PvP Ladder Update Announced!
#341
Posted 09 August 2010 - 02:51
The first solution I had proposed is now one being proposed by HCS also, but it is far from perfect as gravely has pointed out.
The real solution is to lower the amount traded per individual attack on the board. However that is hardly possible as 1/1 = 1/10 = 1/100 = 1 in the game. I propose multiplying the base player rating by 10 to 10000 and the amount traded off the board by 10 (between 10 and ~300 points per attack)
#342
fs_coyotik
Posted 09 August 2010 - 07:28
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.
Given the number of people who have quit the game? If inactives were non-attackable, this WOULD happen like crazy. I have RL contacts to about 50 former guild members, so odds are that at least a few would be willing to log in on demand to send gold back - and that's all legit. I'm sure that a lot of people would be willing to create multies and let them go inactive for just this purpose, to serve as long-term bank.
Inactives must be attackable.
#343
fs_coyotik
Posted 09 August 2010 - 07:31
There is still the point that too many points being traded on the board causes people to avoid real PvP.
Best solved by scrapping the rating transfer on BB totally. PvP rating will then reflect only combat against your peers - and BHers can get a separate ladder that will measure their success rate (perhaps using weighted averages with level difference as a weight, so going 10:1 against somebody 200 levels below will be less rewarding than going 10:1 against somebody 200 levels above.
Trying to catch it all in one rating will lead to problems and overly complicated solutions (or attempts)
#344
fs_gravely
Posted 09 August 2010 - 07:47
There is still the point that too many points being traded on the board causes people to avoid real PvP.
Best solved by scrapping the rating transfer on BB totally. PvP rating will then reflect only combat against your peers - and BHers can get a separate ladder that will measure their success rate (perhaps using weighted averages with level difference as a weight, so going 10:1 against somebody 200 levels below will be less rewarding than going 10:1 against somebody 200 levels above.
Trying to catch it all in one rating will lead to problems and overly complicated solutions (or attempts)
Congrats, so high level players have exactly 10 people to trade rating with, maybe less, and half of them threaten deleveling for any involvement in pvp whatsoever.
yea, that's going to make for a fair representation of the dominance ladder :roll:
#345
fs_coyotik
Posted 09 August 2010 - 08:03
Congrats, so high level players have exactly 10 people to trade rating with, maybe less, and half of them threaten deleveling for any involvement in pvp whatsoever.
yea, that's going to make for a fair representation of the dominance ladder :roll:
1) People level faster than HCS keeps adding content (and I don't expect this to change) - so it will improve over time anyway.
2) I've proposed increasing the range by a dynamic formula rather than flat +5 on level 200. I think that the range can well be increased to some 30-50 levels easily.
BTW, there's also a little drastic solution
#346
Posted 09 August 2010 - 11:45
Congrats, so high level players have exactly 10 people to trade rating with, maybe less, and half of them threaten deleveling for any involvement in pvp whatsoever.
yea, that's going to make for a fair representation of the dominance ladder :roll:
1) People level faster than HCS keeps adding content (and I don't expect this to change) - so it will improve over time anyway.
2) I've proposed increasing the range by a dynamic formula rather than flat +5 on level 200. I think that the range can well be increased to some 30-50 levels easily.
BTW, there's also a little drastic solution- scrap the PvP range totally and instead introduce levelup-point and gear limitations - if a level 900 player wants to attack a level 700 player, only gear up to level 700 counts and his levelup points are reduced by 700/900.
The Level up points aare not always all in one stats or anywhere round numbers, so the level up reduction will likely be hard to implement and bug prone :roll: ...
#347
Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:03
There is still the point that too many points being traded on the board causes people to avoid real PvP.
Best solved by scrapping the rating transfer on BB totally. PvP rating will then reflect only combat against your peers - and BHers can get a separate ladder that will measure their success rate (perhaps using weighted averages with level difference as a weight, so going 10:1 against somebody 200 levels below will be less rewarding than going 10:1 against somebody 200 levels above.
Trying to catch it all in one rating will lead to problems and overly complicated solutions (or attempts)
There's some PvP skills involved with being on the bounty board, I think PvP rating should reflect that skill. Hence why I suggested to simply lower the impact of the board on the rating.
#348
fs_coyotik
Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:19
The Level up points aare not always all in one stats or anywhere round numbers, so the level up reduction will likely be hard to implement and bug prone :roll: ...
Erm, I think that you're seriously underestimating Hoof. floor(level_of_defender/level_of_attacker) multiplier for each stat item before combat should be trivial to implement, and odds are that he'd get it right on the first try
#349
fs_coyotik
Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:21
There's some PvP skills involved with being on the bounty board, I think PvP rating should reflect that skill. Hence why I suggested to simply lower the impact of the board on the rating.
Well, I'd expect these skills to be somewhat different from classic attacks against people your level - so that's why splitting the rating into two would make sense...
#350
Posted 09 August 2010 - 12:49
There's some PvP skills involved with being on the bounty board, I think PvP rating should reflect that skill. Hence why I suggested to simply lower the impact of the board on the rating.
Well, I'd expect these skills to be somewhat different from classic attacks against people your level - so that's why splitting the rating into two would make sense...
Both involve attacking others within a specified frame. Splitting rating into two simply serves towards making the game pointlessly complex. On and off bounty board PvP work together to create the current PvP system.
#351
fs_coyotik
Posted 09 August 2010 - 13:36
Both involve attacking others within a specified frame. Splitting rating into two simply serves towards making the game pointlessly complex. On and off bounty board PvP work together to create the current PvP system.
Pointlessly complex? What is making the game pointlessly complex is trying to mix different situations into one rating (if that's to have any good value)
Splitting the rating into two is making it simpler, because no hardcore PvPer who earns his rating robbing others will be able to complain that a highlevel player cheaply farmed hundreds of points attacking a defenseless lowlevel on the BB or whatnot...
#352
fs_gravely
Posted 09 August 2010 - 14:44
1) People level faster than HCS keeps adding content (and I don't expect this to change) - so it will improve over time anyway.
Great, that helps some unspecified points in the future. These updates are supposed to be going live any day now.
2) I've proposed increasing the range by a dynamic formula rather than flat +5 on level 200. I think that the range can well be increased to some 30-50 levels easily.
....So you want pvp players to be able to engage a single specific target - for exp loss - for 60 to 100 levels?
BTW, there's also a little drastic solution
- scrap the PvP range totally and instead introduce levelup-point and gear limitations - if a level 900 player wants to attack a level 700 player, only gear up to level 700 counts and his levelup points are reduced by 700/900.
That's a horrible idea. If someone wants to beat me, they should be able to use all the advantages they've earned - it just shouldn't reward them quite so heavily.
#353
Posted 09 August 2010 - 17:11
tis from their facebook..6 hours agoWe're making good progress with the Fallen Sword PvP Ladder update
#354
fs_gravely
Posted 09 August 2010 - 18:01
#355
Posted 09 August 2010 - 18:52
LOL............Uh oh
#356
Posted 09 August 2010 - 19:20
#357
Posted 09 August 2010 - 20:45
Where did you see that?Least it's on a Monday or Tuesday...
#358
Posted 09 August 2010 - 21:41
#359
Posted 09 August 2010 - 22:57
#360
Posted 10 August 2010 - 02:07
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

This topic is locked