PvP Ladder Update Announced!
#321
fs_onikaimu
Posted 08 August 2010 - 00:09
#322
fs_oblivion05
Posted 08 August 2010 - 00:15
I want to know whatever happened to being able to buy a potion to opt out of PVP?
Dream on. That will never happen.
#323
fs_kevman
Posted 08 August 2010 - 01:27
I want to know whatever happened to being able to buy a potion to opt out of PVP?
Hi all,
I've been reading over the feedback so far and here are my thoughts...
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.
.... First post on the 3rd topic about it....
#324
fs_gravely
Posted 08 August 2010 - 02:28
Cows, right now there's still four major problem areas -
Rating should NOT be automatically granted to whomever clears a bounty, because there's a real possibility they lost more combats than they won.
Inactives need to remain eligible to attack, or else they become potentially unlimited gold banks.
Just remove rating transfer.
Counter bounties should not be limited. It's fixing a problem that doesn't really exist, and promotes a complicated and bug prone 'solution'.
The ladder should not be reset every two weeks - it should be a month, minimum. Additionally, please consider allowing players who do not wish to partake in the rating race to artificially depress their rating at the time of reset. If everyone would normally have their rating reset to 1000, allow them to reset to 700.
P.S., please consider leaving bounty rating transfer completely alone, with the small tweak of a subleveling penalty such that higher level players who are capable of clearing a bounty with little or no risk to themselves cannot simply take hundreds of rating without fear. It's been explicated repeatedly, so if you want a re - explanation, just read the thread.
#325
Posted 08 August 2010 - 08:51
Agreed that sometimes BHers lose more then they win before ultimately getting 10 kills. The point transfer in the end should reflect that. I have no idea how Hoof plans to decide the PvP rating transfer between the posted player and the clearer(winner of the bounty) at the end of a bounty. But I think he doesn't plan to change much besides only the winner getting rating, which is fine probably. Resetting everyone periodically should make point exchanges much less drastic. This is a wait and see for me.Rating should NOT be automatically granted to whomever clears a bounty, because there's a real possibility they lost more combats than they won.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'unlimited gold banks'? I agree with Hoof that the likelihood of not being bountied is too high the longer a player is away. In fact I would like to see the ability to hit be stopped at 7 days away for all PvP, the same as it is currently for GvGs. Hitting inactives is purely a cheap tactic.Inactives need to remain eligible to attack, or else they become potentially unlimited gold banks.
Just remove rating transfer.
This one I agree with. There are times when finding someone who has a bounty on a player you want to delevel is strategic and smart play. This is rare but players should retain the ability to do so. I've also never seen a problem here. So if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it please. Like I asked earlier in the thread, how does a BHer know what the max allowed stam is? Must they wait until they take the bounty and swing? Just doesn't sound right to me.Counter bounties should not be limited. It's fixing a problem that doesn't really exist, and promotes a complicated and bug prone 'solution'.
Two weeks(ok 15 days) is the time it takes to get the bronze medal. Any longer and it stops working as a forced decay type action where players would still abuse the system by trading and sitting and not PvPing, which is exactly what happens now. Two weeks is ok but I would even prefer a daily reset or shorter then two weeks one but definitely not longer! Having players know when the reset will occur only opens the ladder to players manipulating the system. Why not have the ladder reset randomly, like a Titan spawn, occurring anywhere between one day and two weeks? No possible way to manipulate then!The ladder should not be reset every two weeks - it should be a month, minimum. Additionally, please consider allowing players who do not wish to partake in the rating race to artificially depress their rating at the time of reset. If everyone would normally have their rating reset to 1000, allow them to reset to 700.
Also,allowing players to essentially opt out by picking what their reset should be isn't healthy for the game. For example, higher levels generally don't PvP. Those that do would have even fewer targets available and make it even more difficult to attain any decent rating. Then the BB becomes the only possible venue. Every player needs to be treated equally. If this were permitted I would like to see a harsh penalty for using the easier rating, like only earning HALF the xp gained from mob kills. This option would make the PvP aspect of the game a joke and makes no sense to me.
Again I'm confused here. Higher levels do take a risk bounty hunting, being counterbountied, albeit the risk can be minimized(i.e. taking an ally's bounty) but it is the same for all players. The rating points transfer should reflect the more dominant PvPer as I see it.P.S., please consider leaving bounty rating transfer completely alone, with the small tweak of a subleveling penalty such that higher level players who are capable of clearing a bounty with little or no risk to themselves cannot simply take hundreds of rating without fear. It's been explicated repeatedly, so if you want a re - explanation, just read the thread.
Regardless of what does and doesn't happen, I'm hopeful that the devs release whatever changes are to come early in the week so that minor tweaks can be made swiftly.
[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
#326
Posted 08 August 2010 - 09:32
I'm not sure what you mean by 'unlimited gold banks'? I agree with Hoof that the likelihood of not being bountied is too high the longer a player is away. In fact I would like to see the ability to hit be stopped at 7 days away for all PvP, the same as it is currently for GvGs. Hitting inactives is purely a cheap tactic.Inactives need to remain eligible to attack, or else they become potentially unlimited gold banks.
Just remove rating transfer.
I currently have 2 RL friends, both now gone inactive, I could potentially send them millions upon millions of gold to hold for someone unknown or whatever reason.
I can them have them log in and send it back to me, pretty much whenever I wanted.
#327
Posted 08 August 2010 - 13:53
This way the first week when everyone is going pvp to try it out, the players that don't want to compete won't lose 10 levels when offline...
They gave a free skill points reset when new skills came out... Might keep a few players from quitting when they get attacked 200 times the first day...
#328
Posted 08 August 2010 - 14:48
You have to be kidding me right? Send ANYONE millions of gold and ask them to be a 'gold BP' so to speak... This MUST happen ALL the time... Can't wait for THAT to happen. Sorry, not buying it.I'm not sure what you mean by 'unlimited gold banks'? I agree with Hoof that the likelihood of not being bountied is too high the longer a player is away. In fact I would like to see the ability to hit be stopped at 7 days away for all PvP, the same as it is currently for GvGs. Hitting inactives is purely a cheap tactic.Inactives need to remain eligible to attack, or else they become potentially unlimited gold banks.
Just remove rating transfer.
I currently have 2 RL friends, both now gone inactive, I could potentially send them millions upon millions of gold to hold for someone unknown or whatever reason.
I can them have them log in and send it back to me, pretty much whenever I wanted.
[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
#329
Posted 08 August 2010 - 14:52
But people will say this will happen, not much chance of it I think
#330
fs_gravely
Posted 08 August 2010 - 14:54
Regarding the proposed changes to rating transfer on bounties, if you read the language of the proposal, the clearer is guaranteed rating, which means the player who's been bountied is going to lose rating, regardless of their performance on the board.
I regularly have only one hunter on me, especially if I'm online. Taking two hours to beat no one else to the punch is kind of silly to reward with rating.
EJ already explained why absolutely no ability to attack inactives is a bad idea. We still need to be able to send them stuff because guilds use them for mules, etc, and the idea to remove that ability has already been proposed by the Cows and dropped in the face of community outcry.
As for having a two week reset, a decay might actually be better, luis, but the reset is what has been proposed, and what's dominant about players earning dominance or PvP tokens with under 1500 rating? This also feeds into hitting levelers for your rating - if the ladder resets quickly, then they'll be a large chunk of how players climb the ladder - farming cattle, anyone? If players don't fight back, and rating transfer is only allowed between two players on a bounty, this WILL happen.
I see and understand your concern about most people at EOC dropping their rating, but right now you mainly rely on the board to gain rating anyway. When was the last time you did an off the board rating hit, luis? A rating depression wouldn't make PvP in this game a joke, because if it did, that would imply that rating is the sole measure of how good PvP in FS is - and if that's true, PvP has been a joke for years, and you and I both know that isn't so.
The longer between resets - up to a reasonable amount of time, nothing like 6 months - the more points will be accumulated by actual deserving PvP players that are risking themselves to get it. Having short resets means players who don't participate or don't wish to participate become higher and higher value targets. If a major league baseball pitcher strikes someone out, it shouldn't count on their professional stats if the person at the plate is an overweight college professor, should it?
Now for the big one.
Again I'm confused here. Higher levels do take a risk bounty hunting, being counterbountied, albeit the risk can be minimized(i.e. taking an ally's bounty) but it is the same for all players. The rating points transfer should reflect the more dominant PvPer as I see it.
What is your definition of "dominant", luis?
Right now, you could probably 10-0 me even if I was online. You have relics, buffs, and almost 400 levels on me.
Personally, I don't think it would be dominant of you at all to beat me, because there's truly very little risk involved. You know I'm a well known PvP player that doesn't counter bounty, you know I don't have access to the gear or relics I would need to do anything but two percent you, and you know I generally have a better than average rating. The same holds true of almost any player with a passing interest in PvP post 820. You shouldn't be able to take 250+ of my rating just because you're virtually unkillable by me.
By the same token, certain players near or at EOC like to bounty hunt. Or rather, bounty farm. They'll remain nameless, but they like to have higher midrange level players come on the board with rather high (2200+) rating. They 10-0 them, because they have 400 more levels, and all the stat points, gear, and buffs that go with that.
Is that a worthy accomplishment? Of course not. It's the same as farming a level 400 mob, for all intents and purposes, especially if that player is offline. By the same token, if a level 300 player manages to 10-0 that same player, they deserve that rating, because the 400 (should have) given them a run for their money in every combat.
Essentially, luis, if you 10-0 me, and have 200 less rating than I do, you deserve about 30 to 40 more rating, max.
As for players not creating gold banks...you doubt that players will create multis and use them to hoard gold? Are we playing the same game?
#331
Posted 08 August 2010 - 15:00
Personally, I don't think it would be dominant of you at all to beat me, because there's truly very little risk involved. You know I'm a well known PvP player that doesn't counter bounty, you know I don't have access to the gear or relics I would need to do anything but two percent you, and you know I generally have a better than average rating. The same holds true of almost any player with a passing interest in PvP post 820. You shouldn't be able to take 250+ of my rating just because you're virtually unkillable by me.
The thing is, Luiss (for example) has gone through the growth mechanism in the game (levelling), so if rating is indeed to remain on the bb there shouldn't be any penalties in rating gained simply because someone has levelled up. I don't think?
#332
fs_gravely
Posted 08 August 2010 - 15:04
The thing is, Luiss (for example) has gone through the growth mechanism in the game (levelling), so if rating is indeed to remain on the bb there shouldn't be any penalties in rating gained simply because someone has levelled up. I don't think?
I left a post for you, doom, aren't you going to respond to it?
As for this one, why introduce an experience subleveling penalty? How come creatures give less experience just because you level up? Because the game made the obvious calculation that lower level targets were easier to beat, and thus deserve less of a reward.
Additionally, if we assume that higher level players should have an automatic advantage to the point where their rating is protected by bounties instead of risked, then what's the point of a midrange pvper even participating in the system?
The reason I say protected by bounties is this - if I'm on a bounty under the new rules and doing my best to clear someone 750+, but get beaten to the punch by another higher level player with more rating, the only player that the target loses rating to is that higher level player. Under the new rules that higher level player is MUCH more likely to have a higher rating, and thus the player being cleared is going to lose less rating. So not only do midrange players get 10-0'd for the full shebang, they can't earn any rating back from said higher level players like they currently are capable of.
#333
Posted 08 August 2010 - 15:07
#334
Posted 08 August 2010 - 15:52
I currently have 2 RL friends, both now gone inactive, I could potentially send them millions upon millions of gold to hold for someone unknown or whatever reason.
I can them have them log in and send it back to me, pretty much whenever I wanted.[/quote]
You have to be kidding me right? Send ANYONE millions of gold and ask them to be a 'gold BP' so to speak... This MUST happen ALL the time... Can't wait for THAT to happen. Sorry, not buying it.[/quote]
If they change it so inactibve players cant be hit that's exactly what's going to happen. Do you really believe it wont? Look at everything else players take advantage of. This would be a stupid size loophole.
#335
Posted 08 August 2010 - 18:32
If they change it so inactibve players cant be hit that's exactly what's going to happen. Do you really believe it wont? Look at everything else players take advantage of. This would be a stupid size loophole.You have to be kidding me right? Send ANYONE millions of gold and ask them to be a 'gold BP' so to speak... This MUST happen ALL the time... Can't wait for THAT to happen. Sorry, not buying it.
I currently have 2 RL friends, both now gone inactive, I could potentially send them millions upon millions of gold to hold for someone unknown or whatever reason.
I can them have them log in and send it back to me, pretty much whenever I wanted.
Errm just posted to fix the quote.
This would be a big loophole, just make it so only Gold and(?) Exp can be stolen/taken and not PvP Rating.
#336
fs_skramble
Posted 08 August 2010 - 19:48
If they change it so inactive players cant be hit that's exactly what's going to happen. Do you really believe it wont? Look at everything else players take advantage of. This would be a stupid size loophole.
Huge loophole that multi's will probably take advantage of. It would probably be best to leave hitting inactive players as it is now. Over time their rating would drop enough to make hitting them not worthwhile.
When you think about it, this is another plus for degrading rating over reset
#337
Posted 08 August 2010 - 21:45
If i am wrong please correct my erroneous statements, ty.
#338
fs_skramble
Posted 08 August 2010 - 21:48
I believe there is the problem of active inactives. Those inactives sitting at relic sites waiting to defend the relic if captured by their Guild. As long as inactives can participate in relic control they should be fair game for PvP attack.
If i am wrong please correct my erroneous statements, ty.
Player must be active in last seven days to count in relic control defenses
#339
Posted 08 August 2010 - 22:01
I believe there is the problem of active inactives. Those inactives sitting at relic sites waiting to defend the relic if captured by their Guild. As long as inactives can participate in relic control they should be fair game for PvP attack.
If i am wrong please correct my erroneous statements, ty.
Player must be active in last seven days to count in relic control defenses
Thank you. :mrgreen:
#340
fs_gatticus
Posted 09 August 2010 - 02:31
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

This topic is locked
