DeletedUser
Guest
While Real-Time PvP Combat would have been awesome personally for me, I know that 1) it is quite time-demanding for players; 2) very resource-demanding to develop; and 3) the majority of Innogames audience just does not seek this kind of gameplay. So I don't expect it will ever be introduced.
Still, I think I know of a way to create FoE-like PvP fights, but in a more peaceful way that would be fun for most and would not drive anybody away.
Overview and analysis of PvP fights in FoE:
I suggest adopting the PvP system from FoE, but with the following changes:
Still, I think I know of a way to create FoE-like PvP fights, but in a more peaceful way that would be fun for most and would not drive anybody away.
Overview and analysis of PvP fights in FoE:
- GOOD: Tourney points. The attacker gets combat points, which contribute toward the weekly tournament --> which award medals --> which help buy additional city expansions. This feature adds a lot of excitement for military-minded players. Tourneys are a great motivating factor for many.
- BAD: Plundering. The attacker can plunder the victim's coins, supplies or goods. This is pretty bad because constant plundering makes people mad. It's nearly impossible to successfully defend against stronger players who are more advanced than you. Most you can do is put up defenses that make the attacker lose a few units, so you're a tiny bit tougher than the next victim. So this drives many players away.
- GOOD: Risk for attacker. To balance the system a little, the attacker always loses all the units that got killed in PvP combat, while the defender doesn't lose any units, regardless of the battle outcome. This serves to make attacking interesting only for military-style players, as they must invest heavily in the best troops and adding buildings to their cities which provide military bonuses.
- GOOD: Not time demanding. Defending does not require you to be there and spend your time. All you have to do is maintain a defensive army. The fights take place on the battlefield only for the attacker; the defensive side is controlled by the AI. The defender is then notified of the outcome.
- BAD: No prize for defending. When the defender wins, they don't get anything at all--not even combat points toward the same tournaments.
- BAD: No control over AI. The defender cannot influence the AI. The AI is like most AIs in general, i.e. quite easy to defeat.
I suggest adopting the PvP system from FoE, but with the following changes:
- Create weekly tourneys. Rewards could be for example relics or something toward city expansions.
- Remove plundering. Of course the attacker should get a reward, but don't take it away from the defender.
- Encourage defense by giving defenders rewards for successful defenses.
- Reduce attacker losses because now defending becomes more lucrative and attacking possibly less lucrative. For example, 50% of the lost troops are revived right after combat.
- Allow some control over the AI. Allow the defender some control over how the AI behaves. For example, choose between "aggressive" or "defensive" or "balanced" stance. Or maybe choose between "inflict as many losses as possible" or "try to win the fight". This needs more thought.
- Find distant attacking targets randomly. As our neighborhoods are limited and very important for neighborly help, the targets of attacks should be someone else that will never be your neighbor. The target's level of advancement should be matched to your level so the fight is enough of a challenge. The number of attacks allowed per day should probably be limited.
Last edited by a moderator:
