lol, when your city loses 10 million food an hour on troop upkeep. It has nothing to do with protecting them, it has to do with feeding them.
Printable View
/Agreed.
I was once ranked #2 on my server. Then I came to the same conclusion BBQ Sauce and several others have - there is NOTHING worthwhile to do in late-game - NOTHING.
So I gave away all my towns, suicided all my troops and set my production to zero. I barely check these forums anymore either, but I'm bored. I did log in once two days ago to spin the wheel and steal people's oases with 1 scout, but that was retarded.
The game has no sense of adventure.
Kill an NPC?
do it this way.
Kill a player?
Wait for him to quit.
Ot's 2 maybe 3 weeks to end game, then Evony is great fun, if you like being an accountant.
yep im quitting also formerly a top 20 player on 2 servers. lately ive slipped greatly cause it just got so boring. end game is just sit around wait for someone to go offline scout bomb them waste a ton more resources then they did in taking the city. barb it. build more scouts up wait until offline again. ect...
games broke. when scouts are the best/only way to effectively take out a prepared player obviously its broke. and no doubt sometime soon they will ruin scout bombs but not fix the wall bonus and then attackers will have no way at all to beat down even mediocore players.
The alternative to troop upkeep is an artificial cap on troop levels. We prefer the current "soft" cap because it allows players to set their own limits for troop upkeep. Highly involved players can maintain a lot of troops, while more passive players have less.
Troop levels are just one aspect of the larger concern of game balance. To compensate for the very high levels of troops, players on defense are able to hold off large numbers of attackers, especially with the help of their alliance. This, of course, encourages teamplay for attacks as well.
Changing just one element would drastically alter the balance of the game. Removing troop upkeep (or increasing food production, which would amount to exactly the same thing) would allow for even more troops. Placing a hard limit on them would leave you in much the same position you're in now, but perhaps with less to do.
All that said, Age 2 is going to introduce a wide array of new activities and features for players, so we'll certainly be adjusting many aspects of game balance in the future.
All games have some type of "grind" or "treadmill" because players need things to do. What fun would it be to get 10 cities with 100k archers (or whatever) in each and then have nothing to do? We'll be doing plenty of new things to keep you busy in the future. For now, the status quo is probably best.
After a while i just could not take it anymore. Logging in to perform repetitive and mundane tasks, just to maintain a decent (not even gigantic) army.
Ask any active, end game player, what the #1 complaint with this game is. And I would bet $50, that %90 or more say troop food upkeep.
Looking at Dawnseekers post looks like they are banking it all on Age2, and writing this game off. Which is fine. But it's also another reason not to waste my time with Evony anymore.
"While more passive players have less", most of your players are adults they have work, children, and obligations to take care of. If you can not meet our lifestyle, why bother advertising to us “adults at the office”. Your passive players can't sit in front of a computer 24/7 to play NPC farming.
For several weeks I thought this game was just the best game ever created by mankind, but now my troops are dying as refuges, my NPCs that I created are being farm by other players, and I have to wait for another 8 hours to get nearby NPCs ready for farming again. Your active players might have time to play 24/7, but I can guarantee you sir that most of your players don't.
And, enough with Age 2, Evony customer service sucks. I report a person to you guys 3 weeks ago, and still no answer. My sister quit this game several weeks ago, she only check the forum these days, and all you have to say is wait for age 2. I think not!:rolleyes: