Monuments and PVP

Have a suggestion or idea for Nile Online?
tutmoses ii
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:46 am

Postby tutmoses ii » Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:03 am

Simple solution based on an insane situation in one of my nomes (1 level 4 pyramid held by a villager and defended by 16 soldiers, two plots held by over 100 bandits a piece and a bandits camp that requires over 1000 soldiers do defeat it).

Make the bandits actually do something. Implement a rule that if a monument is held by less soldiers than are present in the nearest monument plot held by bandits for longer than [insert number] days, the monument will be captured by bandits.

vanlong441
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:58 am

Postby vanlong441 » Fri Jul 31, 2009 12:38 pm

"tutmoses ii" wrote:Simple solution based on an insane situation in one of my nomes (1 level 4 pyramid held by a villager and defended by 16 soldiers, two plots held by over 100 bandits a piece and a bandits camp that requires over 1000 soldiers do defeat it).

Make the bandits actually do something. Implement a rule that if a monument is held by less soldiers than are present in the nearest monument plot held by bandits for longer than [insert number] days, the monument will be captured by bandits.


:eek: you must have read my mind. I don't even like these bandits to treat us as they were angels. I like this game to PvComputer much more than PvP. We're also here to play and relax, not to take advantage of other players success so easily. If someone has to do the looting, blame the bandits for it because it's what they're here for under their name - bandits.
stop all the argument, none of the dictionaries are in need here, we rather speak only one language of sympathy and understanding
...for now it's all gone...

Hieronymus
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:10 am
Location: Londinium, with the insane parakeets

Postby Hieronymus » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:47 pm

OK, here's a random not-at-all-thought-through-with-no-hope-of-TM-ever-implementing-it suggestion. :)

We have two classes of monument plot.

The first being plots closest to the cities. These are immune from attack from other players. However they may be attacked/raided by bandits if there is a bandit nome event - the % likelihood of attack depending on the size of the defending force. Players are limited to holding ONE of these plots.

The second class is the plots furthest from the cities. These may be attacked by anyone, regardless of the number of plots they already hold.

tutmoses ii
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:46 am

Postby tutmoses ii » Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:20 pm

Hieronymus: you can be sure that it will never be implemented because it goes against the idea that limestone should be precious and rare. It will instead make it almost totally worthless.

----

I'll try to summarize my thoughts on the discussion above.
* The designer of a game is always right. True.
* In an economic game (trade!) the market is always right. Every rational player understands that lime is cheapest when its production sites aren't defended. Lime production will remain a hassle because the quarries aren't automatically supplied with bread, but IMO lime should be traded 1:1 with lux goods, not lux raws, if a monument site is protected with twice as many soldiers as there are laborers. It's insane to protect your monuments if you can only sell excess limestone at a loss. If you shouldn't protect your own monument, you certainly shouldn't attack other people's monuments because in the short run that will not affect market prices. It would work in the long run if players wouldn't go immortal long before the long term is reached.
* Therefore, if Reed wants limestone to be rare, it's his responsibility to make it rare. He could do that by slowing down its production, by letting laborers fly when there aren't enough soldiers in the camp, by having monuments plots captured by bandits, as suggested above, or in any other way, as long is it can be implemented in the game software. He shouldn't have to rely on players who want to plunder poorly defended monument plots.

Hieronymus
Posts: 537
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 9:10 am
Location: Londinium, with the insane parakeets

Postby Hieronymus » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:00 pm

"tutmoses ii" wrote:Hieronymus: you can be sure that it will never be implemented because it goes against the idea that limestone should be precious and rare. It will instead make it almost totally worthless.
...
* Therefore, if Reed wants limestone to be rare, it's his responsibility to make it rare. He could do that by slowing down its production, by letting laborers fly when there aren't enough soldiers in the camp, by having monuments plots captured by bandits, as suggested above, or in any other way, as long is it can be implemented in the game software. He shouldn't have to rely on players who want to plunder poorly defended monument plots.

Yes, well I didn't claim the suggestion was fully thought through. :) But I was interested in what others thought. And there are a number of variables in there that could be tweaked to ensure limestone doesn't become worthless. Limiting production as you say (maybe the cap on quarry level is lower for "peaceful" plots than "PvP plots"?) is one; bandit raids/attacks are another, if it means (say) you need 150 soldiers to keep the plot safe from bandit attacks.

But I fear that any discussions about the way this game could be improved are pretty much academic at the moment...

Anonymous Top Ranker
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:51 pm

Postby Anonymous Top Ranker » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:52 pm

"Hieronymus" wrote:We have two classes of monument plot.

The first are immune from attack from other players.
The second class is the plots furthest from the cities. These may be attacked by anyone, regardless of the number of plots they already hold.


A simple no!
You already have peaceful plots: your cities.

No peaceful city builder is forced to get a monument. Nobody's holding a gun at them telling them "Get a monument or else".

Your decision to take a monument is your free decision to enter the PvP game.

There's just one class of monument: The class that can be attacked by other players. It's that simple, period.

Of course, the other suggestions like bandits being also able to attack monuments can and should be additionally implemented. As drains.

tutmoses ii
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:46 am

Postby tutmoses ii » Sat Aug 01, 2009 5:11 pm

Not as a drain but as a way to force careless players to protect their monuments better. When people become aware that protecting their monuments costs bread and protecting their other production sites isn't necessary, meaning that limestone is more expensive to get, its price will naturally increase. :cool:
That doesn't exclude the possibility of PvP, but there's one thing that I'm violently opposed to and that is players who force their playing style on other players, not by discussions in the forum or anywhere else, but with force of arms. If you want to fight over monuments, find somebody who wants to fight too. Then you have both fun, and that's what this game is supposed to be about. :D

Anonymous Top Ranker
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:51 pm

Postby Anonymous Top Ranker » Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:04 pm

"tutmoses ii" wrote:If you want to fight over monuments, find somebody who wants to fight too.


Everyone, I repeat, everyone who takes a monument at any time willingly shows a big sign to the community that says: "I agree to fight. And I'm ready to fight."

--> That's the name of the monument game.

Cause again: Nobody is pointing a gun at you, telling you to "Get a monument, or else...".

You don't want to fight? --> Don't take a monument.
You took a monument? --> You signed a paper saying: "I fully agree to be object to other players' attacks. Signature: me xyz"

It's that simple.

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:08 pm

"tutmoses ii" wrote: If you want to fight over monuments, find somebody who wants to fight too. Then you have both fun, and that's what this game is supposed to be about. :D


Sorry, but no it isn't. All quarry plots get PvPed. If a peaceful player wants a quarry plot or a monument, he/she better protect it & protect a L5 monument BIG TIME. If not, buy from the market or trade for limestone. Monuments are supposed to be a HUGE drain on resources & that drain comes from PvP. That huge drain results in limestone being rare & expensive.

From Reed himself...

"Reed" wrote:Well, if you have the max # of monuments, it probably means you are pretty powerful. You do need to be vulnerable to some extent, and there should be turnover... If you're holding a monument/quarry for a long time, then you are probably getting more powerful all the time.


"Reed" wrote:The monuments are definitely not being fought over as much as they need to be. You shouldn't be able to keep a monument with a few soldiers protecting it.

So, that's going to continue to get tweaked. Too much supply, not enough demand...


"Reed" wrote:Please, don't spread untruths. It's not necessary whatsoever [to own a quarry plot/monument]. Limestone is very much available through the market or by trading.

Also, monuments have long been described as containing the military portion of the game. They are 100% optional and does not affect the game you've been playing the entire time, except to make limestone available to you through the market.


"Reed" wrote:The idea is to have a king of the hill style play on the monument level. If someone doesn't want to get involved in military, then they can stick to building up cities and trading/etc.


then from TM's Jeff Fiske...

"Jeff Fiske" wrote:(Don't forget- you will see people building Monuments on the world map, and these are like little cities and a HUGE drain. Huge. One thing about them: Because of this drain, the wealthy or big guys building monuments will actually be forced into a situation that enables the little guys to catch up.)


Top rankers are supposed to get PvPed. The problem with the game, is that the two quarry plot cap that stops PvP dead in its tracks, is that high rankers cannot PvP each other cuz we all have 2 quarry plots. Top rankers have the resources to PvP, but they cannot.

The little guy can not catch up, nor can high rankers compete with each other, cuz the high rankers cannot fight each other over monuments due to the cap. They have to wait for the high rankers to go Immortality.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Sat Aug 01, 2009 6:35 pm, edited 10 times in total.

mobius
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:14 am

Postby mobius » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:57 pm

"Tinkerbell" wrote:I will also add that TM's vision for this game has changed over the months. They originally wanted more PvP, but surrendered on it. I can easily argue that TM came to believe that PvP was a flawed& fixed the flaw to make it a bit harder to grief in the game.


That was accomplished. Something Anonymous Top Griefer doesn't see why his suggestions probably won't get implemented.

"Tinkerbell" wrote:We have posts on this forum where some players even believe that any griefing at all is bad and needs to be removed from the game totally. Then, the griefers are flamed & everyone is told to stop trading with them. I find this interesting, cuz TM's original vision was for this to be a King of the Hill game, where we fight over quarry plots & especially monuments. High rankers can not do this & we are the ones most able to PvP. We are rich & have the resources. Someone in the top 100 cannot knock down another player in rank for the competition, cuz our hands are tied. Thus, the competition part of the game is poorly implemented. The only players who can PvP are low rankers.


PvP can be done by anyone. High placed rankers can pvp each other. They don't want to or can't think of the way to do it.
It's really easy to own a monument or two and keep it.
A cap limit is necessary. It's also necessary to be required to keep the monument. TM doesn't want one person blowing up all the monuments in the game.
Last edited by mobius on Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Zeal
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:49 am

Postby Zeal » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:24 pm

"mobius" wrote:TM doesn't want one person blowing up all the monuments in the game.

maybe that's just what this game needs...

Anonymous Top Ranker
Posts: 173
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 5:51 pm

Postby Anonymous Top Ranker » Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:16 pm

"mobius" wrote:A cap limit is necessary. It's also necessary to be required to keep the monument. TM doesn't want one person blowing up all the monuments in the game.


One person cannot blow up a big number of well guarded monuments. Your concern is certainly valid for all those low guarded plots. And they indeed deserve being blown up.

You're saying, TM doesn't want this, TM doesn't want that... without even bringing one peace of evidence. Even Tink could prove his "TM wants..." by original TM statements.

In contrast to that, your statements about TM's intentions just seem to be unproved bullsh/it. So they are lacking any validity.

How would you answer this question: Did TM want 90% of the monuments to be nearly unguarded?


Anyway, I'm interested in your opinion about the following:
Would you sign a paper that says: "By taking a monument I agree to enter the PvP gameplay and I agree that my monument is object to any player's attacks" ?

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:03 am

mobius, do not EVER change my words again when you quote them, especially misquoting to change their meaning. That is dishonest & you are a cheater!

Yes, TM surrendered & has almost totally killed the game, limiting it to only a few thousand peaceful players who complain about the late game being boring, resulting in gifting to destroy the balance. Why? Cuz the "top rankers" don't wanna lose their rank ~ don't wanna compete, but be left alone. We read their crybaby tears on this forum all the time.

High rankers cannot PvP each other w/o a multiple account/team playing where the 3rd party & other lemmings become a slave & sacrificies themselves (You cannot tell them apart, cuz they are the very same thing ~ ie Kuuchen). They have the 2 quarry plot cap & cannot attack anyone.

My whole point in all of this is that the game is a money-making failure. It has become a peaceful game for the few & TM listens to them only. TM surrendered to them.

To me, the game is fine as it is. That was never my point. I want TM to succeed. You do not.

Question ~ What is your ingame name in both Theoris & Sabah. I wanna know if you are even still playing the game & whether you are paying for it.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:43 am, edited 20 times in total.

mobius
Posts: 75
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 1:14 am

Postby mobius » Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:24 am

"Tinkerbell" wrote:mobius, do not EVER change my words again when you quote them, especially misquoting to change their meaning. That is dishonest & you are a cheater!

Yes, TM surrendered & has almost totally killed the game, limiting it to only a few thousand peaceful players who complain about the late game being boring, resulting in gifting to destroy the balance. Why? Cuz the "top rankers" don't wanna lose their rank ~ don't wanna compete, but be left alone. We read their crybaby tears on this forum all the time.

High rankers cannot PvP each other w/o a multiple account/team playing where the 3rd party & other lemmings become a slave & sacrificies themselves (You cannot tell them apart, cuz they are the very same thing ~ ie Kuuchen). They have the 2 quarry plot cap & cannot attack anyone.

My whole point in all of this is that the game is a money-making failure. It has become a peaceful game for the few & TM listens to them only. TM surrendered to them.

To me, the game is fine as it is. That was never my point. I want TM to succeed. You do not.

Question ~ What is your ingame name in both Theoris & Sabah. I wanna know if you are even still playing the game & whether you are paying for it.


I'm Mobius on Theoris and don't play on Sabah. I'm not a supporter of the game because it's not worth supporting.

TM success or not is not my concern. It's very easy for me to see the flaws in a plan. The answer to what you want isn't an easy one. Removing the monument cap has a lot of potential to do harm.

Think outside of the box on how to possibly pvp high rank people. You'll get what you want, pvp, or be in the top 10.

tutmoses ii
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:46 am

Postby tutmoses ii » Tue Aug 04, 2009 7:51 am

@Tinkerbell:
If you want TM to be a success, then you better start rethinking your strategy really fast. In the first place, change way you talk to especially paying customers. I saw some of your posts, trust me, you're NOT an asset for TM. Second: I played CoTN, I had great expectations of it when it was first announced, and was sadly disappointed with the result. Not only must the designers have been smoking something pretty strong, or they were drunk or whatever :eek: but the playtesters must have been on some really hard drug to let them get away with it. What does the gaming industry actually do with external playtesters that they seem to lose all critical sense? Dope them with cocaine? :mad:
Put your thinking cap on. There are so many PvP games on the net already, and so few games that are interesting for peaceful people (Molehill Empire, anyone?, can't think of anything else right now). So, make it more interesting for people who don't like to have to decide that they're going to be allies with player 1 and enemies with player 2, for no particular reason.
Remember that the designer may be right about what a game should be in principle only - if it must be a success, the only one who is right is the market. If the customers to be don't like the product, it's going to be a failure, no matter how good it is, who the designer is, etc., - if it doesn't sell, it's wrong.
One of the things that make the endgame boring is that building upgrades take far too long. Make them more expensive in resources and less time consuming in upgrading, so people can do something more often.

Zeal
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:49 am

Postby Zeal » Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:14 am

@ tut
post reported


also

@ mobius
if you don't care then why are you bothering to play or post in the first place? :confused:
Last edited by Zeal on Tue Aug 04, 2009 9:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

tutmoses ii
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:46 am

Postby tutmoses ii » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:07 am

Zeal: I'm going out of my way to HELP those people and you report me? :D :D rofl.
I read some of the reviews of CoTN and believe me, if I was working for TM and I read them, I wouldn't feel comfortable.

Zeal
Posts: 301
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 2:49 am

Postby Zeal » Tue Aug 04, 2009 10:48 am

which reviews? because most of the credible ones were positive... ;)
also how exactly does accusing the designers and play testers of abusing drugs and alcohol help anything?... :confused:
I can only imagine what you think of people like me who think CoTN it's a gorgeous (although a bit flakey at times) game. :rolleyes:

I guess it doesn't matter...
Your post crossed the line so I reported it.

tutmoses ii
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2009 8:46 am

Postby tutmoses ii » Tue Aug 04, 2009 11:36 am

Couldn't find the main review I was thinking of, which had comments like that Egyptian buildings were so gorgeous, you almost couldn't spoil that, so that was the only thing that wasn't spoiled in the graphics.

Some pointers: slow gameplay, buildings weren't displayed with the richness of detail in Pharaoh; natural features weren't displayed in fine detail at all - lack of polygon count in other words, large landscape features were often long straight lines, I felt that trees and corn fields look ugly when zoomed in really much, but that may have been because of my graphics card. When you use the top down view, it's pretty dark most of the time (night). People walk through walls, etc. You can't really lose a mission, you just go on and on and will lose precious prestige to be sure, but you won't ever get pharaoh's army come to get you, like in Pharaoh. There was also much good about it, btw, I loved the concept, and the game does have a lot to enjoy, but what kept nagging me was: if they can be so good in this or that, then how can they possibly screw op so badly over something else?

Tinkerbell
Posts: 5415
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:42 am
Location: San Diego, California
Contact:

Postby Tinkerbell » Tue Aug 04, 2009 12:27 pm

"mobius" wrote:I'm Mobius on Theoris and don't play on Sabah. I'm not a supporter of the game because it's not worth supporting.

TM success or not is not my concern.


Thank you for the response. In Theoris, you play OCC.

"tutmoses ii" wrote:@Tinkerbell:
If you want TM to be a success, then you better start rethinking your strategy really fast. In the first place, change way you talk to especially paying customers. I saw some of your posts, trust me, you're NOT an asset for TM.


You don't know how I post. You also don't know the history I have with certain posters. Perhaps you should change how you post?

Second: I played CoTN, I had great expectations of it when it was first announced, and was sadly disappointed with the result. Not only must the designers have been smoking something pretty strong, or they were drunk or whatever :eek: but the playtesters must have been on some really hard drug to let them get away with it. What does the gaming industry actually do with external playtesters that they seem to lose all critical sense? Dope them with cocaine? :mad:


The mindset of the COTN playtesters is the very same as with Nile Online. In a very real sense, they are the same people. They are peaceful players & that is the problem. My beef with COTN is that it is too peaceful & impossible to lose. The very same problem that there is with Nile Online. Not enough negativity. No bad things happen to players. Hell, in COTN on Hard difficulty, I get MORE food from a failed flood than do players on Normal difficulty. This is what those playtesters did to me.

Put your thinking cap on. There are so many PvP games on the net already,


You mean like ones that make money? LOL Look at you. TM tried to tap into this market, but kept giving up to the minority. I believe their original vision was a good one, if they would have kept with it. You put your thinking cap on. The claims that I see from players like you is that TM stepped too far outside "their player base". I want TM to totally step outside this imaginary "player base". This is what it will take for them to succeed as a company.

and so few games that are interesting for peaceful people (Molehill Empire, anyone?, can't think of anything else right now). So, make it more interesting for people who don't like to have to decide that they're going to be allies with player 1 and enemies with player 2, for no particular reason.


That's because there just isn't that many of you. The players who don't like the way NO turned out have already left & left a long time ago. They are not here to hear their voices. Posts on this forum just do not represent the gaming community. They reflect what is left of the players, plus a few forum clowns.

I knew that Nile Online was in trouble when TM first surrendered on something so simple & tiny bit of negativity added to the game. Here I am talking about sinkage. Man-o-man, the yelling & screaming on this forum over it. TM reduced the sinkage & added found jewelry. WTF? Added found jewelry? I made a profit on found jewelry. The worst part of found jewelry was it added yet another terrible exploit to the start game. Players could go fishing for jewels with one reed boats & this got them into the top 10 ranks with a huge jump on other competitors. I refused to play the game that way. I started posting about playing with Honor ~ to not exploit the game. I got a lot of flaming over it from guess who?

I have posted a lot about the exploits that the playtesters used, insisted be put into the game & made a few enemies. The Alphas. The HeavenGames CB types. The CBC types. The Old People. So be it. For TM to succeed as a company, they must change with the times & keep up with the ever-changing gaming community. New blood. Younger blood. I represent them, or think I do, cuz I am young at heart. I am a rebel.

One of the things that make the endgame boring is that building upgrades take far too long. Make them more expensive in resources and less time consuming in upgrading, so people can do something more often.


I see no difference between raising requirements & lowering the upgrade times. The result is the same ~ it takes longer. I am actually neutral on this issue.

Personally, I believe that there should be no building upgrade caps at all. I would like to see the palace go to at least level 50! :D More scarabs for TM. A higher Immortality endgame also, but not to remove the current one for gamers who only want a short game. A Super Immortality ~ one that takes longer.

Now to be totally fair to TM, the endgame is not finished. TM appears to have stopped working on the endgame due to the pitiful number of paying players. They cannot be blamed for the endgame as it is today. Again, I keep needing to throw this in, cuz too many of my game philosophy opponents keep forgetting this. I do NOT want cities to be PvPed. Only quarry plots. However, I would like to see the AI attack cities a bit, but only higher level cities to spice up the endgame. Something to keep us players on our toes & make the game more interesting. I believe that the totally peaceful option should not be removed. As TM has said over & over, you do not need quarry plots to enjoy this game & do well. When you take a quarry plot, you join the PvP part of the game. You do not need to do this to enjoy the game. I would like to see a peaceful ranking system added also so that a peaceful player can also get to Rank #1.

and we definitely need QUESTS!

I love Nile Online. That is why I have maxed out on purchased scarabs for three worlds now. I am also part of what the others consider "TM's base", but I am so much more than that. I am a Warmonger who fell in love with citybuilding. Their base could be so much larger. Hinterland has increased their base, for example. I love that game.
Last edited by Tinkerbell on Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:07 pm, edited 32 times in total.


Return to “Suggestions / Ideas”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest