Forums / Miscellaneous Discussions / Changes so far

Changes so far
14:42:26 Jul 7th 09 - Mr. Fordius:

Hello,

well im going to post my thoughts about the current changes in this game.
ofcourse everyone will have an different opinion about them so instead of flameing eachothers opinion just stick to your owns.

When previous era the long training times and stuff got introduced I was like wtf zeta gone mad this is going to take away the fun but I decided to test it out and slowly I started to like the changes he brought the same counts for this era the different manner of economics are really good.

I mean everyone is kinda equal to eachother on a certain point.
so it makes it so that the kd's or individual players have to think more strategic about what to do.
but there are a bit of disadvantages cause eventually after a long war and you winning your income  barely gets up.
so what I thought to fix this is maybe to take away building upkeep.
cause its totally useless this way the bigger the guys get cause winning of wars the more income they will generate as they wont have to pay building upkeep.

also what I thought of there is an 50% rule eventually that kinda sucks.
cause when your in war and there is a lesser player blocking its annoying to take him out. So either make it so that when kd's declare eachother war you can attack all.

( only make it for show so war or neutral )
when war is declared the 50% rule falls off and you can fight eachother.

also make it so that if your not in war but there is a 50% rule that the guy after 48 hours of inactivty loses his 50% rule right.

and for the rest im totally against walls getting back into the game cause it really will take away the nice strategic stuff thats going around.

so far I think zeta really made a good impression in those changes.
as its a war game and its should depend more on strategy than anything else really.


15:17:58 Jul 7th 09 - Ms. Shadowcat:

i like your suggestions.


15:24:02 Jul 7th 09 - Mr. Dargoth:

I agree totally.


15:54:24 Jul 7th 09 - Mr. Gee:

A agree with the straategy aspect.  I also like the fact that we can't all merge into one superpower army and whipe throuogh everything.

There's something missing though, as it does seem to drag out more this era.  I spend a lot of time just waiting around for something to happen.  Maybe that's a good thing, maybe not.  I guess in war you sometimes have to wait it out.

Your suggestions make sense and would probably assist in the playability of the game.

 


15:58:28 Jul 7th 09 - Duke Pikachu:

Ok only because ford is making me... a seriousish post :O


The income.. although yes it evens everyone out on a certain level it does nerf the already shithouse larger races.
eg dwarf and halfer who rely totally on the fact that they can pump out shitloads of weak troops than the other races who have good units but lower incomes.

What i can think of to fix that... do NOT include farmers and cavers in the income production drop for dwarf and halfers.. e.g. the values for the two races special units are added to the production after the income reduction, they produce constantly their numbers (still influenced by sci lvls)

The removal of building upkeep is a good fix for removing the 'warring as a disadvantage' aspect of the game....

The 50% rule... I totally agree with. The rule is totally abusable at the moment,  the war declaration would allow the kingdoms to stop screwing around and take on a real war, and there shouldn't be a bitch out option when the war starts either.

Or possibly even more than that. If a kingdom member attacks another one, it is considered a declaration of war.... to aviod people sheltering under the rule, you wan't to fight you should be allowed to be hit back.

The 48 hour rule also allows the removal of inactives, what is really the most annoying about the rule.


21:51:21 Jul 7th 09 - Mr. Bartimaeus Reincarnated:

I totally agree with everything


09:29:07 Jul 8th 09 - Mr. Elsin:

Income raising/cost reducing changes by themselves won't work. With merges gone the production limit means people can't afford to have defense sitting in blockers and a decent offensive army. They often opt for a large offensive army and leave themselves poorly defended. Just increasing income will mean more troops in blockers. A very bad thing.

As for warring there's fewer opportunities for strategy/co-ordination than ever. While massive merge battles weren't exactly a strategic gold mine, they required good co-ordination and some strategy (at the very least positioning your merge). With merges gone you either have the stronger army or you don't. No in between.

The 50% rule has helped few (if any) and irritated many. Just remove it already.


10:50:41 Jul 8th 09 - Mr. Jet:

Stream of consciousness post:
Reduce walls bonus, prep time and training time. The attacking dynamic is fine atm, it just takes too long to do anything. At the moment it will take like a week to pump a decent army, you move it against the enemy (try not to lose it all in a 100% battle), they have average defences but can hold you up for a while with wall bonus, prep for 26 hours, they bt back to another town, prep again, again, again, by this time they've trained a good enough army to hit you. Playing offensively (unless you get lucky and plunder an inactive) isn't rewarded enough.



11:44:38 Jul 8th 09 - Mr. Chupamela Polla:

Jet is the only one thats spoke much Sense in this thread.


14:42:28 Jul 8th 09 - Mr. Brainiac:

Well, I wish to see what the trade option which Zeta had wanted to add this era would have done. Would it have made a big difference? Would people have been able to trade to make a lot of money as an empire?

I mean I think Zeta weakened our growth/income because he had the idea of adding the option of "trade", but instead held off on it. If Zeta where to have added it, then maybe things would have been different...


16:28:54 Jul 8th 09 - Sir Belmont The Avenger:

agreed!


18:15:29 Jul 8th 09 - Mr. Gawaine:

Never thought of it that way, good thinkin' Brain! I agree, maybe he should finalize his plan over another era like last era, not this one, and THEN reimplement the current state WITH the trade. This way, ppl will be satisfied for next era and the era after that will be a first. =)


21:15:44 Jul 8th 09 - Mr. Magneto:

The maps need restructuring.

Fantasia is a fairly unfair place for a kingdom to start in, because it is smack right in the middle of 4 maps, and it is the place where final scores are counted, so everyone wants to feast on Fantasian based kingdoms.

On the other hand, kingdoms that would WANT to be based on Fantasia to fight for scores, but end up being placed on other maps, end up having to fight through a whole host of obstacles just to get a good portion of themselves based on Fantasia, and utlimately, the final HoH.

Best thing to do would be to organise 3 maps with scores that count, aka Fantasia in the middle and Mantrax and Zetamania flanking it. The maps can all linked, and scores on all maps count towards one HoH list. Map sizes should be at least 4 X 4 and all kingdoms start on them, and dead kingdoms respawn in new Starta / Nirvana / whatever maps 2 weeks into the game.

This way, everyone is fighting on even ground, Fantasian based kingdoms would have less pressure, and kingdoms based on other maps have a fair chance to fight for the crown.


23:40:06 Jul 8th 09 - Mr. Serene:

I find the game gets a little boring after waiting so long to get some income, then waiting even longer to train troops. Also, the ease of making a strong blocker vs making a strong army is rather unbalanced.

What about increasing taxes from peasants and/or reducing building upkeep

and increasing costs of walls and/or effect of them.

I dont know much about the trade system that was thought up, was kind of confused reading about it.

About the 50% rule, perhaps if the 50% is eliminated when you have gates closed, that way it cant be abused to block in-coming armies.


04:05:20 Jul 9th 09 - Sir Arlidorius The Tafflinicronian:

I like the building upkeep. It accounts some key real-life aspects:

  • Corruption
  • Waste
  • They do fall apart after a while!
  • Operation of them, paying workers

It also forces players to build smaller empires, so they can't take over the entire world single handed.

 

 

The thing that most players don't realize about the 50% rule is that it is a great thing for the masses of middle-sized players like me, who play medium races, like me. Humans and other such races that don't have a great millitary or need to grow large often find themselves in 'Helm's Deep' like situations- basically you run off to a very foritifiable city you have sitting around and have to live out the enemy's attack. With the 50% rule, this is not required, and you can build while larger players do the fighting, so by the time you are large enough to fight, you can fight well.

 

By the way, there are LOTS of ways around it, so stop fussing. If you send scouts to sit next to their city and they attack it, you can attack them.


19:10:27 Jul 10th 09 - Mr. Gawaine:

But this is based on medieval times (sort of), where you didn't pay your workers, they paid you...


23:25:58 Jul 10th 09 - Sir Sorra:

I believe your getting Medieval times mixed up with Communist Russia.


07:43:29 Jul 17th 09 - Mr. Gawaine:

Nah. Look it up, usually a lord owned the estate, and offered protection to people. Then, the peasants moved into these estates, worked the land and gave a % of their yield to the lord.


[Top]  Pages:   1 

Login
Username: Don't have an account - Sign up!
Password: Forgot your password - Retrive it!

My bookmarksOld forum design


- close -
  Copyright © 1999-2018 Visual Utopia. All rights reserved. Page loaded in 0.02 seconds. Server time: 2:05:39 PM