Really not looking forward to PvP unless it's an opt in system.
Really not looking forward to PvP unless it's an opt in system.
Really not looking forwards to PvP unless the Veteran General is banned from use. It will put those of use who don't have the cash for gems at a constant disadvantage.
if you dont have gems to use and get your ways with banning the VET, then goodluck fighting guys with a lot of nobles and BH general.
True the VET will make it more intresting, but its not the only way to make a difference.
Nevermind I give up
All that were around at the time of the event could have gotten the general with relatively little pain (maybe sacrifice a weeks production/progress in materials to sell off for eggs but thats about it)- If that is the way to make a "level playing field" then you need to ban the battlehardened general as well as it travels and recovers twice as fast- and oops, you need to limit the amount of generals you can use on pvp to the amount you can buy in the tavern else you disadvantage againOriginally Posted by Gytha_Ogg
so basically, where will it stop.
And in the end, incentives to buy gem are BB's bread and butter so it wouldnt make sense from that point of view either
Would it be possible to introduce a guild store house, excess resources could be placed in the store and lower level guild members could be gifted the spare resources the guild has accumulated. Could be a feature of the guild house?
1. Not all of us were around the time of the event.
2. Doesn't matter how fast the battle hardened general travels or recovers as all that means is that it will reach the PvP area quicker and have to wait for a normal general, then can be sent out in half the time after a battle.
3. I am assuming you will only be able to use 1 general per battle like the current system against bandit camps so it won't matter how many you have.
4. Yes BB and Ubi are in the market to make money, it drives every business but so does customer satisfaction, making PvP as even as possible will do this, it will also prevent elitism where the more experienced players are the only ones participating for for of getting mullered all the time. Ever started playing a FPS shooter months after it came out only to find yourself vastly out matched because every one else has better perks/guns despite skill level? It's very off putting for a lot of people. Also £25 to buy a general, if BB and Ubi really did want to make more money they would at least half that and probably get 3 times the sales.
I hope that BB try to implement researching into TSO, it appeared in previous settlers and many other RTS's and always added a new dynamic to the game, I have a thread going for Research Building suggestions here just because I've found little else on the subject.
also any news on whether moving buildings will come with the closing of the soccer event would be much appreciated.
1. The reality of life: if you're not around to obtain the benefits, you don't get to enjoy the benefits either (unless you're willing to use hard money to pave your way).
In contrast, I'm assuming it'll be very much like the current adventures, where you can send in as many generals as you have and want and clear out the enemy camps one by one until no enemy camps are remaining (or you got killed instead). As we don't have any details about the PvP system and can't rule out either assumption, it's rather pointless to demand the veteran be banned from PvP because PvP is 1 general v.s. 1 general.
Besides, people who got one of the 'special' generals are most likely of a higher level than you, because they've been around longer, worked harder, paid real cash or any combination of the above. Odds are, they'll be able to use stronger troups. So what's next? Banning their LB and S, and whatever strong troups they've got, just because you haven't been around long enough to have those troups as well?
I can safely assure you that banning veterans will result in a very large group of very dissatisfied, or rather, extremely pissed customers. People don't play or pay to be told they can't use what they play or paid for. And since it wouldn't 'even out' PvP to begin with...
Elitism. How so? The longer you work on something and the more effort you pour into it, the more advantages you'll enjoy. Claiming this should be changed is the same as claiming a colleague with ten times your experience should hand in his/her 'extra' salary just because you lack his/her experience. Sorry, but that sounds extremely unfair to me.
Yes I have. Did it put me off? Sure. But how does that justify denying people something they've worked hard or paid for? No. Doing so would just screw the game up even more.
On that, we agree. Though it's not like I have insight into BB's sales, so for all I know there could be hundreds of people willing (crazy enough) to spend that much.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This doesn't mean that I believe high level players should be allowed to steamroll lower level players in PvP. I just don't think banning the veteran is the right way to prevent it. Rather than banning anything, why not allow players to see what they would be fighting against? We haven't been given any details on how the PvP system would work, but the way I envision it is like this:
1) Player 1 sends a PvP adventure request to player 2.
2) Player 2 'agrees' to the request.
3) Both player select generals and troups.
4) Both players get to see the generals and troups the other selected.
5) Both players have the option to either cancel or accept the PvP.
6) If accepted, both players, the selected generals and their troups are taken to the PvP zone and the PvP 'adventure' begins the moment all armies have arrived. Neither player can send in additional generals or troups.
7) The PvP adventure ends when either one player has lost all generals, either player quit the adventure or the adventure timed out.
This way everybody is allowed to use their full strength, everybody is allowed to use everything they worked hard or paid for, nobody is in for any nasty surprises and nobody is steamrolled by anybody.
Now this, is what I'd call fair for everybody.
Last edited by Genbrua; 13.06.12 at 19:08.
Speculating and discussion over a system that we don’t really know anything about other then its coming along at some point seems pretty pointless….but that ain’t going to stop us it seems
If a 200 vs 250 gen situation is allowed to occur in pvp then I would like to think everyone would agree that is just unfair and I would hope BB have the sense to realise this and so its not even worth us talking about. Perhaps a simple system of only a 250 gen can attack a 250 gen might be best? That way if 2 players have them they can still use them against each other.
While this doesn’t seem too bad I don’t think many matches would actually get accepted. Player 1 sends in xxx troops, player 2 sends in yyy troops. Player 2 sees player 1’s troops are better at killing his troops so doesn’t accept. They do it again and this time player 2 puts up the troops needed for him to be better off and so forces player 1 to not accept this time. The battle will happen in a combat sim before either player accepts and if the player doesn’t win they won’t accept.
To make the fights interesting the players either can’t know what’s attacking them or can know but are not allowed to just decline the attack.
Following the above way of play it should be more like: Player 1 selects a group of units they find strong and like for most situations. Player 2 does the same. They accept the match without knowing what each other has then do battle. Whoever comes out on top wins.
The other way I personally would prefer it was if adv maps for pvp were more then just player 1 sends army, player 2 sends army and they fight…but more in line with player 1 sends a special town hall building settler along with up to 400 troops in 2 generals and a max of xxxx res. Player 2 does the same. Then after that it is more like a standard rts game. You can build up a village, get some production going, build a barracks, decided to go for cheap recruits or save up for soldiers or even get another general from the tavern etc. The game play would need to be sped up a bit so a match could be played out within an hour or so and instead of relying on levels to allow access to newer units and buildings it would need to be changed for pvp so it is based more on traditional rts norms of building a building that allows access to the new units etc.
This to me would be far more enjoyable and interesting to play. To make it worth while for both players 10% of all resources produced can come back with them once the adv is over. The winner gets 20% or something like that. I’m not too sure about rewards and stuff but I’m sure there is something good that could get done to make pvp and winning rewarding and not just a massive waste of troops. But this is the kind of system I’m hoping for, if the adv took weeks or months and let more then 2 players on a massive map that would be even better but in this day and age of facebook and 5 minutes here and 5 minutes there game play, I fear that will never happen and even 1 hour battles is a stretch. I can still dream tho.
Games managed this long without Pvp. For a lot of us it can carry on without it and BB can put the time towards developing more adventures and challenges for us
Posting Permissions
