Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
Aside from all Artillery against flying units when does that happen?
Less then 1000 fights and choosing a rare circumstance to complain about does not give me a lot of confidence in your conclusions about fighting in this game.
----------
It doesn't matter how good the city AI is, we all get the same AI.
What does matter is the skill individual players bring to using the AI to their advantage.
If other players are better then you at that now, they'll most likely still be better at using the AI to their advantage after you change the AI.
Changing the AI won't close the gap in player skill. What will close the gap is increasing your skill faster.
Then don't. Many players don't bother with defense. Avoiding use of buildings that can be plundered is the best solution. Easier and more reliable than "collect on time". New cities can't be plundered until near the end of Iron Age, and you can go through a few events before that point to get event buildings that can't be plundered to provide goods/supplies/coins after you unlock Military Tactics and become vulnerable. Or make use of recurring quests.
Meaning you don't really want to be part of a discussion, so why bother posting?
Aside from all Artillery against flying units when does that happen?
Less then 1000 fights and choosing a rare circumstance to complain about does not give me a lot of confidence in your conclusions about fighting in this game.
----------
It doesn't matter how good the city AI is, we all get the same AI.
What does matter is the skill individual players bring to using the AI to their advantage.
If other players are better then you at that now, they'll most likely still be better at using the AI to their advantage after you change the AI.
Changing the AI won't close the gap in player skill. What will close the gap is increasing your skill faster.
Yes, everyone has the same AI. Gaming a broken system and viewing that as a skill does not change the fact the system is broke.
To me, the system is not a fair fight as humans > bad AI. Also, powerful players with advanced cities will crush weaker players in newer cities.
There are a number of ways it is not fair.
The solution is work around the flaw to limit the impact by collecting, syncing collect times, non plunderable buildings etc.
Not fool proof as people have lives/jobs so it will still happen. I just view it as a cost of playing as the amount of effort it takes
To eliminate it far outweighs the benefit.
Why I post? It is to add another perspective to it, whether you agree with it or not.
In the end players should be given choice to be apart of it and they are not.
So when do the units stand still? Can you provide some examples?
I have won over 56.000 battles. The only time I've seen a unit do nothing is when its type was Artillery and it faced flying units that can't get damaged by Artillery.
"Gaming a broken system" = learning to play the game as it is designed, which is literally how every game works that's ever been invented. If you don't like the design, that's fine, but that doesn't make it broken.
Also, powerful players with advanced cities will crush weaker players in newer cities.
Not a flaw if it's working as designed, and "work around" just means "strategy".
... to limit the impact by collecting, syncing collect times, non plunderable buildings etc.
Not fool proof as people have lives/jobs so it will still happen.
Again, I'm not seeing what the problem is. You play the game the best that you can and just because it's not designed to be easier doesn't mean it's broken nor flawed. Yeah, if you leave yourself open to plunder, you might get plundered. So?
People keep throwing around the word "fair" but I'm wondering why it would be fair that people with advanced cities had no advantage over newer players or why it would be fair that players who have more time to play have no advantage over those who don't. "Fair" is that the rules and limitations apply to everyone, and that everyone has to deal with the same AI. "Fair" doesn't apply beyond that, and shouldn't. In a competitive strategy game, gaining an advantage within the rules and game design is not "unfair"; that doesn't even make any sense.
In the end players should be given choice to be apart of it and they are not.
You argue that you don't have enough time to do things like collecting on time/syncing collections/planting non-plunderable buildings, and yet you also argue that you want more control over your defense. Which would require more time in the game than doing the things that will keep you from being plundered in the first place. I mean, you control your collection times but you can't control when somebody attacks you, nor what troops they use, nor what strategy they use. So which one would take more time in-game?
The point that is lost among the arguments for a different defensive AI is that losing a defensive fight is a completely different issue than getting plundered. One must precede the other, but they are otherwise totally unrelated. Dismissing all plunder mitigation strategies as "workarounds" is missing that very important point.
Not sure why you include this, I didn't ask nor care why you post.
But as long as we're sharing, I'm not posting to try and convince you of anything. You made it clear you have no interest in such. I'm pointing out your mistakes so that other new players don't make those same mistakes.
You didn't answer the question about your troops standing around.
This is a resource management game. All resource management games hinge on the players that devote the most time and money to the game have an advantage. That inherent advantage is what drives play and sales.
This game features a lot of mitigation factors players can use to offset the advantages established players will have in time and money.
