Jump to content

Photo

PvP Resource Change


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

#261 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:54

4. This is not a good fix, and needs looking into.


The key issue is that the rewards are of high interest to levellers. That's WRONG. Rewards for being good and active in PvP should be PvP-oriented. Move the existing resources into arena so that more people will be able to brew those items - and introduce new resources and new gear that will be good for PvP ONLY - and most of the trading/abusing/cheating will disappear on it's own

5. Kinda agree... the issue is ho this should work. As it is, it's a travesty. Maybe have no transfer in PvP rating on board, but just a loss of rating implemented here?


BH should be completely separate. No PvP transfer at all. Instead, make a ladder of "bouty hits in completed bounties", reset every now and then - and again with rewards that will interest the hunters - both gear and consumables. I could imagine a potion that makes you immune to counterbounties for 10stam hits for i.e. 24 hours...

Trying to squeeze BB and nonBB together is never going to work, there'll always be issues of fairness and abuse.

#262 fs_lonr

fs_lonr
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 11:56

The equipment/items made from the resources need to be bound also, or this fixes nothing.



Absolutely with Bletch on this one ALL should be bound. Please also consider a minimum lvl for pvp ladder players. The system is way to easily manipulated and if you had asked before implementing................

#263 fs_boscosuma

fs_boscosuma
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:07

So from the list of discussed items so far there have been two contentions. Number 4 and 5, people have disagreements with but the first three (3) no one has issues with. As updated by HCS #4 has been put in place, "We have decided to make all the new PvP reward Resources bound. This is due to player feedback and the creation and farming of clone accounts for PvP points in order to gain such items. "

With #5, the only contention that was raised was that on the Bounty board there "should defiantly be a transfer of PvP rating". So as it stands now, from everyone feedback, people seems fine with the list below (modified after feedback)

1. Virtual Level vs. Actual Level: The removal of the Virtual Level, due to the raising of PvP to + or - 10, along with other factors.

2. The change in XP Loss on PvP outside the Arena.

3. Arena Gear: The purchasing of it, and the power level of the gear should be modified.

4. PvP equipment/items need to be bound - HCS and Hoof Implemented

5. PvP limitations: Cannot PvP anyone who has not been active for 2-3 days; Bounty Board is used as a punishment of loss of XP and gold and should extend to PvP rating


erhm... no!

1. Don't remove the VL. Fix it so that ppl 5-10 lvls below their VL cannot hit anyone.. now that, is punishment.


Your suggesting that if a player is 5 (or more) levels below his/her actual level that they can not PvP at all? Not a bad idea. How does that account for someone locking their XP though? If a PvP player locks there XP, and they just start hitting people, they will not decrease in level. It may be a punishment, but one that people can buy their way out of. That is not really fair is it?

#264 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:07

The key issue is that the rewards are of high interest to levellers. That's WRONG. Rewards for being good and active in PvP should be PvP-oriented. Move the existing resources into arena so that more people will be able to brew those items - and introduce new resources and new gear that will be good for PvP ONLY - and most of the trading/abusing/cheating will disappear on it's own


Can agree to that.

BH should be completely separate. No PvP transfer at all. Instead, make a ladder of "bouty hits in completed bounties", reset every now and then - and again with rewards that will interest the hunters - both gear and consumables. I could imagine a potion that makes you immune to counterbounties for 10stam hits for i.e. 24 hours...

Trying to squeeze BB and nonBB together is never going to work, there'll always be issues of fairness and abuse.


True.. to a point. We have BH ladder, and it works just fine. Sure, it would be nice to get a little extra something something for clearing bounties, but, I don't think that is what the majority of BHers are after (only speaking outta experience with those I've met, and myself of course).

Flaw no.1: You could go out hitting ppl within range to get your rating up, and not risk that rating by getting counter bountied.. hence making the rating hit safe.

Flaw no.2: You can build up your rating by hitting alotta ppl. Eventually you will take almost no rating (finally none if your range is limited), and then it will only take 1 hit from someone with a way lower rating than yours, to whoop you outta the ladder again. Taking that into account to the xp losses on the many bounties surely to be placed on your head.. well... hard to separate the two entirely.

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


#265 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:08

Your suggesting that it a player is 5 (or more) levels below his/her actual level that they can not PvP at all? Not a bad idea. How does that account for someone locking their XP though? If a PvP player locks there XP, and they just start hitting people, they will not decrease in level. It may be a punishment, but one that people can buy their way out of. That is not really fair is it?


The xp lock does not work when boarded.

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


#266 fs_boscosuma

fs_boscosuma
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:11


Your suggesting that it a player is 5 (or more) levels below his/her actual level that they can not PvP at all? Not a bad idea. How does that account for someone locking their XP though? If a PvP player locks there XP, and they just start hitting people, they will not decrease in level. It may be a punishment, but one that people can buy their way out of. That is not really fair is it?


The xp lock does not work when boarded.


Are you sure on that? I ask because I know a couple of people that have been up on the board in the past week multiple times, have been 100 stam hit a lot of those time, and there virtual level and actual level never changed.

This is a curiosity question as I am not familiar with the mechanics of that.

#267 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:14

Are you sure on that?


Yes.

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


#268 avvakum

avvakum

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,655 posts

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:15

Take a snapshot of PvP rating taking from attacks (both off/on board), assign that PvP rating ONLY if those attacks were bountied/counted-bountied.

#269 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:17

Take a snapshot of PvP rating taking from attacks (both off/on board), assign that PvP rating ONLY if those attacks were bountied/counted-bountied.



.. or just remove whatever amount of rating from the loosing part, defender or attacker. No gain on the board.

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


#270 boeffie

boeffie

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:20

Foegot to quote, as this is an answer to boscosuma

That might be true if their VL/RL are the same,and if they have not used their level up points. In that case, the levels they are loosing don't really show, but if you knew their level at first you'd notice both have gone down.

VL/RL was introduced to stop people who voluntarily deleveled themselves to use their high level buffs, not to stop them from hitting people.

#271 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:21

Flaw no.1: You could go out hitting ppl within range to get your rating up, and not risk that rating by getting counter bountied.. hence making the rating hit safe.


Not hit-safe. Bounty-safe, that's a difference. Anybody else in my level range could hit me and take the rating back from me -> direct competition between PvPers.

Success on the ladder should NOT be decided by "was I able to farm my rating off people who are semi-inactive so they won't bounty me and/or people I've bribed not to bounty me".

Flaw no.2: You can build up your rating by hitting alotta ppl. Eventually you will take almost no rating (finally none if your range is limited), and then it will only take 1 hit from someone with a way lower rating than yours, to whoop you outta the ladder again. Taking that into account to the xp losses on the many bounties surely to be placed on your head.. well... hard to separate the two entirely.


Perhaps I had a too heavy lunch - I fail to get this point. That is, this flaw exists in the current system already, or not? Anybody with a low rating can take a lot of it from anybody with a high rating. The only thing I'm removing is the rating decrease due to being bountied - but as I said above, PvP dominance should reflect the amount of your PvP activity, NOT the ability to avoid bounties by whatever means...

#272 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:25

VL/RL was introduced to stop people who voluntarily deleveled themselves to use their high level buffs, not to stop them from hitting people.


Buffs? I'm not sure if it affects buff-casting ability, but the tooltip talks about levelup-points.
And I'm trying hard to get this changed - the levelup point advantage could be easily mitigated by either forcing you to unassign them on delevel or by simply reducing them by a ratio corresponding to your current level vs. total levelup points. Scrapping the VL altogether would have the best of two worlds - attacker not punished too much (inability to attack others seems a bit too harsh to me) and the original victim having the power to get rid of the attacker with one delevel. Delevel parties are not happenning nearly as often as they used to BECAUSE there's very little point in them.

#273 boeffie

boeffie

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:28



rofl, seems to me the non-pvpers are the ones abusing this system and making all these threads suddenly be posted..i don't see one pvper in the top 18 on the last ladder and only one in the top ten on the new "pvp ladder"


You need to get your eyes tested Moon :P

I'm a PvP'er and I was 4th in the last ladder :)


I took that to mean you weren't a real PvPer ;) So maybe go hit the 2 PvPers in range on the hour??

#274 KitiaraLi

KitiaraLi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,240 posts
  • Denmark

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:31

Not hit-safe. Bounty-safe, that's a difference. Anybody else in my level range could hit me and take the rating back from me -> direct competition between PvPers.


Could being the key word here... in a perfect world this would happen, yes :) Not saying your argument is flawed in any way.. the game may be a bit though.

Success on the ladder should NOT be decided by "was I able to farm my rating off people who are semi-inactive so they won't bounty me and/or people I've bribed not to bounty me".


We can all agree to that, I hope.

Perhaps I had a too heavy lunch - I fail to get this point. That is, this flaw exists in the current system already, or not? Anybody with a low rating can take a lot of it from anybody with a high rating. The only thing I'm removing is the rating decrease due to being bountied - but as I said above, PvP dominance should reflect the amount of your PvP activity, NOT the ability to avoid bounties by whatever means...


Yupsa, that flaw is in the system as it is.. and does not show how much PvP activity you engage in, just shows if you picked the right target(s).

By saying that you cannot loose rating on the board, you build in a fail safe for some ranges... or force non PvPers into hitting back. Not everyone in this game is interested in the PvP aspect at all, even though I have no clue as to why...
If they choose to not engage in PvP, and continue to stick with that choice, they end up as rating farms, with the option to bounty their attacker, who will not loose rating on board - hence, there will be profit in 100stamming ppl, and have friendly (10 x 10stam) clears after that.

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


#275 boeffie

boeffie

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 977 posts

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:35


VL/RL was introduced to stop people who voluntarily deleveled themselves to use their high level buffs, not to stop them from hitting people.


Buffs? I'm not sure if it affects buff-casting ability, but the tooltip talks about levelup-points.
And I'm trying hard to get this changed - the levelup point advantage could be easily mitigated by either forcing you to unassign them on delevel or by simply reducing them by a ratio corresponding to your current level vs. total levelup points. Scrapping the VL altogether would have the best of two worlds - attacker not punished too much (inability to attack others seems a bit too harsh to me) and the original victim having the power to get rid of the attacker with one delevel. Delevel parties are not happenning nearly as often as they used to BECAUSE there's very little point in them.


You're right, as it's been a while ago, I forgot the reasoning behind it was concerned with attacking levels, then the connection to the level-up points/buffs confused the matter further.
I would be in favor of removing the VL completely, as it doesn't stop people continuing attacks on people that have caused delevels, and think it created as many issues as not having it did.

#276 fs_sollimaw

fs_sollimaw
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:38

I am completely for removing VL entirely.

So much easier and more elegant to force people to unassign 2 level up and 5 skill points each time they lose a level.

#277 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:41

I am completely for removing VL entirely.

So much easier and more elegant to force people to unassign 2 level up and 5 skill points each time they lose a level.


Or switch off access to buffs above their level and either degrade their levelup points (or unassign them automatically from the highest pile), if one would be too lazy to code GUI for this...

#278 fs_sollimaw

fs_sollimaw
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:49

I am completely for removing VL entirely.

So much easier and more elegant to force people to unassign 2 level up and 5 skill points each time they lose a level.


Or switch off access to buffs above their level and either degrade their levelup points (or unassign them automatically from the highest pile), if one would be too lazy to code GUI for this...


I could deal with that.

However, forcing people to unassign level up points has the advantage of allowing them to reassign them wherever they want. You messed up and put a single point into attack, lose a level and reassign it. If someone was really devoted, and gained and lost a lot of levels, they could switch their level up points around in large quantities. This would give PvPers some flexibility in where they assign their points.

#279 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:49

By saying that you cannot loose rating on the board, you build in a fail safe for some ranges... or force non PvPers into hitting back. Not everyone in this game is interested in the PvP aspect at all, even though I have no clue as to why...

If they choose to not engage in PvP, and continue to stick with that choice, they end up as rating farms, with the option to bounty their attacker, who will not loose rating on board - hence, there will be profit in 100stamming ppl, and have friendly (10 x 10stam) clears after that.



Hmm, that's true, this would give a big advantage to higher level players where the rows of potential competitors on the pvp ladder are thinner.

I can't figure out a good solution to this. Losing points on BB means that success on the ladder is about hitting the right targets (inactive, bribable, friends, multies) and not losing points on BB means that if you don't have competitors for ladder in your range, you're safe to farm.

Perhaps it could be mitigated by further opening up the pvp range - WITH gear restrictions and levelup point degradations. I mean, a 820 player can have a fair fight with 810 just as 790 - as long as he'd be restricted to level 790 or below gear and (790/820) reduction to levelup points when attacking the 790. It would also remove the advantage of reaching extreme gear - I mean, somebody level 820 with access to Xind has probably far more advantage attacking a 819, than a 819 has attacking a 800.

So, limiting attacker to points and gear of defender when attacking below (and possibly reducing XP loss and maybe rating transfer) both ways with growing level difference) could allow us to open the PvP range radically.

#280 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 26 August 2010 - 12:51

I am completely for removing VL entirely.

So much easier and more elegant to force people to unassign 2 level up and 5 skill points each time they lose a level.


Or switch off access to buffs above their level and either degrade their levelup points (or unassign them automatically from the highest pile), if one would be too lazy to code GUI for this...


I could deal with that.

However, forcing people to unassign level up points has the advantage of allowing them to reassign them wherever they want. You messed up and put a single point into attack, lose a level and reassign it. If someone was really devoted, and gained and lost a lot of levels, they could switch their level up points around in large quantities. This would give PvPers some flexibility in where they assign their points.


That's why the "remove 2 points from the biggest pile without asking" approach could work fine.


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: