Jump to content

Victimize the Levelers: thieves and bullies rule!


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

#841 fs_mystraven

fs_mystraven
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 04:31

Like I've said previously, it would be great to see xp gained from PvP. Players rightfully lose xp from a loss to a mob and another player, with the exception of players above your level... So, if you gain xp from killing mobs why not gain xp from killing players? It is experience. Players wouldn't as easily straddle a certain level range taking advantage of newer, less experienced players. I think it would create a marvelous new major dimension to the FS dynamics. The downside would be to nullify any attempts to prevent/slow trading of Prestige or PvP rating. The system is delicate. We will see what the devs do.


I've often wondered why PvP GAINS no XP - surely it should? As you say, it's experience - in fact, to my view of things, it's more valuable experience, it's obtained by defeating another "MIGHTY WARRIOR", not just some random mindless monster. I do believe that XP loss should not exist (except perhaps on the BB). This would make for a more "constructive" approach to PvP - there would be measurable gains to be had by beating other players (in addition to the possibility of gold and fame, of course), leaading to a possible alternative way to level without going after mobs. And it would do away with the the malicious, destructive aspect of PvP. All in all, I think that by combining abolition of XP loss and adding XP gain, PvP would become much, much more popular.

#842 fs_mystraven

fs_mystraven
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 04:44

hi MystRaven, there is a perfect game for you and Mr.Doom, no? try to progress each other to a higher level :lol:

Posted Image


Avvakum, just for the record, when I'm not here, I play adversarial games in several genres, including RTS (my forte), combat sims, FPS, and beat'em'ups, as well as card-based strategy games, chess, pool, snooker, and table-tennis (and once upon a time volleyball and squash too - but who has the time, right?) Most of the above I play well, and I do this by seeking out strong opponents. You should note that all these games offer the antagonists equal opportunities within which to carve out their advantages - no-one smacks another while that one accommodatingly lies down to take it. In fact, if anything, PvP in THIS GAME sounds like an exercise in cowardice to me (with a dash of sado-masochism).

As has been the pattern here, the PvP-thuggery club here is YET AGAIN ignoring the fact that I am NOT saying "no PvP" - I am saying "give us REAL PvP instead of this lame BS". I am arguing IN FAVOUR of PvP, if anything, PvP that is more inclusive.

So don't pretend to know what I am like - and instead of making posts that are supposed to be derogatory, how about rather presenting your arguments with reasoning behind? You've proven you can, as for instance your argument about not making the game a detached, passionless thing is very valid indeed. Presenting arguments like that is debating; posting lame pictures, however, makes the battle of wits feel like one against an unarmed opponent - and I've already explained my aversion to that ;)

EDIT: PS: I love ponies, they taste just like chicken :twisted:

#843 fs_mystraven

fs_mystraven
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 04:56

I dun wanna take it.... I wanna give it. O.o

Every attack you make, you may or may not take away "game generated xp", but you will be giving that player a much much more applicable and valuable experience in a way, weather or not they take it good or bad, they will learn. ;)

Its what they do with that learning experience that matters in the end

/end philosophy



what's that have to do with.... nevermind.... o.o


Regnier, I think you'll find that what he's alluding there is some sort of "tough love" quasi-educational "philosophy" - which civilised countries have declared to be "abuse", and totally unacceptable (in fact, criminal.) In short - bullying. QED

#844 fs_regnier7

fs_regnier7
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 04:59

Regnier, I think you'll find that what he's alluding there is some sort of "tough love" quasi-educational "philosophy" - which civilised countries have declared to be "abuse", and totally unacceptable (in fact, criminal.) In short - bullying. QED


Was just being silly among all of the arguing. lol

I know what he meant, and in fact. We were both chatting on Skype whilst debating on here. ;)

#845 avvakum

avvakum

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:10

So don't pretend to know what I am like - and instead of making posts that are supposed to be derogatory, how about rather presenting your arguments with reasoning behind? You've proven you can, as for instance your argument about not making the game a detached, passionless thing is very valid indeed. Presenting arguments like that is debating; posting lame pictures, however, makes the battle of wits feel like one against an unarmed opponent - and I've already explained my aversion to that ;)


There is limit to everything, I don't want to repeat the same arguments if nobody's reasoning was strong enough to change my views. The problem here is obvious lack of knowledge and experience on pvp by anti-pvp'ers, some remember old days when they were doing some pvp, others talked to pvp'ers, etc... no pvp guild experience, no emotional experience from pvp'ing... it's hard to prove something when people are not on the same level of understanding. I see the opt out of pvp or no XP loss only with HUGE penalty in progression, so players would have to choose between risk free slow progression AND higher risk & faster progression. The sense of accomplishment comes from taking higher risk, don't take in-game defeat personally, it's all about emotions and taking risk to lose hard earned.

#846 fs_littlejom

fs_littlejom
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:21

Holy hell this thread is still going, and strong might I add. I agree with OP although my circumstances are much different. For the sake of keeping PL donators and the like, make a fix to pvp.. what it is now is crap. What do I suggest? I have nothing :P

#847 fs_mystraven

fs_mystraven
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:25

I think they intended the whole game to revolve around pvp(making the xp loss make sense) and people just choose to play it, well, wrong lol.


You keep repeating this, but it's just your opinion. "People choose to play it wrong" because not everyone plays how YOU think they should? Don't you think you're being a little egocentric here? At least you usually preface this with "I think" - so at least you understand that this is just your opinion.... right?

#848 fs_littlejom

fs_littlejom
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:35

I think they intended the whole game to revolve around pvp(making the xp loss make sense) and people just choose to play it, well, wrong lol.


You keep repeating this, but it's just your opinion. "People choose to play it wrong" because not everyone plays how YOU think they should? Don't you think you're being a little egocentric here? At least you usually preface this with "I think" - so at least you understand that this is just your opinion.... right?


Let's re word this, the game is based off levelling but it should be focused on pvp, as any multiplayer/online computer game (however you want to word it) should. Generally there is more fun in combat competition than facing a computer.

#849 fs_regnier7

fs_regnier7
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:45

This game is made up of many features of which getting rid of any of them would weaken the game.

It's not a leveling or PvP game, in my opinion

#850 fs_mystraven

fs_mystraven
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:47

stuff of mine


There is limit to everything, I don't want to repeat the same arguments if nobody's reasoning was strong enough to change my views. The problem here is obvious lack of knowledge and experience on pvp by anti-pvp'ers, some remember old days when they were doing some pvp, others talked to pvp'ers, etc... no pvp guild experience, no emotional experience from pvp'ing... it's hard to prove something when people are not on the same level of understanding. I see the opt out of pvp or no XP loss only with HUGE penalty in progression, so players would have to choose between risk free slow progression AND higher risk & faster progression. The sense of accomplishment comes from taking higher risk, don't take in-game defeat personally, it's all about emotions and taking risk to lose hard earned.


I'm with you on there's only so far one can push one's point before becoming a broken record - though I don't think it's necessarily a case of "levels of understanding", or at least not in every case - most of it is actually about entrenched viewpoints. I can state, with great certainty, that I understand pretty well what constitutes competition (I will provide you with a bit of my background here, for context, nothing more: I have played StarCraft on a national competitive level, chess at the club level, table-tennis at the university club level, Magic the Gathering at the national level...and all the other stuff I mentioned in my previous post - and I always play to win! Is there any ther way? So you can see I'm no stranger to individual competitive gaming. I've also refereed some, and I am a gaming journalist with over 12 years' experience. OK, credentials sorted, yes? Enough of that, then) So back to my point - I understand what constitutes competition, and I maintain that the PvP mechanic in FS is fatally flawed - it is not inclusive or immersive enough, and is not by any stretch of the imagination a test of skill. The way I see it, it's about whose patience lasts the longest. I by no means argue for PvP to be excised, though - that would be a terminal mistake, in my opinion.

Personally, I am not in favour of an 'opt-out' mechanic - that is the polar opposite of inclusiveness. So if such were to be implemented, yes, I agree, it would have to cost heavily! And for those who like "real world" comparisons (flawed as they are), it can be said that isolationist policies have always come at a severe cost to development.

As for XP loss being taken out of PvP, that I certainly DO agree with - and seeing as it would affect EVERYONE equally, there would be no need to penalise progression. However, I also second Luisspamer's idea of enhancing the PvP experience by adding XP GAINS for vistories. That effectively would transform a negative into a positive. Now instead of non-PvPers feeling abused and not wanting to get embroiled because the cost outweighs the benefit, they have the follwing choices: 1. move along with no real harm done (except perhaps some gold lost - no problem with that) and the PvPer having gained something from it (XP, gold, prestige, rating - wow, that's quite a list, innit?), or 2. climb into the fray and get some back! :D Now wouldn't this be a more appealing set of options all round?

"And the man in the back
Said 'everyone attack'
And it turned into a bar-room blitz!" (or is that "ball-room"? Can't remember...)


Regarding your "higher risk for higher reward" - I absolutely agree (and that's why I think the attacker should risk DOUBLE the XP [if XP loss were to stay, which it doubtless will] and gold, considering that every advantage belongs to the attacker.)

Thank you for providing me with a post that I could respond to, and which I had to think about.
/bows

#851 fs_nthnclls

fs_nthnclls
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:49

Lol, this thing is still going...anyawy, my 2 cents.

I would like to see an attack that takes NOTHING but rating, and is non-bountyable. No prestige, no gold, no xp, no anything else. Make it 10 stam, 1 stam, 5 stam, 11 stam, 110 stam, I don't care. I think that that would solve most problems with the pvp ladder, since it would become almost impossible to hold a permanent spot on the top of the ladder through buying points.

Yes, there are arguments against it, some of them valid. However, I think that the benifets outweigh the downsides in the end. Yes, it's pvp without risk, but it also has no reward except for rating which would probably be lost quickly anyway.

I realize this is coming from a discussion from a while ago, but I figure this thread isn't going anywhere anyways...

Besides that, I don't think that xp loss should be taken out of normal pvp completely simply because it would remove an option that players currently have, which may have unforeseen consequences.

#852 fs_mystraven

fs_mystraven
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:50

This game is made up of many features of which getting rid of any of them would weaken the game.

It's not a leveling or PvP game, in my opinion


Well said! It is comprised (in my opinion!) of a balance of elements: those two are actually not even really elements, but mere activities. Key to the whole game, as far as I can tell, are the player-driven economy and the in-game society.

#853 fs_nthnclls

fs_nthnclls
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:51

This game is made up of many features of which getting rid of any of them would weaken the game.

It's not a leveling or PvP game, in my opinion


Imo, it's a pvp game because it has pvp as an option, I don't think that that means that the game revolves around pvp. But maybe I just misinterpreted that...

#854 fs_regnier7

fs_regnier7
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 05:56

This game is made up of many features of which getting rid of any of them would weaken the game.

It's not a leveling or PvP game, in my opinion


Imo, it's a pvp game because it has pvp as an option, I don't think that that means that the game revolves around pvp. But maybe I just misinterpreted that...



So it's also a progression game, because it has leveling in it? lol :P

I just meant that both sides, in general, are trying to make it seem like either is the main focus


another way of going about it..

VL would limit your target range..but your AL could limit the damage you can do

your AL/VL is 100...target range is 95-105..pvp rating exchange, xp/gold loss occur to all..

your AL is 99 and VL is 100- target range is still the same but if you attack someone at level 105, you only take pvp rating..they would have to level up once to be able to take xp/gold from a level 105

Edit:
Gold loss would still be included since the PvPer is still risking 5 and to keep up that vital part of PvP as a market control.



and there's a fair compromise between the two sides, I think....


*keeps on with the shouting till blue in the face*

#855 asterxemil

asterxemil

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 661 posts

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:24

i still think an option should be allowed in preferences so that you toggle ON/OFF PvP, and is like bank deposits in the sense that it gets renewed once a day, that way ppl who level can hold they're gold while hunting or to bug expensive potions, yet it won't be abused by ppl turning off after killing someone. 'cause Bounties will always go through

#856 fs_mystraven

fs_mystraven
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:41


On the other hand, if they did keep track of how you assigned your Level Up and Skill points and you simply lost them as you lost your levels(to prevent an unfair advantage), it would work perfectly.


I don't think this is necessary. Just apply a multiplier of AL/VL to all base stat points AND allow players to attack only around their AL. This will keep both the good old principle* of smacking somebody out of your range in one or two parties AND the protection against the "unfair" advantage of levelup points total from a higher level.

*Yes, that's how it has worked originally.

I would very much want the PvP to be like this:
1) VL nonsense fixed
2) First strike by default at least 50:50 (100% attacker on BB)
3) 10 stam taking only PvP rating, not bountyable (non-BB only, current system kept for BB)
4) Monthly top 10 PvP ladders introduced, with either gradual decay or weekly resets.
5) PvP Prestige buff changed to give bonus that levellers won't really care about.
6) The one who clears the bounty cannot be bountied. I think that rewarding the best hunters would be nice.

We'd see a lot of traffic on the PvP ladder, because to be dominant would actually mean "to hit a lot and also be able to fend off a lot of attacks" - and for gold-thieves, very little would change - they would only lose the ability to harass somebody even after several delevels.


I have similar opinions, with a couple of small differences.

1. Agreed.
2. I think the overall concept is sound, but how about making it more interesting by beefing up the First Strike enhancement? That way, a player who actively seeks out First Strike gear to wear is rewarded. Make the maximum odds more like 70-75% (but would require LOTS of 1stStrk gear)
3. OK, maybe - seems fine.
4. Agreed.
5. Interesting. It makes little sense to me that the PvP Prestige buff gives a levelling bonus - seems quite inconsistent, so yes, make it something PvP-related, and Prestige-related, for crying out loud!
6. Yes, BUT: make 10-20 stam bounty hits non-bountiable (new word! woohoo!) - due process is followed. Make bigger bounty hits subject to counter-bounty - "excessive force" can be punished.

If I posted this elsewhere, I apologise for the duplicate (and I do suspect I convered some of this elsewhere...)

#857 Bleltch

Bleltch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts

Posted 27 July 2010 - 06:44

*sigh* :roll:

#858 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 27 July 2010 - 07:18

Some people enjoy hunting or hunting titans. Some people like stalking out SE's. Some people see the game as a business and potion craft and merchant out their goods. Some play the arena while others come on mainly to chat and have a laugh in guild chat. None of these aspects of the game come with consequences like pvp does, maybe 'this' is why it generates the repulsion etc that it does.


May just be so... then it would only seem fitting to ask, why so many players as you claim there is, are so repulsed with loosing stuff (xp/gold) they can regain for free? And stam is free, you get it free of charge once per hour.

If pvp was truly about fun and not sadism pvp'ers wouldn't complain so much whenever anyone mentions removing exp-loss from the equation. Gold-loss and loss of rank should be more than enough, exp loss makes no sense to me anyways, never has. How can losing a battle make you dumber? :S You 'learn' from your mistakes, no?


It's been said a million times b4, and as per usual you don't read what others write mr Doom; If I smack you hard enough over the head with a frying pan, you bleed.
And no, not all seem to learn from their mistakes...

I know why exp-loss is always argued for in these 'pvp discussions', it's because like the OP said, many MANY pvp players get their sadistic kicks in this game by intentionally ruining someone else's FS day. Exp loss could be restricted simply to the bounty board for high-stam hits.


I would like to see the survey you made on this, and a number instead of just "many MANY" .. that is not a valid argument, unless you're kinda low on age of course...


2. I think the overall concept is sound, but how about making it more interesting by beefing up the First Strike enhancement? That way, a player who actively seeks out First Strike gear to wear is rewarded. Make the maximum odds more like 70-75% (but would require LOTS of 1stStrk gear)


Obviously you don't PvP alot. FS kicks in more than you think.. actually it's prolly the part of the game, where enhancements have the largest effect on outcomes.

6. Yes, BUT: make 10-20 stam bounty hits non-bountiable (new word! woohoo!) - due process is followed. Make bigger bounty hits subject to counter-bounty - "excessive force" can be punished.


So... you would like for someone being able to tap you on the head once per hour, without being able to do anything about it than tap back? I am sure those with little online time would really appreciate their logs when they do find time to play.

*sigh* :roll:


I agree

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


#859 fs_mystraven

fs_mystraven
  • Guests

Posted 27 July 2010 - 07:20

i still think an option should be allowed in preferences so that you toggle ON/OFF PvP, and is like bank deposits in the sense that it gets renewed once a day, that way ppl who level can hold they're gold while hunting or to bug expensive potions, yet it won't be abused by ppl turning off after killing someone. 'cause Bounties will always go through


Despite my obvious dislike of the current PvP implementation, I can't agree with this. All that would promote is isolationism and compartmentalisation. As someone else pointed out (Avvakum, I think?) if such a system were to be implemented (which I'm quite sure it never will!), then the player using it should be subjected to a HEAVY income penalty, and by income I mean both gold AND XP. No, the only possibly viable application I could see for such a system, which I've seen in one or two other games, is a "holiday mode", and that would utterly freeze the player too - no risk, but NO rewards or progression! And it should be expensive to activate, and should have a minimum of 24 hours cooldown (to prevent various abuses), and NO stamina gain while frozen.

#860 vtpitbull

vtpitbull

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 521 posts

Posted 27 July 2010 - 07:28

Works fine in MANY other games.


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

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