Page 10 of 56 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 556

Thread: Multi-tap farming

  1. #91

    Default

    age 1 you can build npc that stay. age 2 you wipe them. only way to feed armys on age 2 is to spend lots of cash, for vestas. thought this was a free game? now only money spenders will be unstoppable. cus the rest will be at 0 food, or low troop counts cus they have no food to build troops. or feed them. bring npc building to age 2 at least to make it fair. stop wiping npc.

  2. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    Yes. It is a time issue.
    d time required to build up 2 million troops.
    dx200 time required to build up 200 million troops.
    f time required to kill 2 million enemy troops.
    fx200 time required to kill off 200 million enemy troops.

    If players were allowed to keep and sustain armies with 500 million troops then battles would happen about once every 5 years because that is how long the attacker would need to build in order to launch an offensive.
    With reduced/capped army sizes players can engage in PvP battles more frequently. Lowering army sizes across the board promotes more battle frequency. More battle frequency = more fun, more spending, more everything.
    if you look in the ss threads u will find players taking down cities with millions of troops this promotes teamwork within your alliance. If your alliance is bad and does not know how to play they will be crushed its just the same as competitive sports if your bad you do not win. sure 1v1's would be harder but it will teach the players to actually work together and make the idea of a "good alliance" more important

  3. #93
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    NeverLand
    Posts
    27

    Default

    ok a suggestion since the game can no longer be played competitvely by players who cannont afford to pay and most of us have been downgraded to the status of noobs unless we spend at least 18 hrs a day farming to keep up with the ones who can pay to play Evony needs to remove the "Free Forever" from their logos and advertising.

  4. #94

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    If we lowered the upkeep cost of troops, players would just make more troops and wind up with the same upkeep.

    In reality, this would give the players with the largest armies an even greater advantage in troop numbers. For example, lets say right now that you had 100k archers, and another player had 1 million archers. You are outnumbered by 900k archers. If we reduced the upkeep (as you said) to 1/10, then you could get 1 million archers, and the other player could get 10 million. Now you are outnumbered by 9 million archers.

    This is why its important to consider all repercussions of game changes, and why fixing exploits is very important. Closing these gaps helps to reduce these secondary effects and make the game more enjoyable and even-handed for everyone.
    OMG, this is insane! I've been playing this server very actively for over a year. Yes I have a lot of troops, as do all the other skilled players who have stuck with the game for so long. When I come across someone with 1/10 of the troops that I have, it is most likely because they have not played as long, have not committed as much time, or in many cases, they decided to start the game late on a mature server.

    Personally, I do not farm or bother with such small players nor do most of the large players I know. Often we help and teach them. We are in a battle with other large alliances with equally large armies.

    If it is Evony's goal to limit the size of our armies by maintaining ridiculous upkeep requirements, they are extremely short sighted. I've played for over a year and have grown continuously over this time. I wish to continue to do so, which means I want keep growing my army more and more. That is why we play, these armies do not build themselves!

    This is a war game. We farm and build troops to grow. Those that lose battles experience attrition. It is part of the game and building huge armies is a totally valid game goal and way to keep score. There is no need to level the field with the small players who either play little to keep up, or made the conscious decision to start on a mature server with many, many big players. If those of us are going to continue to play this server in perpetuity, then we will expect to continue to grow our armies. Why else keep playing? Don't you think it might become boring?

    Advantage you say (to the player with the larger army)? You're damn straight! But it is an advantaged EARNED BY PLAYING THE GAME!!!!! It takes work and achievement, unlike all the advantages gained by those who coin (which apparently does not concern Evony so much). However, without the ability of honest and free players to build and achieve large armies, how can we keep up with those that buy their way, or those that multi-account or bot?

    I'm sorry, but you are just wrong on this issue.

  5. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    Yes. It is a time issue.
    ...[cut pseudomathematic mumbo jumbo]...
    With reduced/capped army sizes players can engage in PvP battles more frequently. Lowering army sizes across the board promotes more battle frequency. More battle frequency = more fun, more spending, more everything.
    Removing multifarming does not reduce army sizes. It reduces a player's ability to make a difference and play the game as (s)he is forced to run 0 food to maintain an army size necessary to avoid being squashed like a bug when a huge 0 food army on steroids (Vesta) comes knocking. Of course, if you enjoy losing your cities and being colonized by huge armies on steroids it's not a problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    As I explained, we fix bugs because that is the only way eliminate negative effects that unbalance the game and make improvements difficult.

    I don't see any reason why this bug fix would "get more" from anyone, so its not accurate to say that. Its very obvious that it is a bug, and it was already fixed in Age I.
    I'd like to thank you for showing up and replying to multiple posts - even though I generally don't agree with anything you say, and feel that the arguments about levelling playing fields / balancing the game etc by eliminating a method to sustain your army available to all in guides (including a video guide apparently) suffers from a complete lack of logical consistency.
    (yes, I know that was an absurdly long sentence)

    Financially this can go either way of course. Some players will quit in frustration, some will stop spending, some will spend large amounts to get the coveted Vestas that will now be necessary to wage war. It is however baffling that you cannot see "any reason" why people would feel pressured to spend more money.

    Like it was stated above, Evony is a business and has every right to make decisions about how to shape the game. That includes decisions about changes in gameplay angering the vast majority of your players. I'm just not always sure you fully consider the long term consequences before you implement them.

  6. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
    Yes. It is a time issue.
    d time required to build up 2 million troops.
    dx200 time required to build up 200 million troops.
    f time required to kill 2 million enemy troops.
    fx200 time required to kill off 200 million enemy troops.

    If players were allowed to keep and sustain armies with 500 million troops then battles would happen about once every 5 years because that is how long the attacker would need to build in order to launch an offensive.
    With reduced/capped army sizes players can engage in PvP battles more frequently. Lowering army sizes across the board promotes more battle frequency. More battle frequency = more fun, more spending, more everything.
    Sorry but you are so wrong
    Currently we are having several decent battles every month because we are trying to prevent people having the time to build up the giant defences
    It is in our best interest to harrass them and keep their numbers down

    Now people will be capped to the little they can farm for, it would be in our best interest to leave them to run out of food so they would not be able to launch attacks on us and their allies would not be able to reinforce their cities

    Also there is less and less incentives to hit them - we cant get royals off them, we wont be able to get food off them as they wont have any left, as they are multi accounting they will be speech txting non stop so we cant even get the city off them, we will all be capped to much lower troop numbers that take much less time to build up so even if you wiped all the persons troops it dosent hurt them all that much

    So whats the point in fighting? wouldnt have time anyways because all my heros would be out all day farming

  7. #97
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    39

    Default

    i asked this 'evony rep' just that same question he didn't have the courtesy of answering me. So i guess WE CAN ALL get botts and alt accounts.

  8. #98

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    If we lowered the upkeep cost of troops, players would just make more troops and wind up with the same upkeep.

    In reality, this would give the players with the largest armies an even greater advantage in troop numbers. For example, lets say right now that you had 100k archers, and another player had 1 million archers. You are outnumbered by 900k archers. If we reduced the upkeep (as you said) to 1/10, then you could get 1 million archers, and the other player could get 10 million. Now you are outnumbered by 9 million archers.

    This is why its important to consider all repercussions of game changes, and why fixing exploits is very important. Closing these gaps helps to reduce these secondary effects and make the game more enjoyable and even-handed for everyone.
    No, because of the loos of multitaps, we would need to farm more, whereas if you reduced the upkeep then it would balance the farming out. Your basically forgetting we can't multi tap anymore.

    Maybe 1/10 was a big of an exaggeration.

  9. #99
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Check WR..... You cant miss me :D
    Posts
    769

    Default

    It seems the only way to be able to sucessfully farm food for huge armies in age2 (hc 16 owners) would be if they make it like age1 where we can flip our flats around our hcs and reg cities into npcs that will actually stick so we can still support our armies

    EPIC sigs done by Morgan La Fey
    Na28 (ReBirth) (before they retired) HHx2 3100
    S158 (died)
    why test on animals when we have prisons full of pedophiles
    "Yea fool keep hatin, at least i know im doing something right."

  10. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattias View Post
    OMG, this is insane! I've been playing this server very actively for over a year. Yes I have a lot of troops, as do all the other skilled players who have stuck with the game for so long. When I come across someone with 1/10 of the troops that I have, it is most likely because they have not played as long, have not committed as much time, or in many cases, they decided to start the game late on a mature server.

    Personally, I do not farm or bother with such small players nor do most of the large players I know. Often we help and teach them. We are in a battle with other large alliances with equally large armies.

    If it is Evony's goal to limit the size of our armies by maintaining ridiculous upkeep requirements, they are extremely short sighted. I've played for over a year and have grown continuously over this time. I wish to continue to do so, which means I want keep growing my army more and more. That is why we play, these armies do not build themselves!

    This is a war game. We farm and build troops to grow. Those that lose battles experience attrition. It is part of the game and building huge armies is a totally valid game goal and way to keep score. There is no need to level the field with the small players who either play little to keep up, or made the conscious decision to start on a mature server with many, many big players. If those of us are going to continue to play this server in perpetuity, then we will expect to continue to grow our armies. Why else keep playing? Don't you think it might become boring?

    Advantage you say (to the player with the larger army)? You're damn straight! But it is an advantaged EARNED BY PLAYING THE GAME!!!!! It takes work and achievement, unlike all the advantages gained by those who coin (which apparently does not concern Evony so much). However, without the ability of honest and free players to build and achieve large armies, how can we keep up with those that buy their way, or those that multi-account or bot?

    I'm sorry, but you are just wrong on this issue.

    Exactly bro,,,they dont care bout the advantage of mass coiners, but all the sudden they care about this? I drop coin, but only bout 200 per server,,i mean what about (i wont name names i think we all know them) those peeps who drop 500-1k bucks day one, and cap 50 HHs only to sell them? And half the peeps who do that have alt accounts, then go and steal the HH back from the person and resell it.

Tags for this Thread

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
  •