Jump to content

Photo

PvP Ladder Update Announced!


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

#361 NatalieEGH

NatalieEGH

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 05:21

Gravely, believe it or not a lot of leveler's think they should open up the range for the PvPers. I think it should increase 5 levels per 100 levels with the stipulation that you cannot attack someone that cannot attack back, like attacking a level 90 person when you are level 100.

Increasing the range does mean the PvPers can attack you longer. MOST are not total jerks. They have some sort of criteria where they judge targets and even then they do not repeatedly attack the same person over and over. As a leveler, my interest in gold is simple. It lets me buy potions and spells. After that is is something for helping to pay maintenance on my guild and occasionally hellforging an item. I could not care if I had 1 billion gold or 1 hundred. (I think my personal bank has been at ZERO since I was in the 140's. I take that back, if I had 1 billion I would buy lots of FSPs and raise my XP gain go max, gold gain to max, and put the rest into max stamina.)

No PvP is supposed to be part of the game, it is just not a part I am interested in playing based on the current rules, (I will do lots of arena after I make level 500 and have the spells maxed out that I think will most help my guild, allies, enemies, and others). Increasing the range will let the higher ranked PvPers spread out their attacks. If they are truly interested in playing King of the Hill, it will also let them find a lot more players into PvP to play with.

#362 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 05:25

i don't care much for the idea of increasing the range at certain levels..don't know how it would work around the levels that get the larger attack range..

don't know if HCS has answered this question..doubt it..but if a level 200 attacks a level 190, how can the 190 attack back?

increase it for all or it will just get messy

 


#363 fs_sollimaw

fs_sollimaw
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 07:48

i don't care much for the idea of increasing the range at certain levels..don't know how it would work around the levels that get the larger attack range..

don't know if HCS has answered this question..doubt it..but if a level 200 attacks a level 190, how can the 190 attack back?

increase it for all or it will just get messy


Its been mentioned enough that I am sure they are designing a fix for it. Why should the entirety of a good idea be abandoned because one aspect hasnt been explained to your liking?

#364 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 08:06

think it should just be 10+/- for all instead of just adding a system to counter it around the starting levels where its increased..seems too messy and unnecessary imo. i also don't like the idea of increasing the range every so often.. don't care much for the 25+/- of gvg but thats another subject :P

 


#365 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 08:25

hope the amount of possible levels lost on teh BB is still 5..taking 10 would be way too much and still very easy

 


#366 fs_sollimaw

fs_sollimaw
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 08:52

Sandrab, in all seriousness, level up so I can hit you :)

#367 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 12:53

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.


Hmm, it would be a great loss for mankind that players just below EOC would lose the opportunity to farm their PvP rating off low levels on BB...

I mean, current lack of targets for players near EOC is a VERY minor worry - because it will both improve with time and can be also alleviated by range increase.

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?


A misunderstanding. By range, I mean "from-to", so the current range is 11, the range being implemented is 21 - and I think that it could slowly grow to up to 30-50. I.e. making it a simple "floor(level/50) + X" or "floor(level/100) + Y". With X=1, level 950+ would have a reach of 20, level 100 would have a reach of 3. With Y5, level 100 would have a reach of 6 and level 900 reach 15.

I don't think that at level 950, having 20 or 10 levels would make a difference. The only problem that this would bring would be issues with gear balance - whenever there's some uber gear, players nearing that level from the bottom would be in reach of the attackers for a longer time - but I would like that solved by balancing the gear instead.

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.


If somebody wants to beat you on the BB, they're welcome to anyway. I'm talking about normal PvP - instead of worrying about level ranges, virtual levels and all that crud and unnecessary complexity, simply ensure that a higher-level attacker has no advantage - and then a level 800 can attack a level 100 just as level 900 and in both cases it's equally fair. That is, against the low level player, he won't have any gear or levelup points advantage, but he'll have any buffs he can cast on himself or buy (which is relatively cheaper for him).

#368 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 13:36

I mean, current lack of targets for players near EOC is a VERY minor worry - because it will both improve with time and can be also alleviated by range increase.


It won't alleviate with time. Someone at current EOC (970) has exactly 8 targets at the moment, after 3.5 years of the game being out. The number of people at EOC is pretty much steady.

Range increase can cause a lot of grieving if it's too big. I think the HCS proposed increase to 10 levels is a good first step and we should way and see how that pans out before looking at making it any more.

So the lack of targets for higher level players is a pretty major worry considering that the problem is similar for hundreds of levels and that no matter what a level 25 will have many more targets than a level 800.

#369 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 13:48

A misunderstanding. By range, I mean "from-to", so the current range is 11, the range being implemented is 21 - and I think that it could slowly grow to up to 30-50. I.e. making it a simple "floor(level/50) + X" or "floor(level/100) + Y". With X=1, level 950+ would have a reach of 20, level 100 would have a reach of 3. With Y5, level 100 would have a reach of 6 and level 900 reach 15.

I don't think that at level 950, having 20 or 10 levels would make a difference. The only problem that this would bring would be issues with gear balance - whenever there's some uber gear, players nearing that level from the bottom would be in reach of the attackers for a longer time - but I would like that solved by balancing the gear instead.

I've always embraced a gradually growing attack range, starting at say 200 like the devs have suggested. But you've managed to complicate a fairly simple idea, literally spelling it out, at least for me. Why the two formulas? What's Y's value? Just as two examples...

As for the gear, that is ever evolving. I'm sure I would recognize very little of the new stuff sub 400. I know what you mean by there being levels where gear jumps up tremendously in strength, 850 comes to mind. But that too will be filled in as the game develops and quicker then one would think.

[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


#370 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 15:04

But you've managed to complicate a fairly simple idea, literally spelling it out, at least for me. Why the two formulas? What's Y's value? Just as two examples...


Exactly - just examples of how to make the range grow. I chose two with different base and growth rate, but that doesn't really matter.

As for the gear, that is ever evolving. I'm sure I would recognize very little of the new stuff sub 400. I know what you mean by there being levels where gear jumps up tremendously in strength, 850 comes to mind. But that too will be filled in as the game develops and quicker then one would think.


By gear balance I mean softening the big jumps. I faintly recall that around 150-170 is a gap where attack gear is missing - and at higher levels, the issue is even worse because many of the sets there produce stats that match common items hundreds of levels above. (Gorbalz at 780 - att/def alone equivalent to level 1080 or so, Xind at 820 similar). What's the next best gear for PvP at 760-770? These "big" teeth in available gear should be softened up by introducing somewhat weaker gear available at lower levels - but that would mean that HCS would have to design the gear on purpose after first analyzing what's there already and where the big gaps are. And that could only happen if they agree that there's an issue that needs handling - and given the past history of gear production, I'm quite skeptical about this happenning.

I mean, odds are that a some new gear will appear somewhere in near future - but will it be made with the purpose of filling the biggest gaps? Or will it be made to the tune of the elemental epics? :)

#371 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 15:22

It won't alleviate with time. Someone at current EOC (970) has exactly 8 targets at the moment, after 3.5 years of the game being out. The number of people at EOC is pretty much steady.


Well, the number fluctuates. How many targets were there in the two weeks prior of the new (and historically first double-decker) content came up? 50 people are now strechted in the new content and odds are that a big part of them will reach EOC again soon, or at least EOC-5 to become targets.

Increasing the hitting range to +-20 or 25 levels would make it much better, anyway.

And the other thing - should the design of the game try to please everyone? Should we have a complicated system of limitations of rating transfer on BB? Is it even possible to come up with such a system, so that the PvP dominance rating will truly reflect the reality? Or would it just lead to more shopping, more buying of rating via BB?

That's why I would really prefer two separate ratings - even at the cost that highlevel players will have much less opportunity to reach the top of the classic PvP one.

In fact I'm skeptical about all these ratings - no matter how you define them, somebody will always find a way to buy them...

That's why I was actually proposing to have a risk-free, rating only attack option - because then nobody would be able to "buy" it - because everybody else in his range would be able to take it away. So, getting and keeping the rating would really be a matter of skills and perseverance, nothing else. But every PvPers yells like crazy that there has to be the risk (and the simple risk of getting hammered to get your rating stolen from you doesn't count obviously) - so I gave up.

#372 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:31

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.


Hmm, it would be a great loss for mankind that players just below EOC would lose the opportunity to farm their PvP rating off low levels on BB...


Look, the entire point of overhauling the ladder is to make it as fair a representation as humanly possible and give as many people who want it access and ability to be at the top of it. Removing rating from the board would horribly skew the ladder towards players under level 300, and harm anyone over level 500, easily. Don't believe me? Go and find the sheer number of targets that got hit in Stang's birthday thread. The disparity in number of targets hit by players in the 1-300 bracket as opposed to the 300-600 bracket and 600-EOC bracket was astonishing. On average, sub 200 players were hitting 5 times as many players (and running out of stamina) and the EOC people simply had no one left to hit. I ran out of viable targets after 15 hits, and I'm no where near EOC.

PvP and rating gain on the board only needs a rating decay introduced. You don't get full exp benefit from killing lower creatures, why earn full rating benefit from (much) lower level players?

I mean, current lack of targets for players near EOC is a VERY minor worry - because it will both improve with time and can be also alleviated by range increase.


As Khan already pointed out, EOC isn't going to get better for the foreseeable future. Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right.

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?


A misunderstanding. By range, I mean "from-to", so the current range is 11, the range being implemented is 21 - and I think that it could slowly grow to up to 30-50. I.e. making it a simple "floor(level/50) + X" or "floor(level/100) + Y". With X=1, level 950+ would have a reach of 20, level 100 would have a reach of 3. With Y5, level 100 would have a reach of 6 and level 900 reach 15.


I was using your numbers. Even at a range of 15 +/- for 950, you gain maybe 10 to 20 additional targets; on the other hand, it takes, what, 3500 to 4000 stam to gain a full level without quests at 925? That's 2 days per level, so just going on nothing but hunting, with no exp loss, you're looking at a month + to get out of someone's pvp range. That's an eternity when you factor in the ability to take EXP downrange and hourly hits, and will cause griefing.

If somebody wants to beat you on the BB, they're welcome to anyway. I'm talking about normal PvP - instead of worrying about level ranges, virtual levels and all that crud and unnecessary complexity, simply ensure that a higher-level attacker has no advantage - and then a level 800 can attack a level 100 just as level 900 and in both cases it's equally fair. That is, against the low level player, he won't have any gear or levelup points advantage, but he'll have any buffs he can cast on himself or buy (which is relatively cheaper for him).


So then what happens when a level 100 accepts a bounty on a level 800 player? No, people earned their level advantages and gear and statted themselves to take advantage of their preferred playstyle. They earned those as much as anyone earns anything in this game. The only change that needs to happen is the exact same style of calculation that occurs when anyone hunts and kills a mob, only factored for rating instead of EXP.

#373 NatalieEGH

NatalieEGH

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:53

Well I am not sure if it was the latest update, but last night I was attacked with 10 stamina and lost ZERO xp. The other person got a little gold (they actually returned it, shock of shocks). They got some points for their PvP rating and something called "Prestige Points" whatever they are.

I did not lose rating. I thought I was supposed to. It does not matter. Anyone is WELCOME to attack me as long as I do not lose XP and have enough gold for paying for my next hunt. I will neither bounty nor care. To me the biggest problem with PvP, as implemented by HCS, is FIXED. Thank you HCS.

I still wish they would consider hiding all stats and gold. Then might even join in, but it would not be a sniping from a 1000 meters where I am virtually immune to losing. Yes, I would lose more often than win because I would be set up wrong, but it would seem like I was playing fair. To me that is important, not just the win.

#374 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 16:56

natalie, either someone hit you from a higher level than you currently are, or they were using conserve.

Conserve can activate in PvP, but it does not announce like it does in PvE, for some reason.

If their rating was above a certain number as opposed to yours (generally 300+ differential) then they won't gain rating from you.

#375 Bleltch

Bleltch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:23

I wonder when the changes will take place.

#376 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:23

I wonder when the changes will take place.


Five years from now :lol:

#377 Bleltch

Bleltch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:26

Well that answers that question. :P

#378 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 17:28

lol.

....I'm really scared PvP is going to get royally screwed up....

#379 tsink20

tsink20

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 98 posts

Posted 10 August 2010 - 18:31

I find the proposal to have only the winner of a bounty get rating to be silly. For instance, today, I had a bounty that one player was on for 2 1/2 hours and another was on for almost an hour. It seems logical that a rating that measures pvp skill should have rewarded me for successfully defending somewhere around 50 combats, yet, under this proposal, the only person who would gain the rward is someone who was very close to my level who lost 2 out of every 3 combats against me.

#380 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 10 August 2010 - 22:08

I ran out of viable targets after 15 hits, and I'm no where near EOC.


Why do you keep ignoring the increased target range? Especially the dynamic one? Taking things out of the full context, it's easier to bash them, right?

I mean, current lack of targets for players near EOC is a VERY minor worry - because it will both improve with time and can be also alleviated by range increase.


As Khan already pointed out, EOC isn't going to get better for the foreseeable future. Repeating yourself doesn't make you more right.


Khan expressed an OPINION. That doesn't make me wrong, either. I believe that EOC will be getting more and more crowded unless HCS significantly slow down levelling or will manage to produce new content at a rate of at least 15-20 levels per month, which has never been the case.

Khan based the opinion on measuring taken after a very unusual double-content was introduced. How many targets were in range in the two weeks before that, on average? And how many targets would be in range if the range became +-20 or 25? People two standard content updates behind, that's a much larger crowd than the 7 mentioned.

That's 2 days per level, so just going on nothing but hunting, with no exp loss, you're looking at a month + to get out of someone's pvp range. That's an eternity when you factor in the ability to take EXP downrange and hourly hits, and will cause griefing.


Where's the usual PvPer answer "use XP lock"? :)

Also, there are possible alleviations to that. Changing the bounty XP loss limit to reflect total stam used in attacks since last bounty is one of them. If such bounties would be possible to post with a higher minimum hit requirement, somebody trying to harass you for a month might find himself out of range quite quickly, if the VL abuse is resolved in any way (either what RebornJedi suggested, hitting targets outside AL and inside VL would not take XP, if I recall correctly, or scrapping VL altogether and protecting against levelup point advantage by levelup correction in attacks.
It's just a matter of trying to FIND a solution.

So then what happens when a level 100 accepts a bounty on a level 800 player?


What should happen? Nothing. Attacking above is your brave choice. It's attacking below that we worry about, because it's the player with the big advantage who's choosing to attack. So, attacking down, you'd be almost on par. Well, far from almost in fact - still with a possible buff advantage, first strike by default, being able to adapt your stats and choose the moment to strike. Do you think that you would still need any more advantage when clearing a bounty on a level 200 player?


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: