The game doesn't offer enough types of Support.
Defensive Support is what is currently allowed in-game. We need the ability to provide Offensive Support. Offensive Support would allow player A to support player B with troops that player B can actually use in combat.
Defensive Support = player A sends troops to defend player B's city. (We already have this)
Offensive Support = player A sends troops to help in player B's battle. (We need this)
Note: In most games, Offensive support can be used both defensively/offensively. Obviously offense = best defense.
If we allowed players to help each other in this way, it would become more strategical and political. I am not sure if you should allow a player to use offensive support among the players own cities or not, that is up to Playmesh. However, I believe they should let guild members offensively support each other. This would allow us to capture city's more easily and make the game less complicated.
In Age of Empires trading/supporting was very simple, because the opportunities were endless. If Playmesh wants to walk in previous strategy developers footsteps they need to introduce more ideas like these to improve the gameplay. Thank you for reading.
Two Support Types
I really like this idea. Lots of us go away from time to time and having the offensive support would mean that we'd be able to send our troops to our guilds cities and they'd be able to continue using them until we recalled them/they died.
Instead of pure offence support though I'd suggest and option for "defence" and "defence+offence". That way if you select the "defence+offence" option it enables them to still defend the city. Cause let's face it, if we had offence support in a city they wouldn't do nothing if the city fell under attack. They'd defend as well. But it also means that the original owner of the troops would be able to select the "defence" option and limit his/her troops usage.
Instead of pure offence support though I'd suggest and option for "defence" and "defence+offence". That way if you select the "defence+offence" option it enables them to still defend the city. Cause let's face it, if we had offence support in a city they wouldn't do nothing if the city fell under attack. They'd defend as well. But it also means that the original owner of the troops would be able to select the "defence" option and limit his/her troops usage.
This is a terrible idea.
First and foremost, this is an App. Not a mmorpg.
Introducing your idea would basically insure that the biggest guild took over the world (realm).
Take a look at the leaderboard standings for any world, the average guild size consists of 10 to 15 players. Take into the account the many individual players or people in a guild of two or three friends, and then look at the population of the top guild.
Then... Do the math.
By allowing people to support their friends or guild members in offensive takeovers, you become just like Obama, and wipe out the middle class.
You will be left with 1 massive guild because they have the players and resources to assist each other in the takeover of all lesser cities.
And just for sh*ts and giggles, let's say there were 2 massive guilds, which would basically be like "good guys vs bad guys". I dont think you comprehend the coordination it would require to even launch an offensive attack, let alone understand the futility of it all. You would end up just wasting all your, and your supporters troops, or again... World domination by 1 guild. The rest of the people would be constantly starting over and eventually just quit the game.
*Edited by admin. Watch the name calling please.
First and foremost, this is an App. Not a mmorpg.
Introducing your idea would basically insure that the biggest guild took over the world (realm).
Take a look at the leaderboard standings for any world, the average guild size consists of 10 to 15 players. Take into the account the many individual players or people in a guild of two or three friends, and then look at the population of the top guild.
Then... Do the math.
By allowing people to support their friends or guild members in offensive takeovers, you become just like Obama, and wipe out the middle class.
You will be left with 1 massive guild because they have the players and resources to assist each other in the takeover of all lesser cities.
And just for sh*ts and giggles, let's say there were 2 massive guilds, which would basically be like "good guys vs bad guys". I dont think you comprehend the coordination it would require to even launch an offensive attack, let alone understand the futility of it all. You would end up just wasting all your, and your supporters troops, or again... World domination by 1 guild. The rest of the people would be constantly starting over and eventually just quit the game.
*Edited by admin. Watch the name calling please.
-
Killerxx777
- Guardian
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:54 am
Dixie....seriously?of course ultimately one guild will rule the world!!you complain about high players attacking together.they can hit together;within seconds of each other,by simply timing their attacks.you're complaining about one guild having world domination. HELOO????whats this game about?????World Domination!!!your coment is lame;no offence.
As I stated, if you give people the ability to use supporting troops on offense, there is no, as you put it, coordination and timing, and all they have to do it get troops from a bunch of other guild members and then run around conquering as the please, with no recourse for the average player/guild.
Why do you think there is a population cap per city?
Bottom line, this business will lose customers. Players will just quit as there will be no reason to play the game.
Ask yourself this:
In the hypothetical situation of "world domination", when this 1 guild takes over the server.... What will you do then? Who are you going to attack, and what's the point of building up or expanding your city?
*Edited by admin. Watch the name calling please.
Why do you think there is a population cap per city?
Bottom line, this business will lose customers. Players will just quit as there will be no reason to play the game.
Ask yourself this:
In the hypothetical situation of "world domination", when this 1 guild takes over the server.... What will you do then? Who are you going to attack, and what's the point of building up or expanding your city?
*Edited by admin. Watch the name calling please.
-
Killerxx777
- Guardian
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:54 am
Now,back to the game.
I have to tell you,there are two groups of players in these games. 1-Temporary inactive members who bare no interest in prolonged gameplay and simply abandon the game when their mood switches.
2-Then,we have the so called 'cycle' of experienced players.They started on early worlds,and ultimately,as the world crumbles and is dominated by a single coalition,they move on to new worlds,seeking a new beginning,a new chance to create a name for themselves,yet again.
You conveniently added the comment 'run around conquering as they please.' Well,if you think about it,is the current situation in the game in any way different? Can a group of players with highly progressed strategies,armies and alliances not conquer whomever they deem neccesary?
Don't reply to this,for I am not interested in writing out essays for you ,so as to preach to you the concept of gaming.After all,this is a game,and we play it for enjoyment.Best luck in game mate
*Edited by Admin. Watch the name calling please.
I have to tell you,there are two groups of players in these games. 1-Temporary inactive members who bare no interest in prolonged gameplay and simply abandon the game when their mood switches.
2-Then,we have the so called 'cycle' of experienced players.They started on early worlds,and ultimately,as the world crumbles and is dominated by a single coalition,they move on to new worlds,seeking a new beginning,a new chance to create a name for themselves,yet again.
You conveniently added the comment 'run around conquering as they please.' Well,if you think about it,is the current situation in the game in any way different? Can a group of players with highly progressed strategies,armies and alliances not conquer whomever they deem neccesary?
Don't reply to this,for I am not interested in writing out essays for you ,so as to preach to you the concept of gaming.After all,this is a game,and we play it for enjoyment.Best luck in game mate
*Edited by Admin. Watch the name calling please.
-
Killerxx777
- Guardian
- Posts: 115
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 6:54 am
Quite a colourful argument in play here.
While civilized, i would caution you both to remember that, while you do not have to agree with one another on the forum boards, I would ask that we refrain from both "flaming" and "baiting" please.
As for the support function that you are suggestion. I see one major flaw with the support options that you are suggesting. The first having already been implemented and as such I see no further need to discuss here, but the second seems quite flawed.
In theory, what you are suggesting will allow one person to command every single troop within a guild and further within a group of allies. As an example:
10 of my allies send supporting troops for an attack, to support my current troops. If i was able to control all of these troops in the manner in which you speak, i would be able to command all of 10 of my allies, entire armies. This would negate the need for multiple players. I could have my allies send me support troops and then allow them to come back in a week and i would have cleared the battle field.
While this suggestion is great in theory, it does however devastate the game play mechanics currently in place within the game.
A revamp of the current support mechanic does seem warranted, but i would caution you that it seems very difficult to implement without "breaking the system".
Of course if you can think of any ideas on how to actually implement this system successfully, PlayMesh would be MORE than glad to hear it.
While civilized, i would caution you both to remember that, while you do not have to agree with one another on the forum boards, I would ask that we refrain from both "flaming" and "baiting" please.
As for the support function that you are suggestion. I see one major flaw with the support options that you are suggesting. The first having already been implemented and as such I see no further need to discuss here, but the second seems quite flawed.
In theory, what you are suggesting will allow one person to command every single troop within a guild and further within a group of allies. As an example:
10 of my allies send supporting troops for an attack, to support my current troops. If i was able to control all of these troops in the manner in which you speak, i would be able to command all of 10 of my allies, entire armies. This would negate the need for multiple players. I could have my allies send me support troops and then allow them to come back in a week and i would have cleared the battle field.
While this suggestion is great in theory, it does however devastate the game play mechanics currently in place within the game.
A revamp of the current support mechanic does seem warranted, but i would caution you that it seems very difficult to implement without "breaking the system".
Of course if you can think of any ideas on how to actually implement this system successfully, PlayMesh would be MORE than glad to hear it.
I was offering advice to Playmesh. They have a system that needs reworking, I had an idea, that many strategic games have allowed in the past. If they figure out how to get it to work right, then more power to them. I was just stating that I like the idea of my support system, and if they changed it another way that might be even better. But I am not the one to say.
To anyone who says this wouldn't work because of big guilds or alliances. If people didn't work together this game wouldn't even be popular. It is because of the social aspects of the game that it has become what it is.
Mr. O, I have played many games. And this does indeed work. It becomes a political game even more so. Because now you must FULLY trust your allies. If everyone has this support type then there is no fear, because everyone can either be honest or not. It may sound broken to you, that I could have 10 allies men, but they could easily re-write the system to balance this sort of problem. Say I can have a max of 25K Population, (my men). They add a feature called FP, Foreign Population, this would be the amount of support you can fit for allies. (It could be a completely new stat), and now when you receive men from allies to use offensively, you can only have so much support. This would keep players from having TOO many allied troops, and it would also allows us to have defensive and offensive support.
FP = Foreign Population
P = Population
So say we have 25K max population. Your FP could either be a new researchable skill, or it could be a math calculation. FP could always = 0.4 of your P. So then if you had your max of 25K P, then you would have a max of 10k FP.
This means only 10,000 offensive/defensive support could be sent to your city. It prevents abuse. It allows for multiple players to still be needed. And it lets the bigger players in the game, help out the little players. It is a system that needs tweaking, and it isn't perfect. But it could be, and that is where Playmesh comes in.
If you don't like my idea (Dixxie), then oh well, it seems that other people do. That just makes you look foolish when you call people names in a forum. One that is supposed to be welcome to open mindedness and assistance. If you have nothing good to add, please don't. If you disagree with the idea you can simply say so, we don't need an argument, it is purely a hypothetical idea.
I hope you all understand that I am just voicing my ideas, any advice or improvements are welcome, I just don't like the way the current support system works.
To anyone who says this wouldn't work because of big guilds or alliances. If people didn't work together this game wouldn't even be popular. It is because of the social aspects of the game that it has become what it is.
Mr. O, I have played many games. And this does indeed work. It becomes a political game even more so. Because now you must FULLY trust your allies. If everyone has this support type then there is no fear, because everyone can either be honest or not. It may sound broken to you, that I could have 10 allies men, but they could easily re-write the system to balance this sort of problem. Say I can have a max of 25K Population, (my men). They add a feature called FP, Foreign Population, this would be the amount of support you can fit for allies. (It could be a completely new stat), and now when you receive men from allies to use offensively, you can only have so much support. This would keep players from having TOO many allied troops, and it would also allows us to have defensive and offensive support.
FP = Foreign Population
P = Population
So say we have 25K max population. Your FP could either be a new researchable skill, or it could be a math calculation. FP could always = 0.4 of your P. So then if you had your max of 25K P, then you would have a max of 10k FP.
This means only 10,000 offensive/defensive support could be sent to your city. It prevents abuse. It allows for multiple players to still be needed. And it lets the bigger players in the game, help out the little players. It is a system that needs tweaking, and it isn't perfect. But it could be, and that is where Playmesh comes in.
If you don't like my idea (Dixxie), then oh well, it seems that other people do. That just makes you look foolish when you call people names in a forum. One that is supposed to be welcome to open mindedness and assistance. If you have nothing good to add, please don't. If you disagree with the idea you can simply say so, we don't need an argument, it is purely a hypothetical idea.
I hope you all understand that I am just voicing my ideas, any advice or improvements are welcome, I just don't like the way the current support system works.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests