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

#21 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 20:56

Another thought i had as i was going through Grave's post is frequency of ladder resets..Perhaps have it reset somewhere around once every 24 hours or so, which would mean that it 'd be more a matter of activity and constant effort to come on top of the ladder every time.


The rate was just decreased with the last big update. I don't think it needs to be reduced again.

#22 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 20:58

Being on the ladder doesn't award you anything. It only shows people there. You need to finish in the top to be awarded. There is no reason to exclude the 25 people that are in spots 26-50. Just because they aren't relevant now, doesn't mean they won't be needed in the future. If you think of the game as growing then the upper levels will have steadily more and more players in them.


True - and in some sense I agree with you. However, from 800-1000 you will either be awarding some very valuable tokens to people who have lost at PvP, or frequently (and over-generously) rewarding the few PvPers there are.

The 2nd option makes more sense - but then it's unfair on the lower level ranges where there may be lots of active PvPers all struggling to get one of the coveted places. I'm against making things easier for higher levels than lower - but essentially the higher level PvPers will have a pseudo-guaranteed token income while the level 100s have to fight tooth and nail.

Still very unbalanced if you ask me.

As for the 'look to the future' aspect - I'd rather get it right now, when PvP tokens are valuable and dishing them out for no effort is serious. When PvPers start reaching level 1000 en masse I'll reconsider.

#23 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 21:02

True - and in some sense I agree with you. However, from 800-1000 you will either be awarding some very valuable tokens to people who have lost at PvP, or only rewarding the top few PvPers.


If you re-read what I posted you will see you are disagreeing with Gravely not myself.
I never suggested giving tokens to 26-50 or even 11-25. I only spoken out against broken tokens.


As for the 'look to the future' aspect - I'd rather get it right now, when PvP tokens are valuable and dishing them out for no effort is serious. When PvPers start reaching level 1000 en masse I'll reconsider.


.. where am I suggesting to give them out for nothing?

I simply stated I want the ladder to SHOW spots 1-50. Showing a spot does not mean I am asking to reward that spot.

#24 MaximusGR

MaximusGR

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,177 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 21:06

Then we are not in disagreement on that Hor, my point was towards rewarding the top XX players, showing any number would not make any difference in that :)

#25 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 21:08


True - and in some sense I agree with you. However, from 800-1000 you will either be awarding some very valuable tokens to people who have lost at PvP, or only rewarding the top few PvPers.


If you re-read what I posted you will see you are disagreeing with Gravely not myself.
I never suggested giving tokens to 26-50 or even 11-25. I only spoken out against broken tokens.


As for the 'look to the future' aspect - I'd rather get it right now, when PvP tokens are valuable and dishing them out for no effort is serious. When PvPers start reaching level 1000 en masse I'll reconsider.


.. where am I suggesting to give them out for nothing?

I simply stated I want the ladder to SHOW spots 1-50. Showing a spot does not mean I am asking to reward that spot.


Ok - you want to show all 50 spots. I'd rather you didn't show up until you've initiated an attack or at least successfully defended against one because being attacked does not warrant being shown on the ladder! It's not really a big deal, and I guess if 50 people were active then showing all 50 would be fine.

I do still have an issue with 5 out of the 6 PvPers currently active over level 1000 being awarded tokens compared to 5 out of over 50 in the lowest ranges. It's not an issue with your comment or even gravely's post - but one with the bands overall. They're skewed in so many respects it hurts.

#26 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 21:13

I do still have an issue with 5 out of the 6 PvPers currently active over level 1000 being awarded tokens compared to 5 out of over 50 in the lowest ranges. It's not an issue with your comment or even gravely's post - but one with the bands overall. They're skewed in so many respects in hurts.


Then as an amendment we should ask that a certain # of attacks must be done to gain the rewards. Ideally it would be a % of the average # of attacks made by everyone in each bracket but I think that might be too hard to accomplish. So in lieu of that I would suggest a randomizing 10-30 attacks and that me the minimum.

Let me reiterate that in the future there will be more people in those level brackets so it is important even though it is not pertinent NOW that for future advancement there is a large viewable audience.

#27 EvilLyn

EvilLyn

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 21:19

Essentially you are free to take on the best (without gloating them for 200 points or something equally ridiculous) but the so called *best* who have inhabited previous incarnations of the ladder can't just PvP 1000 rating players for 1 or 2 points each time to move on upwards.



you dont get much off a player with 1000 after a certain point anyways. but for example last night i was above people by over 200 rating and had to 100 stam multiple people for 5 rating a pop just to solidify my spot. i got deflected or couldnt hit the others closer to my rating. and if someone can take rating for me i should be able to get it back.

#28 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 21:21


I do still have an issue with 5 out of the 6 PvPers currently active over level 1000 being awarded tokens compared to 5 out of over 50 in the lowest ranges. It's not an issue with your comment or even gravely's post - but one with the bands overall. They're skewed in so many respects in hurts.


Then as an amendment we should ask that a certain # of attacks must be done to gain the rewards. Ideally it would be a % of the average # of attacks made by everyone in each bracket but I think that might be too hard to accomplish. So in lieu of that I would suggest a randomizing 10-30 attacks and that me the minimum.

Let me reiterate that in the future there will be more people in those level brackets so it is important even though it is not pertinent NOW that for future advancement there is a large viewable audience.


Only displaying active PvPers and limiting the display to the top 50 would be fine in that regard. Right now the ladders will be empty, empty places - but at some point there may be 50 PvP players there so I'll go along with that.

I would add that it's not the 'amount' of PvP that I have an issue with - it's the guarantee of reward with little or no competition for those top 5 places. Just like the awful last minute gloating wasn't worth tokens, I don't feel 5/6 players who happen to hit each other (regardless of how often) deserve a reward when tens or 50s of players in the lower levels are missing out because of saturation rather than lack of skill :(

#29 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 21:45

Grave most of your idea are ok, I do like being able to hit everyone in the braket regardless of being on the ladder, mainly because for our bracket there is no one to hit otherwise(1/2 the people with positive rating are in my guild so I can't hit them :twisted: ) also I think this system for pvp point transfer would be pretty fair for all.

Instead of having the cutoff's in place for the person who has a higher rating have them go in both directions.

People who have The same exact rating would have the biggest transfers when competing. (30 points per hit)

People + or - 100 points of each other would be in the next transfer range (20 points per hit)

Next would be + or - 101-250 points (10 points per hit)

Last would be + or - 251-500 points (this would be the smallest transfer of points 5 per hit)

If a person is + or - more then 500 points from their target they get 0 points, meaning it doesnt matter if they have a rating of 1000 or a rating of 1501, there is no transfer.


This. Encourage hitting players around your own rating to go up.

#30 Khanate

Khanate

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,829 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 21:48

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.
Ladders will be reduced to 25 players post level 400.

The top 10 will be awarded 1 token, the top 5 will be awarded 2 tokens, and 1st through 3rd will be awarded as they are now.


Many PvPers in the lower range won't have access to this extended ladder, seems unfair. I'd prefer a system where you are unable to use the extended range until you make an attack and as soon as you make one, you can be attacked across the whole range.

Also, since this is only PvP'ers, it makes sense to have exp losses.

Apart from the 2 points I mentionned, I think this would be a lasting fix.

#31 fs_nthnclls

fs_nthnclls
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2010 - 22:17



Then as an amendment we should ask that a certain # of attacks must be done to gain the rewards. Ideally it would be a % of the average # of attacks made by everyone in each bracket but I think that might be too hard to accomplish. So in lieu of that I would suggest a randomizing 10-30 attacks and that me the minimum.

Let me reiterate that in the future there will be more people in those level brackets so it is important even though it is not pertinent NOW that for future advancement there is a large viewable audience.


Only displaying active PvPers and limiting the display to the top 50 would be fine in that regard. Right now the ladders will be empty, empty places - but at some point there may be 50 PvP players there so I'll go along with that.

I would add that it's not the 'amount' of PvP that I have an issue with - it's the guarantee of reward with little or no competition for those top 5 places. Just like the awful last minute gloating wasn't worth tokens, I don't feel 5/6 players who happen to hit each other (regardless of how often) deserve a reward when tens or 50s of players in the lower levels are missing out because of saturation rather than lack of skill :(


A selfish +1 from me. :P

What we should all keep in mind is that there's no way to make it completely fair. It will ALWAYS be skewed some way or another, and expecting complete fairness is a bad idea, imo.

#32 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 06 December 2010 - 22:51



Then as an amendment we should ask that a certain # of attacks must be done to gain the rewards. Ideally it would be a % of the average # of attacks made by everyone in each bracket but I think that might be too hard to accomplish. So in lieu of that I would suggest a randomizing 10-30 attacks and that me the minimum.

Let me reiterate that in the future there will be more people in those level brackets so it is important even though it is not pertinent NOW that for future advancement there is a large viewable audience.


Only displaying active PvPers and limiting the display to the top 50 would be fine in that regard. Right now the ladders will be empty, empty places - but at some point there may be 50 PvP players there so I'll go along with that.

I would add that it's not the 'amount' of PvP that I have an issue with - it's the guarantee of reward with little or no competition for those top 5 places. Just like the awful last minute gloating wasn't worth tokens, I don't feel 5/6 players who happen to hit each other (regardless of how often) deserve a reward when tens or 50s of players in the lower levels are missing out because of saturation rather than lack of skill :(


A selfish +1 from me. :P

What we should all keep in mind is that there's no way to make it completely fair. It will ALWAYS be skewed some way or another, and expecting complete fairness is a bad idea, imo.


Again - completely agree - but I find more and more with this ladder issue that I completely agree with a lot of contradictory and in some cases mutually exclusive points of few.

Knock it down and start again :(

#33 maxvam

maxvam

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 260 posts

Posted 07 December 2010 - 00:47

i can accept anything except xp loss.. as simply xp loss is not dominance. :)




you prefer to hit players with no risk? How is that dominant?


so you mean who lose more xp is dominance.. lol. dominance is all about who stand tall in attack /defend .. not who lose more and more xp..

#34 kingtyrin

kingtyrin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,700 posts

Posted 07 December 2010 - 00:57

so you mean who lose more xp is dominance.. lol. dominance is all about who stand tall in attack /defend .. not who lose more and more xp..

I understand where you are coming from, I do, but your missing out on the fact that having any attacks that dont take xp simply doesnt make sense.

If someone steals my gold, I should be able to damage their character without use of the BB(Yes, thats what the BB is for is to pay people to damage others characters and to fight your battles). Also, if someone wants to mess up someone on the ladder by staying super low on rating on purpose and constantly hitting someone up high to gain without them being able to gain back (Although not as easy with the cap on transfers, still possible) they should actually do damage.

Anyone who wants to take part in the dominance race without it hurting their xp off the board can get an xp lock, and now anyone who wants no part can opt out. There is no reason to have attacks that dont take xp other then this imo (Excluding conserve)

#35 fs_zmike34

fs_zmike34
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2010 - 01:19

I very new to pvp part of game well new to actually intentionally being involved and i think that gravely seems to have a really great grasp on the system that we need, i have never minded the risk nothing ventured nothing gained, +A 8)

#36 fs_gravely

fs_gravely
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2010 - 02:13

Some clarification on issues brought up while I was at work:

1. Rating loss was prevented if the other player was below the floor at which another player could gain rating to prevent upward shots.

Essentially, if Player A has 1400 rating and Player B has 1000 rating, and Player A is offline and unbuffed, the only person that can benefit from that combat is Player B. If Player A somehow, miraculously, manages to win, no rating will be gained.

If both parties can't benefit, neither one should be able to. I would potentially be open to a system where Player A risks losing rating if they initiate the combat against Player B, but that just makes trading possible.

However, if enough people don't agree with this particular aspect, other systems have been proposed.

Leos' similarity index (having players with like rating gain the most on a per hit basis) would be an acceptable alternative.

2. Having only 25 people on the ladder after a certain level is meant to prevent having extremely low amounts of rating from appearing and having access to bracket ranges; again, this is negotiable. While I realize having more players on the ladder is more desirable for those players who have fewer targets and want the wide range to hit them, that's not necessarily an issue when the maximum rating in a given bracket isn't very high. As populations in given brackets expand, as hor noted, the cows can increase. For now, it's a good starting point.

3. Resets were good at a week +. I'm actually wishing they'd go back to that. Keeps value high, makes people work for the spots.

4. Hor, I realize you like the range. So do I and every other pvper. However, it's blatantly unfair to all the levelers, and even I can see that. +/- 10 is pretty darn big, considering that's four times the range we used to be able to take exp from.

5. I'd be open to the rating range being increased to 300 or even 400.

#37 fs_spiiderxse

fs_spiiderxse
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2010 - 02:26

Posted Image
Someone has the right Idea
grave does

#38 fs_deadgrass

fs_deadgrass
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2010 - 02:35

agreed but cows might not do this because of so many pvpers that thrive on this system

#39 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 07 December 2010 - 02:44

4. Hor, I realize you like the range. So do I and every other pvper. However, it's blatantly unfair to all the levelers, and even I can see that. +/- 10 is pretty darn big, considering that's four times the range we used to be able to take exp from.


Cloak while hunting
Deflect while hunting
PvP Opt out
Protect gold
Low Thievery rates
Low Master Thievery rates

Given the above factors I see absolutely no reason to decrease the range. I think the increased range is healthy for the game.

p.s. I'm pretty sure you understand I am talking about being able to hit for gold. In which case it is only really 2 times the available targets from before(+-10 instead of +-5), just no exp was taken from the -5 and that change was made quite a while ago now. If we are just talking about taking exp then for some this is actually a reduction in the # of people they can hit for exp as the ends of the brackets are not currently allowed to hit out of bracket. So a X00 can only hit X00-X10 and a X99 can only hit X89-X99(excluding lower levels of course)


p.s.s. You made no mention of minimum number of hits to obtain a reward. This especially applies to the Upper most brackets where when someone will get to 1100, 1200, etc.. They will automatically be rewarded PvP tokens for literally doing no pvp.

#40 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 07 December 2010 - 02:51

i can accept anything except xp loss.. as simply xp loss is not dominance. :)




you prefer to hit players with no risk? How is that dominant?


so you mean who lose more xp is dominance.. lol. dominance is all about who stand tall in attack /defend .. not who lose more and more xp..


Of course who can tolerate to lose exp and keep PvPing is a huge part of dominance. Some people might lose 5 levels and stop pvping until they gain it back dominant PvPers take it in stride and work with the situation they are dealt. It's not a hard concept I am surprised you are struggling so much with it.


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: