Official Suggestion : PvP Improvements (rev. 4)
#161
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:39
#162
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:40
2:the opt out is killing pvp
3:Levelers dont want to be repeatedly hit for rating ( understandable)
Hence suggesting a reduction ( 50% to xp loss) against those with 0 score to appease those who dont pvp.
hence Reducing rating you can gain from them drastically. Thus making them less of a target.
They lose less xp, but lose more gold on the First hit. Thats a fair compromise i beleive?
#163
fs_commiedevo
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:43
THANK YOU THANK YOU for fixing tickets. This is very good!!
#164
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:44
i dont think the amount of pvp taking place is going to change to the point were levels are going to be falling off people that they would need to gain that much prestige..... my opinion of courseSo quick question if all these foreseeable hits are going to be real pvp again, are they all going to give prestige? especially if 1 hit opts you into a ladder, or makes you more of a target. So shoulnd't the 3 day limit be removed as well to help those people being farmed or farming get their levels back.
#165
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:45
+1 i have an idea for medals / rewards it will please every one1:xp loss always has and should play a role in pvp. Its the risk.
2:the opt out is killing pvp
3:Levelers dont want to be repeatedly hit for rating ( understandable)
Hence suggesting a reduction ( 50% to xp loss) against those with 0 score to appease those who dont pvp.
hence Reducing rating you can gain from them drastically. Thus making them less of a target.
They lose less xp, but lose more gold on the First hit. Thats a fair compromise i beleive?
#166
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:48
1:xp loss always has and should play a role in pvp. Its the risk.
2:the opt out is killing pvp
3:Levelers dont want to be repeatedly hit for rating ( understandable)
Hence suggesting a reduction ( 50% to xp loss) against those with 0 score to appease those who dont pvp.
hence Reducing rating you can gain from them drastically. Thus making them less of a target.
They lose less xp, but lose more gold on the First hit. Thats a fair compromise i beleive?
If you expect the new system to increase PvP, which is the goal, then XP loss for those that don't want to participate should be proportional to the number of times they can expect to be hit. For example, if I'm going to get hit 20 times more than now, I'll want to only lose 1/20th of the XP per hit at most. If Xp loss is only halved, then pure levelers who care most about XP are losing 10X more XP than before the new system was implemented which will not make levelers happy at all.
#167
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:48
1:xp loss always has and should play a role in pvp. Its the risk.
2:the opt out is killing pvp
3:Levelers dont want to be repeatedly hit for rating ( understandable)
Hence suggesting a reduction ( 50% to xp loss) against those with 0 score to appease those who dont pvp.
hence Reducing rating you can gain from them drastically. Thus making them less of a target.
They lose less xp, but lose more gold on the First hit. Thats a fair compromise i beleive?
+1
#168
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:50
1:xp loss always has and should play a role in pvp. Its the risk.
2:the opt out is killing pvp
3:Levelers dont want to be repeatedly hit for rating ( understandable)
Hence suggesting a reduction ( 50% to xp loss) against those with 0 score to appease those who dont pvp.
hence Reducing rating you can gain from them drastically. Thus making them less of a target.
They lose less xp, but lose more gold on the First hit. Thats a fair compromise i beleive?
If you expect the new system to increase PvP, which is the goal, then XP loss for those that don't want to participate should be proportional to the number of times they can expect to be hit. For example, if I'm going to get hit 20 times more than now, I'll want to only lose 1/20th of the XP per hit at most. If Xp loss is only halved, then pure levelers who care most about XP are losing 10X more XP than before the new system was implemented which will not make levelers happy at all.
this new system isnt going to make levelers targets more than they are now for gold. to be perfectly honest under this newsystem your going to more likely hit for gold then for rating.
#169
fs_commiedevo
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:50
That being said, the new formulas are much better - so is the idea about being offline for 2 days, rather than 7, etc. Keep working!
#170
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:51
1:xp loss always has and should play a role in pvp. Its the risk.
2:the opt out is killing pvp
3:Levelers dont want to be repeatedly hit for rating ( understandable)
Hence suggesting a reduction ( 50% to xp loss) against those with 0 score to appease those who dont pvp.
hence Reducing rating you can gain from them drastically. Thus making them less of a target.
They lose less xp, but lose more gold on the First hit. Thats a fair compromise i beleive?
+1
+2
#171
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:54
If you expect the new system to increase PvP, which is the goal, then XP loss for those that don't want to participate should be proportional to the number of times they can expect to be hit. For example, if I'm going to get hit 20 times more than now, I'll want to only lose 1/20th of the XP per hit at most. If Xp loss is only halved, then pure levelers who care most about XP are losing 10X more XP than before the new system was implemented which will not make levelers happy at all.
Lets say you dont pvp. So you have 0 score.
If someone takes a swing at you they can only gain rating once. You lose at the most 5% of a level. They gain a very low ammount of rating, you post, and they lose 20% MINIMUM of a level on the bounty board.There alot less incentive to hit you. Which is a heck of alot better then any other pvp ladder.
Your not going to be hit 20 more times then now. Look at the ladders and how many are opted in. Will they all hit and risk bounties? I dont think so. Will you possibly be hit a few times for rating? Maybe..each band is different for activity. Will they repeatedly hit you for rating? No.. they can only gain it once.
#172
fs_bluebaron
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:54
People are looking for ways to "protect levelers" from the ladder. I'm also seeing "make bounties 100 stam min", in order to punish bad behavior.
Let the levelers protect themselves. Required 100 stam bounty clears removes choice, and that's bad. Simply remove the policy change that took the teeth completely out of the bounty board. So many people couldn't possibly care less about losing a measly five levels. This is part of the reason why no one posts bounties . . . they're ineffective, and only serve to give the hitter the satisfaction of knowing they got a reaction.
Knock the assailant down 20-30 levels, and I guarantee their bravado loses some luster.
Further, it creates conflict and excitement. We're not talking about slashing someone's tires, we're talking about an Internet game that can have some interesting consequences. I know that The Dwarven Forge was never more alive and full of fun than when we were knee deep in conflict. I suspect this would be true for other guilds/players as well.
Seriously . . . levelers can protect themselves, if the cows take the gloves off. Then the ladder really does become about who's truly adept at PvP, since those at the top will be the ones masterfully navigating *truly* dangerous waters, and remaining on top.
Anything else is a simple game of two-hand touch, in order to try and please everyone, which will fail anyway.
#173
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:58
the level cap of loss on the bounty board was put in place for a reason. its meant to be punishment, not as a way to force people out of the game completely o.0OK . . . I'll try this again (for the third time), then I'll take the hint.
People are looking for ways to "protect levelers" from the ladder. I'm also seeing "make bounties 100 stam min", in order to punish bad behavior.
Let the levelers protect themselves. Required 100 stam bounty clears removes choice, and that's bad. Simply remove the policy change that took the teeth completely out of the bounty board. So many people couldn't possibly care less about losing a measly five levels. This is part of the reason why no one posts bounties . . . they're ineffective, and only serve to give the hitter the satisfaction of knowing they got a reaction.
Knock the assailant down 20-30 levels, and I guarantee their bravado loses some luster.
Further, it creates conflict and excitement. We're not talking about slashing someone's tires, we're talking about an Internet game that can have some interesting consequences. I know that The Dwarven Forge was never more alive and full of fun than when we were knee deep in conflict. I suspect this would be true for other guilds/players as well.
Seriously . . . levelers can protect themselves, if the cows take the gloves off. Then the ladder really does become about who's truly adept at PvP, since those at the top will be the ones masterfully navigating *truly* dangerous waters, and remaining on top.
Anything else is a simple game of two-hand touch, in order to try and please everyone, which will fail anyway.
#174
fs_bluebaron
Posted 13 September 2011 - 01:59
the level cap of loss on the bounty board was put in place for a reason. its meant to be punishment, not as a way to force people out of the game completely o.0
Then raise the cap, don't eliminate it. Further, abuse of that system was rare, and easily handled with support tickets.
#175
Posted 13 September 2011 - 02:02
so instead of having time to deal with important issues the HCS team would just have t osit and respond to support tickets all day. 5 levels in exchange for 10% of a level is quite enough if you ask me.the level cap of loss on the bounty board was put in place for a reason. its meant to be punishment, not as a way to force people out of the game completely o.0
Then raise the cap, don't eliminate it. Further, abuse of that system was rare, and easily handled with support tickets.
#176
Posted 13 September 2011 - 02:03
#177
fs_bluebaron
Posted 13 September 2011 - 02:06
so instead of having time to deal with important issues the HCS team would just have t osit and respond to support tickets all day. 5 levels in exchange for 10% of a level is quite enough if you ask me.
Further, abuse of that system was rare
There are no consequences for PvP. Period. Take five levels, 90% of the PvPers out there couldn't give a rat's behind. Ask them. Ask how many of them "fear" the loss of a whole five levels. Now tell me, where are the consequences for repeated PvP?
#178
fs_bluebaron
Posted 13 September 2011 - 02:07
you want more punishment for 1 hit that takes at MAX 10% of a level? we lose 2x that on a 10 stam clear...and 50x for a true deleveling party...that sounds fair to me
For one hit? No, and that was nearly never the case (unless it was an old score being settled). Don't muddy the waters of how that was used.
#179
Posted 13 September 2011 - 02:07
this new system isnt going to make levelers targets more than they are now for gold. to be perfectly honest under this newsystem your going to more likely hit for gold then for rating.
If you increase the rate of gold theft, targeting of non-PvP players will increase. If you give rating for a new system on top of that, even more so.
Lets say you dont pvp. So you have 0 score.
If someone takes a swing at you they can only gain rating once. You lose at the most 5% of a level. They gain a very low ammount of rating, you post, and they lose 20% MINIMUM of a level on the bounty board.There alot less incentive to hit you. Which is a heck of alot better then any other pvp ladder.
Your not going to be hit 20 more times then now. Look at the ladders and how many are opted in. Will they all hit and risk bounties? I dont think so. Will you possibly be hit a few times for rating? Maybe..each band is different for activity. Will they repeatedly hit you for rating? No.. they can only gain it once.
Right now XP loss for the PvP initiator is only double that of the target because of bounty kills so 5% and 10% minimum would be the examples (unless you're a jerk of course
#180
Posted 13 September 2011 - 02:08
You even said so yourselves. Here is the game description from the main page:
"Fallen Sword is a massively multiplayer role playing game set in the exciting and evolving world of Erildath. Players enter the world and explore, adventure across a vast number of realms with thousands of other players.
Fallen Sword is a great game to play on your own or with friends. It has an old school MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) feel to it, with a great combat system. Slice your way through the many dungeons and group with your friends to defeat Legendary creatures."
I see nothing that bills FS as a PvP game, so stop trying to make it that to appease a small but vocal minority. IF you want a pvp outlet, you can arena or GvG that should suffice. If it dosent. I am sorry that you signed up in the first place. Maybe should have read the game description....
Maybe the next poll should be...who PvPs who does not. It will be a landslide.
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users

This topic is locked