View Poll Results: What do you think of the 24 hour cool down instead of 72 hours?

Voters
858. You may not vote on this poll
  • I like it better than 72 hours.

    276 32.17%
  • I do not like the reduction of hours.

    79 9.21%
  • I'd prefer a cap on how many alliances I can join in a 72 hour period

    503 58.62%
Page 31 of 36 FirstFirst ... 212930313233 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 310 of 357

Thread: Developer Chat: Reducing Alliance Rejoin Cool Down

  1. #301
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    40

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SKREEM View Post
    First off this is the first time I have been aware of Evony actually holding their hands up and saying 'Ok, maybe we got this one wrong' and actually making an active effort to listen to their customers... so for that I think all the haters here need to chill a bit and use this opportunity constructively.



    Personally I voted for limit on number of alliances a player could join. 72 hours is a ridiculously long time for anyone to be out of their alliance. I'm sure their will be people who log back on after the weekend to find cities/heroes gone because they were out of alliance and could not be helped and I for one would be severely frustrated with Evony if this happened to me.

    One suggestion that I believe deserves further investigation and is very sensible is the one where your first drop is unpenalised. Your second drop requires a 24 hour cool down, your third drop in 72 hours requires a 72 hour cool down etc etc. This addresses the needs for people to visit blues and talk with them, it addresses the need for people to drop alliance to scout/help another member... it is very rare that any one person would need to do this more than twice in a day. There is enough members in an alliance to go through this process a few times if required and have no one penalised for dropping more than once.
    .
    This is another good idea rather than just a straight cooldown period. This at least allows people to do the things that are needed while being out of your alliance, but also does prevent people abusing the system.

    Just a point as well, you dont see one Age2 player bagging Age1 and asking why us and not just them, if we read the explanation for why this was implemented then it affects both ages. Age1 doesnt have HC's...Age2 doesnt have instant build heros, so people on Age2 have to drop our honor the traditional way.....on your enemy, or with strats. Each age has it pros and cons....lets just stick to the topic at hand and help the devs decide what the better option for ALL players is here.

  2. #302

    Default

    I have a question. once the weekend is over and the poll results are in, How long will it be before we hear the decision that you guys have made? Will you guys send a system mail or post it here in the forums?
    Fostoria


  3. 11-27-2011, 06:05 PM


  4. 11-27-2011, 06:06 PM


  5. #303

    Default

    I would prefer if we are going to do this you change the system with Honor, that is the only reason we drop from our alliance...to help each other with our Honor. Which is a facet of the game and I do not see that as cheating at all. We are in fact using our own troops to do this. If you are to keep a cooldown in place I suggest making honor gaps not quite as dire on troop losses. Otherwise, you're just changing a part of the game that I've been playing with over 2 years and honestly with all the crap you guys have put out I'm about done. So are several others. City swapping wont get changed here and neither will hero exchange if people still figure out how to do it. All you're doing is making it tougher for the people that don't abuse that part of the game.

  6. #304

    Default

    Yet another Baby with the bath water decision by Evony.(editorial note you are just killing the game) If the original intent of the patch was to prevent passing of HCs between players then address that issue. I see no reason why HCs shouldn't and couldn't be passed among alliance members. In general HCs are typically taken BY an alliance not an individual player, why should they not be able to defend it.

    IF the problem is the constant 24 hour trucing. get rid of that. one 24 hour truce for the initial capture after that HCs are always fair game.

    the lesser of all evils capping the number of alliances one can join because basically that does nothing but prevent alliance hoppers

  7. #305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SupB View Post
    rewarding players w/ a city or hero isnt what evony was intended for. thats something we as players came up w/. evony wants you to build/earn things by your direct actions, not as a gift. that was the point. w/ this rule in place its a punishment for circumventing things, and it has merit. lets be clear, i dont like it either. i just understand it.
    I still need to go back and fully read your post before, and I still need to work on typing up something for Thalin, but a severe problem with this is the restriction of 10 cities as a maximum. Once you reach 10 cities, your effectiveness as a fighter takes on a limitation. Yes, you can still attack people, but what you can't do is capture another city.

    Hypothetical example:

    Player with 10 cities ports a city into hostile territory. They attack a hostile city and get the wall down and troops cleaned out. There also does not appear to be account-sharing going on (unrealistic these days, but work with me). The nearest player that is online that can help take the city is 4 hours away by cavalry.

    With that example, there are several possible "you should have done this" items.

    First, you could say the 10-city player "should have abandoned a city". Does that really make sense? The assertion from the company is that they don't like NPCs scattered everywhere on the map. Further, does abandoning the city work towards a goal of occupying territory?

    Second, you could say that the alliance of the 10-city player that is attacking "should have organized a time when someone closer would have been online". As far as that goes, maybe there was a plan, but maybe the second player had a power outage or had some other emergency. Maybe the hostile alliance put up more of a fight and thus things took longer than anticipated and the initial support had to leave. Should the attacker just say, "aww, shucks, I guess you can have more time"?

    Third, you could argue that the 10-city player should have stayed at only 9 cities. As in the first item, how does that work towards a goal of occupying territory? Also, when the player conquers that city, they'll then have 10 and be in the predicament of the first item.

    Nowhere in the terms and conditions does it state that you can't give a city to another player. The closest it can possibly come to stating that is that you are not allowed to sell or transfer "virtual goods" or "virtual property". If that statement is stretched to mean that a city is a "virtual good" / "virtual property", then "transfer" can also be stretched to mean that attacking someone and taking their city from them is a "transfer" and would also not be allowed.

    The fundamental issue here is there has not been an explanation of the goal of the change. If the company were to explain the goal, then perhaps players might be able to think about the stated goal and maybe customers would understand, and perhaps even go so far as to accept that the change is good.

    Change for change's sake is not always a good thing, and I think that's what we're seeing here.

  8. #306

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neko_lord View Post
    I still need to go back and fully read your post before, and I still need to work on typing up something for Thalin, but a severe problem with this is the restriction of 10 cities as a maximum. Once you reach 10 cities, your effectiveness as a fighter takes on a limitation. Yes, you can still attack people, but what you can't do is capture another city.

    Hypothetical example:

    Player with 10 cities ports a city into hostile territory. They attack a hostile city and get the wall down and troops cleaned out. There also does not appear to be account-sharing going on (unrealistic these days, but work with me). The nearest player that is online that can help take the city is 4 hours away by cavalry.

    With that example, there are several possible "you should have done this" items.

    First, you could say the 10-city player "should have abandoned a city". Does that really make sense? The assertion from the company is that they don't like NPCs scattered everywhere on the map. Further, does abandoning the city work towards a goal of occupying territory?

    Second, you could say that the alliance of the 10-city player that is attacking "should have organized a time when someone closer would have been online". As far as that goes, maybe there was a plan, but maybe the second player had a power outage or had some other emergency. Maybe the hostile alliance put up more of a fight and thus things took longer than anticipated and the initial support had to leave. Should the attacker just say, "aww, shucks, I guess you can have more time"?

    Third, you could argue that the 10-city player should have stayed at only 9 cities. As in the first item, how does that work towards a goal of occupying territory? Also, when the player conquers that city, they'll then have 10 and be in the predicament of the first item.

    Nowhere in the terms and conditions does it state that you can't give a city to another player. The closest it can possibly come to stating that is that you are not allowed to sell or transfer "virtual goods" or "virtual property". If that statement is stretched to mean that a city is a "virtual good" / "virtual property", then "transfer" can also be stretched to mean that attacking someone and taking their city from them is a "transfer" and would also not be allowed.

    The fundamental issue here is there has not been an explanation of the goal of the change. If the company were to explain the goal, then perhaps players might be able to think about the stated goal and maybe customers would understand, and perhaps even go so far as to accept that the change is good.

    Change for change's sake is not always a good thing, and I think that's what we're seeing here.
    no they changed it for a reason, and i listed them back in this thread.

    as far as your 10 city thing, limiting the amount of cities you can have has to do w/ the title and whatnot too, so they would have to adjust those quests. im one of those people that think you should never be done building, so making it possible to have a lvl30 rally. however, once you mess w/ one thing other dynamics change. thats what we're seeing here.

  9. #307
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Lurking
    Posts
    24

    Default

    why the cooldown in the first place?
    #######Old Sig udating a new one soon######

    Thank you Jade you are the best!!!
    You have a natural gift!

  10. #308
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    in my castle :O Carinthia
    Posts
    396

    Default

    people forget that although your in a 100 man alliance, it is an individuals game not ment to be shared, the idea of alliances are for planning and working together, not passing and giving,


    theres no option, but i vote the cooldown should be at least a month or put a cap on the total amount of alliances you can join once per year

    when people say "oh hes part of X alliance" its ment to mean your PART of the alliance,
    you shouldnt be able to leave an alliance, once you join it means youve made a commitment to help that alliance,
    i take the alliance i join seriously and dont leave until the host does,i see no reason to leave an alliance at all

    abuse- the real reasons to leave leave alliances


    • leaving to pass things to other members---may help the alliance, but its not right, not against rules, but its pathetic, ive never asked for a free city or hero, never needed to get colonised to prevent someone capping my city,why? cause i got farmed when i joined the game, then learned from my mistakes, new players aren't doing this


    effects

    • the way the quit button was being abused is just giving birth to a lazy generation of gamers who feel they dont need to build defenses cause my alliance will colonise me and save me til 2moro, or will cap my hc after i get beaten





    this place has gone so boring since most things are figured out its farmvillish,
    evony are turning things on its head, thats good, roll on the day the battle mechanics are changed
    *hint hint ...add it to the to do list

    xD
    R.I.P Cheapskates and poorly Peasants alike, may our sh!tty heros lead our armies with great courage and valour in place of gear and attack points

    siggeh by the awesome krazykazza ty!!

  11. #309
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    where ever the wind takes me
    Posts
    225

    Default

    ya it really sux for transferring citys/accident boots/prest dropping and etc. but if you boot a spy atleast you know they cant do anything change id etc and rejoin the alliance for atleast 72hrs. it just pushes the need for people to have alts. and u can cap 10s next to your targets just would take alot more work. more people going to be BUYING evony CENTS to cap and PORT out npcs....wink wink

  12. #310
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    North March and Upper Lorraine... or wherever my feet might take me.
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by barclay1966 View Post
    here's a thought.. allow alliance members to trade cities without having to drop out. What a concept!
    Oh my guess is they will, but we'll have to go to the store and buy some "think" to make it possible to do that.

    Bah!

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
  •