Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - The disappointment of a warring newbie.
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedThe disappointment of a warring newbie.

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 11>
Author
Cleopatra View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster
Avatar

Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 35
Direct Link To This Post Topic: The disappointment of a warring newbie.
    Posted: 29 Jun 2012 at 07:57
I am also very new to Illy, and have to say that I was also taken aback a bit by the anti-pvp attitude I found in the game when I started. It DOES seem a little bit like all building and no fighting.  But I am very new, so I decided to wait a bit before making a judgement on the pvp environment of the game since it is possible that I simply do not have a full understanding of the game yet.

Reading through this thread, however, I am a little bemused by the mindset that PvP has to be either a nasty, trolling, noob ganking free for all, or an activity that is only engaged in very seldomly with the mutual consent of both parties.  I totally agree that turning the game into a noob farming bullyfest would be an awful idea, and that maintaining the friendly, helpful atmosphere is important. But there are ways of setting up RTS games that let you have the best of both worlds.

For example, there is a game that I played for several years that is set up by dividing players into 2 different "factions."  Factions in the game I am talking about are really just two different teams that have the exact same stats, resources, etc.  The teams are completely equal in every game mechanic.  Which team you pick only affects which side of the map you belong to.  The map is divided up into 3 equal sections, with one team assigned to each of the outside ends, and a "warzone" section placed in between them.  PvP is always "on" everywhere, so anyone can attack you at any time, but the goal of PvP is to try and take over the ownership of the majority of the warzone. Players within each faction can fight amongst themselves, but they don't really do so.  For the most part, everyone works together to help out the newer alliances  and players within their own alliance build up, and saves their aggression for the warzone.  It is theoretically possible to attack the opposing faction within their homeland area, but players cannot even get into the enemy homeland unless they "own" a giant section of the warzone map all the way across it, and that almost never happens, so for the most part all PvP occurs within the warzone.  There is nothing that forces anyone to ever enter the warzone if they do not want to, and many players never do so, preferring to support other players on their side with troops and resources instead.  Noobs don't get farmed, because each team wants to build up the playerbase on their side of the map to have more people to help fight the other team, and you can't get to the other team's noobs in order to farm them.  Basically, you have two populations of players who act just like the people in illyriad currently do, helping new players grow and teaching them how to play, and all PvP occurs in a middle ground that you enter at your own risk.  Even in the rare instances where one faction or the other does break through the map, they get cut off from reinforcements extremely quickly by the losing side making a surge and taking a ton of the map back. And anyone who is running around attacking people on the enemy team in their homeland has to deal with TONS of players attacking them.  If they attack a noob, a bazillion vets will descend on them as soon as the noob complains in gen chat, which generally leads to the attacker being knocked back to the other side of the map where they belong.  The system lets players have both a stable environment to grow in, and a place to compete with each other once a player feels ready to enter the warzone.  You are never in danger of being annhilated (unless your dumb enough to send everything you ever made into the warzone), and if you lose to much you have a safe place to retreat to while you rebuild.  The game is mostly a cycle of building, going PvPing, then pulling back and rebuilding.  Anyone trolling on one side or the other will get wiped out by the combined faction for being annoying and harming the group dynamics of the faction. Chats for the two teams are kept separate, so you don't get a bunch of bashing on the other team going on either.  And actually the war is such an ongoing thing that people are competitive with each other, but not really nasty.  There were many chat groups set up in external applications such as palringo where the factions could converse with each other, and people would rib each other over victories they won that day, but it was really rather good natured in general.  Being to nasty would concentrate to many players focusing on you, and getting attacked by 100 people or more was not something most people wanted to provoke.  

Now, I am not trying to promote another game by telling you all of this.   The game I am talking about was FAR from perfect.  Most of it's issues stemmed from the developer having a back habit of selling things like hacks or troops to players in back door deals, though, and not from any problem that the game mechanics actually caused.  It had potential to be an awesome game, but the corruption that goes on in it makes it not one I would actually recommend playing. I'd actually advise against it. lol.

I am just saying that if you get creative with how you set PvP up, it doesn't have to be a ganking, trolling, camping, bullyfest.  There are ways of balancing everything so that you can have your cake and eat it to.  :)
Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2012 at 00:54
oh, well that's alright then
Back to Top
geofrey View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2012 at 00:20
he thanked me by destroying the blockade of his city!

Back to Top
Rill View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar
Player Council - Geographer

Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Location: California
Status: Offline
Points: 6903
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 26 Jun 2012 at 00:02
I think someone already did send an attack.  He did not post a thank-you note though.  Ungrateful newbs ...

Wink


Edited by Rill - 26 Jun 2012 at 00:04
Back to Top
twilights View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 21 May 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 915
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2012 at 17:09
it could be that the current game systems deter warfare also, its kindof a shame, so many parts of the game are not played, if some changes were made by the devs maybe there would be more warfare without the threat of losing so much time invested in building, maybe raids can be hidden or some other sort of enhance current feature or added feature? i vote the game have more sneaky attack functions than the current ones, almost all dip attacks are detected, u see things coming from afar like raids, this area of play could really be alot of fun if easy changes were made, we have alliance prestige pools now, maybe features could be added that cost prestige...which i add is given out free each day and can be earned by recuiting new players to the game and by winning tournaments.....some warfare is needed to make the game less static, more interesting
Back to Top
Rorgash View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 23 Aug 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 894
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2012 at 15:56
its politics not just fun bashing, which is why i like this game more then tribal wars and travian where newb bashing is a daily chore to gain you a few more towns.

i skipped 8 pages of this thread because well i just did sue me...

anyhow, this isnt a game for you, if you start a all out war and die you die, you lose a year worth of town building, not just some troops and a few building levels.

and Rill why dont you send me some cash and i will send a siege camp his way if he isnt too far away Thumbs Up
Back to Top
Berylla View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith
Avatar

Joined: 31 May 2011
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 121
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 Jun 2012 at 11:35
If I want to smash armies, I play a game on my computer, against the computer.

Illy IS like life - different people with different agendas, chosing their paths.

When I was lucky enough to so early get to peek behind the scene of a powerful alliances, the game really became as complex as I wanted it to be. That is something no AI can really provide.
I speak peace, but carry a war axe.
Back to Top
The_Dude View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General


Joined: 06 Apr 2010
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2012 at 22:02
Bel,

Well said.  I, too, have seen similarities in Game of Thrones as you have noted.

Betrayal is certainly a significant component of Illy (as in RL.) - from both within an alliance as well as between alliances.  I think we have some shared experience with this.  Ouch

Words mean nothing.  Action is everything.  Stand for your own principles and let the chips fall where they may.
Back to Top
belargyle View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2010
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Points: 401
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 23 Jun 2012 at 21:14
Originally posted by Gilthoniel Gilthoniel wrote:

Hmm... High King Belargyle's post set me thinking. I always liked his imagination and the way he applied it to his Alliance  - The Dwarven Lords. He argues that this game is far more complex than it appears at first sight and that the  gameplay is far more focussed on interrogation of those complexities and the setting of objectives based on the circumstances  that the game presents.

Actually I disagree, but I will be the first to admit that his imagination is closer to the latest concepts in game design than mine. Listen to this podcast by Mitu Khandaker first broadcast on BBC radio four this week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/fourthought

(I'll bet the fires are burning bright within the hearths of the Hall of the High King tonight Wink)

LOL.. fires do burn brightly in the Dwarven Halls :)

In truth many see it your way, though I'm not exactly sure your playing style many in that proverbial boat are looking to only fight (squash armies and towns), trade grow, then yes they miss the other complexities of the game - this kind of playing is typically toward a singular interest and mind set and in order to enjoy it the game itself needs to be geared in the majority toward this concept. Nothing wrong with this kind of gaming but it misses the fullness of the concept design of 'this' game which desires to go beyond a singular interest.

Thus the other aspects of the game come into play only once you step outside of what I consider singular-concept playing. For instance, in becoming an alliance leader, or part of that alliances upper leadership, a person finds out that alliances are tricky and small schemes of various sorts of being breathed in quiet corners. While you build your alliance, you note that population is one thing but gives you no real credibility in the global community and as such you find that your reputation is more than just a by-word.  As you grow in this you again notice that the more intense you alliance becomes in moving up in the ranks (vai population size, inter-activity,and other things) you realize there are schemes of all types to maneuver and manipulate the game mechanics, alliances, people, ect... and you must now determine what you will do such information, or if the information is false to test your integrity or commitments. As you continue you realize these little schemes grow larger, more complex, and much more dangerous.. and commitments signed in the proverbial blood... but traitors still lie in the wait. Information is Key to any future or coordinated alliance function (war or otherwise) and you begin to notice you have some information is being leaked, though most isn't significant you realize you now have a spy!

It goes on from there depending how invested you desire to be, your end goals for yourself and your alliance, overall game play, ect...  And if you desire to change game mechanics you either need to come along side those who are perceived as controllers/popular (that depends on your perspective  Shocked ) and gain influence and political power to convince them they need to change an move in a different direction... or possibly gaining political or maybe backing for an over throw.

There is always different views but I like the fact you can create a world you wish IF you are willing to "play the game" in it's many and varied aspects. (But that is me Big smile )

Edited by belargyle - 23 Jun 2012 at 21:15
Back to Top
Gilthoniel View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2011
Location: Cuiviénen
Status: Offline
Points: 211
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Jun 2012 at 13:31
Hmm... High King Belargyle's post set me thinking. I always liked his imagination and the way he applied it to his Alliance  - The Dwarven Lords. He argues that this game is far more complex than it appears at first sight and that the  gameplay is far more focussed on interrogation of those complexities and the setting of objectives based on the circumstances  that the game presents.

Actually I disagree, but I will be the first to admit that his imagination is closer to the latest concepts in game design than mine. Listen to this podcast by Mitu Khandaker first broadcast on BBC radio four this week.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/fourthought

(I'll bet the fires are burning bright within the hearths of the Hall of the High King tonight Wink)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 11>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd.