DeletedUser26965
One has nothing to do with the other.
If players are not leaving because of plundering then why a change to neighborhood merges, why a city shield added to the game, why this change to PvP, why posts saying people are quitting etc.
-
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:
If players are not leaving because of plundering then why a change to neighborhood merges, why a city shield added to the game, why this change to PvP, why posts saying people are quitting etc.
DeletedUser
I think his point is that if the plunder-quitters were really a problem, they would be retrenching, not expanding. I think it's interesting that you've jumped on the "fix PvP/plundering" bandwagon with such gusto.
DeletedUser26965
Not sure what you mean, I'm not jumping on any bandwagon, I said they should have left PvP alone. I expect within the next 6 months we'll see another change of sorts that's going to affect PvP/Plundering.I think his point is that if the plunder-quitters were really a problem, they would be retrenching, not expanding. I think it's interesting that you've jumped on the "fix PvP/plundering" bandwagon with such gusto.
DeletedUser
Well, you've been strongly suggesting that they should allow an opt in/out option, which gives the impression you think PvP is broken. The main problem I have with the adjustment they made is that they did it in the middle of an event. While I'm not a huge fan of the change, as it doesn't seem suited to the need it was supposedly addressing, it doesn't screw up the game as much as the opting option would. In my always humble opinion, at least.
P.S.: I agree that they should have left PvP alone.
DeletedUser31890
This is SOOO Unfair. I lost the ability to battle a day before your announcement. I sent a ticket in with no response on the one and sent another today to be sent the link that we cant fight hood. I spent diamonds to do the quest. If your not going to allow us to finish why even give it to Beta players. WHY implement it in the middle of an event. This is SO stupid wow. I can't believe you would allow your players to begin something they could not finish and let them spend diamonds thinking they could.
DeletedUser31912
This change doesn't actually address the issue. It would be far better to have the into tutorial point out the blue "Assign Defender" button instead of just delaying the highly opportunistic plundering.
Teach new players how to deal with it, don't just delay their frustration.
Teach new players how to deal with it, don't just delay their frustration.
DeletedUser31882
Considering the cost of city shield (9000 silver for 1 day or 17000 silver for 2 days 24000 for 3) I highly doubt many 'newbie' players will have a tavern developed to the point that they can keep shields up once they hit that tech in IA. Anecdotally, I've been playing a little over a month and am closing in on the final table cloth/tray upgrade. With my GB levels, I can safely say I'm a form of 'camper' and not following a normal tech flow.
Any player who is developing a tavern shield strategy is well beyond the scope of what the pvp adjustment was intended to help. It is also not a true 'opt out' option, but a anti-plunder strategy. Go on vacation for a week, that player is automatically 'opted' back in once the shield goes down.
Well, you've been strongly suggesting that they should allow an opt in/out option, which gives the impression you think PvP is broken. The main problem I have with the adjustment they made is that they did it in the middle of an event. While I'm not a huge fan of the change, as it doesn't seem suited to the need it was supposedly addressing, it doesn't screw up the game as much as the opting option would. In my always humble opinion, at least.
P.S.: I agree that they should have left PvP alone.
I believe SJS is trying to make sense of Inno's design decisions and address the root problem. I agree with his logic, if we take the stated announcement at face value. Assuming Inno is trying to retain players that quit from pillaging('giving them time to learn combat'), then this particular change does not properly address it. It merely delays the time of rage quit and does not arm the newbie with information. If Inno wants to retain the carebear demographic, then pvp on/off option would be optimal. Except the Baby Seal clubber PvP types would be upset. I wonder how much that demographic spends on the game?
I agree that an opt out/in pvp option would be very world-shaking. Considering part of the meta-game is score, I think it would be best to have dedicated worlds to non-pvp before considering the balancing of an opt-in/out every hood rotation option. I like the idea of opt-in/out, but feel that should have been a design choice early on in the game's development.
Specific to this pvp adjustment:
At best, this change lures players in and gives them a chance to become invested in the game before they are pillaged in late IA. Mayhap Inno's marketing data has some graphs that show new player retention and spending rates peak right before that tech in IA?
DeletedUser
I would bet that plunderers spend way more than the potential opt out crowd ever will.
Freshmeboy
Well-Known Member
Titrus brings up some valid points and I wonder if INNO isn't looking at the potential loss of profits as many players start a game, become addicted and start several new worlds, all with potential profits to be gained....ultimately, the goal of pvp is resurrection of troops and the profits to be made there...if their data shows pvp to be unpopular and a loser in profits compared to the loss of a new customer base, it makes legitimate sense to allow an option for players in that arena...
DeletedUser25166
Foestats.com shows 6500 active S world and 16000 inactive.
Xyr world has around 6000 of each
And so on, I don’t think pvp has much to do with it. All those inactive accounts must be taking up memory or something, but this entire process is not the cause
Xyr world has around 6000 of each
And so on, I don’t think pvp has much to do with it. All those inactive accounts must be taking up memory or something, but this entire process is not the cause
DeletedUser28670
I wrote a proposal on updating the tutorial to include the "assign defending army" button but it didn't gain much traction.
DeletedUser26120
I'm wondering if this had more to do with BA campers than anything else.
Advanced players (for the age) that sit around attacking the newest players on the server.
I can see why they'd want to change that.
Advanced players (for the age) that sit around attacking the newest players on the server.
I can see why they'd want to change that.
DeletedUser13838
I'm glad you've explained why you think so.
One has nothing to do with the other (this time it's true). First of all, you're assuming players are leaving because of plundering moreso than any other reason players leave. Regarding city shield, why was the tavern added to the game in the 1st place? Why were defensive GBs added? Why were tiger dens added? Why were watchfires added? People often rage quit for the strangest reasons. Should the game substantially change every time?
DeletedUser26956
why is there still a BA Tower ?
what happens when your hood has BA, early IA, and late IA ? will the late IA players be able to attack the lower ones ?
what happens when your hood has BA, early IA, and late IA ? will the late IA players be able to attack the lower ones ?
DeletedUser26120
The tech works both ways. If you don't have it researched, you can't be plundered. So no.
There is still a BA tower because there are still BA battles.
DeletedUser26956
I think you miss my point. the tower is called "PvP Tower". which doesnt make sense in BA now. if you refer to simply a few battles for the map, then it really isnt a competition. IMO if you remove PvP from BA, you should also remove the PvP tower
see screenshot - http://prntscr.com/h2ran4
I agree that a city shield while in BA, or a set period, would be better. I also think city shield should be easier for anyone to use, and not limit you being able to buy a tavern boost for attack, so you can still do GE/GvG. but city shield should also prevent you from attacking/plundering other players. the plundering issue is not limited to BA players. other games work this way
DeletedUser26965
Whether you like it or not PvP has already changed, neighborhood merge, city shield and now this change. The only question remains is how much more? I'm not assuming players are leaving due to plundering, it's plain and simple fact they are. The assumption I'm making is based on what Inno has done and said and using logic and reason. City shield, obvious why that's there but cost is prohibitive so now the neighborhood merge change, why did they do that, because players complained about beings in heavily unbalanced neighborhoods where players could easily plunder others and now complete disabling of PvP, and why, does it make sense to you players will "get familiar with the combat system" if PvP is disabled and they can't even set a defensive army?
What happens to a new player now, they don't get attacked, can't get plundered and won't even know it's a PvP game until later in the game. And this is supposed to breed familiarity with battle?
Or is it more likely the case based on all these changes which limit or stop plundering altogether that it's about plundering. They even state it right there in the announcement "...will be protected from attacks and plundering...". So I'll restate, whether you like it or not the game as it relates to PvP/Plundering is already changing and substantially so, it's just happening at a slow enough rate where it doesn't appear substantial, a method I've mentioned previously and is well known in the metaphor of the boiling frog, had they made all these changes at once the compounding effects would have been felt much more by PvP'ers.
All I'm arguing for is to stop or even revert all these changes to PvP back to what it used to be and simply let players choose if and when they want to PvP. Sure we can even take this back further to when they lifted the GB cap or even the introduction of military GB's which also changed the PvP environment but I think we can be a little more realistic about it.
Regardless I'll place my bets on another change that will affect PvP/Plundering in the future when this change fails to give them the results they're looking for and we'll have this conversation again.
DeletedUser13838
I rarely pvp but when I do I drink dos plunder.
The fact is, asking questions like the one I highlighted in blue indicates to me that Inno's actions at times make no logical sense so relying on them as a basis for your assumptions also is not logical, counter to your argument.
IMO making pvp optional would in essence remove it from the game and just make it an elvenar clone. Inno already made several GBs obsolete because of a lack of foresight why not add a few more GBs to the list?
I see. You're not making an assumption about players leaving due to plundering, it's just obvious. My mistake, I forgot you don't need evidence to make definitive statements. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Oceanic Era added a GB whose primary benefit is for plundering. In fact 3 of the last 4 ages introduced GBs that boost attackers (one also happens to benefit defenders). Bronze age also has a GB that boosts attackers. Not only that several recent historical events made available buildings that boost attack. Your questions are just a form of cherry picking. Look at all changes on the whole.
The fact is, asking questions like the one I highlighted in blue indicates to me that Inno's actions at times make no logical sense so relying on them as a basis for your assumptions also is not logical, counter to your argument.
IMO making pvp optional would in essence remove it from the game and just make it an elvenar clone. Inno already made several GBs obsolete because of a lack of foresight why not add a few more GBs to the list?
DeletedUser26965
If you want to believe no one has ever left this game because of PvP/Plunder, and all those complaints and posts of people saying they're leaving the game because of it were faked and these changes have nothing to do with plundering well then, okay, believe what you want.I rarely pvp but when I do Idrink dosplunder.
I see. You're not making an assumption about players leaving due to plundering, it's just obvious. My mistake, I forgot you don't need evidence to make definitive statements. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Oceanic Era added a GB whose primary benefit is for plundering. In fact 3 of the last 4 ages introduced GBs that boost attackers (one also happens to benefit defenders). Bronze age also has a GB that boosts attackers. Not only that several recent historical events made available buildings that boost attack. Your questions are just a form of cherry picking. Look at all changes on the whole.
The fact is, asking questions like the one I highlighted in blue indicates to me that Inno's actions at times make no logical sense so relying on them as a basis for your assumptions also is not logical, counter to your argument.
IMO making pvp optional would in essence remove it from the game and just make it an elvenar clone. Inno already made several GBs obsolete because of a lack of foresight why not add a few more GBs to the list?
DeletedUser28670
Have people left the game just because of plundering? Read through some pages of "Plunder Progress", then have a look at several closed threads, I could name a few off the top of my head. you get the point, players leave because of plundering. They said so. Good enough?I rarely pvp but when I do Idrink dosplunder.
I see. You're not making an assumption about players leaving due to plundering, it's just obvious. My mistake, I forgot you don't need evidence to make definitive statements. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Oceanic Era added a GB whose primary benefit is for plundering. In fact 3 of the last 4 ages introduced GBs that boost attackers (one also happens to benefit defenders). Bronze age also has a GB that boosts attackers. Not only that several recent historical events made available buildings that boost attack. Your questions are just a form of cherry picking. Look at all changes on the whole.
The fact is, asking questions like the one I highlighted in blue indicates to me that Inno's actions at times make no logical sense so relying on them as a basis for your assumptions also is not logical, counter to your argument.
IMO making pvp optional would in essence remove it from the game and just make it an elvenar clone. Inno already made several GBs obsolete because of a lack of foresight why not add a few more GBs to the list?
**edit** I assume you'll want a hundred links as well for "proof"?
Last edited by a moderator: