Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 53

Thread: Needed: Age II changes.

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    not sure
    Posts
    111

    Default

    why is it every time i see a thread about ageII needing some form of change jp is the one who always starts the threads

    honestly if you do like the game so much find another one

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Derby, United Kingdom.
    Posts
    7,865

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    1. Removal of slow loyalty drop once it hits 15 for Historic Cities. Make loyalty drop just like any other computer owned NPC. This will help counter the account sharing and turn the HC's into the intended battle zones they are supposed to be and make them trade hands between rivals often. When HC's don't trade hands then battles and wars slow WAY down. When battles and wars slow, player activity slows, the spending slows. HC's should be the "flags" in capture the flag. The HC's need to flip flop between warring alliances OFTEN. Make it so.
    I would usually say that it is unfair to generalise everyone as cheaters just because they can hold onto their cities, however in the case of Evony, I do not believe I have ever met anyone who has not cheated. Though there may be an issue where an honest players' reputation is ruined by people being petty. In the case of making cities easier to capture, I do agree. I think it is enough of a problem to justify penalising the few who would be absolutely innocent in order to thwart those who are definitely not.

    2. Make Historic Heros a quest so EVERY player can get at least 1. Make the Quest HH have zero loyalty like the queen. As it stands today, only spenders get the HH's. Free players get discouraged. Also, limit the number of HH's any 1 player can have. No reason 1 player should have 50 HH's. Cap it at 10. One HH per city.
    It is almost a certainty that the average casual player will not be able to get a historic hero for a long time, whether there is a quest for it or not. And in the event that one should get one, I doubt they would usually be able to hang onto it once a more dedicated player wants it.
    I think it would be a better idea to either do nothing and count on the casual players catching up and eventually capturing one themselves, or to change the King/Queen so that they are perfectly equal to historic heroes in terms of the maximum level they can reach.

    3. Remove ability of Governer to raise loyalty in a city. The governer account is often account shared. So loyalty can be raised around the clock on critical HC's making them impossible to capture.
    I would prefer the Governor feature to be scrapped altogether, however some people like it, and I understand it is quite petty and unrealistic to want it removed just because I do not like it. But if the first point you made, which I approve of becomes a reality, then this third point will be redundant.

    4. Limit army sizes, Limit resources. Tie army size to barrack level and number of barracks. It will cause players to want to spend money on mich scripts to get L10 barracks. It will also make the game more strategic as sheer numbers are not a factor. Also limit resources. Why have limits on city numbers, building numbers, number of heros a player can have, hero levels, gear levels, star levels, research levels... EVERYTHING in Age II has a cap or limit except for troops and resources. Thus player exploit the unlimited troops and resources as much as they can. It is inconsistent with the rest of the game. If troop numbers are unlimited then way are city numbers, hero levels, research levels,etc... limited?
    I do not believe this to be at all sensible. Pretty much every player I know would disapprove of such a thing; the bigger ones because it would mean reducing their army size, the smaller because there is less to aspire to. One of the main aims of the game as many see it is to have a bigger sword than the other guy, and limiting troops and resources will anger too many people who spent money, and be absolutely opposed by the many thousands that will notice this change on their own. And such a drastic change would surely unbalance the game in a disastrous way.

    5. Direct all new accounts to an Age II server Na1-19. No reason a new player should be sent to a hardcore server Na20+ or Age I where all their cities can be captured. That will only discourage new players. Sure, it will make existing players happy because they will have fresh meat they can easily kill. But it should be about giving new players a positive experience so they stick with the game.
    Well there is just no way. This would surely kill the less established servers in favour of the easy mode servers. Myself, as a new players in September 2009, I would always have preferred the newest server, because I would not be behind every other player on the server. And with Age II it takes a huge amount of time to build an account to a competitive level on older servers. Something which casual players will just be unwilling to do. I think it would be far more reasonable to inform new players in a system mail about the other types of servers and let them make their own choice.

    6. Forced offline windows. Due to account sharing, which is all too common now, honest players have no opportunity ot retaliate against a player who shares their account. Because the players city is never "exposed" to being vulnerable since the account is shared. Force all players to go offline. If a player can set their holiday mode, truce mode, etc... then a player can set their offline window as well. By forcing a offline window on every player then each player will have equal exposure regardless if they account share or not. This "exposure" is not happening. Evony designed the game with the thought in mind that players would not account share. Thus players would be ofline for periods of time. During that time they must rely on the alliance to defend their cities via the embassy. Why is this not happening? Why is it not being enforced? What is happening today is not in the spirit of the game.
    This is neither realistic, or sensible. Forcing anyone to be offline will mean a person must do nothing as others devastate what they have worked for over months and years. And any forced offline time would mean a massive drop in revenue and reduction in the player base, because no-one is going to want to play a game where quite literally, you are not actually allowed to play.

    7. Do NOT allow a players King/Queen to get captured regardless of any circumstances. And if it happens give the player back a King/Queen.
    I like very much.

    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. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    252

    Default

    japanpimp is, as usual, only defending his ideas that some people agree with and ignoring everyone else's posts. JP, why don't you create a poll and ask players whether they like your ideas. I can guarantee you no one will vote for most of them. Look at this thread already, three pages of posts and not one positive reply to 4-6 or that there should be an HH cap. JUST GIVE UP AND STOP POSTING YOUR RIDICULOUS IDEAS ON THE FORUM. Oh and btw, I am not a super experienced player nor have I ever played on Age 1. And can you stop making ridiculous acronyms like SEEFA.

  4. #24

    Default

    You know...
    We wouldnt worry about 'capping' the size of armies if food was just plain put back to where it was intended and properly used in Age I.

    You build too many troops, you can't feed em, they die of starvation, called refuge.

    I find it rediculous, how suggestions like the same ol JP things neglect basic behaviours that would provide better game balance right away.

    Of course the name of the game for Age II is limit. Limit hero level, limit attack levels, limit how fast troops can be built.

    Age I may be too limitless, but these lil pieces make Age II too LIMITED.

  5. #25

    Default

    Most of your points about hc can be fixed if Evony starts enforcing their rule about account sharing. This is a serious issue that Evony seems to be ignoring.

    You do not need to have hh to build a large army and defend. Many people will not risk a hh on an attack so hh tend to be used for breaking a hc, defending, reinforcing, boosting production, and the achievement food buff.

    If you want to change the game, ask Evony to make each hc have it's own hh that cannot be moved from that city. I think that would revolutionize both the hh and the queen/king. If people can get a new queen/king when their old one is capped then someone will figure out that you should work with a player to change a hc over and over with them putting their new queen/king in there so you can load up a couple of war cities with nothing but queens/kings. New need to spam with junk heroes, just port in and attack with heroes that cannot be captured. Hmmm, you sure people cannot get back queens/kings right now? I could sure use 19 more queens.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Your NPC Patch, Evony
    Posts
    139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    6. Forced offline windows. Due to account sharing, which is all too common now, honest players have no opportunity ot retaliate against a player who shares their account. Because the players city is never "exposed" to being vulnerable since the account is shared. Force all players to go offline. If a player can set their holiday mode, truce mode, etc... then a player can set their offline window as well. By forcing a offline window on every player then each player will have equal exposure regardless if they account share or not. This "exposure" is not happening. Evony designed the game with the thought in mind that players would not account share. Thus players would be ofline for periods of time. During that time they must rely on the alliance to defend their cities via the embassy. Why is this not happening? Why is it not being enforced? What is happening today is not in the spirit of the game.
    I play on Age I now, but...
    FORCED offline windows? Are you INSANE? The time a player has to play in the game is a factor.
    http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l600/evonyhead123/360743-bigthumbnail-3.gif

  7. #27

    Default

    1. No

    2. Yes

    3. No (vote in a gov that does not account share)

    4. "Limit army sizes, Limit resources." There are soft caps, already. While changes need to happen, I do not support your idea of a hard cap.

    5. No

    6. No

    7. Yes. Players should have only ONE king/queen from the quest reward, and they should NEVER lose that hero.
    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.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    267

    Default cant say i agree with it all

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    Evony guys, this is what we need in Age II. Please get er done.


    1. Removal of slow loyalty drop once it hits 15 for Historic Cities. Make loyalty drop just like any other computer owned NPC. This will help counter the account sharing and turn the HC's into the intended battle zones they are supposed to be and make them trade hands between rivals often. When HC's don't trade hands then battles and wars slow WAY down. When battles and wars slow, player activity slows, the spending slows. HC's should be the "flags" in capture the flag. The HC's need to flip flop between warring alliances OFTEN. Make it so. Chop chop, let's get a move on.

    circumstances. And if it happens give the player back a King/Queen.
    I have said it be fore I will say it again you can take other parties HC even if they are account sharing but it must be an even with your entire alliance involved 50 advance tels being used and every single historical city of the opposing alliance being hit ohh yea and surprise. not saying i would not consider this an improvement

    but a server wide event that your alliance prepares for 2 weeks every one builds ups 500k catapults or ballistics then in the course of 12 hours just blows them all breaking cities the defenders getting caught off guard all calling each other up
    "hello"
    "OMG get to your computer all our HC are under attack by massacre"
    "who toe, LC, spawn...?"
    "all of them tell your girl friend she is not getting any tonight"

    it can still be great fun as it is.
    na 13
    4 16's 3 14's 2 12's new jersey bar association

  9. #29
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    2,473

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toeesquire View Post
    I have said it be fore I will say it again you can take other parties HC even if they are account sharing but it must be an even with your entire alliance involved 50 advance tels being used and every single historical city of the opposing alliance being hit ohh yea and surprise. not saying i would not consider this an improvement

    but a server wide event that your alliance prepares for 2 weeks every one builds ups 500k catapults or ballistics then in the course of 12 hours just blows them all breaking cities the defenders getting caught off guard all calling each other up
    "hello"
    "OMG get to your computer all our HC are under attack by massacre"
    "who toe, LC, spawn...?"
    "all of them tell your girl friend she is not getting any tonight"

    it can still be great fun as it is.
    na 13
    4 16's 3 14's 2 12's new jersey bar association
    No, it's impossible if they account share.
    If I own a city that can be captured (an HC for example) and I account share.... guess what? I can have 1 worker defending my city and it will never get captured. All I need to do is give my login/password to a few players and make sure comeone can always login to keep loyalty above 0.
    It's that simple. What makes it that simple? Because once loyalty hits 15 it takes ~2 hours for it to drop to zero, UNLIKE Barbarian cities. This gives the account holder 2 hours to login and raise loyalty. And if they can't do it then their friends can. Done deal. Incapturable city.

    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

  10. #30

    Default

    Even if a governor is allies with somebody who is losing there HC they cant raise there loyalty constantly since it has a cool down. And why not be ale to own as many kings/queens as u can i mean seriously u have so many ppl who go inactive on all servers whats the point n them sitting there going to waste. If u can get them then so be it. Its impossible if they dont account share with speech text and diff comfortings. Without a cool down on speech text it doesnt matter if u have 1 troop n your HC or not u well never lose it. This is where some alliances actually think theyre good cause oh look u cant take our HC even though u killed everything we have. Guess the jokes on us eh!!!

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
  •