I'm curious about something, so I'm creating this poll.
I know what my answer is, and I'll refrain from making any arguments for or against until the results are in, but I'm curious about the experience level of the typical forum poster here.
I'm curious about something, so I'm creating this poll.
I know what my answer is, and I'll refrain from making any arguments for or against until the results are in, but I'm curious about the experience level of the typical forum poster here.
RETIRED FROM EVONY
In short, the carebears won the battle for Civony. Behold their chubby rainbow bellies and tremble, for they lost every single battle, but sure as heck won the war.
-Kassikas
I agree with giving defense an advantage but when it takes like 4mil warr to take a level 10 Barb, something is wrong. There is no balance and makes no sense in many cases as to why you lose massive amounts of troops.
Where is "ridiculously overpowered"?
Science never sleeps...
I think it more or less depends on the situation really. In most cases I don't find it very overpowered but there are reports I've seen that make no sense what so ever.
Proud Host of BeastlY
Server 8
http://battle4.evony.com/default.htm...cbf6e3174a.xml
if he hadnt moved his archers out it coulda been bad for me :/
I have severe ADHD, Dyslexia, and I'm easily distracted by shiny th... HolySmokes A SPORK!
Evony's Local Unicorn Supporter
The defense is fine until the point that they made rock falls become some kind of nuclear device
I am a smacker. CPO rule
I dont think defenses are really over powered. I think they need a lot of work, but the defender shouldnt be able to be wiped out easily. It should take multiple members from an alliance to devastate someone's well-defended city. And thats what it takes as of now. Its not much fun when 1 person can go around and knock out 3 player's cities with equal networth without even trying.
The defenses are fine, people are simply not willing to change their tactics. What battle, in the history of the world, was EVER decided by a single battle?
And most cases, I don't see any semblance of tactics whatsoever. Take a look at Drill's battle report again. Not what didn't have any deaths. If I were to ever attack a city that I knew had fortifications (which would be any city I had not been attacking as of yet), I wouldn't use A N Y T H I N G but siege engines. That's what siege engines are for . . . hello??
And stop being so afraid to lose troops! I read all the time, "I don't mind losing troops, but so many to take out so few?" Yeah, most of those battle reports I've seen have little to no siege engines, and they are complaining about taking out so few of the enemy. Well, you'll need to attack a few hundred dozen times, won't you?
Where's the fun if you can take out a city in one go? Or even 10, for that matter? This allows battles and wars to last much longer, which is much more memorable for me. This makes the winning battles much more meaningful.
And don't forget that the defense strength goes both ways. This is helping you as well.
In real life, defenders are often heavily favored. They have the home turf, fortifications, and usually they have the support of the immediate population. Add to that a psychological motivation to protect their homes, and yeah... defenders can take a lot before they throw in the towel.
I don't think people should expect to just click a button and wipe out a city. Real wars are extended campaigns with major losses on both sides before a victor is declared.
A phyrric victory might well be the result. Be ye warned.
Warning - Preceding message may contain high levels of sarcasm.
I don't think defense is overpowered, but I think the game is far from balanced. Right now, siege and anti-siege are worthless in the game. Archers and Towers are better than both. Ballistas are really only good at farming lvl 5 NPCs. Anything else, the loss is not worth the hassle.
Bookmarks