Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 29

Thread: Age II Review

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Age II Review

    Evony: Age II is that most curious of beasts; a leopard that tries to change its spots. The highly addicting game represented by the original Evony has been dramatically updated, with an eye towards capturing the Facebook market and appealing to an audience larger than its extremely geeky cult following.

    Evony:Age II is a PvP game involving building castles, raising armies and battling your fellow man. Or woman. Evony tends to have a comparatively high percentage of females in its player base. The basic dynamics are simple. You build cities that allow you to get bigger and field bigger and tougher armies. You then need to deal with all those pesky neighbors and, in the process, form alliances that help you accomplish that.

    Evony Age I is a math geek's dream and the epitome of the strong Pwning the weak. The mechanics involved in Evony are so involved and so examined that there is literally thousands of formulae for efficiently building, attacking and generally doing everything but chatting. One of the "charms" of Evony, both I and II, is that none of this is explained by the developers and much cannot be deduced by common sense. Instead, like initiation in a secret society, players have to learn the secrets of Evony by listening to learned players and scouring guides and forums for clues on how to play.

    That type of obscurity doesn't necessarily translate into a natural with a Facebook crowd. Indeed, the time commitments required and the level of understanding needed ensure this game will never translate into the success of a Mafia Wars or other Facebook games. Similarly, it lacks dynamic features and interaction that make games like WoW hugely popular. It may be played in 167 countries but not by many in each and its claim to 18 million players is obviously using some very generous terminology. Not unusual in the gaming world, of course.

    Age I Overview
    In Age I, a new player would have a basic city and seven days of ?Beginner?s Protection? to become strong enough to defend it. At the end of this period, a larger neighbor would usually visit them and either take all their resources. If they had two or more cities ? you can have up to 10 ? the bigger player might conquer all but one of those cities and keep them or abandon them. This, of course, would make a person who had spent a week building the city or cities very sad. The type of sadness that either gives you the fire to overcome but more often the urge to find another game.

    Those who decide to overcome usually do so on a new server. The game opens new servers periodically and there is a fairly insurmountable hurdle to succeeding if you ?start late? on a server. The hearty souls who remain are treated to an endless opportunity to ?click and wait? as they try to efficiently build aspects of their city, grow an army and become strong enough to, you guessed it, begin conquering other cities and/or stealing all their resources.

    Historically, Age I is fairly accurate. If you were a city prince in times when indoor plumbing was a forgotten luxury, the world was very cruel, even if you were a king of your little realm. Be powerful and you thrive. Get behind in the arms race and you simply stopped existing. Unfortunately, that type of realism is a bit too real for players who lack a love or an ?all or nothing? in the gaming life.

    Age I has many type of players but a simplified version boils down to two classes, arbitrarily titled ?prestige farmers? and ?honor hounds.? The farmer is committed to building his cities in such a way to gain the maximum prestige points, the benchmark by which you compare the strength of a player or an alliance of players. He or she cares less about attacking and conquering other players than he or she does about building a nice, safe and, preferably, ?bigger than yours? little empire of ten cities. They do things like attack and pwning of other players but it?s secondary.

    On the other hand, the honor hound looks at a city as a necessary evil for the real goal; building armies and imposing one?s will on all you survey. This can be upsetting to the prestige farmer and virtually ensure the quick death of most new players. These two groups, and all their shades, do not get along and the see the game very differently. In fact, one could fairly say that the honor hounds made the game so brutal that the developers began seeking measures to limit the Pwning. And here we come to Age II

    "No more bullies, no more farming. Improved graphics. More fun!"
    As covered, Age I was filled with ?bullies? who make the game ?difficult? for all but the most committed and knowledgeable players. In terms of commitment, spending less than a few hours every day ?clicking and waiting? would cause one to fall off the pace enough to become someone else?s target. Followed quickly by no more cities, no more resources to rebuild and a whole bunch of ?not fun.? Age I also demanded ?farming? of NPC cities that were filled with resources to feed the gigantic armies needed to survive in such a world. That was just a bit too much clicking, apparently, and the developers promised to make NPC farming a thing of the past.

    In Age II, you cannot conquer another player?s city. You cannot steal their resources. Since this describes the two main reasons for attacking another player, this obviously changes the game dynamics, its appeal and its audience. You can ?colonize? a city which allows you to drain a percentage of its production and troops daily. In effect, you are no longer a warlord but a Mafioso collecting your protection money. In fact, you are expected to defend colonized cities so the comparison actually fits nicely (except the mob may not have actually been providing protection for its services, of course).

    Conceptually, it is an interesting idea for limiting the carnage inflicted by the weak on the strong. By limiting the gain and allowing players the ability to continue building ? if under a fairly usurious tax ? the game would be more broadly appealing. It?s highly questionable whether this was accomplished. Quests for colonies virtually ensure that all but the strongest players get colonized as soon as they exit ?beginner?s protection.? There?s also some fairly strong anecdotal evidence that players drop out just as often as Age I. So, in all likelihood, it?s a fairly small win for ?the little guy.? The prestige farmers, of course, are happier. They can protect themselves but now there is even less reason and benefit to attacking. The same cannot be said for the honor hounds. They, of course, are livid.

    By taking away the attack button, the developers effectively killed the reason for the game?s appeal. The mechanics involved in colonizing are cumbersome. The rewards are comparatively negligible. Plus, once colonized, there is absolutely nothing one player can do to another even if they are neighbors and in warring alliances. It makes for some very silly wars, of course.

    Evony?s gamble is that the game will succeed because the prestige farmers will be a now growing base that more than offsets the disaffected honor hounds. That?s a pretty dubious gamble. It?s a territorial war game with castles and you just undermined attacking to make it safe. Safe? Are you kidding? Safe is Farmville. Safe is Starfleet Commander where you can be perpetually in diplomacy mode. This game succeeded because of its absolutely brutal Darwinian ethos. Despite all the new bells and whistles, that?s too great a leap from its origins.

    No bullies doesn?t work. The weak are pwned just as often and quit just as often. The difference is that the strong are less satisfied. That?s like trying to date two people and ending up alone on prom night. They also promised less farming. Wrong again. Farming NPCs is actually more important and cumbersome because they made it harder to mine the resources. You could reduce or eliminate the food and gold you get from mindlessly mining NPC cities. Instead, Evony opted to make it harder to have a huge army, not impossible, and thus ensured that big armies will still exist (and you need one too!).

    This kind of decision making will have you wondering whether the developers are executing some huge cosmic joke or are really just na?ve. On the flip side, Age II is an incredible improvement over the fairly rustic Age I. The interface and design is several evolutions better. It is, unfortunately buggy as all heck. Even with a long beta and months of actual play, there are huge issues that are not cosmetic. Colonization fails often due to things like the ?dread hanging blue bar.? Resources, rewards, troop building times and awards are all prone to error. The impact of heroes is a sometimes thing. For a game that relies on math (and math geeks), this is a ?not good thing.? They solve a problem like the ?lost patrols? where whole armies disappear and problems like food not generating crop up. Some problems get solved. Others are claimed to be solved and aren?t. Most are completely avoided in discussion. Age II is an act of faith in so many ways. One wonders if the developers truly appreciate how thin that faith has become.

    Will it Succeed?
    Sure. Age II will be a ?success.? Match overhead to expenses and I am sure the game is a winner. Will it ever be wildly popular? No way. Too much math. Too much tribal knowledge. Too big of a time commitment. Evony operates on a churn like most games and they will capture, retain and replace enough players with enough frequency to always find their level. If they don?t make changes, they?ll be relying more on prestige farmers and less on honor hounds. Is that a good thing? Who knows? What is clear is that its advertising of no bullies and no farming is about as accurate as, say, saving a princess in Age I. In the end, it?s a game you like for really dumb reasons, play because you become addicted and usually leave with fairly mixed feelings.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    nomming ur corn
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    excellent review

  3. #3

    Default

    Pretty spot on if you ask me.

  4. #4

    Default

    For a territorial war game, age II makes it too hard for people to attack. Where's the point in that? It discourages people from attacking for resources, but only to colonize them for really crappy resource gains. In addition, it makes it impossible to cripple players, making war less fun.

    The things I do like in age II are the strategies, heroes, and achievement bonuses. However, they need to make things work for more aggressive/attacking players. Alliances in these age 2 servers are too complacent to some of the really hardcore alliances i've seen in age 1.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    in the OT, under Morgan's desk, hiding with CHICK
    Posts
    1,228

    Default

    Love ur review egami

    I am hoping some of the old age1 alliances will in time master the new system enough to make age2 hardcore again. Still, doubt it would ever be as brutal as age1. Probably have far far lower server jumping and endgame, and whatever satisfaction n benefits that bring. Too early to pass more judgement than u did. + reps

    (c) Ravensigs production
    Quote Originally Posted by llCHICKll View Post
    lol, you are worst than ardee... at least she tells you right away to pizz off lol
    Quote Originally Posted by Alusair View Post
    Announcement:
    I will start randomly deleting a post of practicalfool here and there over time to mess with his mind.

  6. #6

    Default

    I am wondering why they didn't fix the obvious problems with the combat system in age I when they made Age II??? There are obvious and easily fixed simple mistakes. There are also major intrinsic flaws endemic to the whole combat system.

    Example:
    Pikeman speed and attack compared to swordman speed and attack. Pikes are faster and better attacking while swords are slower and better defenders? Exactly opposite from reality. It is also opposite of the descriptions given by Evony.

    Example:
    Troops require different food to maintain? I can see how the cost to build the troops is varied. BUT can anyone look me straight in the face and tell me an archer requires 4 times the food that a warrior eats? 12 meals a day? Obviously the real maintenace issue is wages, not food. It should take the same to feed a scout, warrior, pike, sword, archer, but wages, training time, etc... obviously would vary.

    Example:
    Cavarly and cataphracts attacking a batch of pikes will result in minor losses to the slower heavily armored cataphracts and no losses to the cavalry. This even in a 1 round battle. Obviously neither would be the best choice against Pikes but certainly cavalry would take much heavier casualties than cataphracts.

    Example:
    Archer "rainbows" at certain tech levels.

    Example:
    Balista NPC farming glitches where a lower number and lower tech balista can take no losses while higher number of higher tech balistas take large losses up to 100%.

    Example:
    Scout bombs.

    It is obvious to me that the real problem in age I wasn't the "bullies" wanting to fight and conquer noobs. Removing the "attack" button from age II has no chance of correcting the problem since that wasn't the problem in the first place. Experienced players simply have discovered more "glitches" in the combat system and the game becomes a race to find the most illogical and advantagous "mistakes","bugs", "glitches" in the combat system, then exploit them to the highest benefit.

    Some of you guys out there seem to think you became a tactical "genius" with craftily created "waves" "rainbows" etc...... when all you really did was exploit a poor combat system. Of course I have too. It is the "reality" we all have to deal with.
    Last edited by reddbaron; 05-18-2010 at 03:58 AM.

  7. #7

    Default

    Arguments about how our game relates to reality are not valid. This game is not based on reality, but merely contains historical references. The point of the game is to have fun, not provide an accurate historical recounting of the past.

    On the food question: An archer requires fletchers, as well as material costs such as arrows for practice and what not, so this could easily account for the increased food support cost. Support costs account for the entire cost of keeping the unit, not just "what he eats."

    On ballista farming: Ballista farming is not an intended game mechanic. We've actually spent a great deal of effort trying to eliminate the practice entirely in Age II. The last thing on our agenda is balancing something we don't want people to do. I notice you don't raise the realism concern on this point.

    In fact, most people merely raise the realism concern to support changes they want to make to the game. Thats why we don't really worry about it.

    We do our best to balance the game and improve it as much as possible, but not everyone is going to like everything we do with the game. We get that we can't make everyone happy all the time, but we do try to make as many people happy as possible.
    Legendary Hero

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    Arguments about how our game relates to reality are not valid. This game is not based on reality, but merely contains historical references. The point of the game is to have fun, not provide an accurate historical recounting of the past.
    Agreed to a point. Not refering to the historical "real life past" talking about the current "evony realism" There are limits to what any game system can do with realism. As for the "realism" with pikes and swords. You guys got it right basically, just backwards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    On the food question: An archer requires fletchers, as well as material costs such as arrows for practice and what not, so this could easily account for the increased food support cost. Support costs account for the entire cost of keeping the unit, not just "what he eats."
    Again agreed basically. That is why gold is by far a better way to judge maintenance than "food". All goods and services have a gold based "value". That is the basic reason human civilization invented money! It will also work in this game as well. Since you do have a market, fair market value will balance itself out. I have seen several posts where markets have gotten way out of balance on older servers. I also have seen how troop numbers have gotten well beyond what was intended. Suggestions by others include gold "sinks". I also agree you cant critique without proposing a solution. My solution is all infantry has a 1 food maintenance. Cavalry might be 2 or 3 (maybe more). so on and so forth. However the more advanced troops have additional maintenance costs in gold. Example :

    warrior food 1 gold 0
    scouts food 1 gold .1
    pikes food 1 gold .2
    swords food 1 gold .25
    archers food 1 gold .3
    etc...
    Obviously the costs will need to be balanced and this is just a suggestion in principle. The final costs might be quite a bit different than this. You might also need to adjust the gold produced at a city, but you get the idea.




    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    On ballista farming: Ballista farming is not an intended game mechanic. We've actually spent a great deal of effort trying to eliminate the practice entirely in Age II. The last thing on our agenda is balancing something we don't want people to do. I notice you don't raise the realism concern on this point.
    Actually you read me wrong here. I raised concerns with both rainbows and balista farming as ways people are abusing the combat system. Now both of these things are slightly based on realistic strategies. Obviously a balista (catapult etc) seige out of range of the defenders is both correct and widely used. Countless cities have surrendered the moment their walls were breached by seige engines.

    Same thing with archers (rainbows). Every major army past or present had some way to combine missles with hand to hand or close combat. Range does mean something and always has. Combined attacks with archers and cavalry and infantry is a very solid tactic. However due to the combat mechanics it has been abused to include silly 1-100 man units holding off 100K armies for one combat round.

    I wish I could offer a solution here, but since I don't know the behind the scenes combat mechanics, I can't really offer a solution. I do think both archers "rainbows" and balista/catapult seiges/farming need to be available and doable. Just need them tweeked to avoid abuses.

    One thing I thought of was the sally. Obviously archers (in the ramparts) and archers towers are in the initial combat (along with other wall defenses) but the vast majority of the defending army wont be harmed until they sally forth.

    say for example 10% wall imunity for each wall level given to defending armies inside the walls until they sally?

    If archers stopped the same way scouts do...until all other units hit? And scouts actually would attack one round and retreat..simulating light infantry skirmishers (but allowing archers a few extra rounds to fire)?

    I say that but honestly no suggestion can be made without going through the whole combat mechanics. Since I dont have access to that, I still cant even begin to address this properly.
    Last edited by reddbaron; 05-18-2010 at 09:59 AM.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    Arguments about how our game relates to reality are not valid. This game is not based on reality, but merely contains historical references. The point of the game is to have fun, not provide an accurate historical recounting of the past.
    The review, which was a few thousand words, had one throwaway line about realism and did not make any complaints about the lack of realism. It simply made an observation. Gamers who argue for "more realism" in games usually get Pwned by those concerned about things like playability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    On ballista farming: Ballista farming is not an intended game mechanic. We've actually spent a great deal of effort trying to eliminate the practice entirely in Age II.
    Eliminate some zeroes from the food and gold drops on NPCs. Doesn't solve things like EXP building but it's a start. It's like the Staples Easy button if that's your intent. If you spent a long time and didn't "discover" that solution, I'd suggest investigating a player-based design committee. The solutions in place aren't. This was putting the cookies on the top shelf but still visible and expecting the kids not to eat them all when you're gone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    We do our best to balance the game and improve it as much as possible, but not everyone is going to like everything we do with the game. We get that we can't make everyone happy all the time, but we do try to make as many people happy as possible.
    If this review were accurate - reviews are opinion-based and there is plenty of room for discussion - we aren't talking about mechanics that aren't making everybody happy. We are talking about disaffecting a core of the existing game and, quite probably, an essential dynamic in how the game plays out.
    Last edited by egami; 05-18-2010 at 11:29 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    nomming ur corn
    Posts
    2,028

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post

    On ballista farming: Ballista farming is not an intended game mechanic. We've actually spent a great deal of effort trying to eliminate the practice entirely in Age II. The last thing on our agenda is balancing something we don't want people to do. I notice you don't raise the realism concern on this point.
    That's odd, I farm just as much with my ballistae as on Age II, easily over 200 LVL5 hits per day. I just have to place my cities near LVL5s and send my ballys on longer walks.

    If ballistae farming is not an intended game mechanic, there shouldn't be that many resources in them. Also, you need to farm NPCs to get Gems. I just cannot believe that any attempt was made to 'eliminate' ballistae farming. All that has been done, is that we can't create big LVL5/10 fields.

    People will still try to get an army as big as possible, so they have to farm NPCs.

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
  •