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 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 46

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

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Burgundy, WN1
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowkey View Post
    not only that, but if the following happens at any point in time you atuo-lose

    "guys I'm getting spammed, can I get reinforced at x,x?

    500k warriors and 500k archers incoming to player's embassy

    The end.
    This is the practical joke in this game. I move 13miles in about 26 minutes minutes with archers. The target gets reinforced from 50 miles in lesser time [read: Relief station] mega lol.. can't be more funnier than this.

    The game mechanics teaches you only one simple thing - How to 'turtle' effectively with little or no effort!

    There is already a week's time of noob protection before which a player plans to continue playing or leave the game.

  2. #2

    Default

    Defense might be over power in a battle but you people miss the forest and only see the tree.
    Why would you do a battle? to win a war... so your the offender and in your fist you keep the fate of the defense and maybe the war, chose your battles and just strike fear in your enemy. Envony is maybe the most realistic game of this kind i ever seen by the simple fact the defense as in real life can be untouchable some times so a smart general admits this and recalls his troops.
    History is full of example of wars that finish with one battle well prepared by the winners but in the same time is full of example of wars that were won by economic power to sustain a long time.
    So don't search just for a blitzkrieg be ready for all situation and acct intelligent, just screaming attack never got any one to far...
    As in terms of just the simple battle, well things are complex in a good way, 1 pike can change the wind in favor of defense but in the same time 1 wave of 10k archers can also. So in my opinion a battle is won long before you press deploy troops, is won with a pen and a paper by a wise general.

    But I do have to admit honor system how it is now is just a b..s.., it dosnt show a strong, intelligent attacker it shows who is the most determine bully around and who destroys random defenses over and over again.
    Last edited by Oldwind; 07-18-2009 at 04:22 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    70

    Default

    I think we're looking at this problem from the wrong angle. Let's take a step back and look at this problem objectively. We feel that the wall "buff" is too strong.

    Why do you feel the buff is too strong?

    Because it takes far too many troops to even attempt to take over a city.

    Why do you feel that it takes too many troops?

    Because they fall like flies against a bug zapper.

    This is where we tend to split into two groups of thought. One side feels that this is a no-brainer: just build more troops and shut up. The other side feels that this is a major problem/burden. So . . .

    Why is this a problem?

    Because it takes so long to build up those extensive armies.

    That is the crux of the problem, in my mind. It's not so much that you HAVE to build more units, or even that it costs so many resources to build those units: it's the TIME you've invested into the army that irritates you. And I'm right there beside you.

    I agree with the idea that the larger units should take longer to build, but some of those build times are ludicrous in my mind. 26 minutes for a single battering ram? And I'm not even going to bother bringing up the catapult build time. Does anyone else agree with me on this?

    I believe the defenses themselves are fine as they are, so I did vote that the game is okay as it is. However, I do feel that if they would decrease some of the build times, particularly the Ballista and the Catapult, then many of our complaints would not be as loud as they are now. Needing more troops to crack a city wouldn't be as big of a burden if it didn't take d a y s to reproduce the army you just lost.

  4. #4

    Default

    That it is. He doesn't seem to have any clue as to what he's talking about.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,521

    Default

    there are two problems.
    1. The wall range bonus applies to all ranged units in a defenders city.
    2. The absolute maximum troops you can send in any one wave is 125,000.

    Experience will show that there is a point where a defending army is unbeatable, no matter what you send or how many waves you send, mainly because of these two factors.
    Archer towers have a base range of 1300, then it is 10% extra for every level of wall.
    Archers have a base range of 1200, then 10% extra for every level of wall.
    Ballista, base range 1400
    Catapult, 1500.

    So if a defender has level 5 walls, his archers and archer towers outrange even catapults. So if the defender has enough archers and towers it becomes an impossible situation. Archers are so much cheaper and faster to build than catapults or ballistas, so in defence it is possible, even desirable to have 100,000 archers in your town and 15,000 archer towers (which consume no food after production).

    There definitely is a point where it is impossible to conquer a players town, if they have these sorts of numbers and high level walls.
    Last edited by Rodri; 07-03-2009 at 03:50 AM.
    PEACE

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodri View Post
    there are two problems.
    1. the wall range bonus applies to all ranged units in a defenders city.
    2. The absolute maximum troops you can send in any one wave is 125,000.

    Experience will show that there is a point where a defending army is unbeatable, no matter what you send or how many waves you send, mainly because of these two factors.
    Archer towers have a base range of 1300, then it is 10% extra for every level of wall.
    Archers have a base range of 1200, then 10% extra for every level of wall.
    Ballista, base range 1400
    Catapult, 1500.

    So if a defender has level 5 walls, his archers and archer towers outrange even catapults. So if the defender has enough archers and towers it becomes an impossible situation. Archers are so much cheaper and faster to build than catapults or ballistas, so in defence it is possible, even desirable to have 100,000 archers in your town and 15,000 archer towers (which consume no food after production).

    There definitely is a point where it is impossible to conquer a players town, if they have these sorts of numbers and high level walls.
    It is always theoretically possible to capture a town, regardless of it's defenders, given attack on sufficient scale. 500K archers, 100k pike, and a mass of warriors sword and ballista might sound insurmountable, but five to seven million scouts, and a couple hundred thousand rams can break through that, assuming the defender isn't online to counter. Even then, you can still do it. Just requires ten to thirty people sending hundreds of thousands of siege.

    The problem comes with the fact that it is just pointless to bother. It takes less time, effort, and resources to cap a level 10 NPC and remodel it the way you desire then to capture any top player's cities.

    Not to mention the fact that you need one or two dozen players to cripple their armies beating through a defending army's wall of battle. Investing all that to wipe one city off the map is pointless. The 'loser' will replace what they lost far faster then their score of enemies, and the attackers, having crippled their armies, open themselves up to retaliation.

    PvP hits a wall when a couple hundred thousand troops mass not because of true invulnerability, but because you would have to be a pretty dedicated griefer, in a guild full of griefers, to knock down well defended cities.

    If there is sufficient reward, at least a few will strive for it at any cost. There is however currently no reward, just wasted investment.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kassikas View Post
    It is always theoretically possible to capture a town, regardless of it's defenders, given attack on sufficient scale. 500K archers, 100k pike, and a mass of warriors sword and ballista might sound insurmountable, but five to seven million scouts, and a couple hundred thousand rams can break through that, assuming the defender isn't online to counter. Even then, you can still do it. Just requires ten to thirty people sending hundreds of thousands of siege.

    The problem comes with the fact that it is just pointless to bother. It takes less time, effort, and resources to cap a level 10 NPC and remodel it the way you desire then to capture any top player's cities.

    Not to mention the fact that you need one or two dozen players to cripple their armies beating through a defending army's wall of battle. Investing all that to wipe one city off the map is pointless. The 'loser' will replace what they lost far faster then their score of enemies, and the attackers, having crippled their armies, open themselves up to retaliation.

    PvP hits a wall when a couple hundred thousand troops mass not because of true invulnerability, but because you would have to be a pretty dedicated griefer, in a guild full of griefers, to knock down well defended cities.

    If there is sufficient reward, at least a few will strive for it at any cost. There is however currently no reward, just wasted investment.
    This is the real issue 100%. This guy gets it.

  8. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kassikas View Post
    It is always theoretically possible to capture a town, regardless of it's defenders, given attack on sufficient scale. 500K archers, 100k pike, and a mass of warriors sword and ballista might sound insurmountable, but five to seven million scouts, and a couple hundred thousand rams can break through that, assuming the defender isn't online to counter. Even then, you can still do it. Just requires ten to thirty people sending hundreds of thousands of siege.

    The problem comes with the fact that it is just pointless to bother. It takes less time, effort, and resources to cap a level 10 NPC and remodel it the way you desire then to capture any top player's cities.

    Not to mention the fact that you need one or two dozen players to cripple their armies beating through a defending army's wall of battle. Investing all that to wipe one city off the map is pointless. The 'loser' will replace what they lost far faster then their score of enemies, and the attackers, having crippled their armies, open themselves up to retaliation.

    PvP hits a wall when a couple hundred thousand troops mass not because of true invulnerability, but because you would have to be a pretty dedicated griefer, in a guild full of griefers, to knock down well defended cities.

    If there is sufficient reward, at least a few will strive for it at any cost. There is however currently no reward, just wasted investment.
    +1

    Spot on.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Thailand
    Posts
    115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kassikas View Post
    It is always theoretically possible to capture a town, regardless of it's defenders, given attack on sufficient scale. 500K archers, 100k pike, and a mass of warriors sword and ballista might sound insurmountable, but five to seven million scouts, and a couple hundred thousand rams can break through that, assuming the defender isn't online to counter. Even then, you can still do it. Just requires ten to thirty people sending hundreds of thousands of siege.

    The problem comes with the fact that it is just pointless to bother. It takes less time, effort, and resources to cap a level 10 NPC and remodel it the way you desire then to capture any top player's cities.

    Not to mention the fact that you need one or two dozen players to cripple their armies beating through a defending army's wall of battle. Investing all that to wipe one city off the map is pointless. The 'loser' will replace what they lost far faster then their score of enemies, and the attackers, having crippled their armies, open themselves up to retaliation.

    PvP hits a wall when a couple hundred thousand troops mass not because of true invulnerability, but because you would have to be a pretty dedicated griefer, in a guild full of griefers, to knock down well defended cities.

    If there is sufficient reward, at least a few will strive for it at any cost. There is however currently no reward, just wasted investment.
    100% agreed. +1 too
    As you probably have noticed, English is not my main language. So, forgive the errors. I try to do my best.

  10. #10

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
  •