If there were a merge to Erevos after the war on Olympus ended...

This poll asks about which version of 5 different game mechanics players would prefer, the Olympus or Erevos version.

Below is a brief description of the difference in how these 5 mechanisms work on Erevos and Olympus.

Voters should vote for only 1 choice per category. That is to say you should NOT vote for option 1 AND option 2. If you do not care which mechanism is ultimately used, please don't vote within that particular category at all.

Thanks.

---

I. Stats for gear (see the differences between servers here: http://battleconquest.wikia.com/wiki/Items ).

Please choose either choice 1 or 2 in the poll

---

II. Cost of building upgrades, research, and unit recruitment. The cost on Erevos is significantly less for all 3.

Please choose either choice 3 or 4 in the poll

---

III. CP Container size. This is impacted by the server population, but if server populations were equal, the size of containers on Erevos would be larger than Olympus. Effectively, it is "easier" to lose/gain a region on Olympus.

Please choose either choice 5 or 6 in the poll

---

IV. CP bonus. Basically, this is given to one Faction when they have significantly less active members...it is more complicated than this, but close enough to think of it this way.The CP bonus is higher on Olympus than it is on Erevos.

Please choose either choice 7 or 8 in the poll

---

V. Wall Strength. A 5% wall on Erevos may block up to 500 CP. A 5% wall on Olympus blocks up to 65 CP on Olympus.

Please choose either choice 9 or 10 in the poll

I hope erevos players are able to see the 2 actual perks of olympus, gear stats for godlikes and smaller CP containers, beyond all this merger mess that indeed seems to put the 2 worlds at each others throats.

Claudandus wrote:

I hope erevos players are able to see the 2 actual perks of olympus, gear stats for godlikes and smaller CP containers, beyond all this merger mess that indeed seems to put the 2 worlds at each others throats.

I hope so too.

I think Erevos does a good number of things better...but I truly feel that Olympus did it better on those two points.

We'll see how it looks after a full day when most people have looked at this.

I dont see a reason for smaller containers unless there is a full rework of regional bonuses. As for gear stats, personally i find the ones on olympus quite bad. While erevos players eventually reach the level of 100% equal and fair pvp by reaching all caps (possible around lvl 12 units give or take), this is plain impossible on olympus, ever.
Improving pvp on lower levels can only happen by limiting epic and godlike usage in pvp to certain tier level and raise items gs.

Tibr wrote:

I dont see a reason for smaller containers unless there is a full rework of regional bonuses. As for gear stats, personally i find the ones on olympus quite bad. While erevos players eventually reach the level of 100% equal and fair pvp by reaching all caps (possible around lvl 12 units give or take), this is plain impossible on olympus, ever.
Improving pvp on lower levels can only happen by limiting epic and godlike usage in pvp to certain tier level and raise items gs.

The same lvl of equality will be reached on olympus, around lvl 13/14 for hi with current gearscore limits. On Erevos it is possible to cap hi with lvl 10/11 (too early if you ask me). I can directly compare the reaction to my pvp armies on erevos and olympus, both equipped with quite a number of gls. On Erevos almost every unit close to or at caps. On Erevos people tend to scream and even get to the edge of the map, ready to flee. No such incident ever occured on Olympus.

And your argument for bigger containers I simply cannot understand. Why should the regional bonuses get reworked when CP containers are smaller and stay the way they are when they are bigger. The regions and there merit has to be reworked either way.

Claudandus wrote:

On Erevos people tend to scream and even get to the edge of the map, ready to flee. No such incident ever occured on Olympus.

Please don't compare early pvp experiences when only a select few people had gls in Erevos vs all the gem users going to Olympus and having tons of gls from the get go.

Claudandus wrote:

And your argument for bigger containers I simply cannot understand. Why should the regional bonuses get reworked when CP containers are smaller and stay the way they are when they are bigger. The regions and there merit has to be reworked either way.

How many times do people have to bring this redundant arguement? The cp containers in Olympus are smaller because of smaller population. It's not designed to be always smaller. If the populations were the same the cp containers would be the same. Rune said that cp containers will get increased when the population grows in Olympus when the server opened. Smaller container size is not a unique Olympus feature.

Piktas wrote:

Please don't compare early pvp experiences when only a select few people had gls in Erevos vs all the gem users going to Olympus and having tons of gls from the get go.

I wasnt speaking of early pvp experiences. This still happens.

Piktas wrote:

How many times do people have to bring this redundant arguement? The cp containers in Olympus are smaller because of smaller population. It's not designed to be always smaller. If the populations were the same the cp containers would be the same. Rune said that cp containers will get increased when the population grows in Olympus when the server opened. Smaller container size is not a unique Olympus feature.

Rune also said that smaller CP containers are a special feature of olympus. So which one is it?
It is much easier to flip a region on Olympus. So I guess CP containers on Olympus are designed to be smaller, even with similar population.

You are wrong Piktas, with the same amount of players container size would be smaller on Olympus compare to Erevos. They are even smaller due to low activity, but Olympus was supposed to be more dynamic world than Erevos.

I stand corrected then. Nevertheless, a more dynamic map would call for regional bonus upgrades to finish faster (or preferably instantly). As much as I would like more action to happen on the world map as it is currently in Erevos makes more sense. If regional upgrades would stay upgraded after changing sides or guilds then smaller containers would makes sense. Not to mention that walls are virtually useless in Olympus. I guess what I'm trying to say is that beyond merging the servers for a more active community there are tons more balancing to do and people saying how Olympus or Erevos are so great is neither here nor there. However, I do think that making changes and balancing things would be a lot easier if Erevos mechanics were the default.

Piktas wrote:

I stand corrected then. Nevertheless, a more dynamic map would call for regional bonus upgrades to finish faster (or preferably instantly). As much as I would like more action to happen on the world map as it is currently in Erevos makes more sense. If regional upgrades would stay upgraded after changing sides or guilds then smaller containers would makes sense. Not to mention that walls are virtually useless in Olympus. I guess what I'm trying to say is that beyond merging the servers for a more active community there are tons more balancing to do and people saying how Olympus or Erevos are so great is neither here nor there. However, I do think that making changes and balancing things would be a lot easier if Erevos mechanics were the default.

This hole thread is about taking the best things from both worlds and putting them together, not about any kind of rivalry. Lowering regional update costs and times is is a minor issue that can be addressed and adjusted afterwards.

A major point about lack of pvp is that most ppl think that gear is determining the outcome, and they are correct. The statement is true for both servers, it applies to stats and not items. [We have to compare the raw stats units get instead of item quality. Just because an item is epic doesnt mean its better than rare].
A revolutionary turnover would be to have different items for pvp, that are usable only in pvp, that are equipped in a separate window for pvp gear. All pvp items would have SAME stats, differing in quality from tier to tier. All pvp items would be easily obtainable through crafting.

In tier 1 allowed items would have stats like + 3 and be only of common quality.
In tier 2 players would be allowed to equip uncommons and commons, while uncommons would grant +8 to one stat.
In tier 3 players would be allowed to equip rares and below, every rare would have 2 combat stats at + 8 each.
In tier 4 players would be allowed to equip epics and below, epics have 2 combat stats at +13 each.
In tier 5 .... gl and below, gl are +20 in two stats.
Artifacts have lower stats but provide 2 stats for epics and 3 stats for godlikes.

Items have a fix gear score and the players can equip their units or leave some spots empty according to the AP boundaries. Such system will be very simple and offer 100% fairness to any pvp interested player. PVP items do not have secondary stats and are carbon copies with always fix stats. The difference between equally equipped units will be only their own stats, the outcome will be based on tactics and the army composition.

This would solve any pvp related issues players have ever faced and will encourage everyone to give it a try.

The regular rush to get "best" items with max stats and secondary xp/drop and so on can be sustained by difficult PVE content including world bosses and other huge and challenging stuff. Same time to keep the system ballanced any and every fragment drops have to be removed from pvp rewards.

-> want a good pvp system - make it equal
-> want to be a great badass warrior - keep farming and face your challenges in pve solo/coop/mass content.

After doing that, everyone will agree that +30 is the better godlike cap

Your hole statement is only true for current t3 and above. In current t1 and t2 with gearscore limits of olympus, gear superiority can be overcome by bringing more units to the party.
Lack of PVP is not solely based on the issue of having gl pvp gear or not, but that is a reason as well.

But your proposal sounds a little to uniform for me. Sooner or later everybody will have the same gear, and gearing is a tactical choice as well, as long as you are not able to reach caps.

Tibr wrote:

A bunch of things that deserve serious consideration. (this paraphrasing of Tibr's post brought to you by ysosad)

After doing that, everyone will agree that +30 is the better godlike cap

Everyone will agree that the Erevos caps will be better, but some will dislike losing the ability to get that benefit in PvP.

That said, I personally agree with your suggestion.

Claudandus wrote:

This hole thread is about taking the best things from both worlds and putting them together, not about any kind of rivalry. Lowering regional update costs and times is is a minor issue that can be addressed and adjusted afterwards.

I personally don't see a single good thing in Olympus so there's nothing really to take from it other than the players.   

Well the discussion about item caps is fueled by pvp related arguments, in pve nobody would ever argue. So if "lowering" and "equalising" stats on olympos was a good way, like few of you say - why not go one step further and uniform it entirely?
Depending how expensive in gear score items will be and how much AP each tier will allow is the clou. The system can be perfectly adjusted using existing tools - gear score, stats, ap value. You still have plenty open space for tactical equiping even with uniform values. The additional trick required is to remove the visibility of enemy items. And the whole deal is that everyone will have access to same weaponry in the same tier. That is how fair systems look like imho, it removes any advantage paying customers or veterans have in pvp and allows every player to pvp from scratch without having those boundaries in place. Veterans and gem customers or both can happily enjoy their advantage in pve content and enter the competitive area only at equal chances.

Tibr wrote:

Well the discussion about item caps is fueled by pvp related arguments, in pve nobody would ever argue. So if "lowering" and "equalising" stats on olympos was a good way, like few of you say - why not go one step further and uniform it entirely?
Depending how expensive in gear score items will be and how much AP each tier will allow is the clou. The system can be perfectly adjusted using existing tools - gear score, stats, ap value. You still have plenty open space for tactical equiping even with uniform values. The additional trick required is to remove the visibility of enemy items. And the whole deal is that everyone will have access to same weaponry in the same tier. That is how fair systems look like imho, it removes any advantage paying customers or veterans have in pvp and allows every player to pvp from scratch without having those boundaries in place. Veterans and gem customers or both can happily enjoy their advantage in pve content and enter the competitive area only at equal chances.

You will get no argument from me personally. However, I think some people DON'T want the stats to be "lowered" or "equalized" in PvP...those are the individuals to which I was referring. I think this is at least part of the reason that some have chosen Erevos stats over Olympus.

PvP is not a place for gemmers only. I acquired my gear without using gems on both worlds.
I get it, you dont PvP so you dont want your items to be nerfed for a more equal PvP experience, which you personally couldn't care less about. Maybe you should consider that AI army items will be nerfed as well. So I doubt you will feel a difference.

well, this is probably the most revealing poll to date... Nobody wants to pay Olympus costs for upgrading/research/units. Walls and CP bonus are both also pretty clear wins (3-1, 2-1 repsectively) for Erevos.

To my mind this means we should be focusing now on two issues, gear and containers.

Gear seems simpler to me so I'll start there. We have a classic case of two problems right now. Erevos gear makes PVP unfair, especially after t1. Olympus gear makes it harder to cap units, requiring either much better rolls on gear or further levelling of units.

I believe this is a case where the top roll (30) is less important than the 'tiers' leading up to it. Let's consider the 'max difference' between an epic and a godlike item in both servers. Erevos; GL with max stats is 4*30 for 120 total stats (btw I want one!) and epic is 3*15 for 45, a difference of 75. Olympus, GL = 4*25 = 100, Epic = 3*16 = 48, a difference of 52. For this reason a player on Olympus is less effected by using epic's in PVP instead of rares.

This shows that the 'fix' for gear is to change the tiers to narrow the gap, not reduce the top roll. ie; if epics can roll up to 18 instead of 15, the difference becomes 66 total stats.

The ranges that work, imo, are set retroactively from GL rolls. So, 30 for GL, 18 for epic, 12 for rares, 9 for uncommons, 5 for commons... The differences, in the same order, would be 66, 30, 15, 4.

This would allow PVE players to still enjoy the high rolls (even more, actually, as their rares and epics would improve) while bringing a measure of equality to PVP.

Resetting all gear to this system would be the same process as resetting one set to the other, so I don't think it would be extra work for the devs (plz correct me if it is hahaha).

The debate over containers seems to be more complicated, in part because I don't have hard numbers to help me . To my view the argument seems to 'it's too slow to take a region on erevos' vs 'it's too easy to take a region on Olympus, especially for high level players'.

Regions on Erevos' frontline actually change hands within a cycle, so I don't believe this is as drastic as some people feel it is. Regions on Olympus though, are a problem. Especially near clockover, they are just a little too easy to push around. From the map setup it seems devs intended this to encourage guilds/factions to fight hard over the middle regions where all the good bonuses are located. So this set-up is, from the get-go, not ideal for the map of Erevos. For this reason alone I feel CP container size should be left to Erevos numbers for the Erevos map. If the devs want to tweak it again the best way to do so, going forward, would be a new map after a victory on Erevos, not as part of this merge.

Good gear is harder to come by on olympos, while many argue erevos gear is bad for pvp, the situation for olympos is not better from my pov. You are risking a lot more and get a lot more crappy results, the time to get decent gear is effectively longer. That results in just the same disballance in another colour, ppl with good gear (total nr of stats) dominate pvp over poorly equipped players. The only solution to it is to steamroll and equalise everything and create fair odds to everyone. It does not particular bother me what stats the gear will have in the end, but i feel a lot of ppl are arguing for olympos gear for faulty reasons. I dont like the stat frames on olympos. Having godlikes that can be worse than rares is a no go imho. On average players need a loooot of fragments to significantly improve their equipment from rares to epics and from epics to godlikes. This just makes everything slower and more luck dependant.

Once again the pvp just went from "godlikes rule" to "stats" rule, while stats ranges are unacceptable for casual players to get better and reach the competing veterans and gem customers. Furthermore dont forget that higher rarity items have significantly higher sustain/upkeep, why use a godlike that costs 3k to repair when it has worse stats than an epic that costs only 1200 to repair. The majority of crafted items must be considered an instatrash or at best a spare item for the times your main "eco" gear is repairing.

Tibr wrote:

Having godlikes that can be worse than rares is a no go imho.

This. It's hard enough (and expensive, either in the form of gems, or time and resources) to acquire GL frags and then when crafting a GL item there is no guarantee that it will be any good.

Tibr I don't understand a few elements of your argument. 1) best epic shouldn't be better than worst godlike. 2) most gear is best broken or saved as backup gear. 3)Improving through gear levels is slow and luck dependent.

1) Why not? An incredibly lucky roll should beat an incredibly unlucky one.

2&3) In any game I have played where items drop and then roll stats it has been the case that farming top level-gear takes time. The same 'problem' will be reached by a player who wants to get 'perfect' stats on items (ie for PVP) as they roll and re-roll until they 'get lucky'.

Regarding higher level repair costs; so? That is a factor that a player should consider anyways in gearing their army, no?

For the record I have experienced NO difference in the relative quality of my gear in PVE comparing the two servers. I farm frags, roll items. Sometimes they're good, sometimes they suck, sometimes they're great. I do not find it harder to get frags on Olympus and I do not find it takes any longer to farm to higher quality gear.

I was just talking about the caps for rare, epic and gl gear on olympus, not about the outrageously vast range of stats for godlikes on olympus.
Caps for gear on olympus are good, the vast range for godlikes is bad.

The reason why pvp activity is low is because it is only done by veterans or die hards. You will encounter some pvp on lower tiers until the ppl realise that in order to be able to compete they have to play very long or pay. In the end the pvp is done by a small group of ppl, and any casual players, which is the majority, avoid it. If you want to liven up the pvp area you need to encourage the casuals to do it. And giving fancy drops is not enough, because casuals still wont win against someone who was gathering or buying dozens of chests. Unless ppl think they can win, they wont waste their time. Hence ballance the odds and give a fair competition.
Right now everyone who does pvp will probably object because those who pvp are the ones who are winning, partly because they are experienced and to a high degree because they have the right gear to do it. The only challenge they face is among equals, any casual is mostly a certain win. So if you all like to pvp that much, wouldnt you enjoy pvping at same level with same odds? If not then well .. go figure
Dont complain about how hard it is to get an opponent if the opponents dont have any chance. I dont claim that the suggested system is perfect, but having equal pool of equipment is only a revolutionary idea in this game, some others have pvp automatically at max level with uniform equipment utilised long ago). Technically any games that do not have equal pvp give you pay to win options. We dont have that very direct atm, but considering the impact of gear it is not too far of a thought, right?

Larry i wouldnt mind best epic be better than worst godlike, but as it stands best RARE is better than worst godlike. (1)
(2+3) The progress upwards is slow, you gain levels faster than you get fragments to craft gear. So by the time you are able to get your hands on "enough" epics you already need godlikes - levelwise. PVE solo difficulties are currently limited by gear more than levels. So taken an average casual player he will eventually get few good fragments and take a chance .. and the chance that the item is better than what he already has are much lower on olympos than erevos. This is discouraging. Mostly for casuals because it requires even more time to advance, and i think we can agree that advancement on olympus is terrislow already.

What would people blame their losses on if it is not the gear or their race?
Not sure if your solution would increase PvP activity. There are so many veterans around here with sufficient pvp gear and only very few of them are actually pvping.
But I wouldnt mind one step further to a more equal experience in pvp. Seperating PvP from PvE like you suggest sounds a little to drastic.

1) Best rare is pushing it, I agree. If look at the new maximum tiers I proposed above, it all started with the idea the tiers were broken, not the +30 for GLs. Using those numbers, a 'perfect rare' would have two combat stats of +12, and the 'worst' GL would have 2 combat stats of +15 and +1mov or +low drops. Even the worst GL would then be better than the best rare, by my count. It would be by 6 total combat stats and one crappy bonus, but still better. Enough to at least replace the rare as your 'backup' to a superior epic ie.

2+3) I don't believe this situation is worse on any server, I believe it is fundamental and that you are correct; it is too slow. However, I also believe this is a seperate problem (and a general one, slowdowns in game are central to stalemate complaints, player activity, and general sense of enjoyment). I think this would be best addressed elsewhere, but I just can't help myself! Increasing the chance of getting 'rarer' (rare+) frags in the early solos seems the best solution to me. As it is players should have basically no inclination (other than quests) to run a solo instead of co-op until they reach hard+ difficulty for the CP and generally don't see better frags at any 'craftable' rate until nightmare. Especially if/when AI PVP debuts the chance of getting good frags should increase in solos.

A very random thought; harder difficulties could have a chance to drop items instead of frags. Normal=common almost never, Hard=uncommon almost never, common rarely NM= rare almost never, uncommon or common rarely, Insane=rare almost never, uncommon rarely, Suicide=epic almost never, rare rarely (lol), 2 uncommons rarely. Note; this is another seperate idea and once more I cannot help myself.........