It is currently Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:24 am Advanced search

Changes on embassy, attack and alliances

Share your ideas and improvements

Changes on embassy, attack and alliances

Postby rikardw » Fri Jan 06, 2012 3:34 pm

We want to make some changes to these functions.

Embassies

A big problem with embassies today is the commerce generation and that players only protect users with the highest commerce.

Just to throw some ideas out there on possible changes:

1. Disable commerce all together.
2. Only allow stationing troops in allied cities.
3. Set commerce as a fixed rate/energy
4. More external embassies per user.
5. Fewer embassy slots per user.

Attack

The problem with attack today is that active players move all their troops and resources when they get an incoming attack. Making it frustrating for players that want to attack them.

Som suggestions and thoughts:
1. To defend a city should be important.
2. If you dont defend a city there should be some kind of bad thing happening to your city. (maybe they pillage the city and you lose gold? or perhaps integrity of your resourcefields lower leading to lower production)
3. The player attacking should get some kind of reward.

Alliances

Large alliances tend to become to large :)
And there needs to be a better way to communicate within the alliance

1. Alliance forum!
2. Set max cap on alliance at 20 players and allow alliances to join in non-aggression pacts.


Lets hear your opinions of these functions and your suggestions for solutions.
rikardw
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:21 am

Re: Changes on embassy, attack and alliances

Postby poirazisd » Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:20 pm

Ok, here are some thoughts (probably already written in another topic)

First i want to state that any changes, if they do no not come with a loss of population when attacked and removal of inactives, are bound to fail...

Embassies

1. Removing commerce will result to a loss of motive...
2. I ll add "...or friends"
3. Fixed rate will result to everybody protecting freemasons... You see my point... ;)
4. I see no point in that taking in consider that all players try to concentrate troops and not divide them
5. I think two is the perfect number...

I think a player should be rewarded for protecting a smaller player. The smaller the player the greater the reward. That also apply to distance. Greater distance, greater risk, greater rewards.

Attack

Defending a city, except from important (very very important, if you lose pop), should be easier. People are moving troops and res because defending costs to much in troops and countermeasures... Especially when it comes to having 3-4 players attacking you.

All troops should have a "fortify" bonus when stationed in a city (maybe one that grows with the time those troops haven't taken any action)
Countermeasures should recharge in a couple of hours and not vanish.
Prisoners should be taken as with offensive rate and not according to traps. (Producing troops from prisoners should be faster and cheaper. I was thinking actually capturing units and convert them)

Alliance
Having a cap for all alliances will really give an edge to alliances formed by top-20 players. I agree that no-limits growth of alliances is not good for the game but only with great numbers can small players challenge top-20 players. Maybe a system where the bigger the alliance the lesser members are allowed should apply (Say 20 for first in rank, 25 for second etc. )

1. Alliances should share intel (both allied cities and enemy cities)
2. Alliance's members should at least be notified when an allied city is being conquered
3. Trade only with alliance should also be an option (This way you can have economical warfare...!!!)




I ll come up with more later...
poirazisd
 
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2011 2:38 pm

Re: Changes on embassy, attack and alliances

Postby kaid » Fri Jan 06, 2012 4:43 pm

I have following ideas ;)

Embassies:

1. Increase the overall capacity;
2. Players should be able to setup multiple embassies;
3. Players should be able to have more order options for their reinforced troops other than help defending and retreat.

Attack:

I think players should use something to carry their resources if they want to move them away, transportation facilities or just troops.

Besides above, I also feel that chat is sometimes lagging a lot. Since it's just chat logs and not persistence critical, you could try using some fast datastores(like redis?) to store only most-recent portion of the history at server-side, whereas store the left in a client-side local datastore(flash storage, html5 local storage e.g.), and sync them simultaneously(by flash socket, html5 web socket e.g.).
kaid
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2011 9:05 am

Re: Changes on embassy, attack and alliances

Postby rikardw » Fri Jan 06, 2012 8:42 pm

I like the fortify option. If you can fortify troops of your selection in your city and then receive a fortify bonus when defending.
We could maybe have a fortify release time so it takes some time to unfortify troops.

Thanks for the suggestions, alot of great ideas. Keep em coming!
rikardw
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:21 am

Re: Changes on embassy, attack and alliances

Postby Itzu » Sat Jan 07, 2012 1:41 am

____________________________
Embassies
____________________________

1. Disable commerce all together.

I don't like this idea. Commerce is basically there to help smaller players who don't focus on pop building.

2. Only allow stationing troops in allied cities.

This is a good idea, although it would limit options with distance between cities per say.

3. Set commerce as a fixed rate/energy

It already scales (capped) with embassy levels and power of garrisoning units.

4. More external embassies per user.

I like this idea, maybe?

5. Fewer embassy slots per user.

Nope. What if the one slot you are given ends up being filled with crap units that don't help you against a stronger force?

____________________________
Attacking
____________________________

1. To defend a city should be important.

Obviously if a player is active they will be able to defend their city very well.
Maybe have a troop defense bonus per # of days inactive?

2. If you dont defend a city there should be some kind of bad thing happening to your city. (maybe they pillage the city and you lose gold? or perhaps integrity of your resourcefields lower leading to lower production)

Well, this is already accomplished with other player who are good raiders. Maybe increased corruption for the days you are inactive?

3. The player attacking should get some kind of reward.

They already get resources when they raid, depending on accomplished their target it.
If someone is trying to attack the city of someone who hasn't been active for a while, the benefits should be greater then the losses needed to take/raid that city.

____________________________
Alliances
____________________________

1: Large alliances tend to become to large
And there needs to be a better way to communicate within the alliance

Cap the alliances at 30 members. Depending on how many active players total on the server, this could be open to change.
Also, maybe add more customization and features to the diplomacy/alliance. I don't know what you mean by "communicate", but maybe you could incorporate officers who can invite members, and also an alliance "target list or objectives list", something like that. Being able to pinpoint spots on the map would be a cool way to organize attacks and stuff like that.
Itzu
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:00 pm

Re: Changes on embassy, attack and alliances

Postby rikardw » Sat Jan 07, 2012 4:29 pm

Nice, thanks for the feedback.
rikardw
 
Posts: 52
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2011 4:21 am

Re: Changes on embassy, attack and alliances

Postby nman51 » Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:52 pm

how about also using the embassies to allow for a merc market?

meaning that you could post a certain number of troops for hire for cetain missions.
for example:
hire troops to assist in conquering a city, or defend a city for 24 hours, support an attack/raid.
after the mission is finished the merc troops that survive shall return to their owner.

the different bonuses of the mercs should also be reduced due to the lack of loyalty.
i think this could help small players grow faster, and also ensure that you could always have a way to defend yourself even after losing all your forces in a war.
nman51
 
Posts: 7
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 9:42 pm

Re: Changes on embassy, attack and alliances

Postby Itzu » Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:16 am

Itzu
 
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 11:00 pm


Return to Game Suggestions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron