If you bring back the old fame system

[Dorsan]

Rothgar wrote:

Each rank is worth a specific amount of fame.  When a player of that rank dies, the fame will be split among everyone on his hate list and everyone in their groups.  So zerging people with large groups will not result in a lot of fame gain because there was very little challenge.

The amount of fame that you are worth is what you will lose when you die, regardless of how you died or how many people killed you.

Rothgar, you should be aware that this system still promotes attacking people with large groups. Because even tho they will only get 1/6 of the fame they would get each for a solo kill, the actual chance of beating a group of 6 solo is not 1 in 6 cases. So at the end of the day the best way to get to high title is to go en masse and try to find solo's.

[Wytie]

Change the status you now get from pvp kills to a new status called "pvp status" calculate this new currecy for being able to buy new pvp gear. then maybe add another for BG gear and require both tokens from writs/bg wins and the new status for each type (dont share them), and remove the heirloom tag ffrom the gear.

This promotes both things open pvp and new BG's while not rendering previous tokens worthless or instant purchaces on new gear or giving pvp players an advantage by keeping the paths apart.

[Rothgar]

Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

Each rank is worth a specific amount of fame.  When a player of that rank dies, the fame will be split among everyone on his hate list and everyone in their groups.  So zerging people with large groups will not result in a lot of fame gain because there was very little challenge.

The amount of fame that you are worth is what you will lose when you die, regardless of how you died or how many people killed you.

Rothgar, you should be aware that this system still promotes attacking people with large groups. Because even tho they will only get 1/6 of the fame they would get each for a solo kill, the actual chance of beating a group of 6 solo is not 1 in 6 cases. So at the end of the day the best way to get to high title is to go en masse and try to find solo's.

I think no matter what system we use, people will always be encouraged to group with others for safety.  Unless we actually punish people for grouping (not a good idea) I can't really see a better way to approach it.  I think there will be plenty of people that will enjoy hunting on their own because they are confident they can get the kill and won't have to split the points with others, ie: level up faster.

[Drew69]

sounds interesting enough, take the time and do it right and you may revive a yet seemingly-dead game.

[EndevorX]

Rothgar wrote:

Each rank is worth a specific amount of fame.  When a player of that rank dies, the fame will be split among everyone on his hate list and everyone in their groups.  So zerging people with large groups will not result in a lot of fame gain because there was very little challenge.

The amount of fame that you are worth is what you will lose when you die, regardless of how you died or how many people killed you.

There are no brackets, you will earn points killing anyone of any rank and will lose points dying to anyone of any rank.  Its very similar to a zero sum system.  If you and a buddy take turns killing each other, the higher rank will lose points to the lower rank until they are of equal rank, at which point it would be a wash and no one would net a gain of points from trading kills.

We are still continuing to tweak with the numbers and will continue to tweak them once this change hits Test Copy and we get some of your active feedback. 

When this new system goes live, all titles will be remove and everyone will be on an even playing field.

I dont have any information about the changes to PvP gear at this time.

Fundamentally, this is a flawed approach that works to reinforce PvP ranks as a unit of time spent PvPing, instead of efficiency at such a task.

When any [Removed for Content] toon can give XP to a high rank, as was...mentioned...there's no reason to take risk in engaging a tougher encounter.

In the +/- 1 rank fame loss system, players that progressed were typically more competent, & as such, hunting & eradicating capable foes was an accomplishment.

Lol @ Drew saying "take the time and do it right and you may revive a yet seemingly-dead game" when the PvP rank changes are a complete disappointment.

Trying to enslave the playerbase to have to PvP if they intend to manage a PvP rank punishes the difficulty of fame hunts (well, fame hunts that would be difficult in a +/- 1 rank fame range).

It punishes choice in: taking time off of EQ2, playing alts, & doing the 15/16 other in-game activities that aren't PvP (if you think a housing upkeep analogy is somehow satisfactory, please consider the 10 points that thoroughly erase that possibility earlier in the thread).

When someone takes an action of true fame/infamy/notoriety, it doesn't need maintaining.

It's a shame to see what was a good, energizing game feature become so thoroughly bastardized in an effort to "get players to PvP" when they'd always done so even in the classic PvP rank system.

Succintly enough, those who celebrate these changes mock their own capacity at critical thinking & excellence in competition.

With the utter quiet on...:

· allowing PvP rank clearing & participation toggling on a 1 week reuse/30 sec cast time spell

· nerfing overpowered items like the Runed Victim's Skull

· restoring crowd control (including charm)

· unnerfing Illusionist power regen & Mystic/Fury myths

· removing Toughness from lowbie gear when they don't have the offensive output relative to top tier engagements which had rightfully required critical mitigation

· the cookie-cutter/bland implementation of PQs & warfields

· reitemizing warfields rewards to be sustained benefits desirable even by PvEers

· nerfing carebear minute-long immunity to 30 seconds after evacuation/zoning

· stimulating contested PvP through offering contested versions of each instance

· exciting contested PvP through offering PvP-gear upgrades via rare contested drops

· eradicating groupwide zone-ins to instances

· replacing guild hall strategists on PvP servers with 3 track locks on players in contested zones for > 3 mins

· returning writ givers to open world-only status to help disperse activity beyond PQs (& deserted WFs)

· unifying PvE/PvP critical mitigation

...the functional vision of maintaining a diverse & dynamic, challenging PvP environment has remained poor.

I would love to see some game design that really pursues uniquity in the way that Smokejumper has purportedly aspired to.

But, we'd best remember luxury is often vain, & likely, likewise the depth of it...

If any of us ever have strength within to realize the general meaninglessness of all our virtual deeds (not to condone addiction, theft, profiteering, exploitation, stinginess, cliques, & basic deceit), may we remember how efforts can always be redirected to the truly preventably suffering, such as the 1 billion/6.9 billion who don't have access to clean water (80% of disease is due to such).

No other non-profit contributes the most cost-effective aid comparable to charitywater.org, which has private donors cover 100% of administrative costs (with thermoses/bracelets/t-shirts/sweaters as solid items for distribution/use).

[max.power]

Rothgar wrote:

Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

Each rank is worth a specific amount of fame.  When a player of that rank dies, the fame will be split among everyone on his hate list and everyone in their groups.  So zerging people with large groups will not result in a lot of fame gain because there was very little challenge.

The amount of fame that you are worth is what you will lose when you die, regardless of how you died or how many people killed you.

Rothgar, you should be aware that this system still promotes attacking people with large groups. Because even tho they will only get 1/6 of the fame they would get each for a solo kill, the actual chance of beating a group of 6 solo is not 1 in 6 cases. So at the end of the day the best way to get to high title is to go en masse and try to find solo's.

I think no matter what system we use, people will always be encouraged to group with others for safety.  Unless we actually punish people for grouping (not a good idea) I can't really see a better way to approach it.  I think there will be plenty of people that will enjoy hunting on their own because they are confident they can get the kill and won't have to split the points with others, ie: level up faster.

The way fame was lost/gained under the old system was what annoyed me a bit. You lost a full fame hit regardless of how many people attacked you and what you lost did not reflect under which circumstances it happened. 6 people killing one person... why is the victim losing as much fame as if only one person killed him?

Can't the fame you are worth be divided by the number of attackers first and AFTER that be substracted and distributed to the attackers?

[Peak]

Rothgar wrote:

Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

Each rank is worth a specific amount of fame.  When a player of that rank dies, the fame will be split among everyone on his hate list and everyone in their groups.  So zerging people with large groups will not result in a lot of fame gain because there was very little challenge.

The amount of fame that you are worth is what you will lose when you die, regardless of how you died or how many people killed you.

Rothgar, you should be aware that this system still promotes attacking people with large groups. Because even tho they will only get 1/6 of the fame they would get each for a solo kill, the actual chance of beating a group of 6 solo is not 1 in 6 cases. So at the end of the day the best way to get to high title is to go en masse and try to find solo's.

I think no matter what system we use, people will always be encouraged to group with others for safety.  Unless we actually punish people for grouping (not a good idea) I can't really see a better way to approach it.  I think there will be plenty of people that will enjoy hunting on their own because they are confident they can get the kill and won't have to split the points with others, ie: level up faster.

I think this change could work out. There are obvious concerns that some older players might have about gaining and losing regardless of title - but I think it will work out. Besides, Seliri never agrees with anyone or any change except for himself.

Rothgar, although this is off-topic, any thoughts on possible changes to the way gear is earned? I know some people have mentioned the possibility of returning to faction based gear, like KOS had? My main concern as always is the ability for 24 people to kill 6 people - vastly outnumbering and with people no doubt leeching - and still complete their writ and end up getting gear. Any ideas on changing that?

[Kimber]

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

Each rank is worth a specific amount of fame.  When a player of that rank dies, the fame will be split among everyone on his hate list and everyone in their groups.  So zerging people with large groups will not result in a lot of fame gain because there was very little challenge.

The amount of fame that you are worth is what you will lose when you die, regardless of how you died or how many people killed you.

There are no brackets, you will earn points killing anyone of any rank and will lose points dying to anyone of any rank.  Its very similar to a zero sum system.  If you and a buddy take turns killing each other, the higher rank will lose points to the lower rank until they are of equal rank, at which point it would be a wash and no one would net a gain of points from trading kills.

We are still continuing to tweak with the numbers and will continue to tweak them once this change hits Test Copy and we get some of your active feedback. 

When this new system goes live, all titles will be remove and everyone will be on an even playing field.

I dont have any information about the changes to PvP gear at this time.

Blahh blahh

I consolidated this so we are not looking at a wall of text

Did not read it.  Dont need to.

Your ideas are not in line with where SOE is going and well Roth only responed to you 1 time on page 2 and told you as much.  He has however responded to several other posts here that I am suprised that he could find in between your walls of text. 

I would take that as a hint to stop posting just my 2cp and I will futher this by not posting any replies to you Sel but take the hint and do the comunity a favor.  Let the people who's ideas the devs are looking at or considering get in there and the devs actually be able to find them and not sort threw your walls of text. 

[Darkor]

Who does not remember the good old days where seliri would spam via say to block the enemys screen so he could actually win lol. On my SK i could easily take people several lvl higher than my char without any cowarding tactics. I hope the devs completely ignore his walls of text, we defnitily need an ignore button on the forum.

[Darkor]

Rothgar wrote:

Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

Each rank is worth a specific amount of fame.  When a player of that rank dies, the fame will be split among everyone on his hate list and everyone in their groups.  So zerging people with large groups will not result in a lot of fame gain because there was very little challenge.

The amount of fame that you are worth is what you will lose when you die, regardless of how you died or how many people killed you.

Rothgar, you should be aware that this system still promotes attacking people with large groups. Because even tho they will only get 1/6 of the fame they would get each for a solo kill, the actual chance of beating a group of 6 solo is not 1 in 6 cases. So at the end of the day the best way to get to high title is to go en masse and try to find solo's.

I think no matter what system we use, people will always be encouraged to group with others for safety.  Unless we actually punish people for grouping (not a good idea) I can't really see a better way to approach it.  I think there will be plenty of people that will enjoy hunting on their own because they are confident they can get the kill and won't have to split the points with others, ie: level up faster.

Still, fame decay is not the right way. The higher your title will be, the harder it should be to achieve it. Dying to people several titles below you gives you an even bigger loss. For example it takes 30 people to get 100 fame points, dying to someone several title below you will result in a loss of 100 fame points. This is how it should be and the higher your title is, the harder it is to get fame points and the more you lose if you die. If you introduce fame decay, it will make people go crazy. They will stop playing their mains as much as possible, they will do things only in a hurry, their prioritys will go downhill. Please think about it again.

[EndevorX]

Kimber@Nagafen wrote:

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

See above for a critical analysis of EQ2's PvP vision.

Did not read it.  Dont need to.Your ideas are not in line with where SOE is going and well Roth only responed to you 1 time on page 2 and told you as much.  He has however responded to several other posts here that I am suprised that he could find in between your walls of text. I would take that as a hint to stop posting just my 2cp and I will futher this by not posting any replies to you Sel but take the hint and do the comunity a favor.  Let the people who's ideas the devs are looking at or considering get in there and the devs actually be able to find them and not sort threw your walls of text. 

Being unable to establish, cope, evaluate, or appreciate focused feedback on invigorating PvP is no reason to bash others & lackadaisically act like self righteous dismissal is the appropriate path to take.

There's a lot that can be done on terms of innovation & returning to a realm of PvP that rewards readiness & excellence, but sadly, your arrogant attitude has you so deeply confused to being receptive.

If you had the sense to reflect (see: "Ubercliffsgo" below), you would understand why I said those who celebrate these changes mock their own capacity at critical thinking & excellence in competition.

Darkor@Nagafen wrote:

Who does not remember the good old days where seliri would spam via say to block the enemys screen so he could actually win lol. On my SK i could easily take people several lvl higher than my char without any cowarding tactics. I hope the devs completely ignore his walls of text, we defnitily need an ignore button on the forum.

Lol @ Darkor raging (again) a la Oobo/Tanx in boasting of shallow libel when direct damage focus was the known focus for regional communication.

Trying to act like targeting is difficult when the "/ta name" syntax exists is just a sad attempt at glorifying incompetence.

Show some restraint breh.

Ubercliffsgo.

 

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

If a player can move up in rank from annihilating any run of the mill or mediocre nub, why would they risk dying to challenging foes?

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Fame Loss/Gain from all Ranks

Simply repeating that this increases risk & that the classic +/- 1 rank fame range reduces risk is ENTIRELY DELUDED.

When everyone can give you fame & when you lose fame to everyone, awareness of exposure will always be clear.

You can always take the easiest route, avoiding the bumps to enjoy the smooth ride.

When only some can give you fame & you can only lose fame to some, awareness of exposure is more like a black hole.

You can assess your exposure if you do some tests, but you still won't always know if a rock's about to hit.

The ambiguity of risk, the hunt, & off-the-cuff survival/excellence is what made classic PvP ranks anxiety-inducing immersion.

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Fame decay is a punishment through choice-eradicating slavery, because PvPing to hunt for fame is very time consuming, unlike paying rent for your house, which takes a millisecond.

While caring about rent is still an EXTREMELY SUBTLE form of subjugation, it isn't as demoralizing or reinforcing of apathy as fame decay, due to the aforementioned disparity in effort exerted.

Coin gain & hitting "Pay Upkeep" are actions that are 99.9% separate from PvP -- they don't decrease/increase unless the player specifically decides to buy/sell.

If choice is taken away, the enjoyment of PvPing at your leisure is ruined, & it can become a job, again, triggering the "donotwant" impulse.

Erasing choice equals punishment.

Fame decay is a mistaken game design concept that does the opposite of the stated intention to incite PvP:

1.) Experiencing the rest of the game is punished (15/16 activities in EQ2 aren't PvP).

2.) Taking time off from EQ2 is punished.

3.) Playing alternative characters punishes your labor (if Rothgar's analogy "Whether you log in or not, the rent ticks away" is to be an analogy with complete equity).

4.) On some days or during your playtime, you can't get a force to compete with those roaming in your fame range.

5.) Titles remain a unit of time spent PvPing.

6.) An attempt at enslaving people to a threshold of time commitment in PvP breeds pure indifference due to unrealistic obligation.

7.) PvP ranks stop reflecting skill in: survival/situational awareness/catching others off guard/itemizing/grouping/twitch reaction.

8.) PvP rank progress cedes the majority of control from the player to their environment (see: above points that evaluate how some days you: may not want to PvP, may not have competent allies to PvP with, may not feel like playing EQ2).

9.) Regards mistaken ideas on "what fame/infamy/notoriety really are?" (i.e. such should relate to recent activity, when in reality, the above 9 points illustrate why that's wrong)

10.) Once a renown action is taken, it isn't forgotten. Leaving PvP ranks in the control of the players, instead of some arbitrary cost, magnifies this.

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar, I think you guys need to stop and think for a moment, ok?

At first we had a fame system that worked. Was abusable? Yes. Did it need to be attuned more? Yes.

But... Decay was a stupid idea of some people who's total PvP kills added were less than the kills of any of the people who were against it alone - and people from Vox. That should have tell you much at start. However you guys decided to push in with it because you believed it will encourage PvP and it will stopp people from running away.

If you go back to the original threads you will see me posting the future scenarios and look... All things I wrote came true. People did not stop running. It not only failed to encourage PvP but it brought PvP near dead. In fact you had to come up with warfields so that you can maintain a weak resemblance of PvP on Nagafen. That was a huge failure as well.

Fame decay in all and any forms is a stupid idea. It was a stupid idea at start and it continues to be stupid in all it's glory no matter how you attune it. It is not a question of details it is a question of an idea being worthless. Decay while online punishes people for playing the game and decay while offline punishes people for logging off. Both of these not being punishable.

You can compare fame as a reward for PvP to gear as reward for PvE. If you die your reward gets damaged. That makes sense and it works. In PvE your gear does get damaged when you die altho you can't lose it, so PvE is a less risky enviroment. However in PvP the damage to your reward is permanent and it adds to the excitement. It is fine. However if you would put a constant time based decay on PvE gear... Like you lose 1 STA and 1 INT on all mage gear every day. And you say it encourages people to raid because they have to replace their gear constantly... How well you think it would go with the players base? The same is true with any form of fame decay.

I hope you read this, and I hope you understand the point made and remove any and all forms of decay and push for fame loss/gain on win/lose, because that and only that makes sense.

I understand your points but fail to see the logic that removing decay would be the magic elixir you speak of.  Decay is not a "punishment" as several of you like to call it.  The decay affects everyone on the server equally regardless of your actions.  The decay is an upkeep fee like the rent on your in-game house.  Whether you log in or not, the rent ticks away and you must pay it every week or you lose access to your house.  I've never heard anyone call rent a punishment for owning a house, its just a cost.

The point of the decay is so that the title system reflects "active" PvP players.  Things change in the game all the time as I'm sure you'd agree.  With the addition of Warfields, Battlegrounds and new types of gear, PvP is different now than it was two years ago.  The decay system ensures that people are rewarded with titles using the most current ruleset.  So anyone that earned the title two years ago will have to continue to prove their worthiness in PvP by staying active, or lose their title.  The idea is that titles will mean more because you know that the person with the title has earned it and is active enough to keep it. That said, the decay rate is pretty low and we want to tweak it so that it makes sense and is fair to everyone.  Please be sure to copy a character to Test Copy so you can check the new system out when it becomes available in a couple of weeks.

Dorsan's analogy, I feel, has more relevance, because it speaks of an overall reward depreciating relative to gains.

Conventional gear doesn't degrade in quality over time relative to tough encounter kills or an absence of them.

Such a metaphor is that of activity that produces a static reward, sometimes needy of repair when damaged.

I don't think rent compares to PvP rank decay, because...

1.) Housing isn't a cyclical gameplay feature that keeps players immersed once they're fully equipped with little else to do.

2.) Progress with housing projects doesn't depend on your allies or foes.

3.) Housing is for broker bank box limits (vital for commerce).

4.) Some housing doesn't have rent (3 cheers for rentless housing, I has a couple! [eww boasting]).

5.) Enemy players can't take your housing from you (or increase/decrease rent).

6.) Your enemies don't care what type of housing you have.

7.) Housing item limits/broker bank box/vault limits & wall/ceiling/roof/floor customizations don't lessen if you fail to pay your rent.

7a.) It isn't that access to your PvP rank is lost if you don't get the necessary fame hit to offset decay, it's that its quality decreases (your home won't lose its quality, but you will lose access to it if you still have a house that costs rent).

8.) Housing rent is weekly & not daily (see: inconsequential).

9.) Paying house rent doesn't require dynamic strategy (ambushing/class set-up/quick-twitch reaction) & labor to dominate via itemization.

10.) Paying upkeep takes 1 millisecond, not requiring substantial amounts of time hunting (see: inconsequential).

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Kazzo wrote:

i resubbed the second i heard the old fame system was being brought back... but pvp is still crappy because every pvp item is better then pve... like the level 70 pvp bow blows the rigid scale bow out of the water (which if i remember correctly was one of if not the best bows at 70.) since 90 is broken and fights last like 2 seconds i believe most people will be locking in the 70's range and the pvp gear should be nerfed to create more open world pvp. this way you have to spend time gearing your toon out and can't just be good in a week due to easily obtained pvp gear.

They could just add drops to augment PvP gear from a revised version of warfields with actually interesting objectives/progression, requiring simultaneous cooperation/synchronization.

Games like Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory are those that did this well, & I highlight some examples in the "Velious Fail" thread on EQ2 Flames & the thread I link in my signature on "13 points of Awesome for PvP".

Who knows the longevity PvP gear progression will have, but a system of no fame decay with fame loss on death might provide that quick fix... O_o

[yellowbelly08]

Seliri...dude..keep it brief...

I have been very impressed with the responses Rothgar has made on this thread, they make perfect sense. Indeed I think the majority of the readers of this thread have high hopes for these changes. They are trying to help us attain a rewarding pvp game again. So...imo..we need to encourage them, not antagonise them. Walls of text with 50 different proposals dont help. Keep it brief and theres more chance of a response and healthy discussion.

[EndevorX]

yellowbelly08 wrote:

Seliri...dude..keep it brief...

I have been very impressed with the responses Rothgar has made on this thread, they make perfect sense. Indeed I think the majority of the readers of this thread have high hopes for these changes. They are trying to help us attain a rewarding pvp game again. So...imo..we need to encourage them, not antagonise them. Walls of text with 50 different proposals dont help. Keep it brief and theres more chance of a response and healthy discussion.

The official position has been stated, yup, that's obvious, & it was & has been mentioned in spite of its examined flaws.

Your idea that exposing multiple facets of this proposal's cons somehow reduces the chance of response & healthy discussion...it's just a complete lie.

If you want to help us attain a rewarding PvP game again, try considering the facts shown to us with decay & the nature of players taking the path of least resistance (min/maxing), especially in the context of PvP's rivalrous fame commodity.

If you want to help us attain a rewarding PvP game again, try establishing a focus on revitalizing contested farming & action.

If you want to help us attain a rewarding PvP game again, try getting behind restoring potency to features unnecessarily gimped (crowd control, 1 min immunity is excessive, Fury/Mystic/Illu nerfs) & given a la carte to all (Runed Victim's Skull).

One thing's for sure, 14 areas of focus, 15 if you include a non-bastardized restoration of the classic fame system, isn't 50, & it certainly isn't a meaningless wall of text if you have an attention span beyond that of a paper bag.

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

With the utter quiet on...:

· allowing PvP rank clearing & participation toggling on a 1 week reuse/30 sec cast time spell

· nerfing overpowered items like the Runed Victim's Skull

· restoring crowd control (including charm)

· unnerfing Illusionist power regen & Mystic/Fury myths

· removing Toughness from lowbie gear when they don't have the offensive output relative to top tier engagements which had rightfully required critical mitigation

· the cookie-cutter/bland implementation of PQs & warfields

· reitemizing warfields rewards to be sustained benefits desirable even by PvEers

· nerfing carebear minute-long immunity to 30 seconds after evacuation/zoning

· stimulating contested PvP through offering contested versions of each instance

· exciting contested PvP through offering PvP-gear upgrades via rare contested drops

· eradicating groupwide zone-ins to instances

· replacing guild hall strategists on PvP servers with 3 track locks on players in contested zones for > 3 mins

· returning writ givers to open world-only status to help disperse activity beyond PQs (& deserted WFs)

· unifying PvE/PvP critical mitigation

...the functional vision of maintaining a diverse & dynamic, challenging PvP environment has remained poor.

The idea that you can test the PvP rank system when its frailties will only be truly revisited with the tipping of the hourglass & the flight of dust from rock, metal, & alloy, it's mistaken. One hundred percent mistaken.

[29]

dear rothgar, no need to read all the comments. i just filtered the VIP stuff for you:

Peak@Nagafen wrote:

If only you could implement something like this with the way PVP gear is earned. Right now, the zerg can all gang up on 6 people, kill them and complete a writ, and be on their way to getting PVP gear. And that has been the main problem with writs all along - they support the zerg.

Brain@Nagafen wrote:

The way fame was lost/gained under the old system was what annoyed me a bit. You lost a full fame hit regardless of how many people attacked you and what you lost did not reflect under which circumstances it happened. 6 people killing one person... why is the victim losing as much fame as if only one person killed him?

Can't the fame you are worth be divided by the number of attackers first and AFTER that be substracted and distributed to the attackers?

[EndevorX]

29 wrote:

dear rothgar, no need to read all the comments. i just filtered the VIP stuff for you:

Peak@Nagafen wrote:

If only you could implement something like this with the way PVP gear is earned. Right now, the zerg can all gang up on 6 people, kill them and complete a writ, and be on their way to getting PVP gear. And that has been the main problem with writs all along - they support the zerg.

Brain@Nagafen wrote:

The way fame was lost/gained under the old system was what annoyed me a bit. You lost a full fame hit regardless of how many people attacked you and what you lost did not reflect under which circumstances it happened. 6 people killing one person... why is the victim losing as much fame as if only one person killed him?

Can't the fame you are worth be divided by the number of attackers first and AFTER that be substracted and distributed to the attackers?

QFE.

This was visited earlier, seen in Dorsan's 2nd (or 3rd ;P) quote in this quote!

However, if this problem is given the distinct solution Dorsan advises, which you, Peak, & Brain also seem to endorse, it's probable that only solo play would be the most rewarding min/max objective.

That'd be a grave mistake, as most troubles/inconsistencies, even with DPS as it is, are completely resolved & balanced when 2 competent groups are pit against one another.

Personally, I feel the solution would be fine to apply, as people will still group to ensure regional control & the guaranteed acquisition of fame, however easymode it's going to be when every class S supernub ups ranks, see (the AOE simplicity of): WOE launch in Lavastorm/Dreg's Landing/Teren's Grasp/warfield's launch zerging/open-world only writ givers (which should return to help stimulate PvP activity outside PQs).

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

If there were thousands and thousands of Napoleons, each one wouldn't have been very famous.  But, there was only one so he is more easily remembered.  Like someone mentioned earlier, the titles need to be somewhat scarce in order to have more impact.  If people could avoid PvP and never lose their titles, I think they would mean less. 

Indeed, you can't have every shmo run around with high titles. But the fame loss on death will take care of that just like it did before the end of TSO when the decay was introduced. Fact is, you never seen so many Masters+ run around Norrath before we had the fame decay implemented. If people can lose titles in PvP, other people will make sure that they don't stay with high titles for long unless they actually know how to keep them. No need for an artificial system of control on top.

QFE. /agree

Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

I understand your points but fail to see the logic that removing decay would be the magic elixir you speak of.

No, I agree it would not fix any of the issues mentioned since they existed before decay. However decay does diminish the achievement of gaining fame because you know it is temporary and hence meaningless. What people do like to -feel- is that the titles reflect player ability to some extent. And as soon as decay comes into the play the fame instantly ceases to do that function and it becomes a unit to measure time spent online and/or in pvp, and not skill. Basically any form of decay defeats the purpose of pvp titles.

I would argue that the highlighted point above is due to the fact that you didn't lose fame by dying.  This means the more you kill and the longer you play, the more fame you earned.  With fame loss on death reinstated, the title is definitely more about skill and your KvD ratio.  Every time you enter into PvP combat you will risk losing some fame. Unfortunately this was what people complained about that led to players running to preserve their title.  Since players can't run from decay, it should help to encourage them to get out there and fight if they want to maintain the title they have.

Yes, it will be more about skill and KvD ratio but the time played is still going to be part of it. And it shouldn't be. Look, if you really want only the active people to have titles then put a 48 hours buff on everyone after every single PvP kill and then decay the titles all you want when the buff expires. But I just fail to see the point of the decay in the  first place. The reasons why it got implemented in the first place are null and void. Most of the people who wanted it were on Venekor and Vox where PvP was scarce. However after it got implemented Vox died completely and Venekor got merged into Nagafen. And even tho many people did leave - many because of the fame decay in the first place - Nagafen is still better off than those 2 servers were at the time. So no, we don't really need someone to force us out to PvP. If we think there is a meaning to it - any meaning to it - we will be out there.

And the running away argument is null and void. You have fame decay now and 0 risk and people still run just the same. The running never stopped, not for a moment. It does not matter what system you are going to have, people will still run.

There are some of us who think running is part of what you would call PvP skill. If you think you can't win, it is the logical decision and it is a sane strategy. However if you do want to punish runners, decay is still not the way to do it. I am not sure how decisions are made about the fame system, but in my opinion you need to think of it as a reward/punishment system and then make a sheet where on one side you have things you want to reward and on the other side you have the things you want to punish and in the mid you write things that are neutral. Something like this:

actions for reward: killing a person

neutral actions: crafting, raiding, running an instance, playing the game, logging out, playing an alt, etc

actions for punishment: death in PvP, running away(?), not participating in PvP for long time (?)

And then try to find a system that will punish those who perform actions that warrant punishment and reward those who perform actions that warrant a reward while not annoying those who didnt fall into either category.

Here is a (sample) idea:

- turn on decay fame for people who are inactive in PvP for longer time (0 kills in 2 days, 1 week, etc)

- turn on decay fame for people who run away from 4 fights (getting attacked generating 0 hate and surviving, evacing after someone hit them, surviving the fight with 0 power while the other person is alive, surviving the fight with less health than the other person, etc)

- turn off fame decay as soon as the person actually does get a PvP kill

- people lose fame on death

- people gain fame on kill

- people lose less fame if died against the ods (1v6 death = 1/6th fame loss compared to 1on1 death)

- people gain more fame if won against the ods (1v6 kill = 6x the fame gain compared to 1on1 kill)

This is really just a fast writeup, but I think you get the basic idea.

The 3 highlighted ideas are good "new" ones.

[Oobo]

HAHAHAHA SELIRI IS RAGING BRAH..... She when you see known exploiters and someone depending on crutches of an OP class or broken loop holes RAGE over a positive change, you KNOW your moving in the right direction...

This change is gonne rock Roth and ty for not listening to wasted space of WALLED TEXT... Fame should be earned and maintained through pvp on a daily basis IF YOU WANT THE FAME and it should be defended around every corner, so this change makes total sense...

NOW lets just get the EXILE loop hole fixed

Lets get the PVE DPS GEAR blowing up PVP geared people FIXED

And could we get a little more info on the NEW pvp gear/Tokens and i HOPE its not heirloom..=)

[EndevorX]

I shall also go on to say...

The reason the classic PvP rank system worked is because the fame hunt was difficult & time consuming.

It took finesse, preparation, & being careful to progress.

People actually cared because finally acquiring a kill on a hunt WAS a hurdle to overcome.

That's erased with no brackets.

Levels of renown, in reality, can only contend with one another once they've reached particular benchmarks.

Consider the fact that peons of military might must work to compare to the monuments of time.

Ulysses S. Grant can never equate, militarily, to Hitler (or moreso his generals), Alexander the Great, Ghengis Khan, or Spartacus.

His fate was such that his heart & environment never encompassed as far reaching a swath of consumption or aspiration.

And so it is, that he is less memorable, less famous/infamous/notorious, than the highlighted characters.

So when someone mentions inconsequential media figures that appealed only to a sample demographic, instead of the dumbfounding movement of mountains, they relate an inappropriate rendition of what has established true celebrity throughout the human timeline.

When people stop caring because something is grudgingly simple, when they don't have the freedom to return to the fruit of their labor after their whims have temporarily carried them elsewhere, the value isn't there because those key aspects of difficulty & return aren't there, they're out of their control.

There will definitely be little satisfaction killing higher ranks knowing that such is only the result of mashing indifferent roamers & kills absent the perseverence once required.

Before, it was often a goal to pursue higher fame brackets to work at taking a toll on those who had likewise labored.

Now, what might be most amusing to many is letting others AOE piles of expendables to their high ranks, & then vaporize class B players & incur the deepest fame loss due to rank disparity, if that still exists. ;P

Will losing fame to those ranked beneath you incur a greater fame loss, as it used to (or as many believed it used to be)?

And that's not a pressing question, as it'll be learned eventually, but for the sake of anticipatory, rivalrous joy, for those who care...(probably not me, as I'll likely be one of those noobs AOEing expendables to high ranks, for no reason other than gearing out at the start).

[Darkor]

WTB ignore post for seliris post, i havent read any of em but they still clutch up my window too much.

[Mesiya]

There do have to be fame brackets tbh. Killing any old scrub to get you from master to overseer sounds a bit lame to me.

It used to be somewhat memorable to gain a title from killing a "famous" player. Oh sheet guys i just got my Master title off -that guy-....ah crap he just ganked me while i was bragging and i lost it. Not, oh i just got overseer by killing Xserigeenia (random eq generated bot name) while he was questing in sundered.

[Oobo]

WOW Seliri did you JUST compare a game to RL war and names like Hitler? HAHAH dude its time to STEP AWAY FROM THE GAME and see what real world looks like...

Are you NOT reading what Roth posts? and just raging through the forums now? HE SAID to progress in title you will STILL HAVE TO HUNT FOR HIGHER TITLES.. farming low titles wont net you enough fame to counter act the loss of any fame if you die to low titles and decay...So its gonna be very hard to maintain a HIGH title if you SUCK and attempt to only farm questing slayers... you MUST in order to raise your fame still go out and hunt those higher titles...which is how its meant to be...

STOP RAGING BRAH!!!

[EndevorX]

Oobo@Nagafen wrote:

WOW Seliri did you JUST compare a game to RL war and names like Hitler? HAHAH dude its time to STEP AWAY FROM THE GAME and see what real world looks like...

Are you NOT reading what Roth posts? and just raging through the forums now? HE SAID to progress in title you will STILL HAVE TO HUNT FOR HIGHER TITLES.. farming low titles wont net you enough fame to counter act the loss of any fame if you die to low titles and decay...So its gonna be very hard to maintain a HIGH title if you SUCK and attempt to only farm questing slayers... you MUST in order to raise your fame still go out and hunt those higher titles...which is how its meant to be...

STOP RAGING BRAH!!!

You seem to have trouble not getting over emotional every time I post TBH.

Where was your rage when Rothgar & numerous other posters also compared fame to real life? ;]

You're the one putting words in Rothgar's mouth holmes. ;[

Nothing that you claim Rothgar spoke was ever said.

What was specified was only that decay would equate to 1 negative fame loss a day.

So, yes, you could kill enough low-titled apathetics to total the worth of your rank, & moreso, in a day.

[PeaSy1]

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Neskonlith wrote:

See, here I am making an effort at avoiding derailments by unrelated-to-discussion personal potshots - how about we try to keep it clean?

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

If a player can move up in rank from annihilating any run of the mill or mediocre nub, why would they risk dying to challenging foes?

With a limited position title system, it is impossible to gain the higher levels by killing masses of "nubs". 

You could kill a million Hunters, and it will never get you from Champion to Dreadnaught because the pop limited titles above you in rank are owned by seriously ambitious pvp players.  Do you imagine that the one and only Overlord will willingly step aside to allow someone lesser to take their title?

Overlord - there can be only ONE!

Overseer - Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three Master - Seven afk in GH of stoneGeneral - Nine doomed to die

Dreadnaught - 13 Lucky numberChampion - 50 onlyDestroyer - 200 maxSlayer - 500 maxHunter - unlimitedUntitled - unlimited

If one of the "no-challenge nubs" kills you, you deserve the fame loss.  A player should not be made immune from fame loss by an artificial bracket that reduces their risk.

Add in the automatic fame loss for cliff-divers and zone-hoppers, and soon enough only the best pvp players will own the few and exclusive high pvp titles - all lamers would be quickly de-ranked.

Population Caps on PvP ranks

Repeating your vision of population caps on PvP ranks doesn't make the idea any better.

hypocrite much?

[Neskonlith]

Dudoes@Nagafen wrote:

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Repeating your vision of population caps on PvP ranks doesn't make the idea any better.

hypocrite much?

As much fun it was to repost a few times to make sure it was seen before the orange spam buried it, I had hoped for riffs and elaborations on a core idea of scarce upper titles:

What would the pvp fame game be like if there were only a handful of top titles? 

The other numbers can always be adjusted, but if there is only ONE Overlord, how vicious would the competition be?

One top title, one winner, one server full of ambition awaiting their turn.

[PeaSy1]

Neskonlith wrote:

Dudoes@Nagafen wrote:

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Repeating your vision of population caps on PvP ranks doesn't make the idea any better.

hypocrite much?

As much fun it was to repost a few times to make sure it was seen before the orange spam buried it, I had hoped for riffs and elaborations on a core idea of scarce upper titles:

What would the pvp fame game be like if there were only a handful of top titles? 

The other numbers can always be adjusted, but if there is only ONE Overlord, how vicious would the competition be?

One top title, one winner, one server full of ambition awaiting their turn.

Had nothing to do with what you said was pointing out Seliri repeating his same txt walls of 13 points of blah blah over and over. After telling you repeating doesnt make ur idea any better.

[Wytie]

Celery is far less annoying when you never read any of his post, and have all of his toons on ignore on all of yours.

He is by by far the most ignored person in game on nagafen. I bet even Olithin has him on ignore.

[Rothgar]

Darkor@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

Dorsan@Nagafen wrote:

Rothgar wrote:

Each rank is worth a specific amount of fame.  When a player of that rank dies, the fame will be split among everyone on his hate list and everyone in their groups.  So zerging people with large groups will not result in a lot of fame gain because there was very little challenge.

The amount of fame that you are worth is what you will lose when you die, regardless of how you died or how many people killed you.

Rothgar, you should be aware that this system still promotes attacking people with large groups. Because even tho they will only get 1/6 of the fame they would get each for a solo kill, the actual chance of beating a group of 6 solo is not 1 in 6 cases. So at the end of the day the best way to get to high title is to go en masse and try to find solo's.

I think no matter what system we use, people will always be encouraged to group with others for safety.  Unless we actually punish people for grouping (not a good idea) I can't really see a better way to approach it.  I think there will be plenty of people that will enjoy hunting on their own because they are confident they can get the kill and won't have to split the points with others, ie: level up faster.

Still, fame decay is not the right way. The higher your title will be, the harder it should be to achieve it. Dying to people several titles below you gives you an even bigger loss. For example it takes 30 people to get 100 fame points, dying to someone several title below you will result in a loss of 100 fame points. This is how it should be and the higher your title is, the harder it is to get fame points and the more you lose if you die. If you introduce fame decay, it will make people go crazy. They will stop playing their mains as much as possible, they will do things only in a hurry, their prioritys will go downhill. Please think about it again.

You're making a lot of assumptions without knowing the numbers.  We're still making changes to the system but to give you an idea of what we're looking at, an Overlord may be worth something like 180 points if you kill him, and he would lose 180 if he dies.  A Hunter would be worth about 60 points and lose 60 when he dies.  We're looking at a decay rate around 3 points per hour so you'd only need to kill 1 person a day to keep up with it.  With our current requirements to get Overlord, it would take something like 4 months of not doing anything at all to lose your title.  At lower titles, yes, you could lose them faster, but you could also gain them back MUCH MUCH faster.

However, we're still looking at other options that need to be discussed, such as a season-based system where titles are reset every season with the top PvP'ers keeping some kind of permanent reward or title.  With a system like this, the decay might not be necessary because each season represents a new competition.

[GussJr]

From scanning the thread is seems like the group zerg is still a concern for many of us...

Just a thought, but maybe instead of splitting the points earned from a kill between all members in the group...what about a "lock out"?

What I mean by a "lock out" is that maybe only the first person to engage another player is allowed to combat that player in a true 1v1 pvp fight while group members look on, hence locking out all the other players in the group from the fight.

...no sharing points from the kill needed...no zerg to worry about...

If someone runs from a fight, then perhaps once that toon reaches a certain distance from the player who engaged them it resets and someone else can engage the fight...

It would, in a way, force people to become better at pvp instead of leeching kill dings from a large group...

...just an idea

[Rothgar]

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Will losing fame to those ranked beneath you incur a greater fame loss, as it used to (or as many believed it used ot be)?

By nature of higher ranks being worth more points than lower ranks, you will lose more fame if you die at a higher rank.  But, it won't matter whether you die to an Overlord or die to a Hunter.  Because the new system divides your points by the number of people that engaged you, we don't want to change the numbers based on rank.  Its much less accurate and prone to exploitation if we have an algorithm try to determine what rank killed you when you were enaged by a group of people. 

Your points will simply be divided among the group as if they all helped out equally.  If someone in the group isn't pulling their weight and leeching the points, it would be beneficial to the group to drop that player.  This is the same concept when grouping with people to run dungeons.  If someone isn't helping out, you should get him in line or drop him from the group because you are sharing the rewards with him.

If you feel you can be successful out hunting on your own, the rewards will be greater, but the risk is also greater. 

[Neskonlith]

GussJr wrote:

From scanning the thread is seems like the group zerg is still a concern for many of us...

Just a thought, but maybe instead of splitting the points earned from a kill between all members in the group...what about a "lock out"?

What I mean by a "lock out" is that maybe only the first person to engage another player is allowed to combat that player in a true 1v1 pvp fight while group members look on, hence locking out all the other players in the group from the fight.

...no sharing points from the kill needed...no zerg to worry about...

If someone runs from a fight, then perhaps once that toon reaches a certain distance from the player who engaged them, than it resets and someone else can engage the fight...

It would, in a way, force people to become better at pvp instead of leeching kill dings from a large group...

...just an idea

It's been done before, and it was abused by exiled to give an immunity where it wasn't intended.

Also, forcing group classes to solo vs OP solo classes sounds like fun for the OP class! 

[EndevorX]

Dudoes@Nagafen wrote:

Neskonlith wrote:

Dudoes@Nagafen wrote:

Seliri@Nagafen wrote:

Repeating your vision of population caps on PvP ranks doesn't make the idea any better.

hypocrite much?

As much fun it was to repost a few times to make sure it was seen before the orange spam buried it, I had hoped for riffs and elaborations on a core idea of scarce upper titles:

What would the pvp fame game be like if there were only a handful of top titles? 

The other numbers can always be adjusted, but if there is only ONE Overlord, how vicious would the competition be?

One top title, one winner, one server full of ambition awaiting their turn.

Had nothing to do with what you said was pointing out Seliri repeating his same txt walls of 13 points of blah blah over and over. After telling you repeating doesnt make ur idea any better.

Your attempt to cherrypick my hypocrisy is indeed myopic.

When the same posters stop raging about their points with repetition, you'll see an equal number of viewers likewise agree with many of the controversies Dorsan and I, as well as others, have pointed out (see: a sample of the populace with tapered senses of objectivity in "Nagafen PvP - Open Webinar with the Devs" [some are also seen in this thread, via Mesiya, Gussjr, to some extent Peak, Drew, & others on EQ2Flames, such as Zzof, Hauzer {q149}, etc]).

What you fail to notice is that my aims gradually consolidate & condense the essence of dispute, to attempt a better illicitation of focused assessment from the particular obstinate groups.

Noting anxiety & anticipation from the likes of Kazzo, Vengeance, Ninka, Mingler, Beandip, Twelve, Rargon, & in the past from Dawnar, the consensus predominantly seems to be for the classic PvP rank system.

Plus, the ideas I've put forth would be substantially more positively impacting than fame decay or population caps on PvP ranks.

As such, their emphasis is deserved beyond the shallow antagonizing of those who root themselves unable to consider alternative perspectives.

Thanks Rothgar for all the responses, but I can only hope the boundaries are open to greater adjustment, as a given. ;D

GussJr wrote:

From scanning the thread is seems like the group zerg is still a concern for many of us...

Just a thought, but maybe instead of splitting the points earned from a kill between all members in the group...what about a "lock out"?

What I mean by a "lock out" is that maybe only the first person to engage another player is allowed to combat that player in a true 1v1 pvp fight while group members look on, hence locking out all the other players in the group from the fight.

...no sharing points from the kill needed...no zerg to worry about...

If someone runs from a fight, then perhaps once that toon reaches a certain distance from the player who engaged them it resets and someone else can engage the fight...

It would, in a way, force people to become better at pvp instead of leeching kill dings from a large group...

...just an idea

Locking PvP encounters is extremely abusable due to dual boxing.

Two characters could stay engaged & then one could engage at their leisure once their foes are preoccupied.

Though, it isn't necessarily too different when we regard flying mounts as they are.

Neskonlith mentions the accurate disagreement of class quality discrepancy!

(P.S. LOL @ Crismorn rage. It's just so laughably sensitive. Well shucks breh, I'm sorry you have trouble coping with the obvious objective I've been outlining.)