Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 3.67 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16.3 Patchnotes
Author Message
OpaSmash Offline
Posting Freak
*****

Posts: 869
Joined: Apr 2012
Post: #21
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
+1 Agree with Ulugulan

Especially with

(14-04-2016 12:41 PM)Ulugulan Wrote:  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.


But also the ideas are very good imo.



Beside that - i think EA did the right move with removing the ress out of PvP. But like Ulu already said there is a need to buff pvp.

---
Ingame: OpaSmash
CiC nVidia Alliances
(This post was last modified: 14-04-2016 01:31 PM by OpaSmash.)
14-04-2016 01:17 PM
 Search   Quote 
hanskaa Offline
Junior Member
**

Posts: 47
Joined: Sep 2012
Post: #22
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
now i have to like action what EA made to stop account eating. i dont think EA guys want to make this decision, we players forced them do so. stop whinig, you all have deserved this punishment.

personally i like a lot this change and if you want make war, poi's and territory should be enough for prize. thats all about in first place for war
14-04-2016 01:21 PM
 Search   Quote 
CiC_Bloody9 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 56
Joined: Jan 2016
Post: #23
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
I support new patch. PVP was never for loot anyway.
But if we cant get anything from PVP can we at least do some real damage?
Lets say after base die from PVP one of buildings getting destroyed or at least lose a level or two?
Just to give some incentive to PVP Smile
14-04-2016 10:38 PM
 Search   Quote 
SofaKingKool71 Offline
Junior Member
**

Posts: 10
Joined: Feb 2014
Post: #24
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
The overall feel I get with these initiatives in the patch updates are ways to slow the servers down, and create a path of sluggishness with players moving to center. It is a war game, no? War games have winners and losers, and real consequences. Strategies are developed on how to best accomplish your goal of holding back other alliances and maximizing your approach to center. With PVP being hamstrung as a benefit, you will create an environment of complacency and diplomacy.

Case in point: Deterrence Theory - Normally, a large alliance would deter a smaller alliance from attacking it, as it would suffer the wrath of that larger groups PVP teams. The deterrence is the small alliance would back off, until it could actually manage a larger offensive. They would need to be active, smart, and grow to be able to handle the larger experienced alliance. In this update, the strategies already being tossed around is that smaller or alternate accounts/alliances would be used to attack larger alliances to slow them down and distract them from moving forward on the server. Hence, you slow that team down, costing them the ability to maintain pace with other alliances of similar status. This will in turn slow the server way down. This is increased profits for EA in my mind, and one of the biggest reasons for these changes, not the account eating.
14-04-2016 11:06 PM
 Search   Quote 
MoshicVargur Offline
Magnum Opus
*****

Posts: 2,076
Joined: Oct 2013
Post: #25
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
(14-04-2016 11:06 PM)SofaKingKool71 Wrote:  The overall feel I get with these initiatives in the patch updates are ways to slow the servers down, and create a path of sluggishness with players moving to center. It is a war game, no? War games have winners and losers, and real consequences. Strategies are developed on how to best accomplish your goal of holding back other alliances and maximizing your approach to center. With PVP being hamstrung as a benefit, you will create an environment of complacency and diplomacy.

Case in point: Deterrence Theory - Normally, a large alliance would deter a smaller alliance from attacking it, as it would suffer the wrath of that larger groups PVP teams. The deterrence is the small alliance would back off, until it could actually manage a larger offensive. They would need to be active, smart, and grow to be able to handle the larger experienced alliance. In this update, the strategies already being tossed around is that smaller or alternate accounts/alliances would be used to attack larger alliances to slow them down and distract them from moving forward on the server. Hence, you slow that team down, costing them the ability to maintain pace with other alliances of similar status. This will in turn slow the server way down. This is increased profits for EA in my mind, and one of the biggest reasons for these changes, not the account eating.


The forgotten respawns "feature" the biggest money grab since NFS Underground 2.

Níᴜ ᴍᴀɴ ᴇᴋ ʜᴇɪᴍᴀ, ɴíᴜ íᴠɪðᴊᴜʀ, ᴍᴊöᴛᴠɪð ᴍæʀᴀɴ, ғʏʀ ᴍᴏʟᴅ ɴᴇðᴀɴ.
[Image: br54D65.gif]
15-04-2016 05:10 AM
 Visit this user's website   Search   Quote 
YvonShaink Offline
Junior Member
**

Posts: 3
Joined: May 2013
Post: #26
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
Account eating was a problem in the sense that people would get multiple accounts for eating so it would limit the amount of players that could join a server. But it was fair (not cheating) because everyone could do it, and it didn't damage a game that is pure strategic fighting competition. Same as RP farming didn't damage the game competitive spirit (and btw, removing the ability to attack green and white bases was another bad call since it took away the freedom of individual choice and made the game more boring with less drama). Ideally there would be no easy shortcuts to gaining power, but if they are things anyone can do, they become a new tool to explore to get the maximum gain for your alliance in an even playing field.

Removing plunder from pvp makes pvp something to be avoided due to the cost and risk to the alliance, and makes the gameplay shift to diplomacy instead of fighting. For guys like me who like fighting and dislike diplomacy, that KILLS this game.

The solution is worse than the problem ever was.
15-04-2016 09:52 AM
 Search   Quote 
MoshicVargur Offline
Magnum Opus
*****

Posts: 2,076
Joined: Oct 2013
Post: #27
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
(15-04-2016 09:52 AM)YvonShaink Wrote:  Account eating was a problem in the sense that people would get multiple accounts for eating so it would limit the amount of players that could join a server. But it was fair (not cheating) because everyone could do it, and it didn't damage a game that is pure strategic fighting competition. Same as RP farming didn't damage the game competitive spirit (and btw, removing the ability to attack green and white bases was another bad call since it took away the freedom of individual choice and made the game more boring with less drama). Ideally there would be no easy shortcuts to gaining power, but if they are things anyone can do, they become a new tool to explore to get the maximum gain for your alliance in an even playing field.

Removing plunder from pvp makes pvp something to be avoided due to the cost and risk to the alliance, and makes the gameplay shift to diplomacy instead of fighting. For guys like me who like fighting and dislike diplomacy, that KILLS this game.

The solution is worse than the problem ever was.


They didn't remove "fighting", you can pick fights all you want with whoever you want.

Níᴜ ᴍᴀɴ ᴇᴋ ʜᴇɪᴍᴀ, ɴíᴜ íᴠɪðᴊᴜʀ, ᴍᴊöᴛᴠɪð ᴍæʀᴀɴ, ғʏʀ ᴍᴏʟᴅ ɴᴇðᴀɴ.
[Image: br54D65.gif]
15-04-2016 10:27 AM
 Visit this user's website   Search   Quote 
WarriorXG Offline
Junior Member
**

Posts: 1
Joined: Mar 2016
Post: #28
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
(15-04-2016 10:27 AM)MoshicVargur Wrote:  
(15-04-2016 09:52 AM)YvonShaink Wrote:  Account eating was a problem in the sense that people would get multiple accounts for eating so it would limit the amount of players that could join a server. But it was fair (not cheating) because everyone could do it, and it didn't damage a game that is pure strategic fighting competition. Same as RP farming didn't damage the game competitive spirit (and btw, removing the ability to attack green and white bases was another bad call since it took away the freedom of individual choice and made the game more boring with less drama). Ideally there would be no easy shortcuts to gaining power, but if they are things anyone can do, they become a new tool to explore to get the maximum gain for your alliance in an even playing field.

Removing plunder from pvp makes pvp something to be avoided due to the cost and risk to the alliance, and makes the gameplay shift to diplomacy instead of fighting. For guys like me who like fighting and dislike diplomacy, that KILLS this game.

The solution is worse than the problem ever was.


They didn't remove "fighting", you can pick fights all you want with whoever you want.

Seems you quoted but didn't read the quote. Nobody said that you can't pvp anymore. What's being said is that the new balance is more diplo and less war because war will cost alliances too much. If resolving competitive inter-alliance issues was 5 diplo to 2 war in the past, now it could be 19 diplo to 1 war. Get it? Yvon feels that kills the game and it's true.

"pick fights all you want with whoever you want" = being the smallest acct on the server because you used all your cp and rt in something that paid you nothing, while everyone else is growing.

Maybe the developers find a smarter way to make pvp sustainable than plunder and loot, but to guys who are in it for some pvp action, implementing this drastic cut to pvp without a buff to compensate makes the game worthless.
15-04-2016 01:41 PM
 Search   Quote 
Disturbed71 Offline
Super Community Moderator
******

Posts: 708
Joined: Aug 2013
Post: #29
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
My personal meaning,

Some kind of Account Eating and massive Farming exist since i play, and this for years.
Now this causes massive problems, because it becomes much more popular and the forum is full of players that always said "Please do something against"

Now there is a solution against, we will all see, if it works, or not.

And it depends on both, eating and farming.

PvP is dead? No way because you need some times pvp in this game and why?
Because on every planet that i played, theres always someone on the other side, who want to solve problems with war and not with teamplay and good conversations.

Some play this game only for PvP - thats absolutly fine, everyone could play the game as everone likes.

I also enjoy PvP, but in a different way - only when everthing else is not working, depending on PvP is dead above.

So many players want a solution, now we have a solution, and for everone, PvP-Experts and Farmarama Farmers.

So maybe this game is getting more peaceful and with more conversations between alliances, but i dont believe in this, because if this game is played from real persons, there will be every time PvP as the last argument.

Best example for me was PTE2, only created for testing endgames and war all times for fun, so maybe in the future there will be more "think twice before you shoot" and thats the best i can imagine for myself.

But thats only my personal meaning, everyone may have a different and thats fine.

I am a Community Moderator, not an Official EA Representative.
Look in my face, stare in my soul, i begin to stupify
[Image: disturbedsignaturbild_1.jpg]
"My Brothers, My Sisters, My Blood - Liberate your Mind"
15-04-2016 02:41 PM
 Search   Quote 
redmatch1 Offline
Banned

Posts: 159
Joined: Jul 2014
Post: #30
RE: 16.3 Patchnotes
(15-04-2016 02:41 PM)Disturbed71 Wrote:  My personal meaning,

Some kind of Account Eating and massive Farming exist since i play, and this for years.
Now this causes massive problems, because it becomes much more popular and the forum is full of players that always said "Please do something against"

Now there is a solution against, we will all see, if it works, or not.

And it depends on both, eating and farming.

PvP is dead? No way because you need some times pvp in this game and why?
Because on every planet that i played, theres always someone on the other side, who want to solve problems with war and not with teamplay and good conversations.

Some play this game only for PvP - thats absolutly fine, everyone could play the game as everone likes.

I also enjoy PvP, but in a different way - only when everthing else is not working, depending on PvP is dead above.

So many players want a solution, now we have a solution, and for everone, PvP-Experts and Farmarama Farmers.

So maybe this game is getting more peaceful and with more conversations between alliances, but i dont believe in this, because if this game is played from real persons, there will be every time PvP as the last argument.

Best example for me was PTE2, only created for testing endgames and war all times for fun, so maybe in the future there will be more "think twice before you shoot" and thats the best i can imagine for myself.

But thats only my personal meaning, everyone may have a different and thats fine.

I also dont like the new changes in PvP.
I understand something needs to be done against account eating but i would say people just need to be pro-active and report players that eat accounts.
Then once EA has found how and what, ban the player from that world.

Adjusting the loot and RP gain has killed PvP and the game in my opinion.
Command and Conquer is a war game, as the latter says Conquer.
Its not Command and Diplomacy.

You mention that PvP means you cant have decent conversations and teamplay which i find offensive.
Through PvPing for years my groups teamplay is amazing, it keeps the world alive.
By going to war now being in the top 3 means you end up outside of the top 3.
For your growth is halted entirely.

This will change the game into Command and Farm.

i really dont understand this decision for war meant a lot of $ for EA too and i wont keep playing a farmville game.
ill switch to a real war game in that case, however id rather keep with this one.

think about it, you will lose a lot of customers who spend a lot.
you know who they are.
(This post was last modified: 15-04-2016 03:23 PM by redmatch1.)
15-04-2016 03:06 PM
 Search   Quote 


Forum Jump:


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