Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: The inevitable futility of this game

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default The inevitable futility of this game

    With a Rally Point limited to a dispatch of 100k troops in a single march, unless you use an ensign and then it can go to 125k; established players are immune unless they suddenly get stupid.

    Why do I say they are immune?

    A player has no limitation upon the size of their own garrison. I can have, in any one of my cities, 300k archers, 25k ballista, 10k catapults and whatever number of other troops I care to name. (Yes, I have to feed them, but thats what barb farming is for. 600 ballista = loss less lvl 5 barb raiders and 3 million food per raid.) On top of that, with a lvl 9 Embassy, 9 of my alliance mates can send me a 90k archer garrison as well. So it is not out of the question, for me to have a million archers, ballista and catapults in defense, behind my lvl 9 walls, along with 10k Archer Towers and 1500 Defensive Trebuchets. Now, what could even a max power force of 125k catapults do against that....but die?

    Even if one were to dispatch 9 "waves", all of 125k catapults, and such were coordinated with all 99 other alliance members who did the same; and alllllllll of these waves hit in a 30 second window...it is STILL 125k vs a million plus and the attackers, lose all 900 waves in their entirety and the defender still stands.

    Proposal to resolve

    Limit the size of a garrison, according to the Rally Point. A lvl 9 Rally Point allows for dispatching of 90k troops and the garrisoning of 90k troops IN TOTAL. (Both the city Lords troops and those from alliance members; unless the city Lord uses something to temporarily increase this limit.)

    Unless and until some sort of limit on garrisons is in place, so that attackers-defenders numbers are forced to some degree of parity....then at some point; this game becomes one of stagnating and larger players picking on smaller ones; since a larger player is immune behind their city walls.


    I am not the first to say as much, and it appears as though the Evony team is not listening...but think about this for a minute...

    WHAT IS THE POINT, of developing something, only to have the players find it to be utterly stagnate in the end?

    This single factor; will indeed destroy the game ultimately, unless it is satisfactorily addressed.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    56

    Default

    I think It should rather be based off of cottages...I think that would make more sense in real life terms, and also force people to level something up for DEFENSE and not just the rally point for ATTACKING.

  3. #3

    Default Yes

    You have started another post regarding this same issue.

    You are right but if the 100's of previous posts didn't get the Dev's attention then I doubt you will be the proverbial straw.

    For what its worth I just think Rally Point should only limit the number of attacks, not how many troops are in each.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    49

    Default

    I feel the defence must always have an upperhand, but definitely not way too much upperhand. A limit is a good idea but the limit, i feel should be more than the attacking force's limit? but maybe max it to 150%?

    The idea is that if some one wants to really bring down a fully fortified city with full troops, they need to send two or three 'sacrificial' waves before they can actually bare the defences.

    But then again, this has been discussed before...
    =========================
    Watch out! this bee stings!

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    1,998

    Default

    They could just make the resource cap a hard cap. That would limit the size of armies. If your cap is at, say, 20m, you can still have those huge armies, but it'll be damn hard to maintain it. And good luck holding 1m reinforcing troops. They wouldn't last 15 minutes with a hard cap.

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBQ_Sauce View Post
    They could just make the resource cap a hard cap. That would limit the size of armies. If your cap is at, say, 20m, you can still have those huge armies, but it'll be damn hard to maintain it. And good luck holding 1m reinforcing troops. They wouldn't last 15 minutes with a hard cap.
    That would be akin to slitting the game's throat without massive changes to just about everything. People would be reaching end game in newbie protection.

    A level 9 farm produces 4500 food. Assume max techs, and a 200 polly hero and 5 level 10 lakes, that is enough to feed roughly 100 catapults per farm. Having a city with 20 farms will only support ~2k catapults.

    Or >50k archers. Not really a hard choice.

    Given the build time, the required barracks level, the mich scripts required to replace 2k catapults, and the fact that they will get their tails handed to them by 50k archers makes building a barracks over level 4 pretty much pointless. Same goes for 10k ballista.

    Additionally, it would make barb farming and PC raiding pointless. It's not like you can log off with an army more then a hundred thousand or so in the red, so whats the point of stealing other player's resources.

    Heck, it would make the market pretty pointless.

    Without a full overhaul to the battle mechanics, medal system, cash shop, and building system (Which is pretty much every aspect of Evony) People would be as strong as they are going to manage very quickly.

    Once that happens, what is the point of continually logging in, much less buying items?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,521

    Default

    Limiting the size of a garrison force would also limit the size of the attacking force that can be sent from any one city. So if you limit a garrison to 100,000 with a level 10 rally point, that means that you can only send one wave of 100,000 attackers against another city. (and be completely without defending troops in that city as a byproduct)

    You might describe it as a catch22 situation.

    In the end you would have all of your towns as close together as possible so you could launch a single wave from each of them and you would only target those players that you could reach from all of your cities in reasonable time, because whilst your troops are gone, you have no garrison for defence.
    Oh and forget about alliances sending reinforcements, once you have maxed out your troop limit, you're on your own.

    So if you want to talk about ultimate futility...
    PEACE

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BBQ_Sauce View Post
    They could just make the resource cap a hard cap. That would limit the size of armies. If your cap is at, say, 20m, you can still have those huge armies, but it'll be damn hard to maintain it. And good luck holding 1m reinforcing troops. They wouldn't last 15 minutes with a hard cap.
    You are mistaken. I routinely logoff, with multiple cities at negative 1/2 million/hr food. 20 lvl 5 barb raids thru the day prior, and I 'bank' 60,000,000 food or a 30 hr supply. Itisnt hard to do at all.



    Quote Originally Posted by Rodri View Post
    Limiting the size of a garrison force would also limit the size of the attacking force that can be sent from any one city. So if you limit a garrison to 100,000 with a level 10 rally point, that means that you can only send one wave of 100,000 attackers against another city. (and be completely without defending troops in that city as a byproduct)

    You might describe it as a catch22 situation.

    In the end you would have all of your towns as close together as possible so you could launch a single wave from each of them and you would only target those players that you could reach from all of your cities in reasonable time, because whilst your troops are gone, you have no garrison for defence.
    Oh and forget about alliances sending reinforcements, once you have maxed out your troop limit, you're on your own.

    So if you want to talk about ultimate futility...
    Not true, re the catch 22. One would simply have to coordinate reinforcing waves to the launch point RP, and send them as they arrive. Nothing difficult to handle/work-around.


    To the fella that says Defenders SHOULD outnumber attackers...you dont have any military experience at all do you? Neither war gaming, nor real life. Attackers, generally seek AT A MINIMUM, a 3:1 numeric advantage BEFORE launching an attack. Defenders, should NEVER outnumber attackers; unless the defender is launching a counter-attack in which case the "attackers" become the 'defenders'.

  9. #9

    Default

    I kinda liked the proposal of besiegement of a city. Cut off a city from all reinforcements and the resources gained from their fields. And, siege the fugger for a week.

    In the end of a week or however long it takes for the defender to run out of food, they'd have to sally from the city or refuge. Or, a relief column would have to break the siege. No wall bonus would be given, since the battle isn't a full blown suicidal assault on fortress walls. It'd also severely limit the defenders advantage. As both a sally force, and a relief force would have the same rally point lvls possible as a besieging force.

    It'd give a significant tactical advantage to high lvl rally points and war ensigns. Giving people a reason to buy the damn coins. At least compared to now.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    105

    Default

    I agre with this and you should be able to send a lot more in 1 wave
    *** If You Like My Post add To My Reputation ***
    Click the small scales at top right of my post

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
  •