DjangoUnbuffed own your puppies

FoxMulder wrote:

Tannen wrote:

Do we have any other members in-game that don't already have the same -exact- name on the forums?

If we do, we can probably expect the same thing again soon. *sigh*

Mine is different, but acknowledged in my sig, so I'm doubting anyone would be dumb enough to pose.

Tannen wrote:

... to promote people shielding less and retaliating more, allow a LOSING, high ranked, player to lose no more points than they would get if they chose to retaliate.

Currently if someone much lower than you sees you unshielded they'll attack for 50 points, which you lose from your total, if you choose to retaliate, you will gain somewhere between 0-5 points. More telling, you allow them to retaliate against you for an additional 50 points. This behaviour encourages people to get to a "high" score and then shield until the end of the event. It also serves to actively discourage people retaliating anyone below them (why give someone a free shot at your points). It doesn't solve the "people joining late need a boost" because everyone that could give those players points are shielded to avoid point loss -- and are thus removed from the pool of players that the lower ones can attack. In the last hour of tournaments it actively discourages the top few from playing, even if they get passed by someone, because the risk far outweighs the gain. (ie I can unshield and hit a few people to try to gain that spot back, or I can just take whatever my current reward tier is and not risk dropping 30 ranks to two attacks)

What I'm suggesting is that in the case where a high level player is attacked by a lower one, the point loss for the higher player be restricted to the amount that they can gain back in a retaliation -- no change made to the attacker's gain. So in the first example, while the lower player still gains 50 points, the higher player loses only the 0-5 points that they can regain upon retaliation. It also means that people will be more willing to break shields later in the tournaments as losses at that point to people much lower won't drop you all the way out of the running.

One potential issue is that people could game the system to power boost a lower, colluding, player to a much higher spot quicker (eg constantly retaliating between players) as the lower player gains ~45 to each point neutral loss that the higher player takes. You could fix this issue by making each additional hit within X minutes worth 50% less until they're not worth attacking (just like the current pve logic). As a side note this also prevents people from farming the same person over and over.