Jump to content

Photo

Official Suggestion : PvP Improvements (rev. 4)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
429 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you like this revision? (119 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you like this revision?

  1. Voted Yes (41 votes [34.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.45%

  2. Voted No (78 votes [65.55%])

    Percentage of vote: 65.55%

Vote

#361 kuamor

kuamor

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:44

I would still prefer to see, instead of an opt in/out blanket, a set of choices for the attacking player which would determine what kind of hit they are making with a minimum stam per choice...hit for gold, hit for rating, hit for xp...if you are attacking and choose all 3, its a min of 30 stam for the attack and the 'victim' knows exactly what the attacker was going for and can either hit back using the same choices, bounty, or ignore it. PvP also has a provocative factor to it...who among you PvP players would rather fight it out until someone cries uncle than face a dreary clear on the bb?...the problem levelers see with the provocation is that 'bullying' is a method of play some pvp'ers pursue which makes playing the game an unsatisfactory experience and they quit. Taking rating, gold, and exp across the board for any hit is too easy...PvPers should have to make a choice about what to hit for...these tweaks or revisions, and those ideas which, within the revision, seem good, are mostly more of the same. I do have to say that some of the ideas about getting rid of tickets have been inspired.

Start with a clean slate and new ideas.

#362 Lutrafs

Lutrafs

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:46

It is still more than the 10% the pvper has taken with a 100 stammer. And if the bounty placer had any friends n relatives, it wouldn't be 18.3% - but 500% :wink:

This is so close to being a myth it's almost a lie. Plenty of people have learned the hard way that if you try this against a person in one of three particular guilds, those guilds will destroy the guilds of everyone in the develeling party. This is so well known that I don't even have to say which guilds I'm referring to: everbody knows.


This may very well be true, but there are still those such as myself that doesnt care what guild someone is in they will hit them as they see fit, because true pvpers dont care about xp/gold, or even stamina, they hit for the fun of it and they hit hard, sometimes wanting to lose lvls, but almost certainly all the time you can expect to lose some when you hit someone, just not as much with some as with others.

#363 rattytcb

rattytcb

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 22 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:50


Hmmm... What about if you initiate an attack on another player, you are automatically opt-ed in to the next ladder?


YES!! GOOD idea!



love this idea :D

#364 Lutrafs

Lutrafs

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:52


Hmmm... What about if you initiate an attack on another player, you are automatically opt-ed in to the next ladder?


YES!! GOOD idea!


8)



+1

But I do think bounty hits should not be counted towards opting into the ladder.

#365 Jonah Tebaa

Jonah Tebaa

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 387 posts
  • Lebanon

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:52

Here is my thoughts:

Opt in is not a bad idea. The PVP ladder is not the only place you can PVP. I mean those who PVP for gold can still PVP outside the ladder if they want to. The PVP ladder is somewhere where you can fight hard to get a reward. Much like the arena.

You want more people playing the ladder, make the reward more rewarding. This can be achieved by making new items and by replanning the token distribution. In the 50 level PVP bands, make the first 5 players get rewards in the form of 5-3-2-1-1 and for the 100 level PVP bands, make the first 10 get rewards in the form of 10-6-5-4-3-3-2-2-1-1.

#366 BaiLong

BaiLong

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 07:53

I would still prefer to see, instead of an opt in/out blanket, a set of choices for the attacking player which would determine what kind of hit they are making with a minimum stam per choice...hit for gold, hit for rating, hit for xp...if you are attacking and choose all 3, its a min of 30 stam for the attack and the 'victim' knows exactly what the attacker was going for and can either hit back using the same choices, bounty, or ignore it. ..............


I don't mind this idea actually, if you really want the XP then pay a little extra stam for it. Would still give the option for guilds who want to torment others with 100 stams on the hour, but a risk I'd be willing to accept as long as it was an option to not have to take XP.

Knowing what the attacker was actually going for would greatly effect the retaliation, if any.

#367 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:19

And besides:

And this also would minimize some common abusive practices, like having a friend start your clear and then stop at 9, so you can wack the bounty-placer with immunity for a good long time, with your friend at the ready to do one last hit if anyone else takes the bounty.


Exactly...I've been saying this for a year now (and a page back hehe) and was told by HCS it wasn't going to change. I guess a dead BB is a much better alternative?


As I stated also. HCS said they will not change it.

#368 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:21

I say it does bear on the issue. Who are you to tell other people what matters and what doesn't? It's not your thread.
And people on the BB aren't victims, so they couldn't place more than one counter-bounty on a BH. :P


Exactly...I've been saying this for a year now (and a page back hehe) and was told by HCS it wasn't going to change. I guess a dead BB is a much better alternative?


Correct it is not my thread, and that issue doesn't belong here. Clearly HCS has said so.

#369 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:24

This is so well known that I don't even have to say which guilds I'm referring to: everbody knows.


I have no idea which guilds you are talking about, care to enlighten me?

#370 BaiLong

BaiLong

    Member

  • New Members
  • PipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:36

Going back to a post on the last page, any perceived issues with the following option?

Have the attack option include 3 types of 'modifiers' divided into percentages of gold/rating/XP taken from a successful attack. (Collectively these modifiers would add up to 100%)

So for example,

1. You see someone holding way too much gold. You set your attack modifiers to 100% Gold, 0% Rating, 0% XP. The result being no XP or rating lost, but you get X amount of gold.

2. Defending your guildmates/allies, whatever the case may be. Set XP modifier to 100%, no gold or rating will be lost.

3. Rating, self explanatory (same as above)

You could choose whatever you want with the modifiers, 30% gold, 25% rating, 45% XP (totaling 100%). The result being that you would get 30% of X amount of gold, 25% rating etc etc.

Tired, hope that made sense.

#371 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:38

But way to dodge the real issue -- that succesful thieves still come out ahead even if they are bountied -- by (incorrectly) picking on the math. And you must agree that when PvPers say they always loose 20% of a level to a bounty, they are misrepresenting the facts. 18.3% is probably closer to the average.


Ok, let me address it then.

At level 400, 1 FSP buys enough stam to make 1.37% of a level,
so if a gold hit takes 5.4 FSP worth of gold (about a million gold) then the PvPer can buy stam and wind up with the same XP loss as the victim -- except the victim has lost the stolen gold and the bounty fee, which they could have used to gain XP as well.

1st don't forget the tax, so lets bump the number to 1.3 million, you do understand the game takes 25% of the gold stolen right? Second don't forget that someone would have to average the number you quoted above. Some hits less some hits more to come out ahead. Third lets not forget the complete ludicrousness of the thought that 1 million gold stolen let alone 1.3 million is even close to what is usually taken.

At level 250, 1 FSP buys enough stam to make 2.2% of a level,
so if a gold hit takes 3.4 FSP worth of gold (600K) the PvPer comes out ahead.



Need to average 800k gold here as a correction.

And this is if the PvPer gets bountied at all -- many levelers don't bother, because the bounty gains them nothing. Obviously, the numbers don't favor the PvPer as much at higher levels.
P.S. if you ever wondered why it's PvPers that seem the most concerned with keeping the gold-to-FSP ratio as low as possible, perhaps this is why.

PvPers are more concerned with the market then other players?

I didn't comment on this part of the post before as I assumed it was a ploy to derail the thread. No one that is even partially informed could be ignorant enough to actually proclaim they believe any part of what you posted. However, you demand an answer out of me so here it is.

The proposed scenario is so far from the realm of possibility that it is past laughable. Even in the best possible circumstances no player can possibly average the gold stolen you have proposed.

#372 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:40

Going back to a post on the last page, any perceived issues with the following option?

Have the attack option include 3 types of 'modifiers' divided into percentages of gold/rating/XP taken from a successful attack. (Collectively these modifiers would add up to 100%)

So for example,

1. You see someone holding way too much gold. You set your attack modifiers to 100% Gold, 0% Rating, 0% XP. The result being no XP or rating lost, but you get X amount of gold.

2. Defending your guildmates/allies, whatever the case may be. Set XP modifier to 100%, no gold or rating will be lost.

3. Rating, self explanatory (same as above)

You could choose whatever you want with the modifiers, 30% gold, 25% rating, 45% XP (totaling 100%). The result being that you would get 30% of X amount of gold, 25% rating etc etc.

Tired, hope that made sense.


This has been proposed before and not accepted. To find the reasons would take rereading the 100's of previous pvp posts about it. Not discounting the idea just giving history about it.

#373 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:53

It's no surpirse that people who get their wealth by stealing gold from other players would prefer that FSP be cheap.


Well yes, and people that level as well. Since that's where their gold comes from.

#374 abhorrence

abhorrence

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,191 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:55

This has been proposed before and not accepted.

Lots of things have been proposed before and not accepted, so what?
Hoof is clearly approaching this issue with a more open mind than you are.
Trying to stifle new ideas with "it will never happen" or "it was proposed before" is not contructive.
If you oppose an idea, just explain why.


The actual quote that you cut off and edited by stating was.

Not discounting the idea just giving history about it.

Trying to stifle new ideas with "it will never happen" or "it was proposed before" is not contructive.


It's not a new idea if it has been proposed before.

#375 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:56

Incarnation #4 of this and still the vote is almost 2:1 against ...

There's a message there ;)

#376 evilbry

evilbry

    Veteran

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

Posted 13 September 2011 - 08:57

Incarnation #4 of this and still the vote is almost 2:1 against ...

There's a message there ;)

you have lots of multi's?

#377 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:00

Incarnation #4 of this and still the vote is almost 2:1 against ...

There's a message there ;)

you have lots of multi's?


LMFAO - I guess that's one interpretation ... but, not the right one :)

#378 evilbry

evilbry

    Veteran

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

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:01

Incarnation #4 of this and still the vote is almost 2:1 against ...

There's a message there ;)

you have lots of multi's?


LMFAO - I guess that's one interpretation ... but, not the right one :)

perception is a wonderful thing then.
guess it was time to derail the thread huh? all we can hope is someone comes online from HCS soon and cleans up all the garbage in the thread.

#379 DragonLord

DragonLord

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,081 posts
  • Australia

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:03


you have lots of multi's?


LMFAO - I guess that's one interpretation ... but, not the right one :)

perception is a wonderful thing then.
guess it was time to derail the thread huh? all we can hope is someone comes online from HCS soon and cleans up all the garbage in the thread.


The thread got derailed a long time ago - but yes, it's time for Hoof to come back and sort out Draft #5 and have the same old polar opposed camps argue their case. This is one of those scenarios where I don't envy him 'cos he's gonna rain on someones parade whatever he does ...

#380 octave666

octave666

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 29 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 09:09

Go back to REV 2 <:o)


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: