I will of course think seriously about your ideas! And thanks for taking the time to make your position more clear. I'm just going to clarify a few things of my own right now, though.
I don't play in VoT because I enjoy combat! I even enjoy a bit of territory changing hands sometimes. I am resigned to the possibility of being damaged and accept it as part of the spice of the game. But I don't play to climb the leaderboards and I fight only when I feel I have to, which makes it all the more meaningful. I don't think the existence of conflict or PvP means a game should privilege that playstyle above others, by introducing a mechanic which disincentivizes, with no compensation, the commitment of creativity, time and ultimately money in players for whom conflict is only one among many enjoyable things to do!
To put it another way, the fact that someone can conquer me and destroy my castle makes the game interesting and fair. The fact that my castle may be deleted from on high because Syndicate has conquered someone else and therefore ended a session, less so.
I am also concerned that a two year cycle or even one year is too long for a session game. Most players who tend to play in cycles will unsubscribe within that time, and we need the monthly money. But any faster and the scale of the game becomes skewed, when designing and exploring can take months of casual play in the first place.
As I said, you make good points and I'll think hard about it. I do believe that a 17 Galaxy zone is larger than necessary. Why not make some Galaxies a rapidly reset deathmatch zone for people who like that? A year of a few months? Less?! The SoH zone would be the full, balanced experience involving but not dominated by combat. The Deathmatch zone would be a fast-paced cage fight for those who find that more enticing. Heck, I'd stick some alts in there myself!
To clarify one more thing, when I called for a '''non-destructive" event I meant one which does not delete game data. I did not mean to exclude combat from such an event.
I don't play in VoT because I enjoy combat! I even enjoy a bit of territory changing hands sometimes. I am resigned to the possibility of being damaged and accept it as part of the spice of the game. But I don't play to climb the leaderboards and I fight only when I feel I have to, which makes it all the more meaningful. I don't think the existence of conflict or PvP means a game should privilege that playstyle above others, by introducing a mechanic which disincentivizes, with no compensation, the commitment of creativity, time and ultimately money in players for whom conflict is only one among many enjoyable things to do!
To put it another way, the fact that someone can conquer me and destroy my castle makes the game interesting and fair. The fact that my castle may be deleted from on high because Syndicate has conquered someone else and therefore ended a session, less so.
I am also concerned that a two year cycle or even one year is too long for a session game. Most players who tend to play in cycles will unsubscribe within that time, and we need the monthly money. But any faster and the scale of the game becomes skewed, when designing and exploring can take months of casual play in the first place.
As I said, you make good points and I'll think hard about it. I do believe that a 17 Galaxy zone is larger than necessary. Why not make some Galaxies a rapidly reset deathmatch zone for people who like that? A year of a few months? Less?! The SoH zone would be the full, balanced experience involving but not dominated by combat. The Deathmatch zone would be a fast-paced cage fight for those who find that more enticing. Heck, I'd stick some alts in there myself!
To clarify one more thing, when I called for a '''non-destructive" event I meant one which does not delete game data. I did not mean to exclude combat from such an event.