Jump to content

Photo

Proposed fix for GvG: protects kittens, rewards high ranking


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Uncle Beg

Uncle Beg

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 416 posts

Posted 01 March 2011 - 15:06

Very good recommendation.
Hope HCS will consider this.

#2 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 01 March 2011 - 15:23

It's a well thought out system.

I have only 2 criticisms:

-It strongly encourages sleep-raiding of guilds, since that will be the most efficient way to link RP to that conflict.
-It still doesn't really encourage fighting for the draw, since you only get the RP reward if you win the conflict. I think it would be better if a draw split the RP between the parties 5:5 - to really encourage people to hit back.

An interesting twist which I think would spice GvG up a bit would be if you had to wager 10 RP from your own stake to initiate a conflict, with the results below:

-Conflict win, 10 RP taken from attacked guild's stake and awarded to the attacker.
-Conflict loss, 10 RP taken from *your* stake and awarded to the defending guild.
-Conflict tie, 5 RP taken from each stake and awarded to the participants

That would add a bit of risk, since a defending guild would be able to take something from the guild which initiated against them - and because they have less in their stake they risk not being able to initiate another conflict (since the wager is 10 RP)!

Edit: additionally, given that the number of conflicts you can do will be based on your available stake (and therefore rating), it pays to be good at both attacking (rating is higher, so more RP goes into your stake) and defending (since you can only attack if you have RP remaning in your stake to initiate). Since farming guilds typically do volume assaults on weak guilds they won't have much rating and will be vulnerable to proper guilds smacking back!

Any RP wagered would be tied to a conflict until it concludes, so if your stake is 100 RP you can only initiate 10 conflicts, or 5 with 50 RP etc.

#3 livingsin

livingsin

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts

Posted 01 March 2011 - 15:27

I really like RJEM's suggestion!!!!

+1 billion

#4 elmo2lars

elmo2lars

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 01 March 2011 - 17:06

Generally a good idea, that looks to solve some of the issues at hand, and does provide the basic protection against "kitten-kicking" however I see several issues:

1. (And this is the big one). At any given time there's a finite amount of GvG-rating available in the fs world (by a formula of number of all time guilds*1000-rating in disbanded guilds). By limitting available rp to a finite value like GvG-rating, you are limitting the available rp resulting in 2 massive implications: a) price of rp goes up, which is ok in general as this is regulated by the market and B) price of rating goes up, which will result in the creation of rating-banks (4 man guild gets created, farmed out of their rating and rp, disbands and creates a new guild) these are the effects of supply and demand.

1a. On top of this, the available rp will be significantly limited if my assumption, that noone will initiate conflicts they aren't sure the can win, is correct. That means that over time, rp will overflow in the highest ranked guilds, and there'll be no medium ranked guilds, as described in 2.

2. This will effectively divide the difference between gvg-guilds and non-gvg guilds, so much that if a guild starts out focusing on levelling and growing their guild that way, and then wants to explore GvG, they are facing an extremely steep learning curve, as any targets that would provide decent learning experience, will have little to no rating and rp, and thus making the learning experience either extremely difficult or extremely expensive.

3. As RJEM points out above, the incentive to fight for a draw could be added, by awarding some of the rp for a succesful draw (I do however believe you'd need to have a loss so that each guild gets 4 or less rp each, in order to avoid exploitation by common interest).

4. The big advantage/opportunity you say you'd expect for the top ranked guilds, that have lots of rp stake and rating, is not so big imo, when you count in the fact that they will be at a severe disadvantage in choosing the targets, timing and opportunities to reap these rewards. (minor problem, that would cause some whining;) )

5. In case the best GvG-guilds are actually succesful in defence, what you'll see over time would be a steady decline in the amount of started conflicts, as no one will pay initiating costs without a reasonable expectation they can win, and the biggest/best GvG-guilds will be storing more and more rating and rp, leading to a scenario where a)the incentive to do rp trading in the top guilds will be huge and B) the incentive to do what is described in point 1, will ever increase, as the falling amount of rp being won will result in significantly higher prices.


To sum up the above, the result of your suggestion would in my opinion be:
- Fewer initiated conflicts, over time (not just the loss of Kitten-kicking conflicts, but in general)
- MUCH higher prices on rp-items resulting in a much higher incentive to cheat/abuse the system
- Even more multis
- Making GvG less accessible for new players in new guilds, slowly killing GvG over time


Just my immediate thoughts on these

#5 RJEM

RJEM

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,881 posts

Posted 01 March 2011 - 17:40

Generally a good idea, that looks to solve some of the issues at hand, and does provide the basic protection against "kitten-kicking" however I see several issues:

1. (And this is the big one). At any given time there's a finite amount of GvG-rating available in the fs world (by a formula of number of all time guilds*1000-rating in disbanded guilds). By limitting available rp to a finite value like GvG-rating, you are limitting the available rp resulting in 2 massive implications: a) price of rp goes up, which is ok in general as this is regulated by the market and B) price of rating goes up, which will result in the creation of rating-banks (4 man guild gets created, farmed out of their rating and rp, disbands and creates a new guild) these are the effects of supply and demand.


The RP is not linked to the overall rating - it gets generated dynamically based *on* your rating - so there will always be a new supply. Rating would be determined as it is now, simply allowing top guilds to generate more RP than weaker guilds. Note also that RP is only 'activated' when a conflict is completed.

For the Rating banks - given that it will take time to generate 10 RP to take, and that there is a minimum cost of 'Guild Startup' plus 'Conflict Initiation' for each new guild, this would only occur if the value of 10 RP is more than that cost - it currently isn't even close!

1a. On top of this, the available rp will be significantly limited if my assumption, that noone will initiate conflicts they aren't sure the can win, is correct. That means that over time, rp will overflow in the highest ranked guilds, and there'll be no medium ranked guilds, as described in 2.


Limiting RP sounds to me like a good thing, as it preserves value - and RP in the 'stake' will only overflow for a guild which consistently wins and defends well. I don't think there would be more or less of an incentive to start conflicts based on this - people will still want items, but might have to work a bit harder for them.

2. This will effectively divide the difference between gvg-guilds and non-gvg guilds, so much that if a guild starts out focusing on levelling and growing their guild that way, and then wants to explore GvG, they are facing an extremely steep learning curve, as any targets that would provide decent learning experience, will have little to no rating and rp, and thus making the learning experience either extremely difficult or extremely expensive.


That division won't come about - if you just level and grow then you won't be a target for your RP, since it will remain low, and low rating guilds aren't targetted by the top ranked ladder guilds anyway. If you decide to take it up, each conflict will net you the same 10 RP as for the higher guilds, and unless it ended up with everyone below 900 rating (unlikely), RP stakes would still get generated.

3. As RJEM points out above, the incentive to fight for a draw could be added, by awarding some of the rp for a succesful draw (I do however believe you'd need to have a loss so that each guild gets 4 or less rp each, in order to avoid exploitation by common interest).


This has been brought up before - in order to get 5 RP from a draw you need to use 500 stamina, compared to 10 RP from 500 stamina for a win. Mutual collusion will always take the easiest path, which would be to trade 50-0 wins for 20 RP as opposed to fighting for a draw which is half as effective. I don't think this would be an option, especially given the delay between hitting the same guild.

4. The big advantage/opportunity you say you'd expect for the top ranked guilds, that have lots of rp stake and rating, is not so big imo, when you count in the fact that they will be at a severe disadvantage in choosing the targets, timing and opportunities to reap these rewards. (minor problem, that would cause some whining;) )


Top guilds could still hit anyone they liked for RP - and having fewer targets with similar rating is an expected consequence of being the best! They will always be busy defending to maintain their rating, so their RP stake will be large enough to support a big offensive side to their activity too.

5. In case the best GvG-guilds are actually succesful in defence, what you'll see over time would be a steady decline in the amount of started conflicts, as no one will pay initiating costs without a reasonable expectation they can win, and the biggest/best GvG-guilds will be storing more and more rating and rp, leading to a scenario where a)the incentive to do rp trading in the top guilds will be huge and B) the incentive to do what is described in point 1, will ever increase, as the falling amount of rp being won will result in significantly higher prices.


Again, I think the top ranked guilds enjoy the challenge of being good and aren't in it for the RP. Their rating is something they are proud of and I would imagine they would come down pretty hard on anyone manipulating the system. People do regularly pay initiating costs now, and I think they will do so in the future. Remember, rating only goes up or down if you compete - it's the separate RP stake that would overflow and make them a very attractive target.

I don't for one moment think that this would be an easy ladder to sit atop!

#6 Freyana

Freyana

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 01 March 2011 - 17:56

Why did you get rid of the poll? I noticed last time I looked at it the votes were against this idea. But yet the comments are in general for it.

I could be wrong and there never was a poll on this thread and apologize if that is the case

#7 fs_torin

fs_torin
  • Guests

Posted 01 March 2011 - 22:57

Make it cheap and available for everybody. It is a good fsp sink, dont worry about farmers, they make profit to HC.

Here is some new idea:

Attack range: from -25 to +infinite

Do not award a draw !!! But award a successful defense! (I mean tie) Attacker loose its costs and rating, defender wins rating only.

GRP: It must connected to the looser's rating (higher the better) and number of the active members in the winner guild! (higher the better) Perhaps Rating/1000*members, but max 10 or x grp

Make important/exciting conflicts: 3 days long, unlimited attacks, great rewards. Capture the flag: Implement great war badges. It works like relics, but you can get it by conflicts only. This will force big guilds to join the fun.

#8 evilbry

evilbry

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,172 posts
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 March 2011 - 06:33

As a long time member near or at the top(we held top spot for 6 weeks or so) of the GvG ladder I really feel there is a misperception about how often a guild up high will be attacked.

Initially some guilds my try their arm to get more RP, but there's a reason a lot of the guilds are at the top. They are damn good at what they do. Most of the RP hungry people will only go after easy wins. They don't like risk. This is why farming has been so popular, it was easy money.

Guilds who then try some of the top guilds will move on pretty quick when they realise the amount of resources and time that will be required to win. Just think, it might be cheap to initiate against a top 15 guild, but would you put your guilds relic(s) at risk? Suddenly that 50k + 1 fsp amounts to 10-20 million gold or more as the top guild counters by taking relics and lowering their targets stats to aid in the return hits.

If you think I am kidding, ask yourself.. would you be willing to risk it? That's an expensive conflict :)

Then ask yourself, how well do you know your targets, do you know what timezones their members are in? Do you know where their LUP are? Who are their preferred hitters? All these things are important to gaining a win against a top 10-15 guild.

It will be the same old, a few will try, realise it's too hard, then go back to those who are easier targets.

Now, onto resolving issues.
As a concept, what I as part of a top guild want, is reward for defending. Most of the top guilds wins, come from defending. I feel there should be a reward mechinism to allow for when both sides have finished 50 hits potentially allowing for a SMALL amount more RP awarded. I have even been pondering the idea of some [low amount of] RP paid out in the event of a close loss. Say a 48-50 loss could get 1 or 2 RP. It encourages people to still try and finish. This in turn will allow more conflicts to run. Something that has been asked for, for a long time, has been to end a conflict quickly where the result has been determined without waiting for the time to expire. This could be a way to address that, by giving guilds an incentive to finish.

I don't see harm in a bit more RP coming in, should there be a lot more stamina expended.

#9 evilbry

evilbry

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,172 posts
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 March 2011 - 06:59

The near loss would have a cutoff at ~2 difference at max. Those ranked up by our guild know how painful it can be, spending HOURS getting to 45/50 and suffering a double 2% or something like that. What the consolation does is reward those willing to put the effort in to try to tie, thus encouraging more stamina to be expended.

Trust me, Those who farm, will lose more than 2 against a top guild. Recently we had a guild initiate us, They stopped attacking after 24 hits had been completed. Winning 13 of those, by which time we had finished our 50/50.

We have also had a run of 'farmers' or in their words, "experts" take us on. Many don't make it past 15-20 hits before they give up.


So it's not about rewarding people for failing to win, it's a consolidation which can in a sense offset the stamina/time used. This is about rewarding those who put the time in to try and win or draw and fall just short. Given how close it has to be, how much stamina is used and how little the RP is, I feel it would encourage people to continue rather than give up against a guild they are closely matched with. The best teacher is experience so the more experience one has against a closely matched opponent, the more they can learn. This can't be a bad thing

#10 Freyana

Freyana

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 229 posts

Posted 02 March 2011 - 22:20

The biggest problem I am seeing with your system is the fact that any good defense in a gvg requires a ton of stam usage for buffing. Your system rewards those who don't fight back or are a simple 4 man guild simply because anyone with any rp will have to spend all their time and stam defending that rp. They will be under constant attack. It would discourage well rounded or larger guilds from gvg'ing any longer as they would not want to use all their stam to defend in gvg.

#11 evilbry

evilbry

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,172 posts
  • New Zealand

Posted 02 March 2011 - 23:40

I can see there is a large gap in the understanding of how leading guilds operate as opposed to those who only farm(ed). The sooner the more aggressive established [true]GvG guilds are rewarded for their long standing efforts, the better. That's what it really comes down to for me.

Watch then as the 'farmers' complain about it being too hard to get RP, or how unfair it is, or how it is killing GvG.

I in fact look forward to the shock, wailing and lamenting of those who have for too long, profited of the weak and then have to work for their RP.

Rewarding people who make the effort to hit back is the other addition I would like.

sadly the greater noise on this matter will come from those only after their own interests, greed and profit. Not the good of the game. The other thing to keep in mind is GvG has been 'broken' for so long, many of those[that wanted it based around skill and game integrity] who fought for change have either given up, or moved on from FS. Ironic that GvG has the attention of the cows with less income being generated because of the supply:demand factor close to bottoming out.

#12 Zukira

Zukira

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,991 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 03 March 2011 - 05:14

I'm waiting to see this new system abused.

While it would take some time on the part of the abusers - it is something I can see happening. A cadre of high level players who want to gain rp for inventing loan themselves out to various 'newbie' guilds that want to gvg, for a small fee, or for lower secured rate on the rp items these guilds would then earn after the higher player(s) level these guilds up to where the guilds can fight each other.

Once this happens, all that it would be is a matter of time before the 'pool' available again. What will HCS do to fix it then? Raise the minimum level further? Those who profiteered off the flaws in the system will find ways to continue to abuse it, if they're determined to do so, so long as there is ultimately a profit there for them.

zukira.gif

|| signature rotates, artists varied ||

Fan my art on Facebook  || Deviant Art || Chat on Irc

 

When in doubt, lean to the side of mercy.

                                                                               - Cevantes


#13 elmo2lars

elmo2lars

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts

Posted 03 March 2011 - 11:20

[quote name="RJEM"]
The RP is not linked to the overall rating - it gets generated dynamically based *on* your rating - so there will always be a new supply. Rating would be determined as it is now, simply allowing top guilds to generate more RP than weaker guilds. Note also that RP is only 'activated' when a conflict is completed.

For the Rating banks - given that it will take time to generate 10 RP to take, and that there is a minimum cost of 'Guild Startup' plus 'Conflict Initiation' for each new guild, this would only occur if the value of 10 RP is more than that cost - it currently isn't even close![/quote]

I’ll admit, I have no idea, what the cost to start up a guild is, and wish someone would enlighten me… At this moment the value of 10 RP is at least 5 fsp, so I’d venture a guess, that it wouldn’t require much rp to make a profit. The overall rating is indeed limited, as it is capped at the available rating in the game… I agree that there’ll always be more RP coming, however this will be capped, and thus finite as opposed to now when it is infinite. By default This greatly increases the value of GvG-rating, as more available rating in the game will equal more available RP, this is also what makes my ”Rating Banks” relevant. You’d not start a new guild to farm it for RP, you’d start a new guild to farm it for Rating (as all new guilds start with 1000 rating.)

[quote]Limiting RP sounds to me like a good thing, as it preserves value - and RP in the 'stake' will only overflow for a guild which consistently wins and defends well. I don't think there would be more or less of an incentive to start conflicts based on this - people will still want items, but might have to work a bit harder for them.[/quote]

Let me elaborate on my ”noone will initiate conflicts they aren’t sure they can win”-assumption. This is directed at all the middle guilds, who will opt out completely of GvG, as the prices and uncertainty of GvG’ing will begin to outwiegh the possible benefits. This will imo result in the situation I described, where you have the top-guilds with loads of rating and overflowing RP-stakes, and you have the midlle level farmers that are highly specialized, that farms any available RP stakes, including every newly created guild in the game, and then you have the rest of the guilds, that will have rating around 900, and little to no RP-stakes, resulting in a dramatic increase in RP-value. Now this might sound good, but this will result in abuse and/or pointtrading, etc. Why? Because the profits will increase, which will increase the incentive to cheat the system. Conclusion: We still have abuse for profit, AND we have significantly fewer conflicts, meaning a smaller gold and fsp sink.


[quote]That division won't come about - if you just level and grow then you won't be a target for your RP, since it will remain low, and low rating guilds aren't targetted by the top ranked ladder guilds anyway. If you decide to take it up, each conflict will net you the same 10 RP as for the higher guilds, and unless it ended up with everyone below 900 rating (unlikely), RP stakes would still get generated.[/quote]

As mentioned above, I do be believe it is entirely likely that over time you’ll see 3 categories of guilds: 1) top ranked guilds, that much like now are playing GvG not for profits, but for glory and all that. 2) RP-farming guilds, who’ll be around 1100-1300 rating, that attacks anyone with a RP-stake, looking for profit. And 3) Guilds with lower then 900 rating. (Entirely likely, what’s to stop it?).

[quote]This has been brought up before - in order to get 5 RP from a draw you need to use 500 stamina, compared to 10 RP from 500 stamina for a win. Mutual collusion will always take the easiest path, which would be to trade 50-0 wins for 20 RP as opposed to fighting for a draw which is half as effective. I don't think this would be an option, especially given the delay between hitting the same guild.[/quote]

After thinking this through, I have to agree with you on this one, and I take back my initial comment ;). There’ll be no interest in an agreement that makes RP more expensive in terms of stamina. The only issue I have with this suggestion (RP for succesful draw) is the inherent lowerming of risk that will be involved with initiating if such a thing is enforced. I’m not sure if I like that or not, but the consolation price for less then perfect might trouble some.


[quote]Top guilds could still hit anyone they liked for RP - and having fewer targets with similar rating is an expected consequence of being the best! They will always be busy defending to maintain their rating, so their RP stake will be large enough to support a big offensive side to their activity too.[/quote]

I’ll not pretend to know how things work in the top guilds. However I’d be pretty convinced that not all of them would feel they’d be an advantage compared to the present situation, so that would have to be tried to know for sure. I’m also sure, that some would feel it was beneficial, so I don’t see this as a big issue, I’m just stating, that seeing it as only a great advantage as was originally implied, is, at best, overly optimistic, in my opinion.


[quote]5. In case the best GvG-guilds are actually succesful in defence, what you'll see over time would be a steady decline in the amount of started conflicts, as no one will pay initiating costs without a reasonable expectation they can win, and the biggest/best GvG-guilds will be storing more and more rating and rp, leading to a scenario where a)the incentive to do rp trading in the top guilds will be huge and B) the incentive to do what is described in point 1, will ever increase, as the falling amount of rp being won will result in significantly higher prices.[/quote]

[quote]Again, I think the top ranked guilds enjoy the challenge of being good and aren't in it for the RP. Their rating is something they are proud of and I would imagine they would come down pretty hard on anyone manipulating the system. People do regularly pay initiating costs now, and I think they will do so in the future. Remember, rating only goes up or down if you compete - it's the separate RP stake that would overflow and make them a very attractive target.

I don't for one moment think that this would be an easy ladder to sit atop![/quote]

If the top ranked guilds will only be in it for the glory or being good, and the middle tier guilds won’t initiate against the top tier guilds (as they have no reasonable chance of succes, in general), what you’ll see is the top guilds initiating against eachother over rating, the middle tier guilds becomes farmers, and the lowest tier will be without rating and RP-stake, and thus not interesting from any GvG-perspective. It’s fine if you want to significantly limit the ammount of conflicts initiated, but, as mentioned before, GvG is a MAJOR gold and FSP sink in this game.

And how do you suppose anyone will ”come down hard” on anyone manipulating the system? Noone has done that in the past, why would they start now?

[quote name="evilbry"]I can see there is a large gap in the understanding of how leading guilds operate as opposed to those who only farm(ed). The sooner the more aggressive established [true]GvG guilds are rewarded for their long standing efforts, the better. That's what it really comes down to for me.[/quote]

I agree, that these guilds need to be rewarded. Simple as that;)

[quote]
Watch then as the 'farmers' complain about it being too hard to get RP, or how unfair it is, or how it is killing GvG.

I in fact look forward to the shock, wailing and lamenting of those who have for too long, profited of the weak and then have to work for their RP.[/quote]
So by definition anyone against this suggestion is a farmer and whiner? I guess I’m one then ;) Sorry for trying to argue what I think is and isn’t better for the game
[quote]
Rewarding people who make the effort to hit back is the other addition I would like. [/quote]

I completely agree

[quote]
sadly the greater noise on this matter will come from those only after their own interests, greed and profit. Not the good of the game. The other thing to keep in mind is GvG has been 'broken' for so long, many of those[that wanted it based around skill and game integrity] who fought for change have either given up, or moved on from FS. Ironic that GvG has the attention of the cows with less income being generated because of the supply:demand factor close to bottoming out.[/quote]

So by definition people, who sees the issues and/or solutions differently from you are selfish players concerned only for their own wellbeing? What, then, about those who wants to be rewarded for that, which they do well?

HCS income I’ll not comment on. The cows have made no such statements to my knowledge, so comments like this is, at best, plausible logical deduction.

Comments over, my simple opinion:

If you want to eliminate abuse/farming, eliminate profits
If you want to protect newbies, protect newbies (eg. level-limits for participation, GvG-protection period etc.)
If you want to reward the guilds on top of the GvG-ladder, just reward them, give them special bonuses and incentives to stay there.

#14 Zukira

Zukira

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,991 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 05 March 2011 - 02:39

I'm waiting to see this new system abused.

I am looking for people to point out how that would be done, actually. There are people here who are better at spotting loopholes in this system than I am; hopefully they will share what they find so it can be addressed.

While it would take some time on the part of the abusers - it is something I can see happening. A cadre of high level players who want to gain rp for inventing loan themselves out to various 'newbie' guilds that want to gvg, for a small fee, or for lower secured rate on the rp items these guilds would then earn after the higher player(s) level these guilds up to where the guilds can fight each other.

Not sure why these players moving guild-to-guild would matter. For an attacker, the mechanics of the system don't change based on what guild you are in: cost is always 1 FSP + 50 gold, regardless of rating, and whether you can get RP from attacking a guild depends on the Stake of the target guild, not on where you are.

Once this happens, all that it would be is a matter of time before the 'pool' available again.

If by the "pool" you mean the points in the stake representing RP that can be gained (by whoever wins) when you attack a guild, that gets recharged every hour depending on the guild's ranking. Tuning the rate at which it recharges gives HC control over how fast RP can enter the game.


By pool I'm referring to guilds able to be attacked for gvg. Not refering to the RP or the rating.

See what I was pointing out is the people profiting would go around and level the feeder guilds up so the feeder guilds could fight each other, securing a low cost pool of guilds to interact with each other, which they would in turn pay to fight one another and turn over RP items to the person who leveled the guild up in the first place. The high level player wouldn't be participating in the GvGing - they would be setting up the 'pool' as it were of guilds much like the 'pool' of low level guilds, and newbie guilds that were easy prey before. They would be leveling up the very guilds that this current change was meant to defunct (like the gvg specific ones) and potentially luring other guilds into paying them to level the guild up so they could get higher structures or increase their bank, while at the same time intending the other guilds to feed on those guilds for a while.

With the current status on gvgs the cost does change, there's always the 1fsp cost but now its sliding so if you're hitting down rating you get a higher gold cost (up to 500k gold - a drop in the bucket to some of us).

The job of these guilds would be keeping in balance ratingwise so that they could optimize their RP generation, minimize their initiation costs and thus continue to profit the player who hired the guild or leveled the guild so that they could get into the gvgs again (ie bringing those guilds up to level 100 to meet requirements for gvging)


Essentially the high level player(s) could be considered being a mercenary or perhaps a better term would be 'Godfather for a GvG Mafia' of sorts, boosting guilds up by leveling there a couple of times, while being paid in fsp, or future rp items to do so. It would be more time consuming that the previous generation of gvg dynamics, but it would be a potential method for abuse. Then you could even factor in if these people who wanted to cash in had retired or semi-retired friends they could talk into helping out with the scheme they'd be able to speed things up by getting those players involved.


I do hope the new system they're proposing is less open to abuse and is more fun.

zukira.gif

|| signature rotates, artists varied ||

Fan my art on Facebook  || Deviant Art || Chat on Irc

 

When in doubt, lean to the side of mercy.

                                                                               - Cevantes


#15 BigGrim

BigGrim

    Content Designer

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,685 posts
  • Badge

Posted 01 September 2011 - 16:35

Bookmarked the thread so I can give it a proper read when not so furshuggerin' busy.

So keep providing feedback here! I will read this eventually! :wink:

#16 Chazz224

Chazz224

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 528 posts

Posted 01 September 2011 - 21:07

Goals: reduce the amount of kitten-kicking without penalizing high-rating GvG guilds
Basic idea: limit the amount of RP that can be gained from attacks on a guild according to its rating.
First step: go back to 50K/1FSP init cost, regardless of rating. Then:

Implementation:
Every guild gets a property, "RP Stake." Other guilds can see how much is in it.
The stake is replenished periodically according to the GvG rating of the guild: say (Rating-900)/200 per hour.
There is a maximum amount the stake can hold, say 4 days worth.
RP is deducted from the defender's Stake whenever either side of a conflict completes 50 attacks.
The RP is at that time linked to the conflict that reached 50, but not awarded until the conflict resolves.
The amount taken and linked to the conflict is 10 or what ever is in the stake, whichever is smaller.
All RP awarded for GvG comes from the RP taken from the Stake of the target guild and linked to a conflict, based on who wins
If the attacker wins, they get the RP linked to the conflict, and rating as appropriate.
If the defender wins, they get the RP linked to the conflict, and rating as appropriate.
On a draw, no one gets the RP and the RP taken from the Stake is lost.
RP not linked to a conflict is eventually lost when the Stake overflows.
A Guild can get the RP in its own stake only be succesfully defending.
[/list]
That's not hard to code, and it handles race conditions fairly.

Implications:

People have very little motive to attack a guild with no RP left in its Stake.
you cannot make any RP off them, nor can they make any by defending.
Low-ranked guilds can only be farmed for RP occasionally, and very low ranked guilds not at all.
e.g. a guild ranked at 950 would accumulate 10RP in its Stake once every 40 hours.
- a guild ranked at 1000 would accumulate 10RP in its Stake once every 20 hours.
- a guild ranked 1200 (there are many) would accumulate 36RP in its Stake each day.
- a guild ranked 1500 (top 35) would accumulate 72RP in its Stake each day.
Fighting to a draw now has a benefit: it take 10 RP from your stake, giving people less motive to attack you.
Getting high rank gives you a benefit: you can win more RP by defending, if youa re attacked more
Higher ranked guilds are likely to be attacked more: that is where the RP is.
There is reason not to wait for buffs to expire: getting to 50 is the only way to prevent a later conflict from getting the RP.
[/list]
Simple example:
let A, B, C, and D be guilds. A's Stake is 20RP.

B attacks A, and completes 50 wins from 50 attacks - A's Stake is reduced to 10, and 10 RP is linked to this conflict.
Meanwhile, C attacks A, and gets to 40 before stopping to wait for buffs.
Then D comes in and does 49 wins and 1 loss - - A's Stake is reduced to 0, and 10 RP is linked to this conflict.
At this point, C cannot get any RP: they waited to long to do 50 attacks.
Later, A counter-attacks D and wins 50 - A gets 10 RP and the appropriate rating boost.
Then A fights B to a draw: no one gets the 10 RP, and no change in rating.Obviously if B had won, they'd get rating and RP.Then C finished the fight against A and wins it: they get rating but no RP. They could see when they resumed the conflcit that they would get no RP because the Stake was empty.[/list]
Under this system, there's less or no RP to get from low-rated guilds, so once their account is depleted, no one will bother. High-rated guilds aren't penalized for success. There's also an incentive to fight back and win conflicts on defense. With a system like this, you wouldn't need to have high initiation costs based on differences in rank.

This is a first draft. Ideas for improvement on it are welcome.



Perhaps you should check out this idea, viewtopic.php?f=1&t=103882

I feel it should get a lot of attention and would be a better fix than your suggestion lawdog, but I'm open to everyone's opinions and thoughts...

#17 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 03:15

An ok idea, since ive seen and typed the jist of that many times over lets keep to the "stake" part of a otherwise good idea a lot of players have had in one version or the other.

Most glaring problem with stakes is you are rewarding the larger guild for having enough members to do all the GvGs. I could care less about the 4 player guilds personally but people will cry.

and finally,,

Edit: additionally, given that the number of conflicts you can do will be based on your available stake (and therefore rating), it pays to be good at both attacking (rating is higher, so more RP goes into your stake) and defending (since you can only attack if you have RP remaning in your stake to initiate). Since farming guilds typically do volume assaults on weak guilds they won't have much rating and will be vulnerable to proper guilds smacking back!

Any RP wagered would be tied to a conflict until it concludes, so if your stake is 100 RP you can only initiate 10 conflicts, or 5 with 50 RP etc.


what a wonderful way to screw the guilds who bought the GvG upgrades,,change the rules after the game is in progress

And I spent about a week on mafia wars then walked away because it sucked,,,just what we dont need here

#18 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 02 September 2011 - 07:17

It was a great idea, I actually made one similar quite some time ago but no stake just regular rating and RP for defending and attacking. Another thing I had suggested was for the kittens, a structure to prevent GvG paying gold for the protection they are demanding.

Sadly yes the stake system will favor a larger guild and small ones will be the ones farmed instead. Im sure there will be crying and to be honest unless its minor changes im really not excited to seeing more fixes that break things worse. That was the other problem im seeing, guilds that paid for the upgrades to do 20 a day are getting screwed when a set stake is put in. Even with a refund for that its still a bit unfair to change the rules like that.

I think if they really want to make GvG better here is my top list starting with the most important!
KILL THE MULTIS! nothing is ruining all aspects of this game more than the rule of one person per account that is both not enforced but not enforced in a way that makes it a risk to do. Allowing a main to stay after the multi is killed isnt a punishment as they still retain all the ill gotten gains. A instance this past week showed the glaring need to do more here, 2 guilds were stolen from, both thiefs stopped in a guild long enough to dump the gear and now sit inactive and naked,,how does this look to donating players to see this allowed to continue?
New gear, doesnt mean epics but that is fine too, a GvG set would not hurt either for a couple levels. Maybe even a 9 piece set that would work with the new buffs. Either way to bring in intrest create it. I am torn over whether to bind or not, binding would definently put a wrench into the multi crowd but also harm the real players that GvG represents a way to improve themselfs with their stam.
Reset the ladder and make one way or another to track which guilds qualify for it and keep that updated. Looking through 10 guilds to find one with targets gets frustrating there have been pleanty of suggestions how to do it I was pretty drawn to a weekly reset of the ladder check (A check for 4 active players and proper guild level but not the ladder itself although that would be pretty fun too making guilds fight for it every week) Finally give a small amount of RP to the top 5 guilds each reset, it will encourage more guilds to participate, ya never know maybe even some guilds that are against gvg.

Lots of good ideas here and other places but pretty much resounding no to overhaul,,this isnt mafia wars and im not a godfather. A new side game would not be something id hate to see but id hate to see the one part of the game I have always done replaced with it!

#19 LLAP

LLAP

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 16 October 2011 - 19:40

To be quite fair. I am pretty happy in what I do, However my vicitims feel- I couldnt care less.
& another note, There isnt a massive differance between GvGers and PvPers. Fairly sure I am not the only one who feels that way too.


#20 duke92

duke92

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 6 posts

Posted 15 November 2011 - 02:24

Reset the ladder and make one way or another to track which guilds qualify for it and keep that updated. Looking through 10 guilds to find one with targets gets frustrating there have been pleanty of suggestions how to do it I was pretty drawn to a weekly reset of the ladder check (A check for 4 active players and proper guild level but not the ladder itself although that would be pretty fun too making guilds fight for it every week) Finally give a small amount of RP to the top 5 guilds each reset, it will encourage more guilds to participate, ya never know maybe even some guilds that are against gvg.

Lots of good ideas here and other places but pretty much resounding no to overhaul,,this isnt mafia wars and im not a godfather. A new side game would not be something id hate to see but id hate to see the one part of the game I have always done replaced with it!


I agree that there should be some kind of reward for being one of the top GvG guilds. With a reward less guilds will take the loss instead of trying to make the conflict a draw because they will try to keep their rating higher and move up the ladder. The main reason most guilds don't fight back now is because there is no reward for having a higher GvG rating but the gold cost for starting conflicts goes up so its better to have a lower rating.


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: