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
well they fixed that, or at least they said so on the last pacth they did
In WAR, one must decide their faith, or others will decide yours.
Think you can read it without laughing? Go ahead and try it http://bbs.evony.com/showthread.php?...19#post1810519
Then why support the "status quo" of repeating that same process? Your endorsing of the change is equivalent to a "blank cheque" approval for the company to continue to do the same thing, instead of suggesting that the company take more time and evaluate things.
Rushed development, including rushed patches, lead to exactly this situation. From a development standpoint, I have no idea of how to classify their development cycle in industry terminology.The thing I'm noticing is the things they're fixing most of the time are attributed to "spirit of the game". Which means its not what they intended for the game to be like, so they're trying to fix it (2+ years later).
They are clearly not "extreme programming", "Agile", or "Rapid Application Development". All of those have at their foundation a series of smaller changes in a more rapid pace to respond to changing customer requirements. Customers are not consulted here very much, thus that's out the window. Not only that, but changes may happen once every 3 months, or once a year, which is too wide of a timeframe to be considered Agile.
They are also not following waterfall models, as again, customers are seldom consulted. Although waterfall development is slower, thus from that standpoint it's closer, the lack of customer consultation makes it not fit the classification either. Another cornerstone of waterfall development is that there is the Big Design Up Front. Since the phrase "not what we intended" is so often stated, that means that the design process was not thought through enough to make sure that the design would meet the requirements, aka "what was intended".
On the contrary, "we" do not "have to". You may choose to, but others may choose not to.I'm not arguing that this needed to be fixed over the many many many other issues w/ the game, but we gotta take things as they do it.
So have people who are making logical arguments against proceeding with this plan.I apologize for looking like i breezed through what you said, but at this point i've repeated myself a lot. If you can't find my list I'll go look for it for you. It was quoted a few times, so it shouldnt be difficult to find.
I do know where your other post is, and I will still go look at it, but the general tone of what you're saying is simply "we have to accept it". While that may turn out to be ultimately true, it does not speak to why the change is a good thing. If you are unable to argue that a change is a good thing, generally speaking, the change should not take place.
Last edited by neko_lord; 11-27-2011 at 10:55 PM.
I agree with some sort of cooldown being implemented, but frankly 72hrs is too much. I had to help an alliance member with a city, and left my alliance to help and now am 30 hrs from rejoining. I understand what is trying to be done, and also understand the points people are trying to make about abuse of city swap, hero transfer, and pres drop. I'm sure this isn't what Evony had in mind when this game idea was first though of and implemented.
However I do believe that this is just part of the game now. That would be nice if all of the above options were implemented into the game with a discharge system kind of like the military. The three options being Honorable, General, and Dishonorable. These options would be dependant on how you were in the alliance that is booting you.
- Being booted from an alliance with a Dishonorable would cause a 72hr cooldown. Reasons for being booted this way would be along the lines of spying, bad mouthing, sabotage, and inappropriate behavior. Others reasons can be anything that would have affected the alliance in a negative way.
- Being booted form an alliance with a General would cause a 24 hr cooldown. Reasons for being booted this way would involve inactivity, non-responsive although activity is shown, and such. Other reasons for being booted don't have to be bad they can just mean that this person never really did anything for the alliance thus received a boot because they never defended their lack of group participation.
- Being booted from an alliance with a Honorable would cause a limit of 2 alliance within 24 hrs. This means you are only able to be booted and join 2 alliances within the 24 hr period. Reasons for being booted from an alliance this way would be helping lower players, city capping, moving to friendlies for diplomat talks, and player just need to move on but was in good terms.
The discharges above could give the player who was booted a buff stating Honorable, General, Dishonorable, and the cooldown time remaining. The discharge type would be chosen when the VH or Host went to boot the player. Although there still will be some players who abuse this type of system. I believe this would make alot of players happy because not only is it making everything fair it would also mark the players who have done things in a more malice manner. Just a though on a different way to go about this cooldown as there needs to be something done either way.
Thanks
Baronet
ok I have to say that I disagree with any cooldown time for rejoining the alliance. The only thing it will do is make more alternate accounts to flood the map. Not to mention...If I wanted to drop a city, instead of npc'ing it I usually would give it to an ally, now your are penalizing that. One of us would have to leave the alliance and stay out there for 3 days unable to come back because of a cooldown that you all felt needed to be in place. Cap the number of times a person can leave and rejoin or jump alliances in 3 days....that makes more sense than leaving ppl out in the cold for that long.
let me first saying up front i apologize for such a short answer after your extremely well thought out answers.
you're right. the thing is this is the FIRST time evony has included in us in fixing something they changed. the other actual glitches they fixed that people cried about were things that the programmers/developers never intended for us to do. which goes to what you're saying. yes they didnt plan ahead thinking of what ways we'd think up to circumvent things, but was it naaive? an oopsy? stupidity? it doesnt matter. they should have fixed these things years ago, but maybe they didnt have the means then? I don't know what their situation is w/ respect to programmers back then. bottom line is a lot of the time we're seeing them play catch up, but catching up w/ things in a weird order. they seem to be doing things that we dont complain about, but they deem necessary while letting other things go. fundamentally the game needs key changes to key parts of the game mechanics to make things whole. until/unless they focus on that we're just gonna have to keep putting out these little fires as they come up.
i never said the change is a good thing, but that i understand some of why its being done. i do think some people abuse liberties we have in game play, so some type of cap/cooldown makes sense. however, its not something that needs to be looked at now. there's plenty of other things they can fix. i think that more than anything is whats irritating most people.
Bookmarks