Jump to content

LEVEL/VL EXPLOIT FIX SUGGESTION


  • Please log in to reply
91 replies to this topic

#1 fs_dougmines

fs_dougmines
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2011 - 16:33

This suggested fix was passed along to me by a friend, and after reviewing it, and being aware of what it concerns and the need for corrective actions, I thought to pass it along to everyone to get their imput. I am certain this thread will draw flamers who capitalize on the currently implimented methods, but they don't really concern me, their opinions are something we all have. Without further adeau. the suggested change is as follows.

VL was added to the game to eliminate an exploit -- players intentionally getting themselves de-leveled so that they could attack lower-level players using the skills and level up points they had from their previous high level. Unfortunately it broke a key feature of the bounty board.

Before VL, de-leveling a player was a practical way to stop that player from harrassing someone else. Even the threat of "taking 5" (back when PvP range was 5 levels) was often enough. But not anymore. For example, [CSP] is currently 100-stamming [BWP] on an almost hourly basis, even though [BWP]'s friends have removed 10 levels from [CSP], so that he now 12 levels lower than [BWP], but still only 3 virtual levels lower since that will not change until [BWP] levels - which will be impossible as long as [CSP] can still 100-stam her.

The easiest solution to this bug that the VL work-around introduced involves modifying just one portion of the FS user-interaction code, and no changes to the database code. Simply alter the code that checks whether one player can attack another off the BB. Currently that code must contain the following functionality, expressed as C++-style psuedocode:

// P1 and P2 are player-characters, who must be within 10 VL to fight
attack_possible = abs( P1.virtual_level - P1.virtual_level) <= 10 ;

To fix the bug, just make this evaluation depend on both virtual and real level

// P1 and P2 must be within 10 VL and within 10 real levels to fight.
attack_possible = abs( P1.virtual_level - P2.virtual_level) <= 10 && (abs( P1.real_level - P2.real_level) <= 10) ;

The in-game consequence: deleveling becomes an effective deterrent again, just as it was originally. Someone who is deleveled 10 or more levels will not be able to attack people who have not been deleveled except on the bounty board. The massively-deleveled player will have to level again or attack other players who have lost a similar amount of levels. But note that because the equation is symmetric, a massively-deleveled player can also only be attacked by the targets that he or she can attack, which is essential for fairness. For example, for the following sets of player pairs, where level is expressed as (VL/RL):

Player 1 level/vlevel Player 2 level/vlevel off-BB PvP Combat Possible?
500/v500 500/v490 YES
500/v500 500/v489 NO
500/v499 500/v489 YES
500/v480 500/v490 YES
500/v450 500/v460 YES
500/v450 500/v461 NO




This simple change will do a lot to restore the effectiveness of the bounty board. It will also make the PvP ladder more dynamic, because it will create more circumstance where a ladder player might have to level in the middle of a ladder fight in order to hit other players for rating.

#2 Maehdros

Maehdros

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Canada

Posted 22 October 2011 - 16:44

Level Restrictions are removed on the ladder. ;) ie: there are none.


As for your idea or friends idea, it might get alot of positive feedback if directly in the first paragraph it wasnt insulting to players ;) LOL.


A big issue is that players dont like risking anything when defending one another. THAT has to change as well. Or it's all for naught.

#3 LLAP

LLAP

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 16:47

PvP Protection. XP Lock. 24h Deflect. additional buffs to ensure there win isnt as easliy deserved.
Quite a few simple steps to lower the constant almost hourly stams.


#4 fs_dougmines

fs_dougmines
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2011 - 16:50

Level Restrictions are removed on the ladder. ;) ie: there are none.


As for your idea or friends idea, it might get alot of positive feedback if directly in the first paragraph it wasnt insulting to players ;) LOL.


A big issue is that players dont like risking anything when defending one another. THAT has to change as well. Or it's all for naught.



Bro you know how these threads go, as I always tire of greasing up when reading the replies, I figured to get my digs in first,lol

#5 Maehdros

Maehdros

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Canada

Posted 22 October 2011 - 17:58

hmmm had coffee, am awake now.


Currently, I am 22 levels under my VL, with this idea I would have 0 pvp targets, off the board. o.O. Even with a possible new pvp rating system implemented in the near future, i'd still have 0 targets. ummm, no. Sorry, thats insane.

#6 dragon1234

dragon1234

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,287 posts
  • Badge

Posted 22 October 2011 - 17:59

Not really needed, there are plenty of options to protect one-self from 100 stam. Besides at 20k odd stam, you can be out of the 10 VL range(an keep taking level)

dragon1234 - Ranger - lv 45

NoExercise - Tank - lv 45

DragonStorage - Storage - lv 13


#7 fs_lordtobar

fs_lordtobar
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2011 - 18:05

hmmm had coffee, am awake now.
Currently, I am 22 levels under my VL, with this idea I would have 0 pvp targets, off the board. o.O. Even with a possible new pvp rating system implemented in the near future, i'd still have 0 targets. ummm, no. Sorry, thats insane.

there should be a downside to being 22 levels under your real level, otherwise there is no real risk to PvP.
all you have to do is level and you will be able to PvP again, or not allocate skill/level-up points so VL = RL.
it is not insane, you just do not want to have any serious negative consequences for pvpers who are deleveled.

#8 Maehdros

Maehdros

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Canada

Posted 22 October 2011 - 18:08

hmmm had coffee, am awake now.
Currently, I am 22 levels under my VL, with this idea I would have 0 pvp targets, off the board. o.O. Even with a possible new pvp rating system implemented in the near future, i'd still have 0 targets. ummm, no. Sorry, thats insane.

there should be a downside to being 22 levels under your real level, otherwise there is no real risk to PvP.
all you have to do is level and you will be able to PvP again, or not allocate skill/level-up points so VL = RL.
it is not insane, you just do not want to have any serious negative consequences for pvpers who are deleveled.



Consequences? Less gold leveling, no access to realms otherwise I would be able to return to ( relics) , Less gear able to be worn. ;) there ARE consequences lol. Where in my post did i say I didnt want consequences?


I've seen threads where MANY levelers say they dont want to be forced into pvp, It's easy for me to reply and say i don't want to be forced to level ;)

#9 fs_lordtobar

fs_lordtobar
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2011 - 18:21


there should be a downside to being 22 levels under your real level, otherwise there is no real risk to PvP.
all you have to do is level and you will be able to PvP again, or not allocate skill/level-up points so VL = RL.
it is not insane, you just do not want to have any serious negative consequences for pvpers who are deleveled.

Consequences? Less gold leveling, no access to realms otherwise I would be able to return to ( relics) , Less gear able to be worn. ;) there ARE consequences lol.

I've seen threads where MANY levelers say they dont want to be forced into pvp, It's easy for me to reply and say i don't want to be forced to level ;)

be honest, those consequences are not serious for pvpers, because they do not interfere with pvping, which is what pvpers want to do. "lol" all you want, i do not think anyone will be fooled.

and levelers *are* forced to participate in pvp, so why not force pvpers who get deleveled to relevel?
they even have prestige to make it easier for them.

you just do not want the loss of 22 levels to interfere with you playing the game, that is all. level loss hurts levelers but you do not want it to hurt you anywhere near as much. how is that not selfish and unfair?

#10 sweetlou

sweetlou

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,955 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 18:29

I've seen threads where MANY levelers say they dont want to be forced into pvp, It's easy for me to reply and say i don't want to be forced to level ;)

I don't see an issue here. Delevel, and possibly continue to delevel a player so many levels and all you need to do is get 10 levels past them. If you feel consistently "harassed" then by all means contact support. http://support.huntedcow.com

I liked it better when there was no 5 level cap on delevelings! Bring that back!! It'd be a whole lot quicker.

Btw, I like how this idea couldn't be brought forth by the originator of it. Weak!

[Signature removed]

 

“When you tear out a man's tongue, you are not proving him a liar, you're only telling the world that you fear what he might say.” -GRRM


#11 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 18:47

Sorry I just dont agree with this idea, for these reasons

First the VL was there before the exploit of players deleving to use higher level buffs,,,in fact thats how it was exploited by keeping VL, the cows changed LEVEL UP points to fix that.

Secondly there are 2 sides to every story,,, what did "BWP" do to earn this attention? In my experiance nobody wastes stam hourly hitting someone just because and 99% of the time the alleged "victim"s mouth wrote a check his VL cant cash.

Theres a lot of fancy math there and you will have to dumb it down,,we PvPers are naught but simple pirates

And yes Mae is right, this will make it impossable for someone to hit anyone untill they level again if they are dropped 5 out of VL, Rather than this restore effectiveness of BB or making pvp ladder more dynamic (what does VL have to do with that?) it will simply screw up the whole system,,sorry no

Finally VL is already a punishment since at least in lower levels you remain at the VL for pvp and GvG in which case many times becoming a liability to the guild and yourself by being lower than those who are attacking you but stuck in their range

#12 Maehdros

Maehdros

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Canada

Posted 22 October 2011 - 19:06

be honest, those consequences are not serious for pvpers, because they do not interfere with pvping, which is what pvpers want to do. "lol" all you want, i do not think anyone will be fooled.

and levelers *are* forced to participate in pvp, so why not force pvpers who get deleveled to relevel?
they even have prestige to make it easier for them.

you just do not want the loss of 22 levels to interfere with you playing the game, that is all. level loss hurts levelers but you do not want it to hurt you anywhere near as much. how is that not selfish and unfair?



Hmm, being knocked out of gear, unable to defend relics, less gold hunting.. does hurt. If you pvp'd you would realize that ;) losing levels "hurting me" as it does now, or being unable to pvp until i regain levels ( which i lost pvping) , what do you think i would choose?



I simple stated why i didnt like this idea, now you say I am dishonest, selfish and unfair? LOL nice!

#13 evilbry

evilbry

    Veteran

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

Posted 22 October 2011 - 20:33

I've seen threads where MANY levelers say they dont want to be forced into pvp, It's easy for me to reply and say i don't want to be forced to level ;)

I don't see an issue here. Delevel, and possibly continue to delevel a player so many levels and all you need to do is get 10 levels past them. If you feel consistently "harassed" then by all means contact support. http://support.huntedcow.com

I liked it better when there was no 5 level cap on delevelings! Bring that back!! It'd be a whole lot quicker.

Btw, I like how this idea couldn't be brought forth by the originator of it. Weak!

+1

#14 lordthade

lordthade

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 20:43

Question: Can a de-leveled player stay in the higher-level realm and simply hit those monsters to level up if/when they decide to?

If yes: I think that's an exploit and should be fixed. Quango was fixed after such an exploit, and I think this should get the same attention. This would apply for the attacker or the defender. No distinction. I could see a "buffer" of 5 levels or so if you prefer. After that, though, if you have someone 20 levels lower (just as an example) than the monsters they're hitting they earn more gold per hit and are, in a way, rewarded for their lost levels.

Yes, this would more or less force PvPers to level (depending on how much heir targets disapprove of their inclusion in PvP), ORRRR it makes them remain more cognizant of their VL and slightly more appreciative of their target list.



If no: sorry. Then we're good and I apologize for my ignorance. :-)

#15 fs_lordtobar

fs_lordtobar
  • Guests

Posted 22 October 2011 - 20:49

Question: Can a de-leveled player stay in the higher-level realm and simply hit those monsters to level up if/when they decide to?

yes and that is what many do and have for years.

#16 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 22 October 2011 - 20:53

Question: Can a de-leveled player stay in the higher-level realm and simply hit those monsters to level up if/when they decide to?

If yes: I think that's an exploit and should be fixed. Quango was fixed after such an exploit, and I think this should get the same attention. This would apply for the attacker or the defender. No distinction. I could see a "buffer" of 5 levels or so if you prefer. After that, though, if you have someone 20 levels lower (just as an example) than the monsters they're hitting they earn more gold per hit and are, in a way, rewarded for their lost levels.

Yes, this would more or less force PvPers to level (depending on how much heir targets disapprove of their inclusion in PvP), ORRRR it makes them remain more cognizant of their VL and slightly more appreciative of their target list.



If no: sorry. Then we're good and I apologize for my ignorance. :-)


Yes they can, unless they left that area in the case of a relic sit or something then they cannot enter any area over their actual level (not VL)

And its not exploitation since they made it to that level before losing VL,,Quango was MUCH different it was a mistake by the cows allowing a creature much higher than the level realm it was in allowing players who had not reached a level to access it to hit a creature far higher than their level for more exp
Also the curve isnt that steep that a player even 20 under the area they are in is getting massive exp per kill

#17 lordthade

lordthade

    Veteran

  • New Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 529 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 03:25

Thanks... but they DO get more XP and more gold per hit, right? (rhetorical question)

This means their guilds get more XP and more gold per hit, too.

Maybe it's just my nefarious mind, but no wonder PvPers don't care about levels! They get Prestige bonus, they can set themselves on undead levels for easy killin', and they can largely pay for their potions and goodies through the efforts of others--I know, it's part of the game. My point is... there isn't much "risk" when you actually are better off by being de-leveled.

If the bounty board can take 5 levels, then let's correct the situation and say if someone loses MORE than 5 levels from their real level, then they get sent to Krul or something.

#18 kalish

kalish

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 360 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 03:43

The potential VL abuse is easy to fix anyway.

Whenever a player gets deleveled, they instantly lose 2 LUPs from the highest amount they have in any one stat. If two are tied, take 1 from each, and if more than 2 are tied, pick 2 at random. It would be more fair to lose the 2 most recently assigned LUPs, but I don't know if HCS keeps track of which LUPs were assigned when.

In addition, if a player is deleveled below the level required for their buffs, those skill points get de-assigned from that buff. And if a player has more total skill points than they should for their level, they get automatically de-assigned from the highest level buffs (again, more fair would be the most recently assigned skill points, but I'm not sure if HCS tracks that) remaining until the gap disappears.

Lost LUPs and skill points would be regained when the levels are regained, and it would be a nice option to put a checkbox in Preferences to allow players to automatically re-assign LUPs and skill points to what they were de-assigned from in the first place.

Doing this would allow HCS to just scrap VL altogether.

#19 fs_lordtobar

fs_lordtobar
  • Guests

Posted 23 October 2011 - 04:05

The potential VL abuse is easy to fix anyway.

Whenever a player gets deleveled, they instantly lose 2 LUPs from the highest amount they have in any one stat. If two are tied, take 1 from each, and if more than 2 are tied, pick 2 at random. It would be more fair to lose the 2 most recently assigned LUPs, but I don't know if HCS keeps track of which LUPs were assigned when.

In addition, if a player is deleveled below the level required for their buffs, those skill points get de-assigned from that buff. And if a player has more total skill points than they should for their level, they get automatically de-assigned from the highest level buffs (again, more fair would be the most recently assigned skill points, but I'm not sure if HCS tracks that) remaining until the gap disappears.

Lost LUPs and skill points would be regained when the levels are regained, and it would be a nice option to put a checkbox in Preferences to allow players to automatically re-assign LUPs and skill points to what they were de-assigned from in the first place.

Doing this would allow HCS to just scrap VL altogether.

Getting rid of VL would solve the problem, but HC decided not to do that.
Perhaps they do not want people to be able to be able to change their level-up and skill point allocations by being deleveled and releveling, it usually costs FSP to do that.
Having a VL and RL is pretty ridiculous in a RPG anyway, it is an ugly hack i think.

#20 watagashi

watagashi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,977 posts

Posted 23 October 2011 - 05:14

Well firstly removing level up points defeats the purpose of VL since that is what sets VL. If level up points and the buffs linked to them are removed we may as well go back to no VL.

Secondly most PvPers worth their salt are returning to a relic they defend for those bonuses so we do have to work on those levels again the hard way on realms set to the actual and not VL. Those who dont have to relic sit arent really getting that much bonus and again did earn that VL area. Theres a lot about how easy to make levels back and id love to know how cuz losing 5 is going to cost me a weeks stam and I dont thinks that is easy.

As far as I go Ive lost 250 levels since the pvp ladder came out and I began tracking it. Either in pvp hits, delev partys, a war and Roshambeau matches (SP? that game mentioned on south park where we kick one another in the groin untill one falls) I see it as part of the game and FAR more interesting than hitting a monster that sits there and takes it without any funny statement or arguement on how mean I am :) The game put in place punishments suitable to the crime, if a player gets hit they can get their friends and guildmates to take 5 and if done fast enough can be ready to repeat in a hour,,thats pleanty of punishment for a 100 stam hit. Factor in that some players cant be bothered to buy points or watch their gold and you see how some cry more than others. True some out there enjoy "stalking" a player who has crossed them. In this case theres always a limit for them on how many levels can be lost before they find another to bother,,,sometimes not


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: