PDA

View Full Version : How to promote PvP and Retain Players


Ailric
04-25-2013, 10:10 AM
It is my opinion that many people do not pvp because they are afraid to lose their units and when they do PvP they will not use certain units for fear of loss. As a result Players become bored, exhaust existing content and leave the game.

If we were to provide a method where player loss of unit on death were less extreme I think that we would encourage more people to try pvp and as a result stay with the game. My proposal is to have a 50% chance of unit destruction on death in battle, and IF that unit is killed, to allow it to be resurrected for a cost in crowns. For elite units the cost in crowns should be 50% of the original cost in crowns + the level of the unit, for all other units, the cost would be 50% of unit level. Meaning if your level 20 foot knight died, it would cost 10 crowns to resurrect him. Given that there was only a 50% chance of him being destroyed in the first place, the real cost could be 10 crowns on average.

To make this easier from a development stand point, all killed units should be moved into an 11th army graveyard to await resurrection, or even to the bank to allow for purchase if easier.

In any case, I believe it would promote PvP, which would increase effective content, which should intern increase retention.

It may also generate revenue as some players who are less patient than others may actually buy crowns so that they can fight again... :)

PGoslingaDoF
04-25-2013, 11:30 AM
that's a great idea ^^

Puschkin
04-25-2013, 11:49 AM
Maybe a good idea I don't know because I'm new on the game...

But just one thing that I think it's important with your system. It will be better if you can resurrect soldier only directly after the battle or they die, not when you want. Resurect army directly is too powerfull (imagine people who let her dead-army for killing "noob" with new unit and SBAM resurect all after for serious PvP). I think some patients players will just wait x days, and if they are patient they won't buy crowns for them.

Moosegun
04-25-2013, 01:08 PM
Not keen on the idea but I will probably be in the minority. I find the fact that units can be destroyed quite refreshing. I am not a fan of the MMO / internet attitude towards permadeath. I think more games should include it. Makes you a lot less reckless with your pixel lives. I totally understand why games do it, the majority of society doesnt like working for things or losing things.

Ailric
04-25-2013, 01:29 PM
I do appreciate the perma death perspective, but if you have tried to pvp, you will see that finding matches can be pretty hard. Looking at the forums, there are a a lot of posts on it, so it is obviously an issue. My target is player retention, perma death is fine, but you achieve a close proximity via death with an associated cost, which is what I have proposed.

Pushkin, you may be correct in that is should be pay on death or loose the unit. It seems reasonable that if you cant pay to raise them then that you have lost the unit for good, or you can only resurrect the units you can afford to at the time.

That said, I think that you should not be able to instantly leave a battle. If you are losing, you should pay in crowns if you want to instantly leave, resources if you want to leave on a timer where you try to retreat.

Moosegun
04-25-2013, 05:00 PM
I am not sure that the issue with getting pvp is just down to people being worried about losing units. I think the other issue is timing, I always seem to get attacked when I am planning, or sorting resources, or just moved troops to another army, often it is just easier to pay off. The issue is that one party wants to pvp, the other might not at that time. Also I always find that it is the armies that I dont want to pvp with that get attacked. My sheep army, or transport, so I just pay off and then often dont bother to cancel protection.

I think a pvp flag for each army would be a good idea, so you can flag up armies that you would accept pvp for, this would not stop other armies being attacked but WOULD allow that army to be attacked even if protection is in place. I would happily have my 2nd army flagged all the time.

GooberLord
04-26-2013, 05:02 PM
I think Ailric's idea is a great one not only from the perspective of the players to engage in PvP more, but for the developers as well as it could encourage another avenue of crown purchasing that players would be enticed to engage in.

I would say that it would have to be crowns paid at end of battle, so people would be encouraged to always have a ready supply of them in case of that occurring. I think however the units that are totally wiped out should all go to that post-battle pool of potential revive instead of only 50% to preserve that risk for the player. 50% could work, but it's really how punishing you want to be to bad plays, and I kind of agree with Moose on having such a punishment still exist for players - but Crowns would be an apt punishment that wouldn't drive players mad if they lost a unit due to a bug or a misclick.

What I'd Add:

First: I would add a bit more incentive to engage in PvP being to increasing the Crown reward for a victory in PvP, and to give a smaller reward to players who at least engage in it to begin with. Since instant retreat is heavily penalized it shouldn't have a problem of people joining just to retreat and get their Crowns (irritating for a player wanting to play), but if that did become an issue retreat from within a battle could be made more penalizing still. As for how big a reward that losing reward would be, I say a random amount between 1-2 crowns - not super awesome, but not nothing. And since it isn't nothing, and I might be able to revive killed units, I'd definitely try giving the battle a shot.

Second: Make an option for inviting PvP for players. Basically the opposite of immunity from attacks, it would be armies that would be welcoming an attack and appear in some way for other players to see, on the map or a regional window for players to see what armies are raring to go, organized by army size/strength. Some sort of indication for what overt opportunities exist would be better than blind mine-sweeping that currently goes on, and for those players who basically want to fight could just set that option for their army to appear on that list for fighting. Still could have armies that hit non-flagged groups just poking around, but for those people wanting to find others it might be a good idea to let them see each other.

Third: Some major city/regional structure 'Arena' where armies could go and fight in controlled settings. Basically like battles with different layouts, rules, and maybe less harsh punishments for losing (maybe units that die come back at minimal health outside of the fight, thus keeping people from just mashing armies together blindly in the Arena for crowns or whatever rewards there are since they wouldn't be able to win with a broken army). That would just be more fun outside of the more 'serious' battles where armies or towns can be annihilated, and provide a whole new realm of PvP options that would let players experience fun new variations on army fighting. That one would be later down in development though, but I think it would be a good direction to pick up sometime.

SadClown
04-27-2013, 03:35 AM
Paying with crowns to get my lvl 20 BD ressurrected? No, thanks. Don't make this game pay-to-win. Perma death should stand as it is, Mythador is dangerous.

zhen21
04-27-2013, 03:46 AM
i think their should be a time limit till you can bring your men back to life. other wise their will be lots of revenge players trying over and over again. I also thinking making it a quest with a small army size would promote it. where their is only players with that quest can do it

Ailric
04-27-2013, 05:58 AM
The object here is not to make this pay to win, it is not to take away permanent death. It is to keep players in the game. Open up your friends list. Look down it. Ok... How many have you seen in the past week in a game that has been out four? How many will be there next week?

What we are trying to accomplish is a way to keep more players playing longer with a minimal amount of development. I have a buddy that built a level 20 army, but quit before he ever used it because it would be too hard to rebuild if lost and just went back to playing World of Battles.

I will give you a final reason, there are too many bugs at this stage for permanent death and too many players exploiting the 100% resist bug for that to be even remotely practical. If I lose a level 20 army to a player that can't be killed, I become a much unhappier camper.

GooberLord
04-29-2013, 05:34 PM
I would be interested in seeing what a current developer thinks of this thread. There hasn't been a comment on it yet from their perspective, despite this being one of the better ideas on the suggestion forum right now.

As to reply to the 'Pay-To-Win' comment, reviving dead units wouldn't be pay-to-win at all. Since Crowns can be obtained in abundance by any player, it isn't like only those who pay for them could possibly revive units. And it isn't buying units fresh that is the matter but rather covering up a mistake basically. If someone pays for that, it's Pay-To-Lose-Less more than anything. A player who can possibly revive units simply is less irritated with a crushing army loss, more apt and able to rejoin PvP in the future, and overall more satisfied since the hope for saving expensive/beloved units still exists.

Not to mention another great use for Crowns, which should delight the developers to no end...

Brian Shingles
04-30-2013, 08:34 AM
I have been reading the thread, I was just seeing what people have to say before responding.

Resurrection:
I think we'd only add resurrection of units if that's what a majority of players wanted and we could get a good system in place.

It might be something along the lines of how your main Hero and low level Dragons go unconscious instead of dying. We could make it so that the last member of a battalion goes unconscious too. Then to revive them, you have to click a revive button, with a Crown cost based on level e.g. 1 Crown per level regardless of type, so it might not be worth resurrecting a lvl 10 Maceman for 10 Crowns but could be worthwhile resurrecting a lvl 20 Knight for 20 Crowns and it would definitely be worth resurrecting a lvl 1 Dragonslayer for 1 Crown rather than spending 30 on a new one.

If players don't want to revive the unit, they could discard it from their army. The unconscious unit would still add Strength to an army, so not discarding/reviving would risk that army being attacked by a stronger army.

We could add a restriction that you have to transfer units to your homeland before you can revive them, or at the very least they can't be revived until the next scenario.

I don't think this option would make the game pay-2-win, as you'd still be pitted against players of a similar strength.

Battle Rewards:
Players who see the battle to the end but lose do get a Crown reward (half what the winner gets). We did have a reward for those who pay off after joining a battle, but that was removed, although we could re-instate it.

Alternatively, I was also thinking that maybe after 10mins of battle, a player could retreat without having to pay off.

We could also increase rewards generally.

Flag Armies for PvP:
This is something we could add in soon, allowing players to flag an army as available for PvP, even with Attack Protection on.

Arena Battles/Varied PvP:
Some more varied PvP options is something we will be looking at.

Defending allied NPC cities against player attacks is something we are looking to add in the Siegeworks expansion. Players would take command of the city's garrison (not their own units) and fight off a player army to retain control of the city.

Not risking your own units is something we could expand on. For example, we could have several repeatable Border Defense quests, where a player sends his Hero to take command of units on the border and fights off an attacking army. The opposing army would be commanded by a player of the appropriate race, if no player is found (or player declines) then an AI player is used instead.

As players won't be risking their own units, but will still get a small reward, I can see this becoming a popular form of PvP.

Ailric
04-30-2013, 02:50 PM
Thanks Brian, I like the idea of fixed cost based on level, it is a reasonable combination. Is a level 20 unit worth 20 crowns? Possibly. It would potentially soften the blow of a major loss. The cost still seems too steep to PvP with a high level army, 50% losses on a 2500 point army would still be staggering from a crown perspective 600-1000 crowns? It certainly makes heros and dragons viable for an army, the majority of units would still have be be left for dead at that rate, I think that I am very efficient in my crown farming, but I would not be able to afford those rates which takes us back to PvP with lower level troops as being a good viable solution under this model with the odd hero or dragon thrown in.

Not a bad solution, and I understand your answer is a first brush at thinking about it and getting feedback.

As a counter and to promote discussion and PvP with higher level troops, and to keep people fighting on the field longer, what are everyones thoughts on a graduated scale weighted toward the victor (yes I know he is already losing less and gaining more, but the idea is to have people trying to win rather than early retreats when things get questionable on the field). Perhaps a .5 x level revive for the victor and .7 for the defeated (rounded up to nearest crown)? Or further weighted where units below level 10 were 1 crown per level then it dropped .5 crowns per level after 10, so at 12 it would cost 11 crowns, at 14 it would cost 12 crowns, etc. A level 20 unit would cost 15 crowns to revive and a level 60 dragon would cost 35.

Target in my opinion should be 300-400 crowns to have your 2000 point army back to something near fighting strength on the outside.

GooberLord
04-30-2013, 06:00 PM
Reviving:Thanks for replying Brian. I REALLY like the idea of having the last unit in the battalion go 'Unconscious' and have to be taken back to your Home City or a friendly NPC Town to get the possibility of reviving for Crowns. That would let a player decide whether to revive or drop them at some later time, as well as an interesting idea for a 'Hospital' building to store wounded units (otherwise they'll clutter up an army and be literally dead weight) - which in turn could be a building that either revives one unit at a time VERY slowly (hours or days depending on how leveled/important it is) or can be instantly healed with that Crown system. But that's speculation onto other matters really.

I think that the Crown cost for reviving units should depend on both level and unit type. For instance, a cheap Maceman and a Royal Dragon shouldn't both be 10 Crowns to revive if both are the same level. I think each unit should have a different scaling cost associated with it, whereas a Maceman may scale at .5 Crowns per level (10crowns/lvl20), a Mounted Knight at say ~1.0 (20crowns/lvl20), and a Royal Dragon at 1.5 (30crowns/lvl20). Or some scaling system like that depending on how valuable that particular unit type already is. That would make the most sense to me instead of seeing a Maceman and a Dragon scaling the same to revive. In the end there are multiple ways to fiddle with the details, but I do believe many players would want the option of reviving units available to them, and are willing to expend Crowns to get it.

Battle Rewards: What normally happens in at least my battles that start to turn south is I retreat at a lower cost once a lot of my army has been hurt or killed to avoid further losses, thus lose out on getting any reward. If you have to stay the whole fight and lose more than half your army to get a little 1/2 Crown reward, I can't see it being worth it. But if you have a certain point in the battle (be it time, army strength reduction %, or whatever) whereas a player could retreat and still get the Crown reward, that may be nice. I would suggest it being an overall army health reduction or whatever the current surrender system relies on instead of time to avoid players entering fights, running uncatchably around the map for 10 minutes, then retreating for their little reward. The decision-making device should ensure a fight has actually occurred before letting the loser get their pittance.

Varied PvP: I like those ideas, though my only qualm with them may be that if the player hasn't made those armies, they won't feel very connected at all with them (= not as fun). I think they would be great options for more PvP for sure - but more PvP options for a player-built army would be even more fun for players I think. Then they feel directly invested in the outcomes, and with a Revive option for those invested armies a player wont be terrified to use them in these new PvP avenues. But both player and not-player army control would be great additions to the current limited PvP. The defense idea against NPC/Player army attacks as you suggested would be delightful in my opinion.

Laradon
04-30-2013, 09:06 PM
I think the actual worth of your army has to play a role in combat somehow. 300 Strength can be made up of an army worth close to nothing or of an army worth half a million gold.
As of now this is not taken into consideration at all. Thus if you pay out the game doesnt care if you have to give up 2 lvl 5 units worth nothing or 2 lvl 20 units worth 50k gold.
The game doesnt reward more crowns for the greater risk either if lvl 20 armies clash. It's for the fun of it, but not for the reward, while there is huge amounts of gold at stake.

I want to fight more maxed out Elite armies. Fighting those battles gives you the best _ideal_ PvP experience, while most battles are just no fun at all if someone tries to attack you with newly recruited units because they dont want to lose much. But after fighting a similar army and winning, the defeated player loses a huge amount of gold, sometimes they are offline after because It could take hours of gameplay to get that amount of gold back. Last days I killed of many lvl 50-60 royal dragons and those players went offline straight after and I understand it. Those were worth 120 crowns and 200-300k gold and they just disappeared in 1 battle taking maybe 5 minutes without any compensation for that huge risk.
At one point I lost great parts of my army too, which left me with like -400k gold and it took rly long to get that fixed up again. Time in which I didn't want to play at all, went on a long time protection and just waited for things to be back up.

Something has to be done to fix those things. Some Ideas were allready consideres. Also decreasing the cost of unit training by a huge amount could be nice. ( like 1/4 of the costs they take now). Or really really good rewards that are a mirror to the great risk. First thing could be to increase the looting values, so people start to actually loot corpses after pvp battles again. They all loot like they were lvl 1 units, while they are worth like x50 the gold. If defeated lvl 20 units would loot 100 gold instead of 2 gold per body it would be worthwhile. Was laughing when i defeated a lvl 60 Highknight and his body showed me 500 gold loot :D Dead royal dragons give back 30 crowns of the 120. Defeated armies should give back at least 1/4 of their worth too. For this to be not exploitable, your squadleader idea comes in handy here. If the whole squad dies, the last one who drops, the squadleader, has the gold the troop was worth, i.e lvl 20 swordsman 20k gold, last guy drops has 5000 gold in it. Maybe disable the orc looter trait on that one :P. On another thought this wouldn't compensate at all if the winner takes that loot. So maybe something else has to be done. Auto loot for both would be nice. Swordsman was worth 20k, winner gets 5 loser gets 5, loser got compensated a bit. Winner got rewarded for the risk of this fight. The game still lost 10k gold. All are happy. Or loser gets 10k winner 5k and only 5k are lost. With 1/4 it's still hard work to get that army back together. Well theres lotsa room for thoughts on this one.


I think that many people quit this game after a major defeat, that shouldn't be. Kinda reminds me of MMORPGs with Full Loot Systems in place in which you get completly cleaned of all items after a defeat and only the elite survive in the end and continue playing.

Little Edit on next day: And It's actually worse then those MMORPGs. In those I have the chance to give the items back to the defeated player to show him that it was a good fight etc., here all the gold is lost. I've allready trashed armies worth millions of gold and like 1% of it's value was retained. I can't even compensate players myself for their huge loses, because my city doesn't generate that much. In this game you just make people quit by doing PvP. That's why im doing less and less of it, too. Guess if this continues on for a while I might even quit too, because making people quit by just wanting to fight isn't nice either. In my honest opinion something has to be done to save this game, and fast.

Brian Shingles
05-01-2013, 12:13 PM
Good point about the loot not matching the units value. I'm changing the loot system so it's based off unit cost and scales with levels. Should be out in the next patch.

I think maybe for expensive units that cost Crowns like Dragons and Heroes we might consider making it so that they don't die at all, but instead just go unconscious and lose half their levels. That way there is still a loss but not a huge (possibly financial) loss.

Other more easily acquired units we could still look at adding a revive/resurrect option with cost based on Strength and Level.

forandever
05-01-2013, 09:22 PM
Suppose <level 20 Kinghts one group> VS< level 1 Knights several groups> as a same Army strength.

I bet level 20 knights one group will surely win.

If there's an average level gap of 5(about 5? maybe 10?) between PvP attack side and defence side.. the match shouldn't happen even if they have same army strength. That's what I learned from experience(PvP Win around 130 /Lose 38 ?).

* when calculating the average level of army, the hero and the elite unit level should be calculated with some other methods.

forandever
05-01-2013, 11:14 PM
Good point about the loot not matching the units value. I'm changing the loot system so it's based off unit cost and scales with levels. Should be out in the next patch.

I think maybe for expensive units that cost Crowns like Dragons and Heroes we might consider making it so that they don't die at all, but instead just go unconscious and lose half their levels. That way there is still a loss but not a huge (possibly financial) loss.

Other more easily acquired units we could still look at adding a revive/resurrect option with cost based on Strength and Level.
.. I'm worrying about the crown units'n not dying at all even if there will be some cost .

<The crown units not dying > can make the faction's difference meaningless.

Suppose there're all crown units regardless of their faction or race..

GooberLord
05-01-2013, 11:26 PM
.. I'm worrying about the crown units'n not dying at all even if there will be some cost .

<The crown units not dying > can make the faction's difference meaningless.

Suppose there're all crown units regardless of their faction or race..

I agree. I think that as developers you would shoot yourselves in the foot to make all Crown-Costing units basically immortal. I think they should fall under the same system as the regular units, as in they will die if not paid for reviving in some fashion. That would preserve the tactical choices the player would have to make so as not to unnecessarily risk their expensive units.


As for that previous 'Hospital' idea, if such a thing were to be made for this reviving idea, it would have a limited capacity (liable to some various upgrades) and only able to revive units for free over a long period of time and at a cost relative to the level/identity of the unit. A down unit would has a set amount of time before dying permanently (like a few hours or something), and Crowns could be paid to speed up or instantly heal units. Crown-Costing units would have a Crown cost built into them, slow revive or not.

So if there was a big battle that a player lost, they would likely put their best Crown-Costing units in first and either pay Crowns to fix them instantly and get more of their units in, or take the hit to their army and lose the little guys and still preserve the big ones.

Either way, players would get to choose and basically could always save their Crown-Cost units for free or at a Crown-premium, depending on how much of their army they wish to preserve and fight with sooner or later. It would also be a building type that would have a natural encouragement to build more of given their limited capacities and invaluable help to the player, especially late game.

forandever
05-02-2013, 07:52 AM
It's frustating....

And it happens often..

When I spent half an hour and almost won the battle, the opponent just quit ( disconnected ).

And then.. the screen pause.. and everyone is just running at the same place, on the same ground.

And.. whether I click the <world map : It means surrender> or I also press the alt + F4, I lose my units, and I'm defeated.

This is crazy..

To promote PvP, there must be some protection not only for the loser but also for the winner.

If somebody quit the game(or disconnected) while in battle, he must be regarded to surrender.

Rusmolot
05-03-2013, 08:32 AM
Regarding Permadeath and buying Resurrection:
I may hate losing units, but I love permadeath! I also think that flagging certain armies for pvp and others not is ridiculous. That's like saying, "Oh I'm sorry bandits who are after my trade wagon with a pile of gold in it, I have a pvp off flag flying above it. Why don't you go attack that heavily armed, well equipped, highly trained, army of Godzilla killers over there? It has a PVP flag on!" I think the system is fine as it is for now, with the exception of the D/C exploit where the person who disconnects keeps their entire army but the other person suffers losses. If there is a D/C either the person who D/C should suffer losses, or neither player suffers damage or losses.

Regarding Retreating:
I do like the idea of controlled retreats though, if there was a designated area where to retreat to, like the border of the map, then perhaps leaving a unit in that area for a certain amount of time would retreat that unit in its current state. This would allow us to tactically retreat heavily damaged units, or our entire army altogether, but also allow the opponent to pursue and destroy said units. This in itself would become a major thought process in it's own right - how do you organize a retreat with minimal losses? If you are losing the battle, then it is inevitable that you will suffer losses, but perhaps you can use some surviving level 2-5 units to cover the retreat of some heavily damaged level 10-20 units. level 2-5 are easy enough to train up again, whereas level 10-20 take significantly more gold and time to retrain, so obviously the level 2-5 unit would be acceptable losses. When the battle ends, the retreated units join the surviving units to form the surviving army at the end of the battle. VOILA! I think contrary to Total War, that retreating out of a seige battle as a defender should be allowed as well. By surrendering the city, you allow them to destroy and pillage the city as the enemy wishes, but you save your army, and if you're lucky maybe you get to counter attack and exact revenge upon your foe.

Conclusion:
You have to remember that the game is still young, and not everyone is ready to go out and start to PVP. I think you can expect PVP to flourish when alliances are implemented, and the exploits dealt with (100% resist - apparently still not quite fixed, D/C).

Afterthought:
Resurrection would be an interesting topic to come back to if/once undead is released. I would love to see a game mechanic that would allow me to resurrect a dead unit of orcs as skeletal warriors or fallen orcs or something, with maybe 1/2 the level and cleared skills? I dunno... like I said, it's just an afterthought.

Nobodave
05-06-2013, 09:59 AM
Well, many players (inlcuding me) HATE any and all PvP.

And what we hate even more is PvPers trying to force their play-style on everyone else, pressuring devs to make life harder for carebears (badmouthing us sheep in order to make life easier for the wolves. This has been going on in Eve Online and other MMOs)


So I very nearly cancelled my purchase when I read about mandatory PvP.
Especially since for a small game like this, it's more likely someone will find a way to hack it, and *click* eradicate the units you've been training for days.

IMO the decision to force everyone to participate in PvP is a grave design error.

GooberLord
05-08-2013, 04:16 PM
A PvP flagging system wouldn't work like that at all - basically there would be two ways to find people to attack: First the current way of blindly attacking anyone nearby with a relatively similar army strength (a system I think could be improved anyway), or Second having a list of player armies that are marked for PvP that players who WANT to fight difficult armies can avoid all the blind minesweeping the current system gives. You would have to be idiotic to flag a trade caravan or a training army for PvP in the proposed system - and if a player did, they'd learn not to do that. Likewise I think wanting to play an MMO and then not liking PvP is like playing an RTS and hating the birds-eye view of things.

There is some pleasant and profitable middle ground between permanent unit death and revivability. I think the basic suggestion of Crowns for Revive is sound for both players and developers. If a player loves permedeath, then they just won't use Crowns to revive units. But in order for PvP to be successful and fun at all as opposed to nerve-wracking and disheartening to at least one of the players every time, some sort of hope for dead units needs to exist.

oopomopoo
05-16-2013, 05:48 PM
Well, many players (inlcuding me) HATE any and all PvP.

And what we hate even more is PvPers trying to force their play-style on everyone else, pressuring devs to make life harder for carebears (badmouthing us sheep in order to make life easier for the wolves. This has been going on in Eve Online and other MMOs)


So I very nearly cancelled my purchase when I read about mandatory PvP.
Especially since for a small game like this, it's more likely someone will find a way to hack it, and *click* eradicate the units you've been training for days.

IMO the decision to force everyone to participate in PvP is a grave design error.

I think you're thinking too much into this. If you don't want to pvp, you don't have to. You can pay off the battle for only a few thousand gold. Even then, only people within 10% of your army strength can attack you, so it's never going to be like shooting fish in a barrel.



On main topic though - I hate the thought of losing units in pvp and that's why as of right now, I will not pvp. I see pvp as something to do for fun. Have your army and pvp. After that match, queue again and fight another player. Again and again. This death system greatly penalizes that approach since you can't exactly queue up again because your army is missing people and then you have to go retrain them.

I would suggest a softcore pvp (No loss of units or even regretably 50% loss of units) queue and a hardcore pvp queue with greater rewards and your army will die. If after X seconds or 1 minute, there aren't enough people in queue, then you'll attack a random player like the current system.

I would again suggest a queue system because you'll get other players that actually want to pvp. Like it was said in this thread already, sometimes people are doing town management and don't want to pvp so they'll just pay off. Others like the above quote simply hate pvping. If I want to pvp, I'd like to fight like-minded people - not people who are trying to do their main quest and I happen to interrupt them.

"but pomop, if you have both softcore and hardcore, then no one is going to play hardcore!" Well... what does that tell you? The masses want to play softcore? Perhaps.. Then can you /really/ say that the masses want hardcore if they're all playing softcore? Of course this game is probably different, but that's usually the argument against soft / hardcore. Hardcore does add that sense of danger since you can lose your units and everything, but it also should give higher rewards, so people would be more likely to try it out.

"But you'll get more rewards if you just softcore cause you can queue and queue over again"
well.. yeah, I suppose. That's one reason I hate hardcore - having to take an extended break just to make more units and level them up. Also, why are you pvping for the rewards? I thought you'd be pvping because you enjoy pvp.

They would probably have to make a system for hardcore queuing if no one is available - maybe have X player as hardcore and loses units and gains additional rewards and the opponent as softcore who saves units but gets less rewards. That should be a pretty simple way to fix the lack of players queuing.


- to prevent making the reward for hardcore too high per battle, you could probably nerf softcore rewards so they earn less than they do now. Then in comparison, the difference in rewards between the two 'cores' is even greater.

edit - I'm not against a crown revive system. It's better than the alternative. I still am firmly against a permadeath situation. When I pvp, I like to pvp. I don't like doing one game and then spending the next hour making new units and leveling them up just to repeat it. I'd rather have my group of units and learn to use them properly, battle after battle.

forandever
05-17-2013, 02:43 AM
Wish there's and Indicator of Average Strength of Online guys.

It will be a Much help for PvP

Puschkin
05-17-2013, 05:08 AM
Mhh or maybe make an item (cost in crowns) who allow the user to see (only one time) some army ready for PvP and the strenght of these army. But, this item don't show the place where are these army.
I think it can be a cool item and high player will spend a lot of crown for buying this item.

Sunleader
05-17-2013, 07:15 AM
Well the Idea of at least giving the option to Ressurect Higher Leveld Units from an Graveyard has been mentioned by the Community in the Past.

However it was dismissed to keep PvP interesting.


Well both sides are sort of right there.
Fighting when you can just resurrect all Units is somehow not really thrilling.
There needs to be an risk after all.
On the other hand losing Units which people raised is always annoying.


Tough i cant complain about a lack of PvP lately anyways.
Since Steam went on I never had trouble of finding enemys.

Tragda
05-21-2013, 06:56 PM
The amount of level 20 units I've lost...

This would make my life so much easier lol. Defiantly have my support on this idea.

forandever
05-26-2013, 02:05 AM
IF there's an Average lv Gap of 5 or 10 or more between Attk side and Defence side,

the Match Shouldnt be matched..


However Str Value is same or similar, it's just New Beginner killing job.. if lv gap is large.


P.S when Calculating Average lv of Amry.. Heroes and Dragons shloud be calculated by some other methods unlike other units of max lv 20.