PDA

View Full Version : Big guys vs. Small


magicalbull
01-22-2011, 08:00 AM
What will happen in the online mode to prevent the people who have overwelming armies from constantly attacking the really small people as often as possible so they can't build up at all?

Th3 Mastodon
01-22-2011, 09:16 AM
This is an issue that is quite big in many Mmorts games. I am realy interrted in what they are going to do to prevent being attacked by a big army when just starting out

TriggerHappyNDB
01-22-2011, 10:23 AM
I can't say I'm any kind of authority on the subject, but my understanding is that players aren't allowed to engage other players unless they are equal to or greater than them in strength. Essentially, this means you aren't allowed to attack weaker opponents unless they are the ones to challenge you. You personally can only attack matching or stronger armies, the latter of which you would supposedly beat with superior tactics.

The auto-match system will only match willing PvP participants with armies of equal skill.

Also, you may opt out of any match by paying a one-time resource tribute to your attacker. Your forces cannot be attacked while you are offline, but logging off after a challenge has been issued (to avoid it altogether, say) will simply result in you automatically paying the tribute to your attacker.

Dalkor
01-22-2011, 04:47 PM
If that is true Trigger, Do you know if there will be any lead way for people who have bad connection's? I know I don't. But a 2-3min timer for the occasional disconnect until the person pays the tribute. Has this been addressed before?

TriggerHappyNDB
01-23-2011, 12:00 AM
If that is true Trigger, Do you know if there will be any lead way for people who have bad connection's? I know I don't. But a 2-3min timer for the occasional disconnect until the person pays the tribute. Has this been addressed before?

I've been curious about the answer to that myself, actually. I've seen it handled different ways in different games, and it will basically come down to the preference of the designers based on tester feedback. I can't say I know how it is currently.

One way or the other, whether disconnecting leads to an instant resignation or a timed one, everyone will be governed by the same rule, meaning no one truly gains an advantage from it al else being equal. Personally, I'd hope for a timer on it that can continue to count down even when you're logged off. That would give you a chance to get back to it if you got DC'd but ultimately no way to stall the decision indefinitely.

Barca
01-23-2011, 01:17 AM
Hi I'm Very new. So basically the game will be designed so that Larger nations don't have the ability to crush weaker people. Its all going o be based on a PvP match system? How will the PVP match system work will be based on the relative proximity of the opponent to your territory? Or am i not understanding this at all?

Dalkor
01-23-2011, 06:44 AM
I've been curious about the answer to that myself, actually. I've seen it handled different ways in different games, and it will basically come down to the preference of the designers based on tester feedback. I can't say I know how it is currently.

One way or the other, whether disconnecting leads to an instant resignation or a timed one, everyone will be governed by the same rule, meaning no one truly gains an advantage from it al else being equal. Personally, I'd hope for a timer on it that can continue to count down even when you're logged off. That would give you a chance to get back to it if you got DC'd but ultimately no way to stall the decision indefinitely.

Well that would definitely be ideal. I was originally thinking of a 2 minute delay each time you get DC'd that doesn't decrease with time, but I though of how people would grief their opponent's into submission right after I posted that. A timer would be the best way to go about it if that is how they decide to do that. Everyone get's DC'd, what differs is how often it happens. And even if I were losing a battle and my opponent DC'd causing in a default win for me, I would feel bad.

Hi I'm Very new. So basically the game will be designed so that Larger nations don't have the ability to crush weaker people. Its all going o be based on a PvP match system? How will the PVP match system work will be based on the relative proximity of the opponent to your territory? Or am i not understanding this at all?

It seems you are correct in your first point, the powerful will be barred from picking on the weak, but the weak can pick on the powerful. As for the rest of what you said, I don't know much, but it does sound like you are on the right mind track.

Verrenth
01-23-2011, 07:00 AM
I really hope there are safeguards to prevent newbie farming it would kill the game if when you first get up and going so jag-off swoops in and ruins you in a matter of minutes

luizeba
01-23-2011, 01:44 PM
It'll be good a system like SC2, where you can, in theory, play against any enemy. But if you lost a battle to a stronger player, you lost almost no "points". But if you win against a stronger player, you wina lot of 'points'. You guys get my idea.

rebelglitch
01-24-2011, 10:02 PM
This is one of those issues that plague devs, how to balance the game play with out kill off the fun and allowing newbies the much needed safety. I cant wait to see how they decided to handle it in this game. Hopefully it will be a mix of fighting within a a range of levels and a small safe time to start the game.

Desthin
01-24-2011, 11:23 PM
I agree it will be interesting to see how it turns out.
Since smaller amounts of people are harder to find, it could totally work out that way logically

Peacebringer01
01-25-2011, 12:11 AM
It definitely is a touchy issue I'm interested to see what the dev's do to make it suitable for all types of players

Zary
01-25-2011, 11:46 AM
It is pretty simple actually. Enought if the game introduces some rules like the penalization when a player attacks another player that is very low lvl, instead of a price, so that the High lvl player can't find any good reason to attack and loose part of his forces against a low player because, when he finally defeats him, he wont get any resources or prizes, but yes a penlaization and a reduction of his army!

LiTos456
01-25-2011, 02:53 PM
Oh, we already know about this. It will be physically impossible to attack someone out of your level range, which is what the battle system is based on. So you don't have to worry about getting attacked by some all powerful overlord, and I think that in the beginning before a certain point you can't even be attacked at all.

Cheers

Carnifexrex
01-26-2011, 04:49 PM
In the faq they say that when you send your army out for battle, that you will be matched to someone with similar level/skill. This makes me believe Rev knows what they are doing.

Although, it would be awesome if it was a truly open world where battles werent fought in instances, but open to all to come in, would be hectic, and I'm sure goes against the nature of competition. But smaller guys could be protected by building their initial kingdoms as tributaries of a large NPC faction, and then as they grew stronger, set up outposts in the vast open wilderness to test their mettle....

Myrcea01
01-28-2011, 02:56 PM
as i remember (although i might be wrong), there is a bribe system, so u can pay a % from your income or an amount of money. i think the nr of attacks/day on one player should be 1

Tibador
01-28-2011, 06:48 PM
Ya this is a big issue in other games i hope the system they have designed will help combat it.

Erekel
01-29-2011, 09:44 AM
What happens if there is no-one in your level range, the only people around are lower level than you?

Does that mean you're stuck until people catch up?

Joseph Visscher
01-29-2011, 10:57 AM
players aren't allowed to engage other players unless they are equal to or greater than them in strength. Essentially, this means you aren't allowed to attack weaker opponents unless they are the ones to challenge you. You personally can only attack matching or stronger armies, the latter of which you would supposedly beat with superior tactics.

The auto-match system will only match willing PvP participants with armies of equal skill.

Also, you may opt out of any match by paying a one-time resource tribute to your attacker. Your forces cannot be attacked while you are offline, but logging off after a challenge has been issued (to avoid it altogether, say) will simply result in you automatically paying the tribute to your attacker.

Essentially correct. But same goes for a disconnect (with possibly a 10-20 second timer for you to reconnect)


I'm not saying officially, just giving ideas and opinions on what we could do. ;)

Everyone has forgotten about Wealth resource, this can be a big motive for going into or staying out of war with someone of different strength, my idea would be that if your the weaker underdog and you beat someone a lot stronger than you then you win a lot more Wealth; while the stronger army defeating a weaker army would gain less Wealth(if any at all) for a victory.
With this system in place people who try to be 'bullies' will not progress much at all, while an underdog might reap the rewards of victory and progress much faster with more Wealth.

Another idea is that if the enemy is greatly more powerful than you and the odds of you wining is his house has a blackout, then the tribute is free and you can decline his battle without any consequence, on the other hand the Wealth gained from that victory might be motive for you to go into even a suicide mission.

I honestly think physically limiting who and what the players can attempt to attack is wrong, instead it should be discouraged while protecting the weaker players, but not limiting them, if the weakest player wants to accept a battle with the strongest player, why not let them? Lol Weakest player wins 2$ worth of Wealth if he wins. Ha would be funny.

Loose Morals
01-29-2011, 11:43 PM
i know why devs hate this. its cos it has to be handled soo carefully and can be done wrong soo easily. the problem with a straight penalty system is that the great big players are generally producing sooo much that the penalty means nothing to them.
i like the idea of combining this with a much lower level player just being able to refuse a fight with no penalty. you could meby even add a small penalty to the big player for starting the fight in the first place aswell regardless of weather the small player accepts or not. this would certainly make people think a bit harder on who they choose to attack.

MoLiva
01-30-2011, 05:59 PM
Although I believe there should be a safeguard in place to protect weaker kingdoms, being limited to equal or greater is going to cause issues at later stages in the game.

Essentially, if you get too big, you may be severely limited on who you can attack, and likely no one in their right mind will challenge you either.