Encourage winning

[shadowice]

Ive complained about this before, why should you have to farm losses just to get honor. Remove the fight balance from 100 more losses then wins. Make it so once you have more losses then wins you no longer receive the bonus. Or maybe make it so when your at more wins then losses you get a better regeneration rate or more vitality per tick. Its silly people still want losses after everyone was evened out we were supposta try to win not keep farming losses.

[Ren]

Ive complained about this before, why should you have to farm losses just to get honor. Remove the fight balance from 100 more losses then wins. Make it so once you have more losses then wins you no longer receive the bonus. Or maybe make it so when your at more wins then losses you get a better regeneration rate or more vitality per tick. Its silly people still want losses after everyone was evened out we were supposta try to win not keep farming losses.

If you don't gain any honor when you have more losses than wins, you will never have enough honor to use because you lose honor whenever you lose a fight. If you don't get the bonus to honor when you have less wins like that, your honor will just drop in number. At least...that's what I think you meant by that.

[thrall]

If you don't gain any honor when you have more losses than wins, you will never have enough honor to use because you lose honor whenever you lose a fight. If you don't get the bonus to honor when you have less wins like that, your honor will just drop in number. At least...that's what I think you meant by that.

and what about the player that have more than 100 lossea than wins? they give a lot of negative honor and by doing that they encorage others to reach a maximun of losses just to be able to fight normaly (not choseng only the few players that remain balanced)

[Ren]

you're creating a thinking anomaly known as the slippery slope. that is only one far extreme outcome. not enough of the masses of players will be doing what you're implying to cause everyone else to do the same.

[smartalekrj]

if someone has 100 more losses then wins here's what you do:

1) add their name to your hate list

2) don't attack them

3) ignore them

is that hard to do?

[Vlad Triskavanski]

if someone has 100 more losses then wins here's what you do:

1) add their name to your hate list

2) don't attack them

3) ignore them

is that hard to do?

Not when you're mp4. There is like only 10 mp4s in the game. (exaggeration)

[Lulu]

you're creating a thinking anomaly known as the slippery slope. that is only one far extreme outcome. not enough of the masses of players will be doing what you're implying to cause everyone else to do the same.

Oh, I think there's enough. Otherwise, why does it seem like 9 out of 10 players give me neg. honor when I'm nearly balanced, not even perfectly balanced yet? All right, here:

1. I have 50 more losses than wins.

2. We qualify the players whom you say are not multitudinous enough to bring others to getting more losses as those with 100 more losses than wins.

3. How much honor detracted from an attacker who has more wins than losses than the person being attacked (negative honor) is calculated as the absolute value of the difference between attacker's (a) difference in wins/loss and the attacked's (b) difference in wins/loss divided by two:

honor detracted = ldifference in wins/losses_a- difference in wins/losses_bl / 2

Honor detracted when I attack people with 100 more losses than wins = (l50-100l)/2 = l-50l/2 = 50/2 = 25.

So, by how I calculate it, people with 100 or more losses than wins give me -25 honor or worse (yes, that was an unnecessary step-by-step explanation). Now I go and do a nice study using this information to see how many people around have 100 or more losses.

So I count all the MP5's at Willow's and the Gazebo of Equilibrium online, and also record how many give me -25 honor (really, I counted online and offline MP5's all over the maps, but those results weren't favorable they're probably all from back when everyone had wins anyway, hnn) : 11 out of 15 MP5s gave me -25 honor or worse, meaning 11 out of 15 have 100 more losses than wins.

Well, that's just numbers if you wanted them. Just a one-time log, not the average, eh. But I say, I don't believe so many people have such losses than wins because it's difficult to balance their wins/losses. From my experience, it's a bit hard, but overcome-able; what's really hard, instead, is keeping your determination because you have -500 honor and 0 rewards from battles as a result of attacking others with worse ratios. I'm pretty sure there are enough players at this point with bad ratios that others are slipping into it because of it, at least partially; I feel the influence. Even now I'm contemplating giving up on my goal of balancing myself if I can't attack others and keep a high enough honor.

if someone has 100 more losses then wins here's what you do:

1) add their name to your hate list

2) don't attack them

3) ignore them

is that hard to do?

It is a bit hard to do, when 11 out of 15 players are so. /:

Anyway, I make a brief plea: if you have more losses than wins but can balance it more than you are, yet do not feel the need because of the honor issue and such, well, then you are part of the problem. Let's all even up and be able to have that bonus for balanced ratio, please.

And, were there any errors in my thinking? O: Not sure.

EDIT: 1) No need for calculation, next time just check the profiles. :') 2) It seems like neg. honor is calculated differently than what I originally thought, though I'm not sure how exactly they're calculating it now, so this study is inaccurate. It might be more like, 15 out 15.

[Glaistig]

So I count all the MP5's at Willow's and the Gazebo of Equilibrium online, and also record how many give me -25 honor (really, I counted online and offline MP5's all over the maps, but those results weren't favorable they're probably all from back when everyone had wins anyway, hnn):11 out of 15 MP5s gave me -25 honor or worse, meaning 11 out of 15 have 100 more losses than wins.

Actually, people in gray have been online within the past 24 hours.

Nonetheless, I also feel like there are enough people with a bad balance to make others want to get more losses. For the past few days, I've had less than a hundred more losses than wins, and almost everyone gives me negative honor. Currently, my balance is at Won: 1668 | Lost: 1761.

Sometime while I wasn't paying discretion to who I was attacking and what honor penalty (generally penalty, not bonus) they gave, my honor dropped from 5000 to 2700 within a few hours. I had to attack phlegm twice and the KC several times to get it back up to max.

I haven't noted any exp/skill bonus for my balance so far (the newslog doesn't go into the specifics of the bonus system mechanics), and what I might get later if I continue my effort to balance my counter seems little in comparison to the prospect of trying to keep out of negative honor and the deprivation of combat gain at -500 honor. It does make me want to get more losses rather than balance.

I noticed that the exp bonus for honor reward greater than 200 was replaced with one for values greater than 400, but I don't think that will solve anything, except to make players try to get 800 more losses:wins than other people's loss:win ratio. I think that there should be a cap placed on the exp bonus you can get for honor rewards greater than 400, something substantially less than what you could get with a balanced profile.

I'm pretty sure that most have been ignoring Manu's encouragement for a balanced counter, and it makes sense. There are going to be people who are too lazy or find it hard to maintain wins and losses so that they're at close figures, and in order to gain honor from those people, other people will purposely collect losses. If the majority doesn't keep a balance, it's very tough for those who try to stay faithful to the concept that balance is beneficial, and the majority turns out to be so.

I may or may not continue this effort to get a balance. It depends on how many others are going to try to do the same. In fact, I'd like to make a list right now of those who have less than 100 more losses than wins. I'd bet it wouldn't be very long.

[Sacosphilz]

I was loss farming, a lot. I also farmed losses a bit more after the win/loss counters had been reset, which is around the time I moved to MP5, because almost everyone was giving negative honor and because I was desperate for some items in the MD shop. Well, actually, it's probably not almost everyone, but those who stay idle online tend to get attacked a lot and have more losses than wins, so it would seem like a lot of people have more losses than wins.

After managing to stop myself from being food for MP5, I started playing with the following goals:

1. I wanted to horde a lot of skill points.

2. I wanted to achieve fight balance again. Back then I had about 120 more losses than wins.

So I arranged a ritual that could win a lot and started attacking like mad, learning how to pick only fights I can win. I managed to move to 40 more losses than wins before giving up, for the following reasons:

1. I got from 5000 honor down to 3000 honor by going from 120 losses-wins to 40 losses-wins. There was no doubt that if I were to continue, I would reach negative honor before achieving fight balance. Of course, I could still choose to attack only targets with more wins than losses, but those targets are often hard to beat, not online very often, and otherwise few and far in between. I reasoned that if I was picky with my targets, then I won't be able to catch up with the older players.

2. In the process of generating 80 victories for myself, I had generated more loss counts for other players. I regarded this as a futility on a macro scale to reach fights balance, thus giving up.

Then, heads contest started. I didn't seriously try to win because I knew I couldn't, and I just kept the plan to horde stats, only this time I don't care about fight balance, so here's what I do.

1. I still kept attacking like mad for stats, generating wins for myself, but generating more losses for other players.

2. I keep a helpless defense ritual on all the time, because I want to lose the stolen heads as fast as possible, and because I want to protect my main creatures and vitality.

And now I have 160 more losses than wins, still trying to win a lot, and without loss farming.

My points are:

1. With the current system, I don't see a point in trying to keep fight balance because it won't benefit me.

2. With the current system, even if I try to achieve fights balance or just try to win a lot, the whole system would still be out of balance.

I'm not complaining. I'm not praising. This is just how I learned to adapt to the game rules. I have a firm belief that if you don't like what the players are doing, you have to fix the rules, because players will always do what is in their best interests whether you like it or not.

That said, even though the current win/loss system is still not perfect, part of the charm of this game is the fact that everyone needs losses as well as wins. As far as I'm concerned, it makes players much more amiable than in games that they try only to win.

[Tremir]

I think it should be noted at this point that losses are gained a lot faster then wins, normally.

Looking at my combat log right now, I see 12 fights that resulted in the loser getting his counter incremented, and only 1 fight in which the winner got a "win" count.

I don't know how widespread this is, but if, during normal play, 10 loss counts are being generated per win count, the system can't possibly be balanced, because the whole game world has more losses then wins.

[Firbran]

Yes, I think the best way to encourage winning is to make it easier. Keep the current victory/victorious system, but allow both to provide a win. Make some other difference between them, like whether you get stat gains.

[Lulu]

Well then, I suppose it's more of a too many losses than wins thing as the fundamental problem rather than a too many people not trying to get balanced thing. (and I just realized that all that honor-stuff to figure out who had 100 more losses than wins; Glaistig reminded me that the balance is in their profile. >_>

In that case, then wouldn't the only sure way to ensure that the overall game's balance is even be to give a loss only when a win is counted and the other way around, like others suggested? Players leaving the game could affect that balance, though, I suppose.

Still, maybe if we use Firban's idea too then we can still sort of have the different types of battles like victories and wins, defeats, and retreats, differentiated by rewards, while having the if-one-wins-the-other-loses thing. Would that be possible?

[Vlad Triskavanski]

Yeah, i go though and defeat players in mp4.

Almost all of them give me -50 to -100 honor loss. And I'm on the low end of the balance profile ass well. And i've noticed that lots of them have max honor as well, especially the ones that give me the worse.

[Tremir]

That makes sense.

For them to have max honor, they'd need a lot more losses then wins, which in turn means that they take away more of your honor.

[Firbran]

It's a race to the bottom. I remember Manu said he'd look at player behavior to determine the merits of the new system. Well, if there really is a problem I'm sure he'll notice eventually and change it. Otherwise, us mp4's just need to continue doing what we're doing and eventually there will be a problem that needs fixing.

[Vlad Triskavanski]

Yeah Now i'm in Willow's shop as an MP4, trying to farm as many losses as possible so i can actually earn honor.

[Lucren]

hmmm... you could always make it so the player whokeeps loseing doesnt gain honor points or loses honor util he balances out more and if he gets attacked the attacker suffers a smaller honor loss then to a more balanced person ill show my meaning in a pathetic diagram

Wins on left loses on right defender on left attacker on right

50/50 Vs 50/50 = no honor reward or penalty

60/50 vs 50/50 = honor reward for attacker wining -10 penalty for defender +20 for attacker

40/50 vs 50/50 = for attacker winning -20 honor defender +5

30/50 vs 50/50 = attacker winning -35 defender +5

20/50 vs 50/50 = attacker winning -50 honor defender +5

10/50 vs 50/50 = attacker wining - 0 honor defender does not get a lose count anymore and gains no honor

the numbers are vise versa if the defender wins except on the last one which would be 0 honor for the win no penalty to the losing attacker and 1 win count

if that makes sense to you.

this would enforce a balance ratio this aspect of course is based on a abuser facing a non abuser

the whole idea is based on percentages of the win lose ratio in order to gain more honor or to even play properly you have to re-balance your character in order to gain any benefit to losing or winning

at the point where your losses are so grand it should even prevent you from gaining exp for creatures .

[Alkiu]

ill just say: WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO LOSE??

[Lucren]

ill just say: WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO LOSE??

The idea is to balance the win lose ratio to limit power gaming by ppl so that newer people have a chance to become powerful to.

[dst]

Yes, I think the best way to encourage winning is to make it easier. Keep the current victory/victorious system, but allow both to provide a win. Make some other difference between them, like whether you get stat gains.

From what I understood : " if you get Victory you get your stats increased, otherwise you don't"

This is the best idea i've ever seen.

And let me tell you that being a MP5 gives you the chance to Victory / lose whenever you want IF you know the enemy's defending ritual. Also, as a result of the last "head contest" i realized that i had like 10 VICTORY / 14 attacks just by using same strategies on random attacks (it is a good ratio I might say).

So, if you really want to, you can stay balanced.

Also, from the same event I realized that if I want to "farm loses" then I can do it and nobody will get influenced (win/lose will only affect me).

Also, farming VICTORY will only affect me (if you don't inflict a lose).

So, as a result, you can get balanced without influencing the others too much. The problem comes from the fact that some don't want / know how to get balanced or don't play that much but they stay idle (proving their intention of getting unbalanced).

I vote for "no stats if no VICTORY" for MP5. (In MP4 and less ... there will be problems and players will no longer grow)

[Lucren]

I dont like it . that kinda puts a krimp in the idea that every action taken alters the game for everyone else it takes away a key thing I liked about this game .

im by far not the most "greatest" player and I am still learning the new combat system but Im having fun

and if you cant have fun then don't play.

removing the idea of attacking someone and winning injures their honor and stats or altering what a "win" or lose is classified as is like removing the saying every action has an equal or greater reaction .

what your saying removes almost all the negatives of losing AND of winning . this game is based on the idea everyone influences everyone. just because its not always positive doesn't mean it needs to change

you Could however always do as i said and make ratio caps like after a certain amount of wins and no losses you stop gaining benefits and vise versa with losses .

Frankly the idea sounds like a liberal don't do anything that might offend anything type change.

but at the same time I could be wrong and I am a person who justs plays a game because I like it .

[Lucren]

Just had an idea pop into my head and i don't know if its been asked already

how about the idea of stat gains get influenced by win lose ratio

as in:

a guy who farms wins and is currently 75/35

stats like attack and power greatly increase but def and initiative grow very slowly

or guy farming losses who's currently 35/75 gets a great bonus to def and initiative but slowly grow in attack and power

and a balanced person like 50/50 <or 40/50 50/40 > stats grow moderately together .

[meiche]

I don't think it's that hard. I think the problem is that by the time you have 140 losses it's a wee bit to late to play catch up. From the first I was trying to keep balanced wins and losses and if you try 10 for 10 it's a lot easier than 150 for 150.

I don't know if this is the issue or not, but as an mp3 there were a lot of folks to attack. When I got closer to leveling it was harder, but still not impossible to find people with honor to attack, although I had to fight a few 0 honor fights. Is it maybe that there are less compatible players at higher levels?

[Tremir]

The problem doesn't exist in mp3, because in mp3 the system generates 1 win and 1 loss for every fight.

In mp4 and 5, that's not the case, and from my observations it's easier to get a loss then a win.

at about 170 wins to 230 losses, 9 out of 10 people in mp5 give me negative honor.