I'll add my voice to the "there are a multitude of more practical changes" that could have been made than forcing negative changes on us...
Why not trial changes on a server at least... then wait and see what the public think...
Beasty
I like it better than 72 hours.
I do not like the reduction of hours.
I'd prefer a cap on how many alliances I can join in a 72 hour period
I'll add my voice to the "there are a multitude of more practical changes" that could have been made than forcing negative changes on us...
Why not trial changes on a server at least... then wait and see what the public think...
Beasty
reducing from 72 to 24 hours cooldown does not resolve the issues many players have raised. This still leaves players out in the cold. Evony ask yourselves this: how long does it take to loose a city if attacked and your alliance cant help you? Does it take 24 hours or 72 hours? Neither! It takes a lot less, so you will be driving players to find ways, probably ways against the rules, to get around the cooldown!
On topic is this, it doesn't matter what we post here... once you all at the top change something, it stays that way... 72 hour cool down is a laughable correction to something that needed not be corrected... 24 hours will not make any difference, if you go without alliance you will be at high risk for attack with out the opportunity for re-inforcements. If your goal was to 'keep people in their place', than you have won.
If one is to be forced upon us, then
I'd prefer a cap on how many alliances I can join in a 72 hour period.
Something reasonable like 10-15.
I voted for the cap on alliances simply because I believe a cooldown is unfair to all players *accidental bootings
*prest dumps
*scouting allies cities for loyalty which is needed not just for ppl who wish to try scoop it from under the enemy, but also for the Govenor function...this is pretty much THE only useful function a govenor has, and why we vote for our gov, to help save Allies cities.
*moving to blue allies to help smaller players with rein etc.
Some points can live with a 24hour cooldown, MUCH preferable to a 72hour one if the decision is to keep a cooldown at all.
I don't like the idea of the cooldown at all, and I don't have any idea what exactly its purpose is supposed to be - but since that's not what we're supposed to be commenting on at this point, I'll just say that if we must have a cooldown, 24 hours is definitely better than 72 hours. Anyone left un-allianced for 72 hours is a HUGE risk of being totally wiped out; this is just going to lead to otherwise active players leaving the game in frustration.
I chose the lesser of 2 evils and that was to put a cap within the 72 hour period.
I voted the way I did because there wasn't an option to choose not to have this at all. Whether changing it from 72 hours to 24 hours or putting a cap doesn't derail the fact that most people don't want this, including myself.
As I told your product manager, I found something wrong with alliance dropping that I didn't like. But I don't believe 1 bad thing is a reason to remove the whole thing. There are way more pro's than con's to alliance dropping. I did find a work around to the problem, so it's all good.
Thanks
Well...Had I been warned, I would have just stayed put. But since I left my alliance early this morning (for probably only the 3rd time EVER this server) to handle some quick business, I would definitely rather the 24 hours than the 72. Getting me back home in 1 day would be great. But removing the useless cooldown altogether would be even better.
some of you should stop complaining, and go take some reading comprehension classes, and not worry about evony for a while.
the 24 hour thing is ONE option. The BETTER option is the cap to how many times you can join an alliance in x amount of time. It's not just do you want it for 72 hours or 24 hours.
options as i understand them are:
a) yes 24 hours is good.
b) no change (keeps it 72 hours)
c) a cap on how many times you can join an alliance in a time frame.
for those still struggling, correct answer is c.
Bookmarks