NOTE: This is not about whether Illyriad needs pvp. As a mechanic, it's incredibly useful. This is about whether there needs to be a pvp scene, that is a group of alliances who are dedicated pvpers and fight wars constantly.
In a number of recent arguments, I have seen the pvp scene called essential to the game. However, I'm not sure whether this is true.
All other things being equal, a pvp scene is a good thing. More viable playstyles means the game has more players, which in turn means that it gets more funding. However, this does not mean that it is a necessary to the game. I'm going to break down the necessity of a pvp scene into two parts; the necessity in funding the game, and the necessity in maintain gameplay.
When it comes to funding the game, I do not have the required information to make a judgement call either way. Only the devs have access to logs of who is buying and using prestige. However, I do believe that the non-pvp sector of the game are significant purchasers and consumers of prestige. 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.
When it comes to markets, the one area where pvpers supposedly contribute positively to the non-pvpers gameplay is their role as consumers of goods. The logic being that the production of troops for pvp is the main driver of demand in the markets. However, this does not hold up for two reasons; tournaments, and stalemates.
The tournaments mean that now a large portion of the non-pvp playerbase now regularly consume troop building resources in order to create armies, which are then expended in tournaments. The influence of the non-pvpers on the markets has been enough to finally make leather armour economically viable to produce, something that years of wars hadn't achieved.
Part of the reason for the lack of effect on the market from wars is that in recent years they have entered a stalemate. The huge defensive advantage given by tight clustering, landclaims, and an all plains strategy makes large active alliance clusters almost impregnable via conventional means. This means that fewer troops are actually killed in wars, as sieges are costly with a slim chance of success.
Given that non-pvpers are likely the largest consumers of prestige and equipment, this does draw into question the necessity of a pvp scene. Without concrete prestige consumption/purchasing figures, this is largely speculative, and I doubt the devs would ever release that. However, I do feel that these arguments against the necessity of a pvp scene do hold merit.
------------- 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...
|