Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Suggs on Barbarian Cities. Their Regen Rates. Valley's redone! & NPCing Player Cities

  1. #21
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY
    Posts
    630

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Atrophy View Post
    Because ATs don't require upkeep.
    Knew you would say that. ATs require building and can never be stashed behind a gate to be protected. But anyway, my main points with ATs at the end of this post. (PS I favor weakening them too)

    People already do this. I'm not sure what level you're at in the game to think that's not the case, but I've seen at least two major wars start as a direct result of valleys changing hands.
    Of course it happens. People also win the lottery. Doesn't make everyone rich, now does it?

    Not enough, is my point. I want to increase the fights over them.

    I mean, when did I say it never happened? Take these words out of my mouth, sir!

    Every city can potentially hold ten valleys. I'd say you can bet that any valley reaching a reasonable level will be taken, and in absolutely every direction. In this case, the balloon would theoretically burst as it's being pushed down on from every angle. The cheese factor mentioned earlier also makes this model a no-go, as far as I'm concerned, since it's so easily abused.
    Nope, you're wrong. It can't be pushed from every angle. Why? Because I think my ideas through. That's why I put in wastelands when I thought this idea up. A wasteland cannot be owned and is the usual course of valley regen in my idea.

    Again, the presence of ATs will not be influenced by these changes. The force able to be leveraged against defense will shrink. The number of reinforcing troops in a city will also shrink. But the ATs will remain the same. How many threads have you seen about defenses being overpowered? You'll get to see more.

    I don't think you've thought it through well enough.
    GREAT! So now I've narrowed down all your objections to 1. ATs. That's fine. I support making ATs weaker too and increasing wave sizes so you can make a bigger punch. (I have other suggestions on the forum that deal with that)

    We are now in agreement, right?

    You see, this suggestion isn't so much about anything EXCEPT increasing valley boosts (and reducing NPC exploiting. See I reduce 1, and increase the other), getting rid of inactive players, and increasing fighting. I'm not going to put every idea into one topic.
    Last edited by ! mINDsELFiNDULGE !; 07-07-2009 at 04:10 PM.
    Like my post? Click the SCALES up there ^^^


    {MSI's music}

    CLICK to see my posts.
    I invite debate.

    Exploiters ruin everything.
    That's why limits are sometimes needed.
    That's why you have to type funny letters in Myspace to login.
    Because of exploiters/spammers.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    325

    Text

    You can change where the resources come from, but you won't be able to change the fact that the larger and more powerful the player/alliance, the less likely it is anyone will mess with their valleys (or cities). That's the source of the stagnation you're trying to fix.

    Until the skewed damage is fixed where the winning (larger) side inflicts 3-4x more casualties than they receive without getting wounded or even winded, the stagnation caused by the arms race will continue. Blowing up the economy and scaling things down won't change that or generate any more activity than there is now.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY NY
    Posts
    630

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by Atrophy View Post
    You can change where the resources come from, but you won't be able to change the fact that the larger and more powerful the player/alliance, the less likely it is anyone will mess with their valleys (or cities). That's the source of the stagnation you're trying to fix.
    That's true, higher alliance, less likely to mess with. There is no changing that. Doesn't matter the game. The important point is 'less' likely. The 'less' can be lessened. (less less! ) We'll have them jockeying for valleys.

    It's also true that I've seen valleys that have NOT changed hands in months. And these players are not part of some uber alliance. The valleys aspect of the game is stagnating and I want to change that.

    3, I want to clear out inactives, and reward active players.
    Like my post? Click the SCALES up there ^^^


    {MSI's music}

    CLICK to see my posts.
    I invite debate.

    Exploiters ruin everything.
    That's why limits are sometimes needed.
    That's why you have to type funny letters in Myspace to login.
    Because of exploiters/spammers.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    10

    Default

    I like the idea of competitiveness.
    But nerfing the NPC regen rates is total bull5h1t. People that have massive food upkeep (like me) would die. I have driven out most of my enemies around me and only left with allies. It is very tough for us to stay afloat even with the current regen rates. The opposite of your suggestion should have been implemented (no offense)
    But on the other hand, we totally should increase the percentage increase of a certain resc production

    --xFreeze
    --xFreeze
    S6
    MISC2
    Ranked 770

    Freeze
    SW12
    DOOMISC (Vice-Host)

    Rep me, leave your name, and I rep you back!

    clarencetew.evony.com


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
  •