Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: I've got a bone to pick with the game

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CopiusDeath View Post
    That'd be a nice idea too. I'd not mind something like this, I still believe that a person shouldn't get an unfair advantage by teleporting away and the attackers get to hit a lvl9 flat.
    In the case of that message, your troops return without engaging whatever happens to be at the destination.

    The situation could happen in reverse too... you could be attacking a level 1 flat, and some Big Boy with a huge army, fully fortified walls, and a huge army decides to port on that flat just before your troops arrive. Bye-Bye troops.

  2. #12

    Default

    So why can't something like this be implemented?

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Alusair cave
    Posts
    2,639

    Default

    Personally I'd agree with a "situation has changed" thing, because I think if you tell your troops to take a city, and the city is missing when they get there, something weird is going on. Same goes for if you tell them to attack a flat and suddenly a city materializes on the spot. But, I think it was mentioned it wouldn't be implemented... (and no, I'm not quite sure why).
    It's all Rodri's fault.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,521

    Default

    Actually you send your attack to a set of co-ordinates, so that is what happens, no matter if the situation has changed or not, unless those co-ordinates are captured by someone you cannot attack.
    PEACE

  5. #15

    Default

    If there is no longer a city there, but a flat I'd say that I'm not attacking the same thing. Or if I'm taking a flat and someone's city materializes there, I'm pretty damn sure there is a problem and my troops should notice it.

    I would not go so far as to saying that with troop counts within a city or what-have-you, but if your army can't report back that the city vanishes/materializes then this is definitely not a very well thought out game. It's like saying that your troops have the IQ of a negative number and they can't tell the difference between a flat and a city.

    I mean, the game tells you that your troops have returned to your city! It can't tell you that your troops' target is different?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,521

    Default

    Troops are dumb. Given the choice between which resources they will plunder, they will choose stone before gold or iron or timber. Don't expect too much from them. Scouts are your intelligence gathering tool.
    PEACE

  7. #17

    Default

    I've noticed that trend, but I still think that the game is making them even more stupid than they should be.

    the whole thing about a city materializing or vanishing kinda throws me for a loop.

  8. #18

    Default

    Yeah... I mean, troops are stupid, but they're not THAT stupid.

    Tell them "you're attacking a small swamp" and when they arrive there, there's a giant city with walls, chances are they're gonna say "gee, looks like we're in the wrong place" and turn around and come home.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    4,521

    Default

    As I already stated, you send attacks to a set of co-ordinates, not to a particular city or flat.
    What would you want if the city you scouted and are attacking gets reinforced to the point where you will lose all your attackers? Do you want them to turn around as well 'because the situation has changed'?
    In the end you would neutralise all defensive tactics and take a fair chunk of strategy out of the game.

    Learn to scout and use your scouts to check for changed circumstances. Attacking another player should never be treated as a flippant act as you are participating in pvp.
    You have the tools to keep an eye on what is happening already in scouts and your CL. I can't see any reason why the game needs to be changed because you want to play in auto mode. It's pvp. It's your own fault if you get caught out because you send and forget.
    PEACE

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodri View Post
    As I already stated, you send attacks to a set of co-ordinates, not to a particular city or flat.
    What would you want if the city you scouted and are attacking gets reinforced to the point where you will lose all your attackers? Do you want them to turn around as well 'because the situation has changed'?
    In the end you would neutralise all defensive tactics and take a fair chunk of strategy out of the game.
    I'm quite sure you don't even understand. I already said earlier in the game that reinforcements and the like do not count in this discussion as I wasn't even talking about those. Plus, when you send out an attack, it says you're attacking a city, flat, or valley. It doesn't just send the troops to a location. Look at your attack bar. It actually says you're attacking the certain place, not just the location. If you are attacking a city/flat/valley and it turns into something else, then you aren't attacking the same thing and as such you should stop attacking it until you can confirm you'd like to hit that certain area.

    There's absolutely no reason to say that the rest of the junk you've said because it has no justification in the argument. This is not about making the game easier, it's about common sense. You're not going to be willing to hit a place that is something else from the time you send your attack to the time your attack is supposed to hit, so why does the game make it like that?

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
  •