PvP Discussion and Q/A

[The_Director]

I'm gonna weigh in on this topic.

You need something at stake to make PvP worthwhile. If you're not risking anything, it has no entertainment value.

Now options here for what to risk -- buildings, troops, resources, or your economy.

Buildings is a terrible option. The resources required to build them and mainly the time commitment is so high, that this shouldn't even be considered.

Resources is the worst option. Stealing of resources makes most games with PvP stupid. It eliminates the casual player and the 'gamers' end up farming everybody else. I don't think the developers are naïve enough to let this happen.

Troops would also be a bad choice -- depending how it is structured. If all of your troops are put at risk -- then somebody could come in and wipe out your cannons or crossbows while you are rebuilding recruits for an adventure. That would be very bad. The only way that troops being at risk works, is if you can assign troops to be defensive -- and it is the player's choice whether or not you want to risk troops to protect themselves from attacks.

The economy then becomes an interesting option. I've always felt that you should be able to directly attack other players -- and think their direction where all PvP happens on separate battlefields is a really bad idea -- because there is nothing at risk. If a successful attack awarded the victor a series of 'nerf' buffs, then you could deploy them on the opponent to 'attack' their economy. You could have trade-office buff that produced a trade boycott -- or a mayor-house buff that quintupled the time required to rebuild wells and wheatfields -- or work yard 'damage' buffs that tripled the time of the production cycle. You could even have a buff-canceller item that would end the current work yard buff.

It's a very difficult situation with no easy answers. But I see the best option for PvP is to put other players' economy at risk. As long as the nerfs are significant enough -- people will be willing to defend themselves against them and risk defensive troops.

Thanks for joining!

The Dev's have planed (as far as we know) a separate island that "rair" resources can be gathered and PvP waged. THis could mean that if your defences are good, then no mater what kind of rewards for attacking are, you are safe. (expect gem users to be more successful)

Ok then here is a question. How can We the players who don't want PvP Transfer to a new server that has no PvP. While keeping what we worked for. Will we be able to transfer? Or Can we simply keep the servers we have and Start a new fresh server were everyone who wants it can start over.

This seems fair because we knew starting here there was no PvP.

I started here with the high hopes of PvP.

And is the previous quote said, go play farmville if you don't want PvP. (i highly suggest Anno Online, much better)
Now to be fair, i understand the No-PvP side. Your arguments are welcome, just don't rage and we can still talk without any BB's looking down.]

this game was not designed for PvP, Never has been PvP. Why do you want us to change the game for you. Just so you can ruin what we have built up and some have paid real cash for. If you need to destroy what others build to feel better about yourself. find a game that is PvP based and play it. THIS IS a farmville type game. If you don't like it leave.

Why did you start playing a game with no PvP if this is what you wanted

This game was designed for PvP from the beginning. Please remember that TSO is a series game, meaning that there are other settlers games out there, this is the online version. All other versions of the Settlers had PvP in various ways.

Ok Zbest now we have seen each others Islands, Do you want an player like me to be able to attack your island? I could simply ruin your game for you. I wouldn't because I don't enjoy that but I know people that do that all the time on other games like Evony. They attack and keep attacking to keep a guy down.

So my version of Farmville could be simply farm your Island. Do you really want PvP now? Like I said I don't enjoy that but it could be done. Just because I don't want PvP does not mean I don't have Years of experience playing in PvP and winning.

Rember that PvP will be on other islands other than your home island. Don't freak out.

Did you read my post? or are you blindly knee-jerk always anti-PvP?

If I could build defensive buildings against attacks -- and could choose if I wanted to station my troops in defensive positions, then yes. I'm fine with allowing invasions.

However, if you can steal resources, destroy buildings, and/or wipe out whatever army is produced -- this becomes like every other game out there.
If you can't ever affect anybody else -- then it becomes just like Farmville.

I want PvP -- but want it done well. I want it to encourage players to get stronger, and work together in a guild, and overall make the game more social.

Zbest please remember to argue, but without calling the other players a loser. Everyone may have a voice, but you don't have to be rude.

It is like farmville in a way but it always has been.

PvP is always and always will be a Big player picking on someone who can't defend himself 99% of the time. Do you want to be that player? even in your idea of a debuff for losing You will always be under that and never given the chance to recover. There is so much more content to this game that you have not touched by improving your Island. You want to encourage players to get stronger? whats holding you back now?

I am sure that TSO PvP will be balanced, even if the begining few months would be choppy.

Also, How is there new content? Adventures have been the standard and only way to level up after conquering your home island, why not let in a new way?

Ok Gentlemen (and the ladies too ) Please remember the rules, this isn't a chicken fight.

Thank you,
T_D

[Artillerist]

New content ment New fairy tale adventures and building your island past 3000 population. ( accepted friends in game to view each others). I'm gonna show my age here but I was a beta tester for Settlers 2 ( yeah I know) Enjoyed the games. They have been saying alot of things about PvP for over a year and a half. none of it is for sure. If they do it the seperate Island is one of the best ways. But that will not make pvP players happy because they cant crush some,

A cool thing would be, Like you said a seperate Island limited to lets say 5 vs 5 ( Haveing to be guildmates would be a bonus) and a timed event much like adventures. Its the having to set an alarm to wake me up in case Im attacked while off line like some PvP games ( Evony) I dont want. or as Zbest said a debuff on my home island, I worked to hard to balence it out to want it messed with. At one time they said if PvP came out it would be a fresh server so everyone started the same no one had advantage. Think that may of changed when they said it would be seperate island

[The_Director]

Here is what i want to see is a PvP island:

1. separate from the home island (we know this will be done)

2. Rair resources can be mined on the PvP island

3. My theory of how a defender would work is just like adventures, except the player makes it, and you have to run the gauntlet up to the Castle (last storagehouse)

4. Production times for the rare resources would be low, countered by the time it takes for shipping the resources to your home island.

5. Shipping should be a set amount, and you can select what resources are the priority to be shipped first, much like a production house just with the ability to move resources priority up and down.

6. PvP shouldn't be forced (this is my No-PvP players deal) However, its fair to note that you wouldn't get access to the rair resource mines. But there is hope No-PvP players! Just play adventures instead.

7. The defences on the island should be built by the defender, and the difficulty would be how well the player sets his PvP island up.

8. Rewards should be fair, a good amount of EXP and resources at the end, a successful defence should be high EXP while if the attacker wins, high resources. If there was such a thing as a tie then the Defender automatically wins.

9. The Defender always keeps his island, damage caused to his land will only slow down production, but never halts it.

10. Midnight attacks. If you really wanted to hurt a player, you may attack when he is offline. Well, thats life. Ideal idea #9 noted that the buildings are only slowed down not destroyed. While this may disrupt production, its not the end of the world. Yes when you are level 50 it hurts worst, but if you are level 50 then you have the best defences, defend good and you may suffer less.

11. Final ideal idea, (say that 20 times fast) Defences are automatic, there is no "chess" game where you have to be there to make the move, think of the island being attacked as a Adventure. The only change is that there is a real player behind the A.I. .

[Artillerist]

So are you thinking that everyone has a secondary island that they build up and defend, but troops to defend it are build on main island? This seems ok.
Rare resources being available to be mined,i assume such as granite? as long as its slow production its ok but if its Some other resource that can only be gotten from PvP then thats gonna put things out of wack. If its too easy to get resources in PvP then no one will do adventures. Its gonna be a hard balence. Unless the PvP earned resources can only be used on the PvP Island

Exp earned should be based on what attackers lose not just a base amount for defense becuase people will find a way to cheat and have a buddy attack and not lose many troops just for the win for a friend.

If attackers can see what troops are in each camp ( I assume they will) the defender is at a disadvantage because attacker can change on the fly. so some sort of defense bonus will be needed, Tower bonus what ever.

Lets say this is sort of what its gonna be like I would think an Idea would be you could setup as many camps/ defenses as generals you have. if you have 3 250s 2 fast and 2 slow then you can make 3 250 camps and 4 200 camps as defenses.

Just ideas that might make it better for people who dont want the standard PvP
BB has changed there stance on things they have said in the past relating to this topic so dont assume anything yet. they could change mind on the different island route just like they did on the fresh server for PvP.

[Troll-Phu]

You know regardless how they do this ppl will cry about it. If you have to leave gens on this island then you won't be able to go on adventures as often. If it's fixed defencive buildings then your troop stregnth suffers I say just see and wait over 2 years of suggestions have been going in to this and i'm hoping some thought on part of the devs.

[The_Director]

I was thinking that there would be another kind of general set for PvP defence only. More HP and stronger than a normal general, also able to hid without being seen until the general enters the red zone. By then only a retreat would work, making the game more suspenseful

[Wimpy]

I still like my idea of a fort lvls 1-5 with increased hitpoints for the defenders as the lvl goes up. And defenders are hidden as The_D suggests. After a battle the defender cah bring replacement troops from his other generals.

[The_Director]

Ya i loved that idea wimpy.

[Carcator]

Some really good ideas, and a few I have seen before. The best PvP is a system that is setup that allows players to choose whether or not they want to participate. In any game where it is forced those that do not want to do it will simply leave, hurting the player base, and making the game degenerate into what others have already described happens in other games.

[T_DsTwin]

Some really good ideas, and a few I have seen before. The best PvP is a system that is setup that allows players to choose whether or not they want to participate. In any game where it is forced those that do not want to do it will simply leave, hurting the player base, and making the game degenerate into what others have already described happens in other games.

Agreed.

I think its going to be really hard to do that, divide in-between the masses.