General limit by size for PVP-islands

[Hermakki]

If the pvp system is ever coming alive then there should be a limit of generals for different size of pvp-islands.

Im not sure whats the main reason for the delay of pvp-system but I think one of em is unbalance of players. Some players have only few generals and "endgamers" have like 12-17 generals. If you put these players on the same island fighting for resources there is no doubt that the player with much higher number of generals will win.

However! If the game limits the number of generals that you can send to the pvp-island then the fights can be more fair. Like for the smallest pvp-islands with less resources on it could have a limit of 3 generals and the biggest pvp-island there is no limit at all.

What do you think?

[PChamps]

Why? If I have paid for 12-17 generals then I should get the advantage.

I think PVP islands should be like adventures where only a certain level player can visit them. If the generals are limited then it will make people not worry about buying more leading to less cash for BB.

[fishslice]

Who only has 17 Generals!

[EctoRune]

Level isn't a good way to bracket PvP if it comes to that. The military capabilities of my island would roll over any new level 50 player. Fishslice, Killste, Nighteye or Dripp (before he got banned) could all crush me without the slightest problem. Level simply isn't a good indicator of military power. A separate PvP ranking will have to be introduced, or strict limits placed on what each player can bring if BB want any battles whose victor aren't a foregone conclusion.

[PChamps]

It comes back to my point if I have invested all that stuff then I should have the advantage. It should not be limited to make it fair. If I decide to spend £500 real money in buying gems (to get all my vet gens and stuff) I should get the advantage over someone who is has not invested or not spent the time building up to that level of power.

[fishslice]

Also advantage comes in many ways. Say there was an island that you could only send a max of 5 Generals along to. One player may send 4 slow and 1 fast 200 capacity General. Another player may send 1 Major General, 3 Vets and a BHG.
So they both have the same General numbers but the first one has low capabilities with a max of 1000 troops on island, the other can get there earlier with his 1,220 troops and setup a more optimal configuration. Or even more interesting the second could send 2 Quartermaster Generals with an additional 2,000 troops between them, then send them straight home again and send 2 additional fast Generals. That player would still have 5 Generals on his island but would have 3,220 troops against the first players measly 1,000 troops.


In my opinion that's why BB are struggling with PVP and also how to balance the Generals Science Tree which no doubt will create an even bigger divide.


Regards
fish

[Wreckless-]

This problem is not very high on my priority list atm, since PvP is not on the horizon.

[EctoRune]

It comes back to my point if I have invested all that stuff then I should have the advantage. It should not be limited to make it fair. If I decide to spend £500 real money in buying gems (to get all my vet gens and stuff) I should get the advantage over someone who is has not invested or not spent the time building up to that level of power.

I can see why you feel that way, but from a game design standpoint, it's a horrible idea. It would simply make PvP completely pointless. Instead of being about tactical skill and game knowledge, it would be about who has played the game the longest, or has most money IRL. It would mean that finding an opponent around your own skill level would be extremely difficult. And honestly, why would anyone ever enter into a PvP match with someone who outranks them completely? Apart from the fact that it'd be no fun it all, it would also be a massive waste of resources, with no real chance of any return on investment.

PvP as you envision it would be dead on arrival, and only a tiny fraction of players would use it after the first two weeks. It would also be deadly dull, since it would be easily apparent from the start who the winner would be.

Much better to allow the players to agree on a limit for troops available to each player. This way, each match would be fair, and high level players would still have the advantage in that they would be able to play many more matches than lower level players, having the infrastructure to rebuild their armies much quicker.

[PChamps]

Like said above also if you agree on a limit then what stops me sending 3 veterans and a major general (on say a 4 limit max of generals) to someone who only has 4 normal generals?

Until we actually know what PvP is going to involve then its quite difficult to have a discussion like this.

[Brankovics]

Because of home island inviolability such limitation is pointless. If PvP comes to live, participation shoud be based on free will --- everybody can decide the question of risks. It is no question of the design, who win; a totally balanced chances could make a very boring gameplay. Must be a way for wit and creativity, not only for the power. Other hand, "overpowered" gamers can not be everywhere, so there should be plenty of occasions for "balanced" chance battles...