Sarcastic response (feel free to skip):At this rate, I think we should protect FS from leveling. Perhaps at least a year of playing. We could then expand the PvP range to be at least 100 levels. That would get rid of most of the gripes.I also think a protect against lame Guilds should be in effect. Scamming aside for being too obvious... we could just make it so no player can join any Guild that doesn't take care of its players. Yeah.....And finally, when leveling is allowed, there should definitely be a protect against mobs. I'd recommend until about level 2,000 (thinking ahead on this one). I mean, let's face it... even levelers hate it when they lose their KS. Beyond that, pretty much everyone complains about set costs and actually having to think or do anything beyond clicking to level up.Serious response:"Protecting" from pretty much any game aspect is against the entire idea. In this case, GvG is the low-cost way to learn about PvP. All you're doing by "protecting" is getting everyone to be more upset when they have to face up to the real game.An apt example would be locking your kid (yes yours Hoof) up at home until they are 18. After all... wouldn't want them to know what to do when they meet up with those "bad" people. Of course, sooner or later they have to learn... and the faster something "bad" happens, maybe the faster some "good" people come along.In short, parents teach their kids or the kids learn on their own. I don't think there is a single long-standing player in the game (and that doesn't mean they have to be long-standing to earn the badge) that doesn't do one or the other.Babying people into game play is not going to make FS survive.
Quite frankly GvGing and PvPing comments seem to be a mix of theory and practical commentary. The "theory" is that protecting players would not help the game, because...???? When quite in fact, based on my "days" GvGing I KNOW that players get miffed and down right nasty getting hit in GvGing. That's just GvGing! No real loss except pride and the GvG conflict. Extend that to PvPing and you KNOW that players drop from the game because of being hit and losing gold -- especially when they are trying to establish themselves in the game. SO, without any opportunity to get into the game quickly, which most do by hunting a lot, those players disappear and don't return. That CANNOT be a good business model in any way. Sooo, having some time limit and/or level limit before getting exposed to PvPing is a prudent business move at the very least.
Question – How do you prevent gang attacks on a player? Who likes that? (The PvP Protection Upgrades are too costly and not immediately available to most players when then begin the game, so the Protection Upgrade has limited benefits to the FS population of players).
Answer – Not everyone, so be careful how you open the flood gates on any change to PvPing aspect of the game.
That said, I think that the PvP system should include a truly opt-in and opt-out for PvPing. Don't exclude anyone from PvPing per se, but rather a system that provides the non-PvPer a better chance of survival.
1.) Opt-out players get better enchancement %s – 100% increase, for example, but receive no benefit of successfully defending a PvP attack except of course defending the attempted hit.
2.) Opt-out/Opt-in would be time based like the ladder so players cannot jump back and forth between the two sides. (BTW, the PvP Ladder opt-in/opt-out is not the same thing as what I mention above and doesn’t afford any benefit to the non-PvPer).
Bottom line is to revamp the PvP system so it works for everyone, retains players, and seems fair to the average player.

This topic is locked