Page 18 of 21 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 208

Thread: Why Historical Cities need to change

  1. #171
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heatseeker View Post
    you're arguing that the current system is flawless, of which JP is arguing the current system is inherently flawed.

    I'm merely pointing out that you're both wrong, there are parts to be kept and parts to throw out. I agree that instacapping is not fair but I don't agree that a stall at 15 IS fair.

    The solution I provide is simply dropping speechtexts, do you have an objection to this? Isn't that the least evony could do?
    Heat, dropping speech texts won't do anything because comforting does the same thing. Besides, dropping texts would also be unfair to honest playing customers who pay money for things like speech texts. All that will do is hurt the spenders. Something needs to be done that will be fair to all, spenders and non-spenders. Something that will impact everyone equally.

    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. #172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heatseeker View Post
    you're arguing that the current system is flawless, of which JP is arguing the current system is inherently flawed.

    I'm merely pointing out that you're both wrong, there are parts to be kept and parts to throw out. I agree that instacapping is not fair but I don't agree that a stall at 15 IS fair.

    The solution I provide is simply dropping speechtexts, do you have an objection to this? Isn't that the least evony could do?
    Once again you misrepresented/ignored my position. I am on the verge of concluding that you are just jerking my chain.

    Where could you possibly have gotten the idea I am arguing the current system is flawless? I am actually curious, I am not trying to be rude. Reread the thread and tell me where, in the process of discussing the issue, I have intimated that I am happy with the current system which prevents cities from being captured?

    I am arguing for a longer cooldown for comforting and speechtexts. My solution solves the problem of being able to keep the loyalty of a city above water, 24/7, without any troops. Your solution doesn't solve this probem, as (and I have already said this, but here we go again) Comforting can be done regularly enough (under current inadequate 15 min interval between Comforts), without ever using a single speechtext, to keep the loyalty above water.

    I have no objection to them dropping speech texts, nor have I ever stated that I did. I only mentioned that it doesn't solve the problem, and it doesn't.

    As for you saying that a stall at 15 isn't fair, perhaps you can explain why you believe this? I have already said I would be happy with a shorter stall, but I also recognize the purpose of the stall. And since you said you think no stall (instacapping) isn't good either, then where does that leave you regarding stall? Between 15 and 0, I assume. How long per tick? Starting at what loyalty?

    Like I said, the stall is helpful in giving people time to prepare a defense, at the onset of an attack. After the first one, the subsequent stalls could be shortened, or easier still, the cooldown on comforting (and speechtexts if they aren't eliminated altogether) could be made long enough so that you couldn't get 24 hour blanket coverage of your city simply by comforting (without any troops).
    Last edited by DarkmaneZero; 03-07-2011 at 10:47 AM.

  3. #173

    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.

  4. #174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NA12ChupaCabra View Post
    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.
    Speech texts and comforting don't "give players a chance" to save their hard earned city if they are online. They assure the players of saving their hard earned cities if they are online. There is a big difference.

    Having a lengthened cooldown would allow the player to have a "chance" to save their city when online, by delaying any possible city loss at least 1.2 hrs from when loyalty hits 12, longer if you go by when first attack hits or even when first attack is launched (birdie flashes). After that, the player should be forced to defend their city with troops (or help from allies) for at least some length of time greater than the current 0 seconds, in my opinion.

    There is no sensible reason to support a design that guarantees a player can keep their empty city as long as they are online. If you support this position, and feel people shouldn't cheat (account share/babysit), and admit that people need to sleep, you are supporting a system where players can easily lose their 'hard earned' cities (when they go offline). The difference between this position, and the position of having a lengthened comforting cooldown (i.e. not guaranteeing an empty city can be save indefinitely as long as player is online) is that the former completely and utterly incentivizes account-sharing (which will never be prevented, in reality) and the latter does not.
    Last edited by DarkmaneZero; 03-07-2011 at 10:46 PM.

  5. #175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NA12ChupaCabra View Post
    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.
    Yeah that post i quoted about sums it all up IMO.

    But also what i find a little bit silly is - players who are already colonized being able to attack HC's. Your alliance could have another alliance entirely colonized and they could still attack HC's and attempt to take em. I should probs save this for another thread so i leave it at that.
    We look forward to implementing more player suggestions in the future, because in Evony, you rule!

  6. #176

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkmaneZero View Post
    Once again you misrepresented/ignored my position. I am on the verge of concluding that you are just jerking my chain.

    Where could you possibly have gotten the idea I am arguing the current system is flawless? I am actually curious, I am not trying to be rude. Reread the thread and tell me where, in the process of discussing the issue, I have intimated that I am happy with the current system which prevents cities from being captured?

    I am arguing for a longer cooldown for comforting and speechtexts. My solution solves the problem of being able to keep the loyalty of a city above water, 24/7, without any troops. Your solution doesn't solve this probem, as (and I have already said this, but here we go again) Comforting can be done regularly enough (under current inadequate 15 min interval between Comforts), without ever using a single speechtext, to keep the loyalty above water.

    I have no objection to them dropping speech texts, nor have I ever stated that I did. I only mentioned that it doesn't solve the problem, and it doesn't.

    As for you saying that a stall at 15 isn't fair, perhaps you can explain why you believe this? I have already said I would be happy with a shorter stall, but I also recognize the purpose of the stall. And since you said you think no stall (instacapping) isn't good either, then where does that leave you regarding stall? Between 15 and 0, I assume. How long per tick? Starting at what loyalty?

    Like I said, the stall is helpful in giving people time to prepare a defense, at the onset of an attack. After the first one, the subsequent stalls could be shortened, or easier still, the cooldown on comforting (and speechtexts if they aren't eliminated altogether) could be made long enough so that you couldn't get 24 hour blanket coverage of your city simply by comforting (without any troops).
    Perhaps it is a semantics problem, I agree. However, I still argue that speechtexts are too much of a powerful defensive weapon. I have over 300 speech texts, and many of my friends have nearly 500 or more.

  7. #177

    Default

    thats rubbish ANY city is capable of being taken we took atlantis for god sacks ... just depends how much time and effort you want to put init

  8. #178
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wizy View Post
    thats rubbish ANY city is capable of being taken we took atlantis for god sacks ... just depends how much time and effort you want to put init
    Wizy, did you read through this thread before you posted?
    We are talking about taking HC's from other players, not the computer. We are talking about account sharing being a main reason why most high level HC's cannot be taken from rivals.
    It does not matter how much time and effort you put in. If the account is shared then the city will be impossible to take from a rival. This is especially true with HC's. Players account share them more than normal cities. Something needs to be done. And it seems that account sharing is becoming a bigger problem even in Age I.

    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

  9. #179

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heatseeker View Post
    Perhaps it is a semantics problem, I agree. However, I still argue that speechtexts are too much of a powerful defensive weapon. I have over 300 speech texts, and many of my friends have nearly 500 or more.
    I agree completely, speechtexts need to go, or perhaps limit them to 1 use per maintenance period or something. But you are right, they are too powerful.

  10. #180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Heatseeker View Post
    Perhaps it is a semantics problem, I agree. However, I still argue that speechtexts are too much of a powerful defensive weapon. I have over 300 speech texts, and many of my friends have nearly 500 or more.
    Thats the thing... Inherent issue with Age II. In Age I, you have entire alliances that have never had that many speech texts..

    The fact that through FB clicks I got 15 of them today shows how its made too powerful an item too cheap. Now if you only had 4 of them, then the balance of the power in your toolkit would be different.

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
  •