I like it, as it gets rid of your concern of limited targets.There seems to be a clear distinction between players who are interested in levelling and those who are interested in PvP.
Maybe it is better to keep the opt-in/out. My main concern however is the limitation of targets that it causes.
How about this for a different idea: When you attack a player, you can choose whether it is for PvP Rating or Gold/XP. This way there would be no need for an opt-in/out as hits for PvP Rating would not take Gold/XP.
We could then also leave in PvP Protection.
Official Suggestion : PvP Improvements (rev. 9)
#61
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:20
#62
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:20
Potions were one thing but its gotten to the point where we are made the pariah here and punished for participation enough!!!
#63
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:22
Leave the opt-out and the PvP protection in place and most levellers
Why would you need pvp protection if you have opt-out
'cos the opt-out is for the ladder ?
and PvP protection is for the off-ladder "love-taps" ??
WHY :!: fair point with with opt-out
But WHY pvp protection. All levelers want is an upgrade that never ends and stops all you gold and xp being removed.
Doing this makes the game repetative and monotonous. You start the game....join a guild.... Instantly fully armoured.....fully buffed.... level....wait till stam regains....level.
Its an endless cycle. Takes the fun out the game. The excitement of wanting to know if you win an attack. The fear of holding a vast amount of gold and wondering if you will lose it. The wonder of what armour you will need to purchase/find next....What happened.
'I will lose my gold' use the countless other resources/options to save it. Pretty sure if i walked on the street with 10 million in my hand id get robbed.
'I dont want to lose my xp' What 3 creature kills worth. What next, if you lose to a creature you will want a creature protection to save you gold/xp.
Just becoming a leveling game instead of a pvp game.
Leveling game =Locked down=Boring
Pvp game=Different=exciting
You really want a game where you sit their for 5 minutes and you drag you finger from 1-8 and click a button a few times. You carry on ranting. Cause this is what the game it turning into
@Pardoux: Not just at you just at the levelers.
#64
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:23
There seems to be a clear distinction between players who are interested in levelling and those who are interested in PvP.
Maybe it is better to keep the opt-in/out. My main concern however is the limitation of targets that it causes.
How about this for a different idea: When you attack a player, you can choose whether it is for PvP Rating or Gold/XP. This way there would be no need for an opt-in/out as hits for PvP Rating would not take Gold/XP.
We could then also leave in PvP Protection.
yes, please leave PvP protection!
#65
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:23
Finally!!! Yes!! That is what we have been saying!!!There seems to be a clear distinction between players who are interested in levelling and those who are interested in PvP.
Maybe it is better to keep the opt-in/out. My main concern however is the limitation of targets that it causes.
How about this for a different idea: When you attack a player, you can choose whether it is for PvP Rating or Gold/XP. This way there would be no need for an opt-in/out as hits for PvP Rating would not take Gold/XP.
We could then also leave in PvP Protection.
#66
fs_amonkfish
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:23
Can we get a response from someone from HCS as to WHY the rewards will be bound? They're not now. And I average 4 people on my band. Put in bound rewards, and I guarantee you'll lose at least two. Titans rewards, scavenging loot, SE drops, etc - none of these are bound. I play the ladder because I love PvP AND I want to win something. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Keep the opt-in, leave XP loss as it is, and introduce new, UNBOUND rewards. The arena gets updated with new gear/pots/etc and none of it is bound. The ladder participants risk exponentially more than just the gold to join the arena. If I'm buying buffs, the best gear, losing levels daily, etc - I'm not doing it for a bound level 1000 Last Ditch or flinch. I don't need any new, uber potions. I didn't need them when I was at level 151 or level 199 on this band. It's complete overkill. Bring out new sets, let people use or sell them, leave the non-PvPers OUT of the PvP ladder, and then I could agree. Until then, I strongly disagree with the revision.
#67
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:23
I like it, I will say tho... has there been thought to keeping pvp protection BUT only allowing it to protect xp? Still allow it to be cheap, but no longer protect gold. Make xp lock even cheaper ( obviously as well)
Seems most wont like this update if protection is gone. Due to liking their xp. I'm just trying to meet in the middle...without getting my head ripped off O.o
It seems the issue is more with gold than xp from what I understand.
What about keeping PvP Protection, but still allowing players to attack? Ie. the same as the current revision but xp/gold is protected if you have PvP Protection active.
Most smart players won't keep much gold on hand. Normally I don't have more then 50k. You can safeguard your gold in the bank, but you can't safeguard your xp without paying a lot of FSP's for it.
The players who PAY the FSP for the protection are buying their fun. Exempting themselves from PvP because they dont want to participate. It also allows them to wear the expensive Stam gain gear. The amount of stamina they gain per day is the cost of the PvP protection per day w/o Epics .... so they actually gain a bit if they buy protection AND wear stam gear. It may cost a lot but it it pays for itself. Particularly if the player only wants to level and gains extra stamina from epics.
#68
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:23
There seems to be a clear distinction between players who are interested in levelling and those who are interested in PvP.
Maybe it is better to keep the opt-in/out. My main concern however is the limitation of targets that it causes.
How about this for a different idea: When you attack a player, you can choose whether it is for PvP Rating or Gold/XP. This way there would be no need for an opt-in/out as hits for PvP Rating would not take Gold/XP.
We could then also leave in PvP Protection.
Now that's a compromise I'd happily live with
#69
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:23
with 100% take ? ( 100 stam = 100% ; 10 stam = 10%)There seems to be a clear distinction between players who are interested in levelling and those who are interested in PvP.
Maybe it is better to keep the opt-in/out. My main concern however is the limitation of targets that it causes.
How about this for a different idea: When you attack a player, you can choose whether it is for PvP Rating or Gold/XP. This way there would be no need for an opt-in/out as hits for PvP Rating would not take Gold/XP.
We could then also leave in PvP Protection.
#70
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:24
with 100% take ?There seems to be a clear distinction between players who are interested in levelling and those who are interested in PvP.
Maybe it is better to keep the opt-in/out. My main concern however is the limitation of targets that it causes.
How about this for a different idea: When you attack a player, you can choose whether it is for PvP Rating or Gold/XP. This way there would be no need for an opt-in/out as hits for PvP Rating would not take Gold/XP.
We could then also leave in PvP Protection.
Not sure what you mean sorry?
#71
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:25
Yes! 100% EXP take and not 75% reduction of itwith 100% take ?There seems to be a clear distinction between players who are interested in levelling and those who are interested in PvP.
Maybe it is better to keep the opt-in/out. My main concern however is the limitation of targets that it causes.
How about this for a different idea: When you attack a player, you can choose whether it is for PvP Rating or Gold/XP. This way there would be no need for an opt-in/out as hits for PvP Rating would not take Gold/XP.
We could then also leave in PvP Protection.
Not sure what you mean sorry?
#72
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:25
I'm not opposed to making the item rewards unbound.
Do that and you have a yes from me:)
#73
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:26
A lot of players PvP to make a profit. Making the new item sets bound will drive people away from PvP. Only a small majority will PvP for the sake of it without making any profit from these sets.
Personally I think this would be good because then PvP will be more of a game than just a dot-making activity
Personally i would still PvP regardless of whether these items become bound or not. But i know most people's incentive for PvPing is to make a proffit. This will drive them away, that is not good for the game.
I would PvP again if it weren't about greed. I think more people might PvP in fact. If items are bound then people would play to earn them like Necra says. And of course hitting for gold is always so delicious, that has been part of the game for forever.
I like Hoof's compromise solution - select pvp or gold/xp hit.
#74
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:27
And about marketplace , with the bounty ticket costing gold instead of fsp , that will equal off
meaning staying at the actual prices with some fluctuation from day to day about pvp being in big or small events in any day about number of bounty up .
You can depo off your hunt gold in bank and use leftover for pvp arena , bounty anyone hitting you ( 75% reduction not applied ) or buy gold potions so your at near zero and not a target for anyone .
Edit 2 : I was at Page 2-3 and it got Pushed to page 5 .... yes I strongly agree with any change to PvP .
#75
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:27
Yes! 100% EXP take and not 75% reduction of it
with 100% take ?
Not sure what you mean sorry?
Yes, there would be no need for the 75% reduction
#76
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:28
There seems to be a clear distinction between players who are interested in levelling and those who are interested in PvP.
Maybe it is better to keep the opt-in/out. My main concern however is the limitation of targets that it causes.
How about this for a different idea: When you attack a player, you can choose whether it is for PvP Rating or Gold/XP. This way there would be no need for an opt-in/out as hits for PvP Rating would not take Gold/XP.
We could then also leave in PvP Protection.
So if I find someone with 10 mil gold.. i have to choose to smash em..i get gold, they lose xp and i get no rating?
OR
i hit them and gain rating, they lose no xp or gold?
Are both of these attacks bountyable?
And at lawdogs comment..he is right about the top ten in bands... to hit the top ten you should BE in the top ten.
#77
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:29
Yes and make rewards unbound:) I really like this suggestionI like it, I will say tho... has there been thought to keeping pvp protection BUT only allowing it to protect xp? Still allow it to be cheap, but no longer protect gold. Make xp lock even cheaper ( obviously as well)
Seems most wont like this update if protection is gone. Due to liking their xp. I'm just trying to meet in the middle...without getting my head ripped off O.o
It seems the issue is more with gold than xp from what I understand.
What about keeping PvP Protection, but still allowing players to attack? Ie. the same as the current revision but xp/gold is protected if you have PvP Protection active.
#78
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:30
"post ediited"
You really want a game where you sit their for 5 minutes and you drag you finger from 1-8 and click a button a few times. You carry on ranting. Cause this is what the game it turning into
@Pardoux: Not just at you just at the levelers.
Didn't take it personally - but, different strokes for different folks ? - everyone has a different way of playing a game within those game options. Being forced to play it in a way they don't want to play it will just mean there's a strong potential for folk going to find a different game, one they CAN play the way THEY want to play it (within the game options).
#79
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:30
this would also apply to the multiple choice - xp or gold or rating?Yes, there would be no need for the 75% reduction
#80
Posted 16 October 2011 - 20:31
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

This topic is locked