Jump to content

Photo

Development Roadmap (Updated 7th Mar 2014)


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
321 replies to this topic

#201 Chazz224

Chazz224

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 528 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 07:52

GvG needs attention - simple moves can improve it so very much, and I see no harm in trying something that isn't a complete alteration of GvG as we know it now. 

 

How do you start - quarterly resets.  Every 3 months reset top rated list.  Why; because the top is stagnant, and upcoming guilds so far from getting close - it's downright discouraging.  

 

Reward the top at each reset; nothing fancy - just a little boost of RP to the tops - further increases incentive to compete.  GvGers are very proud, and little incentive is needed imo. 

 

                1st - 300 RP

                2nd- 200 RP

                3rd- 150 RP

                4th & 5th - 100 RP

                6th-10th- 75 RP

                11th-25th- 50 RP

 

Don't go introducing more gear to be made with RP - want to include some updated buff packs that are with the times = great (buff packs that support the fields from which the currency to buy them is spawned would be an amazing revelation - titan hunting + GvG friendly packs) - but don't overdo it on the rewards. 

 

New guild medals in same light of ones recently introduced to recognize outstanding achievement on guild scale would be nice perk too..they can in themseves do something small like the current "
Guild Achievements " do - can represent few different catagories - top dogs, top 5, etc. 

 

I think this is good base idea to try.  There is no harm that can come of it in my opinion.  I believe it will create a new buzz in game; and many would be shocked at what doing a little can bring to a dying field. 

 

Thanks for reading; feedback, suggestions, etc ~ Rye

+1

 

A very good idea - which would have an extremely positive affect on the FS community as a whole. Lovely suggested points - nothing too fancy - Main focus on the quarterly reset.

 

This supports great team work -

This encourages + inspires more to take part in GvG's

With a Active ladder - no one will be discouraged or feel they can't get to the top now with resets - every guild has a chance.

 

Just Super idea with a great turn out for sure - Nice work Rye



#202 Hoofmaster

Hoofmaster

    Company Director

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,357 posts
  • Badge
  • United Kingdom

Posted 07 March 2014 - 14:41

Just updated the roadmap with the implementation of the Gold Upgrade reset being changed to midnight.



#203 kalish

kalish

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 360 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 14:43

Awesome! Thanks Cows!

 

Any thoughts on having the instant finish counter for Composing also reset at midnight server time?



#204 WWWolf

WWWolf
  • United States of America

Posted 07 March 2014 - 15:50

on the topic of GvG "Farming" (excuse me if this was said already as I only skimmed over the posts) but one of the simplest solutions seems to not award points in an entirely one-sided fight.

 

Attacking a guild that you know will not hit back doesn't sound very GvG to me and only makes GvG scores even more meaningless.  By not rewarding guilds for these kind of fights, it would GREATLY cut down on farming.

 

Granted there would probably be some agreements made between guilds where the farming guild pays the target guild to return one hit but no solution is without it's flaws and these kind of arrangements are sure to be few in comparison.



#205 WWWolf

WWWolf
  • United States of America

Posted 07 March 2014 - 15:57

Though I appear to be ignored on here most times, I will ask this question here one more time before resorting to more direct methods to get a response:

 

http://forums.hunted...=58790&p=813635

Note we'll be improving Composing further next week by making it possible to send Composed Potions that are tagged to your guildmates.

 

Is this to happen and if so when?

 

The silent treatment on this is killing me and I would GREATLY like to see this happen.

 

Thanks



#206 Belaric

Belaric

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 15:59

on the topic of GvG "Farming" (excuse me if this was said already as I only skimmed over the posts) but one of the simplest solutions seems to not award points in an entirely one-sided fight.

 

Attacking a guild that you know will not hit back doesn't sound very GvG to me and only makes GvG scores even more meaningless.  By not rewarding guilds for these kind of fights, it would GREATLY cut down on farming.

 

Granted there would probably be some agreements made between guilds where the farming guild pays the target guild to return one hit but no solution is without it's flaws and these kind of arrangements are sure to be few in comparison.

Interesting. But this is effectively an opt out for GvG, as people hit you a few times - you do nothing, they get no reward, you get left alone. Or you advertise you'll never hit back so don't bother hitting us as you'll waste your time and stam.

 

I like the idea actually, but I think it could be characterised as an unofficial opt out. If folk are cool with guilds opting out of GvG then okay. I rather suspect people would not like that - we could end up with a japanese fighting fish situation of a few guilds hitting each other all the time and the rest of the game ignoring the activity. Unless that is what we already have... (and I genuinely don't know that answer - I left my sarcasm on the composing thread)

 

The incentives from Rye - reset ladder, more and varied rewards are very cool and would be a great way to see if this aspect of the game can be reinvigorated. I think there are still enough people out there who would go for it again if it were made more attractive. Heck the ladder reset alone would increase activity as folk would need to fight to show who's best again. 


Good-bye and hello, as always.


#207 Kedyn

Kedyn

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 698 posts
  • Badge
  • United States of America

Posted 07 March 2014 - 16:03

on the topic of GvG "Farming" (excuse me if this was said already as I only skimmed over the posts) but one of the simplest solutions seems to not award points in an entirely one-sided fight.

 

Attacking a guild that you know will not hit back doesn't sound very GvG to me and only makes GvG scores even more meaningless.  By not rewarding guilds for these kind of fights, it would GREATLY cut down on farming.

 

Granted there would probably be some agreements made between guilds where the farming guild pays the target guild to return one hit but no solution is without it's flaws and these kind of arrangements are sure to be few in comparison.

 

Hmm - there would never be a way to improve anything in GVG then rating wise. If a guild hits you for 50/50 and you choose not to hit back - you don't give them anything. 

 

If a guild were to hit me 50/50 under that type of arrangement, I'd never have incentive to hit back because they would not receive anything from me not hitting them back. The ladders would NEVER change (even though it doesn't change often at all now). 

 

The problem is that there is not much incentive to GVG in terms of Ladder. I'm not saying that the top guilds in the GVG ladder don't like to GVG, but in a cost vs benefit analysis, the costs outweigh the benefits a lot of time. 

 

I love Rye's idea to re-liven the GVG aspect of the game, and I hope it gets heard. Maybe it might even be an easy implementation and make its way back into the correct place in the Dev Roadmap (it could be introduced with the GVG reward update). 



#208 WWWolf

WWWolf
  • United States of America

Posted 07 March 2014 - 16:10

Interesting. But this is effectively an opt out for GvG, as people hit you a few times - you do nothing, they get no reward, you get left alone. Or you advertise you'll never hit back so don't bother hitting us as you'll waste your time and stam.

 

I like the idea actually, but I think it could be characterised as an unofficial opt out. If folk are cool with guilds opting out of GvG then okay. I rather suspect people would not like that - we could end up with a japanese fighting fish situation of a few guilds hitting each other all the time and the rest of the game ignoring the activity. Unless that is what we already have... (and I genuinely don't know that answer - I left my sarcasm on the composing thread)

 

The incentives from Rye - reset ladder, more and varied rewards are very cool and would be a great way to see if this aspect of the game can be reinvigorated. I think there are still enough people out there who would go for it again if it were made more attractive. Heck the ladder reset alone would increase activity as folk would need to fight to show who's best again. 

very good points - yeah, I could see where this would be seen as an opt-out which many would find undesirable...

 

on the other hand, it's not much different than what's currently going on with guilds who choose not to participate just not hitting back and loosing 0 guild RP

 

the guilds who choose not to participate with GvG will continue to do so no matter what and if they are forced to participate, they are more likely to just stop playing the game altogether (I know many guilds with this stance on GvG - just saying)

 

I definitely agree that there should be better/more incentives for GvG to get guilds interested but by not allowing guilds to opt out in some way or other, there will continue to be farms.  The question is which scenario is the least objectionable.



#209 Belaric

Belaric

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 16:15

Really? Whole guilds would pack up because of GvG? That is concerning if true. I'm hoping that is more talk than action, but you never know I suppose. I don't regard the hassle from GvG attacks as much of a problem. If it was depressing people I'd reimburse their gold for repair costs, but no-one in my guild has ever really complained about it. It happens, we sail along anyway. 

 

For low level guilds with low level members the gold cost can be problematic when living on gold gained from hunting and trying to be able to buy pots and maximise levelling - I know that. Killing off new players is an issue in this game, and being crippled by broken equipment at level 55 is much different to getting dinged at level 400, when generally you make more than enough gold to get by. Hmm. Interesting.


Edited by Belaric, 07 March 2014 - 16:20.

Good-bye and hello, as always.


#210 WWWolf

WWWolf
  • United States of America

Posted 07 March 2014 - 16:16

Hmm - there would never be a way to improve anything in GVG then rating wise. If a guild hits you for 50/50 and you choose not to hit back - you don't give them anything. 

 

If a guild were to hit me 50/50 under that type of arrangement, I'd never have incentive to hit back because they would not receive anything from me not hitting them back. The ladders would NEVER change (even though it doesn't change often at all now). 

 

The problem is that there is not much incentive to GVG in terms of Ladder. I'm not saying that the top guilds in the GVG ladder don't like to GVG, but in a cost vs benefit analysis, the costs outweigh the benefits a lot of time. 

 

I love Rye's idea to re-liven the GVG aspect of the game, and I hope it gets heard. Maybe it might even be an easy implementation and make its way back into the correct place in the Dev Roadmap (it could be introduced with the GVG reward update). 

very good point - the no reward for no returned attacks would kinda break GvG some as many would not even try if the opponent already completed all attacks with no losses.

 

This is probably not the best solution for this but there should be some way to make guilds who do not participate to be less desirable from a GvG standpoint...



#211 WWWolf

WWWolf
  • United States of America

Posted 07 March 2014 - 16:19

Really? Whole guilds would pack up because of GvG? That is concerning if true.

perhaps not the ENTIRE guild but many individuals.

 

As passionate as PvP/GvG players are about PvP & GvG, there are those just as passionately against those systems of play.

 

Forcing a non PvP player to participate in PvP is every bit as bad as removing PvP entirely from the game.  There has to be balance and options.



#212 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 16:22

very good point - the no reward for no returned attacks would kinda break GvG some as many would not even try if the opponent already completed all attacks with no losses.

 

This is probably not the best solution for this but there should be some way to make guilds who do not participate to be less desirable from a GvG standpoint...

you would become less desirable by not partaking inside first week of a fresh reset - nothing is gained in rating once there is a separation of a few 100 rating points - therefore guilds who fall under 1k rating (base for all) are instantly less desirable to those looking to move up the ladder - This idea is to promote activity in a venue  greatly in need of attention.  Farmers will always be farmers - they are after RP + prey on guilds that don't defend.  This is case now - has been case for long time + will remain case moving forward -nothing changes there.



#213 Chazz224

Chazz224

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 528 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 16:30

on the topic of GvG "Farming" (excuse me if this was said already as I only skimmed over the posts) but one of the simplest solutions seems to not award points in an entirely one-sided fight.

 

Attacking a guild that you know will not hit back doesn't sound very GvG to me and only makes GvG scores even more meaningless.  By not rewarding guilds for these kind of fights, it would GREATLY cut down on farming.

 

Granted there would probably be some agreements made between guilds where the farming guild pays the target guild to return one hit but no solution is without it's flaws and these kind of arrangements are sure to be few in comparison.

 

There is no logical reason for a GvG opt out - Players do not lose exp during GvG's - and by awarding RP based on whether a guild decided to hit back is not only unfair to the attacking guild - but also demotes any form of team spirit or team work or incentive for people to try something new, plus there is nothing greater then standing up and defending your guild in a GvG ( imo) and doing your best - win or lose. 

 

Now if you are worried that farming might be a problem - Rest assured it won't be -

 

Quarterly resets ensure this - so many will compete to rise in the Ladder

Any farming done would be - all reset in 3 months time - Plus any farming guilds would also be in contempt with other guilds working hard and would have to defend their guild as well.

 

RP - Rewards - buff rewards - medals - are all incentives for people to try this out - No reason at all to give any weight to farming.



#214 WWWolf

WWWolf
  • United States of America

Posted 07 March 2014 - 16:51

Then perhaps I completely misunderstand this "quarterly reset" you talk about.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong but it sounds to me like every 3 months our GvG score will go back to 1,000 and we would be a desirable GvG target and then towards the end of the 3 months we will continue to be less and less so if we choose not to participate until the next reset.  After that reset, we are desirable targets again and here comes another huge wave of attacks...

 

You mention how GvG does not cost XP but you completely ignore the fact that gear takes damage and has to be repaired and if a guildmate happens to be wearing some guild Crystal gear then that can quickly be broken and cost a lot to replace.  GvG is not without it's drawbacks for those who choose not to participate and making these guilds targets every 3 months will definitely not be desirable.

 

The other flaw I see with this plan is what about abandoned or mostly inactive guilds?  There are multiple guilds out there where there has been no activity for months.  If you reset these guilds every 3 months and make them targets that don't defend themselves because no one is there to do so, then how is this helping GvG?



#215 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 17:01

there are requirements for a guild to be a viable GvG target - A reset would only effect the top rated list (dead guilds would get removed) unless there is 4 active members in a guild conflicts cannot be initiated against them. 

 

If you felt strongly enough about not being a desirable target for GvG you could arrange for guilds to reduce your rating to sub 1k numbers on first day of fresh reset & have all your mates get naked to prevent gear dmg.  You would become undesirable faster, and your grievance with gold cost to repair gear a moot point.  Change is coming to this venue regardless of whether you like it or not & HCS will want to pick a path that promotes activity.  My suggestion is one that can achieve this w/o restructuring the venue too much from where it is now.  It is impossible to please everyone, and there will always be something to complain about from somebodies perspective.  Opt in killed the ladder imo - and would do so much worst to GvG..want to talk about a bunch of guilds packing it up & kissing FS goodbye - GvG opt in would definitely do this & fast



#216 WWWolf

WWWolf
  • United States of America

Posted 07 March 2014 - 17:44

I see your points and agree with most of them but just feel there has to be some form of compromise that all can agree on.

 

As stands, it sounds like the only options are to upset GvG, upset, non-GvG, or do nothing.  Surely there is an option to promote GvG without hurting the guilds that choose not to participate.  Both forms of play are legitimate and neither should be thrown out the window.



#217 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 17:50

I'd then suggest you promote an alternative idea to mine, and see how it goes. 

 

An opt in would create a GvG ladder 10 strong, and essentially finish the venue off for good.  I would rather see no gear damage occur in conflicts if that is the biggest grievance you have - then what?  Is it unpleasant to have logs spammed with harmless conflict hits..and upsetting people to the degree they are ready to leave game over it....my compromise would be to take away the petty gear dmg if so.  I do appreciate the feedback regardless + you bring up a valid point that is on the minds of many - don't confuse my demeanor with that of someone not willing to work to make as many players happy as possible. 



#218 Chazz224

Chazz224

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 528 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 18:11

I see your points and agree with most of them but just feel there has to be some form of compromise that all can agree on.

 

As stands, it sounds like the only options are to upset GvG, upset, non-GvG, or do nothing.  Surely there is an option to promote GvG without hurting the guilds that choose not to participate.  Both forms of play are legitimate and neither should be thrown out the window.

It's impossible to please everyone - FACT of life

 

That said - GvG's have been in the game for the past 6 yrs - There is no reason to alter the current format - Why not? BECAUSE it works and has always worked.

 

Ryebred - purposed an idea for the GvG Ladder - which would inspire activity - The game needs activity - just as much as people need motivation to participate.

 

Now all that said -   This game revolves around combats - buffs - stam - buying + selling of fsp and gold - such sinks are also needed for the game and are good for the community - I don't think a Snuggle fight of who threw the most hugs and kisses would attract people nor inspire them to be active - those who are concerned about gear damage and can always opt to log off naked and not use any gear. Hence no damage to gear would take place - why is an opt out needed to reduce gear damage - Simple it's not needed at all and if that is your concern log out naked on your character - other wise their should be some element of risk. imo

 

- Chazz


GvG needs attention - simple moves can improve it so very much, and I see no harm in trying something that isn't a complete alteration of GvG as we know it now. 

 

How do you start - quarterly resets.  Every 3 months reset top rated list.  Why; because the top is stagnant, and upcoming guilds so far from getting close - it's downright discouraging.  

 

Reward the top at each reset; nothing fancy - just a little boost of RP to the tops - further increases incentive to compete.  GvGers are very proud, and little incentive is needed imo. 

 

                1st - 300 RP

                2nd- 200 RP

                3rd- 150 RP

                4th & 5th - 100 RP

                6th-10th- 75 RP

                11th-25th- 50 RP

 

Don't go introducing more gear to be made with RP - want to include some updated buff packs that are with the times = great (buff packs that support the fields from which the currency to buy them is spawned would be an amazing revelation - titan hunting + GvG friendly packs) - but don't overdo it on the rewards. 

 

New guild medals in same light of ones recently introduced to recognize outstanding achievement on guild scale would be nice perk too..they can in themseves do something small like the current "
Guild Achievements " do - can represent few different catagories - top dogs, top 5, etc. 

 

I think this is good base idea to try.  There is no harm that can come of it in my opinion.  I believe it will create a new buzz in game; and many would be shocked at what doing a little can bring to a dying field. 

 

Thanks for reading; feedback, suggestions, etc ~ Rye

+1



#219 yotwehc

yotwehc

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,942 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 19:57

on the topic of GvG "Farming" (excuse me if this was said already as I only skimmed over the posts) but one of the simplest solutions seems to not award points in an entirely one-sided fight.

 

Attacking a guild that you know will not hit back doesn't sound very GvG to me and only makes GvG scores even more meaningless.  By not rewarding guilds for these kind of fights, it would GREATLY cut down on farming.

 

Granted there would probably be some agreements made between guilds where the farming guild pays the target guild to return one hit but no solution is without it's flaws and these kind of arrangements are sure to be few in comparison.

How about leave awards as is but you get bonus 2x or 3x RP if the defending guild attempts to fight back? This way it's more efficient to battle against fighters vs fleers... just sayin...



#220 Ryebred

Ryebred

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 422 posts

Posted 07 March 2014 - 20:00

How about leave awards as is but you get bonus 2x or 3x RP if the defending guild attempts to fight back? This way it's more efficient to battle against fighters vs fleers... just sayin...

Imagine the RP machine the typical FS exploiters could make out of that one :P  Anytime I think on a fresh idea the first thing I do is imagine how people will try to exploit it. 




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: