The issue is that the bountier can pay 100k or 1,000k, the bounty hunter decides the stam used to hit a target. It is obvious, those who put up a large bounty want a hard hit but that doesn't prevent a BH to use 10 stam hits to clear it. This is the ultimate alternative for bountiers to get the 'bang for their buck'.and how are gold bounties useless
PvP Ladder Suggestions (Take 3)
#141
fs_anavryn
Posted 31 July 2010 - 01:48
#142
fs_zonetriper
Posted 31 July 2010 - 01:52
gold or 1 fsp bounty=10 stam hit
2 fsp bounty=20 stamina hit
5 fsp bounty=50 stamina hit
10 fsp bounty=100 stamina hit.
works for everyone. ;_
#143
Posted 31 July 2010 - 01:58
Hi all,
Also I think there should be a minimum number of attacks on the bounty board - most likely 10, as this will help reduce any abuse of it for PvP Rating transfer in conjunction with the other suggestion change for only applying the transfer to the player that actually completes the bounty.
Please keep your feedback and suggestions coming. We are listening
- hoof
Also fix it so that the person who placed the bounty cannot be attacked by the person they have bountied until the bounty is complete, either that or allow multiple bounties to be placed on the same person. (for every subsequent hit made while they are on the BB) As it stands now the person you have just bountied gets free reign to hit you as many times they can before they have their bounty finished, while you are unable to bounty them..
#144
fs_boscosuma
Posted 31 July 2010 - 01:58
Now after reading through 11 pages worth of comments, I may have missed it, but I had some thoughts on PvP.
1. What about using a success/fail system? Currently you get gold, exp, etc for PvP if you win, but I have never seen anyone say they lost PvP rating, gold or xp for loosing. Isn't a player simply a PC mob? Same as a monster right? Monsters give you gold and XP, why not treat PvP in a similar way? You win you get a set amount depending on level, you lose, you lose a set amount. That of course does not account for the possible bounty or retaliation, but it would give a more understandable conclusion.
2. Potions seemed like a good idea, but after reading more of the posts, the problem there is that for anyone to get a whole bunch of potions that protect against PvP, all they would have to do is dump some money into the game. That may be good for some, but younger people that don't have the money, or people that just play for fun, lose out if the potion price is too high. If the potion price was too low, then the market would be flooded. Instead of a potion what about an item or location that protects players from PvP? Basically a sanctuary. This would allow players that don't want or prefer not to PvP to enter and remain free of attack. Add in that anyone that has PvP'd in the past 24-48 hours would not be allowed to enter, then that negates the problem with a person PvPing someone and then running for cover.
Additional note: If it is an item instead of a place, as long as the player has it on them (1 of the 9 slots) then they are protected from PvP. The item returns to your pack if, 1) You enter PvP, or 2) You enter GvG, 3) You take it off. Same rules would apply of not being able to use it again for 24-48 if you GvG or PvP. That allows players who truly want only to level and stay out of the PvP ring entirely a way to do so.
#145
Posted 31 July 2010 - 02:45
I have a suggestion. Let the bounty board be 10 hits. No more, no less. No one-hit bounty abuse, and no bounties 64739 hits long if you were to implement the feature where you get to pick, lol.
Also, don't do the PvP potion. I'm glad you thought that one through =)
I see you didn't say anything about the other suggestions, are they scrapped, or still up in the air? If they're still up for discussion i only have one thing to say: DON'T ELIMINATE PVP AGAINST INACTIVES. Just make it so that you can't get any pvp points from them. :wink: Like i said in an earlier post, I hit inactives for the useless gold that is in their hands and never will be spent.
#146
Posted 31 July 2010 - 02:51
: dumb look in the mirror :
#147
Posted 31 July 2010 - 02:57
Agreed! No need to go to extreme measures. This would only protect donators and as you've repeatedly said, there should be no difference between the non-donator and donator regarding game play. This wouldn't be good, nor cause players to donate. It would only cause players who enjoy PvP to quit playing.I think we should ditch the idea of the loyalty potion that protects from PvP. I wasn't overly sold on this idea in the first place to be honest.
I think there should be a minimum number of attacks on the bounty board - most likely 10, as this will help reduce any abuse of it for PvP Rating transfer in conjunction with the other suggestion change for only applying the transfer to the player that actually completes the bounty.
Again agreed. A minimum of 10 attacks should be the only option. It will prevent abuses in PvP rating trading and players abusing the bounty board to receive a BHer medal. Way overdue! Also, I like the added idea that only the winner of the bounty receives any rating.Snap shot taken of initial PvP ratings upon accepting the Bounty. No PvP rating transfer during the bounty. Only the winner of the bounty will gain a PvP Rating transfer for the equivilent amount of attacks plus a small bonus for successfully completing the Bounty.
This helps prevent excessive PvP Rating loss for the Bounty Target while still allowing the Winning Bounty Hunter to gain PvP Rating for the Completed Bounty.
This alone will increase PvP depending on WHAT the exclusive items are. Perfect. The reset every two weeks will work fine as a decaying measure I believe.PvP Ladder Reset every two weeks - PvP tokens are allocated to the top 50 which can be exchanged for items.
This will keep the playing field completely level. Every player will be able to get their PvP Rating through focused combat without having to do so for months on end. Allows players to buy exclusive Items from the PvP points earned.
Bad idea :evil:The Bounty placer will decide the minimum stamina per hit and the number of hits.
This allows the bounty placer to set the retribution as they see fit.
Would the bounty have an extra notice as to what the minimum stam hit is to be used? This idea would make almost every bounty a delevel(posted player would lose at a minimum 10 X 100 stam attacks, roughly 2 levels worth of xp). In conjunction with 10 stam only counterbounties(another bad idea) this will not work.
I like this idea. However, the winning defender cannot be bountied already! I've always been a proponent of xp to be gained from a successful attack. The stam used would reflect how much xp would be gained. This would only apply to off the board PvP attacks.Outside the bounty board, if an attacker loses the combat, they lose XP, gold and PvP Rating.
This keeps PvP completely fair. There are no longer any safeguards against failing your attacks against other players. The winning defender cannot be Bountied.
I like this idea. But why not keep the range growing every 200 levels? So at level 400 +/- 15, at 600 +/- 20, at 800 +/- 25, etc. And what happens if you are level 205? Can they attack a player 195 while the 195 player can only attack to 200? Doesn't seem right. I do like the expansion of range tho.Increase the PvP target range to +/- 10 over level 200.
Widens PvP for experienced players while still protecting newer players until they find their feet in the game.
No problem herePlayers cannot be attacked after 30 days of inactivity.
This is to prevent players from padding out their PvP ratings with 'safe' attacks, since inactive players will not Bounty them.
Bad idea :evil:A Counter Bounty is limited to 10 stam attacks.
A Bounty Hunter that is completing retribution on a Player who was placed upon the Bounty Board should not be unduly attacked in response for simply clearing a player from the Bounty Board.
Why do you need to protect players? Their guild and allies can do that. This is a horrible idea imo. If players take 5 levels from me I want my guildmates to take 5 levels from each of them!! That is the proper retribution. This idea alone would ruin PvP for me
No problem with this addition...An Attacker should get a message in their Logs when their attack is deflected.
This simply helps prevent confusion regarding attackers getting Bountied.
In summary, I like most of the ideas related to changing how the PvP Ladder will be determined. A couple are awful imo. Counter bountys limited to 10 stam attacks would protect players that simply clear others with 10 stam clears but it would ruin proper retaliation for attacks that were 100 stam. There needs to be risk in PvP and BHing, all the time!! Without risk PvP simply becomes an exercise in going through the motions. Much like how the game is self policed by players reporting others for breaking the rules(TOS) there is also self regulation in PvP. There have been 'unwritten' rules players abide by and players don't need to be over regulated regarding PvP.
[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
#148
fs_tyrnok
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:12
I mean you made a function where we can prevent people from randomly buffing us with unneeded buffs.. soooo wouldn't putting in a "no pvp" function on preferences be just as easy?
#149
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:15
#150
fs_regnier7
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:35
Luiss those two ideas you posted ( :evil:'s ) next two are the two that would add the most risk to pvp, I thought you lot were all about the honour and risk that pvp brings into your fs play-style?
hrmm.... I'm not -completely- against them myself, doom. But they should have a commensurate cost for the placer. Like say.... ten times the amount in gold or a certain amount of FSP based on level.
It has to be balanced with cost to the placer..
Also, with that in place, and the reward/cost for bounty placer upped. The risk for a full counter bounty should be there. (not one restricted to either 100 or 10 stam hits) since the rewards will fit the risk of taking a delevel bounty are much greater.
#151
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:37
hrmm.... I'm not -completely- against them myself, doom. But they should have a commensurate cost for the placer. Like say.... ten times the amount in gold or a certain amount of FSP based on level.
It has to be balanced with cost to the placer..
Also, with that in place, and the reward/cost for bounty placer upped. The risk for a full counter bounty should be there. (not one restricted to either 100 or 10 stam hits) since the rewards will fit the risk of taking a delevel bounty.
Why, the punishment mechanism is meant to be there for the original transgressor, not the bounty hunter, they are simply fulfilling a job required within the FS community..
#152
fs_regnier7
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:40
hrmm.... I'm not -completely- against them myself, doom. But they should have a commensurate cost for the placer. Like say.... ten times the amount in gold or a certain amount of FSP based on level.
It has to be balanced with cost to the placer..
Also, with that in place, and the reward/cost for bounty placer upped. The risk for a full counter bounty should be there. (not one restricted to either 100 or 10 stam hits) since the rewards will fit the risk of taking a delevel bounty.
Why, the punishment mechanism is meant to be there for the original transgressor, not the bounty hunter, they are simply fulfilling a job required within the FS community..
but they are also getting a nice shiny reward with that. They're not doing it for free. lol
Great reward should be accompanied by great risk. Maybe limit the max levels lost from a counter bounty to 1, sure. But there should be some inherent risk in it.
(FU spelling!)
#153
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:42
but they are also getting a nice shiny reward with that. They're not doing it for free. lol
Great reward should be accompanied by great risk. Maybe limit the max levels lost from a counter bounty to 1, sure. But there should be some inherent risk in it.
(FU spelling!)
Ooh, OR limit the counter bounty to only be able to be set at the maximum amount of stam they used to atk while taking the bounty? 10 stam bounty clears can only be countered with 10 stam 100 for 100?
#154
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:42
I thought you lot were all about the honour and risk that pvp brings
pvp is every attack on other player and that includes hitting other players on BB, ideally if attacker off board has used 10 stamina attack, the maximum stamina attack that can be used on his bounty should be 10 stamina, so 10 kills x 10 stamina, if everything starts with 100 stamina, I mean a gold hit, so the bounty is open for any attack from 10 to 100, if somebody hits on that bounty with 100 stamina he can be counterbountied for the same "from 10 to 100", if all hits were 10 stamina he can be counterbountied for 10 stamina attacks only. So, the maximum allowed should depend on what attacker used.
#155
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:43
I thought you lot were all about the honour and risk that pvp brings
pvp is every attack on other player and that includes hitting other players on BB, ideally if attacker off board has used 10 stamina attack, the maximum stamina attack that can be used on his bounty should be 10 stamina, so 10 kills x 10 stamina, if everything starts with 100 stamina, I mean a gold hit, so the bounty is open for any attack from 10 to 100, if somebody hits on that bounty with 100 stamina he can be counterbountied for the same "from 10 to 100", if all hits were 10 stamina he can be counterbountied for 10 stamina attacks only. So, the maximum allowed should depend on what attacker used.
My god, did we just have the same idea? Well, almost.. Initial atk left open to bountier, counter bounty to follow those rules..
#156
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:51
What do you mean? How is there risk in limiting counterbountys to only 10 stam attacks? Please explain.Luiss those two ideas you posted ( :evil:'s ) next two are the two that would add the most risk to pvp, I thought you lot were all about the honour and risk that pvp brings into your fs play-style?
The poster of a bounty dictating the minimum amount of stam I'm not so opposed to actually by itself. It makes the 'punishment' for partaking in ANY PvP activity a little harsh. Minimum of approximately two levels lost when the poster makes them 100 stam hits, which would be the norm, is extreme as there is already double xp taken. Like I said, in conjunction with limiting counterbounties to 10 stam it simply wouldn't work, not as currently described and I understand it. PvP doesn't need this type of regulation.
Shardoom, you just want more punishment, xp loss on the BB, because you hate PvP. That isn't a new type of risk, it simply makes it riskier. I'm not surprised you want more PvP protection. Protect xp and the current BB isn't enough for you it seems.
[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
#157
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:52
A Bounty Hunter that is completing retribution on a Player who was placed upon the Bounty Board should not be unduly attacked in response for simply clearing a player from the Bounty Board.
there should not be a limit...in this scenario...a player clearing a bounty could hammer away with 100 stam hits till the bounty is cleared.... and then ONLY be subject to 10 stam bounty in return...unbalanced...My proposal , the player clearing the bounty (could) be subject to the MAX amount of hits and stam per hit as the bounty they cleared, not more than this, but equal to or less than ...
#158
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:58
What do you mean? How is there risk in limiting counterbountys to only 10 stam attacks? Please explain.
Well, this means that people can't go around bullying. If they try they can be placed on the BB, smacked hard by their friends/guildies w.e without having to worry about their guild tearing down whoever took the bounty. Right now there is the 'veil or perceived risk' but in actuality there isn't due to fear and intimidation.
The poster of a bounty dictating the minimum amount of stam I'm not so opposed to actually by itself. It makes the 'punishment' for partaking in ANY PvP activity a little harsh. Minimum of approximately two levels lost when the poster makes them 100 stam hits, which would be the norm, is extreme as there is already double xp taken. Like I said, in conjunction with limiting counterbounties to 10 stam it simply wouldn't work, not as currently described and I understand it. PvP doesn't need this type of regulation.
It brings it about in line imo, if pvp players attack each other etc then fine, they are both playing the aspect of the game they enjoy, its fun for them, likely not to even be a bounty, right? If a pvp player hounds a non pvp player then they are forcing them to play 'their' aspect of the game, this new idea gives a REAL threat of risk for the prospective pvp attackers..
Shardoom, you just want more punishment, xp loss on the BB, because you hate PvP. That isn't a new type of risk, it simply makes it riskier. I'm not surprised you want more PvP protection. Protect xp and the current BB isn't enough for you it seems.
The current system is nothing less than a joke tbh. Its too easy for the punishment mechanism to be abused to invalidate the risks pvp players brag about.
#159
Posted 31 July 2010 - 03:59
A Counter Bounty is limited to 10 stam attacks.
A Bounty Hunter that is completing retribution on a Player who was placed upon the Bounty Board should not be unduly attacked in response for simply clearing a player from the Bounty Board.
there should not be a limit...in this scenario...a player clearing a bounty could hammer away with 100 stam hits till the bounty is cleared.... and then ONLY be subject to 10 stam bounty in return...unbalanced...My proposal , the player clearing the bounty (could) be subject to the MAX amount of hits and stam per hit as the bounty they cleared, not more than this, but equal to or less than ...
thats what me and (to a certain degree) Avvakum said a few posts up
#160
Posted 31 July 2010 - 04:37
As much as I would have liked to see that potion that opted me out of PvP for a time, i.e. say during a scavenging weekend when I'm shifting large amounts of gold around, I think many more wiser people than I have demonstrated why it wouldn't be a good idea.
Regarding the transfer of PvP points only to the winner of a bounty: I am not sure that this is such a good idea. Suppose a couple of bounty hunters are both attempting to clear a difficult target, neither one giving up until the very end, both putting lots of hard work into beating their target...only to have one hunter win because the other one got deflected on a battle...thus negating all of their hard work. I honestly feel that if you're attempting to legitimately clear a bounty that this aspect should not be affected by the sheer luck of a deflect buff activating. If someone with more experience who understands what I am saying by this wants to clarify, please do.
I am in favor of deflected attacks not being bountyable. I am also in favor of an attacker losing xp and gold if they fail in their attack. If I decide to attack someone but I wasn't smart enough to make sure I could win first before I attempted it, I should lose something. I also do not think that a deflected attack should be counted as a loss in this instance. Maybe just a "do over".
Regarding the increase of the pvp target level to 10, it will make it more difficult to level out of someone's range without significantly upgrading one's character. With my current upgrades I can gain around 5 levels per hunt. I'm not necessarily opposed to it, just think it will make things harder, but I do sympathize with higher level players not having as many targets in such a narrow range.
Thanks Hoofmaster, for trying to address everyone's concerns about the PvP system in general. As you can see from all of the responses and the impassioned pleas from everyone, you're not going to be able to please everyone, but I definitely think that a lot of good ideas have been presented and that you should be able to come up with some compromises which will be okay with the majority. Love this game. Always have, always will.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

This topic is locked
