Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16.3 Patchnotes
Author Message
joeh1783 Offline
Junior Member
**

Posts: 5
Joined: Feb 2016
Post: #11
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
PVP is part of the game like it or don,t like it
farming is part of the game like it or don,t like it
point being get the game back to what it was when it started that being interesting cause now it,s totaly boring you have killed it with all your so called updates don,t fix it if it ain,t broken cause when you fix it usually it break,s
as it has time and time again with your fixes or not fixes as the case may be
12-04-2016 07:42 PM
 Search   Quote 
lordofcb Offline
Member
***

Posts: 97
Joined: Nov 2012
Post: #12
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
(12-04-2016 04:53 PM)methuselah Wrote:  
(12-04-2016 04:25 PM)Ulugulan Wrote:  Now any alliance engaging in PvP would be just stalled in progress completely, compared to alliances, not engaged in PvP.

This is EXACTLY my fear.

I don't agree, I dont really see anybody doing my pvp for the sake of looting and resources as it is, except maybe the account eaters. PvP should be used for territory gain and bonus taking.
Maybe it is just different mindsets, but even back on the old style servers I don't recall a single war I was in where the goal was how much pvp loot we would get. It was either to get rid of competition or take their territory and bonus. Just as in actual wars the cost of waging war is an expense
13-04-2016 03:59 AM
 Search   Quote 
nuubal Offline
Member
***

Posts: 198
Joined: Aug 2012
Post: #13
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
(13-04-2016 03:59 AM)lordofcb Wrote:  
(12-04-2016 04:53 PM)methuselah Wrote:  
(12-04-2016 04:25 PM)Ulugulan Wrote:  Now any alliance engaging in PvP would be just stalled in progress completely, compared to alliances, not engaged in PvP.

This is EXACTLY my fear.

I don't agree, I dont really see anybody doing my pvp for the sake of looting and resources as it is, except maybe the account eaters. PvP should be used for territory gain and bonus taking.
Maybe it is just different mindsets, but even back on the old style servers I don't recall a single war I was in where the goal was how much pvp loot we would get. It was either to get rid of competition or take their territory and bonus. Just as in actual wars the cost of waging war is an expense

Sure, take their territory is high priority. The thing with the bonus (think you mean alliancebonus) is due the "new" 6 hours loss not important anymore.
The second priority is always the loot. How will you feed your own PVP team if they had to use all their cp and repair for nothing while the other players in the alliance kill big bases and get a ton of ressources. As the defending alliance you just need to sit the war out. Rebuild your own bases after 5 hours (+1 hours schield) and wait for the next enemy. All you have to do is make sure that this kills take more than 6 hours repair time from the enemy. In a couple of days they bleed out while the defenders offenses kill high bases. PVE player will have a 100% increase by using their cp and repair time agains forgotten while PVP players will only have a 0-10% increase. (this scenario is only valid if the alliances are at the same strengh or the defender alliance is the better one)

Well, with this change PVP will be more unefficient as it ever was.
13-04-2016 08:37 AM
 Search   Quote 
bralstonnine Offline
Member
***

Posts: 56
Joined: Mar 2013
Post: #14
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
So basically PVP has been reduced to spending your CP and RT with no gain other than territory.

Sounds fun!
13-04-2016 12:19 PM
 Search   Quote 
Ulugulan Offline
Posting Freak
*****

Posts: 991
Joined: Aug 2013
Post: #15
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
+1 Nuubal's view.

Dying in PvP is never the end of the road. The idea is while, one alliance (say Alliance #1) keeps another competing alliance (Alliance #2) engaged in PvP either by sending half its team Or a sister alliance, the Alliance #1 keeps doing PvE and digging further in while hopefully preventing Alliance #2 from doing so. The advantage gained by killing forgotten closer to the centre and the higher bonuses usually is what ultimately determines the winner.

Now in the changed scenario, why on earth anyone would go do PvP while others keep doing PvE. Although this is a team game, there still is an individual progression part. Often wars end with a compromise and merger, and now guess who will get the sticky end of any such deal. Most often than not, the guy who does PvP.

The guy who spends all his CP and RT, gets nothing in return. And you can't say not to use all CP and RT for PvP, because more often than not on forgotten attack servers, thats what it takes to gain a considerable territory gain.

I know with this change, I would do exactly what Nuubal describes. Just form a defense block of cash bases while, we keep digging. There is absolutely no need to hit back anymore.
13-04-2016 02:50 PM
 Search   Quote 
SofaKingKool71 Offline
Junior Member
**

Posts: 10
Joined: Feb 2014
Post: #16
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
This is a huge hit against those of us who like to PVP. You have taken one of the greatest elements of Command & Conquer and are now truly turning this into EA Farmville: Tiberium Alliances. This will be nothing except players negotiating for space, slowly moving forward while digging, and any players or alliances who try to use a strategic war advantage will quickly get left in the dust. You have broken things beyond the issue that was at hand; the base eating.

This is sadly disgusting from my point of view. Our teams can no longer afford to send squads out to secure a group of POI's as those players, if caught in any lengthy combat, will suffer and lose ground and not be able to recover. No one will want to listen to orders from command to attack any other players for fear of ruining their accounts status. Just astounded that THIS was the answer you came up with to solve a problem. Do you guys even play this game?!!!
14-04-2016 07:26 AM
 Search   Quote 
rhiordd Offline
Producer
*******

Posts: 2,997
Joined: Dec 2011
Post: #17
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
We know that it is hitting our PvP players and we did not make that decision unthought. We were facing the account eating issues over many months now, and a lot of players and especially new worlds suffered under this exploit and were leaving, which caused by far much more damage to the game than this change. We know that, as we know how much PvP is done in the game at all. No matter if it´s an old world or a mature world, the amount of PvP done in the world versus the PvE aspect is always much below the 10%. And a big portion of that PvP percentage is probably driven by account eaters. Even on the PTEs with free CP, capacities, and stuff, barely someone is doing PvP. Getting rid of this exploit was necessary and inevitable, and the PvP loot was the basis for ever recurring issues. We realize that there is still interest in PvP and I can share that we are right now, work on a sort of "endless" world type, that is concentrating on PvP with a complete new game mode and objectives.

(This post was last modified: 14-04-2016 09:19 AM by rhiordd.)
14-04-2016 09:17 AM
 Search   Quote 
RipleysChild Offline
Junior Member
**

Posts: 21
Joined: Apr 2014
Post: #18
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
The natural issue for pvp guys is that the price they pay for their higher defense level is a lower offense level. And with that lower offense level there is a lower income from farming. it is always a struggle for pvp guys to keep up with diggers in an alliance. This patch will make that problem worse. Guys fighting in an extended war will become obsolete on the server. Its a terrible move for pvp guys, and its rather silly, since the guys doing pvp are the ones who are buying the most funds.

The effect will be for people to try to avoid fighting in order to maintain their position on the server. More diplomacy and less fighting...

I've seen servers where there is farming and pve and no pvp. They are mind-numbingly boring. Its amazing to me that people stick and keep building their accounts on those servers. This patch will have servers head in that direction. No fighting for fun because it will have people lose their ranking and strength on the server.

The problem of account eating could be be corrected using a decreasing max plunder based on the number of hits from one account on another acct within 30 days. for instance, if you kill a base with plunder, you get your max plunder, the second time you kill that base, or any base in that acct, your max plunder is limited to 20% less, the third hit on the acct another 20% less, etc. This would eliminate the guys hitting an acct 5 times / day taking all the resources in it. It would also make keeping supplemental accts to farm less enticing, since only one hit / month would be full plunder. Acct eaters would probably realize that the time was better spent in careful farming and focusing on production efficiencies in their main acct, rather than the host of support activities and acct building for the one monthly hit.

You can lie to me, you can insult me, you can rob me, you can beat me, and you can kill me. Just don't bore me.

[Image: GyF1pDH.png]
14-04-2016 09:40 AM
 Search   Quote 
sjaardm Offline
Junior Member
**

Posts: 9
Joined: Dec 2012
Post: #19
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
+1

(14-04-2016 07:26 AM)SofaKingKool71 Wrote:  This is a huge hit against those of us who like to PVP. You have taken one of the greatest elements of Command & Conquer and are now truly turning this into EA Farmville: Tiberium Alliances. This will be nothing except players negotiating for space, slowly moving forward while digging, and any players or alliances who try to use a strategic war advantage will quickly get left in the dust. You have broken things beyond the issue that was at hand; the base eating.

This is sadly disgusting from my point of view. Our teams can no longer afford to send squads out to secure a group of POI's as those players, if caught in any lengthy combat, will suffer and lose ground and not be able to recover. No one will want to listen to orders from command to attack any other players for fear of ruining their accounts status. Just astounded that THIS was the answer you came up with to solve a problem. Do you guys even play this game?!!!

This truly is farmville now...you dev folks need to change the game name. This game wasnt perfect but at least was interesting. thanks for another bad decision at the expense of all of us not just the account eaters.
14-04-2016 12:09 PM
 Search   Quote 
Ulugulan Offline
Posting Freak
*****

Posts: 991
Joined: Aug 2013
Post: #20
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
(14-04-2016 09:17 AM)rhiordd Wrote:  We know that it is hitting our PvP players and we did not make that decision unthought. We were facing the account eating issues over many months now, and a lot of players and especially new worlds suffered under this exploit and were leaving, which caused by far much more damage to the game than this change. We know that, as we know how much PvP is done in the game at all. No matter if it´s an old world or a mature world, the amount of PvP done in the world versus the PvE aspect is always much below the 10%. And a big portion of that PvP percentage is probably driven by account eaters. Even on the PTEs with free CP, capacities, and stuff, barely someone is doing PvP. Getting rid of this exploit was necessary and inevitable, and the PvP loot was the basis for ever recurring issues. We realize that there is still interest in PvP and I can share that we are right now, work on a sort of "endless" world type, that is concentrating on PvP with a complete new game mode and objectives.

Removing loot is a solution but imo there were better solutions offered. There was no need to remove plunder completely. You could have just introduced a cap on the amount of loot one can remove from a single base. No one kills a single base over and over during normal course of PvP, that rarely happens, not even during good old classic server days. Say when a player kills the same base for more than 5 or 10 times, he/she gets no more loot. Admittedly a more complicated implementation but a fair one.

When you say that amount of PvP is low, we are getting back into the chicken and egg problem here. The strategic benefit of doing PvP has been on the wane since a long time. Right now there are 3 issues.

FAB servers - Introduction of FAB servers (a welcome change) meant that everyone had a defense, meaning earlier classic server strategy of taking the enemy by surprise and causing huge amount of damage went through the window.

Solution - There isn't a straightforward solution to this, after all, FAB is a good thing. One solution that has been already suggested is to have POIs clustering in narrow channels, in every sector Or introduce newer NPCs which enhance alliance performance. That would force alliances to fight for the same territory. Making the game strategy more dynamic.


No RP - Then came the reduction of RP, to remove RP farming (again a welcome change), but it also reduced the benefits from PvP. Anyone engaging in even 2 weeks of PvP gets seriously hampered in terms RP and has to play catch up for rest of the server.

Solution -- Introduce a RP like system specific to PvP such as Experience Points (EP) that exist on other games. The EP could just be RP gained from PvP, with measures to ensure it cannot be widely exploited. Now EP should unlock certain researches which should give players advantage in PvP. Few examples - (1) MCV upgrade I- That reduces move recovery by say 10-15% (2) MCV upgrade II - that reduces base repair time by a certain percent (3) MCV upgrade III - that reduces the auto-repair time of defense from 6 mins by 30-60 secs. (4) Army upgrade - Attacking units get 10-15% boost (5) Defense upgrade - Defending units get a 10-15% boost. Suffices to say there are numerous possibilities staying within the ambit of the current game mechanics.

Reduced death penalty - Next it was the reduced CP per field and reduction of the death penalty. This was supposed to boost PvP but it did exactly the opposite. While reduction of CP costs (although RT was the limiting factor) in PvP would have allowed a boost in PvP allowing for a strategy of building at least 2 offensive bases to manage RT. But that did not happen because of the reduction of death penalty to mere 6 hours, makes PvP worthless.

Solution - One should differentiate death from PvP and death from PvE. 6 hour death penalty when dying in forgotten attacks makes perfectly good sense. Keeps people engaged and pushing the boundaries while digging. It in fact allows for dynamic and active strategy, i.e., jumping up killing FBs, using up resources, dying and re-spawning back in a safe area a viable strategy and makes the passive wave-riding strategy obsolete. This I see as a very positive development and it speeds up the game.

But 6 hour penalty in PvP is too low. Restore the death penalty from PvP to the old 24 hour penalty, at the very least.

Better still make it dependent on the difference in levels between Offense level and defense level, i.e., a player base which dies after having been attacked by offenses (in case of several offenses take an average) lower than its defense levels, has a proportionally longer penalty than 24 hours. Now if the situation were reversed, i.e., a stronger offense kills a weaker one the penalty should be proportionally lower than lower than 24 hours. It should of course have a cap and no more than 10-20% variance.

Doing this it will give more incentive for weaker players to attack stronger ones. Only caveat, if this is ever introduced, would be to completely remove the possibility to attack lock the attacking bases by an orange account. This could be done by giving the base getting attacked right to counterattack by removing the 30 second cool-down timer for this particular base.
14-04-2016 12:41 PM
 Search   Quote 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)