Jump to content

Photo

Suggestion: PvP Ladder Changes (v2)


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

Poll: Which of the options above do you feel would help improve the PvP Ladder? (359 member(s) have cast votes)

Which of the options above do you feel would help improve the PvP Ladder?

  1. Voted Remove PvP Rating transfer from the Bounty Board. (73 votes [20.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.33%

  2. Voted Limit transfer from an individual player to once every 24 hours (this should help prevent organised ratings transfers). (126 votes [35.10%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.10%

  3. Voted Bonus to PvP Rating Transfer for 100 stamina attacks. (134 votes [37.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.33%

  4. Voted No changes (26 votes [7.24%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.24%

Vote

#101 fs_volmetius

fs_volmetius
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 02:45


Award PvP for attacking or defending against players in your Attack Range... either on the BB or though PvP.


Ya that's there anyways lol.. :D


lol no Vol I mean JUST in your level range =)


JUST in our level range will be ok for us ,but what about the low levels? That's another issue..
Why don't they limit transfers from low level players XD

#102 fs_nthnclls

fs_nthnclls
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 02:49

An alternative to removing pvp from the bb would be to only have it work on +/- 10% of a player's vl (a level 100 player takes rating from 90-110 players, a level 700 player takes rating from 770-630, a level 10 from 9-11, etc.).


That's good, but broader range probably. 50% +/- so a level 500 can hit level 250 to 1000 for rating. There's a difference between these level ranges, but at least its not too restrictive.

NB : It's half of your level up to double, so that anyone who can hit you for rating, you can hit back for rating.


That works too. Imo, it would work a lot better than either the current system or removing rating from the board altogether...

#103 fs_imetalusi

fs_imetalusi
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 02:50

JUST in our level range will be ok for us ,but what about the low levels? That's another issue..
Why don't they limit transfers from low level players XD



They do... lol just not on the BB?

#104 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 02:50

so 100 stamming from a level 1000 against a level 100 would earn Player Verses Player points? is that correct?

Basically yes. There is already a rating transfer decrease in place for players of such a large level difference. Plus, the level 100 player always has a bounty on them for 48 hrs.

[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


#105 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 02:53

An alternative to removing pvp from the bb would be to only have it work on +/- 10% of a player's vl (a level 100 player takes rating from 90-110 players, a level 700 player takes rating from 770-630, a level 10 from 9-11, etc.).


That's good, but broader range probably. 50% +/- so a level 500 can hit level 250 to 1000 for rating. There's a difference between these level ranges, but at least its not too restrictive.

NB : It's half of your level up to double, so that anyone who can hit you for rating, you can hit back for rating.


That works too. Imo, it would work a lot better than either the current system or removing rating from the board altogether...


Definitely, but super high levels attacking super low ones was a relatively minor issue compared to multies and traders.

#2 doesn't seems so bad to me, as long as it's still possible to take rating from someone for every hit on the board.

#3 seems a bit of a joke. There's already such a bonus. Seems like a way to please some voices without looking at coherence in the workings of the system.

#106 fs_imetalusi

fs_imetalusi
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 02:59

so 100 stamming from a level 1000 against a level 100 would earn Player Verses Player points? is that correct?

Basically yes. There is already a rating transfer decrease in place for players of such a large level difference. Plus, the level 100 player always has a bounty on them for 48 hrs.


lol wow I didn't expect that.. so a Level 1000 Should EARN somehow a Player Verses player Rating for beating a level 100? naw I dont think so.. matter of fact I KNOW so Thats BS.

The problem is simple.. Rating should be earned. And doing the above doesn't earn it. They should have level ranges to make it fair even for those with little amounts of targets like you.

PvP *Player Verses Player* Ladder

0 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 150
151 - 200
201 - 250
251 - 300
301 - 350
and so forth

#107 fs_avalbane

fs_avalbane
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:06

An alternative to removing pvp from the bb would be to only have it work on +/- 10% of a player's vl (a level 100 player takes rating from 90-110 players, a level 700 player takes rating from 770-630, a level 10 from 9-11, etc.).


That's good, but broader range probably. 50% +/- so a level 500 can hit level 250 to 1000 for rating. There's a difference between these level ranges, but at least its not too restrictive.

NB : It's half of your level up to double, so that anyone who can hit you for rating, you can hit back for rating.


That works too. Imo, it would work a lot better than either the current system or removing rating from the board altogether...


I'm liking this idea, but imo, +/- 10% is too little (still a lot of the same people doing the same things) and +/- 50% may be too big (because every person with sense knows that a level 500 PvPer who knows what they're doing would make it nearly impossible on a level 250 PvPer).

Why not have a + 25% range with a -10% range? (With levels rounded up where need be)

100 can attack upward to 125, but downward to 90 and still get rating.
200 can attack upward to 250, but downward to 180 and still get rating.
300 can attack upward to 375, but downward to 270 and still get rating.
400 can attack upward to 500, but downward to 360 and still get rating.
500 can attack upward to 625, but downward to 450 and still get rating.
600 can attack upward to 750, but downward to 540 and still get rating.
700 can attack upward to 875, but downward to 630 and still get rating.
800 can attack upward to 1000, but downward to 720 and still get rating.
900 can attack upward to 1125, but downward to 810 and still get rating.
1000 can attack upward to 1250, but downward to 900 and still get rating.

I figure this way, it's more of a reasonable range for getting rating. Therefore, with these approximate ranges, sets could actually compete against each other.

#108 fs_imetalusi

fs_imetalusi
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:10

That's good, but broader range probably. 50% +/- so a level 500 can hit level 250 to 1000 for rating. There's a difference between these level ranges, but at least its not too restrictive.

NB : It's half of your level up to double, so that anyone who can hit you for rating, you can hit back for rating.

That works too. Imo, it would work a lot better than either the current system or removing rating from the board altogether...[

I'm liking this idea, but imo, +/- 10% is too little (still a lot of the same people doing the same things) and +/- 50% may be too big (because every person with sense knows that a level 500 PvPer who knows what they're doing would make it nearly impossible on a level 250 PvPer).

Why not have a + 25% range with a -10% range? (With levels rounded up where need be)

100 can attack upward to 125, but downward to 90 and still get rating.
200 can attack upward to 250, but downward to 180 and still get rating.
300 can attack upward to 375, but downward to 270 and still get rating.
400 can attack upward to 500, but downward to 360 and still get rating.
500 can attack upward to 625, but downward to 450 and still get rating.
600 can attack upward to 750, but downward to 540 and still get rating.
700 can attack upward to 875, but downward to 630 and still get rating.
800 can attack upward to 1000, but downward to 720 and still get rating.
900 can attack upward to 1125, but downward to 810 and still get rating.
1000 can attack upward to 1250, but downward to 900 and still get rating.

I figure this way, it's more of a reasonable range for getting rating. Therefore, with these approximate ranges, sets could actually compete against each other.


Better than what we got now! =)

#109 fs_oblivion05

fs_oblivion05
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:17

100 can attack upward to 125, but downward to 90 and still get rating.
200 can attack upward to 250, but downward to 180 and still get rating.
300 can attack upward to 375, but downward to 270 and still get rating.
400 can attack upward to 500, but downward to 360 and still get rating.
500 can attack upward to 625, but downward to 450 and still get rating.
600 can attack upward to 750, but downward to 540 and still get rating.
700 can attack upward to 875, but downward to 630 and still get rating.
800 can attack upward to 1000, but downward to 720 and still get rating.
900 can attack upward to 1125, but downward to 810 and still get rating.
1000 can attack upward to 1250, but downward to 900 and still get rating.

I figure this way, it's more of a reasonable range for getting rating. Therefore, with these approximate ranges, sets could actually compete against each other.


This, will not work in many ways. One of them being that it's majorly flawed.

Let's say I am level 600, so I can attack someone that is 750 and steal their rating, but they cannot hit me back 'cause I am 30 levels lower than what they can reach? Doesn't sound very fair to me.

#110 fs_imetalusi

fs_imetalusi
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:18

Yea... I didnt see that lol :oops:

#111 fs_avalbane

fs_avalbane
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:18


100 can attack upward to 125, but downward to 90 and still get rating.
200 can attack upward to 250, but downward to 180 and still get rating.
300 can attack upward to 375, but downward to 270 and still get rating.
400 can attack upward to 500, but downward to 360 and still get rating.
500 can attack upward to 625, but downward to 450 and still get rating.
600 can attack upward to 750, but downward to 540 and still get rating.
700 can attack upward to 875, but downward to 630 and still get rating.
800 can attack upward to 1000, but downward to 720 and still get rating.
900 can attack upward to 1125, but downward to 810 and still get rating.
1000 can attack upward to 1250, but downward to 900 and still get rating.

I figure this way, it's more of a reasonable range for getting rating. Therefore, with these approximate ranges, sets could actually compete against each other.


This, will not work in many ways. One of them being that it's majorly flawed.

Let's say I am level 600, so I can attack someone that is 750 and steal their rating, but they cannot hit me back 'cause I am 30 levels lower than what they can reach? Doesn't sound very fair to me.


This was meant for rating transfer ON the board 8)

#112 aa0007

aa0007

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,379 posts
  • United States of America

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:19

for the board, its fine to me.

#113 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:20

lol wow I didn't expect that.. so a Level 1000 Should EARN somehow a Player Verses player Rating for beating a level 100? naw I dont think so.. matter of fact I KNOW so Thats BS.

The problem is simple.. Rating should be earned. And doing the above doesn't earn it. They should have level ranges to make it fair even for those with little amounts of targets like you.

PvP *Player Verses Player* Ladder

0 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 150
151 - 200
201 - 250
251 - 300
301 - 350
and so forth

I can already hit any player on the board and take xp, gold and rating. Nothing would change. Like I said and you obviously missed it, there is already in place a reduced amount of rating between players of such a great difference in levels! Make the exchange even less, I wouldn't care. I almost never hit a level 100. You're right there is no challenge beating a player so many levels below. But then why should I be punished by not having the same number of targets as you because I've progressed farther in levels? What 100 stam attacks only to gain rating stops are the trading of points for minimal xp loss. I can always be bountied and 100 stammed by any player from a bounty by the level 100. You seem to think because you are good at PvP at your level you are dominant. That may be the case at your level but not in comparison to the rest of the players in the game.

[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


#114 fs_oblivion05

fs_oblivion05
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:21

This was meant for rating transfer ON the board 8)


That STILL will not work. The bounty board is a massive free-for-all so to speak. No one should be limited to be able to hit someone.

#115 fs_avalbane

fs_avalbane
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:24

This was meant for rating transfer ON the board 8)


That STILL will not work. The bounty board is a massive free-for-all so to speak. No one should be limited to be able to hit someone.


You won't be limited to hitting anybody. You will still be able to take that "Level 100 Player" bounty if you really want to. The numbers were for getting rating from the bounty. If the player you accepted the bounty on is within your range, you get rating for the win(s). If the player, however, is outwith your range, you can still complete the bounty and get the reward, you just won't gain any rating from that person.

#116 fs_oblivion05

fs_oblivion05
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:26

You won't be limited to hitting anybody. You will still be able to take that "Level 100 Player" bounty if you really want to. The numbers were for getting rating from the bounty. If the player you accepted the bounty on is within your range, you get rating for the win(s). If the player, however, is outwith your range, you can still complete the bounty and get the reward, you just won't gain any rating from that person.


You are completely missing my point. I just gave you an example of that I can steal rating from a level 750 player with your system, but they can NOT steal any of mine should they see me on the board. That's not fair, it should work both ways. If I am able to steal rating from them, then so should they be able to steal from me.

#117 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:28

This was meant for rating transfer ON the board 8)


That STILL will not work. The bounty board is a massive free-for-all so to speak. No one should be limited to be able to hit someone.

Agreed. Limiting the bounties one can take or transfer rating on the BB is not the answer. They might as well make a different PvP ladder every 50 or 100 levels.

[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


#118 missshiv

missshiv

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 36 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:29

Why can't pvp rating transfer be awarded upon successful completion of a bounty, like the offered reward? The awarded amount would be some formula based on the clearer and targets rating, while taking into account the level difference somehow. This would eliminate late farmers, and encourage more hitters (since the bb was originally a form of punishment).

As it stands right now, I'm willing to bet I could make it on the ladder by just accepting every low level bounty I see a second or 2 after its taken, and purposely not hitting a full 10x, and probably rarely getting countered if I buffed the target with UB first and sent gold for repairs, and claim I'm just going after my bounty medal. Half hearted efforts shouldn't be rewarded equally.

* I wouldn't do this bc I've got too much moral fiber, but just saying hypothetically, its possible...

#119 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:33

Why can't pvp rating transfer be awarded upon successful completion of a bounty, like the offered reward? The awarded amount would be some formula based on the clearer and targets rating, while taking into account the level difference somehow. This would eliminate late farmers, and encourage more hitters (since the bb was originally a form of punishment).

As it stands right now, I'm willing to bet I could make it on the ladder by just accepting every low level bounty I see a second or 2 after its taken, and purposely not hitting a full 10x, and probably rarely getting countered if I buffed the target with UB first and sent gold for repairs, and claim I'm just going after my bounty medal. Half hearted efforts shouldn't be rewarded equally.

* I wouldn't do this bc I've got too much moral fiber, but just saying hypothetically, its possible...

Practically speaking this is how it was originally. Trading of points was even easier when two parties colluded with a third.

[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


#120 fs_imetalusi

fs_imetalusi
  • Guests

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:34

lol wow I didn't expect that.. so a Level 1000 Should EARN somehow a Player Verses player Rating for beating a level 100? naw I dont think so.. matter of fact I KNOW so Thats BS.

The problem is simple.. Rating should be earned. And doing the above doesn't earn it. They should have level ranges to make it fair even for those with little amounts of targets like you.

PvP *Player Verses Player* Ladder

0 - 50
51 - 100
101 - 150
151 - 200
201 - 250
251 - 300
301 - 350
and so forth

I can already hit any player on the board and take xp, gold and rating. Nothing would change. Like I said and you obviously missed it, there is already in place a reduced amount of rating between players of such a great difference in levels! Make the exchange even less, I wouldn't care. I almost never hit a level 100. You're right there is no challenge beating a player so many levels below. But then why should I be punished by not having the same number of targets as you because I've progressed farther in levels? What 100 stam attacks only to gain rating stops are the trading of points for minimal xp loss. I can always be bountied and 100 stammed by any player from a bounty by the level 100. You seem to think because you are good at PvP at your level you are dominant. That may be the case at your level but not in comparison to the rest of the players in the game.


I keep hearing that the transfer from PVP to BH regarding points is lessened? That is Not True... There is a Cap On PvP. Not On Bounty Hunting. So for example I am in 10th place... There is No way for me go higher on the ladder by 100 stamming and there are only 2 players in my level range with a rating higher than 1228 except one is my guild and the other I have been battling for dayZ lol... I could 100 stam with gloat and only get 8 where as you could get 10. So lets Drop the reduced amount BS. In order to progress further I would be forced to BH... which no matter the gain I would not do for PvP Rating, *though I could have gloated and 100 stammed just today a level 60 who was raped for his rating after dropping 2200 stam and killing those in his level range* I care to much for those who have earned in battle. And yes I do Think I'm Dominant at PvP in My level range.. That to me is EXACTLY the point of The PvP ladder, but hey its my point of view, and other like you think differently... its always been a big question for some reason... battling in your level range OR battling those not in your level range to gain dominance...


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: