FR EN DE ES IT PT
Browse forums 
Ankama Trackers

PvP and the Community

By Private-Prinny - SUBSCRIBER - August 20, 2012, 16:27:27
"Oh," said the general, "it supplies me with the most exciting hunting in the world. No other hunting compares with it for an instant. Every day I hunt, and I never grow bored now, for I have a quarry with which I can match my wits." Rainsford's bewilderment showed in his face. "I wanted the ideal animal to hunt," explained the general. "So I said, `What are the attributes of an ideal quarry?' And the answer was, of course, `It must have courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason.'" "But no animal can reason," objected Rainsford. "My dear fellow," said the general, "there is one that can."
- The Most Dangerous Game, by Richard Connell

Player versus Player combat, or PvP, currently exists in 3 major forms.
  • Alignment battles (typically 1v1)
  • Kolosseum fights (3v3)
  • Perceptor and Prism defenses (up to 7v8)

Several suggestions have been put forth in several other recent threads, and I'd love to gather feedback in one central thread, especially on the following points:
  • Accessibility: Do you believe that anyone can PvP, or do you think it's something that requires extra investment? Is the Kolosseum a step in the right direction to make PvP more accessible?
  • Balancing: With the shift away from 1v1 as a focus, do you think that group PvP has had a positive or negative effect on class balancing as a whole?
  • Compensation: Do you think that the rewards for PvP are sufficient for time spent? Insufficient? Excessive?
  • Exclusive rewards: Do you believe that having some items be only obtainable through PvP is a good or bad thing? How has the concept of exclusive rewards affected the economy between PvP and PvM players? Do these rewards allow one to make sufficient money off of PvP alone? Is this a good or bad thing?
  • Which type of PvP appeals to you the most? If none appeal to you, what changes would make you reconsider?
  • And finally, if you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?
 
3 0
Reply
Reactions 46
Score : 11138
Private-Prinny|2012-08-20 16:27:27
"Oh," said the general, "it supplies me with the most exciting hunting in the world. No other hunting compares with it for an instant. Every day I hunt, and I never grow bored now, for I have a quarry with which I can match my wits." Rainsford's bewilderment showed in his face. "I wanted the ideal animal to hunt," explained the general. "So I said, `What are the attributes of an ideal quarry?' And the answer was, of course, `It must have courage, cunning, and, above all, it must be able to reason.'" "But no animal can reason," objected Rainsford. "My dear fellow," said the general, "there is one that can."
- The Most Dangerous Game, by Richard Connell

Player versus Player combat, or PvP, currently exists in 3 major forms.
  • Alignment battles (typically 1v1)
  • Kolosseum fights (3v3)
  • Perceptor and Prism defenses (up to 7v8)

Several suggestions have been put forth in several other recent threads, and I'd love to gather feedback in one central thread, especially on the following points:
  • Accessibility: Do you believe that anyone can PvP, or do you think it's something that requires extra investment? Is the Kolosseum a step in the right direction to make PvP more accessible?
In order to be effective in PvP you need to invest way more time and kamas than you need in order to be effective in PvM. Kolossium was a nice update but it doesn't seem to appeal to many players. Personally I would like to see such a balancing mechanism (rating) be used for 1vs1 as well.
  • Balancing: With the shift away from 1v1 as a focus, do you think that group PvP has had a positive or negative effect on class balancing as a whole?
Since team PvP requires the use of support spells, mainly support classes perform way better and are more useful than before. What's been annoying me personally is the fact that changes in the name of PvP class balancing affect PvMers more than it used to since they now have to change the effectiveness of the spells in a team scenario.
  • Compensation: Do you think that the rewards for PvP are sufficient for time spent? Insufficient? Excessive?
I believe that the rewards are pretty good but they feel too low because of the small number of players who participate.
  • Exclusive rewards: Do you believe that having some items be only obtainable through PvP is a good or bad thing? How has the concept of exclusive rewards affected the economy between PvP and PvM players? Do these rewards allow one to make sufficient money off of PvP alone? Is this a good or bad thing?
I believe that making key items such as spell scrolls be obtainable only by PvPing was a terrible choice because as it is, it's extremely hard to obtain a respectable number of them.
  • Which type of PvP appeals to you the most? If none appeal to you, what changes would make you reconsider?
Personally I love 1vs1 PvP and I'm planning to base my Sacrier on that. I would love to see it integrated in the Kollosium with a matchup mechanism which would wield balanced fights. I believe that a mechanism based on winning percentages would work. Kollosium is great as it is but unfortunately not many participate leading to unbalanced fights .
  • And finally, if you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?
Integration of the 1vs1 PvP into the Kollosium.
0 0
Reply
Score : 5640

PvP can be very discouraging, especially in the Kolo, when your opponent is somebody you see over and over again and who has a set of seriously over-maged equipment and fully scrolled stats. It's been said before, but I'll say it again: PvP in Dofus is turning into a sport for the wealthy.

2 0
Reply
Score : 2605

Ideally kolo should make it so that anyone could pvp, but in many threads there are just so many things that are broken. This makes it so one must have pretty good equipment and builds and teams in order to win as one would often only go against fairly strong teams.

The rewards from pvp should not be exclusive, but the pvm methods seemed to invite bots... they should definitely not be needed to create soul stone for pvmers.

@ Disgustus : Isn't pvm a sport for the wealthy as well? Other than pet dungeon, the rich/powerful will always do things a lot more efficiently.

0 0
Reply
Score : 5640

I suppose you're right; I've been burned out after a couple of really not-enjoyable Kolo matches, so I guess I'm still biased in this discussion.

1 0
Reply
Score : 2031
Accessibility: Do you believe that anyone can PvP, or do you think it's something that requires extra investment? Is the Kolosseum a step in the right direction to make PvP more accessible?

It depends on the form of pvp. Alignment pvp definitely requires a huge investment in order to be successful, and often times the team that's better equipped has an edge in perc fights. I'd say kolossium requires the least investment out of the 3, as there's a wider range of leveled characters that can participate with more leniency on equipment requirements.

I'd say the kolossium system has some strong points, but still requires some adjustments. It's the most accessible out of the 3 though in my opinion.

Balancing: With the shift away from 1v1 as a focus, do you think that group PvP has had a positive or negative effect on class balancing as a whole?

Well I guess now that there's an actual goal and focus, balancing will hopefully be more successful in the future. I think one of the biggest problems with class balancing in the past was that the devs seemed to just wing it without using a mathematical basis and without listening to the veteran player base. It seems to be changing for the better but there's still a lot of room for improvement and a lot of work to do.

Compensation: Do you think that the rewards for PvP are sufficient for time spent? Insufficient? Excessive?

It depends on the form of pvp. The kolossium system is sufficiently rewarding if you can find fights, but unfortunately the main problem with it is the lack of participation. The main problem with kolossium participation is that there is very little incentive to fight after you've had your first win for the day. This is due to the drastic reduction in rewards players receive after that first win. If they only increased the amount of kolossokens and kamas a player gained per fight, the amount of player participation would increase dramatically.

As for alignment and prism pvp, the rewards are non-existant. Alignment pvp needs an immense overhaul, since as of now there's absolutely no reason to participate in it. On every server, one alignment completely dominates because no one cares enough to spend time attacking prisms. It's much easier to just go neutral or to join the dominant alignment.

As for perceptor fights, I think those are fine as is. It'd be nice if they actually made some of the perceptor spells actually worth leveling, though.

Exclusive rewards:
Do you believe that having some items be only obtainable through PvP is a good or bad thing? How has the concept of exclusive rewards affected the economy between PvP and PvM players? Do these rewards allow one to make sufficient money off of PvP alone? Is this a good or bad thing?

I personally don't care if there are pvp-only items either way. I do believe PvP should have some role in the economy so that there's an incentive to participate.

Trophies and soul stones seem to be profitable so far, without being too expensive. Maybe it's different on smaller servers, but I've personally never had a problem buying the soul stones I've needed at reasonable prices. Spell point scrolls didn't go up in price as much as I thought they would, and still seem to be reasonably priced so far.

I'd have to say that, as it stands, it's impossible to make sufficient kamas via pvp alone. While the rewards are good, the amount of time that has to elapse before you get a decent amount of kolossokens is a little ridiculous. An epic leveled rank 2000 player would make around 120kk a day from the kolossium on my server. I know people who easily make millions of kamas in a day. While I'm not saying pvp players should all be making millions of kamas or anything, I do believe a top ranked kolosium pvper should make more than a measly 120kk... While I do appreciate the daily kolossium bonus (as it helps out casual players), I feel like so many problems with this system would be fixed if the rewards per win were higher.

Personally, I feel a dofus player should have multiple options in how to play the game. If a player wants to only do pvm, so be it; likewise, if a player only wants to do pvp, that player should also have that option available. As it stands now, though, it's impossible to play this game and support your character with pvp alone.

Which type of PvP appeals to you the most? If none appeal to you, what changes would make you reconsider?[/b][b]

I personally like group pvp the best. 1 v 1 doesn't have a lot of variety or tactical decisions to consider in comparison, so I find it to be pretty boring. I feel like the kolossium has a lot of potential to be a good feature, as does the alignment wars (if it were actually implemented properly). Perceptor fights are almost perfect as is, and only require a few tweaks here and there.

And finally, if you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?

This is a tough one. While I do feel like the kolossium could still use some work, I'd have to go with trying to do something with the alignment wars. Right now it's almost embarrassing, this is a feature that is an obvious relic that's just hanging around because the devs haven't done anything about it. Given how pointless and useless this system is right now and the complete lack of participation in it, trying to rework or even get rid of the alignment system would be my top priority.

If they want to revitalize alignment pvp, they need to do implement a couple solutions for quite a few problems. First, there needs to be a reward for attacking and defending a prism to provide an incentive to participate; maybe something like, say, a small kama reward (which increases when defeating stronger opposition) as well as perhaps some resources from the area. Secondly, neutral players shouldn't feel forced into this system; rather, the players who participate should feel they're getting something out of it while not being forced to participate. I suggest that every village have two distinct sections for their goods and services: One that is available to all players, and another that's exclusively for the players of that alignment. Neutral players should also NEVER be aggroable, forcing players who don't want to participate into the system like this is annoying.

To help avoid confusion, there should be distinct pvp areas where upon entering your wings automatically go up. I suggest all maps with a prism, as well as certain areas in the villages, be designated as pvp areas. All other areas should be non-aggressing zones. This helps ensure that there is a time and place for this type of pvp, making it a lot less irritating overall, while also simplifying alignment pvp (nothing's more annoying in a prism or village fight than having to run around to search for that guy that's hiding).

Last but not least, the current method of fighting over a village is stupid. I've had situations where I get aggroed in the village, win the fight, and then get kicked out without being able to attack the heart. It should be made a lot simpler: As soon as someone attacks the guards, the gates to the village pvp areas open to everyone for a short period of time. After a while, the gates close, and everyone left inside dukes it out. The last alignment left standing captures the village.
 
1 0
Reply
Score : 5025

I think we need to get already too many things from kolossium if there were equips added this would be terrible.
I think the kolossium rating should be matched in rating a bit better.
I'd like the PvP alignment quest ( head hunter ) to be back because people aggroing me and me winning the fights ( I don't need rating ) and getting no reward is a waste of my time ( other then to laugh at the other person for aggroing me and losing )

I think we need to get already too many things from kolossium if there were equips added this would be terrible.
I think we already get too many things from the kolossium.
0 0
Reply
Score : 459
    [*]Accessibility: Do you believe that anyone can PvP, or do you think it's something that requires extra investment? Is the Kolosseum a step in the right direction to make PvP more accessible?

    I would like to see more people participating in Kolo personally. It would invite more variety as well as helping to eliminate the long moments between accepted matches. Perhaps even make some things more balanced.
    [*]Balancing: With the shift away from 1v1 as a focus, do you think that group PvP has had a positive or negative effect on class balancing as a whole?

    Hmmm...this is a hard one. I almost never participate in 1v1 battles in alignment on account that I am usually attacked by players that can easily kick my butt from here to Otomai. While I still do Kolo occasionally, I would not want to see a class that is given spelled for group pvp unless they can also be utilized in PvM or in hunting groups.
    [*]Compensation: Do you think that the rewards for PvP are sufficient for time spent? Insufficient? Excessive?

    The only problem I have with PvP rewards is that some sets can only be completed with a shield that requires a PvP Alignment Ranking. My Earth Pandala set will forever remain incomplete on account that it is simply not worth the time and trouble to try and achieve the necessary rank to equip it. By the time I get there, I will be high enough level to use a better set without such restraints.
    [*]Exclusive rewards: Do you believe that having some items be only obtainable through PvP is a good or bad thing? How has the concept of exclusive rewards affected the economy between PvP and PvM players? Do these rewards allow one to make sufficient money off of PvP alone? Is this a good or bad thing?

    With PvP only rewards, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Simple as that. There needs to be some balance between the two. The fact that soul stones can now only be made via items won from Kolo has also put a nitch in the market for PvP people. Also, for those 'Alignment Territories' where resources can only be obtained by members of that particular alignment also make it painful and hurtful to the market on a server where all areas are marked by a single alignment which never changes.
    [*]Which type of PvP appeals to you the most? If none appeal to you, what changes would make you reconsider?

    I find Kolo decent when I am able to find a balanced enough fight that I don't get my ass handed back to me. I do not even consider Alignment battles at all unless it is strictly "Punching Bag For Hire". I don't mind other people paying me so they can beat me and Rank up, however, I do not put any personal investment in it in the long term.
    [*]And finally, if you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?

    Eliminate the use of a shield in order to complete a set or do not give any ranking requirements to shields that are part of a set.
 
1 0
Reply
Score : 1279
Accessibility: Do you believe that anyone can PvP, or do you think it's something that requires extra investment? Is the Kolosseum a step in the right direction to make PvP more accessible?

I take non-Kolosseum PvP to be 1v1 PvP, for the reason that 3v3 PvP was extremely rare (or simply coincidental) prior to the introduction of the Kolosseum system.

In the sense that anyone can participate in PvP battles, sure, anyone can PvP (on a minimal reading of `can'). On the other hand, maintaining a high PvP rank does require a lot of extra investment. An experienced PvPer tells me that a character with Rank 10 can, on losing a single PvP battle, be bumped down to Rank 8; in other words, PvPers who manage to maintain a high PvP rank necessarily win a lot more than they lose.

Where does this requirement for extra investment come in? PvPers will need a set for PvP and a set for levelling. Some will say that virtually every player needs a separate wisdom set and battle set, even if they are pure PvM players (and yes, some players also have a separate prospecting set). But this misses the magnitude of the extra investment needed for an effective PvP set. For players with a PvM focus, a set merely needs to be good enough for the mobs they choose to fight. For players who take PvP seriously, they need a set that puts them above both the players that they choose to fight, and the players that choose to fight them.

The Kolosseum is indeed a step in the right direction (towards a particular format for 3v3 battles, from a particular format for 1v1 battles) where accessibility is concerned. It enables characters of any level of effectiveness to eventually win against other characters who are of a similar level of effectiveness (`effectiveness' being reflected in Kolo rating, which in theory should be accurate over a sufficiently large number of fights). Therefore, no particular investment is required as long as the character continues to take part in Kolo: they will eventually compete at a level suitable for them. Allocation by the system is a large factor in this: the system ultimately adjusts the suitability of match-ups to ensure more fair fights than not, or at least some fair fights rather than none. In contrast, 1v1 PvP battles do not get any more balanced, ever, on the current system. At least, there is nothing in place to systematically move it in the direction of greater balance. Opportunistic aggressions might have a degree of uncertainty, but once a character is better-equipped than the rest, repeated aggressions (such as those involving a PvPer camping outside the opposing alignment's bank) typically yield the same result.

Therefore, while the format of the Kolosseum (3v3, bilaterally opt-in on a fight-by-fight basis, systematic adjustment of match-ups) is more accessible than the pre-Kolosseum system (of which Headhunter is gone, and what is left is 1v1 alignment battles, which are 1v1, unilaterally initiated, without any systematic adjustment of match-ups), we cannot take the the Kolosseum to have improved the old system, since that is still around.

Balancing: With the shift away from 1v1 as a focus, do you think that group PvP has had a positive or negative effect on class balancing as a whole?

Overall, I think it has had a positive effect. Players have, on the whole, given more thought to the roles of each class. Eniripsas aren't expected to be primary damage-dealers; Osamodas are not expected to be non-summoners; Iops are not expected to be map manipulators. Players I have grouped with also have a basic understanding of the differences in how the different builds differ.

Ultimately, I think class balancing will always be a balancing act (pun intended). As long as Ankama continues to work on it, I for one am content. (By the way, the Eni class set could really use a boost -- just saying.)

Compensation: Do you think that the rewards for PvP are sufficient for time spent? Insufficient? Excessive?

The rewards for Kolo are sufficiently generous as-is. As for the view that Kolo should give more kamas -- consider that a widespread injection of kamas into a server would also lead to a significant degree of inflation in the market. One's income from Kolo might rise, but then so would prices. The winners in such a scenario would be the upper echelon of Kolosseum players, multi-accounters able to win almost every Kolo fight and enjoy the benefits of a higher payout on multiple characters.

1v1 PvP has nonexistent rewards. Players who participate in 1v1 PvP do so for the somewhat Freudian comfort of having `bigger wings', as well as for the right to wear better shields and therefore get better at PvP (and only PvP) -- since shields affect nothing outside of alignment and perc battles; though they really do so on the backs of the majority of players who have little interest in gearing up for PvP. The current system is for 1v1 PvP is, to my mind, broken, useless, and undesirable. It is broken because it is easily exploited, by wing leeches and bank-campers; useless because it gives no rewards; and undesirable because quite aside from being broken and useless, it is annoying to players who are forced to take part in it.

I'd advocate greater rewards for 1v1 PvP -- on a par with those for the Kolosseum -- if and only if the system were changed in a couple of ways that the Kolosseum system has pointed to: opt-in on a fight-by-fight basis, and a systematic adjustment of subsequent match-ups to be fairer; unfair match-ups should be excluded. There is no `bravery' whatsoever involved in unilaterally initiating a fight that one knows, based on past results, one will win.

Exclusive rewards: Do you believe that having some items be only obtainable through PvP is a good or bad thing? How has the concept of exclusive rewards affected the economy between PvP and PvM players? Do these rewards allow one to make sufficient money off of PvP alone? Is this a good or bad thing?

I take the rewards mentioned here to refer to those given for winning Kolo fights and maintaining a Kolo rating.

Having some items only obtainable through PvP is a bad thing. I don't know about the bigger impact on the economy between PvP and PvM players since that would -- on my reading of the phrase -- require a knowledge of what trades occur as well as the activities of the players who participate in these trades. But I'd like to point out a false dilemma here: a reward being exclusive to PvP does not directly, in lieu of its exclusivity, allow PvP players to make money off PvP. Valuable (not necessarily exclusive) rewards allow players to make money off PvP. Consistent rewards of moderate value would encourage players to take part in PvP more often. Rewards that scale up with greater success in PvP motivate players to improve at PvP, but rewards that are available only to those players who are already successful at PvP discourage those who are just starting out.

Generalities aside, spell point scrolls are undoubtedly the PvP-exclusive reward that has generated the most controversy. In this instance, players who are already better at Kolosseum than others are in a position to maintain their hegemony. I don't really think this is fair, but the hegemony isn't absolute either. I'll leave the small-server complications aside, though those could form a basis to motivate the removal of such PvP-exclusive rewards. (Personally, I can't see too many people complaining about too many spell point scrolls being available.)

Which type of PvP appeals to you the most? If none appeal to you, what changes would make you reconsider?

Kolosseum appeals to me because it is specifically opt-in on a fight-by-fight basis. Alignment battles (1v1 aggressions) appeal to me the least. In fact, I have a great revulsion toward them. I take them to be detrimental to the overall experience of Dofus. I would be highly in favour of changes to make 1v1 battles more casual and accessible.

And finally, if you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?

I would remove the unilateral initiation of aggressions (yes, that's why they are called aggressions, but that's only because that is the implementation that we have become used to). I see two ways which would make me equally happy: one, provide a dialog box allowing a player to reject the fight outright; two, if the player's wings are up, allow him or her to pay a nominal amount of honour to simply skip the fight, and give some of those honour points to the challenger.

So the one change would be to require explicit opt-in on a fight-by-fight basis, just as it is in Kolo. As for implementation, it will probably evolve over time. Just as the Kolosseum system continues to improve, I hope the 1v1 system will benefit from the same kind of attention.
0 0
Reply
Score : 408
Private-Prinny|2012-08-20 16:27:27
  • Accessibility: Kolo is the most accessible form of pvp currently in dofus. Any level over 50 has a chance of success do to the fact that in a 3v3 system you can be carried by teammates. I've been in multiple fights where one person on one of the teams could easily single handedly kill the other team.
  • Balancing: With the shift away from 1v1 as a focus, do you think that group PvP has had a positive or negative effect on class balancing as a whole?
  • I think that as much as class balancing has been complained about, if you really look at most the nerfs done, they were done because someone or many were abusing a spell or spell combo. I just think now it can be balanced in a way more suited for both pvp and pvm instead of just for pvp or just for pvm. Now that its group pvp, the balancing for pvp and pvm are more similar because often times your not soloing dungeons. Unless its gob.
  • Compensation: Do you think that the rewards for PvP are sufficient for time spent? Insufficient? Excessive?
  • Yes technically and no. In this current system you barely have to spend time dedicated to pvp. all you have to do is sign up for kolo with any character over 50 and you have a chance at a reward. But on that note, the no part of this is that you currently dont get enough compensation in my opionion to warrant going the extra mile to have a prime pvp character. You would be better off having 5 alright characters and winning a single kolo a day with each then having 1 super hax pvp character and winning 30 kolos a day.
  • Exclusive rewards: Do you believe that having some items be only obtainable through PvP is a good or bad thing? How has the concept of exclusive rewards affected the economy between PvP and PvM players? Do these rewards allow one to make sufficient money off of PvP alone? Is this a good or bad thing?
  • I like that some items are only obtained via pvp. This gives people more of an incentive to pvp, widening the group of people who pvp and therefore making pvp better in my opinion.
  • Which type of PvP appeals to you the most? If none appeal to you, what changes would make you reconsider?
  • Personally have been a fan of 1v1 pvp. I would probably prefer kolo more if I were to take the time to form a team of 3 specifically for kolo, but I do not like having to rely that the system gives me smart capable partners for kolo. I've had fights that would have be easily won if one the character on my team had been even properly equipped I would have won, or if a team mate had done something as simple as use an mp and ap the other two people on team instead of just aping self and passing.
  • And finally, if you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?
  • Add more of a reward to 1v1 pvping. I'm not saying bring back hhq. As much as I enjoyed 1v1 pvp I do not believe hhq was the way to do it. But I will say one thing hhq was the only reason there was a wide enough player base to pvp with. Increasing reason for lvls sub 100 to pvp would help stimulate economy. For the longest time there has been reason for lvl 50-80 sets to be crafted and maged and sold in large quantities. Now whats the point in being lvl 50, I'm always going to be lowest person on my team in kolo so why bother. At that point I might as well just make a pure wisdom account lvl it to 50 and then scream leach me leach me at frigost. All my accounts sub even 140 now feel useless, where as before my lvl 80's had a purpose I enjoyed pvping with them xD and out smarting or out spending my opponents.
0 0
Reply
Score : 3543
Private-Prinny|2012-08-20 16:27:27
  • Accessibility: Do you believe that anyone can PvP, or do you think it's something that requires extra investment? Is the Kolosseum a step in the right direction to make PvP more accessible?
  • [*]
  • Because of exos, Turq and Ochre dofuses, solo PvP does require extra investment, due to hax players stepping over everyone their level and most people 40 levels higher. However kolo is accessible to anyone, though the lower pop servers struggle with it. Also, after a certain point your rating gets way too high, due to a terrible terrible point system. Why am I level 130 going against level 200s?
  • [*]
  • Balancing: With the shift away from 1v1 as a focus, do you think that group PvP has had a positive or negative effect on class balancing as a whole?
  • [*]
  • I don't see how the changes are different aside from required fixes and alterations to stop class combo abuse.
  • [*]
  • Compensation: Do you think that the rewards for PvP are sufficient for time spent? Insufficient? Excessive?
  • [*]
  • Exp might be excessive, I get tired of seeing pure wisdom chars leech off kolo games for the stupidly high exp. However everything else is fine in my opinion... However on the flipside I miss headhunter, I liked having an incentive to 1v1 when bored with nothing else to do.
  • [*]
  • Exclusive rewards: Do you believe that having some items be only obtainable through PvP is a good or bad thing? How has the concept of exclusive rewards affected the economy between PvP and PvM players? Do these rewards allow one to make sufficient money off of PvP alone? Is this a good or bad thing?
  • [*]
  • Pebbles and scrolls I don't mind. Spell scrolls I do, I still don't agree with needing to do kolo for spell scrolls at all. I think players should still be able to get them with diamonds. At least make it so a different drop can give them, like dopple stones...
  • [*]
  • Which type of PvP appeals to you the most? If none appeal to you, what changes would make you reconsider?
  • [*]
  • Kolo, just because of the lack of reward in 1v1, I also don't like how there's no penalty for people disabling wings. If people turn off their wings then they should lose honor, they shouldn't be able to switch whenever they want. There is also much more ganging in 1v1 due to people raging about losing.
  • [*]
  • And finally, if you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?
  • [*]
  • Reintroduce headhunter. It was a good system and put meaning into having wings up. Even if they don't balance PvP around 1v1 now, 1v1 was far from balanced then (guaranteed steal on lashing and 3 strengthstorms per turn?)
 
0 0
Reply
Score : 385
And finally, if you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?

i think target pvp should come back into the game. it was so much fun and the rewards were good too.
some changes in the system wouldnt be bad though.
0 0
Reply
Score : 300
Private-Prinny|2012-08-20 16:27:27
  • Exclusive rewards: Do you believe that having some items be only obtainable through PvP is a good or bad thing? How has the concept of exclusive rewards affected the economy between PvP and PvM players?
1000 kolotokens for 1 spellscroll is way too high for most of players, why there isn't another way to get them (like gathering or pvm)? As everyone know developers have said that they don not want to make Dofus PVP game only, but only way to get spellscrolls is to pvp, OR to have massive loads of kamas (8mk to get spell from lvl 1 to 6 is pretty high for average/low lvl player).And waiting time on kolossium is ridiculous, you might only get one battle in day, and fight might take nearly 1 hour with tough opponent or my team might just lose the battle and that is just waste of time, everyone do not have whole day to wait battles.I suggest to developers to create another token/gathering system for poor/low lvl players that cannot afford spellscrolls or expensive pvp items. I'd like to get my spells lvled too on someday and not to wait 1 year to get 15 000 kolotokens to get one spell leveled to lvl 6.
0 0
Reply
Score : 373
Accessibility and Compensation:
As with any PvP, 50% of the participants of the Kolossium must lose. The Kolossium does a fair job of getting that percentage as close to 50% as possible, but that doesn't mean there are no problems. Kolossium rewards are all-or-nothing, meaning that there are high rewards for winning, but losing will give you nothing. This design makes intuitive sense; it encourages investing in becomes stronger and discourages bots. But it also creates distance between rich and poor players, even if this is not based on strength.
Suppose there are two equal teams who fight in the Kollosium. They are so equal that pure chance decides who wins. Only the winning team gains rewards, which allows this team to invest in becoming stronger. If the same two teams fight each other again in the future, the previous winner is more likely to win this time again, and become even stronger. The distance between these two teams grows, even though it was just chance that decided who would be "rich" and who would be "poor".

The problem is made worse by the usual aspects of PvP. Although 50% of all participants lose, there is a top segment of the strongest teams. These teams win most of their fights, and get more than their "fair share" of rewards. Kolossium makes it so that this is not such a big problem for the teams that are almost (but not quite) in the top segment. To compensate for fighting teams that are "too strong", these teams also fight others that are "too weak", which allows them to keep their 50% win rate. This works for all teams, except the teams in the bottom segment that have no weaker teams they can beat. The teams in the bottom segment win less than 50%, to allow the top segment to win more than 50% of the time.

The Kolossium puts these weaker teams at a double burden. Not only do they lose more than the expected 50%, but since their rating is lower, they also get lower rewards. In an ideal situation, the weakest players in Kolossium are of level 50-60, who consider the lower rewards meaningful even if they lose more than 50% of the time. But if the rewards are too low for these players, they will put off participating in PvP until they are better geared. Ironically, this means that there are not enough weak players in Kolossium, which means that PvP participants need to make larger investments to be successful, and also receive lower rewards. So players put off participating longer, etc, etc. The results is a PvP community that is smaller than one would hope, and that is dominated by people that have specialized their character for success in PvP. This is something we have seen happen in the Headhunter quest.

In conclusion, I believe that:
- Kolossium requires a large investment to be successful; and
- Kolossium rewards are poorly distributed, meaning that they are excessive for some, but insufficient for others.

If you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?
Give partial rewards to partially successful teams. For example, Kolossium could hand out rewards based on the number (or ratings) of characters killed in the opposing team, and the number (or ratings) of characters lost in the own team. If participants receive a lower reward when one of their team members is killed, it is less appealing to use low rating alts, and more appealing to play in a team-oriented way. A more fine-grained reward system would also mean that equal teams earn more equal rewards, and could prevent some of the reward inequality.

If I can choose a second thing as well, I would base Kolossium rewards on the the ones that were defeated rather than the ones that won. At the moment, the Kolossium rewards participants equally for defeating a team of all level 200 characters in the best gear kama can buy, and a team of all level 50 characters in inexpensive gobball sets.
1 0
Reply
Score : 34
    [*]Accessibility: Do you believe that anyone can PvP, or do you think it's something that requires extra investment? Is the Kolosseum a step in the right direction to make PvP more accessible?

    Yes, and a lot more convenient.
    [*]Balancing: With the shift away from 1v1 as a focus, do you think that group PvP has had a positive or negative effect on class balancing as a whole?

    Kind of, the sole fact that multiple characters are actually involved for the most part. People can just play 3 characters and que Kolo, ruins everything TBH, make it harder to play 3 characters in kolo at once.
    [*]Compensation: Do you think that the rewards for PvP are sufficient for time spent? Insufficient? Excessive?

    Making Kolo give rewards that can be sold is actually a step in the right direction. Giving PvP'ers a way to make money while having fun, but this will get them too dedicated/involved and might ruin the fun for the casual players, what I'd suggest is giving players a limit for getting Kolo rewards, maybe weekly limit, that would increase in a parallel manner to their rating.
    [*]Exclusive rewards: Do you believe that having some items be only obtainable through PvP is a good or bad thing? How has the concept of exclusive rewards affected the economy between PvP and PvM players? Do these rewards allow one to make sufficient money off of PvP alone? Is this a good or bad thing?

    Depends, this will give all players a real motive to PvP but might be a bit unfair for those who are not fond of PvPing, I think it all revolves about the item itself and if there are possible replacements outside PvP that could possibly take more time to acquire, or are not as good. I think the economy will depend on the items themselves, but this could possibly ruin the actual experience, since you guys are separating economies. Yes, they should allow one to make sufficient money off of PvP alone, but nowhere close to as good as PvM. Good thing.
    [*]Which type of PvP appeals to you the most? If none appeal to you, what changes would make you reconsider?

    World PvP (brak/bont agrroing). You never know the outcome even if you fight the same person over and over again but in different places.
    [*]And finally, if you could choose one thing about some form of PvP to be changed, what would it be?

    Kolo, balancing.
 
0 0
Reply
Score : 2275

Prisms should give higher area bonus to appeal to the general public to fight for the territories.

Honour reward is hard when you have to balance both teams. Especially as the defending side cares more about winning.
I suggest no matter the size of team, the winning side will earn the honour points. One might argue that it's not fair for 8 people to earn reward for defeating 1 player. On the other hand, everyone has the same possibilities to create teams.
This idea will make it easier for the poor people to participate too, if they are able to win by the help of number of team mates.
To further push this, players would get less reward the bigger the team they are members of. Powerful players would prefur small teams to get higher rewards, while poor people will go for full team for more certain victories. This would make fights more balanced.

0 0
Reply
Score : 145

I think you should bring Headhunter back. I know you think no way or things like that but you can modify it a little. For example you can make a character decide if he wants to Hunt/ be hunted. Like signing up with Kolo. That will solve the problem of people who activate their wings so they cane use their prism, and are hunted down instantly because they have nowhere to put their wings down..

0 0
Reply
Score : 1402
urke99|2013-01-09 20:30:38
I think you should bring Headhunter back. I know you think no way or things like that but you can modify it a little. For example you can make a character decide if he wants to Hunt/ be hunted. Like signing up with Kolo. That will solve the problem of people who activate their wings so they cane use their prism, and are hunted down instantly because they have nowhere to put their wings down..
You can already have 1v1 pvp and can look for/hunt people down with the recruitment chat or tied scrolls. Wings can give xp and drop bonuses as well. What you really want are strokens. However, Kolossium is dependent on larger numbers of people, and all of the pvp'ers would look toward broken 1v1 Headhunters much more than Kolo, killing nearly all Kolo activity. Ankama wants to promote Kolo, not kill it.

Ankama doesn't care much for 1v1 pvp and its nerf-complaint drama anymore, which can also be seen by their abandonment of the Mercenary alignment on the french servers.
0 0
Reply
Score : 125

My major complain about kolo is tha fact that it allows people to mult-account.
This goes against the multilayer aspect in dofus.

It's already awefull to see 8 man teams played by a single person, don't let that happen in kolo too, please.

0 0
Reply
Score : 82

wrong acc

0 0
Reply
Respond to this thread