I for one think that Abilities are the way to go, Clothing can be dull at times, those players that have had Mobius forever like myself had that advantage in pvp, so why not have pvp skill abilities, instead of making them org-wise, make them so they work off cqs.

Just as he said, but really, just reballance the org abilities, change em around alittle to make them more suitable to pvp and have them really show other players that pvp is something to get into, and not just a past time, like rping...

Aquatium. wrote:

Cq rewards can never happen, unless they reset the CQ count and make a new system on earning them.

Why?

..because of how CQ's were handed out at the start of the game.

..because of dirty duels.

..because of datamine.

..because killing a lvl 50 is the same reward as killing a level 1.

They need to add a WHOLE new system on earning kills and make it tier based, only when you do that can you even think about a balanced reward system.

One thing I said a long time ago, which I really wish they added was CQ's points only given in archives. If anything, maybe add new point system, so you earn these new points in archives only (not datamine), and you can still earn regular CQ's in the world, but rewards are based on archive CQ's.

As i stated in my post, i'v only bn 50 for 2 years (8 months after CR1, easy cq gainer. and at that i only had 80.) The more you pvp, the more cqs you get. Honestly think a bunch of people are gonna hop into DM and kill each other 2k times, at least, or duel each other then /sucide. With my way i honestly don't think they would, cause whoever is on the board obviously have been pvpn alot. I couldn't see anyone spending that amount of time to kill each other for an ab. With my way its showing who has spent time pvpn, not tryin to make it fair for everyone. Whoever has spent alot of time killing others (which is shown on the top 100) should get some kinda reward, without others moaning saying its unfair. I'm proof that you can still earn a good amount in CR2, as long as you keep killing

As for the Archive CQ, no. Vector is pvp anywhere, i don't want to have a serparte counter going up when i'm defending people ganking my box in Sati's etc.

Conviction:  Increases damage by a number of points equal to your CQ total for 2 seconds.  24hr cooldown timer.  Level 1 ability in the awakened tree. 

Crazy I know, but it popped into my head and I wanted to share.

Cadsuane wrote:

Conviction:  Increases damage by a number of points equal to your CQ total for 2 seconds.  24hr cooldown timer.  Level 1 ability in the awakened tree. 

Crazy I know, but it popped into my head and I wanted to share.

Absolutley not, could relog and refresh it. LE characters die instantly, etc.

Well I did say it was crazy :)

The reward for CQ's is simple . It gives you the ability to say , I HAVE DETROYED MORE PEOPLE THEN YOU AND IF YOU THINK YOU CAN EVER MATCH MY PERSONAL SCORE YOU ARE MOST WELCOME TO TRY . Oh , that and it grants you .00001 combat tactics per 10000k CQ .

Paschendale wrote:

i just want a shirt that says "I pvp a lot" or "my org outnumbered yours more often" and has 22 resistence like the anniversary shirts

Actually I like this idea =O

Any clothing item with 22 pts res is a waste... up it to 30 pts+, that goes for all the clothes. Useful to say a lvl 28 but not to a 50.

To be honest i kinda like the idea of Titles, but i guess it's something that couldnt be implemented into the game very easy, nothing ever is easy lol

Endomorph wrote:

psilody wrote:

K.. maybe I already responded to this...

Ordinarily I'd read all 20 some pages of responses, and double check but In this case its simple...

 

NO

 

Heavily exploitable. And besides the whole point of C(ombat)Q(uantity) Points is useless bragging rights. So please,  have fun (the real point of PvP), do your braqging and stop asking for other stuff.

 

I could have sworn CQ stood for "Combat Quotient"

quotient-noun mathmatics. the result of division; the number of times one quantity is contained in another.

I realize that this is what its supposed to stand for. Thats why i put that part in parenthesis. You'll notice from the definition of quotient that the system we have is, in fact, not one. In order for it to be a quotient, it would have to show a division, or comparison, with the total number of fights entered. This would, of course, be quite impossible. Every time you fired off one attack at an opponent that would register an entry. As such, everyone in this game would have a rediculously low quotient. All that CQ currently records is how many times A TEAM that you were on killed someone. As such, all that it represents is the QUANTITY of combat you (or a team you were on) have succeeded at.

An alternative to this would be to divide the number of kills you  have earned, by the number of kills that have been earned FROM you. THAT would be an interesting statistic. I might also humble a few people. It might even be feasible.

On a related note to being humbled, seeing the overwhelming CQ king offer to give it all up is just that. While I am not a heavy PvPer (not even a moderate one, shall we say occasional?) I have battled Pharoah, and he has certainly beaten me more times than I've beaten him. However, the only opputrunity i had to 1-on1 him we split the difference (I beat him, then he tweaked LO and clothing, and beat me). And he is one of the few major pvper's that i virtually never see s**t-talking. Maybe because he doesnt need to... In any case, I respect him highly on this subject, so I will take back a little of my attitude...

If, as some have suggested, the ENTIRE CQ system were reworked, I would consider this as a possibility. At this point there are too many flaws. The most glaring is that i can join a team and then go do anything, even sit around and chat, and earn CQ from the combatants on my team. I don't even have to be flagged. I got my first CQ when Falsehopes dropped by Mara and knifed someone while helping me level. Did I EARN anything there?

Second, and I think more important, PvP is inherently team based. I liked Pashendale's comment "...i just want a shirt that says... "my org outnumbered yours more often"..." A reward system only encourages the gank-based pvp approach. I could easily see all the remaining mervs on syntax abandoning their org, because they are virtually always outnumbered, and therefore would be able to get rewards more easily by joining Zion or Mach.

I really have a hard time seeing success at pvp as a reflection of some major difference in skill. Mostly, the team with the most people, and a majority of them on a chat service to coordinate battle, is going to win. I have on occasion seen a clear tactical superiority from agroup, a well thgt out attack that showed skill. But most of what i see is just people slogging it out... reconning... slogging it out... reconning...

And im not saying its not fun. I don't mind losing... ya know why? cuz no one is getting anything out of it except the satisfaction of battle. However, I'd be even LESS inclined to throw myself against a zerg, if i thgt they were getting "rewards" out of it. So, in reality, I think this is an idea that could actually DISCOURAGE people from PvPing.

Lastly, the WHOLE COMBAT SYSTEM IS FLAWED!!! Evryone know there are exploits. This would just be further encouragement for people to use them. This is one of the things that frutrates me about combat in the game is that I can never know if my opponent is playing fair! As long as combat can be exploited, I dont see how you can have a system that gives substatntial rewards for it.... oh wait... we use combat to get EVRYTHING in this game... scratch that...

Anyway, I guess I agree with peoples desire to feel rewarded. I just dont see any fair way to do it. Maybe there should be DUELING points. Duels are less exploitable, and probably a better reflection of combat skill... Course duels are less fun than Pvp... anyway...

Edited-doublepost

psilody wrote:

Endomorph wrote:

I could have sworn CQ stood for "Combat Quotient"

quotient-noun mathmatics. the result of division; the number of times one quantity is contained in another.

I realize that this is what its supposed to stand for. Thats why i put that part in parenthesis. You'll notice from the definition of quotient that the system we have is, in fact, not one. In order for it to be a quotient, it would have to show a division, or comparison, with the total number of fights entered. This would, of course, be quite impossible.

You're going to have to argue this with the Devs who named it in the first place, not with Endomorph.