffs instead?

4. Let's bring in higher levels to GvG
With what I heard in other threads, after level 400, there is a decay in available targets for PvP/GvG.
It is unfair that those players, because of their level have more difficulties finding targets to hit.
We need to extend the ±25 levels range.
I'm not sure of the amount it must be extended, but this can be discussed.


Not sure if this one will work, although I agree for the most part. I also think levels under 50 should be narrowed considering the stat % difference between levels 1 and level 25 to say the least.

5. New items and buffs pack must be introduced
A thread is already up about this so no need to get into details.

Definably a better alternative to more rp items

* More to come as I think about it *
* Please keep that clean of spam, flaming and bitching. I really want to see feedback on how to make GvG better and spice it up a bit *

PLEASE! This is needed. just because we dont see "free wins" in the FSbox anymore, doesnt mean all is well and have been fixed perfectly!

#9 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:27

You shouldn't be punished for not wanting to participate, simple as.
Encouraged to participate(Say get so much of the Rp from getting 50/50 draw) sure, but not punished.

To be in a guild, means you participate in gvg. There is no opt out except not being in a guild. The draw idea is good though, tie should go to the defenders, but as Roan said, perhaps only half

#10 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:32

Not sure if this one will work, although I agree for the most part. I also think levels under 50 should be narrowed considering the stat % difference between levels 1 and level 25 to say the least.

Maybe make it so it's a percentage of our VL that give the range.
Let's say we take it so that at lvl 400, the range is ±25. That means 6.25%
Using this, a lvl 900 would have a ±56 levels. (Is this too much?)
For lower levels it would be too low... But let's say range couldn't go under 10 levels.

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#11 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:36

Dull Edge operating in PvP. *cough*

Most of the rest of that looks good.

I'm not necessarily a fan of reducing how much RP is gained, though. 50 hit conflicts are fine gaining 10 RP, especially with the introduction of TKP. Offering a few new non epic uses for RP would soak up a large portion of RP and re stabilize the market, without making people work harder.

I DO agree with charging guilds RP for not hitting back - so long as there is absolutely no way in hell for guilds to manipulate the system such that kicking members makes it impossible to return hits. There's a question out there right now that perhaps the last update isn't performing as intended. Needs to be clarified before something like that gets implemented.

#12 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:38

I'm not necessarily a fan of reducing how much RP is gained, though. 50 hit conflicts are fine gaining 10 RP, especially with the introduction of TKP. Offering a few new non epic uses for RP would soak up a large portion of RP and re stabilize the market, without making people work harder.

Not a fan either but rigth now with no other items or buffs packs to spend RP on, it is need imo.
If they bring in interesting and worthed items (NO EPICS PLEASE) and buffs packs, it will make the market more stable.
And then we could simply say
50 hits conflict = 10 RP
75 hits conflict = 15 RP
100 hits conflict = 20 RP

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#13 shokolo

shokolo

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,669 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:50

There was a great idea a while back ( cant find it ) about compiling your own buff pack for the guild
A list of buffs and their levels will cost certain RP ...
Someone with permission will compile a pack based on the guild needs and activate it

That might help as well IMO

#14 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:52

There was a great idea a while back ( cant find it ) about compiling your own buff pack for the guild
A list of buffs and their levels will cost certain RP ...
Someone with permission will compile a pack based on the guild needs and activate it

I agree, this is great!
There should be an extra fee for composing our own set of buff pack (perhaps gold not RP)

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#15 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 17:56

I DO agree with charging guilds RP for not hitting back - so long as there is absolutely no way in hell for guilds to manipulate the system such that kicking members makes it impossible to return hits. There's a question out there right now that perhaps the last update isn't performing as intended. Needs to be clarified before something like that gets implemented.

We still need to figure out what to do with negative RP(If a guild with 0 RP doesnt fight back, what happens?) Dont get me wrong, I love the idea, but unless there is something to clear up that matter, they wont implement this.

#16 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 June 2010 - 18:06

I think no negative RP should be involved.
So they would stay at 0.

I could see here an option for guilds that really don't wanna get involved in GvG to do so.
At 0 RP, a guild couldn't get initiated against.
So at 0 RP, nobody can GvG against them (until they initiate a conflict and win RP).

That way, it would also take out the easy wins.
They are too many easy wins in GvG.
If the easy guilds are out of GvG, then it makes it harder.

What do you think?

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#17 shokolo

shokolo

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,669 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 18:09

I did some digging Roan here is the post about the rp buff pack

Here's another throw on the packs idea.

Have a list of buffs available to be added to a pack, and each buff has an assigned RP value.

A guild can then _Make_ it's own pack to use and have the RP used according to what buffs they select. Then give the option then to increase the length of the pack by paying a further RP cost.

Lets say for example the power leveling pack, 20 RP for 12 hours, you have an option to double it's duration for an additional 75% of the initial cost. So to have the pack run for 24 hours it would cost 35RP.


Building packs you could have the inventor pack. INV I 200 and Empower 200 could have a 5RP value assigned to them, while INV II 200 and EXT 200 could have say 10 RP value assigned to them. So if these buffs were default 12 hours, it could be 24 hours for 50 RP.


Food for thought.



#18 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 18:18

I think no negative RP should be involved.
So they would stay at 0.

I could see here an option for guilds that really don't wanna get involved in GvG to do so.
At 0 RP, a guild couldn't get initiated against.
So at 0 RP, nobody can GvG against them (until they initiate a conflict and win RP).

That way, it would also take out the easy wins.
They are too many easy wins in GvG.
If the easy guilds are out of GvG, then it makes it harder.

What do you think?

Perfect, both problems solved at once :D One BIG problem though :( When they changed it,t hey would have to give all existing guilds a chance to opt out of gvg. That would make us start effectively with no guild active to start against, unless they made it simply an irreversible option to allow yourself in gvg without your first initiation

#19 Roan

Roan

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,278 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 June 2010 - 18:20

Guilds with RP could be given the option to reset there RP. That way those that want to stay stay and those that don't want, just have to reset there RP to 0.

Only one should be available.
As soon as they use it, they can't do it back.

Firesinged_zpsd6b00c6e.png


#20 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 01 June 2010 - 18:27

Guilds with RP could be given the option to reset there RP. That way those that want to stay stay and those that don't want, just have to reset there RP to 0.

Well thought :) Nothing wrong with that,at least that I can think of. Im just trying to point out potential problems, so we dont have to call out for more and more fixes.


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: