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 23456 8>
Author
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: 206
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
Solanar View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 309
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: 206
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: 309
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Solanar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 16:09
The same suggestion that happened during the great war. Have better diplomacy. If there really are so many more pve players than pvp, then they ought to be able to overwhelm the minority by banding together. 

Also, not all the people who know how to pvp are in this offensive group. What if some of the old H? guys came to life to teach? It's all content. When Dlord vs Fairy happened, both alliances BLEW UP with activity, they were probably healthier then than they had been in years. 

How many confeds does Ascn have? Will none of them step up and help? 

Because to me a fix that takes away a significant portion of the game isn't really a fix. It's ripe for exploit, no matter how they implement it. 
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 206
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 16:28
Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:

The same suggestion that happened during the great war. Have better diplomacy. If there really are so many more pve players than pvp, then they ought to be able to overwhelm the minority by banding together.

Good luck with that. When i started the non-PVP alliances were not able to beat SIN even though they were a lot bigger. The amount of non-PVP players went down by a lot, meanwhile there are still quite a few good PVP players. In my opinon there is no alliance or even confeds that can beat TCol at the moment.

Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:

Also, not all the people who know how to pvp are in this offensive group. What if some of the old H? guys came to life to teach? It's all content. When Dlord vs Fairy happened, both alliances BLEW UP with activity, they were probably healthier then than they had been in years.

Last information i had is that some members of H? want to avoid war at all cost. I don't really think Dlord wants to fight either - they seem to be happy with faction play. Besides that, why should those alliances be forced to do PVP when they do not want to?


Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:

How many confeds does Ascn have? Will none of them step up and help? 

When did confeds ever work in a crisis? The usually only work for PVP alliances or to "pile on" an alliance.

Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:

Because to me a fix that takes away a significant portion of the game isn't really a fix. It's ripe for exploit, no matter how they implement it.
Then let people exploit it, i have no issues with that. As long as players that dislike/hate PVP do not have to fight.


Edited by Thirion - 18 Jun 2021 at 16:32
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 16:55
Wooooo your opinion is the only one that matters! Screw everyone else!  You don't pvp so why does it matter people would exploit the system! Lmao I have 0 respect for you after these forum posts, you are now a target in my eyes. God forbid the devs listen to your demands, better remove you before that happens!
Back to Top
Solanar View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 309
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Solanar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 16:59
Quote Then let people exploit it, i have no issues with that. As long as players that dislike/hate PVP do not have to fight.


I was taking you seriously right up until that line. 

Look *outside* the current Ascn event, even though I know that is what triggered your post. You're asking to remove in-game, in-character, conflict resolution and consequences. 

Here, I have a solution for people who don't want to lose cities. Move to troll holes. If you find something that is "almost" a troll hole, you can fill it in with additional cities. Direct attacks can only kill troops and steal basic res. Build a vault. Sure, living in a troll hole significantly weakens your options in other ways, but look on the bright side, your cities are safe. 

If you don't care about exploits then I don't really have much else to say. If they are able to spend enough time and coding effort to even attempt to balance the consequences of an opt out system, then I still don't want them to do it - spend that time on something that is additive to the existing game rather than subtractive. 

Having to consider the actions of other people playing the game is what makes this an interesting, strategic game. Remove that and you may as well play something single-player. 
Back to Top
DeliciousJosh View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 14 Jun 2012
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 381
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeliciousJosh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 16:59
In all these sandbox games the number one alliance gets challenged. It has happened before and ASCN has been at ear before against a lot of the same players attacking them now. At the time they resisted pretty well although they did lose some nonpvp players. Then they gained some new members again. All while players who were not happy about pvp could choose to leave ASCN and pay some kind of penalty fee (both for letting down their mates in the alliance by leaving snd having some rejoin penalties. In very few cases it came down to actual in game gold or prestige. 
The pvp bubble still exists. Just not vs ascn. They do shenanigans and act like they don't. That's my take on it.

PublicRelations
HumanResources
Back to Top
Thirion View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior


Joined: 10 Apr 2018
Status: Offline
Points: 206
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Thirion Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 17:23
Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

Wooooo your opinion is the only one that matters! Screw everyone else!

Where did i say that?

Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

You don't pvp so why does it matter people would exploit the system!


Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:


If you don't care about exploits then I don't really have much else to say.

I should have formulated that a lot better, my fault. The current plains meta in PVP is in my opinion an exploit of the system. Terraforms are an exploit. It probably was not intended by the devs initially but people found it the best way to play. Something similar would happen with any exploit regarding opt-out PVP. People would test it and find a way to use it. As long as it is in the rules and it is not completely broken i do not have any issues with it. Terraforms for example are even good for the game.

Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:

Having to consider the actions of other people playing the game is what makes this an interesting, strategic game. Remove that and you may as well play something single-player.

It is for you. It is not for others. Why do not give the players the choice to play what they want? Why do some players have to fear PVP alliances and need to get bullied by them?

I posted a suggestion that in my opinion might be a good addition to the game. I get that PVP players do not like it (at all). Me and my former alliance got threatened from at least 3 different PVP players directly or indirectly because i have a different opinion then them?! I have little issues with it. I get that other players have huge issues with that. How is that healthy for the game?

Originally posted by <span id=userPro39 =msgSidePro title=View Drop Down>DeliciousJosh</span> DeliciousJosh wrote:


The pvp bubble still exists.

According to Grom it doesn't. And thats my problem.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 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.