Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 77

Thread: My Age II rant

  1. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    In you Town- Whoops sorry Conquered ya town mate.
    Posts
    1,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattu View Post
    Colonization sucks, there isn't really a penalty in getting colonized therefore people don't mind. They should just put the attack/pillage button on the older servers but not let your normal cities get taken.

    Either that or increase the penalty for getting colonized. Who cares about losing 10% resource production? :|
    Quote Originally Posted by AeroAgg06 View Post
    I like this idea
    its better then nothing because at least we can clear someone troops full then.

    Spawn- AgeII Na13 - Massacre Founder
    Every one of your enemies has a weakness, you only have to find it, Unless you find your self facing me, were it shall be your weakness that leads to your demise - Spawn.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    On the internet
    Posts
    157

    Default

    We are a little late, but me and my girls do have our popcorn ready.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    noneof ur beezwax
    Posts
    65

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    Yes, something like this would be acceptable. I mean, WTH?? Why are hardcore players so bent on taking others cities?? When that happens it just turns this game into a city rebuilding game and discourages players from putting money into their cities because they know they will get capped if they invest too much into them. I mean, after I buy 18 mich scripts ($90 USD) to make 18 L10 barracks some schmuck is going to want my city so they can build catapults. They will basically take the $90 investment I made. So why make it???
    If you've spent 90$ to get 18 level 10 barracks built and then ''some schmuck'' takes it from you, who's the bad player/schmuck?

    I've met several people on na24 that didn't even know the attack button was implemented and the server's been going for a while, unless they make an announcement of rolling it back or saying they aren't ever going to no one will be able to tell the active population.

    I'll say this though, the main reason people like(d) age1 better is because you can NPC, you don't get schmucks building level 10 everything and then just sitting pretty while they farm NPCs and eyeball HCs - while really having no idea how to play or having the motivation (being vulnerable gives you) to learn.
    Last edited by AClockworkOwnage; 10-18-2010 at 11:30 AM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Derby, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    See, I just can't agree with this. You can't say the vast majority wanted attack servers or else they would not have been introduced. I mean, if what you say is true then it goes without saying that the vast majority of players will setup accounts on the newer Age II attack servers and stay on them. So the newer Age II servers should have AND KEEP far more players than the older Age II servers which do not have the attack option. Problem is, none of us will know the true player base numbers unless we are Evony. So I would be very interested to know if the vast majority of players will continue to game on the newer Age II servers and the vast majority of players leave the older Age II servers. Will be very interesting to see how the newer Age II servers mature compared to the older ones. And I am willing to bet that most players will go back to the older Age II servers after they get tired of their cities getting taken.
    The reason there are not such mass movements of most players is that not everyone is informed of these things, they are unlikely to even know that there is an attack option. There is also the matter of their own stake in the server. Many people have spent a lot of time and money on their accounts, and do not want to give it up.
    One big issue that I know a lot of people are annoyed about is that the drop rates on the attack servers and late easy mode servers are significantly decreased compared to the old servers, so a lot of people did make accounts but lost their motivation and dedication in the struggle to progress that would have taken months.

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    You see, THAT is why I don't like Age I or the newer Age II servers. Players foaming at the mouth to take cities from me that I put money into. If that is the only thing that gets them excited and pumped up (crushing other players and making them beg to have their cities spared) then that is just plain juvenille.
    I did not mean in general; that was directed at you personally. If you look behind you, you will see a number of very hairy people that have a grudge against you for reasons somewhat unknown. .. red team wins?

    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.

  5. #15

    Default

    The thing is, most players want an age 1 port to age 2. Many agree that colonization is just too boring...they want plundering and city capturing, but they want the new age 2 graphics and interfaces.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Derby, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,865

    Default

    Well I have no idea what happened to the mirror servers idea, or even if server teleporters can be made into a reasonable idea for everyone. I think the last thing anyone heard of it was that Age 2 was being made into a better game so that the age 1 players would be more likely to accept it when the mirror servers plan is finally put into action.

    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. #17

    Default

    Absolutely disagree with this rant. You lose credentials right away since you are on na4 so you are, unfortunately "safe".

    I think sooner or later, Evony will recognize that the only shot they have at reviving the flat lining servers is to add the att button to the old servers.

    Are there things that would be bad and/or could go wrong? Absolutely. But none for the reasons you bring up.

    As for the main disadvantage of adding the attack button to current non attack button servers:

    It would unfortunately be time sensitive. Say, there is a 16 you couldn't access because of inactive accounts. By adding the attack button, you could gain access to it. That means that the fate of the state get's decided by few minutes depending on who jums the gun to cap the inactive cities 1-1.4miles away from critical HC's. Sure, the new spawn mitigates such advantage but it's still too much of an advantage not to be taken care of properly by adding a delay to the actual kick off.

    Besides taking care of the above problem by putting those inactive accounts in BP for 30 days, it would make it simpler to figure our whether you are wasting your time on a capped/no persuaded hero.


    We have the voting booth already. Why not add an option in the poll to vote whether we want attack button or not?
    Last edited by Dark Nite; 10-18-2010 at 03:19 PM. Reason: Typing

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    capping that ten 1 mile from you.
    Posts
    835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    Yes, something like this would be acceptable. I mean, WTH?? Why are hardcore players so bent on taking others cities?? When that happens it just turns this game into a city rebuilding game and discourages players from putting money into their cities because they know they will get capped if they invest too much into them. I mean, after I buy 18 mich scripts ($90 USD) to make 18 L10 barracks some schmuck is going to want my city so they can build catapults. They will basically take the $90 investment I made. So why make it???
    LOL you pay for 18 mich scripts? thats your fault dude, stay on your safe server, wouldnt want all that money to go to waste,
    _Can____you___
    _hear__me__
    ___now__
    _____



  9. #19

    Default

    I've only played on Age2 attack servers and most of the stuff I read on here is Age1 stuff, so I can't really imagine not having an attack option.
    If you want to keep your city, defend it. If you're too weak to defend it, then too bad.
    Colonization is pointless.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dark Nite View Post

    We have the voting booth already. Why not add an option in the poll to vote whether we want attack button or not?
    This is the best idea that what will never happen. +rep



    As for the ppl getting the cities closest to 16s. For me this is a no issue. After my first failed attempt at a 16 and getting smoked by pult regen. I wouldn't be counting on return waves to drop the loyalty of a 16, which is all having a city next to the capital does.

    If you have the troops and know how to crack a 16, might as well wait a few more days, build a few million more archers and camp the loyalty waves. Just my 2 cents.

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
  •