View Poll Results: Do you think that the game is broken, due to defenders bonus?

Voters
113. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, defenders have all the advantage.

    63 55.75%
  • No, the game is ok like this.

    50 44.25%
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 46

Thread: Do you think the game is broken, due to defenders bonus?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    115

    Default Do you think the game is broken, due to defenders bonus?

    Hi

    I have seen many post all along the forum about this issue, so i just wanted to merge them in this poll.

    Seems like due to different reasons, (Rally Point limit, wall bonus, Embassy garrison..) actually the game is unbalanced on the defenders side.

    too much, indeed.
    As you probably have noticed, English is not my main language. So, forgive the errors. I try to do my best.

  2. #2

    Default

    Actually i think it should be defenders advantage. Maybe this could be adjusted a little, but it's much better then the way it used to be. I mean before the patch there really was no hope against ballista.

  3. #3

    Default

    no i think the game is ok as it is
    I am a 200k+ prestige player
    who is barbing 400k+ prestige players
    and conquering lv 10 barbs

  4. #4

    Default

    I think its ok how it is. One person shouldnt be able to simply bust into someone's city that easy. It should take coordination of allies, waves of troops, depending on what the enemy has, and of course numbers. The attackers should lose a lot while raiding a highly defended enemy, not just bust down the archer towers and walk in to slay the infantry.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    BFE IL, Middle of a dayum cornfield
    Posts
    2,443

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by javasirc View Post
    I think its ok how it is. One person shouldnt be able to simply bust into someone's city that easy. It should take coordination of allies, waves of troops, depending on what the enemy has, and of course numbers. The attackers should lose a lot while raiding a highly defended enemy, not just bust down the archer towers and walk in to slay the infantry.

    They really need to scale honor to reflect that then. Attackers will always have 0 honor.

    I disagree with the current system.

    I mean in the beginning the defender's always had the advantage anyway due to rally point limitations. I know fortifications were a joke, but if someone brought ballista to attack you, just use ballista to defend...

    I don't mind the wall buff if they didn't scale it so strongly. The range buff it gives should at least be divided in half.

    "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

  6. #6

    Default

    Attackers have 0 honor - they have to revise this thing. I mean yo9u take all the effort to amass your troops and be the one brave enough to attack a city, but then when you lose , you lose not only your troops but your honor as well.

    If this is the case most of the players will just sit all their troops wait for an attacker to gain honor. Makes the whole thing boring. Maybe they must learn the saying that " A great defense is a good offense"

    example, you can only march like 125k archers or ballista to attack a city. with around 300k archers piled up inside a city, chances you will just kill around 10k archers and a few AT. how in the world can you down that defense? eveony just put the match up one at a time no matter how close the timing is

  7. #7

    Default

    I think defences are ok now, why?

    Cause (not all) , but some people put mony to make their buildings reach up to lvl 10, they also spend lots of time building his cities.

    So if u can conquer a city very easy, it will be very injustice.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alexis View Post
    I think defences are ok now, why?

    Cause (not all) , but some people put mony to make their buildings reach up to lvl 10, they also spend lots of time building his cities.

    So if u can conquer a city very easy, it will be very injustice.
    no one want's "very easy"

    We want "possible"

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Fostoria, Ohio
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by javasirc View Post
    I think its ok how it is. One person shouldnt be able to simply bust into someone's city that easy. It should take coordination of allies, waves of troops, depending on what the enemy has, and of course numbers. The attackers should lose a lot while raiding a highly defended enemy, not just bust down the archer towers and walk in to slay the infantry.
    That excuse is used too often. "Oh you should have to have multiple people to take over a big city". Yeah well they can get help from their alliance too. When you add in equal help there's still ~no way~ to effectively siege a city unless you have 20x the troops they do.

    You should be able to take over someones city who has equal troops to yours, why the **** would it be any different?

    Explain

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wertzluv350 View Post
    That excuse is used too often. "Oh you should have to have multiple people to take over a big city". Yeah well they can get help from their alliance too. When you add in equal help there's still ~no way~ to effectively siege a city unless you have 20x the troops they do.

    You should be able to take over someones city who has equal troops to yours, why the **** would it be any different?

    Explain

    That's plain daft. Work on 5 or 6 to one as a minimum if you invade a mans homeland and he's defending it, more if he's fortified. Ok it doesn't always hold true but most of the time it has done throughout history. I think the fact that it is harder to take a city is a good thing. . Mind you it hacks me right off if/when I have to do that lol.

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
  •