pvp islands

[Seltonejock]

Love this idea- though maybe serfs instead of slaves- it was the term used in other settlers games so that would pass without 100 different humanitarians banging on the door :P

And maybe even other great rewards such as taking over small islands that you then keep close to your mainland, that way long-time players won't get bored by returning to the same old mainland

[DrZux]

Serfs is a much more acceptable term. I'm not even american and find that linking Cotton and Slaves is uncalled for. yes we know it happened, yes i can see where you are coming from, but maybe next time read what you have typed before posting.

As for non pvp players being annoyed about pvp getting buffs, it's not really an issue. I don't intend at this moment to do PVP, would it bother me if there were PVP only buffs. NO

[lt_peterson]

Love this idea- though maybe serfs instead of slaves- it was the term used in other settlers games so that would pass without 100 different humanitarians banging on the door :P

And maybe even other great rewards such as taking over small islands that you then keep close to your mainland, that way long-time players won't get bored by returning to the same old mainland

brilliant i like the idea! however owning a small island may not work. large pvp islands was the general idea and im afraid i disagree with the second.

[lt_peterson]

hello again. iv been offline for a month at least sadly but have been able to come check up on the forum. sadly we haven't got any new conversations about any thing and that is what keeps posts and polls alive. so please keep posting if you really want this in.

[Qualan]

think most are in a holding pattern waiting on some signs from the blues about what direction they are thinking of going- they hav said they are looking to introducing optional pvp and hinted on contested islands- but it has gone silent so hard to tell what direction is realistic to start thinking ideas on

[gglon]

I suggest bet like pvp. e.g. one player set a stake and other joins him on some arena with their troops. Whoever wins take everything. It would solve the problem with differences in real cash investments among players. Simply those with greater amount of gems would play for higher stakes.

[Tierarzt]

I suggest bet like pvp. e.g. one player set a stake and other joins him on some arena with their troops. Whoever wins take everything. It would solve the problem with differences in real cash investments among players. Simply those with greater amount of gems would play for higher stakes.

Betting laws would push the PEGI rating to 18+. Bad idea.

[gglon]

Betting laws would push the PEGI rating to 18+. Bad idea.

Isn't it possible to circumvent it? E.g create battle islands with default amount of resources you need to invest to play in each one of them. Or even skip resources contribution and set different prizes for a winner on each island. It would be still like betting since you risk your army. And players with better armies wouldn't bother playing for low prizes. In essence every online pvp is a little bet like.

[Tierarzt]

Isn't it possible to circumvent it? E.g create battle islands with default amount of resources you need to invest to play in each one of them. Or even skip resources contribution and set different prizes for a winner on each island. It would be still like betting since you risk your army. And players with better armies wouldn't bother playing for low prizes. In essence every online pvp is a little bet like.

Standard PvP in games is not a gamble. What made your previous idea a bad idea, was the use of real money.

one player set a stake and other joins him

Simply those with greater amount of gems would play for higher stakes.

Take real world values out of the equation (gems) and there won't be a problem.
BlueByte amd the majority of players do not want a pay-to-win game.

[gglon]

Yeah, word stake is bad. I meant standard game resources excluding gems since they can be (almost) only bought by real money.