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  <1234 8>
Author
Snagglepuss View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2016
Location: Serengeti, Afri
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Snagglepuss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2021 at 10:51
Then, in your own words, no coalitions are necessary… We should all just quit?? Eowan is just jealous, with an obvious axe to grind against someone who made his own meta game, that will last a lifetime 😎 Both of you just proved my point, TY 
Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 937
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 Jul 2021 at 00:20
Snaggle, Wartow makes most of the points I would have made, but I feel that more emphasis could have been placed on the fact that pvp players do not fund this game exclusively.

Here's my thoughts on the role of pvp vs non pvp on prestige purchases, from a separate forum thread:

The largest consumers of prestige in the game are probably the builders, such as Thirion, dittobite, and Quentin The Miffed, who use vast amounts of prestige to get their population high enough for their next towns. I've seen the figure of 900 prestige used as an estimate to fully build a town, therefore it would take around 54,000 prestige to rebuild a 60 town account after the final pop push. Using this amount of prestige will either require the builders to be pvp purchasers themselves, or to significantly increase demand for prestige. Increasing demand increases prices, which in turn incentivises people to purchase more prestige. 

As for whether the rest of the non-pvp sector purchases a significant amount of prestige, I would say with the seasonal tournaments, the use of prestige to fund the regular creation and mass kill off of troops is going to become more and more common place. The tournament's shifting the consumption habits of non-pvpers towards that of the pvpers means that their presence in prestige markets is no longer without substitutes.

You and your coalition are not necessary.
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...
Back to Top
Wartow View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 May 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Wartow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2021 at 15:08
Originally posted by Snagglepuss Snagglepuss wrote:

Here's the thing I see after reading this thread

Not one place in here is there a single mention of the behavior of NON PVP ALLIANCES??

Snags is clearly still recovering from free tuna Friday while waiting for his coffee to kick in.

Originally posted by Snagglepuss Snagglepuss wrote:

Why is it all piled on to the PVP alliances? Why do we have to act a certain way, or talk a certain way, or limit our game to your discretions? Or, if we don't act to your standards...be made to constantly feel we aren't a real part of the meta-game and are in fact "destroying the game"??

Show me a time when the aggressors were greeted with parades?  The cost of war and the time necessary for a war are prohibitive within the game.  This may be sufficient for people to leave the game for those who aren't all-in on the exercise.  Conflicts are most meaningful when they arise of scarcity of resources.  Tournaments and the player-driven event have a well defined end game that appear to have broader appeal that provide an incentive for participation.

Originally posted by Snagglepuss Snagglepuss wrote:

How about the Non-PVP alliances acting properly??
IF you don't like PVP act like SkB or ITG, both of which make it clear they won't be pushed around, and protect all their members properly, by not acting out vs PvP alliances unless provoked. This cannot be said for all of the major Non-PVP alliances, some of which try and use their size to play on the outskirts of the PVP game stealthily and most times without notice or retaliation.

I call on the Non-PVP alliance in the game to work on this aspect of their games, and maybe the PVP alliances will leave them alone and concentrate on each other.

I'm not sure I get the point here.  It makes sense to play around the outskirts of PvP to avoid dragging yourself or your alliance into an escalating conflict.  

Originally posted by Snagglepuss Snagglepuss wrote:

Stop blaming us warmongers for everything, because, despite popular opinion we are the ones buying the prestige that allows some of you to play farmville and chat. I believe they call that a symbiotic relationship, and whether you like it or not, you are already part of it.

A prior response addresses this well.  Prestige is purchased by many for its value in gold within the game.  Someone with resources must be willing to buy prestige for it to be profitable for the seller.  Prices stay high when there is sufficient demand and an adequate supply of gold.  Within this point we find the irony of the goldfarm. 

Originally posted by Snagglepuss Snagglepuss wrote:

Understand, I could smash any Non-PVP player I want to. I simply choose not to. I'm not saying I can beat any Non-PVP player I do smash, but I make a conscious choice to try and limit my play to PVP players, unless provoked.

The spirit of Independence Day is strong with the Snaggleman.  Let freedom of choices and consequences for actions ring loudly this weekend!

Originally posted by Snagglepuss Snagglepuss wrote:

Requesting the services of the top military alliance, to dog-pile a much smaller foe, was a bad mistake IMO.

This sounds juicy.  Did I miss something while I was busy with my diplos and poaching activities?
Back to Top
Snagglepuss View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 22 Oct 2016
Location: Serengeti, Afri
Status: Offline
Points: 53
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Snagglepuss Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03 Jul 2021 at 13:44
Here's the thing I see after reading this thread

Not one place in here is there a single mention of the behavior of NON PVP ALLIANCES??

Why is it all piled on to the PVP alliances? Why do we have to act a certain way, or talk a certain way, or limit our game to your discretions? Or, if we don't act to your standards...be made to constantly feel we aren't a real part of the meta-game and are in fact "destroying the game"??

How about the Non-PVP alliances acting properly??
IF you don't like PVP act like SkB or ITG, both of which make it clear they won't be pushed around, and protect all their members properly, by not acting out vs PvP alliances unless provoked. This cannot be said for all of the major Non-PVP alliances, some of which try and use their size to play on the outskirts of the PVP game stealthily and most times without notice or retaliation.

I call on the Non-PVP alliance in the game to work on this aspect of their games, and maybe the PVP alliances will leave them alone and concentrate on each other.

Stop blaming us warmongers for everything, because, despite popular opinion we are the ones buying the prestige that allows some of you to play farmville and chat. I believe they call that a symbiotic relationship, and whether you like it or not, you are already part of it.

Understand, I could smash any Non-PVP player I want to. I simply choose not to. I'm not saying I can beat any Non-PVP player I do smash, but I make a conscious choice to try and limit my play to PVP players, unless provoked.

Requesting the services of the top military alliance, to dog-pile a much smaller foe, was a bad mistake IMO. 
Back to Top
Sif View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 10 Apr 2021
Location: Athens
Status: Offline
Points: 84
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Sif Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 01 Jul 2021 at 22:51
One sugestion if the playier chose no pvp to can not be sieged but to can be attackted and thieved and blockaed and to have more army upkeep or no use of antiupkeep building.
Kinds of disandvantages that Will make him tO be something like Farmer.
Or beter to can chose some cities to be unsiegeable
Back to Top
Hyrdmoth View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 02 Jul 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 164
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Hyrdmoth Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 Jun 2021 at 14:04
I would be strongly opposed to an opt-in for PvP. My reason is that I think shades of grey are important.

A player may want to engage in PvP to a limited degree, but having a formal opt-in might feel to them like painting a huge target on their back, and it would dissuade them from taking any tentative steps to engage in PvP play.

I think everything should be done to encourage more grey, rather than stark contrasts between extremes.
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: 23 Jun 2021 at 08:59
Originally posted by Mordok Mordok wrote:

lol...after 10 years of game play and still same discussion :-)

Its not just Illy. A lot of other MMO games have (or had) those discussions too. With a lot of different conclusions.

In my opinion it is never a discussion that can be completely "finished" - as the circumstances (rules, playerbase, ...) change over time.
Back to Top
Mordok View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 20 Jul 2014
Status: Offline
Points: 11
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Mordok Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2021 at 22:27
lol...after 10 years of game play and still same discussion :-)

better to re-activate Players Council and start a UX project..maybe DEVS will listen to some new ideas...


Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 937
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2021 at 12:54
Originally posted by DeliciousJosh DeliciousJosh wrote:


We need the PvP scene to survive though. Mainly because a lot of the income (prestige bought and sold) comes from that exact part of the game. Sure, builders too, but they usually save the gold up they are making to buy the prestige. The PvP players usually don't have the same luxury of having lots of gold income.


Given the tournaments, I'm not sure this is true.
Sure, non-pvp alliances were once mostly gold positive, but with a tournament every 3 months, many people are running near constant troop sov. They also have become one of the main drivers of demand in the markets, as they need to replenish their equipment far more often than pvp players do.

And, even if they do just use gold to buy prestige, that prestige still has to come from somewhere, and the gold value of prestige is often why people buy prestige in the first place. By creating demand for prestige, non-pvpers increase this gold value, making buying prestige with cash more compelling.


Edited by eowan the short - 20 Jun 2021 at 12:54
This is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend. Some person started it, not knowing what it was, and we'll continue posting on it forever just because...
Back to Top
DeliciousJosh View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2012
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 417
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeliciousJosh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jun 2021 at 10:29
Gotcha :) No more PvP discussion in this thread.
It did spark some interest and some forum discussion which in my opinion (and as Wartow pointed out) is something we should have a lot more of.

And yes, those games you mentioned are good fun, or used to be. I think TW is still played. No clue about the others. They are different and the diplomacy are big parts of them too. Here in Illyriad it to me seems to be a bit differen though, and we as a community can quickly turn the tides of things. 
The plains meta is a bit stale for sure. In terms of the cav speeds and strength on plains, they should change something there. Or speed up the servers troops with 1.5 to 3 on all units. See how things go for a time span of 6months and reevaluate. 

PublicRelations
HumanResources
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234 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.