Forums-->Ideas and suggestions-->
1|2|3
| Author | Perfect hunt asists for all |
|---|
It has a lot of effect. PVP, tournaments (when they eventually occur), thievery...you get a lot of unfair battles when you're matched up by XP (combat level), but one guy has a lot of FP (and guild points) and the other doesn't.
Rather than simply ban that outright, or design a more even way to match opponents, the admins simply force people to get XP and level up. | | If you were talking to me urgone, I wasn't talking about effect as in in battles, I was talking about the effect as in what is gained (like a few more units for knights, more gating for demons, etc), but you're right in effect--I guess I'm changing my mind about this issue- you lose nothing in leveling up, and it makes it more even- so what do you lose with leveling up? | so what do you lose with leveling up?
lol, it was described in full - you lose the possibility to NOT level up :}
some people like to play the game that way. it is the same to ask somebody "why you want to eat cheese? what you gonna lose if you eat cucumbers instead?" | you lose the possibility to NOT level up :}
Well, I can't compete with that logic-I guess it's how the mind works for everyone that causes this. | | you don't have to compete with anything. there is no logic, conclusion or thesis stated here. you have been explained with simple words, that far no everybody wants to reach high levels as fast as possible. if you don't understand this, well my friend, i'm afraid more complicated explanation is somewhat... useless :) | for Robai:
2. Players, who don't want to get combat experience (those players have fun by playing this game slow, they just love to be patient and be level campers, because it is their PLAYING STYLE, despite the fact that they are wasting time in terms of combat level 13).
You can still play it "slow". You just need to be a little more picky with the fights you choose. It's all about strategic management now. Like you can skip fighting 500 rebels with full arts at level 6 (and gain tons of experience) in order to fight them with minimum arts (and gain less experience)at level 7.
I do agree that we should have a choice to play "slow" or "fast" but there should be no way of gaining skill without gaining experience. We don't want week old players to face campers who've been sitting on the same level for ages raising their skills... | ^^ He want it only when you join another player hunts and pure campers usu. don't join PvP, coz it offer a lot of exp and little SP. Still, there's no guarantee for that.
>>> But then the problem is here:
If you lose, then you get absolutely nothing:
no FSP, no HGP, etc.
Got nothing from your effort to win. It's black or white. | | It's the very good idea! | | I support Robai's idea too. | | won't happen anyway | this idea is very bad, i agree 100% with messages 14 and 21.
old players with high number of fights, hight FSP/HG/MG should not have the possibility to fight in same category than new players with low FSP/HG/MG.
old players should fight against other old players, they should not camp at low combat levels to crush newbies (this is not only for PvP, but also for hunts records and tournaments)
imagine a new player, wizard level3, getting a green hunt: 100 swordsmen.
he did his best to defeat them, but he is crushed.
he complains at the forum that 100 swordsmen is impossible for him, and don't understand why this hunt was green: it should be red!
and we answer him: that's because a player here from several months camped at level3 and reached faction level9, then he defeated 250 swordsmen with help of his improved magic.
then the new player asks why this old player has the same combat level than him.
and the answer is: because he used a loophole in the game to stay at low combat level, normally he would be combat level 9 or 10.
do you think the new player would continue to play, or stop? i think he would leave the game.
new XP rules prevents this and it's great.
now every battle gives you XP, and it makes the game more fair: impossibility for old players to use loopholes in order to be ranked in same category than new players: no more unfair Pvp battles, no more unfair tournaments, no more impossible hunt records.
impossibility to gain FsP without exp is the best modification they did in their big update, don't ask to remove it. | Karsot, hunt assists is a really very slow way to get FSP, because you can't control them. So this really isn't a problem (no one will become overpowered this way, maybe only after 10 years).
Now let’s talk about hunt records.
If a player do hard work raising his FSP then should he be more powerful than a new player? Yes.
And should hard working player have more chance to make a record? Yes.
What is a strategy game after all? If you play well then you should have some advantage vs others, right?
A chance to make a record should not only depend on luck and battle strategy, it also should depend on your preparations for that battle (yes, including FSP).
Despite that I agree that a new player SHOULD be able to make a record.
And that is one more reason why there should be possibility to gain FSP without getting experience. Why?
There are already records and they are really hard to beat for a new player. New player needs FSP (without XP) for that and now he can't have it! This is a really big disadvantage, especially for a new player.
Moreover, a new player has almost no chance to make a record, because now he will get XP when he will lose battle. And this is one more disadvantage for a new player.
I suggested a training room here:
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1835051&page=1
Too much FSP for a given level causes problems:
1st problem: some factions (especially Wizards) may become overpowered if they will be allowed to gain too much FSP.
2nd problem: a new player will hardly have so much patience like some "sick" players to raise faction level to 9 being at low combat level.
Solution:
I suggested to limit faction level here (13th post):
https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1839619
The idea is to make this requirement: Faction level <= Combat level
I mean that if your combat level is 2 then:
1) you can be (lvl 2 Wizard) + (lvl 2 Elf) + (lvl 2 Necromancer),
2) but you can't be (lvl 3 Wizard) + (lvl 2 Elf) + (lvl 2 Necromancer),
3) no restrictions on skillpoints (only on faction level).
For example, in combat level 2 you can be
Wizard: 2 (200.00) + Elf: 2 (150.00) + Necromancer: 2 (75.00)
When you reach combat level 3 then you become
Wizard: 3 (200.00) + Elf: 3 (150.00) + Necromancer: 2 (75.00)
If your combat level is 4 then
Wizard: 4 (200.00) + Elf: 3 (150.00) + Necromancer: 2 (75.00)
One more solution (additionally to the previous solution) for new players is this:
additionally to existing records make also a temporary records, which restarts every 30 days (all: universal, level, faction, level+faction).
This way new players will have a good chance to have some hunt records.
From my point of view all problems for hunt records would be solved this way.
Now let’s talk about tournaments.
The requirement (Faction level <= Combat level) solves FSP problem.
You may ask this: will old players be too overpowered this way?
No! Why?
Let’s look at this example:
Player A: combat level 6, all faction levels are also 6.
Player B: combat level 6, main faction level 5, all other factions levels are 0.
Is player A much more powerful than player B? It depends on faction, but in general player A should win vs player B in about 80% cases (from my point of view).
So, does player B have a chance to win a tournament now? No.
Should he? No!
Why? A weak player shouldn't be able to win tournaments!
Does player B have a chance to win a tournament if he agrees to spend some time (but not too much time) in training? Yes!
He can go to training room, and in a short time he can easily raise all his faction levels to 2 or 3 (it might take a month or a bit more, i.e. really not long time).
After this training player B really have a chance (not 1st place, but maybe somewhere in the middle if he is a good player). | Yes, I agree w Robai,
and we can't try alot of fractions anymore becos of tis. | If you play well then you should have some advantage vs others
It would neither be a strategic achievement to figure out this method nor to make use of it, it would be just a matter of patience and you really expect a reward for just your patience?
So, does player B have a chance to win a tournament now? No.
Should he? No!
People should always have a chance to win a tournament in their level, not just after they lingered in a combat level for month. | :) Karsot just represented my post from a long time ago with different words
• https://www.lordswm.com/forum_messages.php?tid=1842739&page=18 • number 377
...which is somewhat flattering but the idea was way too different :} Robai makes very deep and detailed explanation here that everyone should be given at least a small chance to become strong in this game. but only by winning, not by losing in purpose.
we all know what this is all about: players who log in rarely don't want to meet around others with better characteristics, even if they haven't put any effort to improve themselves. is this normal? no! are they able to give a single example from the real life where this is possible? the same answer.
i don't know, maybe they've used to play online backgammon so far with equal number of pieces and dice to roll, but in strategy games with a role-playing element the things are a bit more deep... you can't just show up and say "hello, world! i'm one happy newbie and i don't want player(x) and player(y) to be stronger than me!"
P.S. it's very hard for me to admit such thing, but the player i used as an example in my above-mentioned post, Wild_Shooter, is probably the most talented merchant i've ever met. | | Why don't you just suggest making a new server and have people who love the old system migrate to it? I happen to love the new system and would like to keep it that way. And your suggestion to limit skill per combat level is redundant. Gaining experience while gaining skill points essentially means that there's a natural limit to the skill level that can be achieved per combat level... | I agree with Karsot (post 31) that the game will be unfair to new players, because of old time players having used the [exploits/optimal character development tactics] of losing hunts, fighting reduced hunts only and hunt assisting with the pre-update rules. But by taking away all those options, it's even more unfair to new players, since they have NO way of reaching the HG and faction levels of old time players of the same combat level.
That's why I think Robai's idea is good. New players would be able to reach the faction and HG levels to compete with old records, if they're willing to spend the time. But it creates a new problem: Every player seeking to be 'as strong as possible' would do nothing but hunt assists.
So, why not let the option apply to all battles? Let the player choose whether they wanted only exp, only skill or half of each as a reward in combat. Combine this with Robai's idea of a cap for faction skill to avoid too strong lowlevel chars. Then all players could play like they want, without having to do one thing only. | ^^ So faction level for each combat level is the key for overpower low level.
Maybe current player which have faction skill above faction cap can choose to transfer their points to guild or other skill points. | So, why not let the option apply to all battles? Let the player choose whether they wanted only exp, only skill or half of each as a reward in combat. Combine this with Robai's idea of a cap for faction skill to avoid too strong lowlevel chars. Then all players could play like they want, without having to do one thing only.
Very good idea! This would really solve not only a problem for NEW players, but also ALL players would play this game as they want, and moreover, they can play a WHOLE game, I mean:
1) you can be a thief and still improve FSP/EX ratio
2) you can fight in PvP and still improve FSP/EX ratio
3) you can hunt or assist and still improve FSP/EX ratio
4) you can do mercenary quests and still improve FSP/EX ratio
5) anytime you can "check" or "uncheck" that option if you changed your mind
For the reason that some players shouldn't be too powerful I think it would be wise to make a stronger cap for other factions:
(CL = combat level, CFL = maximum level for curret faction, OFL = maximum level for other factions)
if CL = 1, then CFL = 1, OFL = 1
if CL = 2, then CFL = 2, OFL = 1
if CL = 3, then CFL = 3, OFL = 2
if CL = 4, then CFL = 4, OFL = 3
if CL = 5, then CFL = 5, OFL = 4
if CL = 6, then CFL = 6, OFL = 4
if CL = 7, then CFL = 7, OFL = 5
if CL = 8, then CFL = 8, OFL = 6
if CL = 9, then CFL = 9, OFL = 7
if CL = 10, then CFL = 9, OFL = 8
if CL = 11, then CFL = 9, OFL = 8
if CL = 12, then CFL = 9, OFL = 9
if CL = 13, then CFL = 9, OFL = 9
For example, if your combat level is 3 and you are Wizard then
Wizard: 3 (200.00) + Elf: 3 (150.00) + Necromancer: 2 (75.00)
if you switch to Elf then
Wizard: 2 (200.00) + Elf: 3 (150.00) + Necromancer: 2 (75.00)
if you switch to Necromancer then
Wizard: 2 (200.00) + Elf: 2 (150.00) + Necromancer: 2 (75.00)
Now there is no cap, i.e. now you would be (in any combat level):
Wizard: 4 (200.00) + Elf: 3 (150.00) + Necromancer: 2 (75.00)
You might change that table, but the idea is clear.
I think that the problem is completely solved.
What do you think?
Still someone crying about overpowering? | Sorry, made a typo.
Instead of
For example, if your combat level is 3 and you are Wizard then
Wizard: 3 (200.00) + Elf: 3 (150.00) + Necromancer: 2 (75.00)
should be
For example, if your combat level is 3 and you are Wizard then
Wizard: 3 (200.00) + Elf: 2 (150.00) + Necromancer: 2 (75.00) |
1|2|3Back to topics list
|
