View Poll Results: Which of these issues of the game needs to be fixed? (choose as many as you want)

Voters
498. You may not vote on this poll
  • Capping a level 10 NPC is too easy!! (easier than level 9 even! HA! Warriors? Randomize the troopS!

    75 15.06%
  • Capping a level 10 NPC is too POWERFUL!! (wow, a near maxed city in one shot? Ridiculous)

    89 17.87%
  • NPCs have too much!! (all other resource aspects are super weak, Taxes and Fields mean ziltcho)

    115 23.09%
  • All NPCs/valleys are too simple!! (rando the troops! Ex: heavy on archer / or cav / or swordsman)

    68 13.65%
  • Building X lvl NPCs narby is too simple!(server gets filled & blocks legit enem/newbs for tiny cost)

    149 29.92%
  • Archers are too strong!! (makes all other units weak)

    164 32.93%
  • Too easy to protect range units with rainbow/Darwin troops!! (1 of each unit stops whole platoons?)

    224 44.98%
  • Abandoning a capped town is to devastating!(how can vaporizing all a players work instantly be fair?

    138 27.71%
  • Swapping heroes for mayor minimizes build times too much!! (why even HAVE a "mayor")

    102 20.48%
  • Cavalry can capture towns way too quick!! (no reason to ever send anything else)

    76 15.26%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 1 of 26 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 272

Thread: The anti-exploit, pro-nerf topic. Cheese, and fixing it.

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Exclamation The anti-exploit, pro-nerf topic. Cheese, and fixing it.

    [[Required reading]]
    Design Theory: Why is Nerfing Good?
    Click the link -> http://mu.ranter.net/designtheory/balance/why.nerfing.is.good
    The following post is some examples of exploits/cheese...
    Some great examples, maybe some not the greatest examples.
    Regardless. Add issues to this topic.
    [[back to main topic]]


    Dear Evony team

    Evony is very well thought out and designed. However there are a number of Cheese tactics currently being employed that skew what I believe were the original balanced gameplay visions. These tactics are basically three-fold:

    Cheese 1) Barracks Cheese Build as many barracks as is humanly possible, and ditch buildings that are of no use or have served their limited function. Do not build anything but the bare minimum of cottages. We are talking cities with as many as 20 Barracks.

    Cheese 2) Raiding Cheese Don't worry about building resource development or capacity, everything you need can be raided from NPC's very easily (see Cheese 3) or other players that don't have enourmous armies that Cheese allows. And capacity doesn't matter.

    Cheese 3) Missile Troop Cheese Huge stacks of Archers and Ballista pwns j00 4ll (Barbarian Towns of nearly all levels can be easily raided for massive profit with 0 losses with nothing but a relatively modest stack of Ballista, Archers dominate Valley combats and most PvP combats)

    I have some solutions to this in mind, which if you will bear with me I shall detail here. I do not believe they are all silver bullets, every system no matter how well thought out will have its exploitable flaws, but some of my ideas I believe will quite competently knock the current exploits on the head.



    Anti-Cheese 1) Enforce Resource Capacity limits
    and introduce Gold capacity
    This is probably one of the first and most effective methods of limiting Cheese 2 and 3. Simply enforce the resource capacities detailed when hovering over the resource in the right hand details window pane. Anything brought into the city that exceeds this limit should be discarded as having 'spoiled'.

    This will have the effect of utterly destroying the current tactic of massive armies fed by spoils of constantly raiding easy players and Barbarian towns. I currently have food in excess of 90 million in one city alone - and I am a moderate level player. Besides, whats the point of a capacity limit if it can be exceeded without a moments thought. This will encourage resource tile development and proper Growth. Furthermore, and I believe most significantly the benefits of any combat exploit that may ever arise against NPC's or other players will be limited through this restriction.

    Additionally, a capacity should be introduced for Gold. I have 10 million that I acquired quite easily in 24 hours. More detailed reasons for this are in Anti-Cheese 2 later. Gold that exceeds capacity should be deemed to have been lost to Corruption.

    The effects of this in addition to being Anti-Cheese have the effect of opening up opportunites, such as making Warehouses and Stockpiling viable and useful buildings/technologies with some modification (see Anti-Cheese 2 for further details).



    Anti-Cheese 2) Make all Buildings and Technologies properly Useful
    This goes some way to countering Cheese 1. Currently There are a number of buildings that are utterly superfluous to requirement either from the outset or in the long run, and inevitably get smashed down or not built at all to make way for Barracks Cheese. This is quite a fun one to detail as I have plenty of detailed ideas about this in relation to each building - however some are pretty obvious and you may wish to skip to Anti Cheese 3 if you want to be spared the details.

    • a) Warehouses and Stockpiling
      This is a big one. I mean really, who in their right minds builds Warehouses or researches Stockpiling? The resources you can safely stash are insignificant in quantity, and you would have to flood the town with them to even get half-way to a useful capacity even with Stockpiling 10. I have a number of suggestions to improve the usefulness of these:


      • i) Obviously, increase capacity. I would suggest a scale that ends up with 4 or 5 million or so total capacity at L10. Possibly more. This would also make the research of Privateering something worth considering as an attacker.
      • ii) Make Warehouse Levels and Stockpiling Levels have an effect on overall non-protected Resource Capacity. Watch people build these things so they can truly stockpile stuff overnight (assuming Resource Capacity is enforced as in Anti-Cheese 1).
      • iii) Introduce a Gold capacity that is affected by Warehouses and Stockpiling (although I have other suggestions for Gold capacity this is one option). If a Gold capacity setting is right, people will be required to build Warehouses to save for expensive Technologies.


    • b) Forges and Military Science
      OK, so you build a Forge, Level it up to 10, research Military Science 10 and build Walls 9/10, then knock the Forge to the ground as you have had all the benefits you can get from it and plop yet another Barracks in it's place.

      I genuinely doubt this was what was intended to happen with these buildings, the answer is easy:
      Make the benefit of Military Science only be applied up to the level of the Forge owned in that city. E.g.: You have Military Science 9 generally, but in city X you have only a Forge level 6. That city will only receive the benefit of Military Science 6, meaning troops are trained slower here than in a city with Forge 9. Forges will be levelled up and kept everywhere should this be implemented.

      This principle applies to a lot of subsequent building/tech suggestions.

    • c) Workshops and Metal Casting
      Same principle as Forge. Make benefits of Metal Casting available in City X up to the level of the Workshop in city X. E.g. You have Metal Casting 10 but City X only has Workshop 6, you only get Metal Casting 6 in that city so you can build Transporter and Ballista in that city but not the Battering Rams and Catapults even though you have the overall tech for them.



    ...continued in next post...
    Last edited by ! mINDsELFiNDULGE !; 07-13-2009 at 03:37 PM.

  2. #2

    Exclamation The anti-exploit, pro-nerf topic. Cheese, and fixing it.

    • d) Stables, Relief Stations and Horseback Riding
      Currently these are built to Level 1, then a Relief Station built to maximum (9/10), and the Stables knocked down for more Barracks.


      • i) Relief Stations should be affected by Stable Level. Stable Level 5 Relief Station 8, you go as fast as Relief Station 5.
      • ii) Cavalry/Cataphracts do not require Stables. This is an obvious oversight. Cavalry should require Stables. Cataphract should also require Stable 5.
      • iii) Horseback Riding level benefits should also be restricted to Stable level for armies based in City X.


      *note* The text for Stables mentions higher level stables speeds up troop production time, although the general opinion I have encountered is that this isn't true. If it isn't it ought to be. Also I expect this should read that this only speeds up mounted troops production, not troops generally.
    • e) Inns, Feasting Halls
      Once your Feasting Hall is up to the maximum desired (9/10) Inns aren't really required - you would probably only need one high level Inn for all your cities - in fact if you are happy with your Heroes once your Feasting hall is up to desired level Inns are utterly superfluous. Crushed and make way for more barracks.

      Easy Suggestion - make Feasting Halls cease to function without Inns. (This might already be in place but just in case...)

    • f) Academies
      Edit: Apparently these are not destroyable without losing some benefits. However you do still get benefits of L10 techs with a L2 Academy (as in Agriculture, Lumbering etc.), which doesn't make sense.


    • g) Marketplaces
      Marketplaces are great and useful, but not necessary, in all cities. But do you really need a Level 9/10 one? My earlier suggestion regarding a Gold Capacity could be implemented here with the Market Level determining Base Gold Capacity (modified by Stockpiling and Warehouse Levels perhaps). This is only anti-cheese in so far as implementing the Gold capacity concept but does give a good reason to build and level up Marketplaces.
    • h) Treasuries
      Furthering the Gold Capacity concept this was one more alternative that occurred to me as a method of implementation. Simply a new building type, Treasury, that acts effectively as a Warehouse specifically for gold with all the Levels and Stockpiling enhancements therein. Just an idea.


    Anti-Cheese 3) Find more Employment for Population
    So, we have found reasons to make sure that all buildings are 100% useful 100% of the time. This leaves us with about 20 tiles spare to decide: Cottage/Barracks/Warehouse. Current Cheese is 5 or 6 Cottages maximum, no Warehouses, and 15 to 20 Barracks. The reason Cottages are spurned is that they are only required for the Idle population (usually 100%) for troop production - Resources and Gold are supplied from constant raiding, resulting in dispproportionately large armies supported by 0 infrastructure. My suggestions are:

    • a) Enforce Resource Capacities (again)
      With resource capacities enforced, the only way to expand the possible limit for resources is to build your Resource Tiles up, and, if other suggestions are adopted regarding Warehousing and Stockpiling, by expanding the town infrastructure. Limitless resources will not be possible from simple raiding, and these Resource Tiles will require Population to work them. The further addition will have to be made that a Resource Tile must be worked in order to gain the Capacity bonus (otherwise Cheesers will just build the tiles for the capacity and not build cottages to work them). This at current workforce requirements will demand approximtely 25k-30k population, or in other words about 8-10 L9 cottages, to work a maximum developed City resources screen. Add to this the need for idle population in order to both buffer for Tax rates and to recruit troops a fully developed city will be demanding about 12 L9 cottages to operate efficiently.

    • b) Make Population a Maintenance requirement of Troops
      Currently the population requirement of troops is a one-off cost, easily gained and easily replaced to the extent it's almost insignificant. Simply making the population requirement of troops a maintenance requirement would add an essential requirement to having a large population if you wish to support a large army. The details would take some working out, but the principle is sound.

    • c) Make workforces required for Buildings
      At the moment the buildings (Town Hall, Marketplaces, Warehouses etc.) are run by a ghost workforce it seems - nobody is required to operate them. Simply adding a workforce requirement for each building that scales with Level would give a use for population.


    Anti-Cheese 4) Missile Troops should not be so Deadly
    This is based on history and fact. Indeed, the textual description of Archers defines the role of Archers and other missile troops as they really were used 'to soften defenders'. They have never been solely responsible for utterly destroying entire armies. But, in Evony, Archers and Ballista rule the day (the idea that a few hundred indefensible, slow to arm, move and operate pieces of woodwork can take down masses of cavalry swordsmen is frankly risible). I'm sure the team is already aware of these Cheese tactics but I thought I'd make some suggestions of my own.

    • a) Impose a percentage maximum of fatalities upon Missile troops
      This is a bit of blunt hammer appoach but it fits in pretty well with real-world results of using archery units. Basically only 20% (if you are very lucky) of large scale Archery attacks would find their mark (well, I'm pulling that figure out of the air, but I'm sure some research would come up with the exact figure), in real life. For game play this could be increased to as much as 40% or so to make Archers etc. useful, with Swordsmen having a massive reduction in this percentage (they are supposed to be effective against Archers after all). A maximum of 10% fatalities from ranged attacks for Swords say.

    • b) Impose a limited number of Rounds on Missile troops
      Archers, Ballista etc. require Ammunition. Their currently devastating power could be easily restricted by imposing a set number of rounds in which they can shoot due to ammunition. In protracted battles they would be vastly less effective, or even in average length battles, depending on the set number of rounds.
    Last edited by ! mINDsELFiNDULGE !; 07-13-2009 at 02:45 PM.

  3. #3

    Default

    Anti-Cheese 4) Missile Troops should not be so Deadly
    This is based on history and fact.
    Based on history and fact? What part of history did archers exist and were not the deadliest force before guns and warheads? Please enlighten me how the English longbow was capable of penetrating plate mail from 2000 yards away, pierce through the body, the horse he was riding, and out the other side, but archery should not be deadly in this game.

    They have never been solely responsible for utterly destroying entire armies.
    And they do not solely win without support in Evony.

    But, in Evony, Archers and Ballista rule the day (the idea that a few hundred indefensible, slow to arm, move and operate pieces of woodwork can take down masses of cavalry swordsmen is frankly risible).
    If anything the more infantry you have, the more damage the Ballista should cause. Remember in the age Evony is set, armies faught with honor and in formation, not guerilla tactics or blitzkrieg in modern warfare. Ballista bolts would fire and the actual bolt would pierce many men, hit the ground and sometimes bounce up and pierce some more. (This also happened with cannon balls).

    [*]a) Impose a percentage maximum of fatalities upon Missile troops
    Agreed, 5000 arrows raining onto 5000 infantry, shouldn't do significantly more damage than 4000 arrows raining on 5000 infantry (per volley). The reason why? Many of those arrows would hit the same soldier and not be evenly spread.

    This is a bit of blunt hammer appoach but it fits in pretty well with real-world results of using archery units. Basically only 20% (if you are very lucky) of large scale Archery attacks would find their mark (well, I'm pulling that figure out of the air, but I'm sure some research would come up with the exact figure), in real life.
    Accuracy would actually increase the more soldiers there are in the opposing army, simply because its harder to miss.

    [*]b) Impose a limited number of Rounds on Missile troops
    Archers, Ballista etc. require Ammunition. Their currently devastating power couyld be easily restricted by imposing a set number of rounds in which they can shoot due to ammunition. In protracted battles they would be vastly less effective, or even in average length battles, depending on the set number of rounds.[/LIST]
    This is actually interesting, having some sort of endurance per unit would be good. However, if you place ammunition on archers to make it more realistic. A swordsman shouldn't be able to charge 2000 yards and not feel exhausted from wearing plate, dodging enemy infantry, and getting multiple arrow wounds. This would also buff cavalry and cataphracts since being on horseback should give them more endurance and the ability to perform better IF they can survive on the long run.

    In regards to the rest of your suggestions, totally agree with them.
    Last edited by DaBoss; 05-18-2009 at 08:15 PM.

  4. #4

    Default

    You have your military history 100% wrong. It was the advent of the English longbowman that ended the epoch of armored knights being the main force on the battlefield. As technology has improved, through all of history, military force has moved away from melee and towards missile/bullet. Archers are balanced.
    Really. I have done Archery as a hobby, attended lectures spcifically on the advent of the Longbow and it's legendary usage at Agincourt, the lecture was at my home town of Hastings where King Harold was famously slain by an arrow through the eye (only reputably though, there is not much real basis for this belief beyond the depiction in the Bauyex Tapestry). To add a further touch of irony my surname is Archer. Apparently I know nothing about Archery however.

    I'm not arguing to make archers redundant at all, they were and are, very deadly and should have a vital role, but they are vastly overpowered. Agincourt was the closest example of a combat that was dominated by the poweful longbow, but even then the army did not solely consist of a bunch of Archers.

    If you can find me 3 examples of real world field battles where the victorious side consisted of 50% (or more) archery troops I'll take back the whole suggestion.

    And they do not solely win without support in Evony.
    Sadly they do. As you are unaware of the dominant tactic against Valley troops I'll explain it (with the help of Darwin). In your Excercise calculator of the Rally Spot set up 10,000 Archers on your side, with 1 pikeman, 1 swordsman, 1 worker, and 1 warrior. Now, add 10,000 of any infantry type you like to the other side (pike, sword, warrior).

    The results are even worse with Ballista. Send 500 Ballista against a Level 5 NPC, with nothing else whatsoever.

    If you think the results bear any resemblance to a real life pitched battle, I hope to god I never have you commanding me in a real life military operation.

    To see similar results against cavalry/cataphract the Archery numbers need to be doubled. This doesn't mean Archers are balanced it just means Cavalry are about your only hope against stonking great armies of Archers (apart from building your own massive lump of Archers).

    And yes, the 2000 yard deadliness has been mentioned a couple of times. I hope you realise that this is approximately 1 mile you are talking about. If you think any real degree of accuracy can be achieved over this distance you've been watching/playing Sniper too much.

    edit: although as you rightly point out against a large mass there would be some chance of hitting something at that range - but it would be a limited chance.

    I am simply drawing from real life, and in real life yes there were a lot of Archers, but there were lots and lots and lots of other types of troops even after the legendary longbow was introduced.

    Don't forget even after the invention of the Musket, and even later the Rifle and even later than that the Machine Gun, we were still fixing bayonets...

    If anything the more infantry you have, the more damage the Ballista should cause. Remember in the age Evony is set, armies faught with honor and in formation, not guerilla tactics or blitzkrieg in modern warfare. Ballista bolts would fire and the actual bolt would pierce many men, hit the ground and sometimes bounce up and pierce some more. (This also happened with cannon balls).
    Agreed they were effective against large masses, but not to the extent of being capable of winning combats single handedly (which they currently are). They were support weapons, certainly not battle deciding. Some way of making their effectiveness increase and decrease according to the scales of the combat would be in order, but would be pretty complex.

    In regards to the rest of your suggestions, totally agree with them.
    Thanks! If I can get even 2 or 3 through I'll be a happy man I'll admit the Archery one is the least of my gripes... everyone secretly likes 0 loss victories even if they are wildly unrealistic...
    Last edited by Beeblbrox; 05-19-2009 at 09:05 AM.

  5. #5

    Default

    I hope a second post will not be considered an infraction as the subject I am covering now is wildly different to the previous.

    It's regarding the markets argument.

    I still feel this is irrelevant to the points of my original post. The big argument seems to be 'dont change anything because I have a succesful market strategy which I don't want to be upset by new things happening'.

    Erm ok, so we wont change anything in Evony ever if it means your current market tactic wont apply any more? I hope when I put it this way you can see how absurd that argument is.

    Approaching from the 'Hand of God' argument, in real world terms the Hand of God does in fact crop up a great many times, through wars, tecnological advancements, changing political and social ideals and values etc. etc., and many many markets have become redundant through systmatic changes to the way society operates and behaves.

    I believe that my suggestions would add real value and gameplay to the game mechanics generally. Some people have added their support. If it means you have to tear down a few sawmills and replace them with iron mines, well, welcome to my world of being expected to tear down over 80 or so Cottages to make way for Barracks.

    Besides I don't believe your sawmills would ever really be under that much threat. There has been no suggestion on reducing the value of timber in construction and troop training, which is where the main demand for timber stems, there will still be a valuable market for it, but with resource maintenance requirement there will also be a long term demand for other materials, which you will still be able to purchase with the proceeds from your sawmills.

    I fail to see the argument, I fail to see how you would suffer.

  6. #6

    Default

    Very interesting post!

    I really like alot of the ideas Beeblbrox puts forth, but I have to say I think what he's doing is proposing a new, similar game, rather than a change to Evony.

    Such drastic, wholesale changes to the game engine would really involve starting over, pretty much, or less being made 1 at a time over a period of several months.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    En route vers les étoiles.
    Posts
    4,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beeblbrox View Post
    If you can find me 3 examples of real world field battles where the victorious side consisted of 50% (or more) archery troops I'll take back the whole suggestion.
    1) Battle of Falkirk 1299 - Edward I

    2) Battle of Crecy 1346 - Edward III

    3) Battle of Agincourt 1415 - Henry V

    That aint no cheeze battles bro.
    Read up and do the honorable thing.

    Other than that you have a worthwhile thread of thought.
    Dog of War grrrrr

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Here...Oh Down Under
    Posts
    173

    Default Bloody good Posting and debate

    Thought I would scramble out of the woodwork and give Kudos to the postings here. Wonderful debate. I didn't know of the expression cheesing instead gradually have migrated toward it, as a matter of survival.
    If we decide that there are stratergies that are screwing with average gameplay, then a gradual migration of level changes, be they on capping of quotas, maintenance or endurance levels or whatever they can gradually be implemented. It is weighted at present and we all know it. I would probably suffer on capping if implemented now but would adapt again as we all wood. The new wall strength correction on scout spamming a city is welcomed and is already making for stratergy adaption. Archers can be fundamental ingrediants and indeed hold more weight than other cogs in the machine.
    My beef would be with abatis, cavalry slaughter...I don't think so...a weighted time managed worker dismantle would be more appropriate..multiple hits to take down being preferred to cavalry kebab, say 4 hits to each abatir ( to simulate dismantling).
    Overall a great post, great debate etc..... great ideas..
    Server 3

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King Alboin View Post
    1) Battle of Falkirk 1299 - Edward I

    2) Battle of Crecy 1346 - Edward III

    3) Battle of Agincourt 1415 - Henry V

    That aint no cheeze battles bro.
    Read up and do the honorable thing.

    Other than that you have a worthwhile thread of thought.

    1) The Falkirk battle description on Wikipedia makes it quite clear there were a number of factors in the victory that took place, the majority of the troops involved were not Archers, and all troop types played a vital part in that battle.

    Specifically:
    Bloody fighting now took place between the Scottish spearmen and the English infantry, with the Scots getting the better of it. Despite their success, the schiltrons were isolated and locked into a static defensive position.

    To spell it out, the Infantry held the opposition in a position such that the Archers could make easy meat of them. Without the Infantry this would not have been possible. Without the other forces (including the Cavalry) in reality the Archers would have been rushed and overcome as they are not equipped or trained for melee.


    Furthermore:
    The Scots bowmen commanded by Sir John Stewart, the younger brother of the High Stewart, stood their ground and were quickly destroyed.

    Uh... not so invincible these Archers are they? Thanks for helping prove my point. Very peculiar example to give me.


    2) The Crecy one was less ambiguous, and while the Archers did the damage it was also attributed to poor and unchivalrous tactical decisions on the part of the French. Additionally on the Wikipedia post it mentions that (paraphrasing) 'plate armour had not yet evolved to withstand Longbows', implying that they at some point did.

    And yet again: If survivors of the volleys reached the English formation, they were cut down with relative ease by the defensive line of dismounted English men-at-arms. The overall effect was devastating.

    So, not quite single handed huh?

    3) The Agincourt campaign, from what I recall, was eventually reduced to the small contingent of Archers from what was originally a very varied Army, which gained legendary status, and like the previous examples there were other tactical factors that led to the French defeat.

    Yes, Archers were deadly, yes they should make a vital and deadly contribution to every army - but should they be capable of single-handedly and without support wiping out almost everything they are put up against?

    The answer is clearly not. And I'm getting rather tired of spelling out the obvious truth time and again. We can all take snapshots of History where one development and tactic had the edge. But no one tactic or troop type has dominated the battlefield continually and single-handedly, as there has always been inventiveness in tactics and technology supplanting them. I argue we should look for balanced methodologies in game mechanics to reflect strengths and weaknesses of all troop types given us, and the descriptions of the troops in the game show that is the intention. That one troop type has been found to be overpowered to the extent they are built to the exclusion of almost everything else, does not mean we should look to exceptional situations in History to justify a strategy that both unbalances the game, and makes mockery of the effort the developers put in to their original conception.

    If you can find a better example than the Falkirk one (where it's quite clear Archers were not the majority contingent - and in fact it's unclear if Crecy approaches 50% either if you read the formations detail closely enough and read up elsewhere, but since it's a strong example I'm going to let it slide), I shall as I placed my word, put up a retraction statement in the main body of the post.

    This will merely be a pyrrhic victory of the exception to the rule if you press me to do so however. There are exceptions to every rule of warfare. If we played by exceptions to the rule, modern technological warfare games would be dominated by peasants taking down mechanized forces with suicide grenade attacks. But of course, we obviously aren't concerned with balanced gameplay or reflecting reality here...

    ... just point scoring.

    Other than that you have a worthwhile thread of thought.
    Thanks for that though.

    edit note: In case you are interested Atoleiros is an example of a zero loss battle (although citations are apparently needed), which I didn't know of and found through following your examples, and believed hadn't been achieved. Thanks for the references.
    Last edited by Beeblbrox; 05-24-2009 at 09:02 AM.
    Done everything the way the Quests told you it should be but can't see how on earth the top players get their armies and score? This is what's going on

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King Alboin View Post
    1) Battle of Falkirk 1299 - Edward I

    2) Battle of Crecy 1346 - Edward III

    3) Battle of Agincourt 1415 - Henry V

    That aint no cheeze battles bro.
    Read up and do the honorable thing.

    Other than that you have a worthwhile thread of thought.
    I am always amused by references to these battles. I have studied the battle of Crecy. The best guesses on who killed what breaks down to something on the order of....80% died to MUD not arrow, not swords, not knives, not a weapon of any sort. They sank into the mud, got trampled and died. 10% from the swords/spears of the men at arms. 7% by archers Knives......and an amazing 3% of the losses actually came from Arrows.

    This was not a victory of arrows but of terrain and stupidity.


    I agree with most of the suggestions from the OP, but they would be a bit to implement. If they only did one, stop the overstocking of resources. To me this is clearly an exploit. It is an error in game mechanics. If you have space for 100k food.....you can store 100k food. If you get more than that you are exploiting a bug.

    The fix proposed would be reasonable. You can't Gain over your cap anymore. This could be implemented quickly and easily. It would not have an immediate affect, allowing players that have used the exploit to fix there cities before they ran out. I see no down side to fixing this bug. (other than greifers whining about loosing an exploit)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •