PDA

View Full Version : Idea for PvP - Vengeance



JMC
06-04-2012, 08:34 PM
In an old browser based war game i used to play in their PvP system there was something called vengeance.

Basically how the PvP of the game works is like this. You can attack someone up 70 times every 12 hours. There is actually a timer on the person's profile page, showing the last person to have attacked him and how long ago it happened. Once that timer reaches 12 hours the player is then open to be attacked another 70 times. *This has nothing to do with the idea, just briefly explaining the PvP of the other game*

However, if someone attacks you even only once, win or lose, you get something called vengeance on them. What this means is that you can attack them unlimited amount of times. You can go on non-stop and even hit them 1000 times if you wanted to. This vengeance lasts 24 hours and then the normal rules apply. Unless of course the guy hits you again, vengeance is refreshed.

Currently, when people get into what they would call a war in this game, basically all it is, is a few attacks every couple hours and raiding of some buildings. They just go at each other doing basically the same amount of damage every 2 hours. Both sides just take huge losses and neither one really wins. However if there was something like vengeance, it would make the PvP a lot more interesting and would actually make someone a clear winner of a battle in this game.

For MWs version of vengeance, 5 attacks or raids would grant the opponent vengeance for 24 hours. During this 24 hours if even a single attack more is done, vengeance is refreshed.

EDIT: There could also be some tweaks to the casualty rates when someone has vengeance to make this work out better. With current casualty rates, the aggressor would actually lose more than the defender loses even if he won every fight. For this reason, in most cases it would be unwise to actually use vengeance on someone as you'd damage yourself more than you'd damage them.

My suggested tweak would be to decrease the casualty rate of the victor and increase the casualty rate of the loser. I understand that the current casualty rates may be in place to help protect weaker players from getting beat up on by stronger players. So this tweak would only apply when vengeance is active. Meaning this altered rate would only apply with both sides are actively in a war with each other. This way the person who makes use of their vengeance and attacks, then wins, would actually do much more damage to their target than to themselves. Allowing for there to be an actual winner and for some actual damage to be done.

What do you guys think?

manbeast
06-04-2012, 08:38 PM
LOVE IT!!!

Better not attack a whale by accident!! lol

Jhoemel
06-04-2012, 08:51 PM
LOVE IT!!!

Better not attack a whale by accident!! lol

If you do that you're going down hard... haha

JMC
06-04-2012, 08:55 PM
Not really, those guys don't attack you like that. Especially if it was 1 accidental attack.

Perhaps we could tweak the idea, so that 1 accidental hit would not grant you vengeance. If you hit a whale 2 times in a row, then i guess u are ****ed if he feels like going for you. That'd be completely your fault though.

JMC
06-04-2012, 09:36 PM
Can those of you who said no, please state why? Could make some tweaks to the idea and it'd work out for everyone.

Personally i don't see the downside. If you are an active attacker and no one hits you back, really there is no difference. If they do hit you back, assuming you chose a good target, you will obtain vengeance and have free valor mission completion for a day.

If you are a weak player that gets attacked a lot, there is no difference unless you decide to go suicide on the guy.

With the idea of 2 attacks rather than 1, accidental hits on players would not net them vengeance, so again there is no difference.

Only difference is that 2 players with similar stats going at all out war, will have the opportunity to gain the upper hand. Currently no one gets the upperhand, unless one pulls out a **** load of gold. All i see is that anyone who has participated in a long battle with a rival, eventually gives up and calls a truce, since neither can be a definitive winner. With this idea, the more active player with a better strategy to participate in PvP, will kill the other player and the better player will win.

siL
06-05-2012, 02:02 AM
I personally think 2 attacks is still to low, and are very acceptable in war games such as this...
What I mean is that one is considered "over" if they attack you repedeatly, and not only twice..
Probably if you could extend it to 5 times, then, it makes sense to me, because if you are really looking for trouble and attack more than that, you deserve the vengeance...

Aidan
06-05-2012, 04:05 AM
I really like this idea. Tho IMO it still wont decide the clear winner between two warring plyrs. They can go on and on and on vengeance each other for as long as this game exist. Even worse for the golden army plyrs. They wont lose anything and basically will pointlessly attack each other.

Unless! (this is a whole diff idea but can be merge with your vengeance idea). Unless there is a limit on how many vengeance you can have. Or a points system where when a two players vengeanced one another and start warring, a timer for # of days will start and points will be awarded to players based on successful attacks/raids.

Lastly i agree with SiL. 2 is too low. Should be 7 or more because that will indicates you're determine to war with the opponent. Raids on 2 buildings Already requires 6 attacks and this is hardly a reason to start vengeance. If 3 buildings, then yeah.

JMC
06-05-2012, 12:57 PM
Well i guess making the minimum 5 would be fine. Same with raids, 5 is a good amount as well.

As for the deciding factor of who is the winner, maybe there could be a tweak to the casualty rates when you have vengeance on someone? For example. With the current casualty rates, the attacker even if he wins will take far more casualties than the defender. For this reason, going back and forth drags out a fight and ends up with no clear winner, as someone is actually damaging themselves more by attacking, than by getting attacked. With current casualty rates actually using vengeance to attack someone with similar strength, hundreds of times in a single day, would make the attacker end up losing more even if he won every fight.

So my idea for this would be that, if you have vengeance on a player. Your casualty rate against that player is reduced. And his casualty rate from defending is increased. *Assuming the attacker is winning and the defender is losing*. This way the aggressor can beat the other guy and actually do sufficient damage, without killing off more of his own army than his opponents.

As for making wars against gold players more interesting, i have an idea for that. Might pull a bigflan and make a new poll for it.

siL
06-05-2012, 07:45 PM
Actually when I said 5 its because the glitch we have yesterday, when we have the chance only to attack 8 times per player...
But today, I found out that I could attack someone for 14 times in my current lvl 55...
If the normal attack/raid number applies, then somewhere between 7 is a good number...

JMC
06-05-2012, 07:51 PM
Lol why does it have to compare to the maximum amount of attacks you are allowed to do?

Personally i'd rather it be a low number, so that it is easy for me to obtain vengeance. Especially on players who attack without checking stats repeatedly. One hit could be accidental, 2 is from someone who is careless and stupid. IMO that person deserves a bashing, and that's why my original placing was at 2 hits.

Look at it this way. Giving a player vengeance against you, will not mean anything unless you're attacking people that could potentially beat you. Not very smart in the first place, and not profitable at all when it comes to raids, but if you're doing that you're asking for war anyways. If you attack a player even once without indicating on their wall that it was accidental from the rivals list or something. Chances are, if they have the power to fight you, they will retaliate.

manbeast
06-06-2012, 12:21 AM
I like the casualty rate idea.

I've been getting really annoyed lately because i keep running across MAJORS with CRAP stats!! like 5k wins, 4k losses!?!?! how is their "PVP rank" higher than mine (captain) when I have 8k wins and only 600 losses?! my "pvp rank" should def. be higher than theres. not to mention their atk/def is like 10k/15k. I think they must be getting like 200 bp when they atk someone with 10k def. where as I only get like 60 bp attacking someone w/ that low of stats. its bull crap. as a result, when i find these ppl i kill them and raid everything lols. I'd love for them to retaliate so i could get vengeance!! sorry for the rant.

i guess what i was getting at was, if the cas rate for losses was higher there wouldnt be so many majors/captains with crap w/l ratio and crap stats, but i guess the underlying issue is with the way battle points are given.

siL
06-06-2012, 01:28 AM
I like the casualty rate idea.

I've been getting really annoyed lately because i keep running across MAJORS with CRAP stats!! like 5k wins, 4k losses!?!?! how is their "PVP rank" higher than mine (captain) when I have 8k wins and only 600 losses?! my "pvp rank" should def. be higher than theres. not to mention their atk/def is like 10k/15k. I think they must be getting like 200 bp when they atk someone with 10k def. where as I only get like 60 bp attacking someone w/ that low of stats. its bull crap. as a result, when i find these ppl i kill them and raid everything lols. I'd love for them to retaliate so i could get vengeance!! sorry for the rant.

i guess what i was getting at was, if the cas rate for losses was higher there wouldnt be so many majors/captains with crap w/l ratio and crap stats, but i guess the underlying issue is with the way battle points are given.

THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE IN MIND WITH THIS BP SYSTEM that we are having right now!!
really Funzio should fix this you know....let's have some role play thingy :
1. Player A have a mediocre stats, in my case LOTS of player in lvl 55, with 30 - 60 allies, are having stat A/D of 2-3K
2. a Strong Player, which I predict a lot in these forums, with stats well above the average person, like me (dont mean to brag, only to give example) lvl 55 with 40 allies, with 6kA/6.7kD
when two of us get to attack or raid other player, also with mediocre stats, THIS IS WHERE SUCKS BEGINS..
I will only get 24-30 BP's, while Player A with his mediocre stats, will get higher BP then mine, because guess what, at the current system, I notice that BP is dependent to the gap that our Attack and our enemy's Defence makes...
So when I have 6K Attack, when I met 2-3K Defence, I only get 24 BPs, because my Atk/Def gap is 3-4K worth..
when Player A have 3K attack, and met with 2.5K defence, they could get well up to 40-50 BPs, because their Atk/Def gap is only 500...
IF I want to have 40-50 BPs, I have to find players with 4.5-5K of Defence, and there is very scarce of them in my level range...
SUCKS ain't it??:mad:

Do any of you feel this way too??

manbeast
06-06-2012, 11:33 PM
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE IN MIND WITH THIS BP SYSTEM that we are having right now!!
really Funzio should fix this you know....let's have some role play thingy :
1. Player A have a mediocre stats, in my case LOTS of player in lvl 55, with 30 - 60 allies, are having stat A/D of 2-3K
2. a Strong Player, which I predict a lot in these forums, with stats well above the average person, like me (dont mean to brag, only to give example) lvl 55 with 40 allies, with 6kA/6.7kD
when two of us get to attack or raid other player, also with mediocre stats, THIS IS WHERE SUCKS BEGINS..
I will only get 24-30 BP's, while Player A with his mediocre stats, will get higher BP then mine, because guess what, at the current system, I notice that BP is dependent to the gap that our Attack and our enemy's Defence makes...
So when I have 6K Attack, when I met 2-3K Defence, I only get 24 BPs, because my Atk/Def gap is 3-4K worth..
when Player A have 3K attack, and met with 2.5K defence, they could get well up to 40-50 BPs, because their Atk/Def gap is only 500...
IF I want to have 40-50 BPs, I have to find players with 4.5-5K of Defence, and there is very scarce of them in my level range...
SUCKS ain't it??:mad:

Do any of you feel this way too??

yea its kind of hard to explain but you are exactly right. its actually easier for weaker players to get battle points and pvp ranking. i just saw a major with 5k attack. he has like 10,000 raids and is prob getting 200 bp for each one. whereas, if i raided the same person i would get 30 bp