Jump to content

yodamus

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

#861458 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 09 April 2014 - 13:54

after many novels I am simply going to pose a couple of RHETORICAL questions to the OP.

 

1) Will this change bring more players to the game?

 

and

 

2) Who is this change really geared at?

 

 

Keeping in mind these questions are rhetorical, I can honestly not see anything positive coming from the the suggestions offered , therefore I obviously do not support them.

 

A lot of posters think they have all the answers yet they haven't walked in the other parties shoes. Something else to ponder on.

 

I am not going to try to 'debate' the matter either, as it's nothing more than a spherical sharp tugging motion thread now.

This will be my last answer of the morning. Thank you everyone for your patience.

 

I have asked a lot of questions that have not been answered. Unlike my unanswered questions, which I believe have been left unanswered because the truth would undermine the defenders of the status quo, I will answer yours. Rhetorical or not.

 

Will this change bring more players to the game?

 

YES. Because it will slow or halt player loss - increased retention, especially among new players will lead to increase in online numbers. Why will this happen? Because as I have stated - a system that demonstrates actual fair punishment for unprovoked attacks and gold hits will restore player faith in the game. Currently that does not exist, and that is part of why the BB is not used - the population that should be using it, has no faith in it anymore. People who feel they have no recourse in the face of aggression with now have that, and not be forced to either suck up life as a random victim, or leave the game. if fewer people leave, the game numbers go up. Everyone wins - even the PvP players! They get more targets if they are prepared to accept the medicine for their attacks. They can regain those levels -just hit that champ. With a more active BB more PvP players may stay too - something will be there for them to do! Depends on whether they really want to play PvP or just like easy wins over targets who are not ready for them.

 

Who is this change really geared at?

 

An odd question, but I'll take the bait as I have no fear of being honest here in my answers. I could say it is geared at helping the whole game population, and I believe that is true, but if you want me to be specific I will say it is geared at the PvP population who have long enjoyed advantages through counter bounty, and this has translated into advantages/ control of the BB, minimising risk to the PvP community and allowing them freedom of action. This has ironically led their own game into stagnation, if they would but see it. It is totally unbalanced, and that has led the wider population to 1) not participate as it is pointless - they get no benefit, 2) Harass HCS for other forms of protection, as the PvP system itself provides none. This then led to PvP being more marginalised. This situation has not arisen quickly. It should have been noted and addressed years ago. This is my opinion only. You are free to disagree - but no-one has really refuted my arguments in the slightest about how this has come about. If they can - more power to them.

 

You know, I believe I have put myself in the other parties shoes - can the PvP community say the same? I have seen little empathy or consideration for the persons attacked here. cleardawn excepted. I have, time and again demonstrated a willingness to converse and to put Ideas forward that I think will help PvP players play PvP against other players. That I have taken on some sacred cows in the process makes it uncomfortable - fine. PvP shapes the entire game - I have demonstrated that also. I am entitled to my opinions.

 

Interesting that your first and I presume only post is to ask questions, ridicule asking questions and then say you'll not bother debating. Your choice.

 

Have a good day folks. I've spent 2 hours here already. I appreciate the input.




#861403 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by BigGrim on 09 April 2014 - 09:58

Now under your idiotic BB rules, why would someone want to even attack anyone else in the first place? No attacks means no bounties, which means the bounty board go dead.

 

Remain civil please. 

 

Why would there be no PvP hits? Nothing in PvP will have changed. People can still hit for gold and under this proposed idea, the Bountied PvPer would lose less levels, something you've all claimed you don't care about. There's actually the potential for LESS punishment here. Everyone seems to be bent out of shape because of no counter bounties, which is ridiculous. The removal of that would allow new players a chance to learn PvP, giving them a taste of it. They wouldn't be very good initially but they'd learn. Then, they might well step into PvP proper.




#860556 Arena for 1200+ WISHLIST

Posted by bloody18 on 06 April 2014 - 00:23

HCS will you guys be considering adding more levels to the arena when you get to that check box on the roadmap?  I believe the top level you may currently join is 1200.

 

ARENA WISHLIST

1. More levels to join. Levels over 1200

2. New items.  

3. A mega multi-level arena tournament for the entire FS community.( BRACKET  style ) 

   a. Limited number of entries per user ( to be fair )

   b. Unlimited participants  from each guild ( as to not exclude anyone) 

   c. prizes based on number pf participants per bracket

 

( ps I didnt mention tokens from the other thread - which is a fine idea)   

 

Anyone else with ARENA ideas? .. Please add to the wish list. 

 




#861169 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 08 April 2014 - 14:39

The Myth of Risk

 

In this post I am going to try to demonstrate why the 'risk' inherent in the PvP system as it stands is heavily tilted towards the PvP player operating in a PvP guild.

 

I will now stress that this has been achieved using freely available in game mechanics - no foul play needs to have been indulged in - simply the application of allowed game play.

 

I have argued that these things have led to the demise of the BB, as is daily evidenced, and the withering of the PvP game itself.

 

My purpose is to demonstrate that saying 'risk' must remain in the system is disingenous if you are a PvP player defending that system, as 'risk'  - or rather - the probability of being hit back or delevelled for your actions has been systematically reduced by PvP play style. Entirely within game rules. The PvP player has a low probability of being bountied, and then if bountied, a low probability of actually losing 5. This is not risky by any stretch of the imagination. The word risk implies chance of failure. PvP players, on each individual gold hit, are not running much risk at all.

 

How to begin?

 

I think with the forum scenario that best illustrates this position.

 

A player comes on line and complains that PvP players get to hit without warning, when they want, and geared up and buffed to ensure maximum advantage and a very high probability of a win and successful gold steal. They say this isn't fair. I think we can agree this kind of complaint has been put forth on the forum.

 

The PvP player's response is; "Ah, but we risk losing 5 for every hit! Yes we have an advantage - but we pay for it on the BB! Post a bounty or hit back! We're good with that!"

 

This is not exactly true.

 

The BB is dead - we can all see and agree on that. The BB is a measure of bounty activity.

 

I have argued that over the course of the game Counter Bountying (CB) has been used to drive competition off the BB. PvP players in PvP guilds are capable of escalating conflicts using CB beyond their opponents ability to sustain. A quick recap.

 

A player gets hit for gold. He bounties. His buddies do a delevel party. The Gold hitter - a PvP player in a PvP guild, counter bounties the entire delevel party. His guild and allies delevel everyone in that party. So for a 5 level loss, a 20 level penalty is extracted. The PvP side in each round inflicts far more damage than it receives. The conflict has gone from 1 on 1 to 4 on 1 to 16+ on 4. Can the side that was originally hit take on and delevel all 16? Unlikely - if they do, again the next round the numbers against them will be even larger. They cannot compete. They withdraw. The lesson is - do not mess with that PvP guild and its allies. This lesson is repeated multiple times over the last few years of the game. Delevel parties get rarer as fewer guilds see the point of risking putting their friends at risk for counter bounty and losing 5. It does not make much rational sense to exchange 20 levels for 5 on a consistent basis.

 

Bounty hunters. PvP players in PvP guilds counter bounty them - for whatever reason, and they do not need any - they could do it for simple rational utility - if they keep CBing BH's and dropping them 5 then BH's will go away and the PvP player will get more free gold hits as bounties will not be punished. Also - and as a happy side effect PvP players like to do PvP so counter bountying to them appears to be a way to keep their game lively. Except with every round of counter bounties you are inviting 4 of your friends to attack one other player, so the odds are always stacked in your favour. The risk, as it were, favours your side.

 

How do BH's react? Under the current system they either stop - or play nice, they clear the bounty using 10 stams and hope to avoid being CB'd. Either way the PvP players and guilds win - they can hit other people for 5 levels on the BB consistently, as they have the numbers and the will to do so, and they get soft cleared using 10 stams from either their friends, or from bounty hunters who don't want to be dropped.

 

This, over time becomes institutionalised, PvP playes and guilds can almost always inflict more damage on the Bb than they receive. Other players in the game, not being blind, recognise this fact. They also recognise that soft clears using 10 stam do not do very much damage to the gold thief who hit them, they can easily maintain their level, so the Bb does not help a PvE style player escape a PvP player's target range. To add insult to injury it becomes evident that if you post a bounty the gold hitters friends are the most likely to clear the bounty, (as BH's are thin on the ground, and players and guilds have been taught the lesson that delevel parties get bloodier for the non-PvP side than the PvP side) so the gold thief steals your gold, and then his friends win the bounty and cause him minimal level loss if at all. Rational players realise that the BB cannot help them. They stop using it.

 

The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. By CBing and doling out far more damage than they receive they have driven competition off the BB, both from other guilds who are not as committed to the PvP cause as they, and from independent BH's who find it hard to justify the loss of levels for the rate of reward - if they even win the bounty, given the network of PvP allies available to clear their buddies bounty using 10 stams.

 

This is a reward for PvP players for organising, getting guilds and allied guilds together. The entire game knows who you are and not to mess with you. It is a result of operating within the system you were given. A tamed and controlled BB that works for your side, and not for anyone else.

 

The PvP players have insulated themselves from risk. They do not get bountied as often as a result of gold hits, they do not get delevelled as often by other guilds, and BH's do not hit them heavily as often for fear of CB and retribution.

 

So if we exchange the word 'risk' for chance or better still probability - we see that the probability of a PvP player losing 5 for a gold hit has been systematically reduced by PvP activity. All legally done. But detrimental to your own game. No-one is interested in playing anymore. Not much fun playing a game where you always lose. Conversley - the PvP community likes this game just fine, they win most of the time. But in winning they are losing players to play with - their game gets smaller, the gold available has got smaller. The PvP community starts asking for incentives to help their game, without realising that they are the reason their game is smaller.

 

Look at what happened - instead of using the BB - the rest of the game population - rational actors also - realised they needed defence from PvP activity, as they cannot stop the initial gold hit - the PvP player always has the advantage there, and they found that the BB could not work for them to try to deter further gold hits - the converse happened - they were dissuaded from using the BB. People lobbied for PvP protection. Mechanics within the game could not protect them, they asked for a new mechanic that would. They got it, after a long period of argument.

 

Gold was also protected. PvP players lost targets for gold, and for XP loss. Their game shrank further - as a consequence, I believe, of their dominance of the BB. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Of course the gold protection element has been removed, but as billybob pointed out to me - there are many more gold sinks in the game now, many more ways to hide gold. PvP players have found the pickings thinner, apparently. But it is hard to trust a gold thief when he tells you he can't find gold anymore.

 

It is also hard now to accept that 'risk' is the reason we should keep the current system. PvP players have acted rationally to reduce risk and maximise benefit to themselves on every front.

 

Ironically by reducing risk so drastically, they also lost benefit as a new mechanic was introduced that protected their potential targets' gold for a long time. And of course being hit for gold teaches players pretty quickly to hide it - another way in which PvP is self-defeating - you hit for gold, folk hide it, you complain there is less gold going around - why is that a surprise?

 

I would argue that the only area in which PvP players have not acted rationally is in their defence of PvP. If you have reduced risk on every front and you know you are getting punished less often and less heavily than you used to, it is a little rich/disingenuous/dishonest to keep claiming you are at "constant risk" of losing 5. You are at constant very low probability of losing 5 is closer to the truth. And if you do lose 5 you make sure everyone that dropped you loses 5 also. The other side loses more, every time. What is the proof of this? The dead BB and the disinterest of the rest of the game population in your game style is a pretty strong indication. The fact that PvP protection was clamoured for as the Bb could not provide a balanced system of punishment for those who choose to hit other players for gold. Can't give you proof - but those things are a pretty firm foundation for my argument.

 

We have to rely on your word that you are honourable, that when someone hits back, they won't be counter bountied. Some PvP players may accept a hit back and be cool with it. Others will CB. Bad apples - maybe, or maybe just rational actors - they know that over time if the enemy keeps losing 5 for every hit via CB, they will go away and leave the field to the PvP player. A clear advantage that a rational actor would seek. The person who hits back cannot know in advance if they will be applauded for the hit, or CB'd for it. A few CB's they'll stop trusting the propaganda that PvP players don't mind being hit back - even if some genuinely believe that - those that CB destroy the perception on the part of PvE players.

 

I don't want to take away your freedom to hit without warning and when it suits you.

 

I do want to take away the myth of risk and replace it with real risk.

 

Rules that are clear and apply to all.

 

One last time.

 

Arguing that there should be 'risk' for every hit, means risk of counter bounty. If arguing 'risk' for every hit meant allowing someone to hit back - well that possibility exists without CB being in the game. CB has been used for years by PvP players and guilds to dominate and drive other players off the BB. CB reduces real risk to PvP players, and increases it for those not in the PvP club. The result is one dead BB, ladies and gents. CB is not risky to PvP players, it is a weapon and it is protection for you.

 

Allowing a BH to be CB minimises risk to the player who did the original gold hit. It protects the aggressor. This system has killed the board and is killing PvP's long term survivability.

 

Using 'risk' as a defence for the current system is unrealistic when the risk is so one sided.




#860064 My Suggestions for reviving the Bounty Board (And this is quite radical)

Posted by Belaric on 04 April 2014 - 06:57

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, 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 – 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 – 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. 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.

 

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, 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. 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. 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 – 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.

 

 

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

This is almost as important as #1. This will encourage people who have not or will not PvP to try it as BH’s. 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. This is more people trying PvP. This is an expansion of the PvP ecosystem, not a contraction. 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.

 

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.

 

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? 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.

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.

 

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.




#859752 Possible Smasher Medal Changes

Posted by Belaric on 03 April 2014 - 13:54

The original smasher implementation caused a catastrophic drop in online numbers, which the game never regained. I remember 200+ in one day that never came back - but my memory could be faulty. HCS have the data.

 

For this reason I think HCS will not touch the smasher medal with a bargepole.

 

I voted no because the smasher was the worst single event in maintaining game numbers in the game's history - to repeat the experiment is foolishness now. In another thread I suggested reopening it - that was not a serious suggestion - I should have put in sarcasm filters.




#858959 Zombie Yeoman Global Event

Posted by Belaric on 31 March 2014 - 19:05

It is great to receive the sexy chests. Thank you.

 

You do us a favour (or is it a glitch? We don't know!) and you get complained at - it seems you just cannot do the right thing by us.

 

The simple thing is to please be consistent - that way you do not annoy people unnecessarily. This event is a microcosm of a long standing pattern of frustrating behaviour. The event starts. After it starts we get a reward added, not fair to those who started playing with one set of assumptions. Others start playing based on a new set of assumptions - that the only way to get a royal chest will be to hit top 100. The event finishes in gold tier. We randomly (and fantastically) get ruby rewards. Those who chose to just do 3000 kills as gold tier was as far as we were going to get now feel ripped off. They played the game as it appeared in front of them, and then the rules got changed after the fact. Insanely annoying for some! (Unless they too got ruby chests anyway??? Info anyone?)

 

All of the people who feel irritated one way or another now would not feel annoyed if the rules as set out at the start of the event had been stuck with. We'd be getting 2 gold chests and done. People would be moaning about the community sucking - or too many events too close together.... oh wait, that happened already.

 

You try to provide events - you get moaned at - you give unexpected incentive , you get moaned at, you give huge bonus reward at the end of the event, you get moaned at.

 

Side 1: Do we as a community really think we help HCS stay motivated sometimes? We do nothing but carp and complain - it demotivates me to bother saying anything here sometimes! (Not today - Sorry DP!)

 

Side 2: HCS - please be consistent! The altering of parameters that people are playing within AS THEY are playing is infuriating - even if done with the best of intentions! So many blow ups over game history can be traced to you doing one thing then revising it. The elemental weapons fiasco still irks me - some guys had to kill those titans once and get a weapon? And I had to take them out 500 times? The weapons got reborn almost instantly? Urgh!!

 

If you do change something maybe providing a clear rationale for why would help. Even if sometimes the line is : "this better suits our business model" which is code for we're not telling you but we are protecting our bottom line. Even that would be better than unexpected changes of position/altering of targets/rewards with no explanation. In this case - "we added an incentive to the top 100 to try to increase community participation." And then "We added ruby rewards to this event in recognition of the multiple drains on players' available stamina (frag global, springtime forest) that have recently effected the community and may have blunted participation in what is normally a high priority global event for many players."  Or "We felt good about the numbers and decided to reward those willing to go after this event even if it did not look like a high tier was going to be achieved - next time folks - be sure to participate - you never know what we might do!!" <--- that way you can take advantage of your unpredicatbility! LOL!




#858847 Radical PvP Rework

Posted by CountFxUup on 31 March 2014 - 07:11

Thats kinda why i said PvPers shoot themselves in the foot what happened today was sweet for a BH needing to get a medal but it showed the non pvp community just what it has always known pvp is no fun and you run the risk of GvP not PvP no fun in that if PvP is to evolve then you must evolve you have all made it a dirty nasty part of FS that nobody wants to discuss or help out ill catch crap for my posts but least there is truth to my posts and you all know it. i know its called protect your own but maybe stop doing that and let one on one battles happen for a while change your ways see if FS changes with you if not then by all means go back to GvP lol.




#858833 Radical PvP Rework

Posted by Pardoux on 31 March 2014 - 05:28

No PvP in Sigma Storm did wonders for that game it didn't last long did it ... How right could one person be anyhow right? =) 

 

I love how this is trotted out EVERY time ....

 

1. There WAS PvP in Sigma Storm II - and, IMO, a much better implementation of it - you actually had to be on the same map as your opponent. Player vs Player on the same map, ergo in the same vicinity ? - pretty radical eh ?

 

2. SS2 failed for a multitude of reasons - user interface, lack of development, lack of fixes. It just didn't get the love and attention it deserved. All in all, SS2 was a better game than FS - more in-depth, more player development ...

 

But, to say that SS2 failed because of no (similar to FS) PvP is misleading at best, and grossly inaccurate at worst ..




#858822 Radical PvP Rework

Posted by CountFxUup on 31 March 2014 - 03:26

From talking to several people who PvP its pretty much agreed that the people who love PvP are responsible for its death that sector of the game make it so unappealing that nobody wants to venture that route. Ever wonder why every forum discussion about PvP gets locked the pvpers get pretty nasty about things if the PvP community could stay civil and come up with small changes that everyone can slip into then i think more people would come to your cause. Dont drop a pvp bomb in the game throw some rocks first start small i like the idea of a PvP tutorial at the start of the game give the new guys and gals a headstart. I also think there should be no level restriction if i want to hit a lvl 1900 i should be able to there is pvp protection for anyone not wanting to play that way those steps could lead into something more but you cant have the whole enchilada from the start and you cant get hostile because the other half of the community is gonna be like thats why i dont want to pvp there all jerks and then the cows are gonna shut the forum down you catch more flies with honey :) small things people think small to get the big picture.




#858843 Development Roadmap (Updated 7th Mar 2014)

Posted by BraveKath on 31 March 2014 - 06:04

Players Leaving -- Paradoux and Chazz both mention factors all sound and valid.  

Let me clearly state - I am one who supports PvP aspect of this game, but I've seen two scenarios that have disturbed me.

One - when things go a little nuts and PvP'ers join in massive forces to repeatedly teach a lesson and do so over many days and sometimes weeks so that the player who is their target is demoralized and leaves the game.  I know some cheer that they've won when this happens.  I just can't see it as a win.   

Two - There have also been a few PvP'ers who simply were going around doing what they do and guilds over-reacted to a random gold hit here and there and felt it was their mission to drive the "vermin" from the game and they didn't seek out the full story (heavens forbid they should talk to the player or their GF) and never discovered that their own player was in fact embellishing the truth - seen it happen too many times.  The PvP'ers in these cases weren't beaten down by the actual attacks in the instances I know, but just by the blind hatred. (The over-reactions were from typically non-PvP guilds, in case there's an confusion).

The faults of these players driven from the game in these manners weren't that great, and from the sidelines it seemed the punishment far exceeded their crimes.  

When our actions are so negative that we drive another player, who isn't cheating or stealing, from the game then I think that is in a sense is our mutual burden and loss, PvPers and Non-PvPers alike.  We should take no glee from that and instead be stepping forward as a community to help mediate these situations with an open mind when we can.

 I know there are some players who even when they are the underdog per se will not give up and will continue hitting at windmills and to that, well there's not much to be done other than watch the self-destruction play itself out and hope they come to their senses.




#858533 Radical PvP Rework

Posted by rowbeth on 29 March 2014 - 07:42

In my opinion, everyone is playing PvP.  Even if they don't attack they do.  Everything else is part of the game: hunting, titan hunting, farming, inventing, etc. So, why is PvP not part of the game?

 

Everything else is a voluntary part of the game. I don't have to farm if I don't want to. I don't have to level if I don't want to. I don't have to hunt titans if I don't want to. So I think the question is "why is PVP different"? Why do I *have* to be PVPd even if I don't want to be?

 

The one thing that is clear from many past PVP threads is that there are extreme and diametrically opposed positions on PVP. Many have left the game because they can't avoid it. Many have left the game because they can't indulge in it.

 

I would reiterate what some have said in past threads: the FS community is too small now to disenfranchise any bit of it. I would love to see PVP changed in a way that gives PVPers more fun; but that has to be done in a way that doesn't detract from the fun of those who really dislike PVP.




#858530 Radical PvP Rework

Posted by rowbeth on 29 March 2014 - 07:27


There have been tons of changes to game that favor leveling faster; easier, and safer - yet some won't be happy until PvP is dead entirely

 

 

A major reason for this is that many of those who push PVP insist that it has to be inflicted on everyone, whether they like it or not. Most of the non-PVPers I have heard from (and I suspect that includes as many farmers and merchants as levellers, byt the way) would be happy for anything to happen with PVP provided they were allowed to opt out of it. But if one is going to insist that everyone should have to suffer one's own favourite aspect of the game - even if others absolutely hate that aspect - then is it a surprise that the opponents will take an extreme position to avoid it?

 


- most could care less about betterment of game globally - they simply serve their own selfish agendas; often pretending they have intent to partake if more compromise suitable to them is made, yet it is lies - they are simple trolls to progress, and nothing is waiting on the other side of their rainbows for them - they are just too blinded to understand it.

 

The thing that has always struck me as puzzling about the PVP debates is that the "I want to get my enjoyment from thumping you, whether you like it or not" is so often portrayed as the unselfiish position.




#858528 Radical PvP Rework

Posted by Bildor on 29 March 2014 - 07:24

If those ideas were limited to an opt-in button, that sounds exactally like the ladder we have right now.  Just a couple of extra small update that are suppose to "fix" it.  Everyone, besides new players, should be included in PvP.  This is a PvP game and adding another optional button for PvP would not help at all. I could be wrong about that, though.  But just my thought and opinion, not trying to be harsh.

i've been playing FS for over 5 years and don't consider this a solely PvP game. In fact, i hardly PvP at all. This game has A LOT of different  aspects, something for everyone. i don't understand why some people want to force other people to play a part of the game they don't care for. You will just drive them away. How is that good for FS? I'm all for new PvP events, improving the ladder and arena, new prizes, and whatever else that will make PvP enjoyable for people who engage in that activity, as long as I am not forced to participate.




#857652 Titan Update and Bounty Board Feedback

Posted by BigGrim on 26 March 2014 - 17:56

Hi there Everyone.
 
A few things this evening.
 
First, we have made a new update to the code for Titan Hunting. This activates in a Realm where a Titan is spawned and will allow us to better track and stop scripting.
 
Second, we are looking to update the Bounty Board sometime next week with the following : PvP Ladder hits will no longer be bounty-able and Bounties will no longer expire.
 
Furthermore, we are thinking that anyone who takes a bounty cannot be bountied for taking it. This would mean being a Bounty Hunter would no longer be more damaging to the Hunter, making it a viable part of the game again. However, we would like constructive feedback regarding this.
 
~ The Fallen Sword Team





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