Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Devs: In my opinion it is time to add opt-in PVP
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Devs: In my opinion it is time to add opt-in PVP
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
Author
  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 248 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 16:03
Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:

Opt out options are completely broken. So then only pvp cities are available for capture? Are thieves/sabs/spies going to stop functioning for opt out players (only scouts and messengers have PVE uses)? Is it going to block them from tourneys? Opt out pvp gives no player options for real, in game reasons to have conflict with another player. Ooooh, that jerk is stealing my hides - oh, but they're opt out, it won't let me attack their army, I guess all I can do is send cotters to bump them. Oooh, this person moved inside my 10 square - crap, they're opt out, I guess I have a sovereignty war with them. 

I know that in the current circumstances it comes down to a lot of "You're the #1 alliance, that makes you a fair target" but ignores the fact that alliances can have conflicts that require in game responses for other reasons. We can't completely rely on the devs to get involved in *everything* that would be ridiculous. 

Opt out pvp would really ramp up the ability to troll and make a nuisance of yourself without giving people the ability to apply consequences outside of petitioning the devs to handle it. 

Oh, and it also protects gold farms from being targeted, and we have to face other questions - is it a permanent option? Are there any ways around it? How often can someone change their choice, and how difficult is it to change, and how do we stop THAT from being abused - build up a 1m cav army while opted out "for hunting with, of course!" opt in, wait a month for the opt in to take, attack for a while, when you're low on troops, opt out, wait a month for the opt out to take, rebuild troops? 

Play the game, knowing there is risk, or don't, but trying to remove risk breaks the whole game.



All your points depend on the implementation. And for most of them there is an easy and good fix to the problem. For example increase the cooldown of opt-out to a longer time -> opt-in, opt-out is not really possible. Or make the account lose opt-out after not logging in for 10/20/30 days -> alliances can capture their inactives. Allow anything but siege and direct attacks -> Tourneys and relatiaton with thieves is possible. Opt-out PVP reduces excess gold production by 30%/50%/70% -> gold farms are significantly weaker. And so on. Allmost all of those are issues that can be fixed.

PVP players uniting to attack non-PVP players, forcing non-PVP players that hate PVP to engage in it and in the long run killing the non-PVP player base is in my opinion a problem that has no easy fix. What is your suggestion there?




Edited by Thirion - 18 Jun 2021 at 16:06
Back to Top
Solanar View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 312 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Solanar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 15:44

Opt out options are completely broken. So then only pvp cities are available for capture? Are thieves/sabs/spies going to stop functioning for opt out players (only scouts and messengers have PVE uses)? Is it going to block them from tourneys? Opt out pvp gives no player options for real, in game reasons to have conflict with another player. Ooooh, that jerk is stealing my hides - oh, but they're opt out, it won't let me attack their army, I guess all I can do is send cotters to bump them. Oooh, this person moved inside my 10 square - crap, they're opt out, I guess I have a sovereignty war with them. 

I know that in the current circumstances it comes down to a lot of "You're the #1 alliance, that makes you a fair target" but ignores the fact that alliances can have conflicts that require in game responses for other reasons. We can't completely rely on the devs to get involved in *everything* that would be ridiculous. 

Opt out pvp would really ramp up the ability to troll and make a nuisance of yourself without giving people the ability to apply consequences outside of petitioning the devs to handle it. 

Oh, and it also protects gold farms from being targeted, and we have to face other questions - is it a permanent option? Are there any ways around it? How often can someone change their choice, and how difficult is it to change, and how do we stop THAT from being abused - build up a 1m cav army while opted out "for hunting with, of course!" opt in, wait a month for the opt in to take, attack for a while, when you're low on troops, opt out, wait a month for the opt out to take, rebuild troops? 

Play the game, knowing there is risk, or don't, but trying to remove risk breaks the whole game.
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 248 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 12:53
Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

I've never heard of a rule or policy about not attacking non pvp players. How long have you played this game Thirion?

To quote Grom:
Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

For years it has been Tcol policy to keep PvP limited to a self contained bubble, which afforded relative stability/safety for the non-pvp alliances.


I am playing for around 4 years now.

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

The way it's always been is if you don't like something, you do something about it.

As i said, i am doing something about it. Just not the way you want it. But to my strength. There are multiple ways to solve problems. PVP/ Attacking isn't the only one and usually not the smart one.

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

The devs don't do many major updates and what you are proposing is game breaking.  Personally I'd rather them add something relevant to the sandbox.
I would love some content too. The problem is, that if some of the non-PVP player base quits because of the PVP players actions, there isn't really a need for that. The game is already dying - attacking non-PVP players is in my opinion going to speed that up. Thus making the game enjoyable for the majority of players (both PVP and non-PVP) should be the main concern.

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

There are other idle games with added chatrooms you can play if you don't like this one.
I do not really care about chatrooms. I care about seasonal tournaments, building, hunting, crafting, the market and faction play (essentially everything but PVP). Find me a game that has those things and i am glad to move. On the other hand, there are a lot of PVP browser games.
Back to Top
King Sigerius View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 11 Nov 2017
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Points: 91 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote King Sigerius Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 12:26
I've never heard of a rule or policy about not attacking non pvp players. How long have you played this game Thirion? The way it's always been is if you don't like something, you do something about it. The devs don't do many major updates and what you are proposing is game breaking.  Personally I'd rather them add something relevant to the sandbox. There are other idle games with added chatrooms you can play if you don't like this one.
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 248 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 09:28
Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

So your request stems solely from a decision I made, affecting the policy of a single alliance. Because none of the other PvP alliances followed this policy to begin with.

Two days ago (as far as i remember) TCol was at war with Loki and Sin. Iron was at war with Sin. TRST was busy growing. So essentially every PVP alliance that is now at war with Ascn were busy doing something (and it was a similar situation over the last 2-3 years). Thus not attacking non-PVP alliances.

This means changing the policy of a single alliance affected not just TCol but all PVP alliances. And because of the content of the policy it also affects most non-PVP alliances too.

Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

Which translates your suggestion directly to "please change the game so Tcol cannot attack whom they choose". To me, that seems highly unfair.


To quote myself (more details in my answer there):
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

The suggestion i posted is not against you. It is supposed to fix a problem that now exists for a long time. It just was not relevant up until now.

Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

Did I ask the devs to change the rules so you couldn't build as you did? Or play the market as you did? No, I did not.

PVP players complain about removing the 10-city limit all the time. And in my opinion that is their right. I have no problem of you or anyone else suggesting changes or improvements to rules that fix some issues that affect you or anyone else. Maybe they make sense, maybe they don't. That is a decision the community and most importantly the devs have to make.

Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

Because the rules of the sandbox were established over ten years ago, and we as a community have the freedom to play as we see fit within those confines. Sure, the rules have at times been tweaked (city limit, unit buffs, new gear, seasonal tourneys), but none of those tweaks comparetto your suggestion of fundamentally seperating a core pillar of the game from the rest of the sandbox. 

I do understand that my suggestions are fundamental changes to the game and how it is played. In my opinion that is obviously a downside but does not invalidate the suggestion. To get back to software developers fixing bugs - sometimes they are easy to fix, sometimes you have to change/rework a lot. Wether it is necessary and worth it (or not) is not my decision to make. That is why i am addressing the devs.


Edited by Thirion - 18 Jun 2021 at 09:30
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 248 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 08:54
Originally posted by Wartow Wartow wrote:

Okay... let's chase down this rabbit hole a little.

What if could pay a local faction to defend you?  This would be opting-out of PvP.  Your taxes would immediately rise to 50% (75%, 100%) and the local faction takes it all (perhaps more if you and/or your alliance has a low ranking).  This would put a rainbow on your city.  

You can hunt with T1 and diplos are limited to T1 spies, scouts, and messengers?

If you want to remove your rainbow then there is a 30 day cooldown period followed by a 6 month minimum before you could put it back up.  No rapid opt-in and opt-out.  

Just a first set of thoughts.  Go!


I like the idea that it has a significant downside. I also agree that rapid opt-in and opt-out should not be possible.

I dislike that there are a lot of restrictions on the city. I would keep it as simple as possible.

Goldfarms and permasats are the main issue of opt-in PVP. So how about making the cost of the spell 50% (or 30/70%) of excess gold and not restricting anything else? It would not make a big difference for new players or players with military/diplo but it would make goldfarms quite inefficient.

Another option (though a lot harder to implement) would making some regions in Illy PVP and some non-PVP. For example make deserts PVP areas and everything else non-PVP.

I prefer the first solution though, as it is more flexible.
Back to Top
Grom View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 29 Sep 2017
Location: Mal Motsha
Status: Offline
Points: 170 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 08:44
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

So what suddenly made it relevant? 


You removing the self contained PVP bubble, uniting the PVP players and making non-PVP players the new target. Before there was a self-enforced policy by you to make PVP opt-in - thus asking for a dev enforced PVP opt-in after you got rid of it makes in my opinion sense.

I am worried that you made non-PVP alliances open prey for PVP alliances and that in the worst case they are going to attack whatever alliance they dislike without any restrictions or holding back.

You are only speaking for TCol, but you made a decision that affected almost all PVP alliances and most non-PVP alliances at the moment. With great power comes great responsibility.

So your request stems solely from a decision I made, affecting the policy of a single alliance. Because none of the other PvP alliances followed this policy to begin with. Which translates your suggestion directly to "please change the game so Tcol cannot attack whom they choose". To me, that seems highly unfair. 

Did I ask the devs to change the rules so you couldn't build as you did? Or play the market as you did? No, I did not. Because the rules of the sandbox were established over ten years ago, and we as a community have the freedom to play as we see fit within those confines. Sure, the rules have at times been tweaked (city limit, unit buffs, new gear, seasonal tourneys), but none of those tweaks comparetto your suggestion of fundamentally seperating a core pillar of the game from the rest of the sandbox. 
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 248 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 08:14
Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

So what suddenly made it relevant? 


You removing the self contained PVP bubble, uniting the PVP players and making non-PVP players the new target. Before there was a self-enforced policy by you to make PVP opt-in - thus asking for a dev enforced PVP opt-in after you got rid of it makes in my opinion sense.

I am worried that you made non-PVP alliances open prey for PVP alliances and that in the worst case they are going to attack whatever alliance they dislike without any restrictions or holding back.

You are only speaking for TCol, but you made a decision that affected almost all PVP alliances and most non-PVP alliances at the moment. With great power comes great responsibility.
Back to Top
Grom View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 29 Sep 2017
Location: Mal Motsha
Status: Offline
Points: 170 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 07:45
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

Originally posted by BrianN BrianN wrote:


The rules haven't changed...the situation has.

My bad - you are correct.

Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

I do hope my decisions, as its leader, don't start resulting in game patches designed to counter me. That would be unfair, and beyond ridiculous. 


The suggestion i posted is not against you. It is supposed to fix a problem that now exists for a long time. It just was not relevant up until now.

As a software developer your code often has bugs. But most of them do not appear immediately. You fix them when they appear and are causing issues.

Thus in my opinion my suggestion is neither unfair nor ridiculous. In my view it just fixes a "bug" in the rules. Like code, rules usually are not perfect in the beginning and often need improvement over time.

So what suddenly made it relevant? 
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 248 		Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 02:26
Originally posted by BrianN BrianN wrote:


The rules haven't changed...the situation has.

My bad - you are correct.

Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

I do hope my decisions, as its leader, don't start resulting in game patches designed to counter me. That would be unfair, and beyond ridiculous. 


The suggestion i posted is not against you. It is supposed to fix a problem that now exists for a long time. It just was not relevant up until now.

As a software developer your code often has bugs. But most of them do not appear immediately. You fix them when they appear and are causing issues.

Thus in my opinion my suggestion is neither unfair nor ridiculous. In my view it just fixes a "bug" in the rules. Like code, rules usually are not perfect in the beginning and often need improvement over time.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 8>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.