Player dislike of game design does not necessarily equate to a mistake in game design.
You see the AI as broken. It's not.
Players of this game like to attack and win. (What do all top ranked players have? Lots of attack enahancement.) INNO exploits that.
The AI works as INNO intends, as a leverage point for driving play and sales by those players who like to attack and win. INNO keeps those players engaged by periodically cycling between enhancing attack capability and defensive capability.
INNO likes plundering: An opportunity for players who like to attack, win, and enjoy beating other players. (See the Plunder progress thread.) INNO has catered to plunderers for years and is now experimenting with bringing the same successful cycle of alternating between enhancing attack and defense to plundering and anti plundering measures. I will be surprised if Galata Tower is not followed up with some plunder enhancing SB or GB.
INNO makes money off the dumb AI. It will continue to do so because the people that play the most and spend the most like attacking and winning.
Sounds like good design to me. And to INNO's bankers.
I have not attacked another player, yet, so my experience is limited. It does not really matter if your army is wiped out, you do not lose anything. I watch the fights and adjust my defenders. Sometimes I lose a fight but do enough damage that they don't come back. Sometimes they run as soon as they can. I don't see the problem. That is how the game is set up. The worst I ever felt about being plundered was slightly annoyed.
LOL I never felt crushed. Unless your entire neighborhood is looting you daily, I doubt that it really is such a horrible experience. Take the advice that's given, and in time you will be in a position to attack your neighbors. Plundering is optional. It is a game, play it.
That all depends on one's perspective, doesn't it? The game is very successful, so in that regard I'd imagine Inno doesn't see it as horribly implemented. Plunderers are having fun so I doubt they think it's horribly implemented.
One's perspective is one of the few things in life one has complete control over.
Not sure why you include this, I didn't ask nor care why you post.
But as long as we're sharing, I'm not posting to try and convince you of anything. You made it clear you have no interest in such. I'm pointing out your mistakes so that other new players don't make those same mistakes.
You didn't answer the question about your troops standing around.
When does that happen?
Graviton nailed it:
Such a sweet response. <3
This is a resource management game. All resource management games hinge on the players that devote the most time and money to the game have an advantage. That inherent advantage is what drives play and sales.
This game features a lot of mitigation factors players can use to offset the advantages established players will have in time and money.
Good play counts in this game.
The only way the concept of fair can apply is if the AI provided in the game was different for different players.
If you are saying humans have an advantage over the AI, sure. See below.
Posters constantly make this mistake:
Player dislike of game design does not necessarily equate to a mistake in game design.
You see the AI as broken. It's not.
Players of this game like to attack and win. (What do all top ranked players have? Lots of attack enahancement.) INNO exploits that.
The AI works as INNO intends, as a leverage point for driving play and sales by those players who like to attack and win. INNO keeps those players engaged by periodically cycling between enhancing attack capability and defensive capability.
INNO likes plundering: An opportunity for players who like to attack, win, and enjoy beating other players. (See the Plunder progress thread.) INNO has catered to plunderers for years and is now experimenting with bringing the same successful cycle of alternating between enhancing attack and defense to plundering and anti plundering measures. I will be surprised if Galata Tower is not followed up with some plunder enhancing SB or GB.
INNO makes money off the dumb AI. It will continue to do so because the people that play the most and spend the most like attacking and winning.
Sounds like good design to me. And to INNO's bankers.
To answer your question, I had 1inf and 7 rogues against all ranged. During the replay, one unit moved and got wiped out as expected against this comp...then the other 7 units did not move at all during the next 5 or so rounds and were wiped out. Prob would not have changed the outcome but still kinda silly.
I get this is a time based resource management game with little mini games built in to drive engagement and sales of diamonds.
It appears my non-PvP play style is ill suited for this game in a larger sense as that (plunder/PvP) appears to be the main end.
So it’s either tolerate this part of the game focusing on the other aspects or leave altogether is what it comes down too.
Your line by line explanation does clarify a lot regarding the game and I am sorry you had to spend time detailing it out.
That would be wrong. If it were true, you'd be getting attacked dozens of times per day.
Plundering is part of the game, it's a viable strategy, actively encouraged by INNO. It's not a dominant strategy, few players rely on it for the majority or their Resource generation, most folk don't bother with plundering.
While you poo-pooed successful plundering mitigation, all it takes is a minimum of effort to make plunderers irrelevent to overall city growth.
A strong recommendation for you: If you find something impossible, unfair, unbalanced, in this game the odds are long you don't fully understand that particular aspect.
Ask a question, I guarantee that you will get useful helpful information. Snarkiness may or may not be included.
To answer your question, I had 1inf and 7 rogues against all ranged. During the replay, one unit moved and got wiped out as expected against this comp...then the other 7 units did not move at all during the next 5 or so rounds and were wiped out. Prob would not have changed the outcome but still kinda silly.
I don't know if it's what happened to you, but the one time I've seen defensive units not moving so far It was because the terrain made it impossible for them to move forward.
I've been attacked by armies with 500-600 attack boost (my city defense is 143 with 49 attack) and I wonder if it's actually possible to build a city defense capable to repelling those. Looking for city defense boosts, I find very few ... Castel del Monte, special evetn buildings, etc. and I'm beginning to suspect that it's impossible to build a successful city defense, to encourage attacks. I've ceased building a city defense army and let the 2 spear throwers have their day. If my thinking is incorrect, I'd like to know.
I don't bother with building defensive boosts. Making your city plunder proof is all you should worry about. People attacking makes no kind of difference if they can't plunder. I set a champion and a couple other units in my army for city defense and have no bonuses to their stats. Here's why...some people are only attacking for points and will only plunder if you don't set a decent army for them to receive points. The champ gives more points than other units.
Keep the amount of houses and production buildings to a minimum in your city. HC can negate the need for production altogether(except where quests are concerned). Don't set any production unless fulfilling a quest. Build a solid FL and join a decent guild with a lot of active players. Build a Traz to eliminate the need for decos and cultural buildings. This should mean that all your buildings stay motivated most all the time and nobody can plunder a motivated building. Lastly, the only thing left to worry about is goods production. Set your production times to c
coincide best with your schedule so you can always collect on time.
Now people can attack you all they want and it doesn't matter
That all depends on one's perspective, doesn't it? The game is very successful, so in that regard I'd imagine Inno doesn't see it as horribly implemented. Plunderers are having fun so I doubt they think it's horribly implemented.
One's perspective is one of the few things in life one has complete control over.
You missed my point. Your perspective is not dependent on the system, it's entirely dependent upon you. You can decide to change your play style to better take advantage of the system, or you can recognize and embrace the fact that losing a defensive battle is meaningless, and instead focus on strategies to reduce or eliminate the chances of being plundered. You could even lean into the system and become a plunderer. Any of those things can be done easily and don't depend on anybody else to change the system for you. Waiting around to be saved by somebody else is an admission that you're a victim, and victimhood is a fool's mantle.
A wiser man than I once said, "Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you deal with it."
To answer your question, I had 1inf and 7 rogues against all ranged. During the replay, one unit moved and got wiped out as expected against this comp...then the other 7 units did not move at all during the next 5 or so rounds and were wiped out. Prob would not have changed the outcome but still kinda silly.
I get this is a time based resource management game with little mini games built in to drive engagement and sales of diamonds.
It appears my non-PvP play style is ill suited for this game in a larger sense as that (plunder/PvP) appears to be the main end.
So it’s either tolerate this part of the game focusing on the other aspects or leave altogether is what it comes down too.
Your line by line explanation does clarify a lot regarding the game and I am sorry you had to spend time detailing it out.
Last I checked elvenar didn't have plundering (been awhile since I played though) so if you want city building without the plundering try that game. Also you should note that when you joined the game you signed up for whatever rules to the game exist (and any rule changes that come later) so you did opt into having to deal with plundering. As you said though in the end it comes down to is this game fun for you the way it is? At the point that is a no walk away for a bit and come back in a week or two and see if you still want to play.
I don't know if it's what happened to you, but the one time I've seen defensive units not moving so far It was because the terrain made it impossible for them to move forward.
I have never seen this in over 5 1/2 years of playing. Terrain has never made it impossible for units to move. For either my units or the enemy units. Please attach a screen shot of this extraordinary phenomenon.
I have never seen this in over 5 1/2 years of playing. Terrain has never made it impossible for units to move. For either my units or the enemy units. Please attach a screen shot of this extraordinary phenomenon.
You expect me to be able to show you a screenshot of a battle from months ago??
I think I was using Progressive attackers against Industrial defenders. The defenders would have been able to move up or down but there were trenches almost all the way from top to bottom and other terrain they couldn't cross between the trenches so they couldn't advance. Since they couldn't move forward, they just sat where they were.PCC
Ed: I may have the unit eras wrong but the terrain is correct.
