1on1 PvP??
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Miscellaneous
Forum Name: The Caravanserai
Forum Description: A place to just chat about whatever takes your fancy, whether it's about Illyriad or not.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=3624
Printed Date: 16 Apr 2022 at 22:05
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: 1on1 PvP??
Posted By: Createure
Subject: 1on1 PvP??
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2012 at 18:09
|
Here's a notion. If I opened a challenge for ANY member of the top 200 overall rankings to engage in a fun, 1 on 1 PvP match with me would anyone accept? (friends+confeds+allies included - though personally I would find this more interesting if it was against someone who does not normally inhabit the same spheres as myself) [or to anyone else I deemed capable of putting up a tough fight due to past performances in tournaments etc. - we all know a lot of what the rankings represent is complete s**t] Would that even be possible? Is there any way in which this could feasibly work? My thinking is that there would HAVE to be certain rules or I think very few people would accept. From my own perspective I reckon it would be most fun if there were as few rules as possible. A couple of obvious ones from the top of my head: - no 3rd party attacks against opponent's cities or occupations - no 3rd diplo/magic attacks against opponent's cities (more difficult to monitor in a way... though sustained actions of this kind would be very obvious over time) - no 'building demolisher' units in siege camps/attacks. - a limited time-frame?? (or alternatively just continue until one side flies the white flag - then both parties must cease all operations) The 'no catapult' rule basically means that the risk is limited to armies+resources, without risking your account. Of course I would say sieges in general would/should be encourage since I see them as a fun and important part of PvP play. The end result of a successful seige would basically be the loss of your city walls. Personally I would mind losing all my city walls. Infact I can imagine counting levels of City Wall lost, or numbers of cities which have had successful sieges placed against them as a way of 'scoring' / deciding a victor at the end of a certain time-frame or once one side flies the white flag - since clearly the number of walls lost would be a clear indicator of the actual amount each person would have lost in a real full-on PvP fight. Obviously things like resource shipments from allies/alts would be impossible to monitor or prevent but I guess that would just have to be part of it. And I guess distance would play an important part in such a mini-contest. If I opened a challenge like this I would obviously preference someone based within ~500 squares of me over someone ~1000 squares away. What would be the point in/goals of a challenge like this? I see a few: - Firstly, the simple glory of winning, assuming some kind of point system was agreed on (see comment about walls above) - Secondly, a learning experience - seriously how often does any of us get to play with siege mechanics? - Troop upkeep is too high? I don't know about anyone else but personally I would get A LOT more satisfaction losing my armies to something like this than doing the usual pointless+mundane NPC farming drag, disbanding troops, a long march to Audrey or simply capping/stopping all unit production. What do you guys think? [N.B. I'm not actually making a challenge right now - just opening discussion... if thoughts on it are positive I will possibly open a challenge in 2-3 weeks once my exams are finished] P.S. I welcome comments from any level player, though if you are opposed to the idea - remember I did not force you to read this post and unconstructive criticism/opposition will be stoically ignored. |
Replies:
Posted By: The Duke
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2012 at 18:25
|
I personally love the idea and have also implemented this tact myself, it helps keep you interacted besides the mundane build build build, que up 65 days worth of troops. Build build.....You get the idea. We have a few ppl who like the PvP aspect of things and I dont think you see enough of it. Thats why everyone begs for another tourney 3 weeks after we just had one. I think its a great Idea. Id like to place a wagers on the 1 on 1 battle as well, so when this gets set up if anyones interested in a bet. IGM me. Ill follow the post for awhile and see if it takes off ------------- "Our generation has had no Great Depression, no Great War. Our war is spiritual. Our depression is our lives." |
Posted By: Brids17
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2012 at 18:44
|
I have thought about something like this for a while now. I really like the idea of destroying walls. It'd be great to still allow some kind of siege without really destroying a whole lot of hard work. I mostly keep putting it off because I think to myself "maybe I should build up some more troops first" but that's becoming an endless excuse lol. You wouldn't need to necessarily find someone who is your own size though. If a population 30k player wanted to do it, you could just agree to only use say two 15k pop cities of yours. It wouldn't be entirely fair but it would open up the potential number of people willing to do it. Plus you could make rules based on that as well, each player can only use one city or have X number of resources in the participating cities (so it'd become less about I have 100k of each resource and more about strategy and maybe commander level). So basically there's a lot of room experimentation and different rule sets. I think the main thing would be finding someone who you trust. At least that'd be it for me. I wouldn't want to try to do it with someone who I don't know or might cheat or use things we agreed we wouldn't. It'd take the fun out of it and it might just end up starting an all out fight. But I guess you could both agree before hand that breaking the rules would have consequences. Aside from that, figuring out how to see who "wins" could be difficult. Bringing down all the walls in participating cities is one way, or I suppose if it was full of siege it could be first to lose a city or something like that. Oh! Attack and defend! The attacking player needs to bring down the defending guys walls in X number of days or the defender wins. Something like that could be cool and would help give people experience in both roles. Or if you really trusted the person you could make a no resurrecting commanders rule, so once one guy is out of commanders, he loses. It would reinforce the important of scouting and could be quite strategic.
|
Posted By: Createure
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2012 at 19:01
|
Honestly I would not even consider offering a challenge like this to a player far below me (in terms of potential strength)... there are more than enough players around who could be a good match and I want to test my total strength against someone else in a proper contest, not just using a handful of cities. For a start I doubt anyone would really accept a challenge from me unless they thought they had a shot at beating me. If much less developed players wished to participate in/setup an challenge like this themselves then would be welcome to copy the format of my idea with my blessing and advice should they ask for it. Also probably more importantly - more rules equals more limitation and less fun, and opens up a bigger can of "you broke the rules" worms. In terms of penalty for breaking the rules... in my eyes it is very simple... if an ally of a player I was fighting destroyed an army of mine, or got caught assassinating a commander or stealing from me or anything then I would simply call the contest off - simple as that - there is no point even thinking about trying to enforce any real penalties within the boundaries of a fun contest. But yeh I guess the main point is the 'for fun' part. I do not expect anyone to even think about accepting a challenge unless they would see it as a simple 'for fun' fight and as such I think it would be pretty easy to trust people to stick to any rules agreed upon. edit: apologies for the walls of text... I'll try and keep it short and snappy from now on ^^ |
Posted By: Garth
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2012 at 20:08
|
Nice to see someone of great standing publicly pushing ahead with this idea. In the smattering of PvP-themed posts that occurred a few weeks ago, I thought quite in depth about different forms of 1 on 1 competitions. There are practically an unlimited number of ways to set up PvP, which is why I was surprised there were so few ideas that came out. And I do appreciate someone putting their troops where their mouth is. So, the only guideline I think would be essential to most players is to delineate what portion of troops can be used. The main reason for this is I don't want to use half my troops in a really fun PvP, only to have a Tourney spring up (or war...) before I can rebuild. For that reason, when I approach someone about PvP, I will probably suggest either a 1 or 2 town limit, or simply a percentage of total troops (10-15%, maybe) that we both use. And yes, I think it would be amazing to see some high-profile matches that the community could bet on or at least treat like a sports match; for example, after the Snugglers were Stalwart-walloped in Tourney V by both Kilotov and SmokingGNU, I have this fantasy of seeing the two of them face off ;)
|
Posted By: Sloter
Date Posted: 02 Jun 2012 at 21:52
| I also have though on this subject many times but i never posted on it due to many limitations i came acros when ever i thought of that.I think that Creatures idea is good.Also as Garth pointed out maybe there is room for some sort of limitation on number of troops/wall siege weapons that could be used, i know that for me idea of using all troops and then spending months to retrain is just way too much.I have done it so many times and it a real pain.Creature is right when he said that rules should be as simple as posible but maybe there is enough room to put some sort of limitation to troop number that should be used, i know i dont want to lose some 150k and then spend 2-3 months training those.Maybe some sort of index or something should be made, for exmpl total of lets say for exmpl 10 mill stats (and with stats i mean all off and all def battle points per unit put together) should be limit, so each player can chose how much cavalry, archer or spears or infantry he wants to use (as long as they are within limits of designated total battles stats set for PvP, that would make competition equal for all races)....or something like that....maybe we can make some sort of championship that would last for few months with semi-finals and finals.Just an idea.I am fairly drunk at the moment so i cant way to read my post when hungover is ...over, maybe i will delete it if it is idiotic |
Posted By: Myr
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2012 at 02:29
|
I like it, as soon as I recover from the current beating I am taking in the mini-tournament I would be up to something like this. I know there are others in my alliance that would be interested also. Might be nice to have a section of the forums where players of all sizes can advertise for a sparring partner. Mine would read:
Elven female with 10 cities searching for fun-loving male or female for short term war-games. Will consider small group experience. Few rules required, just a clean and honorable battle wanted. |
Posted By: Mr Damage
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2012 at 05:09
|
Lol, I like the advert Myr, Createure I'm up for it and I don't care too much for the rules, I'm prepared to lose everything if thats what it takes. Fun or more so "Military Fun" is the one thing that is severely lacking so if you're interested then contact me in game. Although I'm not fussed about losing a city or even all of them, I understand that you may not want to lose everything but I'm sure we can work something out, I'm not intent on destroying anyone, your idea is a good one and it should be acted upon. I'm happy to agree on the rules first, cheating isn't something that satisfies my competitiveness so you have no concerns there and I aint too proud to acknowledge defeat nor congratulate the victor. Hope to hear from you soon, Mr D
|
Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2012 at 15:32
|
Now this is an interesting topic. I like esspecially the no-builing demolishers rule. That way no one can complain they lose to much. Max loss is limited except for units, resources and gold. Those can all be replaced quite fast. Maybe the two parties can agree on some sort of payment the losing side has to make. Say 10m gold. I wouldn't like a max number of units or a set date for the battle to end. Just go on until one surrenders. That will happen fast enough once he/she's clearly on the losing side. At least I would surrender before all my resources/troops were gone (or if I get bored with it). I can see problems when it comes to prestige. Personally I say: don't use it at all during the challenge. But that's because I don't have any money to spend.  Some agreement about prestige is nessecary. About the distance between two sides: Best would be within 200 squares. That way magic can also be used. Otherwise it wouldn't matter much to me if it's 500 or 1000 squares. A long distance makes it harder to time your attacks (which is a good thing in my opinion). It can also be interesting to have an enemy in a certain biome. I would love some PvP so if any 8 town player is interested: send IGM.
|
Posted By: Nokigon
Date Posted: 03 Jun 2012 at 19:55
| I would do it, although I'm small so it would have to be a restricted battle. |
Posted By: Jorcle
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2012 at 17:15
| Sounds good, One day in a year or two I will be happy to have a go. Until then there just seems so much still to do. |
Posted By: geofrey
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2012 at 20:37
It is all about resources! the loosing party has the opposing army steal all of their resources! No need for gold payment. The fight would be called off when one side says "Ok, you win, i can't afford to loose any more troops trying to win back my resources, please don't attack me anymore, and keep the resources" |
Corwin wrote:Posted By: Corwin
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2012 at 21:12
| That wouldn't work, as one can ship all advanced resources out of their towns or put them on the market for ridiculous prizes. That way you can fight for a long time without losing anything but troops. A game is always more fun when there's something to win. The side that gives up can have more resources stolen from the winning side, so that way the winning side won't have any satisfaction. Offcourse the gold can also be replaced for an amount of resources which the participants would agree on. |
Posted By: KillerPoodle
Date Posted: 08 Jun 2012 at 21:30
You can only put as many resources on the market as you have caravans for and any decent sized city produces more resources than you can easily ship off with the limited number of vans you can build. ------------- "This is a bad idea and we shouldn't do it." - endorsement by HM "a little name-calling is a positive thing." - Rill |
Posted By: Rill
Date Posted: 09 Jun 2012 at 05:38
| Resources on the market are not protected from thieves. |
Posted By: Bonaparta
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 12:54
|
Creature, I accept your sparring challenge. We orcs can't stay idle for long. Now that BSH-LWO war is over my combat units are getting bored. They need to fight and killing rats, dogs and other NPC's just isn't a challenge. Creature, if you are interested in 1 on 1 mini war, send me an ingame mail with details...
|
Posted By: Gilthoniel
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 14:30
Ok Create. Your up man! Just a few rules: 1. No biting; 2. No scratching and definitely; 3. No " Nuances of Thievery"  ...and may the best Ork.... ewww you get the picture  ps if she sends you a cow you had better run  |
Posted By: Bonaparta
Date Posted: 14 Jun 2012 at 15:59
What? No biting? I'm disappointed  But as long as I'm allowed to annihilate, eradicate, eliminate, wipe out, decimate, extinguish, massacre, slaughter, butcher, lapidate, dispatch, exterminate, suffocate, asphyxiate, impale, murder, lynch, execute, strangle, decapitate, dismember, vaporize, poison, assassinate or shed blood of his units, I'll be fine
|