v 1.12 Discussion Thread

[DeletedUser]

Alright allow me to shed some light on this.

1. You don't actually have to try something to know whether it'll be good or not. We're not idiots. We can use some common sense. So, perhaps you have no idea what you're talking about.

ex: Sticking your head in an oven when it's already on is a bad idea isn't it? I doubt you had to actually try it first to get that though...

Do you see the flaw in your argument?

And the mod edit doesn't even have to know all the facts to come to the single and only possible undisputed opinion on a completely new system. His powers of perception are so great he can just "feel" the revolt system is bad.

The example you offer seems quite idiotic-who would stick their head in an oven even if it was off anyway? I guess