PvP Update Tweaks (PvP Protection)
#241
fs_kmaesad
Posted 09 December 2010 - 15:28
The second option would be to do a de-level, but that only works if you've got a top end guild to back you up. Sorta S.O.L. if you're from a small guild (most of us are).
My wish (which I know is totally unrealistic), is for those who want to PvP, have at it with those who also want to PvP, and those who want no part of it are imune to those attacks.
Last comment; 10fsp for 24 hour PvP protection is too much. If you're going that route, try 1FSP/24 hours. That's reasonable.
#242
Posted 10 December 2010 - 23:39
We would change the FSP cost if it only protected XP otherwise it wouldn't be worthwhile.
i disagree hoff i dont do PvP but now you changed the PvP ladder i am geting attacked all the time for any gold i have and the new prestige won in PvP
my only hope to drop out of the PvP is to buy the protection but the cost is way to high
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 60 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 200 [FallenSword Points]
this is way too high for the normal players i would rather pay
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 1 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 5 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
i think lots of players will pay this which would be better for HcS then the odd one or two sooper high levelled players with pots of FsP to use
#243
fs_andypearce
Posted 10 December 2010 - 23:52
We would change the FSP cost if it only protected XP otherwise it wouldn't be worthwhile.
i disagree hoff i dont do PvP but now you changed the PvP ladder i am geting attacked all the time for any gold i have and the new prestige won in PvP
my only hope to drop out of the PvP is to buy the protection but the cost is way to high
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 60 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 200 [FallenSword Points]
this is way too high for the normal players i would rather pay
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 1 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 5 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
i think lots of players will pay this which would be better for HcS then the odd one or two sooper high levelled players with pots of FsP to use
That would just ruin PvP entirely, everyone who didn't want to PvP would be buying it.
#244
fs_gravely
Posted 11 December 2010 - 00:26
I've been asked by HCS to post a reply, so here it is. 1) I am not a fan of PvP, but I do enjoy other aspects of the game. As the system is set up now, it favors those who PvP over those who don't. The typical recourse if you get hit, is to bounty. But once you've placed a bounty on a specific individual, you can't place a second bounty on the same individual for 48 hours, even if they keep hitting you.
This is absolutely not true.
You may post a bounty on a player as many times as you like. The only restriction is that the first bounty must be cleared before a second one can be placed, and you can't bounty for any hits that were made before the first was cleared. For example, I can hit you every hour. If i hit you at 12:00, and you post me at 1:30, I can hit you again at 1:25, and you won't be able to place a second bounty. If I hit you again at 2:25 but the bounty isn't cleared until 2:30, you cannot place a bounty. However, if the bounty is cleared at 2:20 and I hit you at 2:25, you may immediately place another bounty.
#245
fs_phredegast
Posted 11 December 2010 - 17:57
The cost is way too high. For 200 points, I expect permanent protection, not just a month.
+1
#246
fs_skramble
Posted 11 December 2010 - 18:04
Been seeing several players in my rage use protection and make a nice profit in the 24 hours they bought. Frustrating that I cannot touch their gold, but I look at is as the player keeps bodyguards on the payroll. Want protection, it should cost you.
#247
Posted 11 December 2010 - 18:10
My wish (which I know is totally unrealistic), is for those who want to PvP, have at it with those who also
That's exactly what the proposition in this thread aims to do, go read it and keep it bumped if you agree:
http://forum.fallens...php?f=1&t=99279
#248
Posted 11 December 2010 - 18:44
We would change the FSP cost if it only protected XP otherwise it wouldn't be worthwhile.
i disagree hoff i dont do PvP but now you changed the PvP ladder i am geting attacked all the time for any gold i have and the new prestige won in PvP
my only hope to drop out of the PvP is to buy the protection but the cost is way to high
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 60 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 200 [FallenSword Points]
this is way too high for the normal players i would rather pay
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 1 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 5 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
i think lots of players will pay this which would be better for HcS then the odd one or two sooper high levelled players with pots of FsP to use
That would just ruin PvP entirely, everyone who didn't want to PvP would be buying it.
thats the whole point why should we the levellers and buffers of the game be harvested for PvP privilege and the PvP ladder
i dont PvP except as a return attack and then only when i am drunk, i would love to buy a full year's protection also as a guild founder it would help for holding more then 10k gold in hand without the wory of being robed all the time
as a result of the changes i have stopped playing the game and the donations i have been making to the game
#249
Posted 11 December 2010 - 20:51
- 1 hour for 1 fsp. (this should stack, making 3 hours protection for 3 fsp)
Then you can keep the rest as it is :-) (at least in my opinion)
#250
Posted 12 December 2010 - 00:03
#251
Posted 12 December 2010 - 00:44
or,they could just get rid of it all together. HCS said they never would have an opt out from PvP...several times..yet an option becomes available..just before christmas...and while the special fsp bonus is ongoing.. Hmmmm....
Add to that the many shiny new sets acquired through PvP and then do some dot connecting :wink:
#252
fs_phredegast
Posted 12 December 2010 - 06:34
We would change the FSP cost if it only protected XP otherwise it wouldn't be worthwhile.
i disagree hoff i dont do PvP but now you changed the PvP ladder i am geting attacked all the time for any gold i have and the new prestige won in PvP
my only hope to drop out of the PvP is to buy the protection but the cost is way to high
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 60 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 200 [FallenSword Points]
this is way too high for the normal players i would rather pay
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 1 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 5 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
i think lots of players will pay this which would be better for HcS then the odd one or two sooper high levelled players with pots of FsP to use
That would just ruin PvP entirely, everyone who didn't want to PvP would be buying it.
Yes. We would. That's exactly the point.
#253
Posted 12 December 2010 - 08:07
Here you go again wanting to opt out for practically nothing. The means and cost to do so should remain high, if at all. The colorful empty promises are comical. Get drunk, donate and opt out. You may or may not feel the hangover the next day. In the meantime it is so easy to dump gold it is as laughable as the empty promises. No donator, no matter the sum, can sway the devs. Only strong arguments that would benefit the game as a whole can.i disagree hoff i dont do PvP but now you changed the PvP ladder i am geting attacked all the time for any gold i have and the new prestige won in PvP
my only hope to drop out of the PvP is to buy the protection but the cost is way to high
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 60 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 200 [FallenSword Points]
this is way too high for the normal players i would rather pay
+24 Hours PvP Protection [ ? ] 1 [FallenSword Points]
+7 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 5 [FallenSword Points]
+28 Days PvP Protection [ ? ] 10 [FallenSword Points]
i think lots of players will pay this which would be better for HcS then the odd one or two sooper high levelled players with pots of FsP to use
That would just ruin PvP entirely, everyone who didn't want to PvP would be buying it.
thats the whole point why should we the levellers and buffers of the game be harvested for PvP privilege and the PvP ladder
i dont PvP except as a return attack and then only when i am drunk, i would love to buy a full year's protection also as a guild founder it would help for holding more then 10k gold in hand without the wory of being robed all the time
as a result of the changes i have stopped playing the game and the donations i have been making to 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
#254
Posted 12 December 2010 - 12:21
That would just ruin PvP entirely, everyone who didn't want to PvP would be buying it.
thats the whole point why should we the levellers and buffers of the game be harvested for PvP privilege and the PvP ladder
i dont PvP except as a return attack and then only when i am drunk, i would love to buy a full year's protection also as a guild founder it would help for holding more then 10k gold in hand without the wory of being robed all the time
as a result of the changes i have stopped playing the game and the donations i have been making to the game
Here you go again wanting to opt out for practically nothing. The means and cost to do so should remain high, if at all. The colourful empty promises are comical. Get drunk, donate and opt out. You may or may not feel the hangover the next day. In the meantime it is so easy to dump gold it is as laughable as the empty promises. No donator, no matter the sum, can sway the devs. Only strong arguments that would benefit the game as a whole can.
it is true HcS wont be swayed by drunken threats of opting out and not financially supporting the game and my leaving the game would be as effective as a fly trying to smash the windscreen of a car and i am embarrassed i have protested my feelings is such a way ( i would say i have stoped playing for now due to this.
the reason i started playing FS on 17/Nov/2007 was because the last game went down the same rout of PvP where it got to the point were i was attacked every day for gold and prestige and was invited here as the PvP was not as bad and i must sat until the recent changes the PvP was acseptable but now it has gone stupid
i have noticed that FS and this thread is split down the middle half is for the protection and half against .
would i be wrong in thinking the half for the defence are the levellers / buffers and farmers of the game and the other half would be the PvP'ers / robbers and bounty hunters
the problem with the protection is the PvP'ers are now limited to who they can attack how about making a change
first // reduce the cost of protection like i have posted before for the players who don't like the PvP , with the limitations HcS have put in place with the addition that there PvP ratting remains at zero when the protection runs out .
second // remove the upper limit from the PvP / GvG so you can TRY to attack any player above your VL/level
third // let the PvP'ers have the option to attack all players who have been on line for the previous 36 hours ( and HcS could help by removing all protected players from the PvP listing )
forth // the one day protection can be abused by PvP / robbers attacking players then hiding behind the protection so what i suggest is change the period of protection too
1 week =6 FsP
1 month =20 FsP
1 year =200 FsP
this will be good for both sides as there will be more targets for the PvPers and the players who dont like PvP can get there protection from attacks and robbers
#255
Posted 12 December 2010 - 12:33
If they did this, it would be game over for alot on the other side.1 year =200 FsP
I know I thought about quitting the game when they introduced an opt out after a member of hcs said that there would never be one (viewtopic.php?p=1059721#p1059721) and if they made it that available, even with all the rest of your proposed changes, I know I would be out of here.
Note that isnt a threat to the cows at all, I cant really afford to donate anyways so its no real loss for them to have me out of the game except possible income gains from the offers I havent touched since they have ignored gvg and allowed it to be the farce it is. Im just saying, if they were to do that, that would be how I would take it, as the game would make no sense to me at all anymore. PvP always validated leveling and gave it purpose, what you describe isnt the FS I fell in love with.
#256
Posted 12 December 2010 - 18:08
#257
Posted 12 December 2010 - 18:15
Do you approve of the new PvP Protection addition to the game? Do you feel it should stay as it is or only protect against XP Loss?
The only way to make this fair across the board for the offline player is make EVERY hit Bountyable.
Right now you can 100 stam a player every hour for hours on end. They can only bounty ONCE. How are they going to get their PvP points back or even get a smidgen of satisfaction from that? (Hey that would be a great tactic for levelers getting hit by PVPer's. Your going to lose 5 levels. But they will never make the Dominance medal)
YOUR OPT OUT IS A JOKE.
25 fsp for xp lock has always been a part of the game and a whole lot cheaper. Only thing you lose is XP gain. So don't upgrade that. Put it in Max Stam instead.
I absatively posolutely agree with this, i even remembered a time when this was possible...whoever deemed this as a mistake and fixed it is very wrong imo.
#258
Posted 12 December 2010 - 19:53
You both have no clue as to the mechanics of the PvP aspect of the game!Do you approve of the new PvP Protection addition to the game? Do you feel it should stay as it is or only protect against XP Loss?
The only way to make this fair across the board for the offline player is make EVERY hit Bountyable.
Right now you can 100 stam a player every hour for hours on end. They can only bounty ONCE. How are they going to get their PvP points back or even get a smidgen of satisfaction from that? (Hey that would be a great tactic for levelers getting hit by PVPer's. Your going to lose 5 levels. But they will never make the Dominance medal)
YOUR OPT OUT IS A JOKE.
25 fsp for xp lock has always been a part of the game and a whole lot cheaper. Only thing you lose is XP gain. So don't upgrade that. Put it in Max Stam instead.
I absatively posolutely agree with this, i even remembered a time when this was possible...whoever deemed this as a mistake and fixed it is very wrong imo.
It has never been possible to bounty every attack and never should be. The bounty board takes TWICE the xp as a normal hit AND allows you to be attacked every two minutes instead of once an hour. Players that want to bounty every single attack are incapable of deleveling a player, period. Because of that ineptitude they are looking for an automatic punish button or mechanism. You must actually do the punishing yourself with your guildmates, allies or hire mercs. Get your stam dirty and stop asking for an easier reprisal! It takes approximately 10 100 stam attacks over a minimum of 10 hours from a player within +/- 10 levels to take one level. Meanwhile it takes a minimum 20 minutes by 4 players from any level using 9-10 100 stam attacks to take 5 levels! How is that comparable? If you guys want to take the gloves off and go back to an indefinite number of levels that can be lost on a bounty, then just ask for it. Otherwise kwityourbellyachin and lock your precious xp, which doesn't protect you in a bounty btw...
[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
#259
Posted 12 December 2010 - 19:57
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, pay to opt out or xp lock and quit asking for free, or nearly free, stuff?it is true many players will be removed from the PvP but with more targets made available with the removal of the upper limit and the longer time frame on the PvP board this would balance out the players who opt out of PvP'ing
[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
#260
Posted 12 December 2010 - 20:46
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, pay to opt out or xp lock and quit asking for free, or nearly free, stuff?it is true many players will be removed from the PvP but with more targets made available with the removal of the upper limit and the longer time frame on the PvP board this would balance out the players who opt out of PvP'ing
this from a player with Arena Wins: 121 PvP Prestige: 609
and a guild with a front page that says
Kill'in is what we do!
27 of the top Bounty Hunters reside here!
as i have said before the changes to the PvP have split FS in to two sides players like me who never have and do not wish to do PvP
and players like you luisspamer and your guild of PvP'ers and Bounty Hunters
each trying to protect are ways in the game you trying to protect the availability of targets for PvP with me and players like me trying to play without the trouble of trying to spend or find a member to take any gold we have in hand
we cant bank it all with the 25% limit and to have more then 25k in hand makes you a target now
as for putting money where your mouth is, pay to opt out if it was at a reasonable price i would pay
the difference is i don't steal other players gold to buy the things i want spending most of my time helping players and my guild which can be reflected in my bio im L381 and joined the game on 17/Nov/2007 yet you are L941 and joined the game on 28/Dec/2007
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users

