PvP/anti PvP structure cost increases
#21
fs_regnier7
Posted 06 October 2010 - 19:02
#22
Posted 06 October 2010 - 19:04
I still think having it as an upgrade alongside the leveler tax would be much better.... throws gold into the guild banks and then it's up to HCS to create more interesting structures to drain those.
I don't get what you're referring to - my structure wouldn't 'allow' the tax. I assumed the other thread I bumped had it as a purchasable upgrade.
All I'm saying is that the tax would cover the cost of the structures which would be the additional gold sink.
#23
fs_regnier7
Posted 06 October 2010 - 19:13
Oh sorry - thought that's what you were referring to. lol - saw abhorrence's post and... bah.I still think having it as an upgrade alongside the leveler tax would be much better.... throws gold into the guild banks and then it's up to HCS to create more interesting structures to drain those.
I don't get what you're referring to - my structure wouldn't 'allow' the tax. I assumed the other thread I bumped had it as a purchasable upgrade.
All I'm saying is that the tax would cover the cost of the structures which would be the additional gold sink.
I'll hush now
#24
Posted 06 October 2010 - 20:00
I do understand the maths behind this. Points to note on your examples:
1. Just about every single PvPer will be fairly active and not do just a couple of hits a week;
You have no idea what you are talking about here.
2. You use minimum values in your calculation - most real life hits with 100 stamina will actually earn substantially more than .5%. I belive with 100% thievery 20% is the 'current' maximum, with most being more like 15%. Thus, 1 gold hit pays more the thieves guild upkeep for a huge guild like FFS for several hours with a tax imposed;
3 things:
1) I used the wrong numbers above, should have been .001
2) the difference made up is in gear and you can't take that into effect as to why people are getting more then 5% (6% with structure maxed)
3) You have no idea what you are talking about. If you read the threads in feedback currently you will see a lot of people complaining about the % of gold stolen. I regularly get 10-15% from 100 stams, with MT and thievery maxed.
3. The whole point of the structures is to be used by PvP guilds - so likely more than 1 person will be benefitting, PvPing and as a result paying the upkeep.
4. The fact that you get a minimum increase of 11250 gold per million means the structure will in all likelihood still be used.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
What will determine if the structure is used if the price is significantly increased is the availability of 100% thievery/MT sets that can win. Anything above 325 Marr Gloves is moot point.
p.s. when is the last time you even did multiple gold hits to even have any concept of how well the system is and isn't working before you recommend changing it?
p.s.s. oh yeah.. lest you forget 25% of all gold stolen ALREADY goes to the game.
#25
Posted 06 October 2010 - 21:56
A lot of thinly veiled insults
Let me put it this way - in answer to every single one of your points I can assure you I do understand everything you said. I read almost every forum thread. Just to pick out one poorly chosen example on your part, I specifically stated that although 20% seems to be the maximum value of a non-master thief hit, most of the rest hover around 15%. Lo and behold, you quote 10-15%. I took that value from the most recent thread on PvP gold hits and how they seemed lower than normal - ok, I picked the higher value because I remembered that for some reason, but the point stands.
As a second point - if you look at my numbers I have already included the 25% 'loss of gold' in my calculations. I'm looking for an additional gold sink, which again you seem to have missed.
By the way - if you actually read my post you would see I am proposing to change exactly nothing about PvP, gold hits or the like. I am trying to implement a gold sink and the PvP structures are the ones which stick out as commonly used and hugely underpriced. I challenge you to contest that statement.
Before you jump in with the 'you never do this, so how can you tell' argument you should try to understand the thoughts behind the argument. In this case PvPing or not is totally irrelevant to the proposition.
#26
Posted 06 October 2010 - 22:46
If you think the majority of "PvP" is done off the board then you're wrong. There's a reason the PvP Ladder is called the Bounty Hunter Ladder. This would only further ruin PvP as a lot of guilds would simply destroy the structure(s) because they would cease to lose all purpose.
In short, PvP does not need to be the medium for a gold sink.
#27
Posted 06 October 2010 - 22:52
#28
Posted 07 October 2010 - 00:05
A lot of thinly veiled insults
Where did you even dig this up? Nevermind, completely out of context. and has 0 relevance.
Just to pick out one poorly chosen example on your part, I specifically stated that although 20% seems to be the maximum value of a non-master thief hit,
That 20% value is incorrect. A none MT hit can be up to at least 40%, and I suspect there is a incredible small chance it can get to 50%. Although I haven't seen one in a VERY long time, which is the genesis of the other thread.
most of the rest hover around 15%. Lo and behold, you quote 10-15%. I took that value from the most recent thread on PvP gold hits and how they seemed lower than normal - ok, I picked the higher value because I remembered that for some reason, but the point stands.
I made a mistake and said 25% and used .0015 earlier, to which you corrected me. Now I correct you from 15% and it's an "AH HA!" moment for you? I think you will see I admitted I used the wrong figure above and corrected myself.
As a second point - if you look at my numbers I have already included the 25% 'loss of gold' in my calculations. I'm looking for an additional gold sink, which again you seem to have missed.
How could I have missed this? I am objecting to it because taking 25% of the gold from a gold hit is already a big enough tax. My point is that the bonus from the structure is minimal and the price shouldn't be increased.
By the way - if you actually read my post you would see I am proposing to change exactly nothing about PvP, gold hits or the like. I am trying to implement a gold sink and the PvP structures are the ones which stick out as commonly used and hugely underpriced. I challenge you to contest that statement.
I read your posts. I know what you are saying, it does effect pvp guilds thus effecting pvp, and... challenge accepted! They are not under priced!
Before you jump in with the 'you never do this, so how can you tell' argument you should try to understand the thoughts behind the argument. In this case PvPing or not is totally irrelevant to the proposition.
Not having intimate knowledge of how these structures really effect the amount of gold you really obtain from having them, while commenting on how many times "just about every single PvPer" hits for gold weekly makes my position a very valid argument. This is a completely PvP relevant conversion as much so as if I claimed that the Titan structures are under priced and they should be price adjusted. That would be a Titan discussion that I would fully expect Titan hunters to partake in.
That you think it doesn't effect PvP just shows your ignorance to the issues.
#29
Posted 07 October 2010 - 00:12
A lot of thinly veiled insults
Where did you even dig this up? Nevermind, completely out of context. and has 0 relevance.Just to pick out one poorly chosen example on your part, I specifically stated that although 20% seems to be the maximum value of a non-master thief hit,
That 20% value is incorrect. A none MT hit can be up to at least 40%, and I suspect there is a incredible small chance it can get to 50%. Although I haven't seen one in a VERY long time, which is the genesis of the other thread.most of the rest hover around 15%. Lo and behold, you quote 10-15%. I took that value from the most recent thread on PvP gold hits and how they seemed lower than normal - ok, I picked the higher value because I remembered that for some reason, but the point stands.
I made a mistake and said 25% and used .0015 earlier, to which you corrected me. Now I correct you from 15% and it's an "AH HA!" moment for you? I think you will see I admitted I used the wrong figure above and corrected myself.As a second point - if you look at my numbers I have already included the 25% 'loss of gold' in my calculations. I'm looking for an additional gold sink, which again you seem to have missed.
How could I have missed this? I am objecting to it because taking 25% of the gold from a gold hit is already a big enough tax. My point is that the bonus from the structure is minimal and the price shouldn't be increased, and also the tax on gold hits is already enough as is.By the way - if you actually read my post you would see I am proposing to change exactly nothing about PvP, gold hits or the like. I am trying to implement a gold sink and the PvP structures are the ones which stick out as commonly used and hugely underpriced. I challenge you to contest that statement.
I read your posts. I know what you are saying, it does effect pvp guilds thus effecting pvp, and... challenge accepted! They are not under priced!Before you jump in with the 'you never do this, so how can you tell' argument you should try to understand the thoughts behind the argument. In this case PvPing or not is totally irrelevant to the proposition.
Not having intimate knowledge of how these structures really effect the amount of gold you really obtain from having them, while commenting on how many times "just about every single PvPer" hits for gold weekly makes my position a very valid argument. This is a completely PvP relevant conversion as much so as if I claimed that the Titan structures are under priced and they should be price adjusted. That would be a Titan discussion that I would fully expect Titan hunters to partake in.
That you think it doesn't effect PvP just shows your ignorance to the issues.
Look, I spoke to Grave and he explained how annoyed you gold hitters are at the moment about the seeming reduction in the gold % taken, and various other issues besides. I accept the annoyance. I've also agreed to drop the pursuit of the thread.
However, the personal attacks (what I called thinly veiled insults) on my 'understanding' (which is something only I can gauge) are out of order. Sure, I don't actively pvp, but I can read, I can understand, and I can adapt. Every PvP related thread by someone not intimately related to a certain group of players is not discussed, it is attacked. I regret and resent this, because you are effectively excluding a lot of reasonable, intelligent people from any discussion. No wonder they sometimes come and wrongly express unhappiness at the conduct of PvPers.
I don't want this thread to go any further, and certainly won't be pursuing it. I just ask that you have a little respect for people who may know what they want to say, may know why, and may have something positive to contribute. I certainly supported you when you were advocating a spellbreaker fix, despite never having used the buff myself.
RJEM (peaceably) out.
#30
Posted 07 October 2010 - 00:28
However, the personal attacks (what I called thinly veiled insults) on my 'understanding' (which is something only I can gauge) are out of order.
Please show me, exactly, 1 personal attack in that post.
I just ask that you have a little respect for people who may know what they want to say, may know why, and may have something positive to contribute.
I do not consider adding more expense to gold hitting a positive contribution.
I certainly supported you when you were advocating a spellbreaker fix, despite never having used the buff myself.
RJEM (peaceably) out.
Yes, I put forth the information. The information was based on, when I started 6 months of investigation, and when I ended (even though it's still not fixed) 15 months of investigation. You read what I posted and agreed. Thank you for agreeing with me that it was broken, because it really was and still is. However, you supporting me for something I knew was broken in the game and me not supporting you for trying to add cost to a portion of the game that already is taxed extremely are 2 different things.
#31
Posted 07 October 2010 - 00:34
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

