• We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply

PvP Adjustment Feedback

DeletedUser31392

sloppyjoeslayer said:
The only solution is what I mentioned, give players an option to turn off/on PvP. Have this option defaulted to off. When a player turns it off/on then on the next neighborhood rotation they get mixed into a PvP hood or non PvP hood.
Click to expand...

I must have missed you saying this before, but this sounds absolutely fantastic! Would you consider writing this up as a formal proposal so it can be discussed properly? This has a lot of merit to it, and I think players on both sides of the table could come to an agreement on this.
 

DeletedUser27889

freshmeboy said:
You are right Manda...my mistake...Too bad, I would like to have seen pvp be optional as it is a broken feature in my opinion...
Click to expand...
Yup I agree and would also like to see PvP be optional for all players. However, because they 'doubled down' on the plundering so to speak with the 2 plundering GBs I doubt this would ever happen, or even be fair to the players that invested in those if it did.
 

DeletedUser31905

Without PvP bronze and early Iron Age players will have limited opportunity to use victory expansions. Less victory expansions mean that players will be tempted to use diamond expansions and might buy diamonds to do so. I’m all for people making money but don’t wrap it up in this nice “gives players an opportunity to learn combat” package. You can’t learn the attack function unless you can actually attack/defend your city. This is a TERRIBLE change to the game.
 

DeletedUser

I'm not at all in favor of an opt in/opt out on PvP, it changes the game too much and caters to one segment of players to everyone's detriment. And given Inno's lack of tutorials or even publicized information about PvP and plundering, I don't think allowing attacking without plundering in the early age or so would help. There would be the same rude awakening in EMA that there was in BA, but even more frustrating because you would actually have a few worthwhile buildings then. Better to learn about PvP and plundering in BA, where the lowest value buildings and goods are. And PvP isn't broken, it's functioning perfectly well. You may not like the defense AI, or the power of Rogues, but the balance throughout the game, including higher ages and the C-Map is actually very good. Of course, if you don't bother with any sort of defense and/or managing your collection times, then you will disagree vehemently.
 

DeletedUser31882

qaccy said:
@Mek2
This thread is turning into yet another edition of 'let's blow this out of proportion to make it sound worse than it actually is'. The valid points here are few and far between, chiefly being that changes like this shouldn't be pushed in the middle of an event that requires battling. That's really the only problem. Most combat in this game is already done outside of a PvP scenario, so delaying its availability is not going to hinder a new player's ability to learn the combat system. Going up against continent map opponents is much more informative than attacking a bunch of players who never took the time to replace the default 2 spearfighters on defense. Wouldn't you agree?

Pushing back PvP (and only PvP) to the late Iron Age doesn't really have as far-reaching implications as some of you want to claim. Remember that it goes both ways - a player without this technology not only cannot be attacked, but also can't attack other players. Players aren't going to be 'slammed' as soon as they unlock this technology because they're still going to be grouped primarily with players who do not have this technology unlocked (until they advance some more, that is). And when they do start getting attacked, how is this any different from a player who's barely finished the actual tutorial and is already getting attacked by other players? Is being attacked while in the Bronze Age somehow more informative than being attacked in the late Iron Age, when you've gathered several weeks' worth (or more) experience with the game? I don't really think so.
Click to expand...

I disagree on a few points and will strive to answer some of your (potentially rhetorical) questions.

The timing of release with the Halloween is NOT the only valid point. There are now Maharaja Palaces, Terrace Farms and Zen Zones that are immune to pillage due to the owners not moving their tech forward. These players, those I pillaged before the 'adjustment', had a strong iron age troop defense that were obtained from GE (unattached units). Drummers/Champs/Color Guards/Rogues also made stalwart appearances to defend their city. These players know a thing or two about combat, defense and have taught me a lot about successful pillaging strategies. They are now immune and can no longer teach novice raiders looking to work for the opportunity to see if the player not only has an excellent defense, but punctual collections. To me, this is proof that the change misses the mark of letting newbies learn the ropes and has unintended (Or possibly intended?) consequences.

I do agree that C-map is more informative than grinding 2 spears to dust. 2 spears also offer a good benchmark for 'when to auto-battle with minimal losses'. So that means there is some knowledge lost to early fledgling saboteurs.

The pushing back of PvP is fine in my book; it allow newbies to become invested so they won't quit after their first 24/48 hour goods production is pillaged (6dye). The problem is there is NO preparation, warning or information for that first pillage. Well, maybe the newbie will see the "Did you Know" that states you will be pillaged often, but I don't think that is sufficient warning or information for a player to feel in control. This could be remedied with a short tutorial quest (or mini-chain) that rewards an unattached slinger/war/horsie for the newbie to be inspired to pursue their respective military buildings. At the very least, they will be informed that collecting on time, especially for vulnerable long timer buildings (Longhouse/longer Productions), is important to avoid the ravenous corsair zerg.

I may have missed it, but I am not sure how we are defining 'long-reaching' implications. If a players first pillage is post tutorial or after a vague tech unlock a week, 2 weeks or 2 months later, the threat of a rage quit is there. If the objective is to mitigate that quit, information (tutorial) strikes me as a far superior way to give a player control than an hidden hand holding back the barbarians.

I'll have to read up more on @sloppyjoeslayer and other's opinions on optional PvP. As long as there are no Palaces behind an infallible, arbitrary barrier while my soldiers, prepared to lay down their lives to bring home the sweet, sweet riches of the Maharaja, waste away watching the Palace in the neighborhood... It's cool.
 

DeletedUser29726

Honestly bronze and iron age hoods were some of the most interactive, plunder-heavy hoods in the game. On new servers it extends for a while as the bleeding edge players keep it up in order to advance themself, but on established servers? There's maybe one hoodlum per hood on average after the early ages. It's not abnormal at all for there to be none. Postponing plunder til EMA effectively might well avoid for the average player the experience of 5 people looting them daily.

I imagine the timing was to line up with Yorkton's release so that casual player's that start new and don't race ahead may avoid the plunder-rush of those that are. I'm not sure if i'm starting Yorkton or not yet, but if so i'll miss that experience - it's part of when the game feels fun to me. And delaying that for at least 1.5 weeks while waiting for the first hood change is a bit of a shame.
 

DeletedUser29726

With regard to a change in PvP - i think it'd be a good idea overall - but not this change. Early on the ability to fight other cities and be rewarded is what kept me in this game long enough for me to be hooked. I wouldn't even have wanted to like it without that functionality. It was sufficiently rewarding and not overly punishing. As time's gone on it hasn't kept pace with the game though. The problems:

- The PvP towers are not sufficiently rewarding as to care if you win them - there's faster ways to make medals (Arc + GB contributions, questing)
- The PvP towers are mostly dominated by GvG action as there's many more, much easier fights to be had there
- As you progress your city stealing one building's production is less and less important discouraging people from continuing to participate and making the game less interactive.

All this adds up to a very underused feature that used to be a core part of gameplay, and that's a little sad.
 

DeletedUser12620

xivarmy said:
Honestly bronze and iron age hoods were some of the most interactive, plunder-heavy hoods in the game. On new servers it extends for a while as the bleeding edge players keep it up in order to advance themself, but on established servers? There's maybe one hoodlum per hood on average after the early ages. It's not abnormal at all for there to be none. Postponing plunder til EMA effectively might well avoid for the average player the experience of 5 people looting them daily.

I imagine the timing was to line up with Yorkton's release so that casual player's that start new and don't race ahead may avoid the plunder-rush of those that are. I'm not sure if i'm starting Yorkton or not yet, but if so i'll miss that experience - it's part of when the game feels fun to me. And delaying that for at least 1.5 weeks while waiting for the first hood change is a bit of a shame.
Click to expand...

If you so do, talk with me :)
 

DeletedUser26965

Stephen Longshanks said:
I'm not at all in favor of an opt in/opt out on PvP, it changes the game too much and caters to one segment of players to everyone's detriment. And given Inno's lack of tutorials or even publicized information about PvP and plundering, I don't think allowing attacking without plundering in the early age or so would help. There would be the same rude awakening in EMA that there was in BA, but even more frustrating because you would actually have a few worthwhile buildings then. Better to learn about PvP and plundering in BA, where the lowest value buildings and goods are. And PvP isn't broken, it's functioning perfectly well. You may not like the defense AI, or the power of Rogues, but the balance throughout the game, including higher ages and the C-Map is actually very good. Of course, if you don't bother with any sort of defense and/or managing your collection times, then you will disagree vehemently.
Click to expand...
Since someone manipulated my Proposal by adding a Poll to it I'll respond to you here. Would you rather they keep making decisions like this? Look, I'd rather they just left PvP alone altogether but instead we get nonsensical half measures to try to get rid of plundering; neighborhood merge changes, city shield and moving PvP into late IA. Inno is already trying to do away with it. So the solution is simple, simply let those players who would quit remove themselves from PvP and leave the rest of the game alone. This is not like GvG because no one can GvG you and steal your stuff, that is a voluntary part of the game, PvP is not voluntary. This is about plundering and players quitting because of it plain and simple and once Inno sees this will have no effect they will mess with some other area that messes with PvP/Plundering. I don't know, perhaps you're just bias and want weak players rather than more competitive players who want to PvP.
 

DeletedUser

sloppyjoeslayer said:
Since someone manipulated my Proposal by adding a Poll to it I'll respond to you here. Would you rather they keep making decisions like this? Look, I'd rather they just left PvP alone altogether but instead we get nonsensical half measures to try to get rid of plundering; neighborhood merge changes, city shield and moving PvP into late IA. Inno is already trying to do away with it. So the solution is simple, simply let those players who would quit remove themselves from PvP and leave the rest of the game alone. This is not like GvG because no one can GvG you and steal your stuff, that is a voluntary part of the game, PvP is not voluntary. This is about plundering and players quitting because of it plain and simple and once Inno sees this will have no effect they will mess with some other area that messes with PvP/Plundering. I don't know, perhaps you're just bias and want weak players rather than more competitive players who want to PvP.
Click to expand...
I'm biased in that I want everyone to be playing the same game. You can already opt out of attacking simply by not doing it. I believe I've said it elsewhere, but if they want to shield new players from plundering (only) for a certain period of time, or until a certain point of development, I would be in favor of that. Having basically a two-tiered game does not appeal to me at all, and I think it would be ripe for abuse unless there were major restrictions put on when/if you could switch back and forth.
 

DeletedUser

As an experiment to see how it might go if you allowed players to opt out of attacking and being attacked, try sitting down with a few friends to play Monopoly, only have half of them opt out of paying/collecting rent on their properties. Then let me know how that game went. :D
 

DeletedUser26965

Stephen Longshanks said:
You can already opt out of attacking simply by not doing it.
Click to expand...
You can not opt out of PvP, it happens to you whether you want it to or not and that is what Inno has been trying to "fix". So it seems your solution is no different from Inno's latest one except you would only remove the plunder for a period of time. I argue that will be ineffective because those whore are likely to quit because of plunder will be just as likely to quit anyway. But perhaps not, perhaps they will stick around because now they know they can't get plundered as long as they don't do that tech, so what's the result then? They stay camped in IA forever because now they have an incentive to do so.

Regardless none of these solutions will work, they're on their third attempt now and when that fails they're going to have to come to terms with the reality that some players simply do not want PvP no matter what and if they're intent on keeping those players, which I think it's apparent they are, the only solution is as I mentioned. You may not like that either but it's the reality of the situation. FoE would survive just fine with such an option, WoW survives just fine with it, they even have completely separate servers for PvP and according to stats online 58% go to PvE(non PvP servers) and 42% go to PvP servers so you'll always have PvP.
 

DeletedUser13838

You can opt out of pvp by keeping the city shield on all the time. Not easy but doable. As a bonus you get to attack others.
 

DeletedUser

PvP is, and should continue to be, an integral part of the game. Sometimes you're on the right end of it and sometimes you're on the wrong end of it. If someone wants to quit the game over that, good riddance to them. There are enough whiners here already.
 

DeletedUser26965

Konrad the mediocre said:
Inno continually contradicts themselves. For example, why would Inno restrict combat during an event whose quest line requires it?
Click to expand...
I don't see any contradiction, all I see are attempts to stop plundering thereby trying to prevent players from leaving which I believe will fail. If city shield worked then they wouldn't have come up with this new "solution" yet here we are and when that fails they'll think of something else, perhaps push PvP further into tech, who knows. You got a better solution?
 

DeletedUser13838

If players are leaving then why are they creating yet another new world?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top