Official Suggestion : PvP Improvements (rev. 8)
#341
Posted 15 October 2011 - 18:08
pvp protection should never had included GOLD. If it doesnt include gold, then i dont see an issue with someone buying it.
pvp has always been about gold, xp, random violence..etc ( as rd mentioned aspects of it above). The first hit only awards rating...fine. Repeated hits might happen at first..but as always..if they are smashed back or deleveled..I strongly doubt they will hit again.
75% xp loss is alot. the 1% - 10% was brought in to balance the entire xp loss spectrum of pvp. PvP isnt meant to be the exact opposite of leveling. 10 stam spent leveling doesnt equate to a ten stam hit. pvp IS evil. I wont deny it. In a game..theres good guys..and bad guys. Being bad is fun. Standing up for others.is hella fun too.
Theres never been a choice of when you'll be hit in pvp, only an ability to somewhat limit your chances of being hit.The chance of violence is always there. Its a dangerous world in fallensword.. there be nasties and evil people everywhere waiting to mug ya.. etc. Opt out doesnt belong in this game.
Nerfing pvp hits to 75% for every hit ( against 0 rating) is unneeded. I suggested the -1 rating per kill..to a max of -5 ( then a player simply doesnt award rating anymore) A notification similar to a gvg attack against a guild can come up. * this player has already been hit 5 times for rating, are you sure you wish to continue the attack?* <-- just an example.
If i stand to lose 20% - 5 levels on a bounty, I can deal with the first hit being 75% less xp on someone with 0 rating. But if they run their mouth, insult..or taunt me.. I wanna chew on em a bit.
#342
fs_xvxevilxvx
Posted 15 October 2011 - 18:10
1) I never claimed to be characterizing "the whole game."
i certainly don;t hope you are speaking for the whole game by saying people would rather quit than defend them selves, because i don;t see it as that at all.
2) I know at least one player who will never initiate a PvP attack, even as a response to an attack, because it goes against their principles. I do not think they ever posted a bounty either.
So yes, just as in real life there are people so pacifistic that they will die rather than harm another person, there are people who will quit the game rather than "defend them selves." And quitting the game is so easy, once you recognize the sunk-cost fallacy. That you don't see these people is no surprise, since they never PvP and may have already quit.
Such pacifists...but they butcher countless creatures titans and SE's? WHat kind of pacifist does that?!? *grins*
#343
Posted 15 October 2011 - 18:23
they also are wanting to have every attack be able to post on BB no matter if it was even a target posted on BB and still not cleared off BB and won't settle for anything less then have their cake and eat also.
I got a feeling awhile back before PvP protection/ this ladder version ever came about this issue of PvP'ers didn't get this far out of hand and blamed for everything ' wrong ' with the game.
#344
Posted 15 October 2011 - 18:23
personally Hoof i am to the point of saying screw it. the levelers will always Refuse to even bother trying to find a happy medium so i say just take the PVP Ladder back to what it use to be in the begging. leave the new code for rating exchange to stop some of the point traders and just make PVP an opened ended free for all as it once was ad leave XP loss as it has always been. no one wins then. PVP stay with a broke ladder and levelers loose FULL XP every single hit and things will be as they have always been from the start, you will just have to find somewhere else to stick the token rewards (i have a idea on that but will forum banned if i say it lol)
mostly i am being cynical here i am just sick of reading about people unwilling to even remotely compromise on this issue. the PVPers are doing everything possible to compromise with the leveling end of things but, aside from a select few, the levelers dont seem to want to stop till our fun is dead and gone.
GROW UP PEOPLE!!! ITS A FRICKEN GAME! so you got hit in a game that tells you from the start that it WILL happen. Deal with it!
end rant
edited to fix a spelling error =/ game was meant to be gone 0.o
#345
Posted 15 October 2011 - 18:34
It's not clear, then, what substantive benefit you are offering to the non-PvPers in exchange for the changes you do want. Where is the "give" for what you "take" from the revisions as you propose them ?
PvP protection not removed completely. It can still be bought but simply doesnt protect gold anymore.It only protects xp.
1st hit 75% xp reduction, every hit after that is full 100% on 0 rated player
A bountied player cannot hit their target again until said bounty is clear ( no free hits)
Now, thoughts?
#346
Posted 15 October 2011 - 18:36
It's not clear, then, what substantive benefit you are offering to the non-PvPers in exchange for the changes you do want. Where is the "give" for what you "take" from the revisions as you propose them ?I think this revision as a whole seems sound, however the most important issue is pvp protection, opt out, and the 75% xp loss reduction/
pvp protection should never had included GOLD. If it doesnt include gold, then i dont see an issue with someone buying it.
pvp has always been about gold, xp, random violence..etc ( as rd mentioned aspects of it above). The first hit only awards rating...fine. Repeated hits might happen at first..but as always..if they are smashed back or deleveled..I strongly doubt they will hit again.
75% xp loss is alot. the 1% - 10% was brought in to balance the entire xp loss spectrum of pvp. PvP isnt meant to be the exact opposite of leveling. 10 stam spent leveling doesnt equate to a ten stam hit. pvp IS evil. I wont deny it. In a game..theres good guys..and bad guys. Being bad is fun. Standing up for others.is hella fun too.
Theres never been a choice of when you'll be hit in pvp, only an ability to somewhat limit your chances of being hit.The chance of violence is always there. Its a dangerous world in fallensword.. there be nasties and evil people everywhere waiting to mug ya.. etc. Opt out doesnt belong in this game.
Nerfing pvp hits to 75% for every hit ( against 0 rating) is unneeded. I suggested the -1 rating per kill..to a max of -5 ( then a player simply doesnt award rating anymore) A notification similar to a gvg attack against a guild can come up. * this player has already been hit 5 times for rating, are you sure you wish to continue the attack?* <-- just an example.
If i stand to lose 20% - 5 levels on a bounty, I can deal with the first hit being 75% less xp on someone with 0 rating. But if they run their mouth, insult..or taunt me.. I wanna chew on em a bit.
gimmie gimmie gimmie is all i hear from the leveling end of it 0.o
#347
Posted 15 October 2011 - 18:42
It's not clear, then, what substantive benefit you are offering to the non-PvPers in exchange for the changes you do want. Where is the "give" for what you "take" from the revisions as you propose them ?I think this revision as a whole seems sound, however the most important issue is pvp protection, opt out, and the 75% xp loss reduction/
pvp protection should never had included GOLD. If it doesnt include gold, then i dont see an issue with someone buying it.
pvp has always been about gold, xp, random violence..etc ( as rd mentioned aspects of it above). The first hit only awards rating...fine. Repeated hits might happen at first..but as always..if they are smashed back or deleveled..I strongly doubt they will hit again.
75% xp loss is alot. the 1% - 10% was brought in to balance the entire xp loss spectrum of pvp. PvP isnt meant to be the exact opposite of leveling. 10 stam spent leveling doesnt equate to a ten stam hit. pvp IS evil. I wont deny it. In a game..theres good guys..and bad guys. Being bad is fun. Standing up for others.is hella fun too.
Theres never been a choice of when you'll be hit in pvp, only an ability to somewhat limit your chances of being hit.The chance of violence is always there. Its a dangerous world in fallensword.. there be nasties and evil people everywhere waiting to mug ya.. etc. Opt out doesnt belong in this game.
Nerfing pvp hits to 75% for every hit ( against 0 rating) is unneeded. I suggested the -1 rating per kill..to a max of -5 ( then a player simply doesnt award rating anymore) A notification similar to a gvg attack against a guild can come up. * this player has already been hit 5 times for rating, are you sure you wish to continue the attack?* <-- just an example.
If i stand to lose 20% - 5 levels on a bounty, I can deal with the first hit being 75% less xp on someone with 0 rating. But if they run their mouth, insult..or taunt me.. I wanna chew on em a bit.
the benifit has already been given, it was optout and the protection... is time to give some of that back, the exchange is a 75% reduction in xp loss..
whilst i still stand on the fact that creating every player into a target for the simpe fact that they have played the game enough to endure another reset is a bad idea and should be scrapped, this exchange is about the best is going to get.
#348
Posted 15 October 2011 - 18:48
the benifit has already been given, it was optout and the protection... is time to give some of that back, the exchange is a 75% reduction in xp loss..
whilst i still stand on the fact that creating every player into a target for the simpe fact that they have played the game enough to endure another reset is a bad idea and should be scrapped, this exchange is about the best is going to get.
Easiest way to remedy that is that rating doesnt reset when the ladder resets. Once someone gets down to -5 rating they cant give rating anymore..and it wont reset to 0. Players will have to hit others who have rating.. to gain rating. Eventually only those with rating will be hit. And if someone chooses to pvp again..then they can simply attack another player.
One draw back is once you have a tonne of rating..your permanently on the ladder...specifically in the higher levels. UNLESS you buy protection, which would reset your rating to 0
#349
Posted 15 October 2011 - 18:53
In response,
It's not clear, then, what substantive benefit you are offering to the non-PvPers in exchange for the changes you do want. Where is the "give" for what you "take" from the revisions as you propose them ?that's WORSE than what we have now. And that makes it redundant to XP Lock.PvP protection not removed completely. It can still be bought but stimply doesnt protect gold anymore.
that's not substantially useful, since the first hit will just be a 10-stam while the target is asleep, followed by a 100-stam an hour later. It doesn't fix the basic inequity between stam used to take XP and the stam required to regain it. Plus, how is this handled, precisely ? Is HC supposed to track, for every player in the game, how many times they have hit every other player since the last reset? Or are you proposing that if A hits B with a 10 stam, his guildmate C's 100-stam attack 10 seconds later is for full XP loss ?1st hit 75% xp reduction, every hit after that is full 100% on 0 rated player
BB fixes are not part of this thread. And "no free hits" means NO free hits, which is not what you have proposed.A bountied player cannot hit their target again until said bounty is clear ( no free hits)
What you are offering is, on balance, worse for levelers than what we have now. So of course levelers will be unhappy about it, many will probably feel like they have been screwed, and that won't be good for HC. Given that, I do not think HC will go for your proposal, nor should they.
Players on this thread are complaining about xp. Saying xp lock is not worth repeatedly buying. SO, buy protection... can you be hit still? Yep..only for gold. Do you lose precious xp? Nope. How is that worse? LOL. Thats better then having no pvp protection at all dont ya think?
The 75% xp can work similar to how pvp prestige is gained. First hit on a player is 75% less xp, every consecutive hit ( by the same player) against "said defender" ...is full xp, full gold, no rating.
I hit someone...i get bountied, I cant attack them again until my bounty is clear. No more free hit from the board. You dont like that? Im surprised O_o.
#350
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:03
the benifit has already been given, it was optout and the protection... is time to give some of that back, the exchange is a 75% reduction in xp loss..
whilst i still stand on the fact that creating every player into a target for the simpe fact that they have played the game enough to endure another reset is a bad idea and should be scrapped, this exchange is about the best is going to get.
Easiest way to remedy that is that rating doesnt reset when the ladder resets. Once someone gets down to -5 rating they cant give rating anymore..and it wont reset to 0. Players will have to hit others who have rating.. to gain rating. Eventually only those with rating will be hit. And if someone chooses to pvp again..then they can simply attack another player.
One draw back is once you have a tonne of rating..your permanently on the ladder...specifically in the higher levels. UNLESS you buy protection, which would reset your rating to 0
this is the way i think it should be, though i think there should be a reset every 90 days or so, to accommodate 2 things, players who have used the protect XP, which i think should be scraped also , especially if there is no reset, will be no need of it, and 2 for the players who have moved in ladders keep their pvp points within the ladders so points don;t get too scarce.
i think this will keep thngs in check, no need for 75% reduction, no need for protection, and players will not be attacked for pvp points every two days, or whatever the rest will be set at.
everyone can still hit for gold, xp loss and everything else they want to, and if a player decides he wants to play the ladder he just starts attacking. or should there still be an opt in, so a player resets to 0, if at -5, so that way we don;t have people making pacts and 100 stamming a top rated player at what may be the last moments of a ladder reset? or will there still be no pvp lost on an incoming?
#351
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:05
No, the easiest remedy would be to leave it as is, with the opt-in to the pvp ladder. That way no one outside the mini game has to be bothered at all. And everyone can remain a viable target for real pvp like they have been since the beginning of the game.
the benifit has already been given, it was optout and the protection... is time to give some of that back, the exchange is a 75% reduction in xp loss..
whilst i still stand on the fact that creating every player into a target for the simpe fact that they have played the game enough to endure another reset is a bad idea and should be scrapped, this exchange is about the best is going to get.
Easiest way to remedy that is that rating doesnt reset when the ladder resets. Once someone gets down to -5 rating they cant give rating anymore..and it wont reset to 0. Players will have to hit others who have rating.. to gain rating. Eventually only those with rating will be hit. And if someone chooses to pvp again..then they can simply attack another player.
#352
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:06
everyone can still hit for gold, xp loss and everything else they want to, and if a player decides he wants to play the ladder he just starts attacking. or should there still be an opt in, so a player resets to 0, if at -5, so that way we don;t have people making pacts and 100 stamming a top rated player at what may be the last moments of a ladder reset? or will there still be no pvp lost on an incoming?
Player would still lose the 1 rating if attacked and defeated. Nothing more.
Attacking someone and losing should result in double rating lost, as compared to what you would have gained. There is no rating transfer. The only way to pass someone is to hit more then they do, clear more bounties then they do. Or hit them, and force them to lose when they try and hit you.
#353
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:09
No, the easiest remedy would be to leave it as is, with the opt-in to the pvp ladder. That way no one outside the mini game has to be bothered at all. And everyone can remain a viable target for real pvp like they have been since the beginning of the game.
if someone who doesnt normally pvp, doesnt have a choice as to whether or not they are hit for gold or not.. or randomly 100 stammed. Why should a pvpr have one? If you pvp, you will be hit. Thats what this system is proposing.
If you can go out and hit others, you shouldnt have a problem being hit. At least I dont think so?
#354
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:12
The opt -in needs to stay. Some pvpers may not want to be bothered with the pvp ladder mini game. Lets keep them separate!!!everyone can still hit for gold, xp loss and everything else they want to, and if a player decides he wants to play the ladder he just starts attacking. or should there still be an opt in, so a player resets to 0, if at -5, so that way we don;t have people making pacts and 100 stamming a top rated player at what may be the last moments of a ladder reset? or will there still be no pvp lost on an incoming?
#355
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:14
The opt -in needs to stay. Some pvpers may not want to be bothered with the pvp ladder mini game. Lets keep them separate!!!
everyone can still hit for gold, xp loss and everything else they want to, and if a player decides he wants to play the ladder he just starts attacking. or should there still be an opt in, so a player resets to 0, if at -5, so that way we don;t have people making pacts and 100 stamming a top rated player at what may be the last moments of a ladder reset? or will there still be no pvp lost on an incoming?
+1 I agree here big time
#356
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:19
I tried it good while back for awhile, I personally didn't care for it so I stayed out of the ladder. does this mean that because I don't play the ladder I don't PvP? sorry wrong I do alot of PvP which is mostly for gold and unlike alot of other PvP'ers hitting for gold and use max 100 stam to hit I use min 10 stam. so since I PvP for gold( mostly ) but don't play the ladder does that make me less of a PvP'er and the lvl's I lost due to something I helped out some in my guild PvP wise mean I am not a PvP'er?
there are so many ways can not be a target for PvP hits. make the PvP protection like it was said to protect XP but not gold. then just don't carry so much out in open which has been said since day one for a fairly long time I think so is nothing new to FS.
but seems this is just gimme gimme gimme and turn FS into another version of a HCS game that is mostly based on LvL'ing SigmaStorm2. guess let history repeat itself an guess call FallenSword now SigmaStorm3 and turn out with same result as SS2, yea real nice plan ya got.
or maybe since this is a PvP issue should only listen to PvP'ers and ignore the rest.
#357
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:20
No, the easiest remedy would be to leave it as is, with the opt-in to the pvp ladder. That way no one outside the mini game has to be bothered at all. And everyone can remain a viable target for real pvp like they have been since the beginning of the game.
if someone who doesnt normally pvp, doesnt have a choice as to whether or not they are hit for gold or not.. or randomly 100 stammed. Why should a pvpr have one? If you pvp, you will be hit. Thats what this system is proposing.
If you can go out and hit others, you shouldnt have a problem being hit. At least I dont think so?
If a pvper doesn't want to play the ladder minigame they are likely to not pvp at all to stay out of it. Is that good for the game and pvp in general?
And why do levelers in general that want nothing to do with the pvp ladder need to be involved in it at all?
#358
fs_xvxevilxvx
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:20
Sorry, that is not a legit argument. PvPers have gotten lots of benefits in the past (e.g. expanded attack range, virtual level, etc.) that were deterimental to and annoyed non-PvPers. You don't get to pick only the past changes you didn't like and claim that you are offering those to non-PvPers now.the benifit has already been given, it was optout and the protection... is time to give some of that back, the exchange is a 75% reduction in xp loss..
It's not clear, then, what substantive benefit you are offering to the non-PvPers in exchange for the changes you do want. Where is the "give" for what you "take" from the revisions as you propose them ?
The question is, given the status quo we have now, what is being offered to non-PvPers in exchange for the changes that some PvPers want. Quid-pro-quo is the only way you will get the majority of players to agree to the changes: true give and take in the bargaining. HC doesn't need to care about that explicitly, of course, but they do need to care about whether they are going to cheese-off a majority of the player base. And it seems the majority do not PvP.
This is a game that includes PvP but it is not primarily a PvP game, judging from the number of players with PvP rating the last time I looked at my attack band. So PvPers have to compromise and live within restrictions that make PvP acceptable to the majority of players. That's simply what inevitably happens in a commercial multi-player game when people can vote with their feet and their wallets.
Surely you dont think to use the Ladders as a basis for how many pvpers there are right? Because by that same token, there are an incredibly larger amount of lower level players compared to higher level players, so in essence very few "levelers". I dont know why you think there are more levelers than there are pvpers, but perhaps its because its what you want to see. I would say just the opposite. And i CAN say that for the same nonsensical reasons you tried to implement. It doesnt make it anymore true...
#359
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:21
But it is the value system of non-PvPers that is used to evaluate wither what you offer in exchange for the changes you want has equivalent value, and for me and many others, it does not.
You asked for suggestions on a compromise.. now its irrelevant. Dont ask questions if you wont like the answers
Do i speak for the whole pvp community? Nope. Everyone has different opinions. Yet, here it seems you speak for everyone else when you say it isnt fair? o.O Who are these levelers you speak with? Why wont they voice their thoughts on the forums? This is taking a similar turn to previous threads.
PvP will never be equal in value xp wise to leveling. Its why its so thrilling and risky. Can i do some damage to a player? off the board? yep. They can do a hella lot more back to me if they see fit. Its why There wont be a "meeting in the middle" so to speak.
#360
Posted 15 October 2011 - 19:25
If a pvper doesn't want to play the ladder minigame they are likely to not pvp at all to stay out of it. Is that good for the game and pvp in general?
And why do levelers in general that want nothing to do with the pvp ladder need to be involved in it at all?
They dont have to play the ladder mini game LOL. So what if they get hit a few times due to having rating? Whats so bad about a pvpr, being...wait for it.. pvpd?
Question kinda on topic. Your in the 1000 band now B, yet ive noticed you dont hit anyone. The new system if implemented, might result in you being attacked more frequently. Is that why your against it so much? ( just an honest question)
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users

This topic is locked