Page 1 of 37 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 493

Thread: Alliance Rejoin Change

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default Alliance Rejoin Change



    Our goal in Evony is for attacks to be risky but also rewarding in PvP. When cities can be attacked successfully, then they will be attacked more often. This means more battles, more wars, more sweaty palms and more last-minute defenses. These are the things that make Evony so much fun!

    Last week, we put in place a 3-day timer after leaving or being removed, before a player could rejoin the alliance. This was done to fix a few tactics that hurt the ability of attackers to capture cities, and made attacks less rewarding.

    Players made it clear that this timer was too long to wait after leaving an alliance, and that it felt too restrictive. Based on the player response, and looking at statistics from the game, we've decided to lower the cooldown from 3 days to just one day. We believe this shorter cooldown will provide the right balance between the needs of alliances and leaning the battlefield a bit more toward attackers. This will be carried out in the scheduled maintenance tomorrow.

    Our goal in Evony continues to be to provide the most exciting and fun battlefield on the internet. Thanks to everyone who gave feedback on this change, and we look forward to hearing more from all you in the future!

    See you on the battlefield,

    The Evony Team
    Last edited by Dawnseeker; 11-29-2011 at 01:58 AM.
    Legendary Hero

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    From what I saw both on forums and in game the consensus was overwhelmingly to not have a timer at all but of course that was not offered in the poll you guys set up.

    I'MMMMMMMM BAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!

    norr is basically a lesser version of shep
    hes not as awesome as me, but hell do root (nod)

  3. #3

    Default

    One thing that was not really stated strongly enough is that a circumstance where someone from the same alliance drops out to take a city before someone from a hostile alliance can do so means one critical thing:

    The player whose city is being saved is in 99% or higher of cases NOT account-sharing.

    Please read that again.

    The only reason this happens is because nobody has the login information for the person being attacked. If the login information is available, then nobody would drop out. Instead, the city would be comforted and the person now signed in would handle gate toggling, which would still prevent the other alliance from taking the city.

    In the final analysis, the attacking player / alliance will still have a chance of not getting the city, thus a cooldown for this purpose will not be anywhere near as effective as what you believe that it will be.

    The bigger question though is, are you all, as a company, sure that you want to add an additional punishment for someone obeying the rules of the game, and thereby giving them an incentive for not obeying the rules?

  4. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by neko_lord View Post
    One thing that was not really stated strongly enough is that a circumstance where someone from the same alliance drops out to take a city before someone from a hostile alliance can do so means one critical thing:

    The player whose city is being saved is in 99% or higher of cases NOT account-sharing.

    Please read that again.

    The only reason this happens is because nobody has the login information for the person being attacked. If the login information is available, then nobody would drop out. Instead, the city would be comforted and the person now signed in would handle gate toggling, which would still prevent the other alliance from taking the city.

    In the final analysis, the attacking player / alliance will still have a chance of not getting the city, thus a cooldown for this purpose will not be anywhere near as effective as what you believe that it will be.

    The bigger question though is, are you all, as a company, sure that you want to add an additional punishment for someone obeying the rules of the game, and thereby giving them an incentive for not obeying the rules?
    Really good post, agree totaly
    I also want to add that deopping out to take a city is not guaranteed to save it - the attackers can see what the other side is doing, they can make use of strats to prevent it or make it really difficult - or of course with good timing and a bit of luck a city can change hands several times in those 1st few sec's due to the volume of incoming waves

    trust me trying to save a city by dropping out and porting in has plenty of exciting hand sweating moments

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    ZZYZX Road
    Posts
    645

    Default

    Norr there not going to take it away completely. I am honestly very happy that they put it down to 24 hours, it's much more manageable.
    http://i765.photobucket.com/albums/xx292/morgana5/Forum%20Sigs/139wip-2.png
    Started playing on 3-23-10, Retired on 4-2-12 - Sig from the purrfect Morgan le Fay
    "I used to have many flaws, now I'm down to two - everything I say & everything I do."

  6. #6

    Default

    According to the polls the 24 hours wasnt the top vote so again evony doest listen to the players. the vote was for a number of drop outs per 72 period. I hope the players do respond to this and also respond with thier wallets.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tiny tim View Post
    According to the polls the 24 hours wasnt the top vote so again evony doest listen to the players. the vote was for a number of drop outs per 72 period.

    Lol, really? I didn't vote of course, but why was there a poll then?

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoeRan View Post
    Lol, really? I didn't vote of course, but why was there a poll then?
    The forum poll was one method we had for getting player opinion. We can't make game balance decisions based on forum polls alone. The third option was just not practical based on our testing and so we did another popular option from the poll that would work.
    Legendary Hero

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    In the shadows
    Posts
    493

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    We can't make game balance decisions based on forum polls alone.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    The third option was just not practical based on our testing and so we did another popular option from the poll that would work.
    ummm...

    is it just me or do those 2 statements seem to contradict each other

    also if im not mistaken you said the issue with option 3 was that it would take time to set up, not that it was not feasible. has there been testing done on it since that was said?

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    The forum poll was one method we had for getting player opinion. We can't make game balance decisions based on forum polls alone. The third option was just not practical based on our testing and so we did another popular option from the poll that would work.
    So we were given a option that was not going to be a option

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
  •