I cringe to say this... I'm normally a PvP advocate but if there were more internal workings with the people and domestic affairs and dealing with corruption, like some other games I won't mention, I think it would add to immense playability.
Right now everything is built to serve the army. The population serves the army, not the other way around.
If heros could go on quests to save the queen for hero-based items, (like excalibur, I have never seen that drop anywhere) then the game would be well promoted by the ad.
"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
Wildor ...
what are we supposed to do in this game besides engage in a constant state of war?
I belong to a top alliance. We have never lost a player to enemy action. We have lost many to boredom.
We start wars because there is nothing else to do!
And it is sustainable under the current rules. Tougher, more mouse clicks but can be done.
Taking a state is doable. Taking a server .. could be done .. but what then? Pray for a rebel uprising I guess.
PS On the other hand if your position is we need something else to do then I'm in complete agreement.
Last edited by anywon; 06-18-2009 at 05:36 AM.
I'm not making myself clear here.And you all must forgive my ignorance of online gaming,this is my first time (be gentle...).When I say a constant of war is unsustainable I speak,on this planet of ours,of a STATE.Or a union of states (the pelloponese...)In the case of the game,I speak of A player or even Alliance.Of course there can be constant warring,the history of the planet proves it.And yes,I'm talking about providing the game with varied goals.
Age 2 is coming...
Hmm, kassikas actually has a great post here. Sadly, I think Evony will get the wrong idea and now find ways to force players to suicide troops.
Although the post is agreeable, I do disagree to some extend. If a player is in the top alliances, it'll become very difficult to avoid large, undesirable wars. Then it becomes very easy to lose large armies and days have to be spent to recover even a portion of it. I think this is even more important is younger servers, since no one has millions of millions of troops. The playing style on newer server also changed. The first few servers were for beta, and players were generally more into building. For the younger servers, experience players went straight for troops and alliances from the start, and wars started from day 1 (many players willingly getting out of beginner's protection).
So I think we don't need a troop sink unless it's an option (hint at Dawnseeker) and the rewards for the possible losses are worth it.
Leader of Love & War
An alliance can control 15-16% of the land area and mitigate any competition.
10 cities x 10 velleys x 100 members = 10,000 total.
800 x 800 = 640,000
10,000/640,000 = 15.6%
Each offshoot of the primary alliance can add an additional 15.6%. Six total alliances can control nearly every valley in one state. Though this is not necessary to establish a choke hold on a state.
I'll still hang around in the forum for a while![]()
Science never sleeps...
The forum is more fun. Especially when bullets start flying. Then it's popcorn time!
Anyway, with regards to the topic...uhm...I've got nothing to add, really, so I'll just put it back on track. Apologies for the derailment![]()
Science never sleeps...
Bookmarks