foogaloowhoOP
Strategos
These suggestions are great, but in all honesty I don't see whats wrong with the current situation. A few day of simming never hurt nobody and some of us (me) sim the whole word anyways.
DeletedUser21287
Guest
I like the peace, gives us a little break and you work around it. If you are in a server where the majority of players celebrate xmas on the 25th then the rest of you respect it, if a US server has peace on the 4th July then I accept that and so on. If you are at war and 90% of players wanted peace you just stack the other 10% who can attack and they wont lose a city anyway so whats the point. If you apply peace to every cultures holidays we would never have any game time and if you had no peace at all you would annoy those reg players who respect the peace. Also most leaders are very respectful to each other, if you want peace request a ceasefire.
DeletedUser51423
Guest
That is something to be considered, and even though I don't like that new addition to peacetime, it's more fitting here.
Allowing cities to change hands does not seem like it would be fair to everyone. If the majority of a person's alliance is still taking the peacetime as offered, if a person who didn't will not have their team to help defend them.
If you are happy with peacetime, this idea isn't really for you and exactly why peacetime exists. However, players who don't want peacetime because they have the time to play during the holidays the option of opting
This idea is not to create more peacetime. I understand the thought process behind other culture's holiday's that require peace but I would assume more region specific servers handle that. Just as US servers have time for Thanksgiving and July 4th, those are region specific holidays.
I'm sorry, but I have seriously never played a server where this situation would come up. So i think this statement is more exception than rule, because I really feel that if you had a group of players asking another group for a weekend off (let's just use July 4th as an example) so they can get drunk and blow things up.. It would be advertising to another alliance that you will be otherwise occupied and an open invitation to attack.
DeletedUser50332
Guest
As countries (and servers) become increasingly multicultural or hold different beliefs, and so different players have different preferences in relation to Peacetime.
There are those players in a US, or European, or other server who may not observe Thanksgiving or Christmas or whatever.
So this suggestion offers them that option.
The idea seems to be fairly well fleshed out, and I particularly like the suggestion of having some sort of indicator for those cities in 'Peacetime' in the same way that we have beginners protection.
What are the next stages in developing this idea as it would be great to have it in place by Christmas?
There are those players in a US, or European, or other server who may not observe Thanksgiving or Christmas or whatever.
So this suggestion offers them that option.
The idea seems to be fairly well fleshed out, and I particularly like the suggestion of having some sort of indicator for those cities in 'Peacetime' in the same way that we have beginners protection.
What are the next stages in developing this idea as it would be great to have it in place by Christmas?
Rachel.L
Phrourach
The idea need 10-15 more comments that are meaningful to flush it out and then it can be sent to the devs. Since it was @.magick.'s proposal's and she's been answering all responses, it has been working through kinks. All of that is assuming @Baudin Toolan is following the scheme set up by fig.What are the next stages in developing this idea as it would be great to have it in place by Christmas?
DeletedUser55069
Guest
That sounds more like a half-peace time not opt-out.
I assume it would be more popular to opt-out as long as players can hide their offense in peacetime protected cities, then there’s absolutely nothing to lose... but should they be allowed to do that?
It is an exploit if a player who opted out can benefit from peace protection.
Then only a few players would need to stay in peace and the rest could use their cities as a dynamic protection shield.
Players who opt-out can be stacked by players who don’t anytime during peace.
Would it be ok to hide units in protected cities or acquire help from them assuming CS couldn’t land?
Players who opt-out should not benefit from any peacetime protection.
In practice only friendly favor exchange is what it would be really useful for to opt out, but then the players who don’t opt out should definitely not be able to benefit from this.
The proposal doesn’t consider these abuses.
Silver Witch
Strategos
I think its a great idea. Its optional and since everyone has the chance to choose its perfectly fair. Everyone opting out can hide troops to keep them safe so yes thats an advantage but its an advantage to all.
Friendly favor exchange is a good point but players that dont opt out cant take advantage of that anyway - they cant attack.
Friendly favor exchange is a good point but players that dont opt out cant take advantage of that anyway - they cant attack.
Raydium88
Strategos
Provide players with that choice. Again, some of us have more time during holidays to play than on our regular schedules. If people opt out they understand and acknowledge the risk of doing so, including potentially losing their cities... Is a war game. You make a choice, you own up to it. At the same time, I also agree that despite the option to, any interaction with WW should not be possible.
DeletedUser55069
Guest
it is not quite clear
players can launch attacks during peacetime if their attacks land after peace end, but whose peace end?
Rachel.L
Phrourach
not quite sure about your question as a server has always had one end to peacetime, no matter the time zone in which players play
it is an announced server time, one time for everyone
DeletedUser55069
Guest
the proposal here is that the peace end could be individual depending on when a player wants to opt out from peace, hence the question whether others who didn't opt out could attack them or not
Rachel.L
Phrourach
if you are in peace time and attack someone who opted out (attackable already), the attack still has to land after you are out of peace
your rules do not change
magick can correct me if i'm wrong
DeletedUser51423
Guest
Sorry for my absence in this thread. However I am here now to address some points.
You may think that this is an exploit, however it is nowhere near a new one, or even one that players complain about. This happens every time a player in an alliance joins a server late and the alliance uses the beginners protection bubble.
As said several times in this thread, this idea would not allow revolt attacks or CS's to land. (maybe not even sent out, like a banner would pop up saying you can't do that as it's peacetime?) This idea opens up something to so except build during peacetime. Which the entire premise is to not attack people when they don't have the time as real life takes precedence. That overall concept is still in play here. People in peacetime cannot attack or be attacked, if they get a little DBP here or there, once again how is that different from when a player sends out def before going into VM? If you are claiming it's an abuse, once again it's not a new one and one that no one is complaining about.
Once again standard peacetime rules would apply, if you are in peace time you cant attack, so how would "friendly favor exchanges" apply to those in peacetime? You cannot attack, thus you cannot favor farm. so not an abuse.
I really don't understand where this comes from. The proposal it the opprotunity to opt out of peacetime before it happens, and you can't jump in and out of it at will. Once a choice is made you are stuck with it. And peacetime would end for the server as a whole at one specific time, and attacks on those in peacetime would follow the same rules.
You may think that this is an exploit, however it is nowhere near a new one, or even one that players complain about. This happens every time a player in an alliance joins a server late and the alliance uses the beginners protection bubble.
As said several times in this thread, this idea would not allow revolt attacks or CS's to land. (maybe not even sent out, like a banner would pop up saying you can't do that as it's peacetime?) This idea opens up something to so except build during peacetime. Which the entire premise is to not attack people when they don't have the time as real life takes precedence. That overall concept is still in play here. People in peacetime cannot attack or be attacked, if they get a little DBP here or there, once again how is that different from when a player sends out def before going into VM? If you are claiming it's an abuse, once again it's not a new one and one that no one is complaining about.
Once again standard peacetime rules would apply, if you are in peace time you cant attack, so how would "friendly favor exchanges" apply to those in peacetime? You cannot attack, thus you cannot favor farm. so not an abuse.
I really don't understand where this comes from. The proposal it the opprotunity to opt out of peacetime before it happens, and you can't jump in and out of it at will. Once a choice is made you are stuck with it. And peacetime would end for the server as a whole at one specific time, and attacks on those in peacetime would follow the same rules.
DeletedUser36530
Guest
I read almost everything here. I also do not understand the process of passing these kinds of things, but I really do not care, nor do I understand where this lies exactly. But if its still being debated I would just like to say, this seems like a very good idea. Personally I enjoy peace time most times, it allows me to live life a little. As someone who would most likely stay in peace, this is a great idea. 100% approve of how the top post is currently set. Hope to see this move forward soon.
DeletedUser55069
Guest
Peacetime rules: It is possible to send attacks during peacetime, if they land outside of the peacetime.
Whose peacetime counts - the target's or the attacker's?
The peacetime ends for those players who opt out.
Player A opted out.
Player B didn't opt out.
Player B farms Player A.
Player A hides all units in cities of Player B.
Player A cannot lose units, cities...
It should be clarified whether players who don't opt out could land attacks or not before their own peacetime end.
I don't like in general that other players can take advantage of vacation mode and beginner protection, this peacetime proposal wouldn't be any different for sure, but those abuses could happen on a larger scale.
I don't think it is worth the effort altogether to introduce opt-out peace, the concept is too limited - it is not like regular game, more like Hyberborea worlds: CS can't be sent, you can use the peacetime protected cities to hide units anytime etc. Opting out this way doesn't make much difference for me than peacetime itself, maybe more flexible peacetime rules are what you are looking for...
Last edited by a moderator:
Rachel.L
Phrourach
This is not hard. Why is everyone trying to make it difficult?
The default is peacetime. You must opt out, i.e. be attackable. Otherwise you are in peace.
All players opting out can attack each other as if normal play. They can not attack those still in peace. This includes farming and favor farming. If you are still in peace, you are safe. Opted out, attackable.
All players can send attacks to all players that land after peace ends. There is only one peacetime start and end so there is no attacker vs. target.
There is nothing flexible or anyway to abuse. Each player chooses and is in or out. Everyone makes his or her own choice. Don't like it, then stay in peace.
The default is peacetime. You must opt out, i.e. be attackable. Otherwise you are in peace.
All players opting out can attack each other as if normal play. They can not attack those still in peace. This includes farming and favor farming. If you are still in peace, you are safe. Opted out, attackable.
All players can send attacks to all players that land after peace ends. There is only one peacetime start and end so there is no attacker vs. target.
There is nothing flexible or anyway to abuse. Each player chooses and is in or out. Everyone makes his or her own choice. Don't like it, then stay in peace.
DeletedUser51423
Guest
I dont think I have ever said this before, but thanks Rachel. I was really beginning to think this wasn't clear.
DeletedUser55806
Guest
lol, i was just reading this then i saw you and thought 'why do i recognise your name' then i realised it had something to do with my old account, Hjdm didn't it? xDLove it!
