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

Thread: You want to know how to fix this game?

  1. #1

    Default You want to know how to fix this game?

    Go back to the Evony I format with attack and seizure of cities.

    Add in an easier option of colonization, but make it easier for colonized towns to get out of colonization.

    When towns are attacked, make the value of the buildings, walls and resources take damage.

    That way, when someone attacks a town, they do damage to it and have to build it back. It is not automatically a killer lvl 10 town with lvl 9 resources and lvl 9-10 buildings and walls.

    Make the damage about 50% of the attack strength it takes to take the city over. That makes it worth taking over a city.

    Also, that prevents players from getting Big and STAYING Big, no matter how much they are attacked.

    This approach provides longevity for career players, levels the playing field, and keeps things exciting as well as being more fair. When attacking, the city walls, buildings and resources should take on damage. It's more realistic as well.

    Then, the "stratagems" would make more sense to invest in and use, since most would be used to protect against damage.

    Evony would stand to make more money using this approach as well.

    Please send my development royalty fee in coin

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Derby, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,865

    Default

    The possibility of some form of attack option is being discussed for age 2 in the on-topic section. Knocking down cities is a bad idea, the ability to hold your last city no matter what would become useless with this, and people who spend alot to build these cities would quit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alusair View Post
    If you don't care enough to make yourself understandable, don't be surprised if others don't care enough to try to figure out what you're trying to tell them.

  3. #3

    Default

    Evony is just above 1 year old right now... it doesn't have to be perfect but at least it is good.

  4. #4

    Default

    The ability to keep the main city would remain the same. A player would always keep their main.

    Many people including myself spent a lot of money in Age I only to be gone on vacation and come back to one main city and 7 or 8 cities stolen.

    So what is different about cities taking on damage when being attacked? That means that the guy attacking you won't just run off with a lvl 10 city. He'll have to do 50% rebuilding to get it back that way.

    It is still worth takiing over if your build starting point is like lvl 6 or 7, but it could be higher than that even.

    It would just depend on how hard you have to attack it to take it over.

    Say, for instance, you know that EnemyA is attacking and most of his troops is out at another location. It would not take you nearly as much to then go attack EnemyA's city and take it over, thus, less damage would be done and less rebuild would be needed. And of course, we are talking about attacking one of EnemyA's 2nd-9th cities - not the main. You would only attack a main to start tearing down a rival bully and beat them back a bit.
    Last edited by MadWench; 04-24-2010 at 07:34 PM. Reason: clarification

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MadWench View Post
    The ability to keep the main city would remain the same. A player would always keep their main.

    Many people including myself spent a lot of money in Age I only to be gone on vacation and come back to one main city and 7 or 8 cities stolen.

    So what is different about cities taking on damage when being attacked? That means that the guy attacking you won't just run off with a lvl 10 city. He'll have to do 50% rebuilding to get it back that way.

    It is still worth takiing over if your build starting point is like lvl 6 or 7, but it could be higher than that even.

    It would just depend on how hard you have to attack it to take it over.

    Say, for instance, you know that EnemyA is attacking and most of his troops is out at another location. It would not take you nearly as much to then go attack EnemyA's city and take it over, thus, less damage would be done and less rebuild would be needed. And of course, we are talking about attacking one of EnemyA's 2nd-9th cities - not the main. You would only attack a main to start tearing down a rival bully and beat them back a bit.
    For starters, players would abuse this to make other players quit completely by zeroing their last city completely so there were no buildings left at all. I'd imagine coming back to a city that lost all the level 10 buildings because of getting attacked would go over really well, and while losing a lot of cities can make you unhappy, imagine how much more unhappy you'd be if your last city had a fourth zero: 0 Loyalty, 0 Population, 0 buildings, level 0 Walls, level 1 TH. I'd love to see the rant you'd post after that happened.
    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
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Derby, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    For starters, players would abuse this to make other players quit completely by zeroing their last city completely so there were no buildings left at all. I'd imagine coming back to a city that lost all the level 10 buildings because of getting attacked would go over really well, and while losing a lot of cities can make you unhappy, imagine how much more unhappy you'd be if your last city had a fourth zero: 0 Loyalty, 0 Population, 0 buildings, level 0 Walls, level 1 TH. I'd love to see the rant you'd post after that happened.
    This is what I meant.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alusair View Post
    If you don't care enough to make yourself understandable, don't be surprised if others don't care enough to try to figure out what you're trying to tell them.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    away from home
    Posts
    455

    Default

    Well i think this Not what the game you play but How you play the game

    PS : Nuclear good if you use it on medical treatment and energy source but not when u use it on war and destruction. The bad user use it for destruction while good one use it on humanity. Same with feature on Evony.........
    Last edited by J4Gur; 04-25-2010 at 04:59 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatKhans View Post
    It's been great fun but evony completely wrecked my game for no reason
    Quote Originally Posted by --Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel laureate (1879-1955) View Post
    If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashanta View Post
    For starters, players would abuse this to make other players quit completely by zeroing their last city completely so there were no buildings left at all. I'd imagine coming back to a city that lost all the level 10 buildings because of getting attacked would go over really well, and while losing a lot of cities can make you unhappy, imagine how much more unhappy you'd be if your last city had a fourth zero: 0 Loyalty, 0 Population, 0 buildings, level 0 Walls, level 1 TH. I'd love to see the rant you'd post after that happened.
    And you think that doesn't happen already? LOL. Who cares if you have a lvl 10 anything when you are getting hammered by an alliance? Level 10 cities in Evony 1 are useless if there are no troops and it is pretty easy to go in and swipe out what is built over a 24hr period.

    The outcome is the same. HOWEVER, if your alliance can attack and do damage to the aggressors, then you level THEM down too.

    I see that some people are too dense to understand the value of being able to reduce down the larger players back to a more level, even playing field.

    Too bad. It's the only thing that would keep people playing for a long time and engaged in using items to build.

  9. #9

    Default

    eh... Age II needs to have attack button, that's my only gripe. Even then I still have Age I to play and they're talking about possibly putting it in so I can't compain much. You can say fix this or fix that, but the fact remains that nearly 20 million people play it. So with all that being said, I would like to ask the OP something. If you had a business that in only one years time gained nearly 20 million customers and the numbers just kept climbing, how anxious would you be to fix anything?

    Quote Originally Posted by FoxyBunny View Post
    Don't get her pregnant man. She'll erase your account!

  10. #10

    Default

    I personally was enthralled with Age I. But there is no longevity after a point. You have the biggie players after a while and anyone new to the server gets crushed. End of story. Damage during attacks would make the game long-term sustainable. I quit Age I out of boredom. I quit age II because of boredom at the very beginning. No attack and seizure at all? What a snooze.

    Sure there will be millions of people thrilled to play a high-level Farmville. But even that gets old after a while.

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
  •