PvP Idea

[Alpha Zeke]

So what if, to avoid griefing, people stopped moving into each others territories, and instead set up dates to fight for capturable territories. It would be much more organized. Any ideas?

[Makrell]

So what if, to avoid griefing, people stopped moving into each others territories, and instead set up dates to fight for capturable territories. It would be much more organized. Any ideas?

We voted againist this at another time, sorry. I think it would be a lot better though

[Alpha Zeke]

Well I feel as if all this arguing defeats the purpose of playing, having fun ya know.

[Makrell]

I agree, but i dont know if we can repoll an old poll

[Alpha Zeke]

Well, why not? It would be under new circumstances.

['Gunny]

Id vote for it, make pvp alot better than it is now IMO

[Lord Romanus III]

Id vote for it, make pvp alot better than it is now IMO

I agree. And we can always start polls again, as OPs.

[King Sama]

Yeah, I'm getting sick of PvP as it is currently. I might even be open to planned battle, might make pvp worth it again =/

['Gunny]

Zeke if you want to make a paragraph detailing your idea, i'd be more than happy to bring it to vote

[Musthavename]

I advocated something along these lines originally, and it was ignored.

[Eöl]

Does that mean I couldn't come to josst his place to enjoy and learn about his awesome railroad or that I can't pay a visit to inarus?

['Gunny]

No, just that during PVP the players agree to a field of battle and have at it, more... chivalrous if you ask me

[Makrell]

I like this though. The only thing ive yet found fnny about pvp was when me aankar, crossjon and dan had a battle. It was fast and it was fun

[.Mitch.]

PVP was always good in the beginning. Like the assaults on Sqweak tower, the very first bit of PVP. Sure Nhygt moaned a bit about dying so much (lol), but it was generaly good PVP fun, sometime we even as the attackers had to think about how we would attack, because nhyt was using some clever methods of defending.

Then Akar decided to join PVP, and its turned to shite quite frankly. Every battle now results in 100 threads of how someone hasn't had a fight exactly like someone else wanted.

No wonder people like Poach decided to opt out soon as all the cry babies joined the fighting.

Ideas like this are the only way I can see PVP ever getting back to the fun it once was tbh.

[Lord Romanus III]

PVP was always good in the beginning. Like the assaults on Sqweak tower, the very first bit of PVP. Sure Nhygt moaned a bit about dying so much (lol), but it was generaly good PVP fun, sometime we even as the attackers had to think about how we would attack, because nhyt was using some clever methods of defending.

Then Akar decided to join PVP, and its turned to shite quite frankly. Every battle now results in 100 threads of how someone hasn't had a fight exactly like someone else wanted.

No wonder people like Poach decided to opt out soon as all the cry babies joined the fighting.

Ideas like this are the only way I can see PVP ever getting back to the fun it once was tbh.

Don't blame pvp failures on one person. You can come up with something better to say than that.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I like this though. The only thing ive yet found fnny about pvp was when me aankar, crossjon and dan had a battle. It was fast and it was fun

considering thats the only battle you took part in,i dont think its fair for you to judge the others

mitch i didnt moan about dying a lot,i was unhappy with the fact that the battles were always 3vs1.
and yes,it was fun if you disregard the lags here and there(like aanker not dying properly)...i think we should still have siege battles,not only field battles...otherwise towers and forts are useless...

[Akar]

PVP was always good in the beginning. Like the assaults on Sqweak tower, the very first bit of PVP. Sure Nhygt moaned a bit about dying so much (lol), but it was generaly good PVP fun, sometime we even as the attackers had to think about how we would attack, because nhyt was using some clever methods of defending.

Then Akar decided to join PVP, and its turned to shite quite frankly. Every battle now results in 100 threads of how someone hasn't had a fight exactly like someone else wanted.

No wonder people like Poach decided to opt out soon as all the cry babies joined the fighting.

Ideas like this are the only way I can see PVP ever getting back to the fun it once was tbh.

I was in that battle too

[crossjon]

I like this though. The only thing ive yet found fnny about pvp was when me aankar, crossjon and dan had a battle. It was fast and it was fun

I have to say, that battle was the only time I enjoyed dying.

Here are some rules/procedures that I thought of/were used in that battle that could be used if we implement this idea:

- One side will declare on the server that they want a battle. This will be the attackers
-the other side will get to go find an unoccupied piece of land in the wilderness, and that will be the battle site. This will be the defenders
-both sides will have some time (I thnik 15-20 min should be good) to assemble all the troops they can at the site (tp allowed) and build defenses/traps on their own side of the battle site.
-everything built in the battle site is griefable
-once you die in the battle, you can not go back into the battle site until the battle is over. The team that still has troops left, wins.
-if you leave the battle site during the battle (the site will be marked by the defenders before the battle) you are counted as dead
-if a dead person returns to the battle, his/her team forfeits the battle, and the other team wins.
-at any time, one team can surrender, but only if the whole team agrees to surrender.
sieges
-the attacking team will declare if the battle will be a siege or not
-In a siege, the goal of the attackers is to take the defender's fortification, and the goal of the defenders is to kill all enemies
-if the attackers take the defender's fortification, they win even if a defender is still alive, as long as they are not in the fortification.
-the attackers have limited time (20-30 min) from the stat of the battle to when they have to take the fort, or they forfeit
-all the rules for regular battles apply for sieges

EDIT:
-in sieges, no griefing, but the attacker may ue ladders, and add bridges over trenches.

EDIT 2:
-TNT may be used for traps by either side, but may not be placed after the battle has started. (this applys for both regular battles and sieges)

[Makrell]

I have to say, that battle was the only time I enjoyed dying.

Here are some rules/procedures that I thought of/were used in that battle that could be used if we implement this idea:

- One side will declare on the server that they want a battle. This will be the attackers
-the other side will get to go find an unoccupied piece of land in the wilderness, and that will be the battle site. This will be the defenders
-both sides will have some time (I thnik 15-20 min should be good) to assemble all the troops they can at the site (tp allowed) and build defenses/traps on their own side of the battle site.
-everything built in the battle site is griefable
-once you die in the battle, you can not go back into the battle site until the battle is over. The team that still has troops left, wins.
-if you leave the battle site during the battle (the site will be marked by the defenders before the battle) you are counted as dead
-if a dead person returns to the battle, his/her team forfeits the battle, and the other team wins.
-at any time, one team can surrender, but only if the whole team agrees to surrender.
sieges
-the attacking team will declare if the battle will be a siege or not
-In a siege, the goal of the attackers is to take the defender's fortification, and the goal of the defenders is to kill all enemies
-if the attackers take the defender's fortification, they win even if a defender is still alive, as long as they are not in the fortification.
-the attackers have limited time (20-30 min) from the stat of the battle to when they have to take the fort, or they forfeit
-all the rules for regular battles apply for sieges

I like this

['Gunny]

Aye, though I think I may want to add something for sieges o make them more interesting and more fair for any attacker so tell me what you think: Use of ladders allowed, after all in real sieges they would use siege engines and ladders, so ladders would not be unrealistic