Jump to content

Photo

My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)


  • Please log in to reply
228 replies to this topic

#161 markaaron

markaaron

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 13:28

Having spoken with Hoofmaster, we're seriously reconsidering the PvP Ladder system. We're looking to review it, possibly removing it and replacing it with the original PvP system. We think that might help. I personally think the ladder watered PvP down.


By original do you mean the first PvP system in the game where you just had a rating and could be transferred on attacks on any level player?..... Sounds like the best idea in this thread. Or as darvos said just remove the opt in for the ladder.

#162 RageAnger

RageAnger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 13:31

Pretty much everyone who actually pvp's now hates these changes, Is there a completely different group of players who were too scared to pvp before who are just going to start to pvp after everyone else stops? I don't think so. The only thing that was ever done that was good for pvp was the real smasher medal when you could get smash ticks for regular attacks and the non opt in ladder. For a while 10 stam clearing those trying to drop levels kept the bb alive but you quickly got rid of that too. Pvp'ers lose all the votes. Hence pvp is dying. It seems you care about saving levels when there are players who are overflowing with stam waiting for more content. It should be nearly impossible to get to EOC. Not have 50 players that are levels above EOC.



#163 Sithstress

Sithstress

    New Member

  • New Members
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 13:52

Having spoken with Hoofmaster, we're seriously reconsidering the PvP Ladder system. We're looking to review it, possibly removing it and replacing it with the original PvP system. We think that might help. I personally think the ladder watered PvP

 

This is the best scenario for everyone. Go back to what worked well to begin with.



#164 Leos3000

Leos3000

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,031 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 13:55

What ruined the ladder was the opt in system, which ironically was suggested by a pvper and championed by the very people who now think it ruined it... The ladder with no opt in was fine revert it to that form and you're a winner.


This (which is almost the same as reverting back)

Expand the ladders to every 400 levels (1-400, 401-800, etc)

Expand hitting range by 5 each ladder 1-400 can hit people with in 10 levels 401-800 15 levels, 801-1200 hit within 20 levels etc...

Make the resets longer 1-2 weeks so people do not complain about being hit too often.

Make new rewards with new tokens since this is different

#165 Maehdros

Maehdros

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,329 posts
  • Canada

Posted 10 April 2014 - 14:32

One thing you should do with regards to pvp rating, is remove the transfer of it from the board, or at least limit it to only being transferred within a certain level range. In the older top 100 system it actually punished those who did alot of off the board pvp,only to lose all that rating to much higher leveled players clearing bountys, or while offline on the board.

 

In the old system, I witnessed first hand someone having a low level friend hit dozens of players, get bountied, then clear said *friend* for rating to claim #1 spot.Another reason it should be modified or completely removed from the board.

 

I'm all for an increase to a pvp range limit,rewards, and so on. I still stand firm that there shouldnt be a removal of counter bounties from the game. It will Kill any chance we have of reviving pvp in this game.



#166 Mzzery

Mzzery

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 606 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 14:44

One thing you should do with regards to pvp rating, is remove the transfer of it from the board, or at least limit it to only being transferred within a certain level range. In the older top 100 system it actually punished those who did alot of off the board pvp,only to lose all that rating to much higher leveled players clearing bountys, or while offline on the board.

 

In the old system, I witnessed first hand someone having a low level friend hit dozens of players, get bountied, then clear said *friend* for rating to claim #1 spot.Another reason it should be modified or completely removed from the board.

 

I'm all for an increase to a pvp range limit,rewards, and so on. I still stand firm that there shouldnt be a removal of counter bounties from the game. It will Kill any chance we have of reviving pvp in this game.

 

+1



og3DxyP.gif


#167 RebornJedi

RebornJedi

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,449 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 14:48

Having spoken with Hoofmaster, we're seriously reconsidering the PvP Ladder system. We're looking to review it, possibly removing it and replacing it with the original PvP system. We think that might help. I personally think the ladder watered PvP down.

might help what? activity? mechanics?


 


#168 markaaron

markaaron

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 32 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 14:49

One thing you should do with regards to pvp rating, is remove the transfer of it from the board, or at least limit it to only being transferred within a certain level range. In the older top 100 system it actually punished those who did alot of off the board pvp,only to lose all that rating to much higher leveled players clearing bountys, or while offline on the board.

In the old system, I witnessed first hand someone having a low level friend hit dozens of players, get bountied, then clear said *friend* for rating to claim #1 spot.Another reason it should be modified or completely removed from the board.

I'm all for an increase to a pvp range limit,rewards, and so on. I still stand firm that there shouldnt be a removal of counter bounties from the game. It will Kill any chance we have of reviving pvp in this game.



+1 agreed 100%.

#169 Undjuvion

Undjuvion

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,618 posts
  • Australia

Posted 10 April 2014 - 15:45

I seriously don't have time to read the whole thread.. lol.. sorry if I reply to something that's already been addressed, but I'm curious and want to know some things. 

 

I am very much against these suggested changes, and some of the additional changes suggested in the thread. 

 

"If you play and hit now you supposedly risk 5 for every hit and are good with that. In this system you'd have more risk of losing levels, but more people would bounty and more people would bounty hunt -rather than a dead BB you might get one to actually play on. "

 

What do you base that opinion on? To bounty hunt (successfully I might add), you need a LOT of gear. I don't see why this would make people want to invest in 100+ items so they could start bounty hunting. I'd be real interested in hearing what you base this on, since I like knowing how people think :)

 

In my system you lose a bit more XP, and you get your game back, the BB arises as players will Bh who otherwise would never give it a shot. new blood 

 

I disagree. More people might bounty hunt, but there wouldn't be very many bounties to compete for.

 

And why lose 3 instead of 5? 

 

And why try to make people that don't like to pvp start pvping?  It's not the lack of pvpers that keeps the BB dead. Back when I started bounty hunting, there were usually 6+ pages of bounties to clear, at all times. Back then, the ladder wasn't opt-in, so it was more active pvp going on, people didn't ONLY get hit for gold. (on a side-note: I don't think ladder hits should be bountyable, since the ladder IS opt-in, but that's off topic here.)

 

And yeah, why try to make more people pvp? In my experience, a lot of the levellers in the game already think there's too many of us ;) 

 

 

 

"would be if the victim suceeds in ONE attempt WITHIN a ~24~ hour period after being attacked(victorious over their attacker WITH EXCEMPTION of themselves being bountied) they have their xp returned, they get ALL their gold back(which would stay in a loading zone till it was decided who it goes to) and a tick towards a new "honour" medal, would be in my view the best change and although this would be disagreed with heavily that if they fail in winning against the attacker THEN they can opt to post a bounty .... THIS would promote pvp to some or at least the various personalities i picture as willing to participate who probably never would smile.png"

 

... and this part would also kill off pvp very effetively. I know it might sound like a good idea, but let me say this... 

 

If I attack someone for gold, and have to wait 24 hours to get it, AND risk not getting it at all, why would I even bother? My buffs and the stamina I spent buffing up and attacking would have gone down the drain. If I did succeed getting the gold after those 24 hours, I myself would in effect become someone else's target for a gold hit, unless I was online and able to hide the gold. Should I be punished because someone wasn't smart enough to hide their gold? This would be a death sentence to pvp.

 

I appreciate the time people take to consider the bounty board and pvp, but I don't agree at all with these suggestions.

 

If you think about it this way, you might understand a bit better why we pvp:

 

Any game you play where you risk losing nothing, will start to bore you eventually. If you know you will win no matter what you do, what makes you strive to become better at it? What makes you invest time and perhaps money into a game? For me, a game needs a bit of challenge, but I don't wanna jump through 300 different hurdles to MAYBE get what I want. It's all about math really. If I smack someone and get their gold, I am happy. If they can bounty me and take 5, they get happy. On the other hand, if I risk less (just 3 levels instead of 5), why would someone bother bountying me? They'd get less happy. If I had to sit online 24 hours after a gold hit, I might never ever sleep, since I might want to gold hit during those 24 hours too... and have to wait longer... and then find even more targets... and wait another 24 hours... I have a life outside of FS, so I'd never gold-hit again.

 

This whole thing is very frustrating to me. I know one thing that would put some activity back on the BB, and that would be to remove the opt-in on the ladder, and make every single player a target again for ladder-hits. That too has it's problems though, since it's been a while now since it was implemented. A lot of people would get very upset if it was removed. 

 

It's not an easy thing to balance, but I know for sure that the things suggested in this thread WERE implemented, it would make me just up and find something else to do, some other game to play, something with more "game" in it than would be left in FS. 

 

Just my 2 cents :)

 

 

very good points that you had the clarity to see, as much as belaric may have found truth in the decline of the bb i cant say but i try and stay balanced where possible and i saw that his idea would literally leave some pvpers unable to pvp as much as they were thus giving all the new bounty hunters less to do cos seriously how many less donating pvpers can gain back 50 levels a week or second week if they had the want to hit on enough occassions, honestly it would be limiting and then etc etc.

 

edit: 17 hits aint much AND id bet thered be 50+ players thatd love to smack pvpers round with no chance of payback :)


Edited by Undjuvion, 10 April 2014 - 15:59.


#170 Undjuvion

Undjuvion

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,618 posts
  • Australia

Posted 10 April 2014 - 16:16

and on pondering its not the worst idea in some respects if we go by the assumption that you are attacking someone that is unprepared, shouldnt you be yourself staying prepared for when someone might appear to reach for their/your gold, you sway stronger though as waiting 24 hours for your income is a long time to have to hold out :)



#171 Belaric

Belaric

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 16:18

Hello Chazz. Playing the man and not the ball I see - because you cannot refute my arguments you try to go for me and the way I choose to play. Fair enough as a last gasp argument I suppose.

 

 

I've stated my opinions on this forum already on pages 2 ( at the bottom) - through 4 as to why I don't agree with the Topic ideas. Some have said I've made Hyperbolic suggestions which only means that some people didn't like my examples feeling they meaning greatly exaggerated in not realistic.It is because your examples made little sense. Don't invoke the Germans.

 

I have a question for Belaric - in this new system Belaric has argued that this change to PvP and the Bounty Board would entice more people to play the game and encourage PvP in it. <----- This being said in this new system - speaking honestly would you Belaric join the ranks of PvP and steal someone's gold knowing that you will be held accountable and lose three levels?  Be honest with the people here sir - it's clear that you Belaric have no PvP medals and no experience in this field but I wanna know would you take part in this idea of yours?

 

I doubt I would. There you have your "aha! I gotcha! I KNEW it!" moment. I hope you enjoy it.

 

Why not? Because the game environment as it stands is rich enough for me to choose not to play PvP when it systematically disadvantages me to do so (thank god, otherwise I'd have stopped playing years ago), so if it were made fairer, I could play, but I have things I prefer to do.

 

What you singularly and consistently fail to do Chazz, is understand that for some people no level of incentive will make them PvP. I might take bounties - I have in fact completed a bounty, on a friend, as a favour. It was not interesting to me. I have played the ladder when needed for my guild. It was not a thrill.

 

I don't mean you attack someone just once in your lifetime - I mean would you be willing to PvP on a daily basis with this system you are proposing to the community?

 

Frankly why should I? Why should I play your game Chazz, I'm not interested in it! In this thread I have consistently pointed out that what is needed is balance in the system - it currently entirely favours the PvP player. Just balancing the system does not mean I, or anyone else would have to join in, but make it much more likely some will. In fact there have been people saying as much when BG suggested the idea of taking away CB. People posted saying it would make them interested in PvP - right there are your new players - you do not have to cajole me into playing also. This is again more of your idea that everyone should find PvP exciting and desirable. It isn't going to be for everyone. Just as folk think mashing a titan for hours is like watching wallpaper dry, so is waiting for the time between allowed hits on the BB. And some people derive no satisfaction in stealing someone else's gold and would rather not steal someone else's effort, but expend their own. Some people do not seek out conflict - indeed would rather avoid it if they could. Why do you seem incapable of inserting yourself into that worldview?

 

I suspect your answer to be a very strong No but if so keep in mind it sincerely should be a strong YES if you are so noble should it not?If I am so noble - some sort of dig at me, Chazz? Whatever. It should NOT be a strong yes as I explained above. There is NO reason ,even under a fair and balanced system - for EVERYONE to WANT or even desire to play it. You are attacking me personally, my choices in the game, in order to discredit my ideas in order to defend a bankrupt status quo that is to you and your community's benefit. You don't want to lose your WIN. Your argument does not make much sense as my participation or lack of it in my own system in no way invalidates it. And again - it will be no more inactive than the current dead system. You never answer why you like the current system as it is - and silence is an increasingly loud reply - because in the current system your team almost always wins. Congratulations.

 

I feel differently than Belaric - I've explained many times how PvP ( in it's current state while lacking at the moment has great potential)  PvP keeps people playing - it keeps them " Active - Online " PvP supports the AH and the Buff Market.And I've always thought that was utterly bogus - thanks for raising it again so I can give my side the PvP economic argument.

You pour gold into buffs, and potions, you buy gear and participate in the economic activity of the game. Fair enough, but where do you get your wealth? 3 Places - other people, donating, or hunting like everyone else. The hunting can be ignored as that is the same for everyone. Other people. You STEAL your gold. Not only what - of what you steal a large amount is sunk out of the game - it cannot contribute to the economy or change hands any longer. So if the gold stayed in the hands of the original player who had it - there would be MORE gold in the system, and potentialy MORE economic activity. Now before you say - well the gold sink helps the economy too, let me remind you that your side is arguing that hardly any gold hits are happening anymore, and that is why the BB is dead. So the gold sink is negligible by your argument currently. Once, back in the day it was an important part of the game economy, but as billybob pointed out, there are a lot more gold sinks in the game now. Or are you finally willing to admit that you are still actively gold hitting and you therefore do contribute to the economy - but to do that you must admit you are hitting off the board and not even being bountied - which reinforces my basic points about the BB being broken and systematically advantaging the PvP player. Which is it to be, Chazz?

 

The PvP players are big donators (apparently - HCS has the actual data) - is it enough to offset the players that leave the game due to PvP activity, or do you have the sand to try to argue that does not happen? One PvP player with 2000 stam in a PvP guild, with no upgrades to his stam gain beyond what he gained from the initial epic quests can conservatively choose to 100 stam 10-15 times a day - assuming he rebuffs sometimes when he does not get buffs from his guildies. Of course he can buy buffs with the gold he steals as he goes along. No stam waste there. That is one player adversely - negatively effecting up to 15 other players EVERY DAY. Or one poor player multiple times. Multiply that by the number of PvP players in game. Multiply up for the duration of the game. That is a lot of negative consequence doled out to other players, who may have little interest in playing PvP, and who may decide, that as they cannot get any redress for these hits via the BB that they may as well quit. Do PvP donators make up for that possible loss of revenue? I seriously doubt that - but it is for HCS to decide. They can look at player accounts and see if folk who left suffered significant PvP activity in the week or days before they went inactive - that would give a crude measure of how much PvP activity costs the game in player numbers. And some of these are not low level, they have donated and would have continued to donate. So don't try to tell me about PvP's positive economic impact, at the very best it might be a wash, more likely stolen gold shrinks economic impact, and PvP donations do not make up for the players lost from the game.

 

One thing I will say - in the early years of the game PvP was very important as a gold sink - there were not as many others then. Composing is now a huge sink in game, and it is recent. And in the early years of the game everyone was low level. online numbers were high - PvP was much more widespread. This is the golden era some folk keep casting back to. It was only sustainable because of the high numbers of people coming into the game to offset the numbers leaving - because the game was new, big advertising, lots of word of mouth - so it looked like everything was hunky dory. As the game has matured, numbers have dropped - both sides have said that it has dropped further around changes to PvP. PvP is the common thread to arguments about numbers dropping. PvP players have walked away too, but PvP players are the MINORITY in this game. The proof? The BB again helps me out - if the majority of players in this game played PvP the BB would not be dead. They'd be on it trading hits. The supposed majority would still be playing their game. The incoming number of players no longer matches or exceeds the numbers going out, and because the new players are so far behind the top in terms of gold gain etc, their initial economic contribution is tiny and does not yet make up for higher level players driven out. PvP is not the only reason people leave - they get bored, the achieve their objectives, a new game comes along that excites them more, but PvP is the ONLY in game activity that can actively contribute to player loss. And, stam tick for stam tick as I demonstrated above, one PvP player can adversely effect far more players than he benefits. So not only have you killed your own game, as I have argued upthread, but you may be helping to kill the entire game. How's that for hyperbole, except it isn't because it is grounded in a clear sequence of facts. Unless you'd like to deny one PvP player can hit multiple targets in 15 minutes, and potentially eradicate WEEKS of accumulated stam those players had waited to regenerate before hunting? I say potentially as the target should hide their gold as they go - but the principle remains. A small number of PvP players can effectively hurt and damage multiple other players' characters. And that is ignoring low level PvP multis who funnel gold from newbs to other accounts. Newbs are the most likely to give up and go elsewhere, why stick around for the hassle when there are other games? A lot of donations lost there. New players have not yet developed any emotional attachment to this particular game, so don't need much negative action to decide to leave. But I'm sure no honourable PvP player would think of doing that. I have been told, by vastilos no less, that gold hunting/farming from other players is most profitable at low levels. And low levels is where the game is weakest and needs most protection.

<------ I've advocated in prior and previous threads / topics  for expanding these areas of the game. It's my feeling that if everyone was well versed and new how to PvP where they would be able to capitalize here and there with the current system more would take part in this which would lead to a healthy bounty board - also a very active community of people.And my system provides a way for more people to become well versed in PvP. You just have to give up the advantage that you currently enjoy. Most of which is embodied in the counter bounty, as I have shown upthread. I'm actually on your side here - if PvP is demystified, and if players feel that they can get recompense for being hit, they won't quit in frustration. The game thrives. Again - please try to argue that PvP does not lead people to leaving the game. And please don't try the "isolated incidents" or "bad apples" argument. When it suits you you all reap the benefits of the system you currently enjoy, dead BB and all. Therefore you all need to bear responsibility for the negative effects of player loss.

 

I don't feel that turning fallen sword into a Sigma Storm will help.Thanks Chazz - you are the gift that keeps in giving, this is yet another holy cow of PvP argument that falls flat on its face and has not been suitably shown up for the idiocy it is. Sigma Storm did not fail because of its PvP system - though that fits your narrative very nicely, and it was an imperfect system and certainly may have contributed. If this game fails will you accept that PvP contributed to its failure - or will you continue to claim that PvP is the solution to all the game's woes, if you can just make everyone join in?  It failed because of the god awful mission system being tied to gaining skill points. The story lines were better, but the endless grind of blue prints and inventing missions got unbearably tedious. That was a disincentive to play if you PvP'd or not in that game. It made the game repetitive and rote, and you HAD to do the missions or you could not improve your character, they were not optional if you wanted to progress. People here complain about them here if too many invent quests show up. So NO - Sigma Storm's failure was not all about PvP. It is a false analogy. I'd like it if you stopped trying to use it.   I could be wrong about this just as I could be wrong about Belaric willing to join the PvP community. Yes, very unlikely that I am wrong on either account but it's possible. There are numerous threads / topics up at this very minute that support PvP - support the community - ideas that positively help and encourage PvP through out the game, I may not feel this is one or one of the best - however that's just my opinion.

 

So Belaric if you are not willing to join the PvP community now or even with your new idea - my question is why should any of us? Because, my friend - you like that style of play and want to see it survive in the game. It is in your blood, so I'm told. I've told you I wouldn't be one of the people you will see there....You threaten to leave. Again. I'm out of patience with that also. Go on and leave. Your community is a minority - you are the tail that seeks to wag the dog. If you all left the game numbers would drop, but it would not die. If you all left no-one would be forced from the game by PvP anymore and so new walk ins would be welcomed and find a rich game world to explore and many activities to do. If you all left time and energy expended by HCS trying to solve this problem could be used revamping other areas of the game like the arena - where people do actually fight and compete on a level playing field, unlike in PvP where the initial aggressor - the PvP player -  has all the advantage. If you all left GvG could get some love and be revamped according to Rye's very good ideas and people could enjoy the mechanics of beating people in their level range with active buffs and gear on but without any of the negative effects of PvP. PvP gear would not go to waste. So yeah, I'm not sweating on it if you decide to leave. It is you staying and the game continuing as it is that has me worried.   Also Belaric if you are unwilling to 100 stam people and go to the bounty board to lose your level what makes you think anyone else would just curious? For the 'fun' you talk about in the game? The challenge that has been so often spoken of? Or the gold and the increased gold rewards? For the medals you might get? Because it is what you as PvP players have always done - but it is now clear you have done it while avoiding risk and losing as few levels as possible. <---- Does this sound very motivating and positive for the game ? Funny. I think cleardawn provided you with the answer earlier in this thread when she said PvP players were prepared to lose XP in order to play their game. It seems I have revealed that you don't really want to.If you did it would be positive for the game - there would be more activity - you just don't want to play because you might have to work a bit harder at maintaining tour level. I'll talk about that more below. Sounds like we are talking about killing pvp or making it punishable by the max and than hopping more will join due to this idea - but it was and is my belief we've lost more people due to PvP being nerf'd. We lose more people by PvP existing as it does - don't try to claim victim status when your game style victimises others. It is disingenuous to the extreme.

 

 

- Chazz

This is my only post today as I think it clearly enough demonstrates the weakness of the current system. Again. And thanks to Chazz I have had the opportunity to present counter arguments to often presented pvp beliefs that I believe are bogus and not relevant to any discussion of PvP in game.

 

Mzz I see your posts. I'll get to them later. This has not been a quick post. I think may have answered or answered by implication some of your questions in this post anyway.

 

The concern exists in another post that the level loss would be severe enough to cause you to have to wait to regain your levels, and would cause problems in keeping up with gear. You imagine you'll be smacked down to level 1. I like that you can see that much activity!! How cool is that - you by admitting that possibility - allow the fact that my system WOULD stimulate PvP - how else could you lose your levels if it were not more active? Thanks for the support!!!

 

May I point out that this level loss is entirely within the PvP player's control? You CHOOSE when yo hit, you therefore CHOOSE how much risk to expose yourself to in my system - which is demonstrably higher than the low level risk you currently are exposed to for every gold hit. If you do not want to lose too many levels - don't hit as often. Rotate in and out - make tactical decisions about how to use your stam - you know - play the game as it is supposed to be played. As it stands PvP players often have wide ranges in which they can operate very effectively with highly superior gear to the average hunter moving through. If you go below your VL and eventually drop out of your gear range - if your character is still standing in your VL realm - you get to regain your levels for very little stam versus someone levelling through for the first time. Therefore it will not take you long to get back to your position. Far less time than it would take the person you are hitting, who is hunting through it for the first time. Abuse of this mechanism allows 'bad apples' to follow after targets for many many levels hitting them. Of course it is always someone else doing that isn't it? Never the honourable PvPer. Anyway, that dig aside - the PvP player can play a range - have excellent gear 10-100 levels below his VL that allows him to defeat most targets, and can regain those levels very fast due to the VL loophole. It therefore doesn't look too tricky to allocate resources so you can continue to do what you say you enjoy - hit other players, and then dance on the BB as a result. Yep you might lose levels - if the targets can pay to make you lose 3 every time you'll still need to be bountied 4 times to drop out of a 10 level target range. depending on your VL and your stam that could be very easy to regain. Is that so hard to live with? Really? The ball is in your court - you get ways to play this system, if you would just let go of the advantages you have in CB.

 

Or don't and keep going as we are. Dead BB, dwindling numbers, moribund game.

 

I'll be honest - I have hardened my stance as this conversation has gone on because all I see are people defending their in game advantage and are unwilling to relinquish it for the overall health of the game. This is the short hand/summary of my position. Why is all explained upthread if you choose to look.

 

Choice and Risk are one sided - they favour the PvPer every time. CB is entirely under the control of the PvP team - you always get to use it first.  Its use has driven away players from PvP and the BB in particular as they quickly learn they will always lose to the PvP team, and lose more levels than they inflict - it makes no rational sense to continue competing in an arena where you will be outnumbered most of the time. Gold is not free or if it is, then so are your levels, stop trying to protect them. If no harm is done by stealing 'free' gold, then no harm is done by losing 'free' levels. Let's put the free gold argument to bed. The PvP economic contribution is wildly overstated and may be negative given PvP's unarguable potential for actively driving players from the game. We can argue about the exact numbers and we don't know them - but I've put an idea out there for HCS to investigate and get objective evidence - just as I did about gold hits vs BB activity. Sigmastorm has no relevance to these discussions - the system was utterly different as were the reasons for its failure. The PvP community is a powerful minority in this game, but a minority nonetheless - if it was in the majority the BB would not be dead - don't threaten us with your exit. For all you know you'd help the game survive long term if you did leave.

 

Once again - thank you everyone for reading.


Good-bye and hello, as always.


#172 Undjuvion

Undjuvion

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,618 posts
  • Australia

Posted 10 April 2014 - 16:31

belaric how often do you buy keyboards? or can you remember which key is which after the letters fade? :P



#173 Gutie

Gutie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 475 posts
  • Badge

Posted 10 April 2014 - 16:55

Having spoken with Hoofmaster, we're seriously reconsidering the PvP Ladder system. We're looking to review it, possibly removing it and replacing it with the original PvP system. We think that might help. I personally think the ladder watered PvP down.

If it's the PvP system from 2009 when I started out with the old pvp rating quest and the like........

 

The cows HAVE come home :D (Sorry I couldn't resist BG)

 

In all seriousness, I remember ENJOYING PvP under the old system.... and as someone who got the bulk of my smasher hits hitting for guild mates on the board from time to time, I think it'd be great to have that sort of system again.

 

By default people who lose their rating and drop below 1,000 under that system we're rarely messed with unless they had a crap ton of gold on ahnd anyhow..... Also, the simple fact that this would likely bring back some players who "quit" if they catach wind of it merely out of interest/curiosity if nothing else....

 

If anything else needs to be changed though I think having an incentive to net more pvp prestige points might be worthwhile. Change the tokens to equivalent amount of pvp prestige and make token items able to be purchased via prestige.... maybe increase the cap to the increase in xp from 10% a bit, OR drastically increase the amount of time pvp prestige gives after 10% is reached in xp bonus. This would also cause people who hit for rating to be more frequent, and thus irritable players would bounty more as well most likely, increasing BB as well.


GutieGGtsig_zps678d4c8f.png

 

 

Are you active? Enjoy playing FS for fun and striving for lofty goals? Looking to join a guild that invests in itself and seeks to improve and grow in all aspects of the game?

 

Secret Alliance can be your home in FS! We are looking for active, motivated and driven players who have a passion and genuine enjoyment of FS to join us as we continue to rise towards the TOP! If interested feel free to send me a PM.

 

SA is also looking for one or two guild mergers INTO SA. Feel free to ask for details.


#174 Belaric

Belaric

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 858 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 17:41

I seriously don't have time to read the whole thread.. lol.. sorry if I reply to something that's already been addressed, but I'm curious and want to know some things. 

 

I am very much against these suggested changes, and some of the additional changes suggested in the thread. 

 

"If you play and hit now you supposedly risk 5 for every hit and are good with that. In this system you'd have more risk of losing levels, but more people would bounty and more people would bounty hunt -rather than a dead BB you might get one to actually play on. "

 

What do you base that opinion on? It is explained upthread. Repeatedly. In short - the dead BB. Players won't use it because they have no faith in it, BH won't BH because they get punished to hard for it, delevel parties get counter hit and so the initial victims side always loses more than the PvP side. This is all explained at length upthread. It is why I took so long to explain it.  To bounty hunt (successfully I might add), you need a LOT of gear. I don't see why this would make people want to invest in 100+ items so they could start bounty hunting. They can try it first - find their gear is insufficient and upgrade as required - without being counter bountied for their troubles. More people trying is good. let them find out if the gear requirements are too much. Maybe what they have is fine, depending on who they target. I'd be real interested in hearing what you base this on, since I like knowing how people think :)I'm sorry Mzz - it is all in this thread. read it and you will know what I think! I don't think anyone else wants me to do an detailed rewrite!

 

In my system you lose a bit more XP, and you get your game back, the BB arises as players will Bh who otherwise would never give it a shot. new blood 

 

I disagree. More people might bounty hunt, but there wouldn't be very many bounties to compete for. Mzz - there are none now. What is the loss? What is so great about how the BB is functioning now? Where are the bounties to compete for now? This is what I do not understand about folk defending the current system. It is clearly not working.

 

And why lose 3 instead of 5? Explained upthread. Because you would get punished more often, so i dropped the max level loss.

 

And why try to make people that don't like to pvp start pvping?  LMAO!! OH - THANK YOU! Tell that to Chazz please! It's not the lack of pvpers that keeps the BB dead. What is it then? And what are the PvPers doing if they are not on the board? Nobody else cares to answer that question - maybe you will.  Back when I started bounty hunting, there were usually 6+ pages of bounties to clear, at all times. Back then, the ladder wasn't opt-in, so it was more active pvp going on, people didn't ONLY get hit for gold. Nope - there is this concept of hitting for fun, or for competition, but that is not what the BB was designed for - it was designed to punish folk who hit other players, if the player hit felt suitably aggrieved. Posting people on the BB was once part of the advertising blurb for this game, I am sure. Been changed since I think.  (on a side-note: I don't think ladder hits should be bountyable, since the ladder IS opt-in, but that's off topic here.)

 

And yeah, why try to make more people pvp? In my experience, a lot of the levellers in the game already think there's too many of us ;) I'm not trying to MAKE anyone Pvp - my system provides more OPPORTUNITIES to PvP. People would still have the choice - I think they would - and people on another post said they would - if CB went away people who don't currently PvP said they would be interested in Bounty Hunting. They posted it, so they meant it, I assume. No making anyone there, just opening up the game for more.

 

 

 

"would be if the victim suceeds in ONE attempt WITHIN a ~24~ hour period after being attacked(victorious over their attacker WITH EXCEMPTION of themselves being bountied) they have their xp returned, they get ALL their gold back(which would stay in a loading zone till it was decided who it goes to) and a tick towards a new "honour" medal, would be in my view the best change and although this would be disagreed with heavily that if they fail in winning against the attacker THEN they can opt to post a bounty .... THIS would promote pvp to some or at least the various personalities i picture as willing to participate who probably never would smile.png"

 

... and this part would also kill off pvp very effetively. I know it might sound like a good idea, but let me say this... 

 

If I attack someone for gold, and have to wait 24 hours to get it, AND risk not getting it at all, why would I even bother? My buffs and the stamina I spent buffing up and attacking would have gone down the drain. If I did succeed getting the gold after those 24 hours, I myself would in effect become someone else's target for a gold hit, unless I was online and able to hide the gold. Should I be punished because someone wasn't smart enough to hide their gold? This would be a death sentence to pvp. That was undjuvion's concept I think. Not mine. I'm not going to comment there.

 

I appreciate the time people take to consider the bounty board and pvp, but I don't agree at all with these suggestions.

 

If you think about it this way, you might understand a bit better why we pvp:

 

Any game you play where you risk losing nothing, will start to bore you eventually. Disagree. Some people just like building stuff. They don't need it to be knocked down to value it. They also like competition, but to win you don't have to harm your opponent. Racing levels, beating people in the arena, #1in game, gold hoarding, winning GvG, top 100/3 in globals are all competitions and people like winning them - none involve having to hurt anyone else. Risk of losing something is not essential to make people compete. If you know you will win no matter what you do, what makes you strive to become better at it? Being better in and of itself? Winning arenas more often? Recognition in being the first to get a medal? There are loads of reasons  to become better that do not involve negativity. What makes you invest time and perhaps money into a game? Mzz - I invested my time and money just to gain levels. I liked it. I'm a simple soul. You may be wired differently and need more blood and thunder to get you going, and that is cool. I'm not denying you that choice - in fact my system gives you loads of opportunity to spill blood for you cause and lose things in order to win. For me, a game needs a bit of challenge, but I don't wanna jump through 300 different hurdles to MAYBE get what I want. It's all about math really. If I smack someone and get their gold, I am happy. If they can bounty me and take 5, they get happy. This is not a common occurrence on the BB as it exists now. As I explained upthread. The risk of losing 5 is minimal to you given how the Bb has reduced competition in that space. Few post, few hunt, fewer still delevel. If they do they get hit back harder than they can sustain. Risking 5 is a myth most of the time. It is a convenient one, but a myth nonetheless. On the other hand, if I risk less (just 3 levels instead of 5), why would someone bother bountying me? Because unlike in the current system where few people will have the balls to take you on and drop you 5 as the bounty poster wishes, in my system, with the punishment set by the victim, and the BH immune from CB - the victim will get what they want - redress. They will get happy as you say because they will know you can be punished. You get your happy from the gold hit - they get their happy from the effective bounty. Everybody wins. As it stands people don't post because they know either the bounty will be soft cleared by friends of the hitter or by a compliant BH who does not want to be CB'ds will soft clear with 10's. If cleared at all. As explained upthread. They'd get less happy. See preceding green blurb for why thet'd be more happy - they get reliable compensation - IF they are willing to pay for it. If they get what they pay for, they will be happy and use the system again. The PvP players gets their happy from the hit and the gold, the attacked person gets their happy from actual punishment administered (and you still might avoid that on the board - it is not guaranteed), not a slap on the wrist. If both sides feel they are getting value from this arrangement - both will use it. That is the key. PvP will be used more often, and players will be more comfortable and accepting of it within the game milieu. In fantasy land. But this is a fantasy game....If I had to sit online 24 hours after a gold hit, I might never ever sleep, since I might want to gold hit during those 24 hours too... and have to wait longer... and then find even more targets... and wait another 24 hours... I have a life outside of FS, so I'd never gold-hit again. the waiting 24 hours thing was not mine - no comment.

 

This whole thing is very frustrating to me. I know one thing that would put some activity back on the BB, and that would be to remove the opt-in on the ladder, and make every single player a target again for ladder-hits. That too has it's problems though, since it's been a while now since it was implemented. A lot of people would get very upset if it was removed. BG has mentioned ladder adjustment. Maybe they'll go away and we'll go open again with open rating. That would not bother me at all. Dominance medal can be sorted out this time. CB on the BB ensuring unfair advantage (albeit legally gained through a legal game mechanic) to PvP guilds will still stop people from participating on the BB even if the ladders go away, as they see no derivable benefit from it. As I have said before.

 

It's not an easy thing to balance, I agree, but I know for sure that the things suggested in this thread WERE implemented, it would make me just up and find something else to do, some other game to play, something with more "game" in it than would be left in FS. And you are entitled to that choice. I believe you'd get more opportunity to fight on the BB, not less, I believe your game would become more active. But it is just a theory. 

 

Just my 2 cents :)

 

Thank you for those. I appreciate your thoughts. I hope I have explained at least some of mine well enough for you.

 

Now I am done. I felt I should give Mzz her reply. Have a great day everyone!


Edited by Belaric, 10 April 2014 - 17:48.

Good-bye and hello, as always.


#175 RageAnger

RageAnger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 20:22

This is a hugely long post. As an OP I believe that is justified. There is repetition involved because it is so long and I want to remind people of key points that may be lost earlier in the wash. DeadParrot – I’m really sorry.

 

We are all FS players. I do actually believe in the whole community. I use PvP players here as an unfortunate short hand. I do not seek to divide – if my ideas are horrifying to you, rest easy knowing they are in no danger of being implemented, Um yeah they are but since they occurred to me I have been unable to do much else but think on them and so must post this for the sake of my own sanity and productivity.

 

The core of these ideas is consistency and removal of ambiguity – make the rules clear for everyone. No more unwritten codes. We want consistency from HCS – we should expect it from each other. I also believe it will promote PvP activity lol – not your grandfather’s PvP – but meaningful PvP that will be a valuable part of the game’s ecosystem, that everyone will understand and not be in fear of. No more bogey-men.

 

I have a 4 point plan for the Bounty Board (BB).

 

Before we get started I’d like to say I think – after discussions today with guys on the forum - that the Thievery and Master Thief enhancements should be enhanced. I can’t lie – this system will increase punishment on PvP players – I know you guys can take it, because it will mean more PvP activity across the board Why do you assume more punishment will = more activity, that doesn't make sense – but I believe that if you do get punished more then your chances of earning gold before you get punished should be increased. If no-one PvP’s the system remains as dead as it is now. I agree that you need more incentive.

 

Back to my 4 point plan.  

 

1) The victim of an attack sets the punishment required.

 

2) The bounty hunter (BH) cannot in any circumstance be bountied. Don’t freak out before reading on – I think this can turn into a good thing.

 

3) Guildmates can clear each other’s bounties.

 

4) Two new Top 250's for PvP are created: An Outlaw Top 250 is created to track those players who have lost the most levels on the bounty board, and a Lawless Top 250 to track those who evaded the posse of Bounty Hunters and survived on the board for a set period of time, initial suggestion being one week. Additionally Outlaw and Lawless medals could be created in addition to the top 250s.

 

Please bear with me and hear out why I think these may actually be good ideas for PvP and the community at large.

 

Bear in mind I do not PvP and if you want you can completely ignore my ideas on that basis. I’ll not be offended in the slightest.

 

I will go through each point in turn and expand on it to explain how it might work and my thinking behind it and why it might be beneficial.

 

 

1) The victim of an attack sets the punishment required.

This is the core of my imaginary system. Currently among players who do not PvP, or who have been exposed to it as victims of attack there is a prevailing feeling that the BB does not provide adequate redress. There is no victims in pvp there is only fallensword and fallensowrd involves pvp. When I play basketball and someone scores on me I don't start accusing him of making me a victim, it's just the game They have no faith in the current system. Across numerous threads this scenario is painted: The victim is hit and loses gold, and then is made victim again by paying for a bounty only to see the bountied player soft cleared by her friends. The victim loses twice. So hide your gold and if you can't you should'nt, how the hell is there supposed to be gold hits with no gold

 

I am not here to hash that argument out again. I am not here to point fingers. This is my perception based on what I have seen in game and in this forum over the years I have been playing. The scenario above is reality in the minds of many players. People feel powerless in the face of attack. They do not want to hit back and risk being placed on the bounty board themselves. They are not able or do not want to put a delevel party together and risk everyone in the delevel party being put on the BB for their pains. They do not trust the board to provide realistic punishment. The end result is they do not post the bounty at all. The PvP ecosystem shrinks. The BB remains dead. If the victim sets the punishment, they feel empowered, If the person getting hit sets the punishment people won't get hit anymore so there won't be more pvp there will be none as far as gold hits go. No one will trade 3 million gold for 3 levels 3 million gold is what you would get if a person is carrying 6 million gold (which never happens) if theivery is increased a lot, like 300% they have a sense of control, they have an increased chance of seeing the punishment they want actually carried out. They are more likely to post bounties. The PvP ecosystem expands.

 

How do I propose this works?

 

 The injured party will pay for the damage they desire to be wrought upon their attacker, the more damage desired, the higher the fee.So players that don't donate or who are new and poor might not be able to even afford to place bounties? The exact scale can be determined if this idea got enough support to warrant it. Currently a fee is levied - this would be similar but slide up as more retribution is required. This fee is paid to the BH who completes the highest % of the required damage to the outlaw placed on the board, which will encourage competition among BH’s. Unless it's a delevel party experienced bounty hunters don't start a bounty already started Retribution would be capped at 3 levels initially. This is a radical departure from how it currently works. In one step this removes the ambiguity of BB etiquette, 10 stam vs. 100 stam hits, late bounty hits etc., as the punishment is set as required by the original victim, and must be fulfilled for the bounty to be completed. The bounty does not expire until the target damage is met, or a week passes – if an outlaw can defend him or herself that long So I can't just clear a bounty anymore? I'm supposed to set aside enough time or stam to make it a huge event?– kudos. If 3 levels are required as punishment, then it is 3 levels that are lost. The victim gets the redress they can pay for. Why 3 levels max? Because currently 5 levels are risked, but that risk I believe is not consistently delivered. If this system does succeed in promoting more bounties and more regular punishments, those punishments need not be as harsh. 3 levels/bounty still means that if a player was harassing another in game with constant hits he or she could still be more effectively dropped out of range than currently. You already lose double the xp you take for 100 stam, DOUBLE that seems right to me, and that's a one person 10 stam clear.

 

 

2) The bounty hunter (BH) cannot in any circumstance be bountied.

We already voted on this and the idea lost BY A LOT, but I'll read on

This is almost as important as #1. This will encourage people who have not or will not PvP to try it as BH’s. This encourages little baby pvp with no risk and it's an insult to the smasher medal. The protection is key to making that happen. On the recent thread which suggested no more bountys on the BH there were a few comments indicating that if this were the case people would take up BHing. There won't be bounties, no bounties from the ladder, no gold hits because of automatic 3 levels lost and no counter bounties. + were not bringing back the smasher medal the way it was before so no random hits to get a smasher medal. This is more people trying PvP. This is an expansion of the PvP ecosystem, not a contraction. You're so wrong I believe another reason the BB is dead is because BH’s have been punished heavily for doing their jobs in the past. So in game now we have on one hand a disaffected game population not bothering to post bounties because they don’t see the point, and on the other hand there are few people prepared to take on bounties as they risk being delevelled themselves as a result. It is a recipe for inactivity. The proof appears to be on the BB daily. Bring back the old smasher medal, leave the ladder non opt in and bountyable and change back that thing that was done where eoc players were trying to be deleveled so they could kill the same champ in one spot a million times and the bounty board will explode with bounties. People still post bounties I know because I clear most of them. The problem is that one group of players pvp's well as a team and a familly and no one else does so they always lose more level then they take.

 

In this imaginary system BH’s cannot be driven off the board by counter bounties and delevelling. I believe this practice is why we do not see much in the way of independent BH’s nowadays. They are the agents of justice and as such should be protected. And again this helps to remove any unwritten rules about when and why a certain BH can be bountied and another not. An active BH population will also increase the incentive to bounty hits which currently go unanswered.

Those who enjoy bounty hunting do, those who don't care for it don't. I don't beleive there a bunch of players who wish they could bounty hunt but they don't because they are scared of counter bounties. No one counter bounties a 10 stam clear.

If your guild or friends won't back you up for being smashed for no reason (again barely happens) it's not a problem with the game works.

 

What will happen? Where is the risk going in PvP here? It is going away for BH’s sure – but in return our hardcore PvP population actually get to dance on the BB again. Do you guys really think the first inexperienced noob BH’s will be able to take you out? If I have to stay buffed for 48 hours or a week hell yes. And if they suck and give up, why do you need to punish them further by bountying them for quitting? You have already beaten them and demonstrated your skill – which seems to me to be the point in PvP – the defeat of an active human opponent. This system increases the chance you’ll go up against them when they are hunting you. At first new BH’s will suck – but will learn the hard way at your hands, and may be tempted to switch codes! We may have two types of PvP player – the BH and the outlaw, who can switch roles when they want. Currently risk for every hit has led to a situation where experienced PvP players tell me the practice is not profitable for them, and the BB is dead in the water. Risk for all has led to inactivity and boredom for most – people are drifting away from the game. It may be time to pick your poison. A more active BB will give more opportunity for profit (depending on the imaginary pay structure – and why get into the minutiae of that if the system as a whole meets no approval here?), and more importantly increased PvP activity with new participants.

 

3) Guildmates can clear each other’s bounties.

Like that idea, I also think its would be fun and funny to be able to hit guildmates on the ladder and steal their gold.The restriction can be dropped as the possibility of ‘soft clears’ is removed – the victim is in charge of the punishment, the hunter cannot be bountied, so guildmates can now clear each others’ bounties as they must perform the bounty punishment as set forth by the injured party.

 

Also in a game which has sadly got smaller this removes the need to have a network of allies – many of which may have retired. Your guildies can handle your business, if they can beat other BH’s to it!

  

4) Two new Top 250s for PvP are created: An Outlaw Top 250 is created to track those players who have lost the most levels on the bounty board, and a Lawless Top 250 to track those who evaded the posse of Bounty hunters and survived on the board for a set period of time, initial suggestion being one week.

 

Don't really care, find it pointless

 

PvP players get two top 250's (and possibly medals too) – one to show their battle scars and see who has taken the most risks and received the most punishment in their cause, the other to show PvP skill in evading punishment and being untouchable. Hence Outlaw vs Lawless. Guildmates and allies cannot post each other to the BB. This will reduce but not eliminate abuse. The fact that you have to lose levels on the Outlaw ladder should also limit abuse – even PvP players have limits to the ranges they want to drop from.

 

 

 

I think these ideas make the BB system clear and consistent. If you take the risk of stealing from another player then you can and will be bountied and made to pay for it. There are no unwritten rules or customs to follow – the person hit says how much retribution they want, and the bounty hunter who administers the punishment is free from counter bounty to encourage more participation on the board.

 

This system gives you more bounties, more players playing PvP, initially perhaps as BH’s but later they may become poachers rather than gamekeepers, and more rewards in the system via bounties. Hopefully Thievery and Master Thief enhancements can be upped to make the increased risk of retribution worth it for the PvP player. If more people play on the BB then more may become interested in the ladder. And by making the victims part of the process by having them set the punishment you remove the lingering sense of disenfranchisement that exists in those players who do not want to PvP and who feel helpless when attacked. This way they control what happens to their attacker. If the attacker can stay free for a week you have to hold your hand up and say well done. Removing ambiguity and unwritten codes of behaviour from the BB also demystifies the board – what we understand we need not fear. The whole community could become more comfortable with PvP. I’m a dreamer.

 

The BH medal – you would get a tick towards that not for completing the bounty as is done currently – but for doing the largest % of the desired damage to the outlaw on the board. This means competition will be had to clear the bounty and get the most damage done. Again – more people getting involved, as if you don’t make the BH tick, you’ll still get some Smasher ticks in. Will this devalue the Smasher medal? I don’t think so, but if you do – see my points on the Guild medals thread. If a titan scenario occurs where a player does 51% (if possible) and stops, then no payout is made if the full punishment is not completed – so if one BH does 51% of the damage and stops, but the outlaw survives for the rest of the week his bounty is active, then the 51% BH gets nothing. It pays to finish the job.

 

PvP ranges could be expanded if it is shown that outlaws are dropping levels rapidly and are not as capable of staying in a certain level range. The proof of that would be in the pudding – how it plays out.

 

The core of this is: have the victim set the punishment, and the BH be free of counter bounty. PvP players get more people to play with and places to be recognised, non-PvP players have some faith in the BB restored and so use it more often. More gold and FSP exchange hands via the BB. A virtuous cycle.

 

I know I have been talking about the need to present simple ideas to the Cows and then I vomit out this huge game altering plan. The idea would not let go. I’m sharing it.

 

Feel free to point out abuses/exploits. Feel free to point out why it might be unworkable. Feel free to cherry pick good sections from bad if you find some ideas more appealing. If you hate it all I’m cool with that too. Remember I don’t work for HCS and this is not on the roadmap so there is no danger of this becoming real unless everyone thought this was the best thing since sliced bread and agitated for this change to HCS (a sequence of events HIGHLY unlikely), and even then they might not do it anyway, so keep that blood pressure down! LOL!

 

Thanks for reading.



#176 RageAnger

RageAnger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 21:35

This is what I propose because I am so confident Belaric's plan will backfire. Let's try it for a week and see if the bounty board is active. No ladder bounties, Automatic 3 levels lost per bounty, and whatever else he said. In the next week let's do it the old way, Ladder bounties option and no opt in, Yhe smasher medal the way it was before and the eoc superstars as sweetlou calls them can sit on their champs and get deleveld and we will see what has a more active bounty board and then leave it that way.

 

In my opinion I think Mr. Grim does want to encourage more pvp but the way he is encouraging is actually discouraging it. Maybe it's my opinion but I think history speaks for itself.



#177 Pardoux

Pardoux

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,119 posts
  • Australia

Posted 10 April 2014 - 21:56

This is what I propose because I am so confident Belaric's plan will backfire. Let's try it for a week and see if the bounty board is active. No ladder bounties, Automatic 3 levels lost per bounty, and whatever else he said. In the next week let's do it the old way, Ladder bounties option and no opt in, Yhe smasher medal the way it was before and the eoc superstars as sweetlou calls them can sit on their champs and get deleveld and we will see what has a more active bounty board and then leave it that way.

 

In my opinion I think Mr. Grim does want to encourage more pvp but the way he is encouraging is actually discouraging it. Maybe it's my opinion but I think history speaks for itself.

 

Just as an FYI, Belaric didn't suggest an automatic 3 level loss - he suggested a sliding scale, where the person attacked could set the punishment. The harsher the punishment, the more expensive it became ...


Homer : Marge, don't discourage the boy. Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals .. except the weasel.

 

Eddie Izzard : The National Rifle Association say that guns don't kill people, people do. But I think the gun helps, you know ? I think it helps. I think just standing there going "BANG" - that's not going to kill too many people, is it ?

 

I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but it seems that everything I eat lately turns to poo ...


#178 RageAnger

RageAnger

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 82 posts

Posted 10 April 2014 - 23:01

Just as an FYI, Belaric didn't suggest an automatic 3 level loss - he suggested a sliding scale, where the person attacked could set the punishment. The harsher the punishment, the more expensive it became ...

So what's the cost? If I steal gold from a level 1900 do they have to spend 1 fsp for me to lose 3 levels? 2-3-5-10-15 fsp?

It's less for lower levels?



#179 Pardoux

Pardoux

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,119 posts
  • Australia

Posted 10 April 2014 - 23:13

So what's the cost? If I steal gold from a level 1900 do they have to spend 1 fsp for me to lose 3 levels? 2-3-5-10-15 fsp?

It's less for lower levels?

 

No idea - I didn't suggest it - was just correcting your inaccuracy :)


Homer : Marge, don't discourage the boy. Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals .. except the weasel.

 

Eddie Izzard : The National Rifle Association say that guns don't kill people, people do. But I think the gun helps, you know ? I think it helps. I think just standing there going "BANG" - that's not going to kill too many people, is it ?

 

I don't mean to sound pessimistic, but it seems that everything I eat lately turns to poo ...


#180 tenebreux

tenebreux

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 21 posts

Posted 11 April 2014 - 00:32

 

 

 

 


[snippage]

No one counter bounties a 10 stam clear.

[more snippage]

I know from personal experience that this is simply false. I had it happen to me a number of times and is the sole reason I gave up bounty hunting after only clearing 18 bounties. Maybe things have changed but I am not going to lose another 5 levels to find out.




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: