Jump to content

Photo

PvP Ladder Thoughts... (Take 2)


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

Poll: Do you like these ideas as a whole? (115 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you like these ideas as a whole?

  1. Voted Yes (76 votes [60.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.32%

  2. Voted No (50 votes [39.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 39.68%

Vote

#361 Bleltch

Bleltch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:11

Could we have the idea where some people start with 1000 PvP Rating and some with 500 ?
Those who want to be on the ladder and in the running start at 1000, and those who don't start at 500.
Option in Prefs.

That's just another version of an opt out. We all play the same game, we all should play by the same rules. This is a pvp game, ignoring it wont make it go away.

#362 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:13

Whenever it is reset, a lot of people get constantly struck for PvP Rating by more than 1 Person.
Sure we could Bounty/Attack back, but why should we suffer constant attacks ?

Could we have the idea where some people start with 1000 PvP Rating and some with 500 ?
Those who want to be on the ladder and in the running start at 1000, and those who don't start at 500.
Option in Prefs.

Sorry EJames, I have only seen this preference as an opt out, something the devs seem opposed to thankfully. It would create much more of a divide between players. Take hypothetically it were instituted, would you be willing to sacrifice half ALL xp earned killing mobs to make yourself less of a target by setting a reset PvP rating to half of what is the norm? Players don't get attacked but rarely for rating and even less when their rating is at 1000 or less. Combine that with the other methods like not making yourself a target by holding too much gold and this is a non issue in my eyes.

[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


#363 Dowster

Dowster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 368 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:19

We all play the same game, we all should play by the same rules.


My favorite catchphrase :lol: it's just so true though..

#364 Bleltch

Bleltch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:20

2. Make a new ladder/list where the only things counted is the amount of PvP-rating EARNED every week. On this list you are only counting how much rating a player steals from others, and not how much they loose. By the end of the week award PvP-tokens to the top 50 on this list. Thereby rewarding those who are most active in PvP'ing and/or take the most risks. Note that the weeks winner of this list can end up having a very low rating as they might loos more rating then gained, but this will only effect the PvP-ladder.

So your suggesting a tally of all points gained? Say i gain 500 points, then lose them all, then gain another 400 back, i would have a tally of 900? I like that idea too. :)

#365 elmo2lars

elmo2lars

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:22


2. Make a new ladder/list where the only things counted is the amount of PvP-rating EARNED every week. On this list you are only counting how much rating a player steals from others, and not how much they loose. By the end of the week award PvP-tokens to the top 50 on this list. Thereby rewarding those who are most active in PvP'ing and/or take the most risks. Note that the weeks winner of this list can end up having a very low rating as they might loos more rating then gained, but this will only effect the PvP-ladder.

So your suggesting a tally of all points gained? Say i gain 500 points, then lose them all, then gain another 400 back, i would have a tally of 900? I like that idea too. :)


yup... That's the general idea, so the trick is how much rating can you actually "win" from other players in a week, not how much you can do without risk.

#366 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:26


2. Make a new ladder/list where the only things counted is the amount of PvP-rating EARNED every week. On this list you are only counting how much rating a player steals from others, and not how much they loose. By the end of the week award PvP-tokens to the top 50 on this list. Thereby rewarding those who are most active in PvP'ing and/or take the most risks. Note that the weeks winner of this list can end up having a very low rating as they might loos more rating then gained, but this will only effect the PvP-ladder.

So your suggesting a tally of all points gained? Say i gain 500 points, then lose them all, then gain another 400 back, i would have a tally of 900? I like that idea too. :)


yup... That's the general idea, so the trick is how much rating can you actually "win" from other players in a week, not how much you can do without risk.


Uh I actually like that idea as well... gives a much more correct picture of who is really dominating 8)

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


#367 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:34


2. Make a new ladder/list where the only things counted is the amount of PvP-rating EARNED every week. On this list you are only counting how much rating a player steals from others, and not how much they loose. By the end of the week award PvP-tokens to the top 50 on this list. Thereby rewarding those who are most active in PvP'ing and/or take the most risks. Note that the weeks winner of this list can end up having a very low rating as they might loos more rating then gained, but this will only effect the PvP-ladder.

So your suggesting a tally of all points gained? Say i gain 500 points, then lose them all, then gain another 400 back, i would have a tally of 900? I like that idea too. :)


yup... That's the general idea, so the trick is how much rating can you actually "win" from other players in a week, not how much you can do without risk.

I think this is the best suggestion that completely changes the way the ladder works. It would reflect who PvPs more often, not who finds the juiciest targets. I'm still heavily in favor of making stam usage a central calculator of how rating is gained. I like this rough idea very much. Wish a dev would pop on and see this before it gets passed up by trying to prop up an old system the best they can.

[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


#368 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:37

Whenever it is reset, a lot of people get constantly struck for PvP Rating by more than 1 Person.
Sure we could Bounty/Attack back, but why should we suffer constant attacks ?

Could we have the idea where some people start with 1000 PvP Rating and some with 500 ?
Those who want to be on the ladder and in the running start at 1000, and those who don't start at 500.
Option in Prefs.

Sorry EJames, I have only seen this preference as an opt out, something the devs seem opposed to thankfully. It would create much more of a divide between players. Take hypothetically it were instituted, would you be willing to sacrifice half ALL xp earned killing mobs to make yourself less of a target by setting a reset PvP rating to half of what is the norm? Players don't get attacked but rarely for rating and even less when their rating is at 1000 or less. Combine that with the other methods like not making yourself a target by holding too much gold and this is a non issue in my eyes.


What does the exp thing have to do with what EJ said? Nothing, no correlation.

The issue is that players who take all precautions to not get PvPed, don't want to participate in PvP and take all precautions to not get PvPed cannot take precautions against being PvPed for rating every week. This is why a decay would have been an optimal suggestion and is why we should allow players to start below 1000 rating. An opt-out (which I am against) is wildly different from allowing players to take precautions against being PvPed!

#369 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:39


So your suggesting a tally of all points gained? Say i gain 500 points, then lose them all, then gain another 400 back, i would have a tally of 900? I like that idea too. :)


yup... That's the general idea, so the trick is how much rating can you actually "win" from other players in a week, not how much you can do without risk.

I think this is the best suggestion that completely changes the way the ladder works. It would reflect who PvPs more often, not who finds the juiciest targets. I'm still heavily in favor of making stam usage a central calculator of how rating is gained. I like this rough idea very much. Wish a dev would pop on and see this before it gets passed up by trying to prop up an old system the best they can.


That gives a point for hitting people high in rating and low in rating (to lose). Non-PvPers won't be able to get out of the rating farm with this system. It's good for only those who want to partake, sucks for the rest. It's not a good idea.

#370 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:40

the key-issue would be to put incentive into initiating attacks rather then avoiding being hit.

That description summarizes in one sentence the problem with the PvP Dominance Ladder currently.

[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


#371 Bleltch

Bleltch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:40


2. Make a new ladder/list where the only things counted is the amount of PvP-rating EARNED every week. On this list you are only counting how much rating a player steals from others, and not how much they loose. By the end of the week award PvP-tokens to the top 50 on this list. Thereby rewarding those who are most active in PvP'ing and/or take the most risks. Note that the weeks winner of this list can end up having a very low rating as they might loos more rating then gained, but this will only effect the PvP-ladder.

So your suggesting a tally of all points gained? Say i gain 500 points, then lose them all, then gain another 400 back, i would have a tally of 900? I like that idea too. :)


yup... That's the general idea, so the trick is how much rating can you actually "win" from other players in a week, not how much you can do without risk.

Yes, i like this very much. Getting to the top 5 of the ladder as i have sucks because i cant hit anyone off the board for gold as i'm accustomed too, for fear of being bountied and losing my position.

#372 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:43

That gives a point for hitting people high in rating and low in rating (to lose). Non-PvPers won't be able to get out of the rating farm with this system. It's good for only those who want to partake, sucks for the rest. It's not a good idea.

Are we playing the same game or are we still trying to make an argument about whether there is PvP in this game that is unavoidable at some point?

[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


#373 Kildek

Kildek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 196 posts
  • Badge

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:48

A different approach...

* No transfer of PvP prestige+PvP rating on BB

* Remove the possibility of counter bounties

* Limit the amount of stamina used in the bounty,
to a fixed amount, like 20x what the attacker used.
If the bounty placed should be for that full amount of stamina,
is up to the victim of the attack.
With a 10 stamina hit, max total on BB would be 200 stamina.
Make every won fight by a bounty hunter "count".
If 2 bounty start to clear bounty, one spends 60 stamina,
the other spends 140 stamina, and that will "be it".
Pay for the bounty placed,
would be distributed by lottery among those who cleared the bounty.
The chance of winning that lottery,
would depend on how much stamina was used to clear the bounty.
In this example, bounty hunter A would have a chance of 60/200 winning that lottery,
while bounty hunter B would have a chance of 140/200

* Make it possible to bounty every attack, or:
As it is now, but with the change,
that an attacker can not attack the same victim again,
until the bounty on him is cleared.



These changes would give the following advantages.
- Only "real" PvP off the board will be rewarded on the PvP ladder
- A leveler who tries out PvP,
won't risc of facing a de-leveling party for a 10 stamina hit,
and knows as the worst thing, he could lose 2 lvls on a 100 stamina attack.
- Remove some of the harassing elements of PvP
- Avoid bounty hunters farming easy targets, for PvP rating.
Bounty hunting would become a job, for which the victim pays for.
By the amount of gold/fsp placed, the victim this way can decide,
if he wants his attacker de-leveled, or wants to be free of attacks for a bit.
If the amount is too small, no bounty hunter will pick it up.

#374 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:51

That gives a point for hitting people high in rating and low in rating (to lose). Non-PvPers won't be able to get out of the rating farm with this system. It's good for only those who want to partake, sucks for the rest. It's not a good idea.

Are we playing the same game or are we still trying to make an argument about whether there is PvP in this game that is unavoidable at some point?


No we're not. I'm saying there are currently multiple mechanism which players can use to avoid being targeted which is something PvPers have been quite keen to point out, but that this suggestion doesn't offer any such option.

#375 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 11:52


2. Make a new ladder/list where the only things counted is the amount of PvP-rating EARNED every week. On this list you are only counting how much rating a player steals from others, and not how much they loose. By the end of the week award PvP-tokens to the top 50 on this list. Thereby rewarding those who are most active in PvP'ing and/or take the most risks. Note that the weeks winner of this list can end up having a very low rating as they might loos more rating then gained, but this will only effect the PvP-ladder.

So your suggesting a tally of all points gained? Say i gain 500 points, then lose them all, then gain another 400 back, i would have a tally of 900? I like that idea too. :)


yup... That's the general idea, so the trick is how much rating can you actually "win" from other players in a week, not how much you can do without risk.

I like this idea as well, it would also reflect volume, and would likely cancel out the need for watering down rating on the BB.

#376 elmo2lars

elmo2lars

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 12:00

That gives a point for hitting people high in rating and low in rating (to lose). Non-PvPers won't be able to get out of the rating farm with this system. It's good for only those who want to partake, sucks for the rest. It's not a good idea.

Are we playing the same game or are we still trying to make an argument about whether there is PvP in this game that is unavoidable at some point?


No we're not. I'm saying there are currently multiple mechanism which players can use to avoid being targeted which is something PvPers have been quite keen to point out, but that this suggestion doesn't offer any such option.


So what you're worried about is people abusing this by litterally "dumping" of rating on non-PvP'ers in order to easier gain again?

I can see that could be an issue, so what we need is some sort of fail-safe mechanism to prevent this from happening.

How about, when you have a high rating attacking a much lower rating, and loosing, the rating transfer will drop and xp-loos is greater?

Meaning that you'd punish "good" PvP'ers for loosing to "bad" PvP'ers. The downfall here would be that it increases the risk of making gold-hits on levelers, which some PvP'ers might be adverse to, but in general would be benefitial as a regulator? Would that work?

#377 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 12:06

No we're not. I'm saying there are currently multiple mechanism which players can use to avoid being targeted which is something PvPers have been quite keen to point out, but that this suggestion doesn't offer any such option.


So what you're worried about is people abusing this by litterally "dumping" of rating on non-PvP'ers in order to easier gain again?

I can see that could be an issue, so what we need is some sort of fail-safe mechanism to prevent this from happening.

How about, when you have a high rating attacking a much lower rating, and loosing, the rating transfer will drop and xp-loos is greater?

Meaning that you'd punish "good" PvP'ers for loosing to "bad" PvP'ers. The downfall here would be that it increases the risk of making gold-hits on levelers, which some PvP'ers might be adverse to, but in general would be benefitial as a regulator? Would that work?


I don't get the logic in the last sentence.

I am also wary of any system that promotes losing like this one. Why should one lose to be considered good at PvP? Surely the best is the one who can fight off people on the board while keeping his attacks off it going. The current system denies all forms of competition, why is there a need to drag everyone, even non-PvPer, in a competition of "the biggest loser".

#378 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 12:07

So what you're worried about is people abusing this by litterally "dumping" of rating on non-PvP'ers in order to easier gain again?

I can see that could be an issue, so what we need is some sort of fail-safe mechanism to prevent this from happening.

How about, when you have a high rating attacking a much lower rating, and loosing, the rating transfer will drop and xp-loos is greater?

Meaning that you'd punish "good" PvP'ers for loosing to "bad" PvP'ers. The downfall here would be that it increases the risk of making gold-hits on levelers, which some PvP'ers might be adverse to, but in general would be benefitial as a regulator? Would that work?

Sounds a bit overcomplicated

If they linked rating to stamina usage as luiss was talking about earlier, like 10 stam would barley gain any rating and 100 stam would gain alot more, then "dumping" your rating would hurt alot more both for stamina and xp, and likely prevent such abuse, would it not? All the while deterring traders, farmers, and still eliminating the need for rating transfer on the BB to be watered down.

This make sense?

#379 fs_knc

fs_knc
  • Guests

Posted 13 August 2010 - 12:12

i'd really, really like to see bounties have an expiration time again. with the points actually meaning a little more now, i'd like to at least have the opportunity to defend all of them :)

#380 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 13 August 2010 - 12:13

That gives a point for hitting people high in rating and low in rating (to lose). Non-PvPers won't be able to get out of the rating farm with this system. It's good for only those who want to partake, sucks for the rest. It's not a good idea.

Are we playing the same game or are we still trying to make an argument about whether there is PvP in this game that is unavoidable at some point?

No we're not. I'm saying there are currently multiple mechanism which players can use to avoid being targeted which is something PvPers have been quite keen to point out, but that this suggestion doesn't offer any such option.

I find it ironic that players are always looking for ways to 'not partake' in playing the very game with which they are playing. This digresses away from fixing the ladder however.

I simply am growing more fond of this 'gain' type system, something that was mentioned at the very beginning but never really developed much steam. Instead, there have been many alterations to the 'old' system that haven't done much, especially not addressing:

the key-issue would be to put incentive into initiating attacks rather then avoiding being hit.


There is nothing dominant about hiding, even if it is only a portion of the time!

[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



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: