PvP Update Tweaks (PvP Protection)
#21
fs_alphaveron
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:05
#22
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:06
We would change the FSP cost if it only protected XP otherwise it wouldn't be worthwhile.
It would probably get used more. Gold is what you give to the guild and buy the occasional potion with. Not good for much else except when forging more gear.
#23
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:07
So does this mean that upon activating this protection I will no longer be in a PvP Band meaning that I can't hit or be hit for rating until the ladder resets? Or is it I just can't attack to get rating, but still can lose rating from people attacking me after the protection period is over?
Thanks to anyone who takes the time to clear this up for me.
#24
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:15
#25
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:15
I do think you should have it so that players besides the person using the block aren't able to see the duration to prevent griefing. I can just picture it now, PvP player sees target is blocked, sees time, waits for the timer to run out and then 100 stam hitting hourly until the block is placed again because they were ticked off about being blocked when they initially wanted to hit.

|| signature rotates, artists varied ||
Fan my art on Facebook || Deviant Art || Chat on Irc
When in doubt, lean to the side of mercy.
- Cevantes
#26
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:22
#27
fs_zocc1
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:24
Also I would like to point out that if everyone is so concerned about it causing the price fsps to rise. Why not just have the upgrade cost 1,500,000 gold for 1 day of protection and 30,000,000 gold for the 28 days. That would be a bigger gold sink then pvp will ever be. I can tell you that I have never lost 30,000,000 gold in a month from pvp and never will. And fsps would drop a "LOT" when someone bought that upgrade... (If it protects from gold loss why not have it cost gold...)
#28
fs_evfisher
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:25
Adding gold loss would actually defeat the purpose for PvP protection in my opinion.
#29
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:34
Protect XP=25 FSP. Since I level weekly, then the XP lock is less expensive than the monthly PvP protection.
Adding gold loss would actually defeat the purpose for PvP protection in my opinion.
Then they should get rid of PvP protection...no?
#30
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:38
That would be ideal, but gold loss has to be allowed. There are too many ways exploit things if gold is blocked.Protect XP=25 FSP. Since I level weekly, then the XP lock is less expensive than the monthly PvP protection.
Adding gold loss would actually defeat the purpose for PvP protection in my opinion.
Then they should get rid of PvP protection...no?
#31
fs_evfisher
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:38
Protect XP=25 FSP. Since I level weekly, then the XP lock is less expensive than the monthly PvP protection.
Adding gold loss would actually defeat the purpose for PvP protection in my opinion.
Then they should get rid of PvP protection...no?
Not if players want to protect their gold as well as their XP. If a player wants to protect both, then for the higher level players, the amount of gold they would bring in, would make it advantageous to have the PvP protection without the gold loss.
If you add gold loss to the PvP Protection, and make it so that only the XP is preserved, then I would rather spend 100 FSP monthly to lock my XP, and find an alternate way to preserve my gold.
#32
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:40
#33
fs_regnier7
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:40
-Think- of the possible abuse with only so many being able to pay for this "protection"Protect XP=25 FSP. Since I level weekly, then the XP lock is less expensive than the monthly PvP protection.
Adding gold loss would actually defeat the purpose for PvP protection in my opinion.
No fear of being hit = easily being able to jack up the marketplace and make profit there.
Gold loss should stay, in my opinion.
Hoof already said the price would change if this was done.
#34
fs_evfisher
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:40
That would be ideal, but gold loss has to be allowed. There are too many ways exploit things if gold is blocked.Protect XP=25 FSP. Since I level weekly, then the XP lock is less expensive than the monthly PvP protection.
Adding gold loss would actually defeat the purpose for PvP protection in my opinion.
Then they should get rid of PvP protection...no?
Players will always find a way to "exploit" things, no matter what safe guards are put into place.
#35
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:41
And best protection against gold hits would be to change the "view pvp targets list" but nobody talks about that. Finding gold targets took skill in the old days, now they just show up lmao and levelers are not even mentioning this. Ahh the ignorance.
#36
fs_evfisher
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:42
-Think- of the possible abuse with only so many being able to pay for this "protection"Protect XP=25 FSP. Since I level weekly, then the XP lock is less expensive than the monthly PvP protection.
Adding gold loss would actually defeat the purpose for PvP protection in my opinion.
No fear of being hit = easily being able to jack up the marketplace and make profit there.
Gold loss should stay, in my opinion.
Hoof already said the price would change if this was done.
Will the monthly price come down to below 100 FSP a month? I highly doubt it.
#37
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:42
But you are buying gold protection for anyone that sends you gold as well, becoming a bank for others.Protect XP=25 FSP. Since I level weekly, then the XP lock is less expensive than the monthly PvP protection.
Adding gold loss would actually defeat the purpose for PvP protection in my opinion.
Then they should get rid of PvP protection...no?
Not if players want to protect their gold as well as their XP. If a player wants to protect both, then for the higher level players, the amount of gold they would bring in, would make it advantageous to have the PvP protection without the gold loss.
If you add gold loss to the PvP Protection, and make it so that only the XP is preserved, then I would rather spend 100 FSP monthly to lock my XP, and find an alternate way to preserve my gold.
[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
#38
fs_evfisher
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:43
get rid of tokens connected to pvp = you dont get hits for ratings from random peeps and only get well deserved gold hits. If in guild war use the old xp-lock thingee and deflect. End of story.
And best protection against gold hits would be to change the "view pvp targets list" but nobody talks about that. Finding gold targets took skill in the old days, now they just show up lmao and levelers are not even mentioning this. Ahh the ignorance.
Why would levelers mention something that we have already been told wouldn't happen and has been beaten to death?
#39
fs_regnier7
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:45
We don't know what the price would be reduced to, I'm just asking that an open mind be kept. I don't even PvP much so I don't care that much if it is nerfed. But hoof has put great effort into fixing marketplace loopholes and adding gold sinks so that the marketplace stays at a reasonable level.Will the monthly price come down to below 100 FSP a month? I highly doubt it.
Why would he go and screw that up by bringing in something that could lead to potentially more marketplace abuse?
#40
Posted 02 December 2010 - 22:47
cows i think you failed in doing it as fsp.
gold would have been a much better option as i have talked to a few people i know that are not pvpers (myself included) and i can say honestly that why would i pay 10 fsp to lock me out of pvp for 1 day if i am worried about xp loss due to pvp i can spend 25 fsp lock my xp for as long as i sit at my current lvland with my stam that is almost 2weeks
the prices for the lock vs the time are inane and i dont see them being used
i know i will never use them and the fact that you made them fsp when there is already too much gold in the game kinda baffles me
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

