Jump to content

This is how you Fix PvP - Proposal updated


  • Please log in to reply
246 replies to this topic

Poll: Does this system appeal to you? (113 member(s) have cast votes)

Does this system appeal to you?

  1. Voted Yes (66 votes [58.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 58.41%

  2. Voted No (34 votes [30.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.09%

  3. Voted Some parts do (explain) (13 votes [11.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.50%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#241 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 24 January 2011 - 22:37


I don't want automatic punishment at all! Maybe you didn't understand what I wrote. I want the upper LIMIT of the bounty to scale with the attack strength. With this in place, there would be absolutely no reason against making all attacks bountiable - and I am also convinced that limiting the maximum risk for small attacks (from current 5 levels to i.e. 0.2 level for 10 stam) would encourage PvP a lot.

In other words, attacker chooses how much stam he uses - and he knows that the minimum XP loss from bounty will be the same as today and the maximum XP loss from bounty will depend on the attack. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with risking 4 levels for 2x100 stam and 0.2 levels for 10stam? There is absolutely no logical reason why in both cases the max punishment should be the same.

And the numbers are just examples. The formula can be in the form of a + bx if you think that for every attack there should be bigger risk for a 10stam.

I understand what you want. Hoof might like it. He's already bastardized PvP enough that it might make players that don't like to PvP actually attack others. I doubt it. Start a thread. I know what I will be doing...

How exactly would this "bastardize" PvP? Do you think that it's the cornerstone of PvP that every single attack can lead to 5 level loss? Or are the numbers too low?

What has happened is that PvP has been made 'soft' where, sure, every attack can be bountied but not every attack takes xp or gold. It's like a GvG with the ability to bounty. It's soft and basterdized and lame. Players say "go ahead and hit me, I don't care as long as I don't lose xp." This is not being dominant, just trying to avoid a bounty. Besides not taking xp and gold on every attack, players able to lock XP and play the ladder is a joke, a flaw and oversight. It's worse than a player who hits back, loses, then bounties. What we refer to as "double dipping" because they tried PvP, failed, and resorted to using the BB. These players get dropped 5. So should the XP locked player who plays the ladder.

What you want merely puts limits on how much xp you can lose. It's equally as soft and basterdized and lame. "Oh, a 10 stam love tap. I can only lose .whatever of a level. I must be dominant! La la la." You think this will attract more players to PvP? I believe once players realize that losing xp is not the end of their gaming life, lose the fear, that they will and want to try PvP. It's a myth that xp is the backbone of your character. It's not! It's some silly astronomically large number that is gained and sometimes lost. Players who stop worrying so much about their xp will want to try playing PvP.

[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


#242 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 24 January 2011 - 22:38

And what I question is whether knowing how to attack someone means someone is able to take a step back and think of PvP as a system. From having looked at probably all recent PvP-relevant threads and posts made by the recognized PvP'ers, I'd say that it helps forge your opinion, but that it does not replace in any way critical analysis when trying to make PvP-related suggestions.

You seem to stop at 'all attacks take xp, gold and rating' and 'protection doesn't protect gold'. Where's the rest of the system? I agree about the all attack taking xp, gold and rating part, but there's a whole slew of other suggestions in the OP, most notably 'Only players who are on the ladder of a given bracket will have access to this range, and they will only be able to target other players on the ladder with that range.' Unless I've missed it, where is your stance on that?

I'm curious if you still remember where to find the attack button?

But in all seriousness, the objective of posting threads in the forum is to attempt to convince the devs to change something in the game using arguments. I liked a lot of Gravely's arguments, but not all. I voted the third option: some parts. I have commented on most of those parts in this thread. I think his proposal was too large in scope. It tries too hard to please everyone. If you're not leveling AND PvPing you are only playing a portion of the game. Sure that is your choice but don't expect to be given preference, whichever you prefer.

My answer to your question is I don't think we need two ranges. Either you actively PvP or you don't. If you don't, accept the fact you will lose xp when attacked, whether the range is 100, 50 or 10 levels. The key is the response to the attack. If you're not willing to hit back, do nothing or you have the BB. Trying to placate players who don't want to play a portion of the game, for whatever reason, does not lead to more or less donations. It shows not enough importance has been placed on that portion of the game. For example, if they were to give out 5 skill points for every level taken by a player you can bet more players would be PvPing. This is where the imbalance lies!

[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


#243 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 01:18

I'm curious if you still remember where to find the attack button?

But in all seriousness, the objective of posting threads in the forum is to attempt to convince the devs to change something in the game using arguments. I liked a lot of Gravely's arguments, but not all. I voted the third option: some parts. I have commented on most of those parts in this thread. I think his proposal was too large in scope. It tries too hard to please everyone. If you're not leveling AND PvPing you are only playing a portion of the game. Sure that is your choice but don't expect to be given preference, whichever you prefer.

My answer to your question is I don't think we need two ranges. Either you actively PvP or you don't. If you don't, accept the fact you will lose xp when attacked, whether the range is 100, 50 or 10 levels. The key is the response to the attack. If you're not willing to hit back, do nothing or you have the BB. Trying to placate players who don't want to play a portion of the game, for whatever reason, does not lead to more or less donations. It shows not enough importance has been placed on that portion of the game. For example, if they were to give out 5 skill points for every level taken by a player you can bet more players would be PvPing. This is where the imbalance lies!


Attack button?

The extended range was needed because the only way players exchanged points at higher levels was through the bounty board. The extended range was applied and allowed everyone who competed against each another to be able to actually compete against each another. And the 'no losses' clause was added to make gold and exp losses be the same as before this extended range. What we propose is essentially a system that allows competition in PvP without bastardizing PvP, which was originally the goal of the changes to the PvP ladder.

#244 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 03:01

Attack button?

Posted Image


I thought so.

[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


#245 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 25 January 2011 - 03:35

Attack button?

Posted Image

I thought so.


You don't get jokes do you :lol:

#246 fs_spiiderxse

fs_spiiderxse
  • Guests

Posted 29 January 2011 - 19:53

alright... now I realize this maybe a stupid thing but...
(this is a add on to the 300 above rule)

People who get attacked by people should be able to attack back no matter what, if...
"I had 1000 rating while offline and get 100 stamed from the beginning (from a levelers veiw) and I wanna grow a pair and attack back for once... so i raid the guild report for a set that can beat this guy who attacked me and im all buffed and junk about to prove something and BAM nope he has 0ver 1250 rating (as you would have 950 rating) what you say puh I guess I might as well bounty him and do nothing at all..."

I think you should be able to "counter attack" people back with this in set so levelers with pride/honor can attack and prove they do...
hope you like the idea grave :lol:

#247 fs_coyotik

fs_coyotik
  • Guests

Posted 29 January 2011 - 22:08

What you want merely puts limits on how much xp you can lose. It's equally as soft and basterdized and lame. "Oh, a 10 stam love tap. I can only lose .whatever of a level. I must be dominant! La la la."


I don't give a rat's arse about dominance. The ladders stink bigtime anyway, but if you see dominance as a problem, no problem to count ONLY 100stams towards any dominance.

You think this will attract more players to PvP? I believe once players realize that losing xp is not the end of their gaming life, lose the fear, that they will and want to try PvP.


It has nothing to do with fear, but for a lot of people losing XP is something that goes directly against what they enjoy in the game. After all, why do they bother with buying and brewing pots and forging gear? To squeeze the max XP per stam out of it. And many players never realize what you realized - and it doesn't make them inferior or less important than anybody else.

And yes, risking the loss of full weekly stam for a single hit IS a big deterrent for many players.


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: