Forums » Suggestions
This thread is a masterpiece of my contention- one I've held for at least 5 years on various forums- that people do not read. No one got past the account-wide suggestion to offer their thoughts on what would and would not be a good monthly kill rate for the different levels, even in the midst of liking that more than simple kill numbers. You were all too busy shouting disagreement with one point to address the other.
I suggest you read this carefully. Aramarth.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/11438#143184
Your thread is masterpiece of nothing.
http://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/1/11438#143184
Your thread is masterpiece of nothing.
I think that I was arguing your more basic premise about whether this kind of thing would be any good or not.
Not wanting to put the chicken of the thread before the egg of the thread, so to speak.
Now here I say that the "kills" equals total number of PK's minus the number of times killed by players. So essentially positive PK #'s. If you killed 20 people but also died 20 times to other players, you are at 0.
But since you insist, I'll say that:
100+ ratio across all accounts per month: vicious
50-99 kills across all accounts per month: killer
25 to 49 kills across all accounts per month: dangerous
0 to +24 kills across all accounts per month: accomplished
-25 to 0 kills across all accounts per month: safe
-50 to -26 kills across all accounts per month: pathetic
less than -50: mostly harmless
zero kills for or against: pacifist
Not wanting to put the chicken of the thread before the egg of the thread, so to speak.
Now here I say that the "kills" equals total number of PK's minus the number of times killed by players. So essentially positive PK #'s. If you killed 20 people but also died 20 times to other players, you are at 0.
But since you insist, I'll say that:
100+ ratio across all accounts per month: vicious
50-99 kills across all accounts per month: killer
25 to 49 kills across all accounts per month: dangerous
0 to +24 kills across all accounts per month: accomplished
-25 to 0 kills across all accounts per month: safe
-50 to -26 kills across all accounts per month: pathetic
less than -50: mostly harmless
zero kills for or against: pacifist
A respectable part of your suggestion was lumping everyone's alts into one.
I don't see how the number of PKs someone has is necessarily a good indicator of their aggressiveness. Your suggestion could easily have a [VPR] labeled as aggressive while a [Syn] labeled as passive. That wouldn't be very helpful to a new player at all.
I don't see how the number of PKs someone has is necessarily a good indicator of their aggressiveness. Your suggestion could easily have a [VPR] labeled as aggressive while a [Syn] labeled as passive. That wouldn't be very helpful to a new player at all.
Looks like Leber got in before me...
That may work for judging ones ability, but it does nothing to determine their intentions.
That may work for judging ones ability, but it does nothing to determine their intentions.
I like the idea... but I think in the spirit of a role playing game, that the stats are important to keep. Also, I don't think it's a good ides to have a "dangerous" indicator go across all characters in 1 account. The way it is now, it doesn't take very long for a vet to get noticed if playing with a new char, and we don't want to encourage running. However, it could be some status, for the people who cared to use/build, to be based off of dueling win/loss ratio, in addition to all the stats that we have now.
Where as dueling is more controlled, a status derived from that would be more accurate. It wouldn't reflect results from multi-player furballs, typekills or the like.
Where as dueling is more controlled, a status derived from that would be more accurate. It wouldn't reflect results from multi-player furballs, typekills or the like.