Proposal VM mode for CQ worlds

MasterSpy

Chiliarch
I had an interesting discussion with a few players regarding VM for CQ worlds the other day. One of the biggest issues I see with VM in CQ worlds is how vulnerable it makes the player entering it. If the enemy narrows down the time VM begins, then it greatly decreases the player entering VM chance to defend his/her city as the backsnipe option is nearly completely nullified. Yes, I know some players often hit VM as they can't handle the heat in game, however sometime VM is hit for real life issues or for an actual vacation. Adding the stress of the game and having to worry about defending or losing cities at that time is often the last thing a person wants to deal with. So we came up with the following, simple solution...

Maintain the current rules, ie. VM starts 48 hours after hitting it, no attacks after hitting VM etc etc however make it impossible for a CS to land in any city of the player entering VM 12 hours before VM actually starts. That way, the defending player and his/her alliance still has the chance to backsnipe a CS yet enemy alliances can still continue to attack and clear a player entering VM right up until the entry time.

Note: This option would not need to be nor should be applied to revolt worlds as there is already no backsnipe option anyway.
 

gkassimis

Hipparchus
i admit entering vm is some times huge problem when enemy finds about it. your proposal is good. its like a combo of vm with peace time during easter and christmas where its impossible to send cs some hours before they start. another thought i had is to allow cities of players who have entered vm to be attacked when they are under siege (and supported of course). however there are some problems that need to be solved for this idea to happen. attackers wont probably have live siege if cs enters last seconds while defenders will be able to have, defenders not to be able to send new cs while siege is still running if they see it might get killed, internal handovers wont be so easy since many players use vm to hand over their cities without their teammates needing support.
 

Hydna

Grepolis Team
I think this is an interesting proposal. We need some more player views on this to take it forward. I agree that entering VM in conquest can be a complete nightmare in some circumstances.
 

Seriko Lee

Lochagos
It will be interesting but what would be end goal to the world.
2. what are the rules.
But here is my suggestion for the world, there should be a world VM mode and it will activate once you are offline for 8 hours but you are open to attack for 4 hours cause CQ means someone needs to take something due to time zone differences.
 

gkassimis

Hipparchus
i would like to add that the way vm mode works atm is driving some players away from game. last time i entered vm, i had the last 30 min more attacks than the previous month. a friend of mine a few weeks ago lost 20 cities despite the fact he hadnt lost not even 1 the previous 7 months since he started playing. lets try to imagine the situation. someone hits vm for various reasons and his last impression from the game is a total chaos with dozens of attacks and many incoming cs. it doesnt sound very incouraging to return
 

MasterSpy

Chiliarch
i would like to add that the way vm mode works atm is driving some players away from game. last time i entered vm, i had the last 30 min more attacks than the previous month. a friend of mine a few weeks ago lost 20 cities despite the fact he hadnt lost not even 1 the previous 7 months since he started playing. lets try to imagine the situation. someone hits vm for various reasons and his last impression from the game is a total chaos with dozens of attacks and many incoming cs. it doesnt sound very incouraging to return
exactly the reason for my idea
 

Pennaone

Phrourach
i would like to add that the way vm mode works atm is driving some players away from game. last time i entered vm, i had the last 30 min more attacks than the previous month. a friend of mine a few weeks ago lost 20 cities despite the fact he hadnt lost not even 1 the previous 7 months since he started playing. lets try to imagine the situation. someone hits vm for various reasons and his last impression from the game is a total chaos with dozens of attacks and many incoming cs. it doesnt sound very incouraging to return


Removed from the situation of a personal emergency, I quite enjoy VM ops.
They're the only high-stake moments in CQ worlds where you have the chance of coming away with a lot of cities. They're also one of the few moments you see teams working together in a way that doesn't happen day-to-day in conquest as it does in revolt. Defending can also be an enjoyable challenge provided it's a planned VM, which is what the feature is there for in my opinion. If I have to hit it unplanned because of a real life crisis I'm not sticking around for 48h or 36h to deal with my grepolis rank. I'd have someone reach out to the opposing team for me and ask for a no-hit.
 

MasterSpy

Chiliarch
Removed from the situation of a personal emergency, I quite enjoy VM ops.
They're the only high-stake moments in CQ worlds where you have the chance of coming away with a lot of cities. They're also one of the few moments you see teams working together in a way that doesn't happen day-to-day in conquest as it does in revolt. Defending can also be an enjoyable challenge provided it's a planned VM, which is what the feature is there for in my opinion. If I have to hit it unplanned because of a real life crisis I'm not sticking around for 48h or 36h to deal with my grepolis rank. I'd have someone reach out to the opposing team for me and ask for a no-hit.
exactly my point...why should someone have to reach out and ask for a no-hit. That just creates more issues as there will always be someone that questions the integrity of the request. Why not just take that ambiguity out of the game and allow someone to enter VM relatively tranquil? Entering VM is an option of the game that shouldn't leave the player in question disadvantaged. If you have to rely on someone entering VM to op them then you should really rethink your and your alliances' abilities.
 

Pennaone

Phrourach
exactly my point...why should someone have to reach out and ask for a no-hit. That just creates more issues as there will always be someone that questions the integrity of the request. Why not just take that ambiguity out of the game and allow someone to enter VM relatively tranquil? Entering VM is an option of the game that shouldn't leave the player in question disadvantaged.
I just said that I enjoy VM entries for the reasons I laid out above. You raise valid points though in that it shouldn't disadvantage someone and overall no I don't think its a healthy mechanic for the game. However, even under your reworked mechanic I would still ask for a no-hit because in an emergency you can't really allocate 36h to playing anyways.

If you have to rely on someone entering VM to op them then you should really rethink your and your alliances' abilities.
Your previous take was good, this one is just not it though. No alliance could OP another of equal size and come away with 15 cities simultaneously. We're talking about 2022 CQ here, Ares and constant over-the-top flyer events. I love being able to time a CS to the second someone enters VM. Much more so than landing a normal siege only to have some random guy smash 45 tokened griffins with aim of the huntress into my DLU and watch it still die at 1:4 ratio's.
 

gkassimis

Hipparchus
Removed from the situation of a personal emergency, I quite enjoy VM ops.
They're the only high-stake moments in CQ worlds where you have the chance of coming away with a lot of cities. They're also one of the few moments you see teams working together in a way that doesn't happen day-to-day in conquest as it does in revolt. Defending can also be an enjoyable challenge provided it's a planned VM, which is what the feature is there for in my opinion. If I have to hit it unplanned because of a real life crisis I'm not sticking around for 48h or 36h to deal with my grepolis rank. I'd have someone reach out to the opposing team for me and ask for a no-hit.
you cant depend in good will. we have seen many times players using fake excuses. i still remember a guy whose mother died twice in 6 months. also we have seen many times that enemies dont respect no-hit despite the fact they were informed by the player in advance. i agree that vm offers opportunity for teamwork but a good team can do ops all the time without vm involving. we need to see what will benefit game longterm and not be content by small victories. a player who is spammed and eventually loses cities just before he enters vm has less chances to return from his vm. and losing players for various resons is the biggest problem of grepo i believe
 

MasterSpy

Chiliarch
I just said that I enjoy VM entries for the reasons I laid out above. You raise valid points though in that it shouldn't disadvantage someone and overall no I don't think its a healthy mechanic for the game. However, even under your reworked mechanic I would still ask for a no-hit because in an emergency you can't really allocate 36h to playing anyways.


Your previous take was good, this one is just not it though. No alliance could OP another of equal size and come away with 15 cities simultaneously. We're talking about 2022 CQ here, Ares and constant over-the-top flyer events. I love being able to time a CS to the second someone enters VM. Much more so than landing a normal siege only to have some random guy smash 45 tokened griffins with aim of the huntress into my DLU and watch it still die at 1:4 ratio's.
exactly my point...with the current vm rules, alliances take their chance to land multiple cs's as a player enters vm. This player then learns that he/she has lost all those cities and often doesnt come back to the world after vm due to the large losses. Inno should be doing things that attract or at least maintain players and making entering into VM less stressful and less vulnerable I feel is one aspect that could help.
 

gkassimis

Hipparchus
i guess we agree of the necessity to change how VM works. now we need to focus on proposals. i believe @MasterSpy s proposal not to be able to send cs some hours before VM starts is really good. the amount of hours i think should be equal to the duration of the siege. if siege lasts 8h, then the last 8h before VM players not to be able to send cs. if siege lasts 12h then 12h no cs attack etc
 

Jimothy5

Chiliarch
simplest option to improve the hell that can be entering VM is to allow the player entering VM to attack themselves after VM time, so that the player can at least attempt to kill CS that may land last second. Already the native backsnipe can work.

I actually very much dislike the proposal stated at the top, because it's dumb in my opinion. This fully allows VM to be an escape from pressure in game. VM isn't peacetime, and should not function like peacetime.
 

Zen Shadow

Lochagos
I don’t agree with any of this talk. VM is only a problem for MRAs with spies in them. I don’t MRA, therefore no spies. You’d never know if I VMd…. BTW, I never have gone VM…
 

gkassimis

Hipparchus
I don’t agree with any of this talk. VM is only a problem for MRAs with spies in them. I don’t MRA, therefore no spies. You’d never know if I VMd…. BTW, I never have gone VM…
i hope you re joking when you claim that only from spies the enemy can learn about vm. its extremely easy to find about it when they see someone not attacking for 24h. Vm exists for a reason and the way it works now it doesnt fulfill its purpose. if you are a frontline player and you need to hit vm, you take a huge risk and it shouldnt be this way. if inno wont change how it works, its better at least to change how they call it and replace the word ''vacation'' with ''hell''.
 

Pennaone

Phrourach
We'd find your VM time when we check your whole alliance every night. It's really not that hard.

Ironically, your only chance of sneaking in is if you ARE part of an MRA, I'm too lazy to do 150 names regularly.
I don’t agree with any of this talk. VM is only a problem for MRAs with spies in them. I don’t MRA, therefore no spies. You’d never know if I VMd…. BTW, I never have gone VM…
 

Back2Basics

Chiliarch
I mean, if you have a competent alliance, a VM entry shouldn't be difficult to work through...

Given a legitimate reason you'd be hard pressed to find a team that wouldn't entertain a no hit. To do away with having the ability to time into someone's VM allowed for 20-30 cities to shift into a fully blue (or red depending on your thoughts on the manner) area purely through hiding behind an intended game mechanic that allows days to stack.

Assuming you have any amount of communication with your team and plan your VM accordingly to an active time period for yourself and those around you, it's always relatively painless to enter VM with no losses, something we've done multiple times this world...

The frontline on the world we're currently playing is littered with accounts showing 50+ days inactive with no signs of dropping VM anytime soon, why should we be penalized by not being able to take what amount to free cities with communication and a bit of timing when a group of players decides they can't actively defend their cities from being opped for the 30 minutes they enter vm?
 

Pennaone

Phrourach
i hope you re joking when you claim that only from spies the enemy can learn about vm. its extremely easy to find about it when they see someone not attacking for 24h. Vm exists for a reason and the way it works now it doesnt fulfill its purpose. if you are a frontline player and you need to hit vm, you take a huge risk and it shouldnt be this way. if inno wont change how it works, its better at least to change how they call it and replace the word ''vacation'' with ''hell''.
You can still hide it by getting BP with long range hits, quests, or having a teammate put you in siege.
 

Pennaone

Phrourach
I mean, if you have a competent alliance, a VM entry shouldn't be difficult to work through...

Given a legitimate reason you'd be hard pressed to find a team that wouldn't entertain a no hit. To do away with having the ability to time into someone's VM allowed for 20-30 cities to shift into a fully blue (or red depending on your thoughts on the manner) area purely through hiding behind an intended game mechanic that allows days to stack.

Assuming you have any amount of communication with your team and plan your VM accordingly to an active time period for yourself and those around you, it's always relatively painless to enter VM with no losses, something we've done multiple times this world...

The frontline on the world we're currently playing is littered with accounts showing 50+ days inactive with no signs of dropping VM anytime soon, why should we be penalized by not being able to take what amount to free cities with communication and a bit of timing when a group of players decides they can't actively defend their cities from being opped for the 30 minutes they enter vm?
I mean "always relatively painless" definitely not. But yes with the proper prep you save yourself. I had to enter VM a few worlds ago and it required an entire spreadsheet with different threat levels and respective levels of support. This only helps in part because when CS"s start getting timed you yourself can do very little. You focus on a few snipes but your main task becomes to clearly identify cs's out of a sea of incomings and relaying the info to teammates quickly, trusting them to delegate a majority of the snipes.

It's definitely not a peaceful entry, but who says it should be. Again, this is a planned vacation. There's a reason the player base made up their own rule outside of that mechanic, No-hit, because vacation mode isn't meant to protect you in an emergency. Again, the proposed change would still leave you vulnerable for 36/48 hours I dont see how that's vastly different outside of you being able to defend a bit better, which I'm not doing at all anyways during a real life emergency.

If two teams aren't scumbags to eachother its not hard to respect this informal rule. You bring up the guy who lied about his mother. If i seem to remember correctly you guys went after him aggressively before anyone actually found out whether or not it was true. That's because the player in question had a history and he had lied about the same thing previously. Anyone who would grant him no-hit is just dumb. In a conflict between two normal teams, and not between a team and a mongrel spammer, it's quite common

This player then learns that he/she has lost all those cities and often doesnt come back to the world after vm due to the large losses.
My experience was the opposite. As I sat there and refreshed grepodata I soon learned that we hadn't lost a single city throughout the entire thing. It motivated my teammates who were still in game and it made me thankful I was part of a proper alliance.
 

Attachments

  • vm entry pg 1-2.png
    vm entry pg 1-2.png
    96.4 KB · Views: 22
  • vm entry cs's.png
    vm entry cs's.png
    57 KB · Views: 22
Last edited:

MasterSpy

Chiliarch
I don’t agree with any of this talk. VM is only a problem for MRAs with spies in them. I don’t MRA, therefore no spies. You’d never know if I VMd…. BTW, I never have gone VM…
so not true...in several worlds i had 24-36 hour attacks launched at me daily all for the sole reason of preventing me hitting VM or knowing the exact time i was entering it. We often did the same to other alliances with absolutely no spy needed.
 
Top