21JUL11 - Mobiles, other

I told it , you don't wake up a morning and you want to change a game mechanic !!!.

Sorry but in a game which could be in "B Beta" trying to be better than other games in same type and in 8 months on which I play still is trying to find its own way through the game industry and that I consider it "good try"  you don't make steps back.

Food perhaps some are using it, as strategy point and use some cities to fill the one that they produce armies, it is a strategy view which you may find in a lot of games. Others may use gold or other mechanics for the same results.
But all are based in the Mechanics which the game has. Players are free to find out which solution they prefer. You don't change the mechanics because it is like playing chess and in the middle of the game you are changing the rules how the queen will move. If you are free to change it as developer ... yep Sure you may change it and sure you may win or loose players - clients.

LOL you don't play free although the game in this stage is better than the most games giving prestige and having a mechanic which helps people to even play it without spending money. So consider how many people are spending real money for a game and just make any calculations and check if it is a cheap game. Just go to a store and buy any game for multilayer online gaming and check the price about 49euro. Buying a game and playing it, as long you like :)

I have spend about 150 pounds in prestige for helping the "good team" and i can say as i am average player probably others have paid much more!!. So sorry it isn't a cheap game :(  and people that are playing more than a year they have deposit real money and sure will not be happy if a developer wakes up and change the rules .......

Just think that players above a year playing this game have done everything to give to this game soul and helped it to grow.


 

A way to sort of fix the food issue.  From what I'm hearing, there is a conflict between Food and Gold.  If you lower taxes, you get enough food.  If you raise taxes, you don't get enough food.

So I'm going to suggest that we be able to build structures within the city that produce "Consumer Goods".  Here is my suggestion:

Edited by Kamakik - 23 Jul 2011 at 01:48

I dont mind the Devs calling this an exploit and removing it, but can we have a bit longer to readjust our cities and troops than Aug 1. Also i have talked about running 4 cities with 25k pop with 100k kobolds(for cheap grins) in each with my other 4 cities supporting with resources as far back as the White/H? any way all im asking is a bit more time to let the vets change their cities since it will take some major rearranging on some parts and lots of sacrificing of buildings and troops to get cities to the safe limits,

Mandarins31 wrote: i agree with Creature, if Gm's are say that's an exploit, that is... but well, and now, is having negative production of basic ressources and suffering nothing but losing a producing city a game abuse? let's put everything on the table as we are doing so: i personnaly have a city running out -12k of basic ressource/hour because of a very high use of sov structure for Cav production... this city can produce nothing but soldiers, at a high rate of course, but it can't really produce advanced ressources (would ask too much time, that's too difficult). and the gold is given justly by the cities that are running out of food. all the advantage i have on other players that use the usual way of playing, is that i can produce a big single army, while they produce medium armies, and if they do well, they produce soldiers faster , over their cities, than me, with my single big army... than has no overpower bonus.

Yes but with this exploit, you're still producing a lot of resources, more than enough needed for producing advanced resources. The only thing you lose out on is some extra speed you would get from sov. I should point that you even with 100% taxes you could still manage sov, just less of it. So you'd build armies a bit slower. Ok, sure, that would suck if we were playing evony. However the majority of this game doesn't take place in a hostile environment. If you were using your army constantly maybe speed would mean a little more but current many players rarely use their armies and are at no disadvantage at doing so.

So once I build my 100k troops and 500 siege engines with threat of being attacked, how is that balanced? I got my big army built up now I'm going to siege you. How long does it take 500 siege engines to bring down a city? Especially with 100k troops defending it, all from one player might I add. Sure, when they lose those troops they'll be at a disadvantage but are you seriously saying that by the time they lose all those troops, the damage they've done is still balanced out? I just don't see it.

Perhaps instead arguing as to why this isn't broken we should be trying to find a way to fix it more equally? As I said, perhaps making it so that food is no longer capped would help with managing cities running negative food.

Edit: I should point out that currently a city with no good sov is always going to be at a disadvantage to any other city with good sov. This is really no different. Settling cities in spots with good sov has become a must now because if you don't your cities are thus at a disadvantage. This update really wouldn't change anything in that aspect because good city spots and good sov spots have always made other city spots obsolete it comparison.


Edited by Brids17 - 23 Jul 2011 at 01:00

Brids17 wrote: As I brought up before, I believe it's because no one brought up the idea of using this to maintain huge armies. Judging by the response I got from SC, it doesn't sound like he had thought of that. I don't think they mind high pop cities running on negative food I think it's that it allows players to have armies so large it would imbalance the game in it's current state. That's just my opinion on things however.

Over the last 2-3 months I have made roughly 30M selling food.  My opinion, is that it is a decent fix but the role out is sadly ill conceived especially without a way to make cites with 5 food squares more equal to 7 square food cities. 

Some math with my cities:  Duncton Woods is at maximum population 14003 that it can support with 100% tax rate running a surplus of 800 food.  Gross tax = 56012 an hour.  I do not know where you are getting you 90K number from Brids17.

Compare that with Daily Clicker's Solace, whose max population will be close to 20K with all farm sovs and 800 food surplus.  The gross tax = 80K

The difference is huge in the amount of forces the latter city can support and that is using only farm sovs.  The difference only increases if you utilize sov squares for increasing production/recruitment. 

The devs should have giving longer warning before rolling out the fix.  Further, they should have also rolled out a method to ensure cities that where built on 5 farm squares are more viable then they have not made them.  The best course of action for starting players is to have their starting city razed once they have built a new city on a 7 farm square.

So, while the fix is good in the long run, the manner it which it is being implemented is very dissappointing.  They have always been good at listening to the community and I hope they see that they have now rendered any city not on a 7 farm pretty much obsolete. (i.e. every starting city)

The buildings they have hinted at can not come soon(TM) enough now.