Jump to content

Photo

Official Suggestion : PvP Improvements (rev. 6)


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

#181 livingsin

livingsin

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:30

gloat/honor will be used to increase/decrease gold loss....hence making the buffs meaningful finally

#182 Bleltch

Bleltch

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,784 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:31


I think the higher reduction on xp loss is better to be honest. If you trying to build up your PvP Rating, why is xp loss such a big deal?

Also we don't want to make it essential for levellers to get PvP Protection - I think the 75% reduction will help make it fairer to players not interested in PvP while removing the need for the opt-in/out.

Now what if we dont want to hit them for pvp points? What if we want to hit someone to take their exp? Will we be able to do that? This is still a pvp game isn't it?


I thought your main concern was hitting for gold?

If you are looking to hit to reduce xp, then attacking a player with 0 PvP Rating will still remove xp (albeit with a 75% reduction). Hitting a player with a PvP Rating will remove the normal xp.

Normally i only hit for gold, yes. I'm just trying to get feel for your intentions for pvp as a whole. Your reply tells me you're try to nerf pvp down even more than you already have. :( Why have exp loss at all? I really hope you can back up and take a closer look at the ramification of what you propose. All to "fix' a mini game.

#183 livingsin

livingsin

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:37

law-its nerfed to 2.5% for a 100 stam hit...what more do you want...levelers have said that they don't care about gold loss only xp loss...so why have a BB if theres no xp loss?

#184 Lutrafs

Lutrafs

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 631 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:37


I thought your main concern was hitting for gold?

If you are looking to hit to reduce xp, then attacking a player with 0 PvP Rating will still remove xp (albeit with a 75% reduction). Hitting a player with a PvP Rating will remove the normal xp.

Normally i only hit for gold, yes. I'm just trying to get feel for your intentions for pvp as a whole. Your reply tells me you're try to nerf pvp down even more than you already have. :( Why have exp loss at all? I really hope you can back up and take a closer look at the ramification of what you propose. All to "fix' a mini game.


I do say I have to agree here, xp loss should remain the same regardless of rather you are partaking in the ladder or not. It will give those non pvpers more reason to place those bounties, giving us bounty hunters something to do. Also causes people to spend more gold and fsp to place and accept those bounties, and a stam sink to clear them. I think if you lower the xp loss you are effectively saying Yes this is a PVP game, But we dont want you to feel you have to PVP.

#185 tlthomasjr

tlthomasjr

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 239 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:38

Also we don't want to make it essential for levellers to get PvP Protection - I think the 75% reduction will help make it fairer to players not interested in PvP while removing the need for the opt-in/out.[/quote]
Now what if we dont want to hit them for pvp points? What if we want to hit someone to take their exp? Will we be able to do that? This is still a pvp game isn't it?[/quote]

I thought your main concern was hitting for gold?

If you are looking to hit to reduce xp, then attacking a player with 0 PvP Rating will still remove xp (albeit with a 75% reduction). Hitting a player with a PvP Rating will remove the normal xp.[/quote]
Normally i only hit for gold, yes. I'm just trying to get feel for your intentions for pvp as a whole. Your reply tells me you're try to nerf pvp down even more than you already have. :( Why have exp loss at all? I really hope you can back up and take a closer look at the ramification of what you propose. All to "fix' a mini game.[/quote]

+1
He is correct in calling the ladder a "mini game" as it is no more pvp than the "pvp" arena.
You cant use a single thread or update to fix them both, because they are not the same, and havent been since tokens entered the mix.
PvP used to be for taking gold, exp, and rating was to measure how good you were at that.
Now rating is used to determine how many tokens you can get, and dominance medals show how many times you opted in, and talked all your buddies into letting you sit there for the first day knowing a reset wasnt possible yet.

#186 NatalieEGH

NatalieEGH

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 342 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:38

PvP victory SHOULD give the XP, I feel. The PvP players can have their fun and quickly disappear out of my band (wherever I am sitting). Heck with an extra few hundred or thousand people all sitting at EOC the price of spells will drop dramatically, so it might even benefit me.

How would a 75% reduction in XP loss kill PvP? It is not a 75% reduction in gold loss. The PvP players still get what they want, the gold. All it does is help protect those of us not interested in PvP and allow us to play our game. PvP players lose NOTHING by reducing the targets xp loss. It just REDUCES what those of us not interested in PvP lose, we STILL lose SOMETHING.

The only way this would kill PvP is if they PvP players are all just out to de-level those of us that are not interested in playing their game. Are you saying all you want is to be a bully and beat down others?

#187 Dowster

Dowster

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 368 posts
  • United Kingdom

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:40


[*]If you are defeated in combat (attacking or defending), you will lose 50% of the equivalent PvP Rating you would have gained if you won the combat. Note that your PvP Rating can never be reduced below 0. Note also you can only gain PvP Rating when initiating combat.


Can someone tell me if im getting this right?. Lets's say just for example that two people have a rating of 10. Person A hits person B and wins, and (again for example) gains 10 rating. Person B would then lose 5 dropping them down to 5 in total, and person A is now on 20. So Person B attacks person A, and gains 10 - putting them up to 15, and dropping A down to 15. So by attacking each other each winning once and losing once, they both gain from it..

If the gain for a win is higher than the loss for a loss, people can trade hits hourly and both gain rating as long as they keep similar figures??

Or am I just being braindead and missing something obvious?


Sorry to quote myself, but can anyone answer this?, because if it is the way it appears to be it's a pretty fatal flaw in the system, and just about the most easily abusable implimentation ever..

#188 Kedyn

Kedyn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:42

Why have XP loss at all?

Good question. I know why there is XP loss on the BB -- it is the only punishment a gold-hitter suffers from it.

And I know why there is XP loss on people competing on the PvP ladder -- otherwise, ladder competitions would just be perpetually won by the people with the most stam gain. XP loss is a kind of "Fatigue" that encourages every PvPer to exit the field and recover occasionly.

But as to why non-PvPers have to lose XP when they are attacked -- I see no reason for it other than to give PvPers a way to harass levelers. What's your reason?


As I stated earlier:

XP should still be lost no matter what the reasoning behind it. When you are defeated in PVP, you are killed, period. When you are killed by a monster, you lose XP and gold. When you are killed by an SE, you lose XP and gold. When you are killed by another player, you lose XP and gold. You are hunted, just as any other leveler or hunter hunts monsters or SEs. Just because you are getting hit by another player doesn't make it a reason not to have XP loss.

On a side note, it's only 75% of what it used to be, so it's barely anything significant imo.

#189 Regonox

Regonox

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 33 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:44

Dont really think it will stop non-pvpers from being hit actually, many will attack them as easier targets, it will just make them lose less xp, so unless the reduction of the PvP Protection is insane I don't like it very much.
Liked being able not to enter the Ladder at all and being able to choose to actually participate.
I mean atm it costs 100fsp for each 28days, this is quite allot and even if you make that 50fsp its to expensive for most.

#190 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:45

i like 90% of this idea!! That said I have still voted neutral because of this

Bound potions

Im still at a loss to understand why the pvpers are constantly being treated like a 2nd class player. Can someone give me one valid reason for this? There is no other aspect of the game given so many restrictions including the recipe levels, binding rewards and the whole opt in thing im glad is being removed now!

Lets examine a few other game aspects and see why I feel like we are being discriminated against,,,,

Titan hunting,,its been proven there was and probabally is cheating going on but the guild that wins the 50% gets a unbound epic item worth many many FSP

Arenas,,,nobodys complaining the arena players have a monopoly on the resources to make several nice recipes, nobody demanded level restrictions on inventing those and I know of a few potions that are WAY better than what is available elsewhere the example being pot of greater cloak WHY ISNT THAT BOUND?????

GvG, id like to slip in a plug to ask for new gear for RP rewards please but saying that why arent those items bound?

There is no other area of the game that discourages hard work for reward more than pvp ladder. I would like to challenge everyone to change my mind on binding of these items and give me the reasons why we should be segregated from the rest of FS in this way because currently I have to say strongly disagree unless someone wants to give us a example of these potions and why they should be bound,,,maybe they are just so powerful they had to be? A 24 hour deflect or 48 hour cloak perhaps? The arena cloak is 10 hours with BM so they should be way better than that UNBOUND potion to justify it.

#191 kalish

kalish

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 360 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:46

1) Each of the other 99 players could gain rating once per reset by hitting me.


Your first interpretation is correct - each player can only gain PvP Rating from a player with 0 PvP Rating once per reset of the PvP Ladder. Assuming the ladder resets every 3 - 4 days, this means it would only be worthwhile for each player on the ladder to initiate combat with a 0 PvP Rating player once in that time frame (and they would have a 75% reduction to the xp loss).


I'm disappointed; this just makes for more bunny-farming.

Given this interpretation, I think a 75% reduction is too small; I would prefer 90-95%. What many don't seem to realize is that this interpretation is going to lead to a massive increase in the number of hits on non-PvPers every reset. Most ladder players are going to hit everyone in their range every reset. Potential ladder participants, please weigh in. If most won't farm bunnies, it won't be as bad as I think.

I believe that the massive increase in the number of hits that a beginning player takes will drive many of them away from the game.

I thought my interpretation #3 was the most balanced one: only one player can gain rating by hitting me once per reset. With that one, I would say a reduction of 30% or so for XP loss on 0-rating players, because the volume of hits won't go up nearly as much compared to now.

#192 livingsin

livingsin

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:47

potions should be bound so that if you want them you HAVE to participate(also why I suggested a good leveling potion or two in there)

#193 fs_killererep

fs_killererep
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:48

i like it!! sounds soooooo awesome ;)

#194 fs_liuskoj

fs_liuskoj
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:49

XP loss has to stay as it is to keep the PvP and BB alive, that's a fact. And we can't make a cumulative ladder without making it farming of some sort, I hope you can all see that, so why even try? Can't we just modify the current system, it isn't that bad after all, or at least doesn't seem that bad after reading all the horrible suggestion (including some parts of this one)...

#195 bilops

bilops

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 115 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:50


Normally i only hit for gold, yes. I'm just trying to get feel for your intentions for pvp as a whole. Your reply tells me you're try to nerf pvp down even more than you already have. :( Why have exp loss at all? I really hope you can back up and take a closer look at the ramification of what you propose. All to "fix' a mini game.


I do say I have to agree here, xp loss should remain the same regardless of rather you are partaking in the ladder or not. It will give those non pvpers more reason to place those bounties, giving us bounty hunters something to do. Also causes people to spend more gold and fsp to place and accept those bounties, and a stam sink to clear them. I think if you lower the xp loss you are effectively saying Yes this is a PVP game, But we dont want you to feel you have to PVP.


+1

#196 paingwin

paingwin

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,075 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:50

1) Each of the other 99 players could gain rating once per reset by hitting me.


Your first interpretation is correct - each player can only gain PvP Rating from a player with 0 PvP Rating once per reset of the PvP Ladder. Assuming the ladder resets every 3 - 4 days, this means it would only be worthwhile for each player on the ladder to initiate combat with a 0 PvP Rating player once in that time frame (and they would have a 75% reduction to the xp loss).


I'm disappointed; this just makes for more bunny-farming.

Given this interpretation, I think a 75% reduction is too small; I would prefer 90-95%. What many don't seem to realize is that this interpretation is going to lead to a massive increase in the number of hits on non-PvPers every reset. Most ladder players are going to hit everyone in their range every reset. Potential ladder participants, please weigh in. If most won't farm bunnies, it won't be as bad as I think.

I believe that the massive increase in the number of hits that a beginning player takes will drive many of them away from the game.

I thought my interpretation #3 was the most balanced one: only one player can gain rating by hitting me once per reset. With that one, I would say a reduction of 30% or so for XP loss on 0-rating players, because the volume of hits won't go up nearly as much compared to now.

pvp players gain more rating form other pvp players with rating, reducing the need to "farm" levelers for rating...

#197 livingsin

livingsin

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 796 posts

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:50

1) Each of the other 99 players could gain rating once per reset by hitting me.


Your first interpretation is correct - each player can only gain PvP Rating from a player with 0 PvP Rating once per reset of the PvP Ladder. Assuming the ladder resets every 3 - 4 days, this means it would only be worthwhile for each player on the ladder to initiate combat with a 0 PvP Rating player once in that time frame (and they would have a 75% reduction to the xp loss).


I'm disappointed; this just makes for more bunny-farming.

Given this interpretation, I think a 75% reduction is too small; I would prefer 90-95%. What many don't seem to realize is that this interpretation is going to lead to a massive increase in the number of hits on non-PvPers every reset. Most ladder players are going to hit everyone in their range every reset. Potential ladder participants, please weigh in. If most won't farm bunnies, it won't be as bad as I think.

I believe that the massive increase in the number of hits that a beginning player takes will drive many of them away from the game.

I thought my interpretation #3 was the most balanced one: only one player can gain rating by hitting me once per reset. With that one, I would say a reduction of 30% or so for XP loss on 0-rating players, because the volume of hits won't go up nearly as much compared to now.



90-95 % reduction...ARE YOU JOKING? they offer 75% reduction and you still complain? WOW

#198 fs_valestra

fs_valestra
  • Guests

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:50

The biggest problem I'm seeing is treating all PvPers like they have the same agenda. What's good for the bounty hunters probably won't be good for the gold "liberators" (lets not say thieves) which won't be good for the medal seekers, etc...

Until there is a way that all facets can be addressed, it will never be 100% fair for everyone. Which either means dividing PvP into different groupings (not so easy since many practice different aspects at once) or sitting down and having a beer and saying 'Yeah, I can live with this'

#199 Kedyn

Kedyn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:51

Hoof,

Is 100 rating the max amount a player can achieve on an off-the-board PVP hit?

I'm still not going to vote until this question is answered.

#200 Hoofmaster

Hoofmaster

    Company Director

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,357 posts
  • Badge
  • United Kingdom

Posted 13 September 2011 - 18:53

each player can only gain PvP Rating from a player with 0 PvP Rating once per reset of the PvP Ladder. Assuming the ladder resets every 3 - 4 days, this means it would only be worthwhile for each player on the ladder to initiate combat with a 0 PvP Rating player once in that time frame (and they would have a 75% reduction to the xp loss).

Hrrm, that seems a little too favorable to us levelers. If there are only 5% of the people playing the ladder, only 5% (aprox) of the levelers will be hit for rating. No mistake, that's good for me, but I think it forces the PvPers into a an isolation zone too quickly.

I think you can do better.

If you are going to implement this by adding a new flag that is set when a player attacks an R-0 ("Rating=0") player, I suggest using a counter rather than a boolean. Then, you can tune the system to allow a PvPer to gain rating from 1, 2, 3 or 4 levelers -- whatever seems to strike the right balance -- and perhaps on a per-bracket basis.


That isn't a bad idea actually :)

Limiting the amount of times you can gain PvP Rating from players with 0 PvP Rating each reset sounds good.


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: