We should have placed bets on this, Thanks Hoof.additional ladder hits ( past the 500 stam limit per player) will they be bountyable?
Yes as they won't be PvP Ladder attacks.
Developer Chat Notes (23/Mar/2012)
#121
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:21
#122
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:22
If conserve activates on a 100stam to gain the point towards the new medal, will the point be given or not?
#123
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:23
Actually I agree with making more hits outside the ladder cost you more when bountied i.e more levels lose. 5 hits for 9 levels make them pay for it, but maybe a little less maybe 7.5-8 lvls.
#124
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:24
I feel that if... A PvPer is going to be subjected to losing XP for each hit made and be posted numerous times on the bounty board... Than why would the game continue to support PvP Protection... Such a function would no longer be needed?
this correlates to the bounty board update ... The game requires balance. If people can bounty PvPers so much I don't see why Protection is needed? ? ?
- Chazz
It is likely that we will reduce the maximum xp that can be lost in the single bounty when we make the changes.
#125
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:25
Wasn't the plan to change bounty tickets to be buy-able in gold or did that change?
We're still planning to change it so you can buy bounty tickets with gold
#126
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:26
additional ladder hits ( past the 500 stam limit per player) will they be bountyable?
Yes as they won't be PvP Ladder attacks.
Both players are opted in? Sorry,this makes no sense. :?
If someone opted in can post me for a non rated attack on them, then I should be able to do the same to them ( if i am opted in) for ANY attack they do ( regardless if it was only for rating)
#127
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:29
Both players are opted in? Sorry,this makes no sense. :?
If someone opted in can post me for a non rated attack on them, then I should be able to do the same to them ( if i am opted in) for ANY attack they do ( regardless if it was only for rating)
I don't understand what you mean sorry?
Why would you be able to bounty any attack if they can only bounty a non-PvP Ladder attack?
#128
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:29
Guild Conflicts
Change level range to the following:
25 - 300 (+/- 25)
301 - 700 (+/- 50)
701+ (+/- 100)
Hoof, I assume by level, you mean guild level, not guild PvP ranking? [If the latter, it means the currently top ranked PvP guild will not be able to participate in GvG.]
It refers to the level of the each of the players within the guild making the Guild Conflict attacks.
That was my initial thought when reading it, which I quickly rejected, thinking it couldn't possibly be the case. 100 levels above or below my level is a pretty large spread. I'm not saying I'm necessarily against it, but that seems a radical change from current GvG mechanics. Was this coming from community input?
#129
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:30
I think as hoof mentioned before there will be option for what type of attack you want...additional ladder hits ( past the 500 stam limit per player) will they be bountyable?
Yes as they won't be PvP Ladder attacks.
Both players are opted in? Sorry,this makes no sense. :?
If someone opted in can post me for a non rated attack on them, then I should be able to do the same to them ( if i am opted in) for ANY attack they do ( regardless if it was only for rating)
GvG attack , ladder attack or normal attack
normal attack only bountyable
#130
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:32
I think as hoof mentioned before there will be option for what type of attack you want...
GvG attack , ladder attack or normal attack
normal attack only bountyable
Correct
#131
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:33
#132
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:34
Both players are opted in? Sorry,this makes no sense. :?
If someone opted in can post me for a non rated attack on them, then I should be able to do the same to them ( if i am opted in) for ANY attack they do ( regardless if it was only for rating)
I don't understand what you mean sorry?
Why would you be able to post them for any attack if you can only post them for non-PvP Ladder attack?
I'm speaking outside the bountyboard of course.
Lets say 2 players are opted in: player A, Player B
(Player A) hits (Player
(Player
Once again Both are opted in:
Under your suggestion Player A can place 3 bounties.
Player B can't place any bounties.
Imo, if both are opted in, it's either ALL or nothing, Make Every hit between both bountyable, or make NONE of them bountyable.
#133
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:36
The only exception would be if you are bountied, then you can be attacked by the person(s) who are clearing/attempting your bounty (that would also prevent people from hitting people and then logging off thinking they have offline protection).
#134
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:37
Please stay on topic - ie. PvP Ladder and Guild Conflicts.
ON TOPIC ... HOOF Can you please elaborate on the Bounty Board update?
I'm just curious if you were referring to the God awful idea that was mentioned in the previous forum or was something actually discussed about this idea?
-Chazz
As stated on the first post, we're happy with the changes proposed for the bounty board - your welcome to create a new thread if you feel it needs more discussion however
For anyone interested in this new thread regarding the Bounty Board Update please visit :
http://forum.fallens...hp?f=1&t=106167
#135
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:39
Both players are opted in? Sorry,this makes no sense. :?
If someone opted in can post me for a non rated attack on them, then I should be able to do the same to them ( if i am opted in) for ANY attack they do ( regardless if it was only for rating)
I don't understand what you mean sorry?
Why would you be able to post them for any attack if you can only post them for non-PvP Ladder attack?
I'm speaking outside the bountyboard of course.
Lets say 2 players are opted in: player A, Player B
(Player A) hits (Player5 x 100 stam for the 20 score. Boom..done. Next target.
(Playerhits (Player A) back 5 x 100 stam for the 20 score, but feels like hitting a few more times, be it for gold, the fact player A hit them only offline..all kinds of reasons for it. So..lets say they hit back 8 times total ( 5 rating hits, 3 non rating hits)
Once again Both are opted in:
Under your suggestion Player A can place 3 bounties.
Player B can't place any bounties.
Imo, if both are opted in, it's either ALL or nothing, Make Every hit between both bountyable, or make NONE of them bountyable.
I agree +1 Mae
#136
fs_sangdiablo
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:41
Have the cows thought of allowing people that are logged off to not be attacked in non ladder hits? (they would have to be offline for a certain amount of time, say minimum of 1hr?) People can stop complaining about being "farmed" or "being harassed with continuous 100 stamina attacks" while they are offline since after the said time (1hr minimum) they cannot be attacked.
The only exception would be if you are bountied, then you can be attacked by the person(s) who are clearing/attempting your bounty (that would also prevent people from hitting people and then logging off thinking they have offline protection).
+1
Or, if not, after 1 hour offline, attacks on the offline player would only net a very reduced xp/gold/whatever amount. The last I heard was that we had a 7 day rule, and no reduction of xp, etc. in place before the player hit 7 days offline.
7 days x 24 hr. = a possible 168 free hits that the attacker knows will not be bountied if the person getting hit has posted that they will be on vacation (as some guilds require). A whole lot of XP can be lost on a 100 stam. hit, but multiply it by 168.
Granted, it shows a lack of life (and sleep) or a lack of following rules by using a script or multiple players with one account to keep the attacks rolling, and the attacker may warrant pity, but when an attacker's sole purpose in life is to annoy other players, it doesn't help the game retain players, old or new.
OR
Perhaps an option could be put in place that allows PvPers who attack on online player the option of going for a bit of extra ____, in which the blank represents the options of gold, rating, prestige, etc. Perhaps that could discourage offline hits as well.
#137
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:45
I feel that if... A PvPer is going to be subjected to losing XP for each hit made and be posted numerous times on the bounty board... Than why would the game continue to support PvP Protection... Such a function would no longer be needed?
this correlates to the bounty board update ... The game requires balance. If people can bounty PvPers so much I don't see why Protection is needed? ? ?
- Chazz
It is likely that we will reduce the maximum xp that can be lost in the single bounty when we make the changes.
Reducing the amount of Xp lost while on the Bounty board is nothing but a mere BandAid... If anyone can post someone else numerous times than why is it that the game is still looking for a reason to keep PvP Protection?
The Facts are right there ... PvP Protection is longer needed nor required since anyone can post someone for numerous attacks made.. Justice is done why keep PvP Protection would make no sense?
- Chazz
#138
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:47
#139
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:48
As for GVG - I like the idea of the changes - I mean I'll accept that more than 1 person has to hit - but is it possible to look into 1 person being able to complete 50% of the hits (ex 25 on a 50 hit conflict, 50 hits on a 100 hit conflict)? Also, would you be willing to look into the level ranges that you are proposing? Maybe pull a median based on player population based on different level ranges - rather than grouping how you have it? I think the maximum amount up to about 1000 should only be about +/- 50-75ish. There is a HUGE difference in multiple level ranges - ex 750 vs 850 - when geared properly and smart. These are the items that we need to look at when trying to figure out level ranges. It would be nice to see some reasoning behind the numbers rather than just throwing out the numbers (not saying this was the case as I missed the IRC chat - with 30 minute notice - hard to get out of work during that time). Were sets available to certain ranges taken into consideration, # of people within the given ranges, any other type of information?
Thanks,
-Kittles
#140
Posted 23 March 2012 - 22:54
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

