Game Update v1.677
#181
Posted 18 February 2011 - 23:29
Kinda good idea there me thinks.
#182
Posted 18 February 2011 - 23:33
2) I'm ok with increasing gold costs to prevent farming, but there does need to be a cap on it; I would say the starting price at 50k is good and cap it at 1M gold. Also, the curve should be exponential, so that so if you are just 21 points above the target guild, its only 55k (for example), 40 points maybe 100k, 60 points 200k, 80 points 400k, 100 points 700k and 120+ points 1M. The amounts could be tweaked, but its a start.
3) Instead of focusing on what the guild level is, focus on the lower level players! i.e., make all players under level 25 NON-targets in GvG; so they have a chance to get their bearings before getting thrown into GvG (or alternatively, make the difference in gear from levels 5 to 50 much smaller so they aren't easy 1-hit kills). I'd prefer just that under level 25's cannot do or be hit in GvG. It doesn't take long to level up to 50 or 100 if you want to just do GvG, but let everybody else discover the game a bit before expecting them to spend 1,000s of gold repairing gear.
4) An alternative to #3 (or in addition too) would be to make players under level 25 (or 50) lose 0 durability on non-crystalline items in GvG (not PvP, PvE, etc.). This would alleviate the cost concern.
5) One concern a couple of new players shared with me was about how their personal logs would have pages and pages of attacks... one possible suggestion would be to make a separate personal log for guild conflicts (hidden by default), and if you click on it to see what is going on, there would be a reminder that GvG hits do not take gold, XP, rating (and/or durability) loss. Most newer players were ok once I explained that they only lost durability and I just sent over 5000 gold for repairs, but I can't help but wonder how many players quit out of frustration before never discovering that fact.
6) I'm all in favor of upping the guild-level-minimum to 100+
7) RP points SHOULD be awarded for a successful defense. Defending a conflict is much harder then starting one, because the attacker has the advantage of surprise; defenders have a 24 hour time limit. I know we tend to hold off on initiating against the top 10 GvG guilds until we are all ready gear wise (in case a player is on vacation, etc. and didn't get in the right setup before leaving a few days). I would propose that if you lose a GvG you initiate, you should lose 5 RP (and the winning/defending guild should gain 15; 10 for the win and 5 of your RP that you lost). For a tie, the defending guild should get 10 RP (0 for the attacker, again; you had all the advantage and blew it). It would make people pick their targets more carefully.
8) Tie RP points to the difficulty of the conflict based on comparative rating (instead of highest EVER rating, I would use the highest rating within a given time period, say the last 60 days or so). It would be parallel to what HCS already does in PvP - if I have too much rating more than my opponent, I only gain a little; whereas if I attack a stronger opponent, I gain more rating. The same concept should apply in GvG and would work well.
I do hope that HCS will read all the feedback - I tried to incorporate ideas that people above me suggested that I agreed with - thanks to those who's ideas I borrowed from and here's to hoping this update gets continually looked at.
Last thought - HCS, you often ask for feedback in a thread, but what you usually end up releasing is far different from most of the posted feedback; perhaps try to use a little bit more of your players knowledge? Also, you state that the # of online players is constant.... there used to be 3,000 players online at a time, now we seldom if ever break 2,000, and at night I've seen it dip below 1,000 (US time). So your "active player" counts are either wrong, or people aren't really playing it anymore, just logging in, click 20x, and logging out. Please keep taking our feedback and advertising the game. I love the game but there's a lot of concern amongst players about the amount of life left in FS - I hope they are wrong.
#183
Posted 18 February 2011 - 23:35
#184
Posted 18 February 2011 - 23:43
#185
Posted 18 February 2011 - 23:55
#186
Posted 18 February 2011 - 23:59
First BROKE The PvP Ladder,and now the GvG? what more come's?? lol
they didnt break the PvP Ladder, they altered it breaking PvP
#187
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:03
couldn't we make the time to attack one guild longer if they are lower lvl?
#188
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:05
First BROKE The PvP Ladder,and now the GvG? what more come's?? lol
they didnt break the PvP Ladder, they altered it breaking PvP
Right 8)
but seriously.I think of the FS updates from 2008 are even better than those.doing this don't make's any sense,there can't be good PvPers anymore due to the short reset between 24 - 48 hours.
and now this increase cost for start conflicts? I like the guild level idea,but come on? really need pay 1.25 millions gold for attack a guild with 140 rating higher than my guild?
this only make players to expect lose rating for start cheap conflicts.plus when the guild with a rating of 1500+ spend all their RP.what them gonna do,do an epic fight between the top guilds for get 10RP?
no cool HCS.
Bring Back The Old PvP and GvG system and lets enjoy again.
Note: take the tokens off too.
#189
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:19
Now maybe some of the newer players will decide to stay.
Maybe some of the 'starter' guilds will be allowed to find
new lower level players to join. Retention will hopefully
increase.
We may also want to notice that there really are only a
very small minority interested in keeping the old GvG system
and most of those are the RP farmers.
#190
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:20
well after this update all the full gvg guilds are probably going to stop gvging (like mine)... :roll: as our rating is higher and their are fewer guilds to gvg withought having to pay a super high price...
couldn't we make the time to attack one guild longer if they are lower lvl?
You have an extremly loyal Founder who a) cares about its members and
You know, after reading there FSBox messages its Crystal clear they arnt FSP Greedy and love there members oh so dearly
#191
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:24
Well, I wasnt here in 2008 so I can't really comment on that, lol. But I liked what I saw when I joined which.. Might be why Im still here, for now.. lolFirst BROKE The PvP Ladder,and now the GvG? what more come's?? lol
they didnt break the PvP Ladder, they altered it breaking PvP
Right 8)
but seriously.I think of the FS updates from 2008 are even better than those.doing this don't make's any sense,there can't be good PvPers anymore due to the short reset between 24 - 48 hours.
and now this increase cost for start conflicts? I like the guild level idea,but come on? really need pay 1.25 millions gold for attack a guild with 140 rating higher than my guild?
this only make players to expect lose rating for start cheap conflicts.plus when the guild with a rating of 1500+ spend all their RP.what them gonna do,do an epic fight between the top guilds for get 10RP?
no cool HCS.
Bring Back The Old PvP and GvG system and lets enjoy again.
Note: take the tokens off too.
Being in a top GvG guild with 1500+ Rating I can say for sure theres no incentive to GvG anyone while werre sat where we are on the ladder. Neither do we intent to deliberatly loose rating so that we can GvG at fair prices...
Nothing like peanilising those who have shown hard work to get somewhere.
#192
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:27
Once again thanks HCS.
Now maybe some of the newer players will decide to stay.
Maybe some of the 'starter' guilds will be allowed to find
new lower level players to join. Retention will increase
Target Guild [ ? ]: Tiny Little
Target GvG Rating: 784
Max Participants [ ? ]: 4
Attacks [ ? ]: 50
Time Limit 24 Hours
Gold Cost [ ? ]: 4,365,000
FSP Cost [ ? ]: 1
I wish it would cost less
#193
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:29
The costs are absurdly high (assuming the cost is the same as now), it would cost 4.5m to initiate vs a guild 400 points away.
Once again (just as the last time you penalized higher GVG rating), you are creating an incentive to lose.
Thanks for killing GvG for me.
#194
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:29
#195
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:33
One problem I'm seeing is the ladder doesn't reflect active guilds because there's not been a reset lately (I do NOT WANT A RESET unless it comes with rewards...). But certain inactive guilds, i.e. #15 on the ladder, are there even though we can't attack them, because they've died out and only have 3 members (1 of which was recently active).
With the 1 recent active member they shouldnt really be removed..
However, Guilds like HIGHLAND KINGDOM... at #34 should be.
3 members, all profiles no longer available.
Not sure the chance on anyone in there becomeing active again, but im going with a 0
#196
fs_penfold83
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:33
1) Keep your politics out of this thread... I love my country.
2) I'm ok with increasing gold costs to prevent farming, but there does need to be a cap on it; I would say the starting price at 50k is good and cap it at 1M gold. Also, the curve should be exponential, so that so if you are just 21 points above the target guild, its only 55k (for example), 40 points maybe 100k, 60 points 200k, 80 points 400k, 100 points 700k and 120+ points 1M. The amounts could be tweaked, but its a start.
3) Instead of focusing on what the guild level is, focus on the lower level players! i.e., make all players under level 25 NON-targets in GvG; so they have a chance to get their bearings before getting thrown into GvG (or alternatively, make the difference in gear from levels 5 to 50 much smaller so they aren't easy 1-hit kills). I'd prefer just that under level 25's cannot do or be hit in GvG. It doesn't take long to level up to 50 or 100 if you want to just do GvG, but let everybody else discover the game a bit before expecting them to spend 1,000s of gold repairing gear.
4) An alternative to #3 (or in addition too) would be to make players under level 25 (or 50) lose 0 durability on non-crystalline items in GvG (not PvP, PvE, etc.). This would alleviate the cost concern.
5) One concern a couple of new players shared with me was about how their personal logs would have pages and pages of attacks... one possible suggestion would be to make a separate personal log for guild conflicts (hidden by default), and if you click on it to see what is going on, there would be a reminder that GvG hits do not take gold, XP, rating (and/or durability) loss. Most newer players were ok once I explained that they only lost durability and I just sent over 5000 gold for repairs, but I can't help but wonder how many players quit out of frustration before never discovering that fact.
6) I'm all in favor of upping the guild-level-minimum to 100+
7) RP points SHOULD be awarded for a successful defense. Defending a conflict is much harder then starting one, because the attacker has the advantage of surprise; defenders have a 24 hour time limit. I know we tend to hold off on initiating against the top 10 GvG guilds until we are all ready gear wise (in case a player is on vacation, etc. and didn't get in the right setup before leaving a few days). I would propose that if you lose a GvG you initiate, you should lose 5 RP (and the winning/defending guild should gain 15; 10 for the win and 5 of your RP that you lost). For a tie, the defending guild should get 10 RP (0 for the attacker, again; you had all the advantage and blew it). It would make people pick their targets more carefully.
8) Tie RP points to the difficulty of the conflict based on comparative rating (instead of highest EVER rating, I would use the highest rating within a given time period, say the last 60 days or so). It would be parallel to what HCS already does in PvP - if I have too much rating more than my opponent, I only gain a little; whereas if I attack a stronger opponent, I gain more rating. The same concept should apply in GvG and would work well.
I do hope that HCS will read all the feedback - I tried to incorporate ideas that people above me suggested that I agreed with - thanks to those who's ideas I borrowed from and here's to hoping this update gets continually looked at.
Last thought - HCS, you often ask for feedback in a thread, but what you usually end up releasing is far different from most of the posted feedback; perhaps try to use a little bit more of your players knowledge? Also, you state that the # of online players is constant.... there used to be 3,000 players online at a time, now we seldom if ever break 2,000, and at night I've seen it dip below 1,000 (US time). So your "active player" counts are either wrong, or people aren't really playing it anymore, just logging in, click 20x, and logging out. Please keep taking our feedback and advertising the game. I love the game but there's a lot of concern amongst players about the amount of life left in FS - I hope they are wrong.
+1 on all the things you and other peoples have suggested!
this is my little bit and it has been said once before. what about making it so a guild has to be more than 4 players ? make it 10 or 20, this will make defending and attacking a lot more interesting, with is and other great suggestions put forward it might bring competition back in and the end of farming, but please dont flame me im only putting my 2 pennys worth in lol
#197
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:36
One problem I'm seeing is the ladder doesn't reflect active guilds because there's not been a reset lately (I do NOT WANT A RESET unless it comes with rewards...). But certain inactive guilds, i.e. #15 on the ladder, are there even though we can't attack them, because they've died out and only have 3 members (1 of which was recently active).
With the 1 recent active member they shouldnt really be removed..
However, Guilds like HIGHLAND KINGDOM... at #34 should be.
3 members, all profiles no longer available.
Not sure the chance on anyone in there becomeing active again, but im going with a 0
Yes, they should be removed, from the GvG ratings page... if you can't be attacked at all, its not fair that you be rated.
#198
fs_balmaina
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:37
I THINK THAT IF A GUILD DEFENDS A CONFLICT TO A DRAW THEN THEY SHOULD GET AT LEAST 5 POINTS!
I THINK THAT THE WHOLE GvG LADDER WILL HAVE TO BE SET TO ZERO AND MAKE IT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FROM THE START!
I THINK MY CAPS LOCK IS ON AND WONT GO OFF!! :roll:
#199
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:39
I THINK THE COST IS TOO MUCH AND THE RANGE IS TOO SMALL!
I THINK THAT IF A GUILD DEFENDS A CONFLICT TO A DRAW THEN THEY SHOULD GET AT LEAST 5 POINTS!
I THINK THAT THE WHOLE GvG LADDER WILL HAVE TO BE SET TO ZERO AND MAKE IT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD FROM THE START!
I THINK MY CAPS LOCK IS ON AND WONT GO OFF!! :roll:
Yes I also think we should have a larger range or/and less cost
#200
Posted 19 February 2011 - 00:44
One problem I'm seeing is the ladder doesn't reflect active guilds because there's not been a reset lately (I do NOT WANT A RESET unless it comes with rewards...). But certain inactive guilds, i.e. #15 on the ladder, are there even though we can't attack them, because they've died out and only have 3 members (1 of which was recently active).
With the 1 recent active member they shouldnt really be removed..
However, Guilds like HIGHLAND KINGDOM... at #34 should be.
3 members, all profiles no longer available.
Not sure the chance on anyone in there becomeing active again, but im going with a 0
Yes, they should be removed, from the GvG ratings page... if you can't be attacked at all, its not fair that you be rated.IMO...
If ever there was a ladder on GvG like there is on PvP which resets Guild with only 3 members, inv a noob to kick them would be similiar to leveling into a new Band won't count to anything.. If they drop below the min Guild member number requirement ect. lol..
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

This topic is locked