Jump to content

Photo

PvP Ladder - Level Brackets


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

Poll: Do you prefer this idea? (147 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you prefer this idea?

  1. Voted Yes (108 votes [73.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.47%

  2. Voted No (39 votes [26.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.53%

Vote

#41 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:49

True, but would you not agree that is seems every 100 levels its a big step in gear and buffs, from being 1 level lower?

I was just pointing out that its more fair to be 1-99 and 100-199 then the proposed numbers

Oh yes, but its better then what we had either way where 5's and 1000s were competing for dominance :lol:

Your likely right that you way makes more sense. Im just saying if they dont do it, the risk of being on those verge levels is tricky.


Made me think of a potential way to abuse it though-

If I dont assign LUP past 199, and Im not winning in the 200 or 201(however) + bracket I could delevel myself to make it into the lower bracket :|
(Dont forget you can delevel without losing rating using creatures) That might be considered a tad underhanded. . . .. . . . .

#42 fusionj

fusionj

    Member

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

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:50


Agree wholeheartedly with this...as long as pvp is opened up within the brackets. Allow me to hit, and be hit by, anyone within my bracket.

I think that this would be kinda to much for those that don't want to participate in PvP actively-also it would encourage farming..


Farming becomes nearly impossible when you have 100+ levels to police it. No one in a bracket is invincible.

Perhaps only opening the bracket amongst those already on the ladder makes more sense. That way, the majority of levelers are only open to attacks from the people within their normal +/-10 range.

#43 EvilLyn

EvilLyn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:51

Couple more points to consider...

1) Do you feel we should open up PvP a little with the implementation of the brackets? Assuming we narrow down the range of the lower brackets (eg 1 - 25, 26 - 50 etc.), do you see an issue with allowing PvP within the bracket range?

2) How should we handle he following situation. Assuming we have two players within the 101 - 200 bracket whereby Player A is level 110 and Player B is level 101. This would mean Player B could no longer attack a level 100 player under the new system. Does this seem ok?




i'm good with both parts. i know from level 125 i could beat most people under 200 no problem. heck i lost to a level 117 clearing his bounty today. :) it makes it a bit more of a free for all and much more work into defending i think.

#44 Anemie

Anemie

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:52

Couple more points to consider...

1) Do you feel we should open up PvP a little with the implementation of the brackets? Assuming we narrow down the range of the lower brackets (eg 1 - 25, 26 - 50 etc.), do you see an issue with allowing PvP within the bracket range?

2) How should we handle he following situation. Assuming we have two players within the 101 - 200 bracket whereby Player A is level 110 and Player B is level 101. This would mean Player B could no longer attack a level 100 player under the new system. Does this seem ok?

1.Brackets should stay as first suggested..-1-25 for example would be filled with terminated players(actually that would be fun)
2.I'll let smarter ones decide...

And thanks for trying to fix this..

#45 fs_philip333

fs_philip333
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:52

YES!!! This gives EVERYONE a fair chance in getting into the pvp ladder. So if top person wins he gets the most at your lvl. Sounds great IT sound be 1-25

#46 rhann123

rhann123

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,022 posts
  • United States of America

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:52

Great idea as long as the tokens are lowered to as you said keep the market from becoming flooded.

#47 Placeboo

Placeboo

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 962 posts
  • United States of America

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:53

800 to 1000+ is to few levels ... there are not many peeople in this range. The bracket system is mostly for lower level ... its needs to be on a more exponental scale .... ie:
1-25
26-75
76-200
201-500
500+

#48 fusionj

fusionj

    Member

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

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:54

Couple more points to consider...

1) Do you feel we should open up PvP a little with the implementation of the brackets? Assuming we narrow down the range of the lower brackets (eg 1 - 25, 26 - 50 etc.), do you see an issue with allowing PvP within the bracket range?

2) How should we handle he following situation. Assuming we have two players within the 101 - 200 bracket whereby Player A is level 110 and Player B is level 101. This would mean Player B could no longer attack a level 100 player under the new system. Does this seem ok?


1) Absolutely. As mentioned in my earlier post, perhaps it makes more sense to only open pvp to the players that are on the ladder. In other words, once you're on the ladder, you become fair game to everyone in your bracket...while those not on the ladder can only be hit by the normal +/-10 range(to keep levelers from being subjected to 200 levels of gold thieves).

2. My above answer fixes that solution. As soon as Player A hits Player B, and gains enough rating to be on the ladder, Player A is now susceptible to counterattacks from Player B.

#49 Chazz224

Chazz224

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 528 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:55

We all know that farming is a huge problem, why not exclude the lower levels from this altogether... ? Meaning that instead of making a "new/duplicate account" to pvp, why not limit this so you need to be level 100+ to play in this Pvp Ladder? By doing this HCS would have a nice amount of time to sort out the dups from the normal accounts and also maintain the quality of the ladder...

I like and support the idea of different level brackets within the pvp ladder, just feel with the quantity over quality in the lower levels (-100) is questionable, just my opinion. Also opening up the level ranges from within 10 to within 200 to co-inside with that 20% is a nice idea as well.

On the subject of the Bounty Board, my suggestion is to ensure people lose rating but "if possible" control how much of that rating "if any" is transferred upon loss given the level of the player clearing. So perhaps if that player clearing is within the 20% yes they should gain a fair amount of rating, however if someone 500 was to clear a level 5 they would not.

#50 Anemie

Anemie

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 633 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:55

I don't get it-can someone please explain 1-25 to me,,,It's like some want PvP-ers that just joined the game to earn tokens from farming players that have also just joined the game..

#51 RD1542

RD1542

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 780 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:55

Couple more points to consider...

1) Do you feel we should open up PvP a little with the implementation of the brackets? Assuming we narrow down the range of the lower brackets (eg 1 - 25, 26 - 50 etc.), do you see an issue with allowing PvP within the bracket range?

2) How should we handle he following situation. Assuming we have two players within the 101 - 200 bracket whereby Player A is level 110 and Player B is level 101. This would mean Player B could no longer attack a level 100 player under the new system. Does this seem ok?



1 maybe a 5 level increase every 100 levels starting with level 500 ?

2 does pose an issue, but it could pose as graduating points? strategic points for players to stick around for pvp/ war reasons or what not? would have it's benifits and consequences out there i am sure

another point, wouldn't increasing the minimum level of the bracket stop a lot of the current multi abuse?

#52 TokyoSword

TokyoSword

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:56

Couple more points to consider...

1) Do you feel we should open up PvP a little with the implementation of the brackets? Assuming we narrow down the range of the lower brackets (eg 1 - 25, 26 - 50 etc.), do you see an issue with allowing PvP within the bracket range?

2) How should we handle he following situation. Assuming we have two players within the 101 - 200 bracket whereby Player A is level 110 and Player B is level 101. This would mean Player B could no longer attack a level 100 player under the new system. Does this seem ok?

I think it should end on the 99's like suggested before due to new buffs items etc. Other than that yes. gives me encouragement to pvp again

#53 Lahona

Lahona

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 919 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:56

2) How should we handle he following situation. Assuming we have two players within the 101 - 200 bracket whereby Player A is level 110 and Player B is level 101. This would mean Player B could no longer attack a level 100 player under the new system. Does this seem ok?

Normal attack ranges for 'normal' pvp (ie gold theives or revenge attacks / grudge matches or just for practice or fun) but no pvp rating transfer if not within their pvp ladder bracket.

#54 fs_xvxevilxvx

fs_xvxevilxvx
  • Guests

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:56

Couple more points to consider...

1) Do you feel we should open up PvP a little with the implementation of the brackets? Assuming we narrow down the range of the lower brackets (eg 1 - 25, 26 - 50 etc.), do you see an issue with allowing PvP within the bracket range?

2) How should we handle he following situation. Assuming we have two players within the 101 - 200 bracket whereby Player A is level 110 and Player B is level 101. This would mean Player B could no longer attack a level 100 player under the new system. Does this seem ok?




i'm good with both parts. i know from level 125 i could beat most people under 200 no problem. heck i lost to a level 117 clearing his bounty today. :) it makes it a bit more of a free for all and much more work into defending i think.


MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT QUOTING A QUOTED QUOTE...WOOT!

#55 Leos3000

Leos3000

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,031 posts

Posted 18 November 2010 - 23:58

Couple more points to consider...

1) Do you feel we should open up PvP a little with the implementation of the brackets? Assuming we narrow down the range of the lower brackets (eg 1 - 25, 26 - 50 etc.), do you see an issue with allowing PvP within the bracket range?

2) How should we handle he following situation. Assuming we have two players within the 101 - 200 bracket whereby Player A is level 110 and Player B is level 101. This would mean Player B could no longer attack a level 100 player under the new system. Does this seem ok?



1) would bring more life into pvp but can be a touchy thing for pure levelers, as they would have even more people attacking them all the time so expanding to the entire bracket could bring on a lot of unhappy people for you hoof. (maybe make the attack range in the higher brackets increase some, but not the whole bracket)(brackets with 200 level gaps +/- 20 levels, 1's with 100 level gaps +/- 10 )

2) if your not in the bracket range their is no PVP transfer, but I am sure you can allow all the other aspects of an attack to occur, ie gold and xp loss

#56 EvilLyn

EvilLyn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 19 November 2010 - 00:00

Couple more points to consider...

1) Do you feel we should open up PvP a little with the implementation of the brackets? Assuming we narrow down the range of the lower brackets (eg 1 - 25, 26 - 50 etc.), do you see an issue with allowing PvP within the bracket range?

2) How should we handle he following situation. Assuming we have two players within the 101 - 200 bracket whereby Player A is level 110 and Player B is level 101. This would mean Player B could no longer attack a level 100 player under the new system. Does this seem ok?




i'm good with both parts. i know from level 125 i could beat most people under 200 no problem. heck i lost to a level 117 clearing his bounty today. :) it makes it a bit more of a free for all and much more work into defending i think.


MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT QUOTING A QUOTED QUOTE...WOOT!



YAY! i taught you something!!!! <3

#57 TokyoSword

TokyoSword

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 November 2010 - 00:00

And in all reality I think it would be great for players 500+ or so to be able to attack in the normal range and also to be able to attack people 100 or 200 levels plus of them for a challenge :-)

#58 fusionj

fusionj

    Member

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

Posted 19 November 2010 - 00:01

We all know that farming is a huge problem, why not exclude the lower levels from this altogether... ? Meaning that instead of making a "new/duplicate account" to pvp, why not limit this so you need to be level 100+ to play in this Pvp Ladder? By doing this HCS would have a nice amount of time to sort out the dups from the normal accounts and also maintain the quality of the ladder...

I like and support the idea of different level brackets within the pvp ladder, just feel with the quantity over quality in the lower levels (-100) is questionable, just my opinion. Also opening up the level ranges from within 10 to within 200 to co-inside with that 20% is a nice idea as well.

On the subject of the Bounty Board, my suggestion is to ensure people lose rating but "if possible" control how much of that rating "if any" is transferred upon loss given the level of the player clearing. So perhaps if that player clearing is within the 20% yes they should gain a fair amount of rating, however if someone 500 was to clear a level 5 they would not.


This makes sense...until you consider the number of legitimate PVPers below lvl100. It's unfortunate that the risk of duplicate accounts jeopardizes their game...but perhaps this is an option that should be explored.

You also have to consider the fact that that makes the rating items at their level worthless...or, for the players that want to stay below 100, to gvg or whatever, they now have no way of acquiring those items themselves.

#59 EvilLyn

EvilLyn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 19 November 2010 - 00:03

keep in mind there were plenty of legit low level players way before the ladder. Psylonpon just one example.... yes there are multis, but some people really truly do dominate at lower levels.

#60 TokyoSword

TokyoSword

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 41 posts

Posted 19 November 2010 - 00:04

We all know that farming is a huge problem, why not exclude the lower levels from this altogether... ? Meaning that instead of making a "new/duplicate account" to pvp, why not limit this so you need to be level 100+ to play in this Pvp Ladder? By doing this HCS would have a nice amount of time to sort out the dups from the normal accounts and also maintain the quality of the ladder...

I like and support the idea of different level brackets within the pvp ladder, just feel with the quantity over quality in the lower levels (-100) is questionable, just my opinion. Also opening up the level ranges from within 10 to within 200 to co-inside with that 20% is a nice idea as well.

On the subject of the Bounty Board, my suggestion is to ensure people lose rating but "if possible" control how much of that rating "if any" is transferred upon loss given the level of the player clearing. So perhaps if that player clearing is within the 20% yes they should gain a fair amount of rating, however if someone 500 was to clear a level 5 they would not.


This makes sense...until you consider the number of legitimate PVPers below lvl100. It's unfortunate that the risk of duplicate accounts jeopardizes their game...but perhaps this is an option that should be explored.

You also have to consider the fact that that makes the rating items at their level worthless...or, for the players that want to stay below 100, to gvg or whatever, they now have no way of acquiring those items themselves.

+1 on that but like a minimum days played to be allowed in the bracket say 20-30 days or so


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: