What type of PVP would you like

[Bluntoze]

I am starting to like the game a lot , but i kinda miss the PVP part of it. And when it comes to MMORTS i know that is a rather sensitive topic.
I for one would prefer a style of PVP a bit more punitive and "hard core" if you could say that , but i know that having something like this runs a risk of having a much lower player base.

When it comes to pvp there is nothing as fun as seeing a map divided by areas of influence controled by clans and how these areas evolve over time.

One idea that popped into my head was if each player village (and by that i understand what it is now this island we are on) had an exit point to the pvp world ,in one initial square trough where he sends his troops out into that world . The square does not necessarily belong to that player , it can be occupied by some enemy but he can always fight to take it back ,and can always lose if afterwards. What he can not lose is his current island.

I saw this idea implemented in some newer games and it really works in keeping happy both the hard core players and the ones that want to play as a trader or just occasionally. The beauty of it is that there can't be no supreme clan for too long , even if you get conquered you can still rebuild your forces undisturbed in your initial island. Usually what ruins a server is that one group gets to strong and can keep in check everyone from ever grouping up and giving them a surprise. But like this they never know when a group of people that initially lost have patiently been building they troops back up and waiting are for the right moment for payback. It really creates a very dynamic influence map and pvp world.

One other thing that i would like to see is combining forces in fights. This model of each army group fights one at a time is getting old. There is this one game that had a good approach at fights only to ruin it with pvp that didn't have any real consequences.In this game a battle went like this:
First off, it was divided by rounds that took 10 minutes each. If opposing armies where equal in strength the fight would usually last 3 rounds or so. If any new army would arrive they would add to the current troops in the next round , either as defense or offense, and would be taken into the round calculation of the next round. If by any chance they arrived at the last round they would just start another fight with the remaining enemies.

This added loads of fun as clan battles where becoming epic. But also introduced a level of politics i've never seen before in a browser MMORTS. If you where getting dragged into a fight like this between clans you could bet that if word got out you would lose control over lots of territories that saw it as an opportunity to strike back. Having a spy in your group ,or in the enemy ranks would mean a great deal and traders where having the most fun at a time like this when finished products where in high demand and prices where going up like crazy. Somehow it all got connected at that point , and you really had players that had their place in the game as traders. Politics seemed real , trying to convince the trader to sell you the extra resource you need to break the tie , and not to the enemy.
I will not name the game as i don't know if it would be nice to do something like that here , but if any MOD or Dev want to have a look for inspiration i will gladly provide it.

So let me know what type of pvp you would like , i will make a poll with what i hope will be clear options and enough of them

[Brent]

I certainly got the impression from the publicity that this game would essentially be a territorial battle, with guilds vying for areas of the map. Imagine my chagrin to find that this is currently not the case and that there is quite a body of opinion against the idea. I would suggest that it remains possible fro those that don't wish to enter into the PvP side of things to be able to continue playing exactly as they are.

Those that do wish to take part in PvP should find themselves as a small part of a huge map with beginner protection for one week. In practice it should be very hard to take down an active player, but it should certainly be possible with the combined efforts of a number of other players. The great advantage of such games as tribal wars is that they make a virtue of inactivity, in that,. those settlements become easy prey for the territorial ambitions of the active. I've not played settlers before but do find it compelling...however without PvP it is a dead-end for me. I'm not 100% sure what all the options above mean but ticked the top one because it seems to be the most "aggressive".

Furthermore I think this game has the potential to be extremely dynamically interesting. Imagine a world in which certain resources were clustered. For example; All the copper occurs in one mountainous region. The battles for control of it would have a particular piquancy. The controlling guild would have to make diplomatic decisions about how much to exploit their monopoly without risking constant raiding. Allies would be favoured, alliances of the excluded would of necessity form.

Fun

[Bluntoze]

I guess i should have mentioned to go trough the post before the pool. I added some options at the end on how an area of influence should be defined , i hope that didn't make things unclear.

I think i included in the pool almost all forms of battle i've seen going around in Browser MMORTS. I think i at least tried most of the games out there

[Brent]

Perhaps the way it could work is that our individual islands are offshore of a massive continental landmass which is a PvP Environment. You would need to build a ship (using lots of wood, iron etc) and set sail taking whatever resources your ship was capable of storing (bigger ships = more supplies). You then hit the mainland and try and stake a claim...very much like a settler in the new world. You can return to your own island via your ship and decide never to go back to the nasty mainland or can build up more supplies for another push. Works for me. It would be good if there was a bit of variety within the mainland.

[Jaimy]

The only problem is that the people that will buy diamond are having more advantage then people who don't, especially in PvP

[Brent]

It's a valid point and worthy of separate discussion however it applies across all ways in which the game is played so it doesn't really have any bearing on the argument as to what system to use.

'Allies can only travel on friendly or allied ground' is something that could and should be incorporated into any of the other options. How it could work is that armies travelling through occupied territory the owner of which is not in a guild they are in or formally allied to has the ability to attack them. In practice this is likely to be at a time when the owner of that ground is afk. therefore it should be possible to set attack instructions towards specific players or guilds, anyone or no one.

[Bluntoze]

It is a multiple choice poll , so you can choose the things that you agree with. Some of the things go well in combination with some of the others.
'Allies can only travel on friendly or allied ground' - This one would force a player either to extend his territory to reach a border with a target , or to politically get friendly with whomever has the territory in between him and his target. Same would go for alliances. This prevents people of clans to just go attack anyone they please whenever they please. You can't just send your troops trough someone else's lands like they are yours. That creates more political game or even financial , you can pay someone just to let you trough to hit some target.

[Brent]

All good points. It seems that there is the core of a good way forward here. Let the debate continue for a bit then lets create and refine by debate a proposal to put to bb. How the auto attack might work is that player's forts have a 'sphere of influence' in very much the same way as the bandit camps. Larger camps have a wider sphere of influence. there should be a decided advantage to the defender (suggest 3-1). The land owner would then be well advised to ring his territory with forts. Might also be an idea to have build-able walls preventing entry to a territory., with the counter being cannon...

[Bluntoze]

The details probably have lots of ways of getting implemented . But yes , you would need a auto defend feature and i also agree on the point of making defense have an advantage.
One of the ways i see to keep things in check is to have travel times on the PVP map be quite big. This would prevent 2 things:
1. Having someone attack you a lot over the night from a great distance. Some people wait for other to go to sleep to attack . Maybe someone has a better idea to counter this practice of insomniacs
2. ganging up on someone with a synchronized attack would be a lot harder , people that are very far away would blow the whistle too soon on an surprise ganging attack.

And about traveling over someone's land it just should not be possible by default. Either you attack that person and conquer his land piece by piece starting at his borders, or you have a friendly agreement with him and he lets you move your army over his land to attack or reinforce the defense of one of his neighbors. Imagine the amount of politics that would introduce in the game; Convincing someone to let you cross his land to attack one of his neighbors. Or a clan buying a bit of time by convincing some another clan on their borders to not let pass the enemy troops for a set amount of time for a cost or other interests.

[Tierarzt]

If Blue Byte decide to implement PvP, they will need to design a system to please the PvP crowd and not alienate the non-PvP crowd at the same time.
The best solution would be an arena open to consensual participants as an optional extra and the rewards should be beneficial to the PvP and arena only.