[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
[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
[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

This topic is locked


