All flaming and flamebaiting which added nothing to the discussion.
Printable View
If you pay you can still only launch 125k troops at one time. That number does not a zero risk attack make. Try playing the game a bit longer and you might allready know just how much of the advantage is allready in the hands of any skilled defender. The only reason wars are still being fought with that limitation is the ability to have enough troops to risk an attack like that.
It is also a logical fallacy to dismiss a conclusion as untrue simply because it contains a logical fallacy. =P
As example: Some birds are blue, so 2+2=4
Obviously fallacious logic, but the conclusion is still correct.
Thus pointing out logical fallacies without countering the conclusion is hypocrisy.
This is ad hominem and an appeal to emotion. Both are logical fallacies. Why do you point out other people's logical fallacies if you are going to use so many? As stated above, it is pointless to fight a battle if you have nothing to gain from it. The only reason to fight a battle would be to try to ruin the game for someone else, which isn't a reason that appeals to most people. Does it appeal to you?
Without a reason, other then destroying someone's progress, to log in and fight battles, why log in at all?
And how does someone remain a top player without training troops or building buildings? Honor doesn't effect rank, so your position is static. What is so exciting and challenging about that?
If you did you would'nt of said that a top ranked player like myself with a very large army has the ability to launch only 0 risk attacks. It's not arrogance to point out fact and the fact is that rally points were allready the limiting factor. Having large armies kept you and your cities safer, it never allowed you to attack without thought as any skilled alliance could easily use that and destroy you.
oohh, good point :) I wouldn't consider the underlying point to be a logical fallacy (larger players who got that way only because they started first will lose their top status if the field is leveled) but you're correct, it was quite an emotional one.
As for destroying people's progress, there are several posts about people who are doing exactly that for a variety of reasons. It certainly doesn't appeal to me. I'd rather have new and exciting challengers coming up through the ranks to battle me. We'll see who is the best commander (and it very well might not be me, but that's the point)
Holy...
kassikas, close the philosophy website you have open and stick to the topic, please. Copying terms from that website and improperly using them is not constructive to this discussion.
fianna was absolutely on target.
Gordok, there are two ways to overcome defender advantage (which is persistent in just about every possible context not just Evony): Strategy and tactics or massive dumpage of troops. One is efficient and effective but requires thinking, understanding and management; the other requires button mashing.
I do not wish for Evony to become another ultima online, as your every word alludes to.
Hhhmmm, interesting, but there is no point to a troop cap. All beginners have a shot in this game. I was checking over the map around me earlier and there is soooo many wide open areas left for newer players to start. These newer players have 7 days to build up and in the mean time they can also find a half way decent alliance to join. So unless the newer player is a complete moron or just an ass, I would say that the noob has a chance to last and build up and eventually challenge.
As for what else there is to do in the game after your buildings are lvl 9 and 10, I really can't tell you. I am at that point and with the exception of 1 or 2 techs to finish and a few buildings to build, all I do is attack npcs non stop in the hopes of finding a mich scrip which well has only dropped once in the last 1k attacks or so. Needless to say, building up my heroes has basically become the only thing I do now as I am surrounded by nothing but alliance and friendlies.
Now, I can't speak for everyone, but I am not one to just attack someone for the hell of it. The way I see it is if they are active and building why would I want to hurt them unless they mess with me first.
Anyways seeing how food is sooo limited as for upkeep in this game, I believe that that is more than enough of a cap on troops. If everything was fair and you could only have as much as the next person, honestly what would be the point. Power is everything and it can't be shared by all. This is a war game nonetheless and if you are forced to only build a certain amount of an army...well, unless you just LOVE this game, you are probably going to quit after awhile. Quite frankly at this point in the game for me, with a lack of anything to do anymore, I can take care of everything I need to in a matter of minutes and go about my life!
I will point out this though your world takes less skill to win a war in and will infact do the opposite of what you want. Currently skilled players can allways defend themself regardless of the odds because of the rally spot limit. In your world it will be the alliance with the most active( Not skilled just active) players who will win through button smashing as they send all their ants all at once at a single player who will no longer have enough bug spray to kill them all.
So by reducing armies to that size it takes the game out of the hands of skilled players and puts it into the unskilled who have active alliances. Make an alliance/sister alliances full of people who just need to log on and you can destroy anyone by "smashing" a few buttons. Hell you wont even need to scout anymore.