Page 3 of 16 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 156

Thread: Age1/Age2 Refuge/NoRefuge Upkeep/WhyUpkeep?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    floating around on a boat
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroAgg06 View Post
    Evony would lose money in this because vestas would become pointless. I have seen people get that last nudge they needed to buy a package because of the vestas

    Although there is no refuge in age2, allies who send troops to your embassy must be fed. With 0 upkeep they could stay forever whereas with upkeep at least the reinfs will return
    yes this as well

    YNWA

    RETIRED
    XxGamblexX aka RedEyeJedi
    S137 ~ SS54 ~ NA13 ~ NA21 ~ CA1

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AeroAgg06 View Post
    Evony would lose money in this because vestas would become pointless. I have seen people get that last nudge they needed to buy a package because of the vestas
    Evony could change the vesta to do something else. Maybe it could make a march cost nothing. If marches become incredibly costly, then they could use it on a pult wave. By changing the vesta item, players are not screwed if they have saved vestas. If Evony created an entirely new item to give with the deals, it would be unfair to those who have saved up vestas.
    Last edited by Rota; 03-15-2011 at 09:01 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazzzzzzzzalicious! View Post
    i started to read this and agree with everything rota says. if people just listened to him the forums would be a better place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    Rota is correct.

    I don't even understand the question.

  3. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BertandErine View Post
    On age 1..........if you removed the upkeep, my god you could imagine the army sizes then?

    LOL it would be limitless............unless a variable food cost came in to play when building troops. that way eventually it would cost 1 mil food just to train 1 warrior
    Age2 has no army size problem. Why would Age1? If there is a game changer I'm forgetting let me know. Been a while since Age1. And this is a perfect solution in my opinion Rota.

    oh and JP..... wat
    Thanks WN1 Hit for the sig!

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,480

    Default

    Guys, come on. The idea for zero troop upkeep is just crazy as it stands today. The only way a zero upkeep idea would make sense is if the troop numbers were limited/capped.
    If troop numbers are capped, say 100k troops per L10 barrack, then zero upkeep makes sense. Only food for marching and training.
    This game needs to be more consistent. Most Age II things are limited, heros, HC's, buildings, cities, etc... The only unlimited things are troops and resources. This causes players to WANT to exploit the unlimited stuff. Take that away and watch botting disappear. There is no reason to have limits on hero levels, barrack numbers, city numbers, etc.. but no limits on number of troops and resources. That causes the game to be played in a very non-strategic fashion.

    Thanks to Boleslav for the Afro Samurai Signature series.
    I have made a few video guides that may help you.
    Please read the link below.
    My Evony Videos

  5. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    The idea for zero troop upkeep is just crazy as it stands today.
    What percentage of active, big players in Age 2 do not pay upkeep right now?
    All of them, if they are smart players. They simply buy food as it is needed to train or march.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazzzzzzzzalicious! View Post
    i started to read this and agree with everything rota says. if people just listened to him the forums would be a better place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    Rota is correct.

    I don't even understand the question.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    floating around on a boat
    Posts
    1,411

    Default

    jp wont be happy untill he has a cap on troop numbers and forces us all to take a 6 hr nanny nap every 24hr.

    with anything of this nature there are bound to be a few wrinkles that need to be ironed out but i do believe it could be done and make evony a better place to game for everyone.

    another little road block i just thought of is that while no upkeep would be great for us gamers, evony may see it as a step backwards due to the fact that they want you to be on the game as much as possible. introducing no upkeep across all servers would see a decline in the amount of people online at any one time, thus lowering thier income.

    YNWA

    RETIRED
    XxGamblexX aka RedEyeJedi
    S137 ~ SS54 ~ NA13 ~ NA21 ~ CA1

  7. Default

    Rota, thanks for clarifying that for me. I like the idea of the increased march cost. However, I believe there is a flaw. If you multiplied the cost of marching too much, people will still need loads of food. They will end up farming for it. If the cost is too much, people will be in an endless loop of losing food. Even if they don't refuge, they still can't use the troops. I also feel that this may cause a problem with engaging war... If that scenario above comes true, no one will be able to attack.

    My suggestion: only 10x march cost so people can still farm. After all, it would take the player about two times as long to gain it.

    ---------------------
    Posted from my iPad.

    Week 9 voting and Week 10 entries.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rota View Post
    I'm not sure if there was a counterpoint in there. But, if it will make you happy, then I yield the dispute to put an end to this tangent. You win.
    I won!
    Enter the Void - My Video Gaming Forum

  8. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LordMac123 View Post
    If you multiplied the cost of marching too much, people will still need loads of food. They will end up farming for it. If the cost is too much, people will be in an endless loop of losing food. Even if they don't refuge, they still can't use the troops. I also feel that this may cause a problem with engaging war... If that scenario above comes true, no one will be able to attack.
    It will be tough to find the right balance. With upkeep gone, march costs would need to be increased to be a burden, but not so much that they become a blockade. With proper playtesting I think that balance can be achieved.

    Evony playtesting before they implement something... <snicker>
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazzzzzzzzalicious! View Post
    i started to read this and agree with everything rota says. if people just listened to him the forums would be a better place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    Rota is correct.

    I don't even understand the question.

  9. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeptuno View Post
    Age2 has no army size problem. Why would Age1? If there is a game changer I'm forgetting let me know. Been a while since Age1. And this is a perfect solution in my opinion Rota.

    oh and JP..... wat
    Because in Age I you can build instant pults. In Age II with a maxed out hero you dont get clos to instant pults.

    The troop training time is the big difference.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Behind you!! You looked, didn't you? Don't even try and deny it.
    Posts
    1,056

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    I agree that the strong should be able to get stronger.
    But strength should be based on ones thinking ability. Their ability to out plan and out smart the opponent.
    Strength should not come from unlimited troop numbers. Why don't we just play a war game with 100 troops vs 5 million.
    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    Guys, come on. The idea for zero troop upkeep is just crazy as it stands today. The only way a zero upkeep idea would make sense is if the troop numbers were limited/capped.
    If troop numbers are capped, say 100k troops per L10 barrack, then zero upkeep makes sense. Only food for marching and training.
    This game needs to be more consistent. Most Age II things are limited, heros, HC's, buildings, cities, etc... The only unlimited things are troops and resources. This causes players to WANT to exploit the unlimited stuff. Take that away and watch botting disappear. There is no reason to have limits on hero levels, barrack numbers, city numbers, etc.. but no limits on number of troops and resources. That causes the game to be played in a very non-strategic fashion.
    What???

    1. You say that the game should be more about strategy.
    Answer: The game is about strategy. If you know nothing about the way battle mech works, you can have as many troops as you like, and they'll just go splat.

    2. You say that Hero caps are stupid.
    Answer: Hero caps were designed, I suspect, to make it more about strategy. If you have an infinitely brilliant hero, as with Age I, strategy is less important. Age II has weaker max heroes. Therefore, it IS more about strategy and not about just throwing troops and a brilliant hero at them.

    3. No food upkeep is stupid for the above reasons.
    Answer: Food upkeep has virtually no effect on strategy. As Rota says, virtually no players actually pay upkeep. So getting rid of it has no effect. If anything, it becomes MORE about strategy and less about having to run around constantly trying to get enough food to attack.

    I'm sure there were other things, but by the time I had written this I had forgotten.
    Quote Originally Posted by Revoltion (Skype)
    Suddenly, a few lightyears have passed.

    Thanks to Morgan, my lovely wife, for my sig!
    Na1 News - Giving The News to Na1.

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
  •