Page 2 of 19 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 182

Thread: PROPOSED GAME CHANGES: Requesting player feedback

  1. #11

    Default

    1. Add "Conquest" as a voluntary status

    a. The first thing that comes to mind is troop buildup.
    Think hard about the time that a player will remain in conquest mode before they can change back to colonize. This will become the normal method of troop buildup to protect the city in the enemy territory. Alliances are 3-6 alliances strong, so colonizing one player's city in the enemy territory would become bad for the colonizing player/alliance against a well organized multi-alliance. The time should be at least a 12-24 hour cooldown from the last attack, to prevent people from attacking while they know people are offline then going back into colonize mode before the defender can retaliate.

    b. Sending an attack on a player should reset the cooldown period.

    c. Being in conquest mode should still give you the right to colonize players in colonize mode, just not attack.

    d. When a player in colonization attacks another player then the defending player is under attack and can not truce. However, if the attack never lands can the attacker cancel thus shifting back to colonization? This is the blinking birdie for days again.
    Can the defender shift to colonization before the attacks start landing? Since it takes ~1 hour to capture a city with loyalty 12 the defender will probably wait until this time to shift. I would wait until my loyalty hit 1 and set to colonization mode. Yes, they would colonize me, but most likely the city would have already been raided for everything it had. And now I have my alliance to help me uprise against the attacker.

    ...more to come

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    6,348

    Default

    After a lot of discussion, these ideas are the ones the dev team likes the best. While nothing is set in stone, if we get positive feedback on the ideas, I think chances are very high that these are the next set of major changes you'll see in the game.

    EDIT:
    @SlowMike: Thank you! These are exactly the sort of exploits and loopholes we'd like to identify and resolve in advance! Keep it up!
    Last edited by FoxyBunny; 04-28-2010 at 09:08 AM.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    away from home
    Posts
    455

    Default

    When your enemy only left 3 hr to go to colonize mode and you launch 5hr attack conquest on him, can we still conq his city?
    How about camping time attack with 1 transporter?
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatKhans View Post
    It's been great fun but evony completely wrecked my game for no reason
    Quote Originally Posted by --Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955) View Post
    If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Derby, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by J4Gur View Post
    When your enemy only left 3 hr to go to colonize mode and you launch 5hr attack conquest on him, can we still conq his city?
    For this I think it should be like the dream truce, where if the attack you are sending gets there after dream truce begins you can't send it even though they are not in truce at the time.
    But I think if you send an attack using camp time before they decide to change back to colonisation, your attack should still hit them with the chance of them losing that city.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alusair View Post
    If you don't care enough to make yourself understandable, don't be surprised if others don't care enough to try to figure out what you're trying to tell them.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    away from home
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TCWNME View Post
    For this I think it should be like the dream truce, where if the attack you are sending gets there after dream truce begins you can't send it even though they are not in truce at the time.
    But I think if you send an attack using camp time before they decide to change back to colonisation, your attack should still hit them with the chance of them losing that city.
    Then if an ally with 30 member do this 1 trans attack one after another with camp time......... imagine that
    edited: ahh i'm forget about that dream truce, yeah if your hit arrive after dream truce begin you can't send attack out
    Last edited by J4Gur; 04-28-2010 at 09:18 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatKhans View Post
    It's been great fun but evony completely wrecked my game for no reason
    Quote Originally Posted by --Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955) View Post
    If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    If you have to ask, you cant afford it
    Posts
    255

    Default

    Well done Evony, Conquest and Colonize statuses. I think that was suggested a few weeks ago by a player, cant remember who, and it is a very good idea.

  7. #17

    Default

    I do not think both suggestions would work well together.
    1. Colonize/Conquest is great. Provides the best of both worlds.
    2. Protected cities is great for a conquest only environment.
    3. Both would provide so many options for the defense that attacking would diminish again in a few months.

    I like the idea that once you choose "conquest" you will be in that mode for 3-7 days. This will encompass the time that usually elapses for a typical alliance war. I think there should be a 5-10 minute "change your mind" period when attacking a player from colonization mode. This will allow for mistakes, however if they go beyond they are locked into the conquest mode. If you "change your mind," then attacking should be disabled for 1-2 hours.

    If you go with the protected cities, then you should allow players to change their protected cities once every 3 days (any change counts as a change and must wait 3 days). The reason is that as warring develops the player may capture a better layout city, this is the one they want to be protected. It allows the player to mature in the game and rethink what is important in a city layout. Typically this changes as you progress through the game.

    Obviously, historic cities should never be protected. Unless you make it possible for players to create their own historic cities.

    Also the point of conquest is to establish dominance in an area. So the "protected" cities should be colonizable.

    I think 5 cities maximum (I prefer 2 cities) should be "protected" if this route is taken. So I guess I am saying that if you are in conquest mode and all your cities that are not "protected" have been taken, then you are now in colonization mode.

    Colonization/Conquest for me.
    Last edited by SlowMike; 04-28-2010 at 11:34 AM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Derby, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,938

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SlowMike View Post
    So I guess I am saying that if you are in conquest mode and all your cities that are not "protected" have been taken, then you are now in colonization mode.

    Colonization/Conquest for me.
    This part gave me an idea for the colonise/conquest one.

    If one of your cities is conquered while in conquest mode you are instantly switched to colonise mode.
    Unless that is you are online in which case a pop-up would give you the option to instantly switch modes.

    This would allow for players to not lose everything in a moment of stupidity or by making a mistake.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alusair View Post
    If you don't care enough to make yourself understandable, don't be surprised if others don't care enough to try to figure out what you're trying to tell them.

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TCWNME View Post
    This part gave me an idea for the colonise/conquest one.

    If one of your cities is conquered while in conquest mode you are instantly switched to colonise mode.
    Unless that is you are online in which case a pop-up would give you the option to instantly switch modes.

    This would allow for players to not lose everything in a moment of stupidity or by making a mistake.
    I like this also. However, something would have to put in place to prevent players from attacking, getting retaliated against, then logging off to get the instant colonization mode. (I would have one of my alliance members exit the alliance and have a skeleton city that can be conquered with minimal hits(1). Then attack, log off for 15 minutes, have the alliance member capture the city. Come back, instant colonization mode plus possible capture of an enemy city that can only be colonized.)

    But I do like this idea, just need to make it undesireable to do these things.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Derby, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,938

    Default

    Instead of instant colonise mode how about attacks no longer add grievance? This would mean loyalty is free to recover if you are attacked while offline and it becomes harder to take cities so even if you are hit hard your loyalty may recover enough for your alliance to either reinforce you or for you to come online before you lose it all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alusair View Post
    If you don't care enough to make yourself understandable, don't be surprised if others don't care enough to try to figure out what you're trying to tell them.

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
  •