Play Now Login Create Account
illyriad
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - PvP / Ascn War
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

PvP / Ascn War

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Solanar View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 310
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Solanar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: PvP / Ascn War
    Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 15:39
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. 

Back to Top
Solanar View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 11 Jan 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 310
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Solanar Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 15:36
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. 
Back to Top
lorre View Drop Down
Forum Warrior
Forum Warrior
Avatar

Joined: 29 Jun 2010
Location: Groot Kortrijk
Status: Offline
Points: 446
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lorre Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 Jun 2021 at 11:25
The whole thing reads as if pvp simply is not popular enough to sustain, wich should be no suprise to anyone in most games pve players massivly outnumber pvp players. In most games pve players will actively avoid pvp players due to ganking ie pile ons.it is always the same justifications aswell, "you do not like it go play farmville" or "pvp is much more fun and challenging" or "pvp is more strategic" 

So what is the plan here? Attack unwilling pve players driving them out of the game potentially? Leaving your declining pvp economics in a worse state then before? Or maybe the idea is to force them to pay gold so you wont force people in pvp. A bit like a protection racket? 

Ofcourse you could counter if the pvp crowd doesnt get what they want they will leave, it would be less of a loss then the pve side of things. Many games have gone under when the devs did whatever the loud pvp minority wanted and the pve players left. 

Let us hope the devs take the suggestion seriously to make opt in pvp, both sides will be happy then right? Or is it like so many other pvpers whenbpush comes to shove youd rather fight pve playsrs rather then other pvp players? You can easelly identify pvp participants and can even agree to scale down your conflicts making them more equal and challenging, wich i hear is one of the main reasons one might enjoy pvp, and pve players can be left alone to focus on wichever aspect they prefer.

I have tried to return to here on multiple occasions, i just can not with the way the "pvp" alliances likes yours have changed the game and in my oppinion not in a good way.
The battlefield is a scene of constant chaos. The winner will be the one who controls that chaos, both his own and the enemies.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Back to Top
Ruarc View Drop Down
Greenhorn
Greenhorn
Avatar

Joined: 04 Dec 2015
Status: Offline
Points: 61
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ruarc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 23:24
Originally posted by Grom Grom wrote:

The obligatory goldburn, the stalemates of plains meta, and the distance between the willing alliances led to an ever diminishing player base. In short, my members, and those of likeminded alliances, are keeping up always net-negative economies to pay for participation in the aspect of the game they enjoy most (pvp), but seeing ever fewer action for their efforts. Even when we win wars, there's little return of cost made, because the other side runs the same economy. 

The other part of the game, the traders, the hunters, the enormous alliances filled with massive inactive goldfarms, i.e. everything Ascn represents, meanwhile grows richer and richer. Partly by directly profiting from the demand created by the PvP players (market manipulation), partially because they can afford to not run troops in the relative safety of opt-in pvp.

In short, a situation evolved in which wealth flowed continuously from the "pvp bubble" to the "non-pvp bubble". Which is, in itself, not a problem. But because of the opt-in mentality to pvp, the return flow of wealth, usually represented by surrender payments, was non existent. 

 
Huh.
 
 
My ramblings follow, but "huh" kinda sums it up.
 
This is not exactly the most interesting or compelling rationale for pvp that the playerbase has ever had. Landclaims, thunderdome, faction play, hunting tournaments, targeting alliances that do well in tournaments etc are all much more interesting and mostly more accepting of non-pvp playstyles. 

Obviously the bit that's rather uncomfortable about this is that it's being forced on players who have no interest in pvp, and that is a bit of a sea change. It's a bit meh "morally". 

Also, the whole flow of gold from pvp to non-pvp thing is just not compelling. We all spend our gold however we want, some burn it into the ether holding troops, others save it, some put it in gear, etc etc. End of the day though, that's neither here nor there.

On the basis that forcing a reasonable gold payment from ASCN is the end goal and ASCN can peace out reasonably quickly by just paying gold this is not the worst idea ever. You'll presumably want to raze some cities because you're doing this for the pvp aspect of the game, and not because you actually want to just burn their gold on troops you're not using. However, assuming the terms are reasonable it's not actually that objectionable an idea.
  
Obviously that changes if the terms are unreasonable, folk start getting newb-ringed, particular alliances/people are subject to repeated or extended extortions, etc.
 
I'm kinda curious to know if you would prefer them to fight back or offer enough gold early on to agree peace.
Back to Top
Jejune View Drop Down
Postmaster General
Postmaster General
Avatar

Joined: 10 Feb 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 1013
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (3) Thanks(3)   Quote Jejune Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 15:23
Grom, should the server expect additional war declarations, based on your casus belli

While I understand it is your position that Ascn exemplifies this "disparity" between PvP and PvE, there are manifold other alliances that would fit this characterization as well. Will Ascn alone bear the brunt of this initiative, or will other similarly-formed alliances be targeted in due course?

Back to Top
Grom View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 29 Sep 2017
Location: Mal Motsha
Status: Offline
Points: 167
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 15:01
Originally posted by Smopecakes Smopecakes wrote:

Dlords have received a request about joining out of the war from an Ascn player and I thought it would be helpful to ask the policy here regarding war runners / surrenders so more players can know. We advised the player to request to surrender. Should we assume any player wishing to drop out of the war should negotiate a surrender first?

We have some differing opinions on the war but I am sure Belegar Ironhammer has a positive outlook on it from his place in RL, heh

Individual surrenders have always been part of war. Grace period is suspended to avoid an exodus of farms. But each player that contacts me, or any other confed alliance leader, will be discussed and offered terms. 
Back to Top
Smopecakes View Drop Down
New Poster
New Poster


Joined: 14 Apr 2017
Status: Offline
Points: 31
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Smopecakes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 14:55
Dlords have received a request about joining out of the war from an Ascn player and I thought it would be helpful to ask the policy here regarding war runners / surrenders so more players can know. We advised the player to request to surrender. Should we assume any player wishing to drop out of the war should negotiate a surrender first?

We have some differing opinions on the war but I am sure Belegar Ironhammer has a positive outlook on it from his place in RL, heh
Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 14:32
Which is true, but entirely beside the point. Gold currently flow in one direction, from pvp to pve. This is the case because of a mentality of  opt-in pvp. 

The point is, that in previous times, non-pvp alliances were generally left alone. And yet pvp apparently was in a better state than it is now, by your own admission. It seems like this might not be the driving factor in a shrinking pvp scene.

Also true. Buying up the entire spear market to drive up the price, is, however, market manipulation. 

That's not what your original point said at all. It was  'Partly by directly profiting from the demand created by the PvP players (market manipulation)' 

Driving up prices generally isn't profitable as it involves buying large amounts of goods in a market with no barriers to entry. The recent trend increases in prices are due to higher demand from the non-pvp sector. Market manipulation is done during wars, because guess what? Trade players are gonna try to fight wars in their domain; the markets. So, if you leave them alone. they aren't going to do it.

Also, if you're so against market manipulation, explain your actions with regards to the silversteel cartel. That was market manipulation for economic gain, and you profited from it.

If this is true, then there should be no problem The tourney alliances are set up to almost effortlessly make the switch to PvP.

Except they can't, because pvp and tourney play have very different requirements with regards to city placement, siege engines, and what players want to do.
Even if there was this seamless switchover, the fact remains that they're going to be very low on troops compared to pvp player, especially just 17 days after a tournament.

While we have had costly wars. 

Your wars were costly due to gold burn, not troop losses. If anything, it demonstrates your significant troop advantage over ascn.

They have the potential for an even fight. I cannot be expected to factor in their motivation. 

You can when assessing whether this is a pile on, by looking at their history. The knowledge that a significant portion of the players in an alliance don't want to fight should be a significant factor. It's also something you've likely taken into account with regards to the war, as it will guide the level of resistance you can expect.

This is just a crude way of rephrasing my point. And completely unrelated; I have no grudges from the crowfed days. I remember the conditions under which the GA/DSD war was concluded, but I did not personally suffer from them. 

The point I'm making is that you are doing what is good for you. It's not about what's best for the pvp scene, and I'd even argue that the size of TCol, and the high concentration of pvp players you have, is one of the things that is killing pvp. 
You may not have a grudge, but I'm certain others do.

Agree to disagree. There are plenty of small, honest suppliers. 

What makes ascn dishonest in their supplies? Are the pixels they sell you defective?
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...
Back to Top
Grom View Drop Down
Wordsmith
Wordsmith


Joined: 29 Sep 2017
Location: Mal Motsha
Status: Offline
Points: 167
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Grom Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 13:54
Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

The idea that running troops means you run net negative is nothing new. It's why generally people are advised to run a gold farm for an alt if they want to do pvp.

Which is true, but entirely beside the point. Gold currently flow in one direction, from pvp to pve. This is the case because of a mentality of  opt-in pvp. 

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Supplying a good during periods of high demand is not market manipulation. It's...well... basic supply and demand. 

Also true. Buying up the entire spear market to drive up the price, is, however, market manipulation. 

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

And the idea of pvp/non-pvp goldburn situations maybe held merit before seasonal tournies meant that even non-pvp alliances started running troop sov. Tournies have drastically changed the consumption patterns of non-pvp alliances, shifting them towards that of the pvp alliance. It's why leather armour's finally reached economic viability.

If this is true, then there should be no problem The tourney alliances are set up to almost effortlessly make the switch to PvP.

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

You point to land and say this is not a pile on, and say that if they're all active they should be fine. Thing is, you guys have had years of stalemates to build up, while ascn were competing in tournies, during the last of which they had war declared on them by FALLN.
While we have had costly wars. 

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Also, let's take ascn's history into account. They were willing to leave an entire continent to avoid pvp with minimal resistance. They aren't interested in war. This indicates that land is clearly not a good measure in this situation, and you know that. It is a pile on, I'd probably wager that TCol vs Ascn would still have a good chance of TCol victory.

They have the potential for an even fight. I cannot be expected to factor in their motivation. 

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

It seems more like you're running low on gold and view ascn as a lucrative target, potentially with some lingering grudges from the crowfed days added in. The tournies have increased equipment prices significantly, while years of war have depleted your gold reserves. That's fine, just don't BS us with 'oh, the shrinking pvp scene'.

This is just a crude way of rephrasing my point. And completely unrelated; I have no grudges from the crowfed days. I remember the conditions under which the GA/DSD war was concluded, but I did not personally suffer from them. 

Originally posted by eowan the short eowan the short wrote:

Thing is, this is likely counterproductive in the long run. By attacking your own supply chain, you will reduce supply, increasing prices. You should want there to be huge semi-active supplier alliances, they increase supply, reducing prices.

Agree to disagree. There are plenty of small, honest suppliers. 


Edited by Grom - 17 Jun 2021 at 13:55
Back to Top
eowan the short View Drop Down
Postmaster
Postmaster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Jan 2016
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Points: 870
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote eowan the short Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 Jun 2021 at 13:33
The idea that running troops means you run net negative is nothing new. It's why generally people are advised to run a gold farm for an alt if they want to do pvp. 

Supplying a good during periods of high demand is not market manipulation. It's...well... basic supply and demand.

And the idea of pvp/non-pvp goldburn situations maybe held merit before seasonal tournies meant that even non-pvp alliances started running troop sov. Tournies have drastically changed the consumption patterns of non-pvp alliances, shifting them towards that of the pvp alliance. It's why leather armour's finally reached economic viability.

You point to land and say this is not a pile on, and say that if they're all active they should be fine. Thing is, you guys have had years of stalemates to build up, while ascn were competing in tournies, during the last of which they had war declared on them by FALLN. 

Also, let's take ascn's history into account. They were willing to leave an entire continent to avoid pvp with minimal resistance. They aren't interested in war. This indicates that land is clearly not a good measure in this situation, and you know that.

It is a pile on, I'd probably wager that TCol vs Ascn would still have a good chance of TCol victory.

It seems more like you're running low on gold and view ascn as a lucrative target, potentially with some lingering grudges from the crowfed days added in. The tournies have increased equipment prices significantly, while years of war have depleted your gold reserves. That's fine, just don't BS us with 'oh, the shrinking pvp scene'.

Thing is, this is likely counterproductive in the long run. By attacking your own supply chain, you will reduce supply, increasing prices. You should want there to be huge semi-active supplier alliances, they increase supply, reducing prices.


Edited by eowan the short - 17 Jun 2021 at 13:33
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...
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

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