Extra pvp options

[TFD_Ishtar]

Currently, a pvp battle is comparing the strength of two armies and the strongest wins. Why not add some more options to player vs player gameplay that makes the game a little more interesting individually and gives the people some more options (without harming the team play aspects)?

Different options could be added when you border enemies, such as (just examples):

• Steal money (add a ‘thief skill’ to heroes);
• Steal stored merchant items (with same ‘thief skill’);
• Steal weapons and armor (with same ‘thief skill’);
• Burn down a heroes’ merchant stockpile (you can pay an agent for this task and have xx % chance of success. Must be either expensive or low chance so that you won’t lose your stockpile too easily);
• Burn down enemy banners (useful for pre-drop);
• Kill a heroes’ horse;
• Poison a soldier (with xx % chance to injure an enemy soldier);
• Etc.

If this becomes all too complicated, I think it would already be an improvement to just add a thief skill and be able to steal money. Could even make that possible on online targets. That way, non-pvp people also got something to do while bordering. With a good thief skill you can collect quite a bit of gold, while it doesn’t harm the target too much.

Cheers,

TFD_Ishtar

[Thom Merrilin]

I do believe, and Nuvelle can correct me for whatever I say wrong, but he plans to greatly overhaul PVP in Version 2. I think these are some interesting idea's that would be neat to see in V2, but something like this I believe is currently not feasible in V1, from the discussions I have had with Nuvelle and Yell0w.

I could see units having "anti" abilities (building upon anti-cavalry). Anti-Leadership (in lieu of your banner burn suggestion) would be an interesting angle of game play.

[Nuvelle]

@AdamM86 is spot on - these are all things we will look at for V2 :)

[Kargool]

My biggest issue right now with PVP is that people cant protect themselves against pvp. In some games you have the ability to mark yourself as not willing to participate in pvp, which is something I think should be considered for this game too. Im sure thats a controversial viewpoint, but allow me to explain a bit. PVP has a lot more effect on the game the fewer players the game has. As it is now, 1 or 2 pvpers can change the entire outcome of the game, leaving entire mains crippled with one successfull pvp session. While that might be fun for the pvpers, its not very fun for the rankers, sfers, hcs etc. It has too much of an effect on the game currently and thats something that seriously needs to be dealt with. I myself love pvping and do it often, but the effect it has on the entire game is to high at the moment.

[Ph3onix_Khan]

@ Kargool:

A pvpers main target is rankers, and if the "don't participate in pvp" option is available I would presume that all rankers would select that option. Thus making pvp less appealing and would upset all the pvpers. It also would make the role of pvp before a main drop much less important. What if the whole country is stacked with rankers and no one can pvp any of them? Then what? They will win the age bc they cant be injured before a drop?

@ TFD_Ishtar

I would like to see another aspect of pvp aswell. I like the thief idea of a chance to get merchant good or something like that. Perhaps a skill of infiltrator that would lower the affect of banners? And we definitely need more units with an anti ability.

[Chipmunk42]

@Kargool May as well remove PvP if they ever went down that route.

[Treena]

Maybe for those being pvp'd the city's garrison should come into effect. If you sf a city the garrison defends, why can't it be an additional defence for the person in it being pvp'd?

[Ph3onix_Khan]

How would anyone win a pvp the TreenaJ?

[Treena]

Maybe the garrison isn't a full garrison, or maybe just T 1 up to gen T 2 baron etc or defenders have a 1% defenders bonus to terrain.

It is possible to solo sf a village, so it could be a winnable pvp .

I just thought it was an in-between idea of those who love pvp and want no change and those that hate it and wouldn't mind if it was gone.

Just some other ideas so that you give those being pvp'd a little more chance without taking pvp out of the game completely.

Pvp is a skill. But pvping someone who only has 2 soldiers standing takes no skill.

As pointed out pvp before or after a drop can change the course of the game. and snipers are an important weapon in war. So to kill off pvp altogether would would serious change how tlk is played.

[TFD_Ishtar]

I think pvp is supposed to change the course of the game. If you remove pvp or even make it more difficult, you will take away the aspect of the game that's most exciting for a lot of people.

I'd highly favour and anti-skill for pvp. So rankers can choose to gamble and not have the anti-skill or go for the anti-skill and accept slower ranking.

[Nuvelle]

Keep the discussion going :)

[pyro]

No keep pvp =p what is a war without pvp... now i love the thief idea fo stealing merchant items. It would breath more life into pvp! I love the idea how pvp can infact change the course of the games keeps stacks from being to cocky like TE last asia age like nice job guys =D