Jump to content

PVE Declaration of War Banditry


Poppet

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply
12 hours ago, HoboNation said:

This is absolute BS. How the hell do you justify this to yourself? It must be all or nothing... what balony, An option to allow you to accept or decline joining a war on the side of an ally is totally applicable and the best solution in my and others opinions, It will then be up to you to decide which allies will have your back and which won't, you know kind of like how it works in many many other games and in real life also???????
 

Instead you prefer a system where one is forced into a conflict that you may not even know anything about because "allies should have each others backs" that is so backwards. It should be a choice not an involuntary mechanic. You realize that this is the sole reason that other players can take advantage of the mechanic right? if tribe leaders had the choice to accept or decline going to war this would completely remove this problem from PVE which is why I am baffled at how people are against this.

Yes some allies may be unreliable and not join you in war guess what you can do in those situations??? break the alliance with them, this would be a good way to test who really has your back anyway would it not? I mean some guy who is forced into making enemies with the people you make enemies with and has no say in whether to side with you or not, just seems backwards and dumb to me, and totally removed from logic and reality.  So easy simple fix, let tribe leaders choose to join a war on the side of their ally or to decline. Heck you can even have it that if they choose to decline then it instantly breaks the alliance, for all of you who are hellbent on having your allies be strong armed into your conflicts. Then it will be a case of join the war or stop being our ally. I find anyone who is defending the fact that your allies have no choice with the wars YOU SELFISHLY can drag them into are not of sound logic and mind.

As for people getting screwed over by these situations, sure Wildcard can fix the issue and I agree that they should probably adjust the system for PvE with a simple accept or decline feature as described above, but for the time being it isn't like that, so similar to the gas bag phenomenon take freaking precautions. If a company selling carrots has toxic chemicals in them, and they havent removed them yet are you going to keep eating their products anyway and then blame the company when you get sick even when you are aware there are chemicals in it that can harm you? (remove the whole mindset of "well you can sue them that way", for arguments sake and as it wouldnt apply to this situation) No you stop eating the dam carrots until they have fixed the issue.

Take extra precaution until such a time that the issue is addressed. and if it is never addressed then make those precautions permanent. 

It took me awhile to rethink why it's a bad idea to make war an optional feature for tribes in an alliance.  At first I was wondering how an admin only control would effect war , and then it dawned on me why it can't be an optional thing.  Because people are jerks.  Even now with our proposals, there's a huge flaw.  Mutlitple alliances , and how to exploit them should they make this change I propose and the one you propose. 

They both rest on the assumption that people won't cheat by using the fact that you can build next to an ally and if that ally is not included in war, then their structures would be unbreakable and could be set up to block attacks.  Which of course, they'd make a CoC rule to go with it , but that won't stop it from happening.  and then it will drain more time from GM's dealing w/ tribes exploiting a newly introduced loophole.  While I might have been emphatic in my assertion of my argument, it's mostly been a thought experiment and I'm still thinking about it.   Ideas that might seem simple, suddenly do have other implications when rereading everyone's thoughts.

I personally still think that if they went the optional route, enforcement would be trickier with mutliple alliances and multiple members opting out. I think it would be simpler to catch if they used a second separate alliance to create a passive defense.  If they used the second passive alliance for that purpose, it would be easier to show they did it for that reason, vs them saying they accepted war but their friends who helped set up defenses weren't on in time to accept war therefore their structures remained unraidable effectively protecting the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, GrumpyBear said:

It took me awhile to rethink why it's a bad idea to make war an optional feature for tribes in an alliance.  At first I was wondering how an admin only control would effect war , and then it dawned on me why it can't be an optional thing.  Because people are jerks.  Even now with our proposals, there's a huge flaw.  Mutlitple alliances , and how to exploit them should they make this change I propose and the one you propose. 

They both rest on the assumption that people won't cheat by using the fact that you can build next to an ally and if that ally is not included in war, then their structures would be unbreakable and could be set up to block attacks.  Which of course, they'd make a CoC rule to go with it , but that won't stop it from happening.  and then it will drain more time from GM's dealing w/ tribes exploiting a newly introduced loophole.  While I might have been emphatic in my assertion of my argument, it's mostly been a thought experiment and I'm still thinking about it.   Ideas that might seem simple, suddenly do have other implications when rereading everyone's thoughts.

I personally still think that if they went the optional route, enforcement would be trickier with mutliple alliances and multiple members opting out. I think it would be simpler to catch if they used a second separate alliance to create a passive defense.  If they used the second passive alliance for that purpose, it would be easier to show they did it for that reason, vs them saying they accepted war but their friends who helped set up defenses weren't on in time to accept war therefore their structures remained unraidable effectively protecting the rest.

This is is a much more valid argument and reasoning. I can see this as a problem also, I remember reading about tribes who would create a fake proxy tribe and ally with it so that they use it to build around their actual base so as to have their base be protected by ORP even while they are online as the "ally" tribe they created would just be always offline and have it's ORP on while their base which is inside the psuedo "ally tribe". I guess what you are saying is that people would be able to do a similar thing if war was optional. I can sympathize with that.

It's a tricky issue you are right, either solution seems to have it's draw backs and the way it is now is already riddled with draw backs. With this in mind I withdraw my previous solution as it clearly has opportunity for further exploitation. Maybe a possible solution then would be to have it as an optional choice but if the ally declines to help then it puts you and them at war automatically. So if people are trying to use a merged defense and then don't accept to go to war then their defenses will turn on each other so they can't use it as an exploit. Although I will say I don't really like that solution either but I don't like the way it is now or the potential exploitation of previously suggested solutions (including the one I approved in my previous post) So when your ally goes to war they have maybe 24 hours to accept or decline or it automatically accepts to join on the side of your ally, if however during that period you choose to decline then you are automatically set to be at war with that ally.

Another possible solution, and I am just spit balling here, could be to simply have a time delay on how long it takes your ally to be pulled into the war? Perhaps this would lessen the effects of the this third party war time exploit. say 24 hours before it drags you to war with your ally, but you could still have the option to join sooner if you wanted to. This would give the tribe time to realize what is happening and prepare themselves or break the alliance with the exploiters before they can use a third party to raid them, this would tighten the window that exploiters would have to attack the targeted tribe by baiting them into an alliance and pulling them into an unexpected war. I mean if OP had 24 hours where a message would appear saying impeding war on side of ally in: x amount of time, He probably would have been able to realize he was being scammed and broken the alliance before he got dragged into this mess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, SaltyMonkey said:

Before anyone gets too excited, bare in mind you’ll need to get PvP players on board with your suggestions as any changes to alliances will effect them too.

PvE after all, is just a tick in the box on a PvP server.

This is utter nonsense and you know it.

PVP players never agree on anything. Every change tears community into yes and no groups and countless yes-but/no-but variations inbetween. There are people who still think mana was fine before nerfs.

It all depends on implementation of war mechanic change(assuming there will be any). Not everything would affect pvp, just like no-wild-grabbing, everything-locked-by-default or offline-damage-protection doesn't affect pvp atm.

If you want to bash pve mode, at least make an effort next time.

 

As for shielding base with indestructible ally structures, you can already do it now. What prevents people from building ally-armor and breaking alliance before declaring war? Leaving war and alliance as is won't make it go away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As stated in an above post you can have one tribe member leave tribe make a new tribe an merge tribes taking your tribe into the new tribe will take your tribe out of the war

35 minutes ago, deedoubleu said:

This is utter nonsense and you know it.

PVP players never agree on anything. Every change tears community into yes and no groups and countless yes-but/no-but variations inbetween. There are people who still think mana was fine before nerfs.

It all depends on implementation of war mechanic change(assuming there will be any). Not everything would affect pvp, just like no-wild-grabbing, everything-locked-by-default or offline-damage-protection doesn't affect pvp atm.

If you want to bash pve mode, at least make an effort next time.

 

As for shielding base with indestructible ally structures, you can already do it now. What prevents people from building ally-armor and breaking alliance before declaring war? Leaving war and alliance as is won't make it go away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Lycan187u said:

As stated in an above post you can have one tribe member leave tribe make a new tribe an merge tribes taking your tribe into the new tribe will take your tribe out of the war

 

I'm not sure what it has to do with what I wrote above.

Also mentioned method won't help solo players. For them alliance is a pvp-on switch atm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, deedoubleu said:

This is utter nonsense and you know it.

PVP players never agree on anything. Every change tears community into yes and no groups and countless yes-but/no-but variations inbetween. There are people who still think mana was fine before nerfs.

It all depends on implementation of war mechanic change(assuming there will be any). Not everything would affect pvp, just like no-wild-grabbing, everything-locked-by-default or offline-damage-protection doesn't affect pvp atm.

If you want to bash pve mode, at least make an effort next time.

 

As for shielding base with indestructible ally structures, you can already do it now. What prevents people from building ally-armor and breaking alliance before declaring war? Leaving war and alliance as is won't make it go away.

Lol alliances effect both PvP and PvE the same mate. The only difference with PvE is the tribe war aspect as it’s ongoing with PvP. The fact you think PvE is more than just PvP turned off is highly laughable. If what you’re suggesting was easy, explain to me why all PvP balances affectt PvE. Don’t worry, I’ll wait.

Edit: one more thing, I host and play unofficial PvE, so I have every right to be involved with this discussion because any changes that involve an in game mechanic, effect me just as much as it effects you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lycan187u said:

As for shielding base with indestructible ally structures, you can already do it now. What prevents people from building ally-armor and breaking alliance before declaring war? Leaving war and alliance as is won't make it go away.

Maybe I misread but this statement is what I was referring  too ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, SaltyMonkey said:

Before anyone gets too excited, bare in mind you’ll need to get PvP players on board with your suggestions as any changes to alliances will effect them too.

PvE after all, is just a tick in the box on a PvP server.

I don't follow that argument, it wouldn't affect PvP at all.

If WC added a feature to PvE servers, a feature that said you have to consent to joining a war, that would have zero affect on any PvP player ever. There are other game mechanics (like building in caves) that are different in PvE and PvP based on the server settings, this setting would fall into the same category.

I posted earlier that I think forming alliances with people for trading is a bad idea, but that's only because the current Alliances game mechanics are severely flawed for PvE.

The whole point of playing PvE is that you should never be attacked without your consent, and that consent should be on a case-by-case basis, even if you're in an alliance. Party A declares War, Party B then has the option to accept or decline the war, it should never happen automatically in PvE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pipinghot said:

I don't follow that argument, it wouldn't affect PvP at all.

If WC added a feature to PvE servers, a feature that said you have to consent to joining a war, that would have zero affect on any PvP player ever. There are other game mechanics (like building in caves) that are different in PvE and PvP based on the server settings, this setting would fall into the same category.

I posted earlier that I think forming alliances with people for trading is a bad idea, but that's only because the current Alliances game mechanics are severely flawed for PvE.

The whole point of playing PvE is that you should never be attacked without your consent, and that consent should be on a case-by-case basis, even if you're in an alliance. Party A declares War, Party B then has the option to accept or decline the war, it should never happen automatically in PvE.

Seriously you and everyone else here are absolutely clueless. Let me spell it out to you slowly, you  can’t  change  the  alliance  mechanic  without  effecting  both  game  modes!

I can go slower if you want?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since, I don't really knnow... can pvp tribes already attack another tribe w/out declaring a war? 

second question, how does it work out now as it is when a tribe accepts a war and is in 2 different alliances, where one of those alliances has a tribe in the opposing tribes alliances?  Is it impossible to do , if not, what happens?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, GrumpyBear said:

Since, I don't really knnow... can pvp tribes already attack another tribe w/out declaring a war? 

second question, how does it work out now as it is when a tribe accepts a war and is in 2 different alliances, where one of those alliances has a tribe in the opposing tribes alliances?  Is it impossible to do , if not, what happens?

In pvp there is no war declaration, thus alliances have nothing to do with it. You can kill anyone any time - your tribemate, your ally, random dude.

So pve alliance already works differently with war declaration existence and it has zero effect on pvp alliances. According to SaltyMonkey it can never happen, yet that's how it is atm.

 

Yes, SaltyMonkey please go slower and slower until you stop completely, because you still not making any sense. I played my fair share of pvp and switched to pve recently. i'm not calling one or the other superior. that's your thing. My point is that pve already has different mechanics from pvp and I can't understand how you not seeing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, GrumpyBear said:

Since, I don't really knnow... can pvp tribes already attack another tribe w/out declaring a war? 

second question, how does it work out now as it is when a tribe accepts a war and is in 2 different alliances, where one of those alliances has a tribe in the opposing tribes alliances?  Is it impossible to do , if not, what happens?

PvP tribes can attack anyone, at any time, including raiding allies to bypass defences.

My point is that the alliance mechanic at its core is the same for both PvE and PvP, so when making suggestions, you need to consider all stakeholders.

Tribe wars are exclusive to PvE but not to alliances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, deedoubleu said:

In pvp there is no war declaration, thus alliances have nothing to do with it. You can kill anyone any time - your tribemate, your ally, random dude.

So pve alliance already works differently with war declaration existence and it has zero effect on pvp alliances. According to SaltyMonkey it can never happen, yet that's how it is atm.

 

Yes, SaltyMonkey please go slower and slower until you stop completely, because you still not making any sense. I played my fair share of pvp and switched to pve recently. i'm not calling one or the other superior. that's your thing. My point is that pve already has different mechanics from pvp and I can't understand how you not seeing this.

Please explain to me what you don’t understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SaltyMonkey said:

Please explain to me what you don’t understand?

How you don't see pve differences that do not affect pvp in any way.

And if such differences already exist, there is no reason to think war+alliance combo change can not be implemented in any other way other than complete and global destruction of pvp mode.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, deedoubleu said:

i'm not calling one or the other superior. that's your thing. My point is that pve already has different mechanics from pvp and I can't understand how you not seeing this.

Wow, nice straw-man. Considering I play PvE, I’d like for you to point out where I’m claiming superiority.

Also, I’ll repeat again for you slowly too, the  alliance  mechanic  is  the  same  for  both  PvE  and  PvP  at  its  core.  Tribe  wars  are  exclusive  to  PvE,  alliances  are  not.  People  should  be  advocating  for amending  the  tribe  wars  mechanic  instead  of  the  alliance  mechanic.  Is  this  slow  enough  for  you?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, deedoubleu said:

How you don't see pve differences that do not affect pvp in any way.

And if such differences already exist, there is no reason to think war+alliance combo change can not be implemented in any other way other than complete and global destruction of pvp mode.

The way the alliance system works, as intended for both pvp and pve, it has little to no bearing on pvp. Said proposal to include a flag for peaceful or aggressive  would only change one thing w/ pvp in that it could make a group of tribes in one alliance actually unable to attack each other.  Which they could easily leave said alliance and attack at any point they want to. If one tribe in an alliance wants to backstab another in the alliance, they would always be able to create a new alliance w/ everyone who wants to turn on the tribe in question. Then abandon the first alliance.

In pve, it would enable  more functionality that most, if not all baring a few outliers, pve'ers would appreciate.  

I don't see any PvPers upset over a smaller change to the system.  I'd imagine some portion would not appreciate something like a scheduled system w/ delays waiting for alliance members to accept.  I think that sort of change might be more drastic period. My little initial flag idea would probably be appreciated by some in the pvp community and wouldn't effect the others at all probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The funniest part about this whole thread is that barely anyone has suggested removing tribe wars from the alliance mechanic. That would literally solve the issue.

Instead, so far everyone has suggested changing the alliance mechanic even though it works the same for both PvE and PvP.

What do you think is easier for Wildcard, adding in new mechanics that may effect more than one game mode, or removing a mechanic that only effects one game mode?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SaltyMonkey said:

The funniest part about this whole thread is that barely anyone has suggested removing tribe wars from the alliance mechanic. That would literally solve the issue.

Instead, so far everyone has suggested changing the alliance mechanic even though it works the same for both PvE and PvP.

What do you think is easier for Wildcard, adding in new mechanics that may effect more than one game mode, or removing a mechanic that only effects one game mode?

This is probably the best thing.  I saw someone suggested in a thread some time back to add a "war mode" to PvE of some sort, but I can see drawbacks in doing that.  Either that or the "PvX" servers from mobile that have PvP "zones" in certain areas of the map.

I think why people are confused is that in PvE you can be dragged into a war, whereas on PvP you are already at war, forever.  So though the alliance mechanic exists, it really doesn't matter on PvP because you can still be attacked by anyone for any reason (including "no reason"), whereas on PvE it matters because it is just another griefing tool?  Maybe?  I dont freaking know, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SaltyMonkey said:

The funniest part about this whole thread is that barely anyone has suggested removing tribe wars from the alliance mechanic. That would literally solve the issue.

Instead, so far everyone has suggested changing the alliance mechanic even though it works the same for both PvE and PvP.

What do you think is easier for Wildcard, adding in new mechanics that may effect more than one game mode, or removing a mechanic that only effects one game mode?

Say what now??? are we reading the same thread? a large portion of suggestions including my own have been to adjust the war declaration mechanic and not the alliance mechanic??????????? I am confused now, My suggestions was literally players should have a 24 hour period to decide whether they want to stay in an alliance when war is declared instead of just being instantly forced into your allies war. A message in the tribe log that says "your ally is at war and you will automatically be joined on your allys side in 24 hours if you stay in this alliance" or something to that effect. Something like that would not effect PvP

Also this is a suggestion coming from a PvP player, thats right I don't even play PvE but I can still sympathize with those getting harmed by this faulty mechanic and am offering up suggestions, suggestions which won't ever benefit me in the slightest. You said you play PvE but seem to be so against this entire thread and everyone trying to suggest solutions? Maybe I am wrong but that is just how it is coming across.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HoboNation said:

Say what now??? are we reading the same thread? a large portion of suggestions including my own have been to adjust the war declaration mechanic and not the alliance mechanic??????????? I am confused now, My suggestions was literally players should have a 24 hour period to decide whether they want to stay in an alliance when war is declared instead of just being instantly forced into your allies war. A message in the tribe log that says "your ally is at war and you will automatically be joined on your allys side in 24 hours if you stay in this alliance" or something to that effect. Something like that would not effect PvP

Also this is a suggestion coming from a PvP player, thats right I don't even play PvE but I can still sympathize with those getting harmed by this faulty mechanic and am offering up suggestions, suggestions which won't ever benefit me in the slightest. You said you play PvE but seem to be so against this entire thread and everyone trying to suggest solutions? Maybe I am wrong but that is just how it is coming across.

Another straw-man, congratulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, SaltyMonkey said:

Wow, nice straw-man. Considering I play PvE, I’d like for you to point out where I’m claiming superiority.

Also, I’ll repeat again for you slowly too, the  alliance  mechanic  is  the  same  for  both  PvE  and  PvP  at  its  core.  Tribe  wars  are  exclusive  to  PvE,  alliances  are  not.  People  should  be  advocating  for amending  the  tribe  wars  mechanic  instead  of  the  alliance  mechanic.  Is  this  slow  enough  for  you?

 

For once, please try reading slowly too. This is my last attempt to explain obvious things to you.

In this example we want to lock weight of all characters created by one specific player at 100 while leaving all other players unaffected.

From what I saw so far, your way of doing it would be to get straight to parts of code controlling weight or leveling system and mess it up for every ark player. This is not necessary, though possible of course if failing is your goal.

What you missing is that few lines of code with additional condition can execute new code only if player's account matches target and do everything as it was before otherwise. Core mechanic stays the same for everyone yet our player X has their weight locked at 100 and everyone else can't notice any difference because there is nothing to notice for them.

 

Same with wars and alliances on pve. It is possible to have changes to anything only affect one mode, but not the other.

And it doesn't really matter if it is achieved by changing war or alliance mechanic. What matters is end result. People should not get dragged to war they know nothing about without agreeing to it. Alliance is not a consent!

Some people here afraid it would introduce new exploits, but so far I didn't see anything really new. Those mentioned are already possible. So atm we have exploits AND flawed system which allows griefing. Making tribe leaders manually accept/reject participation in someone else's war, as one of possible solutions, would eliminate current method of griefing that seems to become more popular recently. Would also make pve alliances great again.

Now if someone sees downside that I'm missing, please share your concerns and lets discuss it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SaltyMonkey said:

Another straw-man, congratulations.

Edit: I had a whole post about how Im not straw manning you I was questioning why you are lumping the arguments of people whose posts are in line with and agree with your own with the same people who you disagree with.

But I am editing this as I misread your previous post, I thought you were implying no one was addressing the core issue of war declaration being the crux of the issue, Re reading it I see you said "barely anyone" so I withdraw my statement.  

I have already shown that I too think it is war declaration that needs to be the focus as well. Removing it entirely I can't say whether it would be protested or not as like I said before I don't play PvE so I don't have the authority or experience in those communities to cast a stone on that issue, But definitely some kind of amendment is required. The way it is now with people being dragged into wars that they may have had no hand in starting, and also having no way other than not using alliances at all to safe guard themselves from being scammed as OP was... It really isn't a very fair mechanic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...