View Poll Results: ?

Voters
126. You may not vote on this poll
  • A

    91 72.22%
  • 1

    52 41.27%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 3 of 46 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 459

Thread: Brainstorming - Supporting Large Armies

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevotillo View Post
    I have ideas on both of these, and have posted them in other threads. Thank you for offering this thread for them, though--It's perfect. Now if people complain, you can throw the blame back in their face for not taking more interest in the solution. Kudos on that. 'Bout time.

    Idea 2:

    We make lakes, swamps, and grasslands more realistic.
    It really has never made any sense that troops camped in a *food-producing* valley should use double food (or whatever the equation is on that). Give troops camped in a food valley a feeding discount based on the food bonus the city would get, and you'll find that these massive armies would spend more time camped on lakesides, and less in cities. Maybe they only get a 13% bonus from that lake, but if you add the 13% feeding discount, then those large armies are a bit more possible...just a bit.

    Added bonus--the power players gain a new aspect of the game: The lake grab. They'll be fighting amongst themselves for control of those high level lakes, which will actually be populated now! What's not to like?

    Second added Bonus: any overbalancing effect of defense is countered a bit by allowing more battles outside the city to whittle away at player defenses a bit at a time, rather than requiring exclusively head-on collisions. Big-Bully's city may be untouchable...but little Mr. Lunch-Money could probably take on his 1000 camped ballistas with his alliance's help... It makes Lake battles mean something.

    Comments welcome.

    --Trev.
    This sounds like a great idea! What do you guys think?
    Legendary Hero

  2. #22
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    california
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Trevotillo View Post
    I have ideas on both of these, and have posted them in other threads. Thank you for offering this thread for them, though--It's perfect. Now if people complain, you can throw the blame back in their face for not taking more interest in the solution. Kudos on that. 'Bout time.

    Idea 1:

    We don't strictly end the ability of players to build NPC's...we just make them gradually degrade in the same way that valleys upgrade. Server maintenance time, as always. The final level 1 cities turn into level 1 flats at Server Maintenance time. That way, if somebody spawns a farm, they can farm it a few days with gradually decreasing results, then they have to wait for it to level up a few more days before they can have a new farm. Maybe it will even become more common for people to blow their ballistas on higher level NPC's in order to get better resources, rather than just building more "convenience stores."

    It accords with logic, too. Barbarian scavengers don't respect what they don't build, and the place is likely to get run-down over time.

    Idea 2:

    We make lakes, swamps, and grasslands more realistic.
    It really has never made any sense that troops camped in a *food-producing* valley should use double food (or whatever the equation is on that). Give troops camped in a food valley a feeding discount based on the food bonus the city would get, and you'll find that these massive armies would spend more time camped on lakesides, and less in cities. Maybe they only get a 13% bonus from that lake, but if you add the 13% feeding discount, then those large armies are a bit more possible...just a bit.

    Added bonus--the power players gain a new aspect of the game: The lake grab. They'll be fighting amongst themselves for control of those high level lakes, which will actually be populated now! What's not to like?

    Second added Bonus: any overbalancing effect of defense is countered a bit by allowing more battles outside the city to whittle away at player defenses a bit at a time, rather than requiring exclusively head-on collisions. Big-Bully's city may be untouchable...but little Mr. Lunch-Money could probably take on his 1000 camped ballistas with his alliance's help... It makes Lake battles mean something.

    Comments welcome.

    --Trev.
    like both of the ideas it will create more war in a war based game and the npc changing levels like valleys will reduce the farming
    (\ /)
    (0.o)
    (><)
    /_|_\ Copy the bunny to your sig and help him achieve world domination.

  3. #23

    Default Brainstorming

    Ok coming from left field here.

    The food cost of garrisoning troops is an issue that has to be addressed in one form or another, but there are plenty of differing ideas out there to address this I believe.


    I'm more interested in ways to temporarly "buff" the army size without allowing for it to be permanently huge. I have a few "out there" ideas on that.

    1. Require Hero(s) of a particular level to direct X number of troops (maybe even require one for garrisoned troops of each type). Or institute some system of officers required to maintain X number of each type of troop (ie 5000 troops requires a captain at a cost of 100 gold every day, 10k requires an additonal Major at 750 a day, so on and so on).

    Spin off of that idea is to associate some "cost" to garrison troops that increases as time passes. Although, in this case I would expect some type of "buff" for "veteran" troops attack or defense skills.

    2. Institute a hard cap on "regular" troops, and then allow that to be "buffed" via mercenaries available at the market, costing gold, with a time. I would expect prices to vary depending on which type of troops they were and the number purchased. Additionally, these troops are bought for the time frames normally used for all other buffs (24 hours and 7 days). Hey, mercenaries, they are unruly, and likely to start riots even on their good days.If they aren't our there lootin and pillagin you dont know what they might do (probably increase the towns grievance.).

    As to making a solution that isn't exploitable, as I'm sure has be shown time and again, if there is any possibility of it the community will find it.

    I really dont know how feasible either of these ideas would be, just kind of brainstorming and attempting to think a bit differently on resolving the issue.

    Cause I like to be special, even if its "short bus" special.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a bunker, South Carolina
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    When Evony was conceived, it was intended that large armies would not be able to be sustained. Players would be able to have armies based on their food production and armies over that would be lost either in battle or through Refuge.
    At last, some truth comes out. The intention of the previous stealth-nerf-patches has been to covertly reduce large standing armies. These armies were/are viewed as exploitations, since their development by the savy player falls outside the game providers original (and undisclosed) intentions for army size. Bravo!

    The maximum troop levels were not imposed as hard caps, but rather as soft caps. We wanted players to be able to temporarily buff up troops, and then either use them or lose them.

    Players found that by farming NPCs, they could not only sustain much higher troop levels than we intended, but they could do so indefinitely. This was compounded when they began spawn NPC cities specifically for farming.

    While we did not intend for players to be able to sustain armies of the size they are now, we are not necessarily against it. However, there are two things that need to change from the way they are now.
    Key word: necessarily. Of course you are against it. “ When Evony was conceived, it was intended that large armies would not be able to be sustained” You have, effectively contradicted yourself.

    First, we need to end players ability to make NPC cities wherever they like. This leads to giant clusters of barbarians around many player cities and makes the game map cluttered and unusable.
    The issue isn't clutter of unusable space. The issue is large army support by NPC farming. This is a problem only because low level players are getting annihilated simply for the level of flat their town rests on, and those players are quitting. Quitters don't buy game cents.

    Second, we need to find a way for players to maintain armies larger than their food supplies can support, without having to spawn NPC cities. There also needs to be a scaling system for troops, so that it gets more difficult to provide upkeep as you get more troops. It should be an active system of support. It could be farming NPCs or something else. This system must not have any work-arounds or exploits or it will be a pointless change.
    “Scaling system for troops”? Warning! Future nerf to follow. Troop food costs will increase.

    “ This system must not have any work-arounds or exploits or it will be a pointless change.”
    The whole problem is the view from the game provider that farming NPC's, and subsequently using the captured spoils to increase the size of ones army/towns, was an exploitation. However, this was never explained to your players who were using this methodology as a means to enjoy your game content and aggress other players of near or equal strength. Prior to all of your nerfs, the Big-Boys pretty much went after one another. There was a competitiveness and server “Status” for having a large army, however it made you a target from your foes. New player cities were not attacked, and certainly not turned into NPC farms. Through the patches (intended to kill off large armies) the players evolved and survived these attempts. The methodology changed, and surviving meant building NPC towns. That led to attacking lower level players in order to “dump” their town and see if there was a lvl 5 “under” it. This has lead to yet another up and coming nerf. When will it end?

    We'd like player ideas on ways to support large armies without the ability to make NPC cities and without relying on giant clusters of NPC cities.
    How? Again, I say you contradicted yourself before. The reality is you cannot go about making drastic changes to the way a game is being played without transparent, open, honest debate from your customers and developers. You guys seriously messed that up. Strike one.

    You continued to ignore real problems, such as bugs and server lag, and then implemented more invisible changes (NPC town rocks suddenly destroying thousands of player ballista without prior notice to this change). This only fueled speculation that you were “out to get” the large-army style players. Congratulations, you've now proven that speculation to be true. Strike two.

    We're all ears!
    Prove it.
    Mess this one up, strike three.

    The developers have used the power of the patch to systematically target players with large armies, in order to reduce their size and scope in hopes of putting a tourniquet on the player base bleeding out of Evony, seeking other games to spend their time and money on.

    I suggest:

    A test server, and test forum with full transparency on upcoming changes at a minimum of 30 days prior. Put the test-patch on the test server, and allow players to try it out, try to exploit it, try to survive under the new changes, etc.

    Revisit the real reason to patch a “live game” by the following example:

    Patching should happen under a hierarchy of needs, such as:
    Need 1: Exploits/bug fixes
    Need 2: Tweaks and improvements.
    Need 3: New content for player evolution/advancement.

    Everything else will work itself out over time...

    As I said before...
    Do's:
    Test. Communicate. Listen. Make changes that fix what is immediately broken (bugs/exploits). Release new content. Involve and empower your customer base. Care about our concerns.
    Dont's:
    Add more servers. Nerf the mechanics. Underinform, misinform, fail to inform. Ignore the bugs/exploits, server issues. Exibit a 'could care less' attitude though indifference.

  5. #25

    Default

    The biggest down fall is that armies are not added to the total population of the empire. Which they should be.

    First thing is get rid of the barb cities all together.

    Second is population cap should include worker/armies.

    Third add the possiblity of hiring mercs at a heft price but can be used as a temporary use only. i.e. they can only be used for X amount of hours before they left (similar to the production buffs)

    Fourth wall defenses should be limited to a certain numder of defenses per level. i.e. A level 1 wall could hold 50 traps max, 10 towers max etc. When upgrading walls then the cap would increase. This would end the crying about not being able to take people cities.

    Food and population costs/upkeep would have to be drasticly reduced.
    Basic population cost 1 pop per foot unit, 2 for mounted, 3 for transports, 4 for rams and ballistas, 5 for catapults. Then having the upkeep cost the same as the type of unit be it foot,mounted, seige, but also adding wood/stone for the upkeep of seige units.

    Taking of cities should be given 2 options. Capture or raze, as long as you have a city slot open.

    Capturing is pretty straight forward. You take the city.
    Razing it would destroy the city and then getting X amount of resources from doing so.

    Enacting a change like this would have to be done at a reset of a server. When a player logs in after the reset give them the one time chance of down scaling his/her armis to meet the population limit but gaining the resources back from the over-the-limit of population.

    Just my thoughts on the matter.
    Last edited by SilverCyclops; 06-16-2009 at 09:52 PM.

  6. #26

    Default

    It's a catch 22. I need the Lv 5 NPCs I've made to support my army. On the other side I took a Lv 10 NPC yesterday and then couldn't find a decent lake within 50 miles.

    Maybe NPCs last for a finite time, say a week. They dont change level, as a Lv 5 is good, Lv 6 a waste of time. After this finite time they turn to a Lv 1 desert, go through the levels, then turn to a level 1 lake, go through the levels and then turn into a Lv 1 flat and goes through the levels as per normal.

    On a second note, I agree with other posts that food consumption of troops is far too high. Change all Workers, Warriors, Scouts, Pikes, Swords and Archers to 1 per hour. Lower Cavalry as well. Also Siege should be based purely on how many men it takes to move/maintain them. I'm not a history buff so I dont have the numbers.

    If we are even going to consider having troops stationed in valleys we would also need to modify the Army Movement in reports. Have a separate tab for movement and camp.

  7. #27

    Default

    just out of interest. if we were never meant to have large standing armies, why make them take so bloody long to build?

    Quote Originally Posted by alliance chat
    n00b:HELP MR 300k+ PRESTIGE IS ATTACKING ME! NEED REINFORCEMENTS!!
    PowaPlaya2009: np, chill dude, gimme 5 days to build an army and ill come give you a hand
    N00b: FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU. ....
    either give us the food we need to sustain our armys, or drop the production time down to something sensible..

  8. #28

    Angry

    plain & simple a 20k cap on all units or eliminate the food easy enough

  9. #29

    Default

    that shows the same intelligence the devs do.. 20k would splash against my walls like a bucket of water...

  10. #30
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a bunker, South Carolina
    Posts
    270

    Default

    Here is something I kicked around before...

    Workers: Placing workers inside a valley (lake, swamp, hill, desert) should increase production from that valley. If it only takes 250 workers to build a city in 15mins, then 2500 workers should be able to increase my food supply..

    Food problem solved.

    People now have a reason to station troops in their valleys...

    And to take it even further, allow us to build outposts in our valleys.. little mini-cities where we can garrison scouts, archers, and maybe a few ballista.. etc... even build walls, etc.. little mini-cities.. when you click on a valley, it opens a mini map interface similar to when you open your city/town/map.

    This will take the game to a whole new level...

    Also, allow players who have an outpost between their town and an aggressors town to have to be taken prior to being able to attack their town.

    Another suggestion: allow players to be able to declare one of their towns as their 'Capital'.. and bring certain bonuses for defending/using that city.. brainstorm this out some more...

    Terrain changing: Allow for the player to impact their landscape. The Romans were masters of creating harbors and farmlands.. allow a player, who captures a grassland to convert it into farmland. Allow swamps to be converted into lakes. Allow lakes to be improved through aqueducts. Allow hills to be improved with the addition of mines in those hills... Deserts, allow for quarries and roads to transport materials to your cities..

    Allow for transports to be designated to our valleys in order to increase production of resources in and out of our towns...

    and then sit back.. and let us defend our valleys!!!!


    Watch evony become what it was meant to be.. a badass game!
    Last edited by ByronXAN; 06-16-2009 at 10:15 PM.

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
  •