I'm short on time currently and can't give a full answer, but you have my equal thanks for giving my response thought and consideration.
Printable View
OK let's view this on your terms.
I don't recall the quest guidelines teaching us that armies were built and supported on the exploitation of a game mechanic loophole.
No, you joined an alliance they said 'hey, check this, you can get armies wayyyy over what you believe is possible like this'. You thought, kewl, I'm like so going to completely 0wnz0r teh noobz around me with this 'tactic'.
So, you did. You went forth, constructed massive armies based on this exploit, and on the back of it completely trashed everyone around you that didn't use this 'tactic'. Do you want to guess on whos side my sympthies lie? I'll give you a clue, it aint you chum (and ironically not my own).Quote:
That doesn't seem like a slap in the face to you? This destroys not only my gameplay, but what I have come to know as this game! I have spent the last month building my army, plundering cities, plundering NPC's... and now all of a sudden they decide they don't want anyone to have an army larger then what your city can provide for?
Quote:
Get this:
If New York City was COMPLETELY shut off from the outside world, the food reserves would empty in 48 hours. Research it. Is it not realistic to believe that given proper strategy and coordination, ones army can survive on more then just the PRODUCTION of the farms in their city? Come on...
As has been pointed out real world comparisons are a little galling, but there are so many reasons why this analogy doesn't work. I'll toss a few out for your consideration.
1) New York city is a modern day city based in a peacetime situation, with all the massive benefits of mass-transportation that provides. Evony is based in medieval times, and I assure you in the 1400's cities towns and villages relied 90% (at least) on the food available from the rural areas situated in the immediate vicinity.
2) To compare your Evony city to New York we will first have to remove most of the civil population and replace them with soldiers. I cannot imagine New York operating all that well with 12 million bored GI's loafing about Times Square.
3) Logistically speaking armies do not rely on 'spoils of war' for survival. They can and have done so for short periods of time historically speaking, but sustained campaigns and operations require secure sources of continuous supplies. You are currently arguing that your New York based troops operating in Afghanistan are living off what they seize from Taliban bases.
Hope those 3 little tidbits based on your terms are sufficient for you to take a reality check. I seriously doubt it though, and am probably just wasting my time trying to meet you half way in this discussion.
Beeblbrox: +100
Agnry Posters: -100
Regardless, there should have been an announcement, about a week in advance to allow players to slowly shift their strategy. Suddenly dumping a new condition in is like playing chess, only to find out the other guy has a tank.
Simple, less barracks, more cottages, more farms. Also, throwing my army at any player in hopes I get honor and more resources. Sure, I'll lose them, but I would be use to the change if I had time.
I would have known not to spam lvl 9 barracks which each take around 10hrs of time. That would have allowed me to shift my attention elsewhere.
Have to agree here. Not only the time spent building it, but the time spent demolishing them is definitely not something that can be done overnight. Especially at lvl9/10. Unless you happen to have tons of dynamite.
However i do believe this patch was necessary.
And about OP, you say that LOTs of players are going to quit/be affected by this patch. But what you fail to realise is that the top100(which i would estimate to be about 90% of the players abusing this game mechanic) is but a fraction of the players that make up each servers.
I honestly believe it will benefit a majority of players.
But that's just my opinion.
Let me make sure I've got this straight.
You built cities dedicated to troop production with no possible means of supporting said troops. You anticipated the endless food supply from exploiting npc's would last forever. And, of course, you expected there would never be any changes made which might impede your plans?
You committed to actions which were unreasonable at even a teriary glance. This is somehow a failure on the part of the devs?
Only time is going to prove one side right or wrong.
Side 1. This will end massive armies, and bring a more balanced game (I hope this one is true)
Side 2. This will only force players with large armies to start attacking players with smaller armies, forcing many players to quit due to constantly being farmed (I believe this one to be true)
This patch really was a shot at players who do have massive armies, but Oedipus is right that there should have been some kind of advanced notice about this. In fact, the changes weren't announced until hours AFTER the change accured. By then, many players had lost 1000's of ballistas for no reason. Regardles of your stance on the NPC issue, not informing your players about large scale changes in the game is just bad managment on account of the devs. They have a forum section called upcomming changes. If you are going to have it, use it.