Jump to content

Photo

Duelist Ladders


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 00:48

I propose HCS forge a new path to dominance in FS with the induction of Duelist ladders. The individual ladders would have similar rewards to the "BH Ladder" (PvP ladder), save only the top 1 or 2 spots per range would be rewarded. I think 50 level spans would be fair; and appropriate for the first 400 levels, then 100 levels spans from there would suffice. Dueling would work like such; 1st a challenge is made Player to Player, the challenge can be accepted or declined, and this system to achieve dominance is unique as it would require two active participants. Not one player raping another ones defenseless character while they are offline. It will also ensure players not interested in PvP could decline, and not be subject to being farmed. The only way up would be to challenge those above you....there would also need to be a penalty for partakers too cowardly to take on a real "threat", and declining a duel. Only way over someone above you would be to go through them. This is a preliminary thought toward a major change; I believe it is fair, and at the end of the day would demonstrate dominance better then any proceeding idea's to date. Please share your thoughts on the idea -and lets make a change for the better by putting our heads together in this. Thanks for anyone who takes the time to read, and more thanks for feedback to help this idea progress.

#2 livingsin

livingsin

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 00:54

this idea would surely show who the top pvp'rs are...

+1 from me

#3 Maehdros

Maehdros

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Canada

Posted 18 November 2010 - 01:00

would be fun to see who depends on relics and who doesnt ;)

#4 shdowdrgn

shdowdrgn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 01:23

ok so how will this work? if challenge is accepted then it is like a bounty? 10 hits who ever wins the most wins?
primary concern is the ability to not partake in it if someone makes it to the top and has a bit of a lead then all they have to do is decline any challengers and no one can have the chance to knock them down. so the penalty for declining needs to be good enough to stop that. if you do that then might just work and finally be a real challenge for the PVPers rather than as you said a lot of people raping a defenseless offline character

all in all i like it. this could be a very good path to take and could be a lot of fun

#5 fs_skramble

fs_skramble
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 01:26

Like this idea.

So, what happens if neither the accept or decline button is pressed?

#6 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 01:34

Failure to accept of decline results in forfeit - player must be online to challenge. Top spot must take all comers - there will also need to be a limit on challenges at one time per player to control last min abuse

*2nd thought - challenges may be made to player regardless of status online/offline - initiation of bout by challenged require both players online. I imagine a lot of people will suddenly be inclined to argue just for argument sake - that there is some chance that abuse may occur in preliminary match arrangements as a way to control the system. I invite ideas to make this preventable, and participation by many to make what I believe to be a ideal determination of dominance work.

#7 fs_skramble

fs_skramble
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 01:55

player must be online to challenge.


There we run into an issue, since this is a world wide game. Besides, grab top spot and log off for a week makes the player unchallengeable. Maybe a 24 hour time period to accept/decline.

#8 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 01:58

ok so how will this work? if challenge is accepted then it is like a bounty? 10 hits who ever wins the most wins?

Yeah, you didnt clear up this part, because that would be pretty awesome :)


player must be online to challenge.


There we run into an issue, since this is a world wide game. Besides, grab top spot and log off for a week makes the player unchallengeable. Maybe a 24 hour time period to accept/decline.

Easily avoidable with a decay after 3 days of inactivity or so.



Overall loving the idea. It wouldnt just make the whole rating system better, but it would make pvp really pvp.

#9 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 02:12

I think variable hit amounts to be determined by challenger min- 10, max -30(with 30 sec delays on next available hit in actual battle process) can shore up time consumption concerns.

I think in accepting challenges a start time with 15min flexibility window may be offered by Challenged - which defers question of time agreement back, or offer to "start now"

#10 Thoran

Thoran

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 728 posts
  • Badge
  • Spain

Posted 18 November 2010 - 02:44

Great work,
I think this 'Duelist Ladder' should actually REPLACE the current *cough* pvp ladder since no one will ever remove PvP Points from Bounty Hunting as many of us asked for.

THIS would completely remove over 90% of the current issues players have with each other in the game currently, and most of the Support Tickets files I'm assuming also..

This, however, is not my idea originally. I'm just repeating it... to death.

HDBus.gif

I'm also known as @UnoWild

For Fracks Sake, Forum


#11 shdowdrgn

shdowdrgn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 06:16

I think variable hit amounts to be determined by challenger min- 10, max -30(with 30 sec delays on next available hit in actual battle process) can shore up time consumption concerns.

I think in accepting challenges a start time with 15min flexibility window may be offered by Challenged - which defers question of time agreement back, or offer to "start now"



just a thought here.. what if the "battle" was in a time limit rather than a hit limit and the attacked can also attack if the challenger doesn't attack in x amount of time. so if it was as follows

Players A challenges Player X. X accepts the challenge and thus the battle begins. player A then has 30 seconds to hit X if he doesn't then can X can sneak in a free hit for a point.... i really hope that made sense as i am pretty tired so don't know lol.. so basically they would have say 5 min. 1 hit allowed every 30 seconds or something. most successful hits at the end wins<< ill reread all this in the morning and make sure it still makes sense lmao

#12 fs_imetalusi

fs_imetalusi
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:29

Would love to see this in the game. I think it would make this game stand out and really challenge players as well.

#13 fs_marinzeus

fs_marinzeus
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:37

Not one player raping another ones defenseless character while they are offline. It will also ensure players not interested in PvP could decline, and not be subject to being farmed.
....there would also need to be a penalty for partakers too cowardly to take on a real "threat", and declining a duel.


So noone will decline duels, all they will do is NOT accept them, thus no penalty.
And about the idea, it's interesting, but it's pretty big, and the only big thing HCS did bring in the game recently is the Potion Bazaar (the renewed PVP ladder doesn't count). I will add this thread to my list just in case.

#14 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 07:57

Not one player raping another ones defenseless character while they are offline. It will also ensure players not interested in PvP could decline, and not be subject to being farmed.
....there would also need to be a penalty for partakers too cowardly to take on a real "threat", and declining a duel.


So noone will decline duels, all they will do is NOT accept them, thus no penalty.
And about the idea, it's interesting, but it's pretty big, and the only big thing HCS did bring in the game recently is the Potion Bazaar (the renewed PVP ladder doesn't count). I will add this thread to my list just in case.



Players not choosing an option would forfeit - same as loss...I thought I threw that in earlier. Thanks for all the feedback so far. Because it is thinking together - I take the questions / potential issues everyone comes up with, and try to work out solutions. We keep it up, and this can work into a EPIC rebirth of "Dominance in PvP"

#15 Crzy

Crzy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 303 posts
  • United States of America

Posted 18 November 2010 - 08:54

Would there be some type of reward system for this type of Ladder? Personally I think rewards encourage more farming and "fake" PVP if you will. If the rewards are anything like the BH Ladder, then we will see friends just PVPing each other and deleveling themselves down to take advantage of it. We don't need to see a PVP Ladder becoming the new GVG where you have level 25s picking on new players who have no clue what's happening or have a way of defending themselves.

I'm assuming players would have to sign-up for this ladder to even partake in it right? That will stop some of the farming off of non-PVP players which is awesome, but it will still be tough to stop friends from just accepting and losing on purpose to get a leg-up in the ladder. Plus I don't think a level 50 could beat a level 100 without spending some cash to get good gear...so we might hear more crying about people having too much of an advantage lol.

Another thing that comes to mind is Guildmates. What if I have a guildmate in 1st place, and I get to 2nd place...the only way to get 1st would be through him, and under the current "Can't attack guildmates" blocker, it would be impossible for me to get 1st.

Even with that all said, this system would be a much better fit than the current one in place now.

qu29_zpsff77e35f.png

^^Sig by the awesome ArtistGorn!^^^


#16 fs_uofobronco

fs_uofobronco
  • Guests

Posted 19 November 2010 - 03:37

I really like this idea. +1

My one suggestion is about the duel and the timing of it. Maybe I am misunderstanding this but basically I am worried that I am constantly putting myself in a position to be forced to decline duels. This is because I check my account while at work, while running errands via my phone, while lounging around and I am not always immediately available to commit 15 minutes to a duel (or however long).

Therefore I think there should be somewhat of a PvP arena format where people go to duel. You go to the section and enter into a duel and then when someone else does the same thing you would be paired against each other...You could also remove yourself from the Dueling Arena if you know you are going to unavailable and haven't received a match yet. This would almost remove the accept/decline aspect of this and also it wouldn't make "levelers" mad because they would never be involved if they didn't want to be.

Idk, just an idea.

#17 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 20 November 2010 - 00:11

Would there be some type of reward system for this type of Ladder? Personally I think rewards encourage more farming and "fake" PVP if you will. If the rewards are anything like the BH Ladder, then we will see friends just PVPing each other and deleveling themselves down to take advantage of it. We don't need to see a PVP Ladder becoming the new GVG where you have level 25s picking on new players who have no clue what's happening or have a way of defending themselves.

I'm assuming players would have to sign-up for this ladder to even partake in it right? That will stop some of the farming off of non-PVP players which is awesome, but it will still be tough to stop friends from just accepting and losing on purpose to get a leg-up in the ladder. Plus I don't think a level 50 could beat a level 100 without spending some cash to get good gear...so we might hear more crying about people having too much of an advantage lol.

Another thing that comes to mind is Guildmates. What if I have a guildmate in 1st place, and I get to 2nd place...the only way to get 1st would be through him, and under the current "Can't attack guildmates" blocker, it would be impossible for me to get 1st.

Even with that all said, this system would be a much better fit than the current one in place now.



Perhaps the 1-100 levels could be broken into 25 level ranges in the name of fairness. As for friends leapfrogging one another to get ahead - this will do little good - eventually they will be challenged by a "real PvPer". Make it so top of each range gets awarded, and it will prove to be very competitive. I think guild mates should get to partake against one another in this system, as many quality reps will reside in the same guilds. I really appreciate the potential issues - I'll continue to try to resolve them as people come up with them.

#18 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 20 November 2010 - 00:18

I really like this idea. +1

My one suggestion is about the duel and the timing of it. Maybe I am misunderstanding this but basically I am worried that I am constantly putting myself in a position to be forced to decline duels. This is because I check my account while at work, while running errands via my phone, while lounging around and I am not always immediately available to commit 15 minutes to a duel (or however long).

Therefore I think there should be somewhat of a PvP arena format where people go to duel. You go to the section and enter into a duel and then when someone else does the same thing you would be paired against each other...You could also remove yourself from the Dueling Arena if you know you are going to unavailable and haven't received a match yet. This would almost remove the accept/decline aspect of this and also it wouldn't make "levelers" mad because they would never be involved if they didn't want to be.

Idk, just an idea.



I think challenges could still be made to offline opponents - and the accept/decline/defer question back with a proposed time is the only way to go. The arena format suggested could prevent players from ever having chance at those sitting above them in range. You could still be at work -accept challenge, and defer Q back with time that works for you to arrange a duel. It's not perfect; just a ideal that through feedback, and suggestions can evolve into a better system. Thanks for the feedback

#19 fs_lichblader

fs_lichblader
  • Guests

Posted 20 November 2010 - 00:26

I don't really partake in PvP. But if this were implemented, I would love to see it and try it out.

This sounds like real Player v. Player instead of surprise hits.

#20 paingwin

paingwin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,075 posts

Posted 22 November 2010 - 16:45

ok so how will this work? if challenge is accepted then it is like a bounty? 10 hits who ever wins the most wins?
primary concern is the ability to not partake in it if someone makes it to the top and has a bit of a lead then all they have to do is decline any challengers and no one can have the chance to knock them down. so the penalty for declining needs to be good enough to stop that. if you do that then might just work and finally be a real challenge for the PVPers rather than as you said a lot of people raping a defenseless offline character

all in all i like it. this could be a very good path to take and could be a lot of fun


maybe the punishment for declining a challenge could be a percentage of the rating you would have lost if you would have accepted and lost anyway? That would definately make it worth while to at least attempt to overcome a challenge instead of shrugging it off


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: