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  <12345 8>
Author
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 212
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 00:18
Originally posted by BrianN BrianN wrote:

It confounds me how easily people here (in general) abandon and come back all the time.  There's no need to abandon...if the game isn't doing it for you anymore, take a break.  If there's ANY chance you'd come back there's no reason to abandon...don't burn bridges.


In general i agree. In my case it is a bit different.

I had no plans to abandon 2 days ago. Yesterday the rules of the game i love significantly changed. And i feel like i have no choice but to do what i am doing. In my opinion what Grom did was a horrible decision and it is going to hurt the game a lot. We are still at early stages of the "conflict" and do not know how it is going to play out. A few of the (undesireable) outcomes would include me abandoning though.

For example i am not going to play a game with a P2W part where PVP players attack non-PVP players on a regular basis.

Originally posted by Lupia Lupia wrote:

Your advice was much appreciated Thirion.  Thank you for everything.

Thanks for letting me stay. ITG is an amazing alliance!


Edited by Thirion - 18 Jun 2021 at 00:19
Back to Top
Wartow View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 20 May 2014
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 852
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (2) Thanks(2)   Quote Wartow Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 00:34
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!
Back to Top
BrianN View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn


Joined: 30 Jul 2019
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 43
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BrianN Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 00:44
"I had no plans to abandon 2 days ago. Yesterday the rules of the game i love significantly changed."
 
The rules haven't changed...the situation has.
 
Back to Top
Grom View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 29 Sep 2017
Location: Mal Motsha
Status: Offline
Points: 167
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 00:56
Originally posted by BrianN BrianN wrote:

"I had no plans to abandon 2 days ago. Yesterday the rules of the game i love significantly changed."
 
The rules haven't changed...the situation has.
 

This. Rules are hard-coded, they are the game mechanics, supplemented by ToS. Neither has changed. What changed is the policy of a single alliance; Tcol. 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. 


Edited by Grom - 18 Jun 2021 at 00:57
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 212
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
Grom View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 29 Sep 2017
Location: Mal Motsha
Status: Offline
Points: 167
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: 212
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: 167
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: 212
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
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 212
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
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 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.