Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 73

Thread: Rebalance Defense

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kassikas View Post
    Lowering the amount of time it takes NPC resources to respawn from 24 hours to 8 hours, but making NPC farming harder by granting defenders a range boost based on wall level was the Dev's vision of solving the NPC farming issue.

    They are not two completely different things. People complained that time spent equaled reward, now even poorly designed turtles have super ninja powers. Cause and effect.
    No one can confirm that. It is just speculation on your part.

    There are so many newbies complaining of being easy beats perhaps the developers wanted to give defense a boost anyway?

    They have managed to slow down the NPC farming with DT which has the longest range and will kill and mechanics. They don't need wall range bonus anymore. They have decided to keep the wall range bonus to give defenders more advantage. Is this advantage too much? Yes, to my own opinion.

  2. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DarkZ View Post
    No one can confirm that. It is just speculation on your part.

    There are so many newbies complaining of being easy beats perhaps the developers wanted to give defense a boost anyway?

    They have managed to slow down the NPC farming with DT which has the longest range and will kill and mechanics. They don't need wall range bonus anymore. They have decided to keep the wall range bonus to give defenders more advantage. Is this advantage too much? Yes, to my own opinion.
    Actually it is very easily confirmed, go back and read the related threats and patches.

    First, NPCs were gimped so that they would restock once per day. Then a Mod said that the Devs were working on a compromise that everyone would be satisfied with. Then came the wall range buff patch about 24-48 hours after that report.

    So yeah, the wall range buff patch was part of the NPC farming 'compromise' Ranting over how unfair it was that effort+time=reward placed the impenetrable turtle in everyone's reach.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    BFE IL, Middle of a dayum cornfield
    Posts
    2,443

    Default

    I disagree.

    The wall buff was planned almost independantly of the NPC change. I believe the devs knew that defense was too weak even with fortifications included, and they wanted something to buff it.

    This may sound a bit like a conspiracy theory and I'm not one to merit those, but I believe some of the reason this was done was to try to keep some players from departing after their city was crushed. Some of it I would say is for "political" reasons. Now it is much harder to uproot a player.

    "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" ~Einstein
    "lol well wine usually helps boost the wood"~LG
    "Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather."~Bill Hicks

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    In a bunker, South Carolina
    Posts
    270

    Default

    I don't know... I think it's better now. You have to work together as an alliance to take down towns. If you are having trouble doing it yourself, chances are you are doing it wrong. I've sacked a dozen towns since the patch... and I'm enjoying the game again.

    Plus, you can still farm npc towns and win without significant losses.. you just have to know what you are doing.

  5. #15

    Default

    I would also support this change. It 's more realistic. Historic military docrines suggested att:def to be 3:1 for a successful city siege, higher ratio with fortified structures.
    This change is just keep brainless lazy lame away from this strategic war game. It 's also encourage beginners to continue playing... which is good for devs.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackplague View Post
    I would also support this change. It 's more realistic. Historic military docrines suggested att:def to be 3:1 for a successful city siege, higher ratio with fortified structures.
    This change is just keep brainless lazy lame away from this strategic war game. It 's also encourage beginners to continue playing... which is good for devs.
    Why do people keep saying some bullcrap like "its more historically accurate"?

    Uh if historically it needed 3:1 odds to siege a castle why the hell are we capped at 125k troops per attack? Did ancient castle lords go "Oh, well, I have a million troops here, but I'll send 125,000 out and only when they're all brutally slaughtered by the larger defending force will I send my next wave of 125,000 in"?

    To be honest I've discovered ways to solo kill other people, and having "an alliance" doesn't change anything about the mechanics, but in either case it's a ridiculous waste of resources to cap a defended player. You may enjoy beating up the weak, or throwing your entire army into the ground (one or the other, thats the choice), but I enjoyed fighting on equal terms with people as large as myself. Low end players still get steam rolled with their pathetic defenses by larger players, so what is better about this new system?

  7. #17

    Default

    I do agree with you. There shouldn't be troop cap either. Only system keeping a power player from beating noob should be pres system.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Here. We call this place Ohio
    Posts
    2,104

    Default

    We're just going to keep rehashing this topic I guess.
    The common sense in the defensive boost is two-fold.
    First, defenses were worthless before.
    Second, walls should should have a tremendous impact on battles. Walls should be more than strutures to build which have the ability to take damage.

    As for 40,000 ballistae, I have yet to see anyone post a link to an historic battle where anything remotely close to 40,000 ballistae were invloved. I don't care if this is "just a game," those kinds of numbers were never intended and are completely out of line with non-ultima thinking.

    I will refer you to my thread on NPC's because this is where the problem between huge armies, exploits and "fixes" began. It was a arbitrarily poor decision to build NPC's they way they were... and they are still dysfunctional.

  9. #19

    Default

    People need to stop using the phrase common sense. If you have to use it, chances are that you are not upholding a "common" belief. Self-defeating term.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Here. We call this place Ohio
    Posts
    2,104

    Default

    When you consider games are entirely made of math, common sense is meant in those terms. Math cannot lie. Breaking down the game's math shows the devs intent for the game.

    40K ballistae is not common sense.

    Look at the balance between resource production as a comparative ratio to one another and the costs of building each. When you do, you see one of two possibilities.

    1. Either the devs put zero consideration into planning production, thus, making every aspect of production and building arbitrary or,
    2. The devs knew exactly what they were after in resource production and buling costs.

    The comparative ratios for total numbers of resoruce "nodes" are as follows:

    Farms 13%
    Sawmills 40%
    Quarries 24%
    Ironmines 23%

    So, either the devs just made up numbers or they used a very specific set of caluclations to determine these percentages.

    One thing I know about programmers/developers is they have a love for math, ergo, these percentages are a matter of "common sense" to them.

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
  •