Jump to content

Photo

PvP Ladder Suggestions (Take 3)


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

#161 DomCorvis

DomCorvis

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 670 posts
  • Badge

Posted 31 July 2010 - 05:18

[quote name="luisspamer"]Hoof, I'm a confused how tweaking the PvP Ladder and how it works(being abused) lead into an overhaul of PvP itself? Sure PvP is the deciding factor how the ladder should be determined but PvP itself didn't need a complete overhaul as I read your suggestions. Small steps have always worked much better to less disastrous results. Anyway...
[quote name="Hoofmaster"]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.[/quote]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.
[quote name="Hoofmaster"]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.[/quote][quote name="Hoofmaster"]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.[/quote]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.
[quote name="Hoofmaster"]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.[/quote]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.
[quote name="Hoofmaster"]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.[/quote]Bad idea :evil:
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.
[quote name="Hoofmaster"]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.[/quote]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.
[quote name="Hoofmaster"]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.[/quote]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.
[quote name="Hoofmaster"]Players 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.[/quote]No problem here :) Attacking inactives has got to be the lamest technique to manipulate the game in many ways.
[quote name="Hoofmaster"]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.[/quote]Bad idea :evil:
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 :( This already works perfectly the way it is.
[quote name="Hoofmaster"]An Attacker should get a message in their Logs when their attack is deflected.

This simply helps prevent confusion regarding attackers getting Bountied.[/quote]No problem with this addition...

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.[/quote]




WIN PURE WIN

RealmOfTheDead_zps1e8fa1f1.png


#162 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 31 July 2010 - 05:21

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.


Of course you weren't, since you care about the game, and remembers what the game was build like :) Skip the pot, and skip the opt out all together.

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.


Would be super. Helps getting rid of those who buy 1hit bounties to get the medal.
Add a little delight to it though, and make the bounties for 10-20 hits, or even 5-15 hits for those who think 40 mins spend on 1 bounty is too much. Heck, set the waiting in between hits on the board to 1 min instead of 2, and put a min of 10 kills on bounties, maximum of 20 :)
With this in place, you add the possibility for extra punishment for the one being boarded, and you can stay away for the min stam required for clearing bounties aspect.

At the same time, remove the "Cannot be counter bountied" idea.. it's.. well.. I see loopholes, which some may not like!

Take away PvP rating from the board as well.. just, remove it. I wouldn't mind a little bonus rating for clearing a bounty, but I don't really need it, so it would just be selfish of me to want it :lol:

Add the "looser looses feature". I know this will pee of my fellow hunters at lower lvls, but I have been fighting for this as long as I can remember. Not for the fairness in it, but for the logic in it.. I don't get why a defender looses stuff when killed, but an attacker doesn't.

It's a little off-topic, but one thing we could look at in regards to detecting what gold a player has is for it to consume one stamina to 'examine' the player to see if they have gold on them. :)


1) Deflect
2) You just increased the protect gold enhancement
3) You can be bountied
4) The new proposed minimum 10 hit bounty will take a minimum of 20 times the exp loss you inflict for a 10 stam attack


Now you would like it to cost stam to look to see if you might want to attack someone for gold?


Nuff said! If you really want me to search for something costing me stam to do, add something like game mercenaries I can hit.. but with big fat pockets bursting with gold, and goodies.



Oh and Hoof, could ya pls get your team of co-workers to monitor these threads, and get rid of the ppl who have taken upon 'emselves to throw allegations and ridiculing specific guilds in these threads? You're just leaving the impression, that this is allowed, which will eventually lead for others to start throwing around very nasty namecalling and whatnot.
It's a shame they don't see how embarrassing they are to 'emselves, but sometimes kids needs adults to guide 'em. Thnx.

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


#163 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 31 July 2010 - 05:40

Heck, set the waiting in between hits on the board to 1 min instead of 2, and put a min of 10 kills on bounties, maximum of 20 :)
With this in place, you add the possibility for extra punishment for the one being boarded, and you can stay away for the min stam required for clearing bounties aspect.


Problem with this would be a pvp player that has guildies/allies ready to soft clear him/her fast, getting them off the board super quickly with minimal damage incurred. The bounty board is about punishment. Letting the 'victim' set the amount of stamina hits required sounds like a much better idea. People get put on the BB for a reason, however the BH's are simply performing a duty, a 'job' if you like. The 10 stam counter bounty reinforces this.

:)

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#164 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 31 July 2010 - 05:51

Problem with this would be a pvp player that has guildies/allies ready to soft clear him/her fast, getting them off the board super quickly with minimal damage incurred. The bounty board is about punishment. Letting the 'victim' set the amount of stamina hits required sounds like a much better idea. People get put on the BB for a reason, however the BH's are simply performing a duty, a 'job' if you like. The 10 stam counter bounty reinforces this.
:)


You have made it perfectly clear on many occasions that you just want a "Punish this player" button - and that you have phaled tremendously in understanding the basics within PvP.

It is not punishment enough that the attacker looses minimum the double amount of xp compared to what he/she took? Having a x20 bounty makes it 4 times as much ..

And clearing bounties is neither a job, nor performing a duty.

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


#165 Trailman

Trailman

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 295 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 05:55

I am not going to quote here all should read every post in this section as I have. Next I am a leveler and only PvP when it is in defense of a member of my guild or an Ally. As far as I am concerned there are some great ideas here and some that meet the file 13 requirements. Not my problem it is Hoof’s to wade through them. Here is my input.

#1 The bounty board as it now exists sets the price of the bounty at 1,000 gold per level of the person you are placing the bounty on. This should remain the base from what you work from. If you want to allow the player attacked to set the amount of stamina per attack then the cost for the bounty should go up in proportion. 1k per 10 stamina attack 20k per 20 stamina required attack up to 100k per 100 stamina attack required. This will make it expensive to place those bounties but will allow them. It will also keep the board more normal but still allow for very expensive bounties as well. As far as the 1 hit bounties I have no real opinion I have taken all of 2 of them and do not deem them a worthy bounty but that is subjective.

#2 The PvP ladder reset. I agree with many of the posts here that this will generate a flurry of PvP attacks each time the ladder resets. I think the reduction of PvP each week or every 2 or 3 days is a much fairer way to do this.

EXAMPLE FOR ALL YOU NIT PICKERS: Say you lose 100 of your PvP rating per week or every few days. I not only don’t care about my PvP rating I know it makes me a target as well.

This will keep the PvPer’s happy but allow levelers some peace as well.

#3 Xp, gold and PvP loss should be for both above your level and below as well. I would like to add here the following:

A. 10 stamina attack should only take PvP and gold OFF THE BOARD, AND a bounty can be placed. I would not give you PvPer’s a win key ether, you attack then always should a bounty be able to be placed.

B. Xp, Gold and PvP loss should be lost from attackers that lose an attack. And it should be on scale with the stamina used in the attack in the first place. Same rules apply 10 stamina equals 1 percent, 100 stamina equals 10 percent of the level. This is on the board or off. And that includes a 10-100 stamina attack put a little more risk into it.

C. I firmly believe that being able to attack someone should be based on the actual level not virtual. This again means that the retribution on the bounty board means something and will also allow levelers some leeway. Remember I am a leveler not a PvPer.

D. I agree with ALL ATTACKS SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE BOUNTIED. I don’t care if you set a time limit on how often you can place them but each and every one of them we should be able to place a bounty on. THIS IS OFF THE BOARD ONLY. The limit is once every hour now for off board attacks so something like every 5 minutes would work and should not take that much more coding to get done. If you attack me 5 times I expect to be able to place 5 different bounties on you.

E. As far as the level note it should be actual level +/-5 for under 200, +/- 15 above 300 and so forth I agree with. But before you do this fix the xp loss up here that is a must. I really have no suggestions for this fix.

F. Hoof you want a really novel approach let Deflect act like First Strike and give us a chance to strike back instead of killing the attack at the start. This would put a great deal of punch back into the Deflect buff not only for PvP but also GvG.

G. This is an add because of what I have seen in these responses. As a very part time BH and no I don't have the medal yet I clear all bounties with 10 stamina attacks. Why should I waste more then that. On the other hand if it is for retribution for attacks on members here or allies they are always 100 stamina attacks or as much as I have left for the last one. That is the main difference between a normal bounty and a retribution bounty.

So any hit on the bounty board that exceeds 10 stamina for the attack would be considered a retribution attack. Exempt real Bounty Hunters from retribution attacks on the board. To address the issue of having someone stay on the board is why item D above has a time limit in it. To address the issue I would suggest the following.

Add to attack player the option as you see when placing a bounty, a list of players that have attacked you within the last 48 hours and a check box that is for a retribution attack. If this option is checked then it nullifies the ability to place a bounty for ether attack. You can't place one for theirs and they can't place one for yours. If you have been attacked more then once then after 5 minutes has expired that name appear again with the same options. The 48 hour time limit should remain even if this is added.

One other item if that box is checked the attack is automatically set to the same amount of stamina used in the initial attack.

2320275.png


#166 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 31 July 2010 - 05:57

You have made it perfectly clear on many occasions that you just want a "Punish this player" button - and that you have phaled tremendously in understanding the basics within PvP.

It is not punishment enough that the attacker looses minimum the double amount of xp compared to what he/she took? Having a x20 bounty makes it 4 times as much ..

And clearing bounties is neither a job, nor performing a duty.


The initial attack isn't a two way thing, you (for example) choose to make the attack, its not often requested. In this case you are forcing your playing style onto an unwilling participant. They 'should' be able to have you severely punished for this. You are afterall punishing them via your own means first.

Play posts their attacker on the BB, BH clears them. They are performing a duty, a job that they have been contracted to do via the BB.

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#167 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:24


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.

All right I can see you are in an argumentative mood so I will bite back a little. ;)

What you call 'bullying' I call playing. In fact, I would like to see the devs require every player to initiate PvP, and not with some inactive retired player(looks like the devs think the same). Every player is required to level. It is the most basic, and easiest part of the game. By default every player must participate in PvP whether they like it or not. It has been this way since the game's inception and for a reason. Ask Hoof.

This is a GAME we are playing, a roll playing game! You perceive the protagonists and antagonists differently then I do, obviously.

Why shouldn't players be allowed to punish others by taking xp, gold, or for whatever reason? It is a necessary and integral part of this game. It is so easy to get rid of gold, yet some players seem to think they are immune from attacks. You have this idea that because a player attacks another for gold, or xp, or for any reason that they are the antagonist or bad guy. I see them as the protagonist most of the time simply taking an opportunity that presented itself to them, with all the risks involved.

Getting cleared off the bounty board is like an art form sometimes. You wouldn't know this because you have probably never lost 5 levels to a deleveling party or even tried to prevent yourself from being deleveled. Many PvPers do fight back while on the bounty board. It is the purest type of PvP there is. Here is an example:

[*:3myegmb1]I hit a player above my level with 100 stams repeatedly every hour because they were carrying 46m gold on hand. Yes some players do this ;) They lose roughly 10% of a level's xp per attack.
[*:3myegmb1]This player returns online to find their log filled with repeated attacks. Attacks I would most likely continue until Master Thief kicks, until I'm bountied, they have dumped their gold, or I have to go.
[*:3myegmb1]Most times the player will send a nasty PM mad because I have probably stolen all of that shiny gold. I never respond. But rarely, believe it or not, the player who understands PvP knows what a foolish mistake that they made and doesn't even put up a simple bounty. Call it a lesson learned!
[*:3myegmb1]So now I'm expected to be deleveled
[*:3myegmb1]The time comes and I'm bountied, usually when I'm offline. Now I go offline and I'm not wearing my stam gain suit which is easily beatable, but one that is difficult to beat, especially buffed up which happens when you have the right guildmates, allies, friends or even other unknown players.
[*:3myegmb1]Many outcomes are possible:
[*:3myegmb1]I lose 5 levels
[*:3myegmb1]I lose some levels but an ally or any other player clears me before the deleveling party can take all 5
[*:3myegmb1]And finally it is possible, just not probable, that I manage to fight off my attackers while an ally clears me with 10 stam attacks.[*:3myegmb1]Now how do I respond? Again, many outcomes are possible depending on a few factors:
[*:3myegmb1]I do nothing! This is the most likely response. It was a gold hit and I got lots of it(hopefully). Especially if delevelers were the attacked player's guildmates.
[*:3myegmb1]I just post simple bountys on the delevelers. Again, depends who the delevelers were.
[*:3myegmb1]The player I hit hires mercs(players for hire to 100 stam attack). Every merc loses 5!! No exceptions there. Tha player attacked doesn't have the guildmates or allies friends to do it then the hired gun is expecting to lose 5 for a price and will.[/list]
This is just a simple example of what could happen for attacking another player. Bottom line is don't make yourself a target! PvP is fun for a lot of players. You want to make the punishment harsher and automatic. It doesn't work like that. It's a game. I love the aspect of PvP that allows you to avoid the harsher punishment. You can't handle that. Sorry. I actually have no problem with the punishment possibility to be harsher. But I don't want the devs to mess with a players ability to play PvP well using guildmates, allies and friends to minimize the the punishment. It's not my fault players can't serve harsher punishment on the BB. As an example you should understand, not every player levels the most efficiently racing to the EOC utilizing their stamina(and fsp). Just some. This is a fact of the game. The game needs to be MORE PvP orientated imo. HCS deals with player harassment on a case by case basis. If you think you are being unfairly harassed(or bullied) you can always send a ticket: http://support.huntedcow.com. But don't be upset at players that want to play ALL components of the game just because you don't. I think the two suggestions Hoof made that I highlighted In red with :evil: do not help fix anything about the PvP ladder only serve to hurt the strategies in PvP. I'm not the only one either.

[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


#168 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:36

I'm sorry Luiss but I quite frankly dissagree with your opinion. At least you were outright and honest about the fact you simply want more people to play YOUR game though. However your opinion isn't the main priority here, people could be easily led to believe that the overwhelming opinion of all players follow your ideals by reading what you write on here. The fact is they do not, its simply that you and some of your friends and guildies speak up a lot more when it comes to possible changes to be made to 'your' gameplay. What you really often fail to recognise is that, as you have stated its not even that difficult for you to avoid the current harsher punishment that the BB offers there is no way for people that wish to have no part in that particular aspect of the game to avoid it.

Now excuse me if I'm wrong here but it seems to me like you have recently chosen this particular path to follow, you joined a prestigious guild that will help you 'foil' much of the current punishment methods and now because HCS has expressed interest in making pvp a little less unbalanced in favour of the attacker you have a problem with it. This has needed to be adressed for such a long time now, the timing is unfortunate for you sure, but nevertheless.. Well, you know..

Also, before the pvp ladder is adresses it makes sense that they would firstly deal with the inherent problems that pvp causes to the other aspects of the game. Let people see the risks, see what 'can' and 'should' happen and then make the choice on whether or not to pursue that line of gameplay.

If they were to just implement a bunch of changes to the pvp ladder without fixing how the system works first then it would be even harder to get the needed changes pushed through.

Also, I'm not the only one that feels this way either, not everyone has the means to negate much of the problems pvp causes however and are duly fearfull of reprisals to them opening their mouths..

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#169 fs_80gdan

fs_80gdan
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:38

In our proposed suggestions, you could still be bountied back, however players attempting the bounty would be limited to 10 stamina attacks.

Again this is only a suggestion :)

i really like this one :)

#170 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:38

Add a little delight to it though, and make the bounties for 10-20 hits, or even 5-15 hits for those who think 40 mins spend on 1 bounty is too much. Heck, set the waiting in between hits on the board to 1 min instead of 2, and put a min of 10 kills on bounties, maximum of 20 :)
With this in place, you add the possibility for extra punishment for the one being boarded, and you can stay away for the min stam required for clearing bounties aspect.

No problem with this suggestion. Would allow players to play more and dish out more punishment. Costs to place bountys should be appropriate tho(ie more).

[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


#171 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:41

Add a little delight to it though, and make the bounties for 10-20 hits, or even 5-15 hits for those who think 40 mins spend on 1 bounty is too much. Heck, set the waiting in between hits on the board to 1 min instead of 2, and put a min of 10 kills on bounties, maximum of 20 :)
With this in place, you add the possibility for extra punishment for the one being boarded, and you can stay away for the min stam required for clearing bounties aspect.

No problem with this suggestion. Would allow players to play more and dish out more punishment. Costs to place bountys should be appropriate tho(ie more).


Of course you would agree, this would get you off of the BB even quicker.. :roll:

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#172 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:44

Anyways, its stupid o clock in the morning now.. On a side note that was a really well presented forum post luiss, not lots and lots of quotes etc, a pleasure to read, even if I didn't agree with the content. (No I'm not taking the mickey either)

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#173 avvakum

avvakum

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:45

The initial attack isn't a two way thing, you (for example) choose to make the attack, its not often requested. In this case you are forcing your playing style onto an unwilling participant. They 'should' be able to have you severely punished for this. You are afterall punishing them via your own means first.


Believe me, you don't want to fight Nietzsche's famous arguments against punishment, and an infinite level of intelligence that cannot be achieved, but only at which you have rights to judge others' actions and punish... :lol: I grew up debating his philosophy from the age of twelve, anyway, you are lucky, I am now officially on vacation, and leaving in 4 hours - beach, sun, girls, some FS in the evenings ;) Good luck with PvP debates though, look outside sometimes :lol:

#174 Mister Doom

Mister Doom

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 6,518 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:48

Believe me, you don't want to fight Nietzsche's famous arguments against punishment, and an infinite level of intelligence that cannot be achieved, but only at which you have rights to judge others' actions and punish... :lol: I grew up debating his philosophy from the age of twelve, anyway, you are lucky, I am now officially on vacation, and leaving in 4 hours - beach, sun, girls, some FS in the evenings ;) Good luck with PvP debates though, look outside sometimes :lol:


Congrats Avvakum, I'm fully aware you've read lots of books, like I have said before though, knowledge doesn't always denote intelligence, simply a good memory. ;) Have fun in the sun though mate, its been really hot where I live, especially OUTSIDE at work n that.. 8)

EnhancedShardoom1-1.gif


#175 fs_theoryman

fs_theoryman
  • Guests

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:49

I don't get why a defender looses stuff when killed, but an attacker doesn't.


The only reason I can think of why the attacker doesn't lose anything if defeated is that the defender didn't put forth any stamina in the attack so it's treated like when conserve kicks for the attacker and the defender only loses PvP rating.

#176 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 31 July 2010 - 06:57

Of course you would agree, this would get you off of the BB even quicker.. :roll:


Not for the 20 hits bounties, those still last 20 mins. Arg why do I even try. Arguing with ppl wearing blindfolds are like peeing in the ocean trying to create a flood... nothing changes.

You should try to enter a debate at some point in your life, with the purpose of widening your perspective, broadening your horizon, instead of entering everything the same way you play the game, looking for a win. As with this game, debates here on forum have no winners. It's all about perspective, maximizing the fun, utilizing what is offered from developers, and trying to improve every aspect of it.

Not about, what YOU would like to happen, so YOU can do whatever YOU like without anyone interfering with it. Not everything is just black or white, there are a many colors in between.

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


#177 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 31 July 2010 - 07:05

I don't get why a defender looses stuff when killed, but an attacker doesn't.


The only reason I can think of why the attacker doesn't lose anything if defeated is that the defender didn't put forth any stamina in the attack so it's treated like when conserve kicks for the attacker and the defender only loses PvP rating.


Not a bad theory (pun fully intended :P ) .. and the attacker does risk everything with the hit, where as the defender doesn't (except for doing whatever reason the attack was placed in the first place)... from a RPG perspective, if the defender can loose something, the attacker should be able to loose the same... although... come to think about it, I don't recall playing any RPGs where I lost my xp when getting smacked by a monster.. except for this one of course.. so... yeah, I stick with it. As long as critters take away xp when you loose to 'em, you should loose xp when loosing to another player, attacking or defending doesn't matter.

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


#178 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 07:33

*giggle* peeing in oceans to create a flood..lol

 


#179 avvakum

avvakum

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 08:16

HCS has expressed interest in making pvp a little less unbalanced in favour of the attacker


They can play with motivation to increase or decrease the amount of PvP in this game depending on what they want. There are 2 ways from here either encourage pvp or not, the attacker is motivation-driven, too much punishment should be balanced with enough rewards to keep PvP activity at the same level. As for making PvP combat mechanics harder for the attacker, I've been saying it many times - hard for pvp'ers, impossible for others. Anyone thinks one step ahead? Let's take "A Counter Bounty is limited to 10 stam attacks", the pvp guilds are quite capable to send 40 hitters instead of 4, I even see more alliances between pvp guilds, it will be a problem for leveling guilds though.

#180 avvakum

avvakum

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 31 July 2010 - 08:46

Anyone thinks one step ahead? Let's take "A Counter Bounty is limited to 10 stam attacks", the pvp guilds are quite capable to send 40 hitters instead of 4, I even see more alliances between pvp guilds, it will be a problem for leveling guilds though.


Good point. Perhaps the real solution is that counter-bounties should only take 1 level, maximum. Then it won't matter how many people the PvP guilds use to go after a bounty-hunter.



taking away the pride of being a bounty hunter is never a solution, forget about making any hitting of other players on/off board risk free, that will never be a solution


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: