Group pvp v. one-on-one pvp Hewwo Nabolo, I've been reading players' comments on the various forums about the pvp aspect of the game.

I think that my biggest disappointment over the most recent updates has been with the changes in group pvp. The incentive for 1 v. 1 pvp was removed a while back, and the focus changed to strategic territory conquest and strategic group fighting, often with full teams that were close in level and often with unpredictable outcomes.

I was never interested in 1 v. 1 pvp...I've always found it repetitive, lacking the surprises, teamwork, and group strategy that the prism fights provided for a time. However, with the amount of xp (5 mil xp) and the souls obtained from strokens, I decided to give it a try.

I keep my wings up so I can use a shield in perc fights, heart fights, and prism fights (which unfortunately I rarely do now), and so I can get the xp/drop bonuses. During the time I'm logged on, I generally am pm'd by 199 & 200 sacs, osas, and srams for 1 v. 1 pvp. I try to recall for some of the fights, even though I know ahead of time that it's a 90% for sure loss for me. I'm constantly experimenting with equips and with my build to make it possible to at least have a fighting chance against these classes.

I sometimes get the bounty scrolls myself, but really, is it fair to pick the classes which you're pretty much guaranteed to win against? Players are given huge incentives to pick on classes that they can beat...xp, strokens, and avoiding huge losses in honor points. There are very few classes that represent a 50/50 chance of winning...but really, those are the fights I want. However, it's rare for one of their names to come up, even if I've picked up twenty different names from the militia throughout the day.

So basically, this is what pvp has become for me: very boring, non-challenging. The 1 v. 1 pvp in general has increased animosity between players and raised frustration levels...rather than making the game more fun, it has added a negative aspect to it. It also takes away from teamplay in general, b/c being aggroed often means that the pvm group will now have to disband. And now there are the upcoming changes to the fungus cavern...

I loved the prism fights and the teamwork...it was an aspect of the game which was very fun for me. I think that the one thing that would improve pvp and possibly alleviate player frustration would be to have an "option" that indicates whether you're participating in "group pvp" or "1 v. 1 pvp". Another idea would be to hand out only one headhunter scroll (or five for example) rather than twenty-five...making it more difficult for people to hunt their "target".

I think it's time for me to put my wings down permanently.

On a positive note: the best update that was ever made, hands down, was the d/c-reconnection system.

Thanks for reading,

anjulica

My original intent of my letter to Nabolo and this thread was to bring one issue to the forefront, that on our server, Rushu, group pvp at prisms no longer exists, that the Headhunter Quest is seriously taking away from player enjoyment of the game and disrupting player activities, and that therefore some adjustments need to be made to the pvp system.

I would like to respond to some of the above ideas; however, I do not want the focus of this thread to change so that it becomes a debating thread. The reason being, Nabolo has limited time, and right now he is facing even more time constraints than usual. This thread needs to be presentable to the Ankama Staff, and I would ask that all posters would remind themselves of that as they post their ideas, and that they would clearly explain their ideas when they post.

I will now respond at Chok's request.

Hi Chok, You've made some valid points:

1. The rewards in 1 v. 1 pvp are high, whereas the rewards in group pvp that centers around prisms and territory conquest are low. It would be nice to see changes in the area of pvp rewards.

2. When the prism system is being evaluated, the issue of balance between the teams could be addressed.

Some comments about what you wrote in your post:

Rewards

The rewards are the force that is driving the Headhunter Quest. There are many different formulas that can be used to distribute xp, rank, strokens...those can be discussed at a later time.

Team Balance in Prism Fights

1. I think that one of the major issues with your idea would be that a total of the lvls/ranks themselves aren't a good measure of equality.

For example, a lvl 200 player can easily win against two lvl 100 players...making it an unfair fight if no one else is able to get in to defend. A lvl 200 can easily take off at least 1k hp from an opponent per turn. Level 200 players tend to have 3000+hp, and when playing against two players with 1000 hp each, the fight would be over very quickly. Again, there is the issue of imbalance.

There is also the issue of class. For example, a lvl 170 eni + lvl 140 iop v. two lvl 150 cras would have a completely different outcome than other team combinations in combat.

Having a fixed formula with a maximum of 100 lvl gap between the two teams means very different things when it's 2 v. 2 compared to 8 v. 8. Also, because the prism takes up one spot, it would affect the balance formula as well.

2. If there are limited spots, some players won't run to an area to defend if it is possible that only two people will be able to defend the prism.

3. There would be a communication challenge when organizing the defense. It is already confusing when two teams are trying to communicate via /a at the same time. Because the necessity of communication through /a would increase, things would become more complicated.

4. The Ankama Team is concerned with balancing the classes so that there is an even 1:1 win/loss ratio (see above), rather than balancing teams.

There is no balance formula in perc fights, heart fights, and uneven ganging is permitted in the game (although most players consider this unethical).

5. Currently we have the "free will" to make our surroundings and environment the way we would like them to be. There is a certain amount of player responsibility involved in balance. For example, when I was involved in 1 v. 1 pvp, I always offered to heal my opponent before we started our fight. Fights are so much more fun when players have ethical conduct. However, these ethics at play in fights have to come from the player, rather than be forced on players.


However, the idea of putting in a lvl balancing system is something that should be seriously considered...whatever the formulas eventually turn out to be.

Thanks again for posting,

anjulica

I think this is a very good point yet I assume ankama are trying to make levels proportional to power.


True.

However, cra are getting buffed and eni should be nerfed in groups.

Perhaps it's the same question as with 1vs1 and int iops? Should Ankama have nerfed them before giving them the ability to earn 10mk at level 60?


Easy to program around.


Acknowledged. This however, isn't as big an issue if they can see who's attacking and who's defending already.


Yes, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Hardly anyone uses /a on Shika anyway.


I suspect they're more concerning with making the game fair & entertaining.


There will always be a few who abuse the system - and in this game it seems to be a lot (eg stroken alts). Sometimes, as with aggressive ganging, getting a bad reputation deters them. At other times Ankama should try and make the system less abusable in the first place.

Edit: Now that Nabolo has left and we're waiting for a new Community Manager, the purpose of this thread has been expanded.

I'd like everyone to summarize and present their pvp ideas on the thread. Please remember that we are not debating specifics or arguing, but rather we are "collaborating" and "refining ideas". Include temporary "bandaids" or long-term solutions...general ideas or detailed structure.

Once we have the ideas up and we've discussed them, I can put together a working proposal of an effective pvp system that we can give to Ankama.

*****************************

Hi Chok,

Maybe instead of quoting so many times, just write a paragraph that summarizes your point of view? That way it's more easily readable, and if someone wants to quote you they can. Right now no one can quote you b/c it's piecemeal...in other words, when someone "quotes" you, the original quotes (that you're quoting in your post) aren't included in the new quotes.

Thanks,

anjulica



This post has been edited by anjewel: 30 Jul 2009, 03:55

I think I suggested something simular a while ago. I ll try to refind the post and put it in here

Okay I can t seem to find my old post. Anyway here s some ideas to better balance 1 vs 1 PvP/stimulate group PvP.

1 vs 1 PvP

If you are doing the headhunter quest u should get to attack people with the same rank of wings (as well as level). That way epic (read: good at PvP) characters would have rank 10 wings and fight each other. This avoids the unbalance in 1 vs 1 PvP. The way it works now is way unbalanced; higher ranked people have better shields, they probably have better equipment (for PvP) and are more experienced/skilled at PvP too. Besides this system would discourage the creation of PvP alts.

I only see one drawback; people would swap alignment all the time to have rank 1 wings again and get easy fights. The solution to this is simple; let people do the same dungeons/quests they would have to do to reset their character. That should discourage alignment swapping.


Group PvP

As it s said more then once in this topic group PvP has potential. It just needs a better designed system so people would use it. I would suggest a simular quest as the headhunter one: "the invasion quest". The idea is simple u go to amaryo or the brak guy that hands out quests. He gives u orders to take or defend a terretory. The same thing happens to the opposing alignment. Reward would be strokens and xp (of coarse). I know this idea is far from flawless and need a lot of details worked out. But it s a nice general idea for group PvP I guess.

Dokah, 193 omni iop, Rosal.

I was asked to repost this so here are a few of my Ideas

Solutions to the PvP vs PvM problems Here is a list of solutions that would make PvM neutrals happy and PvP and allow the developers to change spells to balance
PvP

1.Open all areas in Dofus to neutrals pandala's rice and wood ,Zoth etc. aligned can keep Imp transport.
(Neutrals need access for professions and quests)

2. there are two ways to resolve the neutrals being aggressed by aligned so that neutrals are treated fairly.
A. make neutrals non-aggressable or
B. Since the developers want aligned to be able to hide as a neutral, When a neutral is aggressed code it so for the
neutral it is treated as a challenge. Give the aligned their disgrace point and the neutral loses no heath energy etc
and can go about their business.

3. remove all bonuses to wings that have PvM value replace them with PvP bonuses elemental resistance to fighters(like with shields)or exp bonus in PvP only increase the % resistance or exp bonus as rank increases.

I have not programmed in Java but have some experience in other programing languages.
The game must have a switch in it activated by the player that recognizes when wings are up or down.Such as
//define (alingnmentstatus)as integer
//wings up = 3
//wings down = 2
//neutral = 1

All spells have a tabbed window telling the effects normal,crit, and if summon stats etc. add one or 2 more tabs labeled
PvP define the changes to spells since 1.27 was released here.

using switch for wings up or down

If alingnmentstatus >2
spells equal 1.27 effect as listed on tab
else
spells equal 1.26
endif


The coding for the way spells were in 1.26 are still around the PvM and neutrals needed the spells the way they were.
I'm sure that it is going to be a long term project to try and balance spells between classes for PvP why should the PvM
neutrals continue to have the game made more difficult for them.while you sort it out its hard enough with the equipment
being changed to try and balance PvP.

and yes it is more coding but would make about 90% of Dofus happy

Now if anyone knows French Please post this on their forum so it actually gets read.

Note a lot of people have repeated that Lichen stated he wanted spells to work the same for both PvP and PvM but if you will notice with the 1.28 update the spell Con and equipment that steals kamas were changed to steal kamas only from monsters and not in PvP so it can be done. One effect for PvP and one effect for PvM

Bumping this thread as it has the best group PvP ideas in.

To significantly reward group PvP, it must be balanced. Such battles should ideally be available 24/7 and revolve around the prism system.
These criteria are very difficult to fulfil.

This post has been edited by ChoKuRei: 28 Aug 2009, 21:59

The criteria to have a balanced group PvP prism fight should not be difficult at all lol you yourself keep talking about the good job Ankama is doing "balancing" all the classes, so if they are "balanced" a group of all Enis should be "balanced" against all int Iops right lol. You ever read what you post?

I remember back in 1.20 when ankama made sure that their new concept, characteristic resets, were balanced, so nobody would abuse it. Now, about 2 years later, people are still abusing the system by making wis chars, leechign them to 200 within days and then resetting them to fully scrolled agi, chance, str or int.

Or when ankama wanted to make balanced weapons, resulting in certain weapons hitting for about as much as equivalents that were about 100 levels higher.

Or when they wanted to make "alternate ways to get experience and items", resulting in single level 60 players getting done a job multiple times as fast as a whole group of level 150+ players by using the "alternate ways".

Let's just say that balancing isn't quite ankama's fortée.

Wasn't, for sure. They seem to be getting better at it though and I think it's largely down to the 48 and statistics gathering.

Here's the problem with balanced group PvP:
How do Ankama make sure that most of the time you go to attack/defend a prism that it will be a balanced fight?

In particular:
How do they stop a second kind of stroken abuse by level 19xs?
Should Ankama reward stupidly unbalanced fights eg a level 100 vs 3 level 199?
If you use a level gap to award fights, what will happen if a low level joins the fight that will stop a bunch of players getting their stroken?

LGD - that's the stupidest post I've ever seen. I suggest you edit it.

They should just automatically assign the fights. Like it's done in WoW, per example. Take all the players that want to fight and divide them into two balanced teams and then throw em into some arena or whatever, simple as that.

You must not see any of your own posts its your logic I'm throwing back at you. You keep cheering on the "balancing" that Ankama is doing saying that all classes should be equal. If all classes are "balanced" and equal the statement that a group of Enis is equal to a group of int Iops by your logic is true. Try reading through some of your own posts, you may want to edit them because they are the stupidest posts anyone has ever seen lol.

Perhaps you have learning difficulties and I shouldn't poke fun.

"Balancing" <> "balanced". "Balancing" means they should be more balanced in the future. It does not mean they will be completely balanced, and definitely does not mean they are currently balanced.

This post has been edited by ChoKuRei: 11 Sep 2009, 15:14

Perhaps you have mental and psychological instability and or deficiency and I shouldn't poke fun.

Your and Lichen's great joy of "balance" = Nerf = Harder PvM

Your logic "balance" = 1v1 Eni vs Iop each have equal chance to win = 6 Eni vs 6 Iop equal chance to win rember they are "balanced.

Kinda of funny how you are for "balance 1v1 but think it dosn't work with groups.

News Flash dungeon runs are groups of player vs groups of monsters

another News flash there are 12 classes for PvP to figure out how to beat there are how many combinations of monsters including high lvl dungeon bosses for PvM to plan in order to beat.

another news flash when the spells and equipment players have been using keep changing makes it hard to plan long term: example do I buy that 2 million kama cape or wait and see if it gets nerfed next week. You have a group you like to run dungeons with, the players know their spells and the team works well together zap spells nerfed and reworked to benefit PvP now you have to recruit new members for team, get new equipment or spend a week figuring out what spells are now useless for PvM and then figure out how to coordinate the groups actions in dungeon. Until the next PvP statistics come out and things get changed again. Oh yes this lends such stability to the game and makes it so much more fun (for PvP).

Hi Everyone!

Thanks for all the great posts! I think we're getting some good info from various perspectives.

Here is a summary of our discussion so far, with some additions, and links to each of your posts:

I. Introduction of the Problem (anjulica)

A. The changes to the pvp system have had drastic results - The incentive to hunt and aggro players is high.

1. Players with wings up are restricted in their activities - Players no longer have the choice of getting involved with other activities in Dofus apart from 1 v. 1 when their wings are up. If they are in a pvm or prism fight with wings up, then there is a line-up waiting to aggro the person when the fight is finished, restricting the player from doing other enjoyable activities on Dofus. The Head Hunter Quest has restricted the choices of activities that players can participate in.

a. PvM and prism teams are disbanded when a player in their group is aggroed

b. Participation in group pvp at prisms has dwindled - this is very unfortunate, as a lot of players loved the new prism system. However, because their wings automatically come up when attacking or defending a prism, many people wh only like group pvp have stopped doing prism fights.

2. Players with or without wings up have experienced loss of enjoyment of Dofus - Players no longer have the freedom to go back and forth between a variety of activities to keep things enjoyable. Because of this, Dofus has lost some of its variety and some players are losing interest in the game.

3. The Head Hunter Quest has increased animosity between people.

a. Rather than build fun relationships through teamwork, the Head Hunter Quest forces a one v. one confrontation that is often unpleasant.

b. The animosity throughout the game was heightened for a period of time after the changes; however, it has lessened as more people have put their wings down permanently.

B. There are some significant problems with the way the Head Hunter Quest operates

1. More than one player can have another person's name at the same time - This means there is a line-up of attackers for the player being aggroed, meaning that they are unable to participate in other activities.

2. Players usually only attack the classes they are guaranteed to win against

a. This is unfortunate, because this takes away the challenge and randomness of 1 v. 1 pvp.

b. For those of us who enjoy "fair play", it either forces us to do the same thing (attacking classes we are guaranteed to win against), or to no longer participate in 1 v. 1 pvp.

c. There has been an emergence of "stroken farmers"

C. The Head Hunter Quest is actually undermining the goals of the Ankama Team - The developers have stressed the importance of "continuity" between pvm and pvp. However, in effect they have caused a rift between the two, with 1 v. 1 pvp on one side, and pvm on the other side. Players are force to choose one or the other. This goes against the goals that Ankama has presented to us.

D. Summary of the Issues (Gwen-Stephani-)
- wings cannot be shown without fear of being aggressed
- prism fights seem to be rare now
- defense of prims now force wings open
- the cost to put wings down to do other things, like gathering professions, is too high

E. Players are Unable to Set Long-Term Goals Due to the PvP "Balancing" (LordGreyDragon) - with each change to the classes, some players have to completely re-equip

II. Immediate Solutions to the Problem

A. Getting a target from the militia makes you a target for 24 hours (anjulica) - This provides a temporary, immediate solution that would eliminate many player concerns.

Summary of Player Concerns:

1. Reduced Enjoyment of the Game - Players are experiencing reduced enjoyment of the game due to lack of group pvp (prism fights) and forced one v. one fights.

2. Reduced Playing Time - Players are finding that the occupation of time, once their name is in the Headhunter Quest name pool, is leaving no time for them to engage in Dofus activities of their choice.

Temporary Solution:

1. Getting a Target from the Militia Makes You a Target - When a player goes to the militia and gets a target, they are automatically entered into the "Headhunter Quest" for the next 24 hours (the time is adjustable...this is just the basic idea).

This will ensure that all players whose names are put in the "pool" have made a conscious choice to do so. This may also prevent players from abusing the system by only accepting the targets of players they are guaranteed to beat, because once a player chooses to take a target, he/she is committed to becoming a target in the quest for the next 24 hours. Each time a player gets a new target, the clock resets to 24 hours.

2. The Choice to Refrain from Becoming a Target - If a player does not "register" at the militia by getting a target, then their name is not put into the name pool for the Headhunter Quest, and they can continue to engage in territory conquest (or other Dofus activities). This removes the concern players have of being constantly hunted down and aggroed due to the quest, or of being asked to engage in 1 v. 1 pvp fights that are a 95% chance of loss.

This would separate the Headhunter Quest from other pvp activities, and provide a quick, temporary solution to the most concerning problems...these concerns being "Reduced Enjoyment of the Game", and "Reduced Playing Time". Players can then get back to enjoying group pvp at prisms and other Dofus activities.

B. Change the Rewards in the PvP System

1. Lower the Head Hunter Rewards

Revising the level requirement for stroken exchanges (Rossiscooler)

2. Raise the Rewards for Group PvP at Prisms (revenge-four)

a. Prism fights were exciting and they had people working together as it should be in a mmorpg - group pvp around prisms had people in good spirits and was helping people to get to know each other.

b. The group pvp-ers could be helped if they were given good xp and strokens from prism fights

c. The only "balanced" pvp is group pvp - where the underdog can win with good tactics, and where no one overpowered class or person with sheild, turq, ochre, and tonic can be automatically declared the winner

C. Fights Should Be Automatically Assigned (LordGreyDragon)

1. Take all the players that want to fight and divide them into two balanced teams and then throw them into some arena

2. Another option would be to throw them onto a random map (anjulica) - This would create interesting variations with every fight.

D. Change the Rights of Neutrals (LordGreyDragon)

1. Open all areas in Dofus to neutrals - Neutrals need access to these areas for professions and quests, e.g., Pandala's rice and wood. Zoth would also be open to neutrals, but the alignments would keep the imp carriers.

2. Make neutrals non-aggressible

3. Remove pvm bonuses for wings, and replace them with pvp bonuses

III. Improvements to Group PvP

A. Improvements to Territory Conquest

1. Adding Quests for Territory to the Prism System

a. Regional Quests (evilmind)

Add a 2nd option at the NPC, that will give you a REGION to take over, rather than a person to hunt.

An example: "Kill the prism in Sidimote Moor, Young Padawan"

Other people would have the same task, so you could join with them.

Another idea: Increase the time to enter a prism defense, and add another option to the NPC of taking on a GvG quest of DEFENDING the prism thats under attack at that time.

This way, both sides would be full of people fighting for strokens, which is the type of motivation needed for group pvp

Some changes would have to be made first, in order to prevent lower level players from ruining the fights...but this is just a basic idea

b. Prism Hunter Quests (medgix/youbutsu)

c. Prism Quests (Bujax)

d. Interractive Quests - i.e., "Your mission is to stop X capturing the prism of Sufokia." (ChoKuRei)

e. Invasion Quests (DOKAH)

f. Varying Levels of Complexity of Prism Quests (anjulica)

B. Changes to Prism Fights

1. Make it possible for players to do prism fights without their wings going up automatically (Gwen-Stephani-)

2. Attackers should be able to see who is defending (ChoKuRei)

3. Defenders should be able to see who is attacking without going to the area where the prism is located (ChoKuRei)

C. Add an "Alignment List" similar to the Friends' List (anjulica) - This would work well if there was an option where you could choose whether you'd like to be on the list or not (similar to the profession rune which a player double-clicks on in order for their name to show up in the log book), or the list would just show "wings up" people of the alignment.

D. Changes to 1 v. 1 PvP (DOKAH) - If you are doing the headhunter quest u should get to attack people with the same rank of wings (as well as level).

IV. Ideas on New Systems that Should be Considered or Developed Further

A. Badge System, City Assaults & Ladder, Day Passes, Wing Bonus Changes, and Ladder of Dishonor (SnowDigital)

B. PvP Solo Dungeon & PvP Group Dungeon (clearscreen)

C. Systems for "Balancing" Prism Fights

1. Level and Rank Matching in Prism Fights (ChoKuRei)

2. Three Tier Prism System (revenge-four)

D. Examining Demographic Data of those involved in 1 v. 1 pvp and those who prefer to participate in other activities (anjulica)

It would be interesting to see the compiled statistics based on the demographics. This could be done easily by placing a poll on the Dofus.com site. The data could then be used to help the developers set goals for the future of the game.

For example, if 20% of online chars are involved in 1 v. 1 pvp (can be measured with wings up), and 20% of players who love group pvp are no longer able to do prism fights, the developers have alienated 20% of their players.

Then, if 95% of 1 v. 1 pvp'ers are male players (actual people playing the chars) age 15-23, who each hold an average of 5 accounts that pvp, then the number of actual people on Dofus who are doing 1 v. 1 pvp is 4%. The the game then meets needs of one demographic only. (The numbers are examples, and are not based on any statistics known to myself).


*****************************************

I'd like to remind some of the posters that in order to accomplish our common goal, which is "having a pvp system that works", we need to work together as a team if we want to accomplish anything worthwhile. Here are some great tips that would keep this thread on track:

Please read the section on "refutation" before criticizing another person's ideas

In particular, I've asked posters to put their ideas up so we can do something as a group that will benefit the entire community. I suggest that if someone wishes to use constructive criticism in order to help another person's idea to develop further, they use "refutation" as described in the article above and that they do it in a nice manner.

Everyone's ideas are important, and I would prefer that people post all their ideas and brainstorming, because they might trigger each others' creativity. It doesn't matter how silly a person thinks their own idea is...someone else might come up with another completely different idea just from reading it.

If you criticize someone's ideas just because you believe your ideas are better, then you aren't working to help the team. It is important that we help each other to develop our ideas, because in some cases, two ideas will meet in the middle and develop into one fantastic solution. If you are not using clear refutation, then you are not helping the other posters and you lose credibility with the readers of your posts.

Also, some of us are having difficulty understanding certain things that have been posted. Each poster is responsible to explain their ideas clearly, and not to assume that we understand their idea when details are missing. If that hasn't been done, and people are misunderstanding your system, please refrain from posting insults (including subtle put-downs) at another player in anger. It defeats the purpose of what we are doing, and the Ankama staff will not be interested in reading our thread if it continues.

What we are currently doing is trying to develop our ideas based on the way Dofus is right now...and the concepts that Ankama is currently using. We need ideas that can be implemented in a step-by-step manner, with "now" as the starting point. If your idea is based on a concept that Ankama is not currently working with, then becoming defensive will not help your proposal...you will need to add more detailed explanation in your proposal.

For example, the subject of "balancing" has become a hot topic. From what we've seen from their announcements and Ankama's other statements, the balancing is based on balancing the classes in 1 v. 1 pvp only, and only against classes in the same lvl range. Success of the "balancing" is determined by statistical results taken from the data gathered from 1 v. 1 fights...this is how the Win/Loss Ratio is determined. There is no suggestion that there will ever be balancing of groups (which would be far too complex because of the hundreds of possible combinations) or of chars with varying level ranges (e.g., there is no balancing planned between one lvl 180 v. 2 lvl 90 players...the result will always be the same).

For this reason, if you are going to post based on group balancing or varying level range balancing, then you will need to post the basic formulas for the balancing, i.e., what data would Ankama need to gather in order to measure the balance between the groups or level ranges.

The challenge with balancing 1 v. 1 PvP, is that although the Test Server might show the statistics to be 1:1 for the Win/Loss Ratio, once the changes hit the main servers, some players tend to change to a more successful build or create new chars they know can easily beat other classes at certain levels. Because of this, Ankama is faced with the challenge of constantly making changes to catch up and eliminate player exploitation.

When Ankama starts with a 1:1 Win/Loss Ratio before launching changes on the main servers, it is not their fault if the class becomes imbalanced...it's the players who have switched chars/builds that are actually changing the statistics and causing the imbalance. As long as there are players who exploit the changes, classes will never be 1:1 according to Ankama's statistics, unless the diversity within each class increases to the point where different builds can beat different classes.

Above all, please keep your posts positive and friendly.

Thanks everyone,

anjulica

This post has been edited by anjewel: 12 Sep 2009, 22:06

heh, nifty ^^

Great post, anjewel,

Just a few points I disagree with.

.
Pre-headhunter 1v1 opportunities remain, so I disagree with the word "forces".


Unless you want unfair 1v1, with overpowered classes not only winning but getting extra rewards, balancing is essential. All Ankama can do is make sure changes are well thoughtout and give fair warning.

We already have "The Choice to Refrain from Becoming a Target" - it's called putting your wings down. With 24 hour 'wings' players wouldn't have a choice.
The honour loss from putting your wings down should be reduced by 50-75%.


Doesn't address the whole problem ie being able to scroll at level 40+ for 'free'.
The best solution is undoubtedly making stroken rewards dependent on (opponent's) level.


Why shouldn't neutrals be able to use imp carriers? Perhaps they should be charged a nominal 100k fee.


Neutral aggressing has been reduced by 80+%, to the degree that people would rather have the option of aggressing big mouths than avoid a once-a-year aggro.


Shields already unbalance PvP. PvM bonuses are minor considering you'll get aggro'd every other fight.


Unfortunately, does not stop a team of 19x stroken farming.

Chok, thank you for your comments. It doesn't matter if you, anyone else, or if I disagree with these issues...we are not at the stage of "evaluation" of any of the ideas yet, because none of them are complete. This is why I asked that we present basic ideas, not debate them. This is a "brainstorming" session, and all I'm doing is summarizing and categorizing everyone's ideas so they are easily accessible for us to refer to as we work on our own ideas, and whether we all agree with them or not is irrelevant at this point.

If you aren't familiar with the term "brainstorming", please post, and I'll explain it in more detail. I recognize that we are all from different parts of the world and our schooling has all been different, and that terminology differs between geographical regions.

I have already asked you to refrain from posting in a piecemeal fashion, or else your post turns out as it is below. I have also asked you to please read the section on "refutation". If you are planning to comment on someone's ideas, please explain why you think the way you do...in a kind manner and in detail, so we can all understand you properly.

Please refrain from Name-Calling, Ad Hominem, Responding to Tone, Contradiction, and Counterargument. All of these definitions are discussed below. In this thread I am asking posters to use polite "Refutation" only, if they wish to discuss someone else's post, so that we can focus on developing the ideas that are important to each person and not get sidetracked by unproductive contradiction.

I am posting the info that I have asked all posters to read below.

Thanks,

anjulica


***************************

How to Disagree (taken from paulgraham.com)

March 2008

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:

u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!

But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment like

The author is a self-important dilettante.

is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:

Of course he would say that. He's a senator.

This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.

Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:

I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.

Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:

The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:

<quotation>

But this is wrong for the following reasons...

The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.

*****************************





This post has been edited by anjewel: 13 Sep 2009, 04:13

Anjewel, I've warned you before about unnecessarily criticising people in public threads. Even though you apologised, you're doing it again - so I'm returning the favour to see how you like it.
Since you're trying to set yourself up as an authority for summarising threads, you really shouldn't cause be causing unnecessary aggro.

You really ought to be able to cope with the standard posting styles too.
Interleaving is best for addressing particular points. You can quote it just the same as any other post.

I don't know why you're spamming the thread with Mr Graham's post. Are you advocating what he says or warning against it? Either way it's fairly irrelevant.

You sound like you've just come from a seminar on Brainstorming and they forgot to tell you it doesn't work unless everyone sticks to the rules (so forget it on public forums).

The other thing they should have told you is that to get people to accept your authority, you have to be an acceptable authority. You aren't, so I reject your claim-to-authority and the idea of a brainstorm. Enough said on that point.

You should also note that this thread has been bumped 3x and nobody has added anything substantial to it since the 29th. Partly that's because of the trolls but partly it's because the problem of rewarding balanced GvG is difficult.

At the moment, there is only one viable solution on the table which happens to be be mine (post #3)

As I've summarised elsewhere, the solution has to:
a) Only reward balanced fights. 8x 19x players stroken farming by mowing down 30+ prisms in a day would not be appreciated.
b) Prevent low levels from unbalancing fights.
c) Revolve around prisms.

I'm throwing this out as a challenge. Someone please come up with a better solution than mine.

This post has been edited by ChoKuRei: 13 Sep 2009, 19:03

As it stands now Headhunter Quests take into account losses and wins as well as level in a closest to furthest gap in relation to availability. It stands to reason that the same could be done within the Prism/Area Conquest framework. Regardless of that, I will make a quick attempt at outlining a possible system.

Mojojojo, a level 100 Iop, goes to the Bonta HHQ NPC. He can choose either Headhunter(HHQ), Prism Assault(PAQ), or Prism Defense(PDQ).
When this happens a list of enemy Prism locations should appear (or allied of the same for Defense). Mojo would then select one of these territories which would become locked within Mojo's Tier.

• 48-70
• 71-90
• 91-120
• 121-150
• 151-180
• 181-200

Mojo chooses the Prism at -2,-19. In /a a message appears "-2,-19 has been targeted at Tier 3 (91-120)". At this point at the Brak HHQ NPC -2,-19 would open as an option under the PDQ option, set at Tier 3 (91-120).
If at this point another Bonta, Pippy-Woolstockings (lvl 111 Feca), saw the message on /a or just happened to be at the NPC looking for a Prism she would only have the option to choose the -2,-19 Tier 3 (91-120) Prism. There would be no reason for her to start a new attempt at the same Tier (ideally within each Tier there would be an offense and defense active at any given time). If you wanted to guarantee a fight with like Tier friends, just organize beforehand. If one is already going on, don't join it as I think there should be a 30 min cool down or a queue penalty within 30 minutes of completing (win or loss) of a quest.
If Mojo logged out(before Pippy or anyone else joined the offense), after 5 minutes in /a a message would appear "Mojojojo has abandoned the cause at -2,-19". He would take some honor loss and that is that. If the same happened after Pippy joined, he just losses some honor.

After 7 join Mojo's attack and 7 Defend on the Brak side, the -2,-19 Prism would be attackable by any with the PAQ. A /a message should announce " The battle for -2,-19 has begun".

There are also three optional additions I would like to propose:
1] A scroll for those taking the PAQ to teleport to the Prism, one time use, non-tradeable, perhaps only useable once the fight is started.
2] Making each of these /a messages interactive. Much like a Perc defense, any person of the proper alignment and tier can click the message and they are in the fight. Victory returns you to where you were. Defeat means sending you to your saved Zaap. This would apply to both offense and defense. One defender would be able to join for each attacker that joins.
It is possible a queue could be used here taking into account the levels and PvP skill which is currently done in 1V1 PvP. If this Queue were implemented I feel Alignment Level and then Rank of Wings should be used as a tie breaker. 2 lvl 120 Cras are in queue for the last slot in Mojo's Prism offense. The one with Wings up gets in. If both have wings up, the one with the higher Align Lvl gets in. If they are the same align lvl, the one with the highest Wing rank gets in. If tied...I feel Init should decide the winner in that case.
3] The /a can not be turned off with wings up...BUT wings up is NOT required for attack or defense.
Victorious defenders should get slightly more xp than victorious attackers would. Victorious attackers should get 2 strokens and victorious defenders should get 3.

I hope you have enjoyed my proposal...or at the very least gotten some ideas from it.

This post has been edited by Electricotter: 14 Sep 2009, 03:26