Page 1 of 19 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 208

Thread: Why Historical Cities need to change

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,473

    Default Why Historical Cities need to change

    I will provide real world examples in this thread.

    In Age II battles and wars are supposed to center around Historical Cities. Historical Cities are supposed to trade hands between rivals. The problem is, the way things are today Historical Cities can be defended just a easy as any other city.

    Why is this a problem? Well, in Age I and Age II servers Na20+ ANY city can be captured by an enemy. Players do not want to lose their cities, right? So Evony made it EASY to defend cities against attacks. Thus the battle mechanics heavily favor defense, not offense.

    This creates a problem when it comes to Historical Cities. Why? Because HC's are meant to change hands between rivals. HC's are not meant to be like all other normal player cities. Thus HC's should not be as easy to defend as all other normal cities. I am attaching a screen shot of a player who attacked one of my normal cities. I was attacked from a L14 HC. The attack wave was 175k archers plus layers in a single wave. The attackers Queen was about 650 attack. My defending hero was about 720 attack plus excal. Notice how easy it was for me to defend my NORMAL city against 175k archers plus layers.

    So, HC's never trade hands between rivals because they are just as easy to defend as normal cities. HC's, unlike normal cities, are MEANT to be fought over by rivals and change hands so that battles and wars can be won. How can a team take a state from an enemy if they can never wrestle the state capital from the enemy because it is way too easy to defend? This simply means that the first owner of a HC will be the last owner if they so desire. I know that Evony is working on solutions to help HC's trade hands more often. But I just wanted to show a real world example of how easy it is to defend a city.

    Last edited by japanpimp; 02-03-2011 at 07:30 PM.

    Thanks to Boleslav for the Afro Samurai Signature series.
    I have made a few video guides that may help you.
    Please read the link below.
    My Evony Videos

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    On Evony of course
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    I will provide real world examples in this thread.

    In Age II battles and wars are supposed to center around Historical Cities. Historical Cities are supposed to trade hands between rivals. The problem is, the way things are today Historical Cities can be defended just a easy as any other city.

    Why is this a problem? Well, in Age I and Age II servers Na20+ ANY city can be captured by an enemy. Players do not want to lose their cities, right? So Evony made it EASY to defend cities against attacks. Thus the battle mechanics heavily favor defense, not offense.

    This creates a problem when it comes to Historical Cities. Why? Because HC's are meant to change hands between rivals. HC's are not meant to be like all other normal player cities. Thus HC's should not be as easy to defend as all other normal cities. I am attaching a screen shot of a player who attacked one of my normal cities. I was attacked from a L14 HC. The attack wave was 175k archers plus layers in a single wave. The attackers Queen was about 650 attack. My defending hero was about 720 attack plus excal. Notice how easy it was for me to defend my NORMAL city against 175k archers plus layers.

    So, HC's never trade hands between rivals because they are just as easy to defend as normal cities. HC's, unlike normal cities, are MEANT to be fought over by rivals and change hands so that battles and wars can be won. How can a team take a state from an enemy if they can never wrestle the state capital from the enemy because it is way too easy to defend? This simply means that the first owner of a HC will be the last owner if they so desire. I know that Evony is working on solutions to help HC's trade hands more often. But I just wanted to show a real world example of how easy it is to defend a city.
    I have seen many Historical Cities stolen between fighting alliances, and have stolen one from an online player myself. I veiw your points invalid. Any decent, coordinated alliance can steal one fairly easily

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Building a religion... a limited edition...
    Posts
    15,996

    Default

    O,o

    That attack was horrible.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    SS60, Carinthia
    Posts
    205

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by acer5200 View Post
    O,o

    That attack was horrible.
    Thats whatcha get when you forget 4 of the 6 layers of an archbow

    Anyways keeping on topic, I dont see any problems with the HC system, but it is a lil wierd on later servers.

    2 Questions.

    1) can you abandon your last non HC on later servers?
    2) can your last non HC be capped on later servers?
    Big Thanks to Don Ezio for the awesome Sig
    Its The Immortal In Me

  5. #5

    Default

    If the person is online you cannot steal a HC due to the terribly designed loyalty drop/raise system. The HC can be totally empty and still is impossible to take (have witnessed this too many times to count).

    You can however kill all the troops in any HC way easily on colonize-only servers due to the terribly designed colonize system which allows a colonized city to close its gates and attack HCs without fear of being attacked and without any fear of losing its troops. This leads to the common situation where an alliance uses a few sacrificial cities to spam walls down to 0 (impossible to prevent as HC-owner). When wall defs are at 0, the defender has no advantage. Also because the defender will suddenly be healing 15% (or thereabouts) to the attackers 65%, it can't hold out for long versus a handful of good players.

    Both the loyalty raising issue (especially considering that account sharing apparently cannot be stopped) and the ability of colonized cities to attack HCs need to be changed, imo. These changes will greatly improve the game play.
    Last edited by DarkmaneZero; 02-03-2011 at 09:01 PM.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkmaneZero View Post
    If the person is online you cannot steal a HC due to the terribly designed loyalty drop/raise system. The HC can be totally empty and still is impossible to take (have witnessed this too many times to count).

    ...

    Both the loyalty raising issue (especially considering that account sharing apparently cannot be stopped) and the ability of colonized cities to attack HCs need to be changed, imo. These changes will greatly improve the game play.
    If a player is online, can't take ANY city for the same reason. They can comfort faster than loyalty can drop. It has nothing to do with the fact that the city is historic

    The issue is not with the loyalty mechanics, but with the account sharing cheaters. The solution is one of enforcement, not changing the mechanics in a way that would weaken non-cheaters. There is no need to punish fair players just because it might collaterally hurt the cheaters. Evony needs to find a way to enforce account sharing, rather than making cities easier to capture.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazzzzzzzzalicious! View Post
    i started to read this and agree with everything rota says. if people just listened to him the forums would be a better place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    Rota is correct.

    I don't even understand the question.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rota View Post
    If a player is online, can't take ANY city for the same reason. They can comfort faster than loyalty can drop. It has nothing to do with the fact that the city is historic

    The issue is not with the loyalty mechanics, but with the account sharing cheaters. The solution is one of enforcement, not changing the mechanics in a way that would weaken non-cheaters. There is no need to punish fair players just because it might collaterally hurt the cheaters.
    I play on a colonize-only server, so HCs are the only cities capturable. I never said it had to do with the fact the city is Historic. But we are talking about Historics. And as my second suggestion makes clear there are a separate set of rules for Historics compared to regular cities, so why not a separate set of loyalty rules? (assuming we are trying to increase their rate of 'changing hands')

    But also, the issue is with the loyalty mechanics. You are admitting that a city is not capturable when the person is online.

    For starters, why is that a good thing? Why is merely being online set up to be a 100% guarantee you can't lose your city regardless of your troop numbers? Of course, this is also a huge incentive to cheat (by account sharing).

    Secondly, how much is a player hurt if you shorten the loyalty drop from 6.25% of a day to 3.125% or 2.08%. If the 'punishment' of non-cheating city owners is a con, then is the con outweighed by the pro which is the fact that cities are actually capturable.

    Thirdly, you don't even need to shorten the loyalty drop, you can just lengthen the cooldown of the comforting (and remove free speech texts from FB and lengthen cooldown on [or remove] 'govenor' loyalty power). Loyalty raising should serve the purpose of buying time to reinforce, not permanently prevent capture ad infinitum.

    Assuming that enforcement is impossible, and that is a very safe assumption at this point, we must then start to consider ways to improve the game on the whole.
    Last edited by DarkmaneZero; 02-03-2011 at 09:45 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rota View Post
    The issue is not with the loyalty mechanics, but with the account sharing cheaters. The solution is one of enforcement, not changing the mechanics in a way that would weaken non-cheaters. There is no need to punish fair players just because it might collaterally hurt the cheaters. Evony needs to find a way to enforce account sharing, rather than making cities easier to capture.
    Thread should have ended there.

    Speech text and comforting are fine. It gives the player a chance to save their hard earned city if they are online. The problem is that, with account sharing, a player can be online all the time. Fix that and attackers will have a fair shot at capturing a player owned HC.

    Account sharing is not an easy problem to solve. But, it's a much better approach than band-aiding every symptom that arises from it.

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    Historical Cities are supposed to trade hands between rivals.

    Players do not want to lose their cities, right?
    When did Evony say the goal was for HCs to trade hands? It is completely legitimate that a player might hold their city indefinitely. It just means they successfully defend their city. On Age 1 players have major war cities that they have owned for well over a year, since they first constructed it. Evony never said it was the intent that the player should lose cities.

    Some players are more than happy to accept the risk of losing their cities, if it means they have the potential to capture another player's cities.


    The advantage has to go to the defender for many, many reasons. Most of which have been listed in countless other threads, so I won't bother to repeat them here.
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazzzzzzzzalicious! View Post
    i started to read this and agree with everything rota says. if people just listened to him the forums would be a better place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    Rota is correct.

    I don't even understand the question.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rota View Post
    When did Evony say the goal was for HCs to trade hands?
    Just to address this part...
    HCs are limited in number and in static locations. They are also important to take if you want to control an area or the entire server. They are far different than normal cities. Different rules apply to HCs than to normal cities.
    Evony has not officially said that HCs are supposed to trade hands often. Evony has not officially said many things. That does not change the fact that HCs were clearly designed to be the center of battles and be used to gain control of an area. If they are so easy to defend, why even fight over them?

    I have seen L16 and L18 HCs with over 10 million archers, 1 million ballista, 1 million phract, 50 million warriors, 10 million sword, 10 million pike, 500k rams and 500k catapults. With the way battle mechanics work today no coordinated attack could kill off the troops in a HC like that. Period.
    Last edited by japanpimp; 02-03-2011 at 09:59 PM.

    Thanks to Boleslav for the Afro Samurai Signature series.
    I have made a few video guides that may help you.
    Please read the link below.
    My Evony Videos

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
  •