Jump to content

yodamus

Member Since 15 Apr 2013
Offline Last Active Feb 23 2017 16:08

#862326 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 12 April 2014 - 15:07

These are my views... now that I finally have more time to actually read and post.. lol Thanks for taking the time, i appreciate it is not a small chunk!

*  You shouldn't be able to buy a de-levelling party when you post, by upping the payment. You can already get someone delevelled by organizing a delevelling party before you post and posting only when everyone is ready to hit. It works, all it requires is that you're a bit social and interact a bit with your friends, so they'll want to help you out. To pay for a delevelling party goes against every single thing I like about the game. That would be like forcing every bounty hunter to become a mercenary unwillingly. That WOULD make me quit bounty hunting. I'm nobody's mercenary. I do like helping friends though. VERY important difference there to me. I appreciate your feeling. CB means every delevel party will itself be delevelled in response. If the delevel partiers then manage to delevel everyone who helped delevel them (difficult, given the explosion in numbers of people involved), they will be counter bountied again. This goes on until one side is exhausted. I have said I think this ultimately drives people away from the BB. If you think it has not, Cool. We'll just have to disagree on why the BB is dead.

 

* The bounty board takes twice as much xp as the same kind of hit does ingame, so a 10 stam clear already takes 2 times as much xp on the BB as one 100 stam hit does "ingame". Big deal. PvP players have trumpeted how they don't care about their levels. You can regain them faster using the VL loophole. This quoted amount of XP loss is no disincentive to hitting ending up on the BB. In my opinion.

 

* If you want to bounty hunt, make sure you hit every 2 minutes. If you take 2 hours doing a bounty, you SHOULD get posted imho. (Someone mentioned that they were multi tasking, and took 2 hours to clear a bounty cuz of that, and they were upset about being counter bountied). A bounty is sort of like a date... don't go on a date unless you have time for your date, or he/she WILL get upset. Ah -rules for how to do it 'properly'. These are your customs and your arbitrary rules. And they quickly turn into your excuses for counter bountying. I am sorry - but I find them baseless. Anyone who has RL interfere unexpectedly gives reason to be CB'd in your example. Sometimes rainchecks have to happen, even mid-date. Unless they send a message to their target asking not to be CB'd? That kind of demonstrates the power dynamic that is wrong I think. The person on the board should not have more power than the people trying to hit them. Why? Because the person on the board chose to run the risk (I said the word - even if that current risk is very low) of being there by hitting someone first in game. They deserve to be there. CB gives you that power. You can create rationalisations for why you are justified for doing it, but none cover for the basic fact that CB is a huge advantage to your play style.

 

* If someone has already started a bounty, the "xp loss remaining" will in 99% of the cases no longer end in the number 50. It's always a good thing to check that before you start swinging. Ok.

 

* Don't take a bounty, and then stop if the person happens to get buffed up.LOL! Fair enough. And don't demand that they get rid of their gear for you to be able to clear them. LMAO! Agreed.AND don't walk away unless you made sure they are okay with it.Why? If they walk away you have defeated them, player versus player. Them walking away is proof of your victory. Unless of course they just hit you 9 times straight for a delevel. In which case - which circumstance is the correct one? Is it okay to walk away in one and not the other? I presume you support the idea of delevelling people, therefore you must accept that walking away after 9 is appropriate then as part of the strategy to drop the other guy 5? Your unwritten rules, as clearly shown there, lack consistency, and normally add up to one rule for you and your pals (when you delevel via CB for instance), another for everyone else when they try and fail to finish a bounty on you.This is the point I am making: Unwritten inconsistent rules are made just to favour one side and their own preset playing preferences. They are window dressing pure and simple. Thank you for helping me illustrate it again.    What I mean is.. if you are lvl 700 and someone at lvl 1900 is on the BB, and geared up, maybe you should wait for another bounty instead, unless you want to risk getting counter bountied if any of the stuff in this  section applied. Fine. But if you are a 1900 and a 700 gives up against you - what does CBing them for quitting prove? They were hopelessly overmatched anyway - how about some magnanimity in victory? Or are you teaching them a lesson to never bother trying to hit you again? In which case you may lose another player from the BH ranks, and your community shrinks some more.

 

* If you don't wanna risk getting counter bountied, don't bounty hunt. Not many do. Or even have the opportunity now. I wonder how that came about?  If you bounty someone for having done a swift 10 stam clear where the hitter hit every 2 minutes, and didn't give up just cuz he/she lost a few swings or got deflected a few times, then you'll most likely end up on a Wanted Targets list, and get 100 stam cleared by said player from then on. It's just that simple. More bountyboardese - your private unknown and unaccountable regulation system in action. Run for and by you. Great. I am for clarity and consistency - that is its antithesis. And look how that system has stimulated the BB! Oh - wait, it is dead.

 

There are sooo many ways you can hide your gold and protect your xp already, so why make the game even more risk free? I believe my ideas would have made it more risky. Depends on your view point and where you think the baseline of risk is now.

 

And yeah, it's a GAME... nothing to get all upset about.I agree. But games should have rules that allow everyone to compete on an even playing field. That does not exist on the BB, in my opinion. You (the Pvp community,) go silent in the face of my questions, and have done for the entire length of this thread, and I have repeated those questions almost daily for a week. I think we all play to get a bit of relaxation and fun, and to hang out with friends. Some only want to play safe and build up their character, and gain levels etc, and they already have all the tools to do so safely. It doesn't cost much to buy that upgrade.

 

It's impossible to buy an upgrade that makes deflect go away when you want to steal someone's gold, since antideflect really isn't all that efficient. It's impossible to steal all your gold unless the master thief enhancement kicks in, and it does so only on occasion. And, it's impossible to bounty you if you don't hit someone in the first place. If you want a risk free game, don't take risks. Don't carry gold around, and buy that xp protect upgrade or the xp lock upgrade. I agree on what the non-pvp side can and has done to reduce risk. And if nothing changes, those will be the tactics that continue to get used. Gold hits are a great example of the self-defeating nature of pvp in this game. You hit for gold, you steal it, your targets learn to hide the gold, you have lost gold income. You reduce your own income as a result of your initial success. So with the board. You defeat your enemies repeatedly, you punish BH for taking you on, you crush them with counter bounties, you bamboozled them with arcane rules around what is allowable behaviour on the board, and then you wonder why the board is empty and nobody bothers to play anymore - you have driven them out by your very dominance of the form. 

 

I refuse to play a game where interaction with other players isn't important, and this is the one thing where it is VERY important, in FS. Why make the game more antisocial, by removing the need to gather up hitters for a delevelling party? Hmm - we must disagree again - I think that my system would get more people to play. There is no reason you cannot interact with players on the Bb just because the Bh is immune. Delevel parties get counter bountied. Some people have found the cost too high, and that is their choice. Why do i say that? because the BB is dead.

 

Are you prepared to say you do not PvP anymore? If you do you are still hitting and not being bountied. if you are not being bountied it is because the BB is not functioning properly.

 

So, one last time. The board being dead makes these questions relevant.

 

What are PvP players doing in the game? If PvP is dead why do players and PvP guilds persist? Are you hitting or not? If you are hitting - where are the bounties? Could it be you are hitting and not being bountied? Why would that be I wonder? Could it be because the Bb is broken and is not functioning as it is supposed to. If you are not - what have you got to lose by changing the system?

 

NONE of you have ever had the nuts to answer those simple questions. Either you are defending an already dead system you are not participating in (why?), or you are still profiting from the dead BB and don't want to admit it. Unless you can provide a credible third option. Until you do your other answers on this subject are essentially meaningless as you are clearly conflicted and seeking to maintain your self interested advantage.

 

Mzz please understand not that is not a personal attack on you - it is aimed at your entire community. This is my last post on the subject. I do not expect an answer - your community representatives have had many days already to provide one, and have chosen repeatedly to ignore them. That to me, now says it all. The BB is a tool of the Pvp community and you like it how it is just fine. you have won the ability to control it in game and do not want to give up that advantage, even if it means fewer other players participate, because it means you can hit with relative impunity off the board. that is my belief. I have no proof. If I am wrong, and I might well be, and you are not really hitting which is why there are so few bounties, then where is the thrill of the pvp player's life in FS anyway? are you all just loggin in daily in the hope that something will be better, note nothing has changed, and log out again? If so - why do you all defend the status quo so doggedly?

 

No... 

 

- keep the need for socializing. Don't force every bounty hunter to become an unwilling mercenary. delevel parties do not equal socialising. you can talk and chat no matter what format the Bb takes. the hitter and the hit can still chat on the BB if things changed.

- remove deflect from the bounty board. that would speed things up and make them less boring. Deflect is not the reason the Bb is dead though - in my opinion.

- Leave the BB the way it is,sigh just remove the prestige gained on it, and remove the opt-in for the ladder. In short: If the ladder is no longer opt-in, and people gain their points smacking ingame, they shouldn't lose them on the bounty board. If the ladder is hopelessly broken I am open to its removal - and BG is looking at that. The old open system with rating was fine by me - I know the dominamce medal and trading hits for rating was a problem. The original abused medal!

 

 

 

Oh, and cookies... I like cookies. Especially chocolate chip cookies. Yum :)

 

Lost my trail of thought now.. anyway.... Thank you for reading :)

 

Thank you for giving me one last chance to state my case.

Okay folks. This is it for me. Davros this will be my last essay on this topic for you to enjoy.

 

Once again I asked Mzz and everyone else on this board the questions that have been repeatedly dodged. Only Maehdros answered them in the slightest and said it could be a combination of poor gold incentives and dwindling numbers (I'm going by memory). Could be true, but I would submit my theory has a lot more detail and shows how the BB could have depopulated itself, and demonstrated the mechanics by which that happened. It also helps to explain why the general community clamoured for more pvp protection over the years, (because the Bb did not help protect them/punish offenders to any reasonable degree) which a simple drop in gold profits on the PvP side does not explain, as if the gold was already well protected and players were managing to hide their gold effectively - why did they still feel the need to ask for PvP protection? I submit it is because they saw the system as unfair and could not escape or punish Pvp players for their actions in game, so sought an entirely new mechanic to be free of Pvp interference. You scared away your playmates again. This is a big reason why I think my theory fits the facts of our shared history a lot better. You can disagree with the narrative as I presented it. It is just an idea. Also : see the North wind and the Sun for gold incentives. They alone will not increase the Pvp game, in my opinion, only make the rest of the game cling harder to their gold. But I'm not against giving it a try.... unless it is shown to drop numbers. Lets do trial runs of simple mechanics changes and have HCS track player activity, gold flow, and reaction and decide how best to proceed on the basis of evidence. Will increased MT increase PVP activity without adversely effecting online numbers? Do a month long trial - and find out.Problem its - it should be advertised in advance to avoid any kind of smasher medal shock to the system - and the response from many players may be to simply buy PvP protection for the length of the trial. That data itself could be instructive of course to HCS. Trials of adjustments makes great sense to me, even if I have just shown how they can be complicated. Also if game numbers have dwindled that does not let PvP players off the hook, as pvp may well have contributed to that drop in numbers. I'm not saying solely responsible - mature games have life cycles - but many online games now have core memberships that do last many years - FS can be one of them, and I would hope have more again. I - like everyone else here, just want to be able to play the game. Nobody can deny at the very least that PvP rules changes especially the legendary smasher medal introduction, have caused numbers to drop in the past. Each side has their pet theory that favours them.

 

Good luck to everyone here, and good luck to HCS in looking for objective data to base their changes on. I'd really like it if you found some, and then, rather than being allowed to be accused of acting out of prejudice for one "side" or another (and we are belatedly all FS players - as I said at the outset of my OP) could simply point to the data, give your reasons and be done.

 

Obviously HCS may not want to share that level of detail. I leave that decision to them.

 

Thank you all again. Fare well.




#862867 PvP: A Different Approach

Posted by Teuchter on 15 April 2014 - 01:39

Personally I like this idea , I have never understood why  xp and gold loss should  be an asset gathering tool for pvpers, , up till now we have had no choice in this , even the ability to  buy protection for our gold was taken away from us  . Levellers need and should receive the same respect as pvpers, we spend hard earned $ on this game also , yet we have to tolerate thieves taking it away from us,  bounty board has never worked as a deterrant , and we have to spend more dots/ gold to get retribution,  totally ludicrous in my opoinion, , Thank you Kath for the post , :D




#862833 PvP: A Different Approach

Posted by BraveKath on 14 April 2014 - 23:35

That was the whole idea of pvp from the git-go.  "steal gold and take experience to advance your character" is how i remember it used to be billed years ago. Those 2 things are what made pvp simple and fun. Then they started adding on all the extras to make the levelers happy. (along with their pockets) Pvp needs to be encouraged, not nerfed even more. 

 

First of all Bleitch, thanks for commenting ...

The theory you are putting forth is a parasitical one where you eventually kill off the host, and in the process the parasite will die too because there are no hosts left.  I seriously doubt that was the intent of the game, but HCS put forth a game and then have made adjustments over the years in the interest of refining their initial concept.

 

My assumption has always been, and perhaps incorrectly, that it was meant to be a game where we could both exist together and create an added dimension and challenge to the game.  This idea retains the concept of Risk -- but now the Risk is Prestige that could be turned into FSP or as someone else suggested specialized skills - I would suggest both PvP and PvE skills to encourage everyone wanting to earn those Prestige points then to improve their preferred play style.

Given our dwindling numbers and activity on the BB etc may prove the point that we have a parasitical relationship now that is going in its natural evolutionary direction towards mutual death.  I agree that PvP was intended to flourish right along side PvE, but we all agree the #'s are not what they were and that there are challenges to us all due to fewer targets for PvP/GvG, fewer active members to form groups for relic takes, fewer players to keep the arena vital, fewer players to buy gear, etc, etc. and that = limited fun.

 
Boredom is a factor and just re-working the Old Ways has never been the way to spark life into any game or business, one has to think outside the box and re-invent within the framework of the game or organization.

 

PvP - "simple and fun" ... I realize that when I PvP I am a different PvPer, as I don't find "simple" fun, but so what you're saying is that for you - hitting someone who isn't a challenge is what you want?  I suppose I can see that occasionally, but you're such a great PvPer, I seriously can't imagine you don't like a challenge?

I've seen a lot of posts throughout of NOT wanting to dumb-down the game/ "no win button" and what I'm proposing could make it more challenging by encouraging people to try harder, potentially, to not be an easy target and to also be an aggressor, so the game's simplicity could be challenged as the PvPers ranks could grow from greater competition.  I have full confidence in the old guard PvPers to hold their own, to teach and stay ahead of the curve of others who may enter their ranks, but I still think it would be much more interesting - potentially.

There's a lot of talk of people getting better at hiding their gold, and that is suppose to be a factor in decreased PvP activity. People still scavenge with lots of gold on hand, and they still level and due to decreased numbers gold doesn't get purchased from the FSP market that quickly, so why isn't there still more active PvP? Periodically I look at my PvP range using Find Player and I expand it gradually to 100+/- and there's a small # who have been active in recent hours when I do that and that's not good for PvP.  So a new idea that reinvents the game is needed to attract back old players and recruit and keep new players.

Many would like to see more PvP and Bounty Board activity, and to do that we need to think outside the box.  Widening attack bands and upping gold thievery may spike play temporarily, but if it drives off targets then in the end the PvP looses. 

If you now also have more typical PvE'ers wanting to explore PvP, your targets may get tougher to beat and thus increase the challenge and satisfaction in a hit well done.  Let's face it, right now there's very little talk of hitting for Prestige amongst PvPer's, it gold and xp, because Prestige has no value, but if that changed now your best targets are more interesting because they may be more challenging.
 




#862654 PvP: A Different Approach

Posted by BraveKath on 14 April 2014 - 06:20

PvP: A Different Approach 

 

*sigh* Yes, yet another thread on PvP -- must be the season. Bear with me, please, but having read so many and all the time grappelling with how can it ever be a win-win this came to me tonight.  If this idea isn't liked by levelers and PvPers, so be it, as it needs to be seen as a win-win.  Somehow I don't imagine it's a novel idea.

 

What is needed is for both sides to have something to gain from PvP – a Win-Win. I hope these ideas could be viewed as a positive, and combined with other valuable ideas bouncing around in the forums and melded into something truly positive for us all.

Who am I to make this proposal? No one special, just another player here, who has played all the roles, not the best, not the worst, so just a 'Jack of All Trades, Master of None'.  Here it goes ....

 

IDEAS - Good/Bad/Ugly - you can be the judge, be gentle :) - just ideas

1. What if PvP does NOT take xp and gold?

 

2. What if Prestige or perhaps it should be a different term is not only able to be used in increments (as most of us would like), but is also in increments as a commodity that can be sold in a Prestige Market (explained later).

 

3. What if there is a sort of VL of Prestige and your PvP rating on the 'Top Rated' is based on that? Thus if you have 400 Prestige and sell off 2 tokens (say 50 = a Prestige token) and now have 300 Prestige that you could apply and use (as we do now), you will still have your Total Prestige that would reflect all that you have acquired and lost through PvP and would not reflect Prestige that you've sold off. So your game rating as PvP would not be damaged by you selling off Prestige, only by loosing in PvP or just slipping in the ranks.

 

4. So the Prestige Top Rated list would be game wide, regardless of level (thus a level 1 could be on top of a Level 200) and constantly reset.  So (shudder) much like the current PvP Ladder, but no opt in/out - game wide and each month is a new battle to the top?  I hope, hope that the mechanics of the game would keep this list alive and not a total manipulation, as I think there's enough true PvPers with a competitive spirit to keep it lively and perhaps this would be a great shot in the arm.

 

What this would accomplish:

5.  Now PvPers are gaining something of monetary value (Prestige) that they can turn into FSP to buy gear and continue their game play and this takes the place of gold, while retaining their standing in the ranks of PvPers. They'd also have the Total Prestige #'s to denote their skill or activity and can be ranked accordingly.

 

6. For the Game Rankings of top PvP'er, I would recommend that it is updated regularly and that it's is reset so that it doesn't include inactives.  The New Weekly (or whatever time period) - could be random, or even daily.

 

7. The standards of PvP will be raised. As a person can “farm” Prestige just as one does now off of anyone, but just as now the greatest prestige comes from the player with the largest Prestige.  But with this change and because there's not just the Prestige Usage advantage, but now a monetary advantage there's greater motivation for PvPers to pick tougher targets, and thus with a greater challenge, more intellectual stimulation.  

 

8.  Levelers will still take damage to gear, but they will keep their xp and gold and also now not only have the chance to Bounty that player* / return the hit , but ALSO buy Prestige from that PvPer from a Prestige Market (Yes, shades of Hannibal Lecter), but this is where the WIN-WIN comes in -- now there's an advantage to Levelers that they can see and each is helping the other enjoy the game as well as advance in the game.

*** PRESTIGE MARKET: suggest that it's blind, like the FSP market and perhaps operates on the same format, thus the value of Prestige will wax and wane with market demands.  Though it could also just be a set value.

 

Affect on Other Areas:

 

9. Bounty Board - it wouldn't be a issue of xp loss, but rather Prestige loss and perhaps on the BB a player could go into the negative? I'm not sure about that. Could the BB be the one place you could go into the negative on Prestige? I don't think the “damage” should be morale breaking, but still found to serve it's purpose, so perhaps a % of a player's total Prestige, which is essentially exactly what is done now as it's a % of the player's total xp.

10 . Now what do we do with de-leveling parties not being able to de-level someone out of a hitting range? …. Well, the purpose of that is to stop the hits either through demoralization or through just putting them below the PvP range to hit. So what if instead of de-leveling a player, what if after posting someone – let's say 10 or 20 times – now the target is off-limits for a period of time? Now not sure how tricky or impossible that would be to program. But – if someone isn't loosing xp and gold, is it as big of a deal to de-level the other player? Yeah, you may have gear repair costs, but that's about it and there's been talk everywhere of how hard it is on low-level/newbs and the cost of gear repair.

11.  Solution to Noob gear repairs – Propose that that a player 30 days old (or 60 or 90 – pick a duration or a level) has the option to buy for 1 gold on the loyalty page a potion that repairs all gear. Noobs would need to be warned that crystal wont' be repaired though.


Guild Wars:

 

Since Prestige would essentially equal FSP/Gold, I think Guild Wars would still be effective and could continue to operate as they have.

 

:)  In conclusion, with this revised system. Devoted PvEers would want to buy Prestige and PvPers would be selling to enable their playing style, and thus we have a cycle of life for both parties, and what I think would be a win-win.

This was written with a love of the game, which is really the people in it, and a sincere desire to foster the enjoyment of the game by everyone … trying for the Win-Win. Not sure this is it, but it's an idea and tossing it out there.

 

Note: As I read back through this now, see problems and tempted to not post it, but going to toss it out anyway as maybe there's a kernel of something that can be used.

 




#862661 PvP: A Different Approach

Posted by rowbeth on 14 April 2014 - 07:51

Interesting idea, and great to see someone really trying for the win-win.

 

From my perspective, one of the things that I have always disliked about PVP in this game is that one person's fun is gained by setting back another person's independent goals. Doing away with Xp loss does remove my major objection.

 

Personally, I don't mind too much about the gold loss. There is much that I can do to minimise that, so I retain at least a sense of control over my own destiny. I can no longer speak for the lower levels, though. When I was at the lower levels there was an active gold market in the AH, and I could hide my gold there until I had enough to buy FSP --- AND I could expect to make a profit in the process; but I suspect that gold market no longer exists. So, since retaining players at lower levels is vital, it may be the that removal of gold loss is just as important.

 

The idea of a prestige market is an interesting one, as a way of providing profit for PVP. Whether it appeals to PVPers is not for me to say, but I could see levelers wanting to buy prestige. Provided it was sustainable (i.e. could be paid for from proceeds of a hunt) I thought it worth spending FSP on buffs/potions that gave 1-2% more Xp from a hunt, so prestige would certainly  have entered my thinking.

 

Another idea to throw into this mix (no doubt suggested before) would be to add the idea PVP levels. After a certain amount of PVP success (measured by prestige gain within your system - or some other means) you gain PVP levels, and with that gain access to PVP-specific skills. Perhaps the offensive PVP buffs could be tied to these levels rather than to Xp-based levels. Defensive skills should remain available to the Xp-based levels, though maybe could be gained quicker from the PVP-levels. (Admittedly, mapping current abilities onto such a new structure in a sufficiently palatable way might prove impossible.) Again, if there were no Xp loss from PVP, then I for one would remove my objections to incentivising PVP in these sort of ways.




#862918 revert pvp to 2008

Posted by Pardoux on 15 April 2014 - 05:44

And again we have a person who instead of offering something to the thread, where are your Facts Pardoux ?

What I have said is borne out by active player numbers while it maybe "speculation" on my part, again you have offered nothing to a thread except that you are opposed to pvp and don't want it in the game if it effects you.You have done so over a substantial period of time and over that time player numbers are dropping faster than ever before .

 

Can you explain or provide any evidence based fact contrary to mine for why the game is in this state ?

 

Until you stop talking parts of the game down and accept the game as a totality for all parts being an equal part of its fabric and for the game to be healthy all those parts need to be healthy.

 

Actually, I try very hard to not talk parts of the game down. Sometimes, I may slip however - we're all guilty of that, after all.

 

But, you're going off on a tangent again, "complaining" about me talking parts of the game down - I didn't in my reply to you, nor have I in this thread. I haven't stated any fact (until now), other than you are speculating that the 2 following points are inextricably linked:-

 

A ) the game was alive and vibrant in 2008 and isn't as much now <-- is a FACT

 

B ) PvP has changed (been nerfed, by PvP'rs definition) in the game <-- is a FACT

 

Saying that point B ) is the cause of point A ) is SPECULATION.

 

There will be many factors that have led to point A ) - and I'm not saying point B ) isn't one of them - it may well be - but there are plenty of others too.

 

I'm sure you can trot out the "there are plenty of players who left the game because of PvP being nerfed", just as I can (and others can) trot out the "there are plenty of players who left the game because of being pvp'd on a regular basis" - both are conjecture, neither are factual without evidence.

 

The cows know the numbers and, if they wanted (and sometimes I wish they would) they could do a survey to all registered inactive player email addresses and ask for the reason(s) why those inactives left ..




#862881 revert pvp to 2008

Posted by Pardoux on 15 April 2014 - 02:30

You have missed the Point in 2008 the game was alive and vibrant,the more the game has gone away from pvp the less people have played it ..why is that ? The Game is drab grey shadow now of a masterpiece in full colour.

 

 

Point A and Point B may well have NO connection whatsoever ....

 

I wish people would present FACTS and not SPECULATIONS when trying to make a point...

 

I'm not saying there isn't a correlation between them, but there isn't a proven one - folk leave the game for many reasons, not just because pvp has been "tamed down" by your definitions ..




#862823 revert pvp to 2008

Posted by duktayp on 14 April 2014 - 21:59

logically if management thought doing this would generate more players online they would do so

 

one can only assume the changes made in the last years are an attempt to increase the number of online players and ultimately, increase profit

 

doesn't make sense they would do things to drive players away, but do things to attract them




#862611 My suggestion on reviving the Arena

Posted by y0da on 14 April 2014 - 01:21

I understand why you would think that more moves would be better but trust me, the arena is already complicated enough as it is haha. More moves added wouldn't help make it any easier for newer players to try it out. 

 

There used to be a guide by Trackxyj (2nd in Arena wins, was first for a VERY long time) but for some reason when the cows started the new forum, his thread got lost in the process. I learned a lot from it even as a somewhat intermediate player. If I ever find the link to the google docs page, I'll be sure to post it in my bio. 

I actually feel that the opposite would be true volcom. By adding more arena moves it would make for a larger arrangement of combinations being used (assuming of coarse that the new moves were actually useful, unlike the poison and fire....). A larger arrangement of moves would mean that your moves can work specifically with a certain gear type rather than having a combat move set that can generically be used for several different gear sets. This would, in a sense, make it more likely for a novice to win an arena due to the increased variance of moves and gear customization, adding another level to the arena.

Nobody can blame "Epics" and "paying players" for arena wins, since the majority of epics are worse than the normal gear, and since legendary and crystalline items are at an all time low cost.. New moves could change the arena dynamics dramatically, unless of coarse you want to "dummy it down" by somehow making a player win by the roll of the dice. I feel that the customization of combat moves is what makes the arena stand apart from other "luck" based games... A good analogy would be slots vs. poker, whereas slots is 100% luck and poker is a combination of luck AND skill. This diversity is what keeps many of us interested in playing the arena and if it was any less diverse, I would not be playing the arena at all.

Currently, if you are using an attack/armor gear set then you are hoping your opponent is using a defensive gear set and you are also "hoping" that your opponent is not using an armor/damage set....etc.etc.etc.

What we need is a diversification of the combat moves so that it isn't so cut and dry, thereby reducing that "hope" (which is really just luck) of not being matched up with a certain player in a certain arena, and having it be more about having a good combination of combat moves, using moves that will enhance your specific gear type.

In reality, anybody could win any arena with a little luck (I've seen it happen when low level players enter an arena a couple hundred levels higher, and still win based on the above mentioned "hope"), or the classic deflect move that always seems to activate at just the right time, except when I am using it :).

I hope this makes sense.




#862547 My suggestion on reviving the Arena

Posted by morderme on 13 April 2014 - 19:43

Add/put a time limit on each tournament.  Encourage early sign ups for each tournament.

 

Each tournament would have a time limit to join.  Once the clock winds down, the tournament is closed to any additional players. 

 

This is how it could work...

 

4-man tournament.  First one in gets a bye if only 3 players have signed up by the time the entry time has expired.

8-man tournament.  If less than 8 sign up, the last few to join are dropped until the number is 4.  those that are dropped, are given refunds of their fees just as losing bidders receive their gold back in the AH.

12-man tournament.  If less than 12 sign up, the last to join are dropped and receive refunds of their tournament fees. If less than 8 join, the odd men out are dropped as (above).  Otherwise, in a twelve-man tournament, the first 4 to sign up get a 1st round bye.

16-man tournament.  Follow as described above -- if less than 16 sign up, drop the last to join, and the tournament becomes a 12-man tournament, etc.

 

Done.

 

That's my suggestion.

 

Oh yeah, add more and new items, too!




#862040 My suggestion on reviving the Arena

Posted by robinhood2 on 11 April 2014 - 16:06

I happen to like the idea of a token system and believe it would help give the arena a jump start.However i dont agree with lower wins players not being able to join higher win arenas,as they have a chance at winning as well.Something needs to be done to make the arena better, even if they came out with new resource/quest items and recipes,as the items we can make from arena today are not worth jack lol and i know i would join even more arenas if i had the chance to get new recipes/resources for gear/potions :)  




#861846 Scavening legendaries..?

Posted by Pardoux on 10 April 2014 - 20:26

A scavenging event would be great - gold has been going up to 210k / of late .. needs something worthwhile to remove some from the game.

 

The "Flask of Death" / whatever the last ditch one was called combo would be nice :)




#862007 DEFLECT!!!!!!

Posted by Lellarell on 11 April 2014 - 10:09

What's the problem with Deflect if there are Anti-Deflect, Spell Leech, Spell Breaker and Sealed (and Reckoning).




#861958 My suggestion on reviving the Arena

Posted by Brice on 11 April 2014 - 03:55

Ha!! Point taken Pardoux...but I am a veteran Arena player and if this was implemented I would be limited to what Arenas I could enter, and I'm fine with that. If that is what it would take to get more players back into or to be motivated to play than I'm all for it...I just would like to see more players get interested in the Arena. The Arena is in a bad need of some kind of change or update...unfortunately the last update was ok but it just crashed the value of Arena items,in which, gave a lot of players less incentive to play...personally I don't play the Arena for greed or to make FSPs anyone who knows me knows I post all loot the lowest in the AH and all gold goes to my guild...I play the Arena for the challenge, strategy, and making Arena setups...loved it since the first time I entered one. I do feel that the token system would be an awesome incentive for players to play, and a win tiered bracket could work if implemented correctly.


#861207 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 08 April 2014 - 17:53

Under the current system, the bounty board can *thrive*  via off the board hits, or counter bounties. Yes, atm it has been eerily quiet, but I believe its due to the fact fewer and fewer people play this game anymore, along with the fact gold is hard to find on hand, and that the cows tend to step in over any sort of repeated hits, wars and so on. Trust me, I know from experience, a few hits off the board  can equal a suspension or a slap on the wrist. Why is someone going to pvp if the creators of the game seem to shun it themselves?

 

With your suggestion, counter bounties can no longer happen, meaning one less way of a *bounty* being placed. So your idea depends heavily on actual pvp combat occurring off the board.Also, it seems to me ( tho you may not intentionally be doing so) but you're vilifying counter bounties all together) Sure, there's some (not so nice) people who counter bounty everything, me personally I counter anyone who quits, or if someone randomly tries smashing for a medal etc.

 

Anyone who partakes in pvp runs the possibility of being bountied once they click *attack player*.  That's regardless of whether its a bounty or an off the board hit. I don't understand why that should be changed.  An attack is an attack. Are you saying that the bounty board is not player versus player?

 

 

You mention the bounty board/ pvp and one-sided in your post, which I can't understand, as the attacker/defender always has a *choice* . This idea of yours ( to me) seems to entail making the bounty board purely one sided. I get players want more punishment, or to *seek revenge* . However, maintaining the board as a chopping block for those who pvp ( off the board hits being the only *bountyable action) , yet a bounty free opportunity for those who want to smash/ gain bounty medals, or prestige isn't the way to go about it.

Hello Maehdros - thanks for the reply.

 

I will again be upfront and say I pretty much totally disagree with you. I will try to explain why.

 

You think the board can thrive off board based hits or counter bounties. The simple evidence of board inactivity speaks otherwise.

 

You think this may have something to do with dwindling game numbers. And gold being harder to find. Gold is harder to find because it is rational when faced with gold thieves in the game to take measures to hide it.

 

Numbers dwindling. Well, if you want to go there... there is one in game activity above all others that may have a negative effect on in game numbers, has a negative effect on players' in game experience, and may actively drive players out of the game.

 

That activity is PvP. If you want me to go into detail I can and will at length. I think you know the arguments.

 

So it is a little rich to say - "Well Pvp isn't active so much, because the game isn't active so much, which PvP may in fact have contributed to."

 

Unless you are prepared to say that PvP has had nothing to do with players quitting the game. Are you prepared to claim that?

 

Off board hits get banned. That is between you and HCS then. They seem to find some off board activities deleterious to the game and act to stop them. You feel they are being heavy handed. I have no axe to grind there, I have no evidence of it one way or another.

 

Yep. In my system off board activity leads to on board activity, as it was meant to. It depends entirely on off board activity. Because counter bounties and board to board activity, have, in my opinion and as I have argued, actually killed off the BB.

 

This leads me to ask you a question: What do PvP players do all day? I've asked it before, and no-one has answered. You are not on the BB, it is dead. Are you sitting around having a quiet chat and checking up on world news? Am I to believe that you are NOT doing hits off the board? You admitted in your own comment you do, and sometimes get banned for it. So either you are doing nothing and your game style is dead anyway. Or you are doing hits, and not being bountied. The second is my contention. If you give people a reason to bounty - decent punishment, and a reason to bounty hunt - decent reward and immunity from the Counter bounties which drove them from the board in the first place, you will have more board activity, more players playing PvP, more of the community involved and happy with the way PvP functions within the whole game, IMHO. You may disagree,and defend the current defunct system.

 

So yeah - I'm vilifying CB's generally. They have strangled the life out of the game style you love Maehdros, in my opinion, by making people disinclined to work the BB, or hit back, for fear of being CB'd. As I have explained at length up thread. Twice. In using them you are harming your own style of play. Don't believe me - just look at the board.

 

You see there is the problem. "Sure, there's some (not so nice) people who counter bounty everything". Your words. This act destroys faith in hitting back, in bounty hunting, in doing a delevel party. You can't blame some 'bad apples' and expect no negative consequences. Saying "they did it, but I'm okay!" Doesn't work, especially not if you are their ally/guildmate. Especially not if you participated in the counter bounty as a hitter. What is the rest of the game population to make of that position? They can't trust you. They don't trust PvP. They don't participate anymore - your game style gets smaller. You cannot get away with blaming poor choices to CB on "those guys" it is on your entire community, like it or not - it negatively effects your entire community, like it or not.

 

"Anyone who partakes in pvp runs the possibility of being bountied once they click *attack player*.  That's regardless of whether its a bounty or an off the board hit. I don't understand why that should be changed.  An attack is an attack. Are you saying that the bounty board is not player versus player?"

 

It should be changed because the BB is dead, and it is dead because, as I have explained, counter bounties have strangled your game. Bounties do not work. They are no deterrent, and precious little punishment currently, as any heavy punishment gets CB'd. In the short term you get more action, in the long term it drives people out.

 

An attack is not an attack. That is false. The initial attack is a premeditated strike on an unwary opponent in order to gain gold. That attacker has all the advantages. After he has made the attack he can act to defend himself, gear and buffs to make a hit back harder. He doesn't know when he'll be hit, true, but he has an idea he has it coming - unlike the first person. He gets put on the BB - he can defend himself. If he gets put on when he is offline - well that is no worse than attacking someone without warning is it? Seems fair. Counter bountying someone punishes the person who is trying to act for the initial victim, it is an attempt to obstruct natural justice, and I have argued that over the years it has worked - this is where we are on the BB.

 

The BB is player vs player. Nowhere do I deny it - you can only be hit by another player on the BB, so what is your point  - how am I removing the P from PvP, by promoting PvP play on the BB? It has been held up as the highest art form - dancing on the BB was supposed to be fun and cool. The challenge of playing an active human opponent. And yet it no longer happens much, and you are trying to say that has nothing to do with your own actions or style of play. I think that there is a connection, and I have demonstrated it. You can feel free to disagree and come up with your own thesis.

 

I think that if the BB is dead, and PvP players and guilds persist and are active, then 1) benefit to PvP players and guilds extends from an inactive bounty board - the reduction of real risk to their players as explained upthread.  2) They are still playing PvP. If you were not, you'd have retired by now. As I have asked repeatedly - what are you doing all day if not PvPing? If you are not PvPing and just playing other aspects of the game, why keep the BB at all? Why defend a dead institution? Because you derive benefit from it. I can't prove that, it is a deduction. I asked for the relevant stats upthread. But the answers I have received have done nothing to dissuade me that my deduction is far off the mark. Therefore you are still hitting off the board and not being punished for it - which suits you fine, that is the win in your game style. It just is not helping the overall game anymore, IMO, as nobody else wants to play that way. Why else did the community ask for PvP protection, if not to defend themselves as they found the BB incapable of doing so?

 

Ahh - CHOICE  - that old chestnut. Thanks for giving me the chance to address that. Do you really believe the choice is equal in PvP?

 

Choice exists on the PvP side, not the victim's side.

 

The PVP player chooses when and where to first hit. Advantage to the PvP side.

 

The person hit gets to *choose*

1) To ignore the hit and accept the loss. Choose to be a victim.

2) Hit back, and run the risk of counter bounty. Choose to be victimised twice.

3) Bounty and let a BH do their fighting for them. But the BH does 10 stam hits, or the target is soft cleared by his friends, who take the posters posted gold after doing little harm to their buddy. The choice to be a victim at second hand.

4) Organise a delevel party, running the risk that his friends who do a hit on a PvP player in a Pvp guild will all be deleveled. The choice to make his friends victims too.

 

What is appealing about those choices? The person who first hit has the last laugh in all of them. As I explained up thread any escalation of counter bounties favours the Pvp player, guild and allies as they 1) Like the pvp game and are motivated to play it, 2) have the numbers to keep coming back. Those who are not as committed will fold first most of the time, having lost more levels than they inflicted. So being big and ballsy and trying to fight it out just means more losses in the end on the victim's side. This is a lesson that has been taught over the years and well  absorbed by the non-pVP playing community. As explained upthread.

 

The PvP player has the choice to counter bounty if hit back or bountied. Advantage to the PvP side. Every time.

 

Choice is an illusion you'd like us all to believe we have when we get hit - but all our options end up the same, with Pvp players on the ascendant. This is why the rest of the community

 

CHOSE TO WALK AWAY.

 

Or in fact chose 1) to be a victim, not make a fuss and not bounty - anything for a quiet life.

 

Choice like risk is decidedly one sided in the current system. And all in favour of the Pvp guild structure and the Bb as it exists now.

 

My idea makes the BB one sided? Maybe it seems that way to you given you do not see how the current system is so one sided in your favour. I'm offereing to balance something long imbalanced - to give the victim actual redress, and the PvP players actual competition and activity. My aim is to boost the whole community.

 

My system, as said upthread many times - gives more players the chance to participate. Yes Pvp players will get bountied more often (if you are actually doing any hits), but you will have the chance to take more and richer bounties. There would be more activity on the board, which can only be  PvP - so you would get more chances to fight on the board against other players. More playing of your game - the Pvp game.

 

Want to PvP? Go hit someone - get bountied and duke it out! What is so hard to comprehend in that? You gold hit anyway, and then you get more opportunities to fight on the board against folk who are no longer afraid of being CB'd off the board and out of the PvP game. You get more playmates, and some of them will switch codes after a while. The price you pay? Some levels lost. The PvP community has always maintained it did not care that much about levels and that they can be freely regained. Is that true or not? So hit, fight, lose some levels, regain them, rinse and repeat.

 

"However, maintaining the board as a chopping block for those who pvp ( off the board hits being the only *bountyable action) , yet a bounty free opportunity for those who want to smash/ gain bounty medals, or prestige isn't the way to go about it."

 

I think it is. I think I've explained why. The board currently is a chopping block for those who do not Pvp regularly and who are not in the club - how is that in any way any better? What is your alternative suggestion? Because once again - if you are defending the status quo you are defending a dead system that favours the PvP side heavily, and has failed. The Pvp community can stick with it, but not be surprised that nothing continues to happen. As I have explained upthread - your excellence and skill in using legal game mechanics to dominate your game space has ironically killed it at the same time.






Font:
Arial | Calibri | Lucida Console | Verdana
 
Font Size:
9px | 10px | 11px | 12px | 10pt | 12pt
 
Color: