Print Page | Close Window

Devs: In my opinion it is time to add opt-in PVP

Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: Suggestions & Game Enhancements
Forum Description: Got a great idea? A feature you'd like to see? Share it here!
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=10888
Printed Date: 18 Sep 2021 at 23:18
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Devs: In my opinion it is time to add opt-in PVP
Posted By: Thirion
Subject: Devs: In my opinion it is time to add opt-in PVP
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 18:48
With the recent declaration of most big PVP alliances on Ascn and the (likely) possibility of more PVP vs. non-PVP alliance wars (Details here: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/pvp-ascn-war_topic10886.html" rel="nofollow - http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/pvp-ascn-war_topic10886.html ) it is in my opinion necessary to talk about the following topic again and get a statement from the devs.

Is PVP alliances attacking non-PVP alliances that dislike/hate PVP a mechanic that is still wanted by the devs?

There are a lot of games where PVP is the only endgame. But Illyriad is different. There are a lot of ways to play the game and have fun. 42 alliances participated in the last tournament. The faction play slack channel has more than 100 members. Building/Trading/Hunting/Crafting/Chatting or playing for ranking points is something a lot of players enjoy.

Every player can choose what they like and do what they enjoy. Well, besides PVP. PVP players can force non-PVP players to engange in PVP - wether they enjoy it or not. Which is in my opinion a big problem. A small part of the community can force a bigger part of the community in activities they dislike or hate. Is that something the developers want?

As far as i know the game started as a pure PVP game in the beginning. Over time it developed more and more into a sandbox game. In the current state a lot of time and dedication is required to get to 20+ cities. In the beginning opt-in PVP didn't make much sense. In my opinion it does now though. Especially as there are more and more "casual" players.

And don't get me wrong. PVP is and should be an important part of the game. But in my opinion each player should decide wether he/she wants to participate or not. In the past this was done by PVP alliances only attacking PVP alliances - thus you could opt-in by joining a PVP alliance. Well, not anymore.

There are a lot of players that fear PVP and do not want to engange in it at all cost. For PVP players PVP is fun and they have no problem getting their cities attacked or even razed. For others it is. To a point where players are still scared about a war 5+ years after they finished the last one. Or not talking in GC because of some aggressive PVP players there.

In my opinion it is time for the devs to do something about it and protect them by adding some form of opt-in pvp.



Replies:
Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 19:16
Go play Farmville, imo players like you are what got Ascn declared on in the first place.


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 19:55
Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

Go play Farmville, imo players like you are what got Ascn declared on in the first place.


Thank you for your input and kind of proving my point about the mentality of PVP players.


Posted By: Wartow
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 20:23
What if measures other than population could be used to gain additional cities?  The population push and the resulting trade office cities resemble a poor centrally planned economy of the second world ( https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/second-world.asp" rel="nofollow - https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/second-world.asp ) and are impractical for PvP, tournaments, hunting legions, and many other aspects of the game.  The game has many categories for rankings, why base the expansion of an empire solely on population?

Imagine earning the ability to have an extra city for reaching 1 million or 2 million defense ranking.


-------------


Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 20:31
Thanks for proving my point about farmers ruining the sandbox. 


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 20:45
Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

Thanks for proving my point about farmers ruining the PVP


I fixed that for you. And even then i disagree. Its not "our" fault that you buy supplies and want "our" gold to fight. Or that you do not seem to have fun fighting players that want to play PVP.

Farmers did certainly not ruin the tournaments, hunting, crafting, ...




Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 20:50
Two sides to every coin, at the end of the day we'll both have our own opinions and justifications. Crying will get you nowhere, it's our sandbox too. You don't like it? Do something about it.


Posted By: Tensmoor
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 21:09
Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

Two sides to every coin, at the end of the day we'll both have our own opinions and justifications. Crying will get you nowhere, it's our sandbox too. You don't like it? Do something about it.


I believe that's what he is trying to do.

This is also the main reason why I will be leaving Illy and before somebody says when I will leave when I've got the various tools etc I've made in a state that others can take on the maintenance etc of them and that is not going to happen overnight (it has taken me years to create them and currently I've no idea how long the documentation etc will need).

Tens


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 21:10
Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

Two sides to every coin, at the end of the day we'll both have our own opinions and justifications. Crying will get you nowhere, it's our sandbox too. You don't like it? Do something about it.

I am doing something about it. Just not what you want. It is usually smarter to not engange in what the other player is good at but instead play your own strength :)

The devs decide the rules of their game and what they think is best for it. That is why i would like to get a statement from them what they think.

In my opinion some of the non-PVP player quitting because they do not want to do PVP, engage with PVP alliances or feel threatend by PVP players in any way is not good for the game.


Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 21:57
How about the pvp players quitting because there isn't enough pvp? You don't seem to care about them.


Posted By: Grom
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 21:57
You're asking for a major code change just because you disagree with the policy change of a handful of alliances. It's frankly ridiculous, and I hope the devs don't dignify it with a response, let alone indulge it. 


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 22:19
Originally posted by King Sigerius King Sigerius wrote:

How about the pvp players quitting because there isn't enough pvp? You don't seem to care about them.


I do care about them. I do not know enough though on how to fix their problems. The PVP players should do that. In a way that does not hurt other players of the game that want to stay out of it.

Originally posted by <span style=font-weight: normal;><span id=userPro11 =msgSidePro title=View Drop Down><span style=font-weight: normal;>Grom</span></span></span> Grom wrote:

You're asking for a major code change just because you disagree with the policy change of a handful of alliances.

The technology is there (rainbow) thus an easy implementation might be fast. That is not the point of the post though.

Originally posted by <span style=font-weight: normal;><span id=userPro11 =msgSidePro title=View Drop Down><span style=font-weight: normal;>Grom</span></span></span> Grom wrote:

It's frankly ridiculous, and I hope the devs don't dignify it with a response, let alone indulge it. 
That would be an answer too.

You started the "attack" on the non-PVP player base. As i wrote, i am just trying to fight back and protect them.


Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 22:33
We're fixing the problem right now! lmao


Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 22:34
So there are two possibilities
A) The devs listen to this and radically change this entire game trying to cater to a few loud voices and abandon the game they have developed for years.
or
B) They keep the game as is, causing a lot of loud complaining from a few people and maybe some departures.
 
I sincerely hope that we harm as few non pvp'ers as possible, but this game is a sandbox game, and if you want the things you want, you have every right to put together a coalition and make yourself known.


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 22:54
Originally posted by BrianN BrianN wrote:

So there are two possibilities
A) The devs listen to this and radically change this entire game trying to cater to a few loud voices and abandon the game they have developed for years.
or
B) They keep the game as is, causing a lot of loud complaining from a few people and maybe some departures.


In my opinion your are completely misreading the player base of Illyriad. I do not have the details, but in my experience there are (a lot) more non-PVP players than PVP players. And yes, most of them are quiet - but they are still playing and enjoying the game. And some of them do not use GC because they are scared of upsetting PVP players.

Since i started playing the game there were multiple instances were non-PVP players got attacked or declared on because they said something in GC that another PVP player did not like.

I am ready to abandon my accounts if needed. Otherwise i would not have done this. I expect to get attacked soon. As that is the usual way of resolving conflicts for PVP players - even against non-PVP players. If that is the way it should be played according to the devs then i am fine with it.


Originally posted by BrianN BrianN wrote:

 
I sincerely hope that we harm as few non pvp'ers as possible, but this game is a sandbox game, and if you want the things you want, you have every right to put together a coalition and make yourself known.

I honestly would love to fight you. But i won't. Because then you get what you want. You "win" and the problem does not really get solved in the long run. To quote myself: It is usually smarter to not engange in what the other player is good at but instead play your own strength


Posted By: King Sigerius
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 23:01
Listen to this guy, public crying is his strength!  


Posted By: Grom
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 23:04
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

I am ready to abandon my accounts if needed. Otherwise i would not have done this. I expect to get attacked soon. As that is the usual way of resolving conflicts for PVP players - even against non-PVP players. If that is the way it should be played according to the devs then i am fine with it

I hope you don't abandon, and I hope you will give up this folly. But to correct a slight mistake in your reasoning here, the usual way of resolving conflict through PvP applied to this case wouldn't get you attacked, but random players in ITG. 


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 23:11
Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

I hope you don't abandon, and I hope you will give up this folly. But to correct a slight mistake in your reasoning here, the usual way of resolving conflict through PvP applied to this case wouldn't get you attacked, but random players in ITG. 


I was only a guest at ITG to fight in faction play and the tournaments with them. And help their players with advice and resources. I left with both of my accounts.


Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 23:22
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.


Posted By: Lupia
Date Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 23:24
Your advice was much appreciated Thirion.  Thank you for everything.


Posted By: Thirion
Date 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!


Posted By: Wartow
Date 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!


-------------


Posted By: BrianN
Date 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.
 


Posted By: Grom
Date 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. 


Posted By: Thirion
Date 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.


Posted By: Grom
Date 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? 


Posted By: Thirion
Date 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.


Posted By: Grom
Date 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. 


Posted By: Thirion
Date 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.


Posted By: Thirion
Date 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.


Posted By: King Sigerius
Date 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.


Posted By: Thirion
Date 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.


Posted By: Solanar
Date 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.



Posted By: Thirion
Date 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?




Posted By: Solanar
Date 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. 


Posted By: Thirion
Date 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.


Posted By: King Sigerius
Date 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!


Posted By: Solanar
Date 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. 


Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date 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


Posted By: Thirion
Date 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.


Posted By: Solanar
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 18:06
I consider myself a pvp player. Or at least, a player with a pvp mindset. And yet my last war was....2 years ago, probably? I don't hold grudges and all the wars I lead YARR! for ended in white peace. But then, I also focused on active players with troops, rather than fighting the morale game and smashing people who were inactive or nonparticipatory. I have very clear ethics when it comes to pvp, but those ethics are mine (and by extension, YARR!'s) and are not something I have ever attempted to hold the game at large to. 

PVP players need all aspects of the game to be competitive. Non-PVP players need no aspects of the game, as whether they do something or don't do anything has no consequences. Setting high taxes and queuing saddles as a play style doesn't really impress me as gameplay, but ok, you do you. 

Illy as a whole is driven by a pvp economy. There is an excess otherwise. Nothing really has value without pvp. There is no, for lack of a better word, urgency in any other part of the game - for most people, getting to 60 towns probably required a lot of urgency when it came to shipping resources around. 

I've attacked people who attacked my people. I've attacked people who sent diplos/thieves at me/my people. I've sent sabs and troops at people who offended me in GC. I have razed towns that were exodused/settled adjacent to tourney squares because it offended my sense of fairness in the competition. I have sent direct attacks at cities to clear them out for the same. I would be quite upset if those actions, completely outside of all-out warfare, were hindered by a toggle switch that let people turn on a safe mode and avoid consequences for what they do and what they say. 


Posted By: Wartow
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 18:41
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? 


Players opting out of PvP could not attack nor be attacked.  Some are warriors and some are surfs.  Surfs would find it limiting to hunt and difficult to get ahead in the game as a trader.  Cities can only be settled, not captured, by opt-out players.  Taxes would be so oppressive that they could not be effective gold farms.  That is the general idea.  


-------------


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 18:50
I do get and understand what you are saying.

Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:

I would be quite upset if those actions, completely outside of all-out warfare, were hindered by a toggle switch that let people turn on a safe mode and avoid consequences for what they do and what they say.


I am sorry for my suggestion. I hereby retract it.


Posted By: Wartow
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 18:54
Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:


Illy as a whole is driven by a pvp economy. There is an excess otherwise. Nothing really has value without pvp. There is no, for lack of a better word, urgency in any other part of the game - for most people, getting to 60 towns probably required a lot of urgency when it came to shipping resources around. 


The current lack of scarcity does make for a problem in the Illy economy.  Lots of land to settle with access to uncontested resources and not enough players creates ample supply but limits demand and the need for conflict.   

Originally posted by Solanar Solanar wrote:



I've attacked people who sent diplos/thieves at me/my people. I've sent sabs and troops at people who offended me in GC. 

That was you?!? :)

The seasonal tournaments don't cause any bad blood that extends outside of the event itself.  The race based tournament bonuses are a nice idea and have created extra competition on a few squares to change the bonus into one that benefits all (or another race).  Perhaps a blight "bonus" or race based bonuses that include negatives for other races would up the regional challenges?

Otherwise, I hope JeJune's faction play efforts generate ideas that could contribute to seasonal tournament variety and generates competition to re-load before the next one.


-------------


Posted By: Wartow
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 18:57
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:


I am sorry for my suggestion. I hereby retract it.


There are times within the game when the culture shifts and conversations like these help measure the current pulse of the game.  I wish more would contribute thoughts as an active forum is good for the game. 


-------------


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 19:12
Originally posted by Wartow Wartow wrote:

Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:


I am sorry for my suggestion. I hereby retract it.


There are times within the game when the culture shifts and conversations like these help measure the current pulse of the game.  I wish more would contribute thoughts as an active forum is good for the game. 


I agree. I have some ideas i am going to post but got distracted a few days ago.


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 19:27
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

I agree. I have some ideas i am going to post but got distracted a few days ago.


To make it clear, i am not talking about any suggestions about PVP. I am going to stay out of PVP.

I was talking about some ideas/suggestions i have to make the game easier and better for new and small players.


Posted By: BrianN
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 21:51
"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. "
See: Solanar's post
 
"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"
So instead your solution is to force PvP players to not play PvP and in the long run killing the PvP player base.
 
"Besides that, why should those alliances be forced to do PVP when they do not want to?"
Why should PvP alliances be forced to not do pvp?
 
"Why do not give the players the choice to play what they want?"
See above
 
You are entitled to your opinions Thirion, and we are entitled to point out the massive flaws in it.  "To make it clear, i am not talking about any suggestions about PVP. "  But what you are doing will effect PvP.  Everything is interconnected, and to call for a complete change to the fundamental state of the game simply because one alliance shifted who they are warring against is an overreaction of the highest order...and its imposing your will over everyone else.
 
Wartow: That would be great, if purely PvE people could be protected, but the problem is that a lot of the big PvE accounts are simply for supporting PvP beyond the 2 account rule.


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 22:50
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

I am sorry for my suggestion. I hereby retract it.


Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

I agree. I have some ideas i am going to post but got distracted a few days ago.

Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

To make it clear, i am not talking about any suggestions about PVP. I am going to stay out of PVP.

I was talking about some ideas/suggestions i have to make the game easier and better for new and small players.


I am sorry if i upset any player.

Edit: The discussion is finished from my side. The topic can be closed.


Posted By: Gry
Date Posted: 19 Jun 2021 at 19:21

PvP is not broken in Illy, the economy is, in the sense there’s not enough to fight about: we have unlimited resources, distributed game wide, with unlimited forever storage, and land claims mean very little. So people invent stupid reasons to fight (and post about them dishonestly) and that generates bad feelings. And the resulting boy-drama is a turn-off to players who might otherwise be interested in combat dynamics, planning, etc. but instead get labelled things like ‘PvE’ and excluded. Faction-play and tourneys are inviting to a broader set of players, and given some time may produce real shifts both in views and habits. If you want more players involved actively in PvP, make it more appealing. Not every player who thinks you’re a jerk is only interested in making saddles.


Opt-out solves no problem to me. I’d rather see a cap on storage and some resources redistribution.



Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2021 at 05:10
The original plan for The Broken Lands, prior to its release, was to have an area (Verten?) that would not have a PvP element. The developers fast-tracked the release of Broken Lands and left out that along with some other features. They left out the PvP-free zones because it was "quite easy to avoid combat", and decided that in combination with player feedback and difficulty in coding the PvP-free zones would not be released. It would be interesting to hear their thoughts on the issue five plus years later.

http://www.illyriad.co.uk/BrokenLands/FrequentlyAskedQuestions" rel="nofollow - https://www.illyriad.co.uk/BrokenLands/FrequentlyAskedQuestions



Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2021 at 09:03
Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:


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.


Just to follow up on this one, the Terraforming option was always intended by the DEVS to create a versatile playground and to alter various places on the map to your advantage as a player, should you choose to indulge in paying for TF's or doing it yourself. Making all the squares 7food around your towns might be a bit much, but it is still an intention by the creators of the game so you as a player can maximize your income taxes to an optimal level

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


The pvp bubble still exists.

Originally posted by Thirion Thirion wrote:

According to Grom it doesn't. And thats my problem.

Grom is a big player and has a lot of leverage to move around with his diplomatic relations and attitude. Still, he is not the only player in the PvP scene with that kind of leverage, he just uses it very intelligently and bargains/makes deals where he sees fit, to accommodate his members in TCol, so that they can have the maximum fun. 
One player in this game can accomplish a lot more by chatting and talking to other players, than in pretty much any other game that I know about. The fact still remains that the bubble exists, since otherwise we are all aware that the game would suffer tremendously, and we don't want that.

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.



-------------

PublicRelations
HumanResources


Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2021 at 09:16
Good point Rill. It was a hefty discussion at the time. 
The region in TBL called Kingslands was the original (and only place) that the PvP-Free Zone would be implemented by the way.

Here's a little snippet from the FAQ about TBL

Q: What happened to the proposed PvP-free Protected Zone? 

As we have been developing the Broken Lands, we discussed in great length the possibility that the PvP-free zones might not be in the best interest of the game. On top of that, coding these zones was proving to be problematic (to say the least.) It’s also quite easy to avoid combat in Illyriad, or to survive combat with the help of your friends or alliance mates. We also paid attention to player discussions on the topic and, in the end, decided that leaving the PvP-free zones out of the new land was the best decision.

----
I also found this one quite interesting :D

Q: How do the new Quests work on the Broken Lands?

Soon after The Broken Lands launch (once players and cities have begun settling in) a new Quest arc will begin – a series of interlinked Quests which will run for several months. Individual players and Alliances will be presented with choices, where they can investigate, scout, thieve, attack, defend, and raid through an evolving story arc. This is not simply following instructions or doing what the Quest text tells you. It is about making choices. There will be little consequences and small rewards along the way, and then at the end the continent will be permanently changed by the players' combined actions. This is a new continent. The Quests allow you to explore it, and change it.

Cool! I think this should happen although it might be reserved for AoA now. I think all the time is going to developing that right now, which is how it should be; since the team is so small and I want to play AoA as well as Illyriad. 


-------------

PublicRelations
HumanResources


Posted By: Thirion
Date Posted: 20 Jun 2021 at 09:40
As i said i am done with this topic and not going to engange in discussions about PVP in this game again. I had to write something about the following thing though ;)

Originally posted by DeliciousJosh DeliciousJosh wrote:

One player in this game can accomplish a lot more by chatting and talking to other players, than in pretty much any other game that I know about.

I used to play multiple (German-)PVP browser games 15-20 years ago when i was young (when there was no P2W component back then, e.g. "Inselkampf", "Die Stämme"/"Tribal Wars" or "Second Home"). Those games usually had 30-50 active alliances (with 30-100 members each) and leader diplomacy was a really important part of the game. Otherwise you and your alliance got completely wiped out. Would suck if games like that do not exist anymore - i had a lot of fun playing them at the time.


Posted By: DeliciousJosh
Date 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


Posted By: eowan the short
Date 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.


-------------
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...


Posted By: Mordok
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2021 at 22:27
lol...after 10 years of game play and still same discussion :-)

https://wisdomofkurdruk.wordpress.com/2012/10/15/when-wargamers-and-farmers-fight/" rel="nofollow -


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




Posted By: Thirion
Date 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.


Posted By: Hyrdmoth
Date 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.


Posted By: Sif
Date 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


Posted By: Snagglepuss
Date 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. 


Posted By: Wartow
Date 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?


-------------


Posted By: eowan the short
Date 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...


Posted By: Snagglepuss
Date 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 


Posted By: Fanuidhol
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2021 at 11:20
Free Danger Russ! Beer


Posted By: Wartow
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2021 at 15:20
Originally posted by Fanuidhol Fanuidhol wrote:

Free Danger Russ! Beer

All of Illy shares the same thoughts on this Independence Day -> No.


-------------


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2021 at 18:34
Originally posted by Snagglepuss Snagglepuss wrote:

Then, in your own words, no coalitions are necessary… We should all just quit??

Yes, you should quit if you are such an egomaniac that the idea of a game not entirely revolving around you is too much to handle.





-------------
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...


Posted By: Snagglepuss
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2021 at 21:25
Then Eowan, I guess I won’t quit because, sadly for your ego, the game does revolve around me. I am pretty sure it’s your lack of understanding this and your own inadequacy that leads you to wish you were me…. It’s a vain effort, But you can keep trying 🙃


Posted By: eowan the short
Date Posted: 04 Jul 2021 at 22:05
lol

-------------
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...


Posted By: Angrim
Date Posted: 07 Jul 2021 at 04:58
the problem with the OP is that this has already been floated and DEVS found opt-in pvp unworkable. players who have been here long enough will remember that the original Broken Lands design was to have split the new continent into pvp and non-pvp zones, but allowing players to reside in a non-pvp zone but still build armies and otherwise participate in the game led to a myriad of possible exploits and issues. if those issues were solvable at all (which i rather doubt), at least they required an effort which ultimately was more than DEVS felt the game justified. somewhere there is a thread on it, but imagine for a moment the sort of bad behavior one might get up to if a player need have no fear of a military response. even non-pvp players benefit from an environment in which military action is a conceivable outcome.

i rather like (and have always liked) the idea of hiring added muscle from local factions, just because it adds a bit of depth and gives the factions something meaningful to do. but here irl, it is apparent DEVS have little interest in new illyriad projects, so i doubt it will come to much more than a thought experiment.


Posted By: Small Boy
Date Posted: 15 Jul 2021 at 16:06
My alliance is not PvP by any means. And I generally indulge in banter, but stay civil enough to avoid causing any conflict. But I also understand that there is no single best way of playing Illy. 
I would rather focus on good city placement, building up troop capability and defending myself, because that seems to be the way to keep playing. That and storing stuff in hubs.
But these are just my personal views.
Also, do you think there is going to be significant work done on Illy any more, unless it is a major glitch? I highly doubt it might happen.



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net