Team PvP Rules Discussion

[Général_Argos]

Nidsrule Wrote:Not really, itll just lead to people sitting around with next to nothing to do, since half of their skills are now useless due to lack of gems/supplies.

As I already explained, the idea is to be used in the context that people reset for the tournement and make builds working in symbiose with the restrictions/rules of the tournement.??Now if you are about to say that reseting just for the event would be lame, take a look at the part where I already counter-argumented that on #19.??

[Nidsrule]

But people won't do that because prizes won't be worth enough to compensate it. If prizes are large enough, it will imply these events will be held once in a blue moon, which would be shit.

Considering most event prizes consist of a couple of gift boxes and a pat on the back, what makes you think GMs are suddenly going to give 9 figure zeny prizes away (9 digits being 100 mil? /swt)? You countered the "lame" argument with the assumption that prizes are suddenly going to take an enormous leap in value.

[Général_Argos]

Nidsrule Wrote:But people won't do that because prizes won't be worth enough to compensate it. If prizes are large enough, it will imply these events will be held once in a blue moon, which would be shit.

Considering most event prizes consist of a couple of gift boxes and a pat on the back, what makes you think GMs are suddenly going to give 9 figure zeny prizes away (9 digits being 100 mil? /swt)? You countered the "lame" argument with the assumption that prizes are suddenly going to take an enormous leap in value.

I am calling here for gms common sense.??

If every player have to invest 4m to reset back and fort for the tournement, that teams consist of 5 people and that there are 10 teams, it would be common sense to give a zeny price of at least 200 m to the winning team.??The time investment would have to be covered with the regular equipment prizes (or better ones).??

edit : Maybe more like 120m for the winning team, 50m for the second one, and 30m for the third one, as long as the zeny prize pool is of at least 200 m.

[Nidsrule]

Or they make it so people don't have to reset for every tournament and stick with their usual prizes. 200 mil is a pipe dream.

[Général_Argos]

It's not a dream, it's common sense; if players invested a total amount of 200m, a total amount of at least of 200m should have to be redistributed.??

[Nidsrule]

GM-Ayu Wrote:Prizes:

1st Place: 2 mil prize zeny, named Helm of Darkness, named Princess Knife, Queen's Whip[2], 3 royal gold bullion

2nd Place: 1 mil prize zeny, named Loki's Mask, Queen's Whip[2], 3 royal gold bullion

3rd Place: 1 mil prize zeny, Foot of the Sea Witch[2], 2 Poring card, 2 royal gold bullion

Those are the prizes from the last PvP tournament. Even if we multiply those rewards by the number of members in each team, It's still a LONG way off 200 mil.

I don't think it's common sense to expect people to reset for every tournament. If the mechanics follow a similar structure to WoE, most people will be more or less set to go, without the need for expensive and rather pointless resets.

[Général_Argos]

Last pvp tournement did not required a reset.??How is the comparison valid?

And the point of the reset is only useless if you consider the originating one useless.??Now unless you counter-argue what I said about the idea of the restrictions (you didn't, you just said that people would run out of supply without considering the reset, then jumped to the idea that rewards will never worth the reset).??

You skipped a part.

[GM-Ayu]

Let's not talk about prizes. Talk about structure.

(as for how often they are held... less hassle = higher frequency, or future other GMs may host it. I personally dislike pvp and that is well known fact about me, so I only host it if I'm kicked in the butt to go do it most of the time. However, perhaps other GMs who like more more than me will be persuaded to host it much more often ^_^)

[Nidsrule]

What's there to counter? You claim limited supplies will generate more strategy and make it more "interesting". I disagree. I still stick by the argument that by enforcing so many rather stupid restrictions, it will waste a lot of time and the end result won't be that much different compared to the case where no restrictions are enforced.

Either way, the event shouldn't be designed assuming people will have to reset for it. If people wish to take it that seriously, thats fine, but in the end, following your rules, there is only one winner, meaning all those other teams just pissed away 4 mil for nothing.

Are you basing your claims that by limiting supplies the tournament will be more fun off of experience, or do you just watch old WRC vids, assume the mechanics are shit and say limitations on items will make things that much different?

[Général_Argos]

"there is only one winner"
Prizes for the top 3 (as on post #33) would give prizes to 15 people.??

"pissed of away 4 mil for nothing"
Whats wrong with involving risk???Anyway someone could participate, not win, and would have "lost his time".??

Oldests "old" championships videos I watched were 2005 RJC videos, and from back then to today, it's always the same strategy applied with slight variations, the winning team is the most efficient and endurant.??You use the common and time-proved strategy, you make slight modifications that you will think that will improve it, then you practice it with your team to become the most efficient team.??Thats it.??Period.??You train and you apply.??It is certainly closer to like an olympic marathon or sprint course, but nothing close to a chess game.??The strategy factor is kept to a minium.??