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

I personally used to love prism fights , they were exciting and they get people working together -- as it should be in a mmorpg

please could you at least help the group pvp-ers by to giving xp and strokens to prism fights (depending on level and if equal teams etc) -- would make things much more enjoyable for a lot of other people.

i really suck 1v1 pvp, but put me in a group with 2 balanced teams, and like mr gengis khan himself, i can lead those no hopers to victory with ease -- and hopefully get my well deserved xp and strokens p

the only balance in pvp -- is group pvp ! -- where the people that suck can win with good tactics, and where no one overpowered class or person with sheild , turq, ochre and tonic up his butt can bulldozer you,

i always found group pvp to be in good spirit too and helps people get to know each other.



This post has been edited by revenge-four: 16 Jul 2009, 16:32

There would need to be some means of stopping noobs trying to ride the backs of other players or stopping players unbalancing the fights out of stroken range - as both could get very annoying.

By means of a simple rule, both can be prevented: You can only join a prism fight if your level doesn't make the level difference between teams > 100 and your rank > 3.

Scenario 1:

Level 90 Bont attacks. Levels 60, 70 & 80 join queue. Level 190 Brak defends. Levels 60 & 70 join attacking team. Resultant fight = level 220 Bont team vs level 190 Brak.

Scenario 2:

Level 140 Bont attacks. Level 60 Brak defends. Level 190 Brak joins queue. 190 asks 60 to switch. 60 complies. Currently 140 vs 190 - any Bont up to 150 who joins will get in. Any higher level Bont can ask 140 to switch.

I've kept the fights small for simplicity when in reality, this would be very popular and many fights would be 8 vs x. 100 level gap could be changed to 20% level difference without complicating it too much.

Here's how it works exactly:
1. Anyone can attack a prism as currently stands.
2. The first person to defend can always defend.
3. Any others joining can only be 'in the fight' if their level doesn't make their team's level 100+ higher than the opposing team's*. If it did, that person instead joins a queue. These players joining an existing defence/attack have to be rank 4 minimum.
4. Every second, server checks the queue to see if this condition* has changed, including whether the next players in both teams' queues can balance each other out.
5. In the last 5 seconds, no-one can join a queue. However, those 'in the fight' can switch with anyone in the queue at any time (including entire buildup).

For this to work, those in winning queue should get ~75% of rewards, else players are unlikely to give up their place. As such, queue should be limited to 3-4 places.

Advantages:

1. Game suddenly twice as much fun for very little effort on Ankama's part.
2. Workable stroken & XP for group PvP takes focus off 1vs1 imbalances eg feca are much better in group, int iops not so much.
3. All areas of game balanced - people can play as they want, 1vs1 or group or PvM or professions without falling behind - and can optimise diverse builds for doing so.
4. Less antagonism on server but Bont/Brak war becomes more meaningful.
5. Can't be kicked out of fight by arrogant epic levels for no good reason.

Disadvantages:

1. Groups balanced by level isn't inherently balanced especially at 180+ eg a level 200 can generally take on 3-4 level 100s.
2. High levels won't be guaranteed a place when going to join existing prism fights.
3. Levelling wings will be harder from ranks 1-4.
4. It's not very realistic.

Edited for readability.

This post has been edited by ChoKuRei: 13 Sep 2009, 18:20

i dont know how it would work but how about three independent prism systems side by side,

151 - 200

100 - 150

1 to 99

cos the most annoying thing in the world is a busy prism busy defence with people in the queues and i get replaced with some Rank 7 level 60 in a mushroom hat who would not be able to survive a leek pie-- drives you mad -- and the funny thing is , they wont move, -- even if its for the good of the team that they do, 99.99% wont even though they will be 0.000000000000000 % useful in the fight.

But its not thier fault -- its the system thats wrong.



In this system , if for example 151-200 zoth prism is defeated , (symbolised by a bigger prism), 151-200s will be allowed into zoth etc etc, its just the current system split into three.

This post has been edited by revenge-four: 16 Jul 2009, 18:12

You can't be displaced so if you get there first it won't be a problem. If the 60 gets a bad reputation, he'll end up fighting on his own as obviously people can leave the fight. And the 60 will not be able to join fights if his rank is < 4.

There's no perfect system. I don't know if your idea awards strokens regardless of balance but that's so easily abused. If it requires eg < 100 level balance then it's easily messed up by people joining and breaking the level cap, including naked noobs with 1HP.

If you can improve upon my suggestion please do. It's a lot better than what we have at the moment.

Should attackers be able to see who is defending? I think so. Should players be able to see who is attacking/defending without going to the prism/area? I think so.

This post has been edited by ChoKuRei: 26 Jul 2009, 03:53

Thank you anjulica for your post. I have been meaning to say something about pvp for a while.

I also like the prism and conquest (heart) pvp fights. I feel like in these fights each character can make a difference, whereas in 1 on 1 pvp, classes and equipment make the difference. I share the sentiment that group pvp is where there is an opportunity for balance.

I have noticed that prism fights are rare now and in the few occasions that there is a call to defend or attack a prism, I am generally outnumbered, 8 vs 1 at times.

I do start the conquest fights, I guess because it is easier to know where to attack and I can bring one of my other chars with me as backup.

I do not like 1 on 1 pvp.

Before the 1.27 update, I did not like them because I do not like aggressions just to level up wings.

After the 1.27 update, I tried the pvp quest a couple of times. I won some but I lost most of them. Perhaps, my strategy and set is not that good.
Also, one of my main chars is lumberjack, keeping my wings up would mean that people would try to aggress me and then I would have to defend and even protect me with other chars. (If would win most of the fights then it would be nice ... I would just do my profession and other would bring me xp and tokens lol .)

So I ended up putting my wings down (lvl 7 wings from previous pvp system, now lvl 6). Also, I do not see a point on letting others level their wings or getting xp out of me simply because I do not know the strategy to win. I then preferred to just close my wings and do prism and conquest fights. Since I rarely joined an aggression they my wings would be safe.

This last weekend, I noticed that if I defend a prism then my wings would come up
Now I cannot even do defense of a prism. (I have not tested if they would come up in prism attack, conquest attack, or conquest defend.)

Maybe I should just accept that there is no point for me to do pvm or show my wings. Imagine if a boxer or a martial artist could not show their trophies because it would mean that someone would aggress them.

I like some of the changes of 1.27 though. (The pvp changes and the permanent hp loss are the ones that I do not like.)

Here is a summary of the issues:
- wings cannot be shown without fear of being aggressed (I do not know if this could ever be done)
- prism fights seem to be rare now
- defense of prims now force wings open
- high cost of putting wings down to do other things, like professions

I like the suggestion mentioned by anjulica about an option to indicate whether you want to do group pvp or 1 on 1 pvp.
Also, there should be an option to do group pvp without showing wing as before so I could do prism and I professions with my wings down.

Sorry for the long post.

Agree with that.

I believe being aggro'd forces wings up too?

I'd love some more comments on the system I outlined.

These are some great ideas, guys! Thanks so much for taking the time to post some good practical suggestions...my post was basically just a summary of the current situation.

I'm inviting people to our thread who've posted ideas elsewhere on the forum about how to improve pvp, so we can really get some furious brainstorming happening. Hopefully they'll start posting soon.

anjulica

Responding the invite. Although the thread is still in progress, seems like it couldn't hurt.

Proposing some PVP Changes.

Hi Everyone,

Here's a quick summary of player concerns on the most recent threads I've read on the various forums.

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.

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

Here's an idea I came up with for a quick, temporary solution to the problem.

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.

anjulica

some nice ideas guys, clearly something has to be done

the post directly above me is interesting, would solve so much issues

what about a revision about the levels you can hand in strokens for soul stones? (i admit this is a bit off topic, so sorry ^^)

what level 60 would get a non leech spot in BR for example?

i doubt even an int iop / agi xelor would be a serious contender

Since fecas shine in group pvp I'm all for for it

It's sad how because of the huge rewards, all the interest has moved to the (in my opinion) impossible to balance 1vs1 PvP.

Prism fights were also never too much fun, as they were rarely even teams.

What would be great is some sort of a Prism-Quest, where you sign up for a 4 or 8 char team with a specific level limit to fight for a prism chosen by the NPC (lower levels would fight for areas like the cradle, while higher levels would fight for zones in their range).

I got a PM from Anjulica and she wanted me to post my topic in hers ^^. It belongs here so of couse I will!

<


As an introduction to this topic I would like to excuse my self for my imperfect English and also write that this topic also has been posted over at Imps Village (http://www.impsvillage.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=88962) as well. Every single one of you are welcomed to translate this and post this at any other Dofus forum as you like. Change the content if you like, but try and keep it at the same subject(s) as I am if you do. I am sure that many of you will agree with what I have to write and I'm also sure that many of you will disagree with alot of what I'm writing. Don't hesitate to post an answer. Ankama needs to open their eyes on this matter.

This topic is about our current Player Versus Player system, which (as you have noticed) is flawed in more then 1 way. I'm making this topic to explain a thing or two (or hundred) as a normal player on one of their servers. We'll see where I'll end up when I'm done.
My server doesn't matter, my level doesn't matter, my friends doesn't matter, my aligment doesnt matter, my class doesn't matter. It's simply something that every player is facing right now and who I am and what I do is irrelevant to this topic and its content. With this I mean, that if you have something against me, my guild, my friends etcetera - keep it to your self or send a pm to me if it really bothers you (I don't mind, really). This is not the right place to be insulting others, flame, bait or blame anyone for anything. Not even Ankama.

So I guess I'll start writing...



This surely is something for the lower levelled players to benefit but to which degree? Once you turn on your wings, you are in the risk of becoming a target. This means that right before you enter a dungeon you might be aggressed, right before you enter a prism fight you might get aggressed, right before you enter a soul at arena you might be aggressed, right as you are about to enter a pvm fight in pandala, nolifis, astrub, amakna etcetera you are in the risk of getting aggressed. Not only once, but maybe even 10 times in a row! The alignment bonus does no longer work. Now you have to chose wether to take part of pvp or pvm. Sure, one could chose to close his or hers wings but you'd lose honour points. At rank 10 you would lose an entire rank. It's simply not worth the effort anymore.

I'm having a hard time explaining my self so let me give you an example :

I gather 7 friends to hit a prism in hope for some fun, interesting group pvp action. Just like Dofus was suposed to be designed about (massive multiplayer) we figured it would be fun to experience a fight together with 15 other players. I don't care about "rank", I just want to have some fun with others. Unfortunately right when the sacrier in my team hits the prism, I get agressed by "xxx" who uses the tongue emote and explains to me that he got me in the Headhunter Quest. God, guess if I got annoyed? Me, a rank 1 eniripsa who hates 1 vs 1 pvp had no choice but to be a target and take part of it even if I literary HATE it. I couldn't join the prism fight and my team met another team of 8. Because I (their eniripsa) wasn't abled to join them, there was not much of a fight (7 vs 8) and the other team won after 5 minutes. Of course it was fast, my friends didn't have a healer.
The moral of the story is that the solo player who aggressed me gained 4 million experience and a stroken. Those 16 others who wanted to take part of the prism fight gained absolutely nothing. A fast and boring fight without a challange. All this because of 1 player getting another in something called Headhunter Quest.

Is it right that 1 player should be above 16 others in a game that is suposed to be a Massive Multiplayer Role Playing Game?

Now I've explained the prism issue. You don't gain anything from it anymore except becoming a target for tons of other players. If I am interested in group pvp, why would you think I'd like to take part of Headhunter Quest? Why isn't prism fight beneficial? It's group fighting, from both sides, 16 people! Encourage it, don't do the other way around.

There are simple solutions to this problem. Posted by several members of our communities.

• A completely new designated Player Versus Player system. Split up the current PVP system and make 2 out of them. Players that are interested in the 1 vs 1 pvp should of course be allowed to play that way. Those are also the ones that should be taking part of the Headhunter Quest. I'm thinking that maybe you could make a little change in the Headhunter Quest as well so players can chose wether or not to take part of it. A really easy solution :
  - An NPC at your militia that you talk to if you want to take part of this quest. When you get assigned your first target, you also become a target. You can chose to end this quest, but at the price of your rank and also some kamas (same kamas as it cost to change your alignment). If you have taken part of this quest and decide that you no longer want to take part of it, you go back go rank 1 and you get deleted from the HQ. With that you can no longer become a target and you are free to restart the quest whenever you want.
  A disantvantage is the new system I am about to introduce.

• GVG. Group Versus Group. This is for the players that enjoy taking territories and who loves group pvp such as prism fights. PVP players can't take part of prisms or territories. Make the honour gains something of value for once. Boost the honour gains from prism fights, throw in strokens. Its a combined effort and it should be rewarded. Maybe even reward it with some experience, still - way less experience then you gain from the pvp Headhunter Quest. Make both systems attractive but keep them separate. With this new system you would see a new form of players, a new form of guilds and an evolution on our servers. As a level 200 player, you don't need the experience gained from HQ, but you have no choice to take part of it if you want "GVG". This has to change.

Another idea to stimulate the GvG further provided by Evilmind:



Since this only is a basic idea, I'm taking the liberty to advance it a little. Thanks !
Same NPC that gives the PvP'er the Headhunter Quest also gives the GvG'er another sort of quest. I have yet to figure out a good name for it but lets call it PHQ (Prism Hunter Quest) for now.
This new quest will be designed by level to stimulate it further and also balance the GvG fights. Lets say a level 190 Bontarian player choses to take part of this quest. He gets assigned to attack a prism in Sidimote at a certain time. Every other Bontarian player in the level range 180 - 200 that takes part of this quest from Bonta will get the same target prism as the first level 190 player either until a group of 8 is formed or until the time has passed. The first level 180+ Brakmarian player that enters PHQ gets assigned to defend the prism in Sidimote, followed by other 180 - 200 brakmarian players.
If a level 70 player choses to take part of PHQ he will get assigned to another prism with people in the range level 50-80.
This quest will not provide any experience, but it will provide a nice amount of honour points and also strokens (more then Headhunter Quest gives). We want a difference between the 2 systems and they should be rewarded differently.

-----

My current solution to this Headhunter Quest problem is cheating. I will encourage players to start doing what I do even though its wrong but its the only way I can see me doing what I like best in this game. Let me quote something I wrote at Impsvillage:



Is it really right that I have to do it this way just because I want to have fun with friends? Think about it. We're ruining the game for eachothers.

Thanks for reading.

This post has been edited by medgix: 26 Jul 2009, 02:06

Hi Medgix,

I was thinking along the same lines as you but it's fatally flawed in that it will be almost impossible to co-ordinate a group of 8 to hit a prism and another group of 8 to defend it.

My suggestion doesn't have this problem.

Also, the situation you described sounds like how Dofus is meant to be. You were trying to capture opposition territory and someone on the other side was given the mission to assassinate you and disrupt your attack - which they did.

This post has been edited by ChoKuRei: 26 Jul 2009, 03:50

Hi Chok thanks for posting with some great suggestions.

Would you be able to post your level, to give us an idea of which range you're in? Thanks.

Both Medgix and I are epic level players...he is 200 and I'm 199. Before the changes, we were involved in 8 v. 7 prism fights on a regular basis. It was easy for us to find groups of 8 through /a, and by pm'ing players on our alignment list posted in the War Room on impsvillage.com.

Our list on imps was organized according to the various levels and classes. e.g., Level 180+ Enis. It was also where players of ANY level could sign up for prisms...even players under lvl 100. Players on the list were asked to group with players at their own level, and it was suggested that lower levels attack the prism territories that were farthest away from zaaps.

We also had a lot of networking going on. As in...we (bontas) would pm brak team leaders with the location of the next prism hit so they could defend adequately. Sometimes we would group with brak leaders so we could easily communicate about the next hit. There were even times when a dozen of us (bontas and braks) waited at a remote prism until everyone arrived so we could have a lvl 190+ 8 v. 7 (prism takes up one spot).

I have made the suggestion in the past that there be an "alignment list" similar to the "friends list". Basically, it would list people who are interested in doing prisms and territory conquest, and make it easier for people to group.

I like the idea you just triggered...getting actual tactical/territorial missions related to group pvp. For example, "Your mission is to capture the prism of Sufokia", "Your mission is to capture three territories", or "Your mission is to place five prisms."

The Sufokian mission might require a player to capture an adjacent territory in order to acquire Sufokia. The second mission might require a player to capture a "village" (pandalas, zoth, imps, or dopple). The last mission may require a person to take over one of the "villages" then prisms before placing the prisms...or it might mean just placing them in neutral areas. The idea is similar to the bonus cards given out in the game "RISK"...you get bonuses if you have occupation of that country when you cash your cards in.

I think we can pull some great ideas out of all of these posts, and put them together to come up with a workable system that's not too difficult to implement.

Keep posting your ideas, guys!

anjulica

This post has been edited by anjewel: 26 Jul 2009, 21:09

Not sure how it's relevant but 157.


So if you're in a group of 8 Braks say, and you go to the militia and one person tells the NPC you want to PvP - you might have to wait hours for 8 Bonts to match you. What if you only have a group of 7? How does the server arrange to group 7 Bonts? I know Rushu is full but most servers aren't.

Then all 16 have to get to the same prism at roughly the same time, with or without aggros....

That's what I mean by nearly impossible to organise.

You could just do it by just rewarding balanced 8 vs 8 fights and let the players sort it out. But it probably wouldn't work around prisms.


Indeed.
Especially if both sides interract ie "Your mission is to stop X capturing the prism of Sufokia."

This sounds more like 1vs1 pvp rather than tactical group pvp, but I do like the idea of adding a purpose to a headhunter quest. I assume that X got the mission to capture the prism. But what would happen if X logs off. Would he/she keep the mission when relogging? Or would someone else be assigned the mission when player X is no longer connected? Or would the mission disappear if another player got to the prism first? Also, what happens to the player responsible to stop player X in all these situations? It seems like the whole thing would unravel pretty quickly if one person is removed from the scenario. Players would be returning constantly to their militia to receive a new set of orders, most of which would never be fulfilled due to the frequency of players entering/leaving a server.

Any ideas of how this could be resolved?

Hi Chok,

Thanks for including your level. It actually does play a part in the whole makeup of pvp as different classes/levels face different challenges in both 1 v. 1 and group pvp.

I can see your class through your avatar (however, yours isn't up ), but it's difficult to get an idea of which section of the game someone is immersed in unless we're aware of each others' levels.

At our level, since everyone's been playing together for quite a while, players often pm each other to ask for 1 v. 1 pvp instead of aggro, whereas at your level, you are faced with a challenge...because 1 v. 1 pvp is generally based on aggroes. At our level it was much easier to group for team pvp and meet with another full team, whereas at your level it was more difficult to find a group or start a team when group pvp was done regularly.

Here's a bit more on how class/levels influence the game. The discussion was about enis being overpowered, and there were a lot of comments regarding balancing class/level.

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

Hi Everyone!

As many of you know, I love group pvp, love pvm, and joined 1 v. 1 for a period of time because the rewards were too great not to.

I've made some observations from my perspective. I'm using the sacrier class as an example in the following:

1. Ankama's "balancing" of classes is based on computer statistics...they base their changes on the records of win/loss ratios for each class at the various levels.

Currently they are in the process of changing the sacs because their win/loss ratio was extraordinarily high:




2. Because the "balancing" is initially based on statistics from the Test Server, there is no "for sure" way to know if the class will stay balanced.

Although stats on the test server may have come out as 1:1 win/loss ratio for each class, there is no guarantee that they'll stay balanced as soon as they hit the main servers.


3. The class itself is ultimately responsible for the changes made to their equipment sets or "nerfs" made to their spells.

When people become "stroken farmers", they draw attention to their class/level's boosted win/loss ratio and their class/level ultimately suffers because the farming skews Ankama's stats. Their spells will be adjusted and/or their level's/class' equips reduced in power.


4. There is a reason why some classes are nerfed, whereas others are boosted.

Classes who have a 1:0 win/loss ratio (100% wins) against all classes are lowered, whereas classes with a 0:1 win/loss ratio (0% wins) against all classes are boosted.

Some players who are suggesting that we only see boosts instead of nerfs, don't seem to understand that it is more time efficient to adjust the one class, rather than boost all other classes plus all monsters in the game.

The last major update was an overall boost to the classes, creating more options for builds.


5. When it comes to final "balancing" of an overall class, the way this can be done successfully is by preserving the diverse builds within each class.

When doing 1 v. 1 pvp with sacs after the update came out, I was able to defeat 50% of the 199/200 sacs I fought, and the fights were unpredictable and interesting. I was fighting agility, chance, intel, and str sacs. However, since that time, the epic level sacs have lost their diverse builds and strategy...they now are generally the same build for 1 v. 1 pvp, and use the same strategies.

Ultimately, the "unbalancing" of the class has come from the class itself. While we may see diverse sac builds elsewhere in the game, they are not included in the computer statistics because they do not participate in 1 v. 1 pvp as much as the "carbon copy" sacs.


6. The eni class is now able to diversify, which operates as a tool to help balance.

Originally the eni class had no other spell elements apart from intel. Every single spell was intel-based (apart from stim). Now with the boosts to water/agi and the addition of a neutral spell, there is an opportunity for enis to gain a secondary element, make another element their primary focus, or have another option for build.

Before the update, most enis used fire as their primary damage element, and for many, getting a set of Meloro Daggers (very high dmg weapon and boosts to heals, due to its addition of +200 intel) was the final goal for an attacking eni.

Meloro Daggers (no image available in "insert a DOFUS item" since they're ethereal) have just undergone a major change, making it a two-handed weapon, so the heavy-hitting dagger enis will now either be vulnerable (no shield) or will switch to a different weapon. This will change the win/loss ratio of some of the higher level enis.

Enis that are unable to inflict damage would have a 0:1 win/loss ratio. Because the "balancing" is based on statistics, Ankama will ensure that enis are boosted to a 1:1 win/loss ratio with all classes, and therefore have decent spell dmg.


In threads such as this, it would be very helpful if people would state their level range when posting. I found it very interesting that an osa started this thread, because at my level, fighting 199's and 200's, it's a 95% loss for an eni v. an osa.

Thanks for reading!

anjulica

199 eni

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



I totally see what you're saying, Chok. Which brings to mind...

This thread:



However, this still isn't a solution to the problems surrounding prisms. The prism system was great once people learned how it functioned, and with some tweaking would have continued to improve. Isolating all pvp to a dungeon alone would become too repetitive, without any of the surprise attacks on the various territories.

There's always another idea to get around issues like the one you've suggested. Let's take the best out of your ideas, megdix's (youbutsu), clearscreen's, keeping in mind the issues I've included about classes/levels, etc., and put together the best ideas we can that cover every angle, in order to draw up a workable proposal for the Ankama Team.

anjulica

This post has been edited by anjewel: 27 Jul 2009, 02:27

Certainly not much asking around my level on Shika...

FWIW, I've been on 90% for most of a year because my class, cra, currently peaks around 150 relative to other classes.

I co-run one of the top 4 guilds on Shika and hence often fight with classes around 19x.


Yes, it's major flaw of all schemes that do not centre on prisms - especially since perc fights already satisfy much of the demand for group PvP.

However, I applaud the creativity in such ideas - and they do demonstrate that there may be unnoticed ways around such problems.

I would appreciate your critique of my suggestion in post #3. I've yet to find any significant flaws and fights are almost guaranteed to be balanced.

I think this is the most difficult question of yours. It seems to me that losing honour for logging with an incomplete mission is the only answer.

Perhaps a 3 minute grace period for those who are merely relogging.

It used to be that we lost honour for not defending prisms within our region. It was quite badly done but not a bad idea in principle.


Probably not. The prism capture mission would have a time limit, maybe 15 mins (though the fight could take hours and still give reward). Assassin would get reward if target fails, and bonus rewards for killing target either in 1vs1 or in prism fight itself. Maybe another bonus for getting the actual final blow on that char in. The assassin would have the same linked scrolls as headhunters currently do.


Only if the prism was captured.

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

Hi ChoKuRei,

Thank you for your response to my post. However, it was never my intention to criticize anyone, and I don't think I have done so. When you pm'd me the first time because you were offended by what I wrote, I edited my post...however, you did not edit your post as I asked in return. I apologized because you were offended, not because I had done anything wrong. At that time, I suggested to you that you start your own thread if you want in-depth evaluation of your system at this stage.

I do not claim to be an authority on posting threads. What I'm asking is that for this specific thread that you follow the guidelines I presented when posting on this thread so we don't get sidetracked. We all want a better pvp system, so let's try to work as a team and do something completely different.

The guidelines:

1. Summarize and present your pvp ideas on this thread. Include temporary "bandaids" or long-term solutions...general ideas or detailed structure.

2. Please remember that we are not debating specifics, arguing, or evaluating, but rather we are "collaborating" and "refining ideas".

3. Focus on developing your own ideas and communicating them as clearly as possible, rather than evaluating or criticizing other people's ideas.

What I am observing from my perspective is someone coming up with an idea and someone else shooting it down right away and pushing forward their own system. This isn't a competition between ideas, it's a process of compilation of ideas that involves teamwork. It would be much more productive in the long run if you worked on your system instead of posting about other people's systems.

Here is what I wrote in my previous post regarding Paul Graham's article...you must have missed it:

"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."

The reason why I posted the article by Paul Graham is because I believe that people can be polite when they disagree. I also believe that people can learn from each other when there is disagreement...when it's done in a polite way and when there is validity in what the other person is saying.

When someone posts their ideas for the first time, they are often self-conscious. They need encouragement to keep developing their ideas, or they will stop working on their project if they have a negative experience.

I have attempted to give you subtle hints throughout this thread without singling you at personally, because I am trying to be patient and polite. I'm just asking that you please follow my simple guidelines for this thread only, and I'm sure that it wouldn't be difficult for you to do so....it's just a matter of choice.

ChoK, I perceive you as an intelligent adult who has some good ideas to share with us. However, you need to go into more detail so that we understand how your system can be implemented.



For example, what is going to be the "balance" calculation for prism fights? Originally, you had it set so the levels are equal...e.g., lvl 200 v. two lvl 100's. However, you also recognized in your "Disadvantages" that the lvl 200 player would win every time. Your entire system rests on the formula for balance: "By means of a simple rule, both can be prevented: You can only join a prism fight if your level doesn't make the level difference between teams > 100 and your rank > 3." (ChoKuRei)

Could you work on solving that issue, and then post your solution for us? I think that is the main reason why I have difficulty with your system the way it is right now.

Once all those types of details are resolved, then we can start the evaluation process. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair to you for us to evaluate an unfinished proposal. I'd like to understand in more depth how your system works and how it could be implemented as a viable solution to our current problem.

Thank you for understanding.

anjulica

This post has been edited by anjewel: 14 Sep 2009, 06:26

I feel in your system that there would be much difficulty in resolving each of your disadvantages as stands.
The focus is groups being balanced by total level, this is the root of your systems inefficiency. Leveling wings however can still be done in a 1v1 setting.
In my proposal not only is each tier guaranteed access (all-be-it with an increased waiting period (as you would either have to join an ongoing Assault/Defense or wait for one to be full to join. Even then this could be fixed by choosing a 4-8 player group when you choose the prism to attack...thusly making things go faster. The more players the higher the reward, but the longer the wait. In any case you would have to wait 15-30 mins between each Prism(or be penalized with a lower position in the Queue).

In any case, a tiered method is far superior to levels alone.

Electricotter - I applaud you for contributing the first new idea in this thread in over 2 weeks.

I'm missing something from your description but I think we can combine our ideas into something even better.

1. Arbitrary numbers of people get 'preparatory' missions to do prisms.
2. The server then creates a balanced fight out of those who volunteer according to whatever algorithm Ankama chooses.

This way, the system could be introduced now without the massive rebalancing that has happened for 1v1.

Here's a simple balancing algorithm:
Rating = (level ^ 1.5) + ((level ^ 1.5) * 0.3 * GvG win/loss record [caps at 20 and 80%]) .

Assuming 50% win loss ratings across the board, such a system could pitch a single level 200 vs 2 level 100s & a level 83. Would that be a fair fight? I think so but you could increase it to level ^ 1.6.

The 0.3 equates to a 15% adjustment in rating depending on GvG record of wins/losses. This is an essential factor to a) compensate for overpowered builds encourage truly balanced fights (what we all want).

The perfectionist in me would be inclined to make special cases for the gap between level 99 & 100, dopples at 200, enis/osas/xelors but it isn't strictly necessary.

The server then determines how much time to allow for extra people to take the mission. If the server is busy, allow only 20 seconds. If it's quiet, wait for 3 minutes. NPC can give some indication of this time with "Are you sure?" message if people don't want to risk the wait.

So, here's the fight-arranging algorithm:
If there's a balanced x vs 7 or x vs 8 (according to sum of Ratings), start the fight immediately.
Else
If there's a balanced fight amongst those waiting, start the clock.
If a bigger balanced fight is possible in that time, restart the clock.
Else start the first balanced fight.

Players are given a 10 second warning before the fight starts. Assuming both sides have attackable prisms, the alignment which has momentum (ie won last prism fight) gets to attack. The highest level in the team for that alignment gets 10 seconds to choose which prism to attack. If they don't pick one, server picks at random.

The main drawback to this (as you've identified) is that people can log off. As such I think major honour loss and being banned from GvG quests for 24 hours is in order ("You are a deserter and must regain your honour!")
My inclination is just to teleport everyone to the fight immediately. If people make their own way there, it'll be aggro city (which in itself will unbalance the fights) plus slow everything down.

Other drawbacks:
- epic levels will still have to wait longer than low levels for a fight.
- it will take a while for handicaps to be worked out.
- the system favours balance over merit - if you suck, the other team could be handicapped at between 2 - 15% (big fight - 1v1)

Advantages vs other 2 systems:
1. Relatively foolproof - you don't need to manage your team. You just sign up and wait until you're in a balanced fight.
2. Don't have to rush rebalancing of classes as:
a) exponentially-increasing power by level is automatically compensated by algorithm.
characters that win >50% are given stronger opponents, those that lose <50% are given weaker opponents.
3. No arbitrary level bands causing:
a) players to alternate between good and bad at GvG as they level.
a shortage of big fights as not enough players within each band.
4. Unrealistic team-balancing is somewhat hidden from view.

Multi-accounting would be prevented from entering 2 different fights simultaneously, or have 2 players on opposite sides.
If the overall wait becomes too long for any one player (say 10x the time to allow extra players to join), they would be allowed to abandon the quest without honour loss.
I would say wings up for this quest, just allow them to be put down at 50-75% reduced honour loss.
Strokens and XP would be proportional to overall team level and one's individual level.

To me, this seems so superior to the existing headhunter (& prism) system that I think there would be a strong call for 1v1 headhunter to be scrapped. What do you think?

This post has been edited by ChoKuRei: 15 Sep 2009, 04:26

I'm just adding this quick idea before I forget it, hehe

I was reading over the last couple of posts, and a simple formula popped into my mind regarding balancing, that could apply to Chok's system.

Rather than go with SUM (of levels) v. SUM, we could try (SUM²) v. (SUM²)

An example of SUM v. SUM would be a lvl 200 v. two lvl 100's, or a lvl 120 v. two lvl 60's.

This is how (SUM²) v. (SUM²) would work:

Level Values (obtained by "squaring" the lvl, or multiplying the lvl by itself)

40² = 1,600 (40 x 40 = 1,600)
50² = 2,500
60² = 3,600
70² = 4,900
80² = 6,400
90² = 8,100

100² = 10,000 (100 x 100 = 10,000)
110² = 12,100
120² = 14,400
130² = 16,900
140² = 19,600
150² = 22,500
160² = 25,600
170² = 28,900
180² = 32,400
190² = 36,100
200² = 40,000

Example:

lvl 200 attacker = 40,000 (lvl 200²)

Defenders could be any of these groups:

a) lvl 120 (14,400) + lvl 160 (25,600) = 40,000
b ) lvl 100 (10,000) + lvl 170 (28,900) = 38,900
c) three lvl 110s (12,100 x 3) + lvl 60 (3,600) = 39,900
d) four lvl 100s (10,000) = 40,000

Broken down, the formula is actually lvl² + lvl² + lvl², etc. rather than (lvl + lvl)². If we did it the latter way it would just work out the same way as SUM v. SUM.

Another idea...

I was trying to figure out a way to get around the confusion of joining with the level balancing idea, and came up with this. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the problem completely, but could be a step in the right direction.

As the levels change during the lineup, waiting for the fight, the lvl values "open" could be on the "defend" screen.

e.g., If a lvl 200 attacks a prism, then 40,000 level points can be filled by the defending team.

Unfortunately, this is still confusing...it would be easier to just announce how many lvls were available, however, it doesn't work with the formula. For example, if a lvl 120 and 160 attack (40,000 points), and a lvl 200 defends (40,000), even though the level points are the same, the actual levels are 280 v. 200.

Anyway, here are a couple of ideas that will hopefully help trigger more ideas.

anjulica

Edit: Another little idea to simplify the level point values...is take two zeros off.

For example, lvl 40 has a point value of 1600...take off the 2 zeros to put it at 16

This would make the "open level points" a bit more manageable...e.g., a lvl 200 attacks...400 level points are open.

Each player's lvl points could be shown on the defense screen along with their own lvl. It simplifies the issue a bit...but doesn't solve it completely.

Ooo...another idea I just thought of...

Everyone joining goes into "reserves" when they click to defend. The different possible team combinations (according to level point values) are shown in the window.



This post has been edited by anjewel: 15 Sep 2009, 19:36

a simple way to fix the Whole PVP proble is to brign the old prism fight system back where anything outside a prism fight was useless and only ponits where given/taken from in the prism fight it'self. this was a very affective system. and the headhunter quest should be changed so you have to take out a prism in the area given to you by the headhunter person. this will stop poeple picking WHO they get to kill and/What class there target is as they chould get a high lvl group of a range of classes.
this also well reduced the amount of sram's/osa's/sac's/feca's/iop's pvping as there source of lvling as they are the only class i 99% of the time see PVPing.



cable

This post has been edited by cableseni: 15 Sep 2009, 08:58

hehe, another little idea...based on the edit in my previous post:

After the time for defending a fight has ended, there is a one minute delay, at which time defenders can make decisions on who actually joins the defense.

Idea #1:

If different possible team combinations were shown on the defense screen...then players could click on the team they wanted to defend. If the majority of reservists pick one formation, then that is the team that is entered. Any players common to all group formations could be automatically moved up into the actual team list. If no one clicks, then the first team on the list is entered.

Idea #2:

Instead of a list, there could be a feature with the "mouse scroll over". Scrolling over each reservist highlights the other players who could combine with that player to make a team...or dims those players who can't combine. Clicking on that player means you've voted to send the player into the defense line-up. In cases of a tie, then the vote of the chars with the higher rank total is used.

In cases where more than one team is possible with a player, all members from the various possible teams are highlighted (or non-eligible chars are dimmed). After clicking on the player to vote to send them into the defense line-up, the second teammate can be clicked on, which will narrow the team possibilities down even more.

In situations where time runs out, the remaining spots are automatically filled in with one of the team combinations. The final members of a team under these circumstances would be either decided by rank, level, or who joined first as a reservist.

I think that "dimming" the non-eligible players during the scrollover might be much more user-friendly than highlighting the ones that could be picked, as the list would look a lot smaller once it's been simplified with each vote. However, highlighting them with a red outline might work.

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

Something that came to mind when reading Electricotter's post:

Instead of limiting instant transportation to prism fights, why not add it to the Headhunter Quest? For example, when players get a target from the militia, rather than get a scroll, they are transported onto a random map (or arena) for a 1 v. 1 fight with a player from the opposite alignment of similar level, who has also gone to the militia to get a target. In other words, they are "matching" targets (they both have each other as a target), triggered by requesting a scroll from the militia.

For those who still like to hunt their targets, that option could still exist, but with low xp/rewards. This would make the automatic 1 v. 1 fight more appealing, as it would start quickly and have high rewards/xp.

A few things this idea helps with: 1) no more scrolling through militia scrolls to find a class that can be easily beaten, 2) no more aggroing people who are afk, are in pod gear, or who are busy trying to do other things...the level of animosity overall would decline on the server, 3) "wings" would have truly been earned and mean a lot more...they would no longer be obtained by fighting a weaker class continually, but rather through fighting a random selection of opponents made by the server, and 4) players wouldn't be able to skip over friends, but they could play against their friends without animosity b/c the server chose them as opponents, and there was no choice involved (i.e., they haven't hunted their friends down with scrolls).

This post has been edited by anjewel: 15 Sep 2009, 20:19

I dislike this idea as faster fights mean quicker rewards from low level 1v1. The abuse is enough as is with having to hunt ones target. Only choosing those with active HHQ's is a good idea though.

Also PvP could be more closely tied to the orders. Artisan =non PvP with conquest area access. Assassin= Head Hunter Quest (target and hunter). Soldier= GvG access.
Unlearning potions could be made for the orders with an honor/align level penalty for consumption. They could be used once every 1-3 months or so.

This would be a great way in allowing everyone to play the way they want to play.


As for your new idea Chok,
I like what was put forth but still feel that your algorithm would work fine in a tier framework, the numbers of like tier individuals wouldn't be an issue as they could jopin from any location via a clickable text, and the number of attackers could range from 2-8. All this aside however, The main complaint I have is the fact that one would have difficulty playing with ones friends in this format. Having several queues to choose from with a /a text stating the location and level of initiator would enable friends to join the same queues.
I like Anj's level value system over the algorithm as there is more transparency via ease of comprehension. I'm not one for crunching numbers but it would be interesting to see how they stood up to each other.

I think that one should start the queue at an NPC and have a perc defense-esque text appear. This would allow several friends to be in the same queue of a lesser size. And allow a list of possible queues with the initiators level listed(in place of a tier format). Lastly, the penalties and benefits I outlined such as a queue penalty to those who were in a Prism battle in the last 15-30 mins (from the battles end) is rather important to me. I'm not certain but it seems that a team of 8 lvl 200's v another team of 8 200's could constantly be in prism fights with one another. the same could be said for the 8 highest level braks and 8 highest level bontarians. It should be encouraged that everyone be able to take part in the system, tiers do a better job of this, but queue penalties and bonuses would be a useful tool as well.
Alignment level and wings up or down (which shouldn't matter either way(wings down =no honor/less honor and reduced xp/strokens at worst) should be definite means of queue adjustment as should wing rank. These would only be meager adjustments but deserving of a place none the less.

In final defense of an interactive /a text (/a must stay open with wings up) it would increase participation greatly.
1] When out on a hunt you could still defend Prisms (joining from within a dungy would not be allowed)
2] It would give those who wish to participate the ability to participate without extensive down time (which we do pay for...a 3 min queue is the longest one would have to wait)
3] You can coordinate queues to have a greater chance at being with friends.

Also I think the log off system from my suggestion was pretty good too.

It appears we are formulating some good ideas here, lets keep it up folks!