Page 1 of 50 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 493

Thread: Alliance Rejoin Change

  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
    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."

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Portland Oregon Multnomah University
    Posts
    1,211

    Default

    From what i saw was that we wanted a limit on the amount of times you can leave and rejoin an allaince in those 3 days i believe that was in the polls right?
    may all who feel my blade know my pain
    http://bbs.evony.com/showthread.php?t=146907 read my story
    <15:37>[paingodsson]: well i usually save tjpse fpr of o, attled pr o, attlomg
    <15:37>[ThaCulprit]: wtf did you just say to me? lol

    Quote Originally Posted by Kemal Rondal View Post
    i support paingo-whatever.

  5. #5

    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    13

    Default

    tbh there isn't really any point in replying to this but for my part the whole cooldown thing was a fiasco but to save face they 'say' we want it - perhaps whoever is making the decisions in evony should run for president/prime minister.....

  7. #7

    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?

  8. #8

    Default

    I like it better than 72 hours. -276 votes -32.17%
    I do not like the reduction of hours. -79 votes -9.21%
    I'd prefer a cap on how many alliances I can join in a 72 hour period. -503 votes -58.62%
    It seems that you elected to go with your original descision here anyway, a more forgiving version of it, but looking at the numbers it's not what the community was in favour of?

    Really the positive option for the community would have been the 3rd option, there we are still handicapped but have a degree of fexibility in what we can do. 24hrs may as well be 72hrs in my book as the only time this would affect me was in combat

  9. #9

    Default

    As has already been mentioned but I dont think it hurts to reiterate....may I ask why there was a vote including an option that came out top but wasnt implemented? Seems a little pointless really. Whilst I appreciate even a partial voice being given to players I am a little aggrieved that I appeared to have wasted my vote entirely.

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TraXzor View Post
    It seems that you elected to go with your original descision here anyway, a more forgiving version of it, but looking at the numbers it's not what the community was in favour of?

    Really the positive option for the community would have been the 3rd option, there we are still handicapped but have a degree of fexibility in what we can do. 24hrs may as well be 72hrs in my book as the only time this would affect me was in combat
    The 3rd option had too many side-effects for it to be possible, and it also would have taken longer to implement, and would have required testing. Also, the likely number of alliances to join in a 72-hour period would be 3, which is not much different than how we wound up doing it.

    The 24 hour option was also popular and the effects are for more predictable, based on our testing.
    Legendary Hero

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
  •