Devs: In my opinion it is time to add opt-in PVP |
Post Reply | Page <12345 8> |
Author | |||||
Thirion
Forum Warrior Joined: 10 Apr 2018 Status: Offline Points: 435 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||||
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.
Thanks for letting me stay. ITG is an amazing alliance!
Edited by Thirion - 18 Jun 2021 at 00:19 |
|||||
Wartow
Postmaster Joined: 20 May 2014 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 924 |
Post Options
Thanks(2)
|
||||
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!
|
|||||
|
|||||
BrianN
Wordsmith Joined: 30 Jul 2019 Location: Wisconsin, USA Status: Offline Points: 109 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
"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. |
|||||
Grom
Wordsmith Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Location: Mal Motsha Status: Offline Points: 185 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
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 |
|||||
Thirion
Forum Warrior Joined: 10 Apr 2018 Status: Offline Points: 435 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||||
My bad - you are correct.
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.
|
|||||
Grom
Wordsmith Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Location: Mal Motsha Status: Offline Points: 185 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
So what suddenly made it relevant?
|
|||||
Thirion
Forum Warrior Joined: 10 Apr 2018 Status: Offline Points: 435 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||||
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.
|
|||||
Grom
Wordsmith Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Location: Mal Motsha Status: Offline Points: 185 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||||
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.
|
|||||
Thirion
Forum Warrior Joined: 10 Apr 2018 Status: Offline Points: 435 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||||
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.
|
|||||
Thirion
Forum Warrior Joined: 10 Apr 2018 Status: Offline Points: 435 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
||||
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.
To quote myself (more details in my answer there):
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.
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 |
|||||
Post Reply | Page <12345 8> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |