Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 49

Thread: Age 1 heroes versus Age 2 heroes

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default

    So they are finally balancing heroes and capping them. What's the problem?
    But....the eternal ray of sunshine REALLY wanted to see you, so I helped brighten your day by removing the city from around you! ^.^

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Aussie
    Posts
    306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    So they are finally balancing heroes and capping them. What's the problem?
    Capping the level was a good think. Doing this meant instant troops could not happen. Messing with the troop building/construction/research formulae was not a good thing. That ensures the game becomes even more tedious.

    So you think someone with a 400 attack hero should not have a significantly quicker troop build time than someone with 100 attack? The 100 attack hero can build 34 archers per hour while the 400 attack hero can build 51 archers per hour. So the difference between an elite hero and a paltry one is just 50%? That is balancing gone wrong. Same scenario in Age 1 sees the 100 attack hero building 48 archers per hour (that?s right, almost as fast as a 400 attack hero in Age 2) while the 400 attack hero builds 219 archers per hour.

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    So they are finally balancing heroes and capping them. What's the problem?
    Simply put.. as you grow you take on greater battles.. with greater battles comes greater troop loss... with greater troop loss comes the need to train greater amounts of troops in a faster time.. with the need to train greater amounts of troops in a faster time comes the need for heroes with no cap on them..

    That's the problem

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    once upon a time there was a little girl named debbie who wanted to jump over the rainbow but she...
    Posts
    2,453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    So they are finally balancing heroes and capping them. What's the problem?
    If you want to play a "balanced" strategy game in which everyone has equal chance to win and all.....

    Play chess



    Games are all about who's better, who's best, who's smarter, who's quicker, who has more skill.

    Totally removing the goalpost or making it unfeasible to reach totally removes the challenge of gaming.

    Why play if all of you are just gonna be the same in the end-game?
    (\__/)
    (='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
    (")_(")signature to help him gain world domination



  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The Real McCoy View Post
    Capping the level was a good think. Doing this meant instant troops could not happen. Messing with the troop building/construction/research formulae was not a good thing. That ensures the game becomes even more tedious.

    So you think someone with a 400 attack hero should not have a significantly quicker troop build time than someone with 100 attack? The 100 attack hero can build 34 archers per hour while the 400 attack hero can build 51 archers per hour. So the difference between an elite hero and a paltry one is just 50%? That is balancing gone wrong. Same scenario in Age 1 sees the 100 attack hero building 48 archers per hour (that?s right, almost as fast as a 400 attack hero in Age 2) while the 400 attack hero builds 219 archers per hour.
    From what I've read, warriors are the only instant troop that can be made in Age II, and, simply put, since they are the fodder troop type they should really be the only ones that can be trained instantly. Part of the problem with Age I is in being able to produce armies so massive and quickly that they force players to start farming more and more simply to feed them. That is one of the reasons troop build times was changed: to slow down the accumulation of troops.

    Quote Originally Posted by Draxius View Post
    spoken like someone who lacks the dedication to keep up
    No, spoken like someone who understands what the word "game balance" means.

    Quote Originally Posted by IamDRAMA View Post
    Simply put.. as you grow you take on greater battles.. with greater battles comes greater troop loss... with greater troop loss comes the need to train greater amounts of troops in a faster time.. with the need to train greater amounts of troops in a faster time comes the need for heroes with no cap on them..

    That's the problem
    If everyone can train troops at the same speed, there is no problem. Only those who wish to have a permanent advantage over everyone else when it comes to training troops would have a problem with capped heroes as they don't want a level playing field at the top, they simply want to have the playing field permanently in their favor.


    Quote Originally Posted by Melri View Post
    If you want to play a "balanced" strategy game in which everyone has equal chance to win and all.....

    Play chess



    Games are all about who's better, who's best, who's smarter, who's quicker, who has more skill.

    Totally removing the goalpost or making it unfeasible to reach totally removes the challenge of gaming.

    Why play if all of you are just gonna be the same in the end-game?
    That is the problem with not having a cap on hero levels.


    And I used to play chess.
    But....the eternal ray of sunshine REALLY wanted to see you, so I helped brighten your day by removing the city from around you! ^.^

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    If everyone can train troops at the same speed, there is no problem. Only those who wish to have a permanent advantage over everyone else when it comes to training troops would have a problem with capped heroes as they don't want a level playing field at the top, they simply want to have the playing field permanently in their favor.
    Can you please tell me what server you are playing on????
    I have played on several different servers and never have I seen a player that had a definate advantage over "everyone else" I mean the term "everyone" implies that there is one guy/gal dominating the entire server.. I must be playing a totally different game then you because the servers I am on have a few folks at the top that everyone sorta fears.. and then a few folks everyone respects... and then a few folks everyone farms..

    By your standards we should just give every country on Earth the same resources to build armies of equal size.. then we can all play hopscotch and blow on dandelions cause we're all equal and it's all good..

    No thanks.. Some people (notice I said PEOPLE) develope "advantages" because they work for it.. is this a strategy game or a social networking game.. I'm confused


  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IamDRAMA View Post
    Can you please tell me what server you are playing on????
    I have played on several different servers and never have I seen a player that had a definate advantage over "everyone else" I mean the term "everyone" implies that there is one guy/gal dominating the entire server.. I must be playing a totally different game then you because the servers I am on have a few folks at the top that everyone sorta fears.. and then a few folks everyone respects... and then a few folks everyone farms..

    By your standards we should just give every country on Earth the same resources to build armies of equal size.. then we can all play hopscotch and blow on dandelions cause we're all equal and it's all good..

    No thanks.. Some people (notice I said PEOPLE) develope "advantages" because they work for it.. is this a strategy game or a social networking game.. I'm confused

    Did I say anything about everyone having the same amount of resources?


    No


    Did I say anything about everyone having the same size army?


    No


    Did I say anything about hero levels?


    Yes
    But....the eternal ray of sunshine REALLY wanted to see you, so I helped brighten your day by removing the city from around you! ^.^

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    Did I say anything about everyone having the same amount of resources?


    No


    Did I say anything about everyone having the same size army?


    No


    Did I say anything about hero levels?


    Yes
    no but you did say there is "no problem" with everyone training troops at the same speed .. well gee why don't we just make it to where we all research at the same speed.. constuct at the same speed.. and gain resources at the same speed... after all there should be "no problem" with that right?? then we can change the name of the game from evony to commy (short for communist) because we'll all be the same... (except for the glitch finders).. They'll be the ones that develope a "permanent advantage" over other players.. and genuine players will be paralized by the "same" factor to do anything about it...

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IamDRAMA View Post
    no but you did say there is "no problem" with everyone training troops at the same speed .. well gee why don't we just make it to where we all research at the same speed.. constuct at the same speed.. and gain resources at the same speed... after all there should be "no problem" with that right?? then we can change the name of the game from evony to commy (short for communist) because we'll all be the same... (except for the glitch finders).. They'll be the ones that develope a "permanent advantage" over other players.. and genuine players will be paralized by the "same" factor to do anything about it...

    LMAO @ Commys +1 for making me laugh but it is so true! But lets remember where Evony comes from so you may have offended someone from Dev now!

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    From what I've read, warriors are the only instant troop that can be made in Age II, and, simply put, since they are the fodder troop type they should really be the only ones that can be trained instantly. Part of the problem with Age I is in being able to produce armies so massive and quickly that they force players to start farming more and more simply to feed them. That is one of the reasons troop build times was changed: to slow down the accumulation of troops.



    No, spoken like someone who understands what the word "game balance" means.



    If everyone can train troops at the same speed, there is no problem. Only those who wish to have a permanent advantage over everyone else when it comes to training troops would have a problem with capped heroes as they don't want a level playing field at the top, they simply want to have the playing field permanently in their favor.




    That is the problem with not having a cap on hero levels.


    And I used to play chess.
    There will always be two types of players. The guy above, and the person he's quoting.

    No matter how high your heroes attack is, population still holds you back. If your hero is high enough, it can build troops as fast as the population can grow back. Working towards that, is progression. Games like this, are about progression. Taking that away, makes the game a lot more shallow.

    Simply put, they've taken a huge facet of the open ended gameplay Evony provides, and flushed it down the toilet, instead making people spend large amounts of cents for lesser bonuses. If you see this as anything less then a cash grab, you simply don't understand how Evony works. Like when they nerfed drop rates on medals, some daft people actually said the change was needed. I mean, I sort of agree, the drop rate could have been nerfed by 15%, 20%, not 700% like it was. That's not a lie, or exageration. On server 74 I attacked over 400 valleys and found one single medal. I started playing on my old server, 13, turned into N3, and found one medal every four or five valleys. Work that out. Let's say one medal to every five valleys, compared to one medal for every couple hundred.......

    Anyways. What I'm trying to say is that Evony is going to break. They charge way too much for in game currency, and are making all their new content rely on this.

    Another, amazing point, imo. The guy I'm quoting talks about fairness. When you get a large player with a 1000 att hero on your back, and you are a casual player with a 300 hero maybe, they have a huge advantage right? Of course. So let's say with Age2, the guy with the 1000 att hero, would be on par with the other guy. Now, let's say the guy with the 300att hero is rich and spends lots of ingame money. All of a sudden, the advantage shifted from the player with dedication, to the player with money in his pocket.

    Personally I'll never play a game where the advantage is in your pocket, rather then your mind.

    That's not chess. That's not strategy.

    Good day.

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
  •