Ladder Ratio Suggestion

[Everyone]

I can sympothized with certain aspects of the suggestion(s) coming from the point of view

of someone who tiptoes up the ladder cautiously to ensure they get the full payout, but

that's about it.

It truly seems like you're unwittingly trying to further segregate the PvP room from the everyday

people and monopolize the PvP ladder for the veteran guild people, which I believe is one

reason why the pvp ladder was abolished in the past, regardless of new content/buffs/nerfs.

I know many people would strongly disagree with the opinion that the fRO PvP ladder

competition is only for veteran players. Even though, and unfortunately, it is that way

at present, but this was certainly not it's conceptual design.

The main reason PvP has evolved into a place where you need a group to survive and

prosper is because of groups ! I can't think of any reason to promote more gangs. With

this and the buff removal suggestions you will have no choice but to go with a group.

Isn't this what we have GvG and WoE for? At this rate someone is bound to suggest a

'no party' PvP room.

PvP was always booming when the ladder was off. Why? Because it was full of one on one,

buff-n-burn, ygg spamming, take on the whole room type of people that would only work

together to take out a gang, then go back to slaughtering each other... for fun! That is until

BoomBomKid came in and wiped the floor with everyone while his homonculus humped Jelly's

face. When it said '14' people were in there, you had 7 fights going on, not 14 people waiting

to kill the next body that walked through.

You chastize people who have no friends or guild ties on the server. Alone they have no

choice but to self-buff and take what they can get, when they can get it before inevitably

getting owned by a gang, and now you want them to get nothing for it.

You criticize an entire class for their inability to ladder solo vs a room full of groups and say

they should either get a gang or play a different class. Not very encouraging.

Furthermore, you go on to say all that this person was doing is feeding yet you still complain

about it. He fed some 400-500 kills to the ladder. I fail to see a problem there. He killed

more in a few days than the weary tiptoer(with a gang) did in two weeks. I'd think this type of

'balls-to-the-wall, out-gunned and out-numbered' strategy(when it works as well as it did for

him) would be commended, not crucified.

Gangs or no gangs, buffs or no buffs, it's PvP. Anything goes, or at least that's what it used

to mean.

@the suggestion - I think it's entirely self-serving and in no way good for the server.

And most of the arguements in favor of the suggestion are extremely elitest.

Your current reward for keeping a decent ratio is a full payout.

Your current punishment for having a sloppy ratio is 40% payout.

(honestly i dont see anything wrong with this, especially since it was ignored for a couple years

and has, basically, only recently been re-adopted and enforced with the addition of PvP tokens

that some people are currently finding NO USE FOR)

IF anything, and I do mean if, a lesser payout would suffice but not a complete dismissal.

TL;DR? Allow me to sum it up for you .. click

. No offense intended. Edited December 10, 2011 by Everyone

[Xtopher]

Offense intended.

Yet another person tied to "the way things used to be". Stop living in the past. I don't care about your good ol' days in the PvP room where you and your friends killed each other. That is what for_fild01 is for now. PvP boomed when ladder was off... when the hell was this? Years ago. Irrelevant.

Winning ladder requires help. It's a simple fact. Way too many people have way too much equipment for someone to expect to win ladder without help. That's just how it is.

PvP ladder has been a gang and high tier gear oriented function for a long time now... Approximately 1.5-2 years. People with no gear don't stand a chance. Your whole "tip-toe" thing is frankly bullshit. It takes work to keep a decent ratio in ladder. Ask anyone who has won first place in he last two years.

Yes, I said their classes can't ladder well. It's truth. I'm not here to breast feed and hold hands while you cross the street. I'm not going to sugar coat things. Assassin Cross can not ladder as efficiently as other classes. It's a fact. If they want better odds of winning they should chose a different class.

My suggestion isn't self serving. I don't ladder anymore.

Only thing I can tell ya is: Get with the times.

[Forum~]

It truly seems like you're unwittingly trying to further segregate the PvP room from the everyday

people and monopolize the PvP ladder for the veteran guild people, which I believe is one

reason why the pvp ladder was abolished in the past, regardless of new content/buffs/nerfs.

I know many people would strongly disagree with the opinion that the fRO PvP ladder

competition is only for veteran players. Even though, and unfortunately, it is that way

at present, but this was certainly not it's conceptual design.

You're speaking of ideals. Realistically, no person without gear or friends will win the ladder. PvP room was from the start, a segregated activity; an activity for veteran players. My explanation will follow in the next paragraph.

The main reason PvP has evolved into a place where you need a group to survive and

prosper is because of groups ! I can't think of any reason to promote more gangs. With

this and the buff removal suggestions you will have no choice but to go with a group.

Isn't this what we have GvG and WoE for? At this rate someone is bound to suggest a

'no party' PvP room.

The very nature of the activity ensures that group-oriented PvP will always dominate and be preferred over solo PvP. First off, the very fact that you as an individual want to win will mean that gangs will be formed. As the saying goes, there are strength in numbers and having a group will increase your chances of winning. Where the purposes of winning lies, makes no difference (i.e. guild loyalty, rewards, etc). Sure this suggestion in some ways enforces group-oriented activity, but rejecting it doesn't affect it either (refer to first three sentences of this paragraph). This suggestion at the very base encourages FAIRNESS. If "no party" PvP was suggested, that still doesn't solve ganging. People can gang without parties.

PvP was always booming when the ladder was off. Why? Because it was full of one on one,

buff-n-burn, ygg spamming, take on the whole room type of people that would only work

together to take out a gang, then go back to slaughtering each other... for fun! That is until

BoomBomKid came in and wiped the floor with everyone while his homonculus humped Jelly's

face. When it said '14' people were in there, you had 7 fights going on, not 14 people waiting

to kill the next body that walked through.

From what I take, it seems like you're relishing in the past. Times change, and so do situations. I assume around this time, the community was much smaller (?) and therefore, identity and reputation played a larger role than it does now. (i.e. if you do something that might inspire hate in a small population of people, automatically isolates you from the population). This ideal "1v1 dueling" situation is not the case now, where PvP is faster paced than before.

Furthermore, you go on to say all that this person was doing is feeding yet you still complain

about it. He fed some 400-500 kills to the ladder. I fail to see a problem there. He killed

more in a few days than the weary tiptoer(with a gang) did in two weeks. I'd think this type of

'balls-to-the-wall, out-gunned and out-numbered' strategy(when it works as well as it did for

him) would be commended, not crucified.

Kind of hard to understand. Are you promoting feeding as a legitimate means to winning ladder? If so, let me tell you, that's considered cheating in my world, and probably any other rational person's world. A person who teams up with other players in every right completely deserves to win over any cheater.

@the suggestion - I think it's entirely self-serving and in no way good for the server.

And most of the arguements in favor of the suggestion are extremely elitest.

Again fallacy on your argument. The activity is for veteran players. This suggestion serves to promote FAIRNESS.

EDIT: My point, there is a difference between equality and fairness (seems to be a big theme in this suggestion). Read some John Rawls.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Forum~

[Everyone]

My main point was not to be nostalgic but to point out that PvP wasn't always a team sport.

I do want to emphasize that ratio isn't what it's all about to everyone that steps into the PvP

room.

Cole can solo ladder on most classes. I don't need to ask, I've seen it over and over and over.

There's a little hole in the teamwork/class reasonings. Yes, I know he's geared out the wazoo

but that's not the point.

If Dadron would have laddered for 2 weeks straight then he most likely would have won at

the rate he was going, full payout or not.

It does take work to tiptoe around potential threats so your ratio stays low but it only takes

consistency to win.

If someone is willing to sacrifice a full payout in lue of a win then they should be able to make

that choice, not have someone that doesn't ladder anymore make up some new rule that will

get them disqualified.

I was not promoting feeding, I was pointing out the fact that Dadron died 500 someodd times

therefore someone, or a group of people, got those kills. Simply put, his 'sloppiness' on his

way to ranking paved the way for someone to get a few extra kills.

The Vets aren't going anywhere and when they do they come back. There's no need to pamper

them further and alienate people who can ladder just not with a perfect ratio.

Big question ::

How does disqualifying someone that laddered fair and square promote fairness?

EDIT:: hit enter before reading your edit .. but the question still stands

Edited December 10, 2011 by Everyone

[Xtopher]

My main point was not to be nostalgic but to point out that PvP wasn't always a team sport.

I do want to emphasize that ratio isn't what it's all about to everyone that steps into the PvP

room.

Cole can solo ladder on most classes. I don't need to ask, I've seen it over and over and over.

There's a little hole in the teamwork/class reasonings. Yes, I know he's geared out the wazoo

but that's not the point.

If Dadron would have laddered for 2 weeks straight then he most likely would have won at

the rate he was going, full payout or not.

It does take work to tiptoe around potential threats so your ratio stays low but it only takes

consistency to win.

If someone is willing to sacrifice a full payout in lue of a win then they should be able to make

that choice, not have someone that doesn't ladder anymore make up some new rule that will

get them disqualified.

I was not promoting feeding, I was pointing out the fact that Dadron died 500 someodd times

therefore someone, or a group of people, got those kills. Simply put, his 'sloppiness' on his

way to ranking paved the way for someone to get a few extra kills.

The Vets aren't going anywhere and when they do they come back. There's no need to pamper

them further and alienate people who can ladder just not with a perfect ratio.

Big question ::

How does disqualifying someone that laddered fair and square promote fairness?

Regardless of what it was or wasn't this is how it is now. We have to base our actions on what is best for now and the future, not the past.

The reason Cole can kill people like he does is because he frankly out smarts them or catches them off guard. His tactics are easy to counter if you just stop and think about it for a second. But I guess you wouldn't expect much thinking to go on in PvP huh? You prefer people to go full damage/reflect with no other strategy than "kill as many people as quickly as possible".

To put it simply I do not believe people should be rewarded for dying more than they kill people in a PvP setting. In any other game this is the case. If you win two matches but lose six, your over-all rating is bad and you won't be receiving any reward.

This isn't A-for-effort. You should get rewarded based off of your overall quality performance. If my job was to scrub toilets and I scrubbed 2 out of 5 then took a big shit in the other 3 do you think I would get paid? Sure, I did work... But I didn't scrub 5 when someone else would.

This suggestion has been a long time coming. Every legit ladder contestant has to deal with players like these and to put it frankly its ridiculous that you should have to worry about someone with 400/600 ratio taking your prize.

If the vets "Aren't going anywhere" how could they be missing to "come back"? I don't understand this sentence.

I would ask your ingame name but I know you're probably not going to tell it. Have you ever even won ladder?

Edited December 10, 2011 by Xtopher

[Forum~]

I do want to emphasize that ratio isn't what it's all about to everyone that steps into the PvP

room.

Well as of now, ratio is what is deemed fair by the FRO administration. Now whether this is objectively correct or not, is not for me to decide.

It does take work to tiptoe around potential threats so your ratio stays low but it only takes

consistency to win.

Your argument with Dadron follows only his kill rate. What about death rate? There has to be consistencies for both. PvP, broken down to its most fundamental parts, are how well you kill, and your mortality rate. PvP ladder tests those two aspects exactly. It requires that for you to receive compensation for your efforts, that you excel in the two parts of PvP, that you kill at least two times your death rate. (Ganging is irrelevant to this particular instance of the argument).

If someone is willing to sacrifice a full payout in lue of a win then they should be able to make

that choice, not have someone that doesn't ladder anymore make up some new rule that will

get them disqualified.

Whether someone ladders or not is irrelevant. He's trying to benefit the server. If he didn't make this suggestion, he could have easily approached me and asked me to make the suggestion, me being someone who is relevant to ladder right now.

I was not promoting feeding, I was pointing out the fact that Dadron died 500 someodd times

therefore someone, or a group of people, got those kills. Simply put, his 'sloppiness' on his

way to ranking paved the way for someone to get a few extra kills.

Valid point. However, no person should receive full compensation if their deaths surpasses their kills. That fundamentally defeats the whole system of PvP ladder. That's like a teacher giving some form of reward to an under-performing student. The student is expected to maintain the standards set by the school. In similar likeness, a PvP ladder participant ought to be concerned over the fundamental test set forth by the PvP ladder (refer two paragraphs up).

Big question ::

How does disqualifying someone that laddered fair and square promote fairness?

Not disqualified, but not fully compensated because they failed to meet the standards expected of someone who decides to win a reward for the act of PvPing. PvPing is two parts- one part killing, one part surviving. If they fail to meet one part, of course they should be half-compensated.

EDIT: I'd also like to mention, when I say half-compensated, I mean what this suggestion serves to fix, that if they under-perform, they receive none (refer to my teacher-student analogy).

Edited December 10, 2011 by Forum~

[Everyone]

@chris -

Please do not mistake these arguements as an attack against you personally or your ideas.

Also, don't think I'm defending Dadron. I'm a loner by habit and it's from that position that I so

harshly debate the ideas of needing to have a team in order to win.

*When it's 5 v 1, yes, kill as many as possible as fast as I can.

*I agree that negative ratios are a cheap win but they're also proof that anyone can still solo rank.

(I mainly disagree with the removal from the ladder for the week. Too harsh IMO. Lesser reward or demotion)

*Most legit ladder champs come from the same elite cliques. Why keep catering to these 20 people?

If a "scrub" can come out of nowhere in 3 days and get 3rd place, this week's ladder'rs weren't trying as

hard as he was. Especially since they get kills from 4 GvG's and however many WoE's they go to in 2 weeks.

That's a lot of missed opportunities. Used to get 400-500 kills from one WoE. And that was just on a HW.

_{-The Vets aren't going anywhere and when they do they come back.}

*Most veteran players have quit multiple times. It made sense to me. Nonetheless, it was just the prelude to my

subject that the veteran elite are already pampered. To fight so hard to ensure them with extra security in

procuring a ladder spot is unnecessary to me.

*My IGN is Icon. I main HW and go nowhere near PvP for obvious reasons(points at 'I main HW'). I fought hard

to keep GTB at 100% on this server so please don't go that direction. Every time I enter PvP everyone says

'Hi Icon!' and pretends that I'm not there .. until I go apeshit and spam happy.

@forum

*I mainly disagree with removal from the ladder even if your ratio is blasphemous.

I think revamping the suggestion to include further increments of rewards is the best thing. Not outright removal.

*(Ganging is irrelevant to this particular instance of the argument).

It can be in very very few circumstances. But in this case, what do you think would happen if a randomer such as

Dadron came through and singled out our weakest teammate? We'd kill him and try our hardest to kill him again

before he reached them. I can't say this is the case every time but after 10 or 20 times it does start to become the

case. He had no choice, either keep having fun and die 1.2 times more often than he killed .. or quit.

* Wasn't the suggestion 'If your deaths exceed 50% of your kills you are removed from the weeks ladder entirely'?

This is disqualification flat out. There is no deduction in rewards.

If they rank in a 14 day period, and have a >50% death ratio .. I feel they should get something other than a swift

kick in the ass.

Edit : I'm honestly enjoying this. Hope I'm not rubbing you the wrong way.

(spellcheck)

Edited December 10, 2011 by Everyone

[Forum~]

* Wasn't the suggestion 'If your deaths exceed 50% of your kills you are removed from the weeks ladder entirely'?

This is disqualification flat out. There is no deduction in rewards.

If they rank in a 14 day period, and have a >50% death ratio .. I feel they should get something other than a swift

kick in the ass.

Edit : I'm honestly enjoying this. Hope I'm not rubbing you the wrong way.

Okay, I feel like a compromise is necessary. I also think effort should be met with some compensation (the amount of time invested into ladder is absurd, which is why I suggested making ladder a week again and not two weeks; refer to my topic on PvP ladder http://www.forsaken-...showtopic=20756 - shameless bump).

We need to compromise on the ratio. Right now, I think Chris is going off on that "If your deaths exceed 50% of your kills you are removed from the weeks ladder entirely. Meaning who ever was below you will take your slot."

**

Instead, of complete removal, how about an incremented reduction. MEANING, if your death is below 50% of your kills, you are fine; you will receive full compensation. However, every additional 5% after the 50% means that your prize is reduced by 1 PvP token.

You have 100 kills and 0-50 deaths - 10 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 51-55 deaths - 9 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 56-60 deaths - 8 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 61-65 deaths - 7 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 66-70 deaths - 6 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 71-75 deaths - 5 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 76-80 deaths - 4 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 81-85 deaths - 3 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 86-90 deaths - 2 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 91-95 deaths - 1 PvP token

You have 100 kills and 96-100 deaths - 0 PvP token

**

IN THIS RESPECT, there is a reward for effort. However, you are penalized for deaths past 50% of your kills.

EDIT1: Sounds like a pain for the PvP ladder GM to calculate the ratios and do the math. Writing a program for this would be most efficient.

EDIT2: Going to sleep, will discuss tomorrow (?)... unless philosophy paper, calc final, CS final, PS project gets in the way. ahem.

EDIT3: My bad, the ** marked above was a giant fail resulting from trying to make a sound suggestion at 2 in the morning.

I meant:

You have 100 kills and 0-50 deaths - 10 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 51-75 deaths - 4 PvP tokens

You have 100 kills and 76-100 deaths - 0-2 PvP tokens (negotiable, "Everyone" has suggested something along these lines)

You have 100 kills and >100 deaths - 0 PvP tokens

Edited December 10, 2011 by Forum~

[Xtopher]

I'm not angry with anyone Icon. As I said before; I encourage constructive debate.

@Drew: I'll have to agree with edit 1... That is a bit much to ask of our GMs. I don't even think we have an assigned PvP Ladder GM at the moment... word around the campfire is that Seraphine resigned and I don't believe anyone has taken his place yet as Ladder GM. I also don't know if anyone has the time to code this... or if it would be a priority at all.

I agree with the absurd ladder length these days as well, but that's a different topic.

Best of luck on your paper, exams, and project.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Xtopher

[Everyone]

I did notice the back to one week suggestion. It must've been changed to

give the GM's less work and decrease the amount of PvP rewards entering

into the economy. I don't see a huge problem with going back to one week,

especially if something like this was implemented. Nice bump.

That reward system is basically what I was getting at but I demanded a more

inflamatory conversation. : )

I think it could be further simplified to suit the original suggestion and make

the math portion easier on the GM's.

0~50 .. 100%

50~75 ... 40%

75~100 ... 20%

This is where I still want to fight for the underdog and say 100+ ... 10%

but when it gets to 2nd and 3rd place there is no place for a system like

this unless you drop down into Event Tokens.

[Xtopher]

This doesn't work for 2nd and 3rd place though.

How about if you're in 2nd or 3rd place with this kid of ratio.... you're just eliminated?

All or nothing.

[Drax]

^

Edited December 10, 2011 by Drax

[Fyasko]

I'll end with I just disagree because I think that your suggestion will benefit the wrong people and I did give you factual evidence, so I don't get why you're loling.

3-4 in this case would be bumped out, while Fernando Poe, a serial "buff and burner" would take their place. Dadron3 doesn't buff, and he made PvP come alive when he started broadcasting and dueling people. The weeks before this ladder had way lower numbers. I don't think that ignoring his effort, and the efforts of some people who happen to be over 100:50, because some people play dirty, is right. It's not hard to go into pvp on a sniper and just FAS everyone either, but that's overlooked.

I'm done.

HOLD THE PHONE.. YOU ARE JAVA??????????????????????

[Forum~]

HOLD THE PHONE.. YOU ARE JAVA??????????????????????

No. I am Java. Char just used my image as evidence to support her argument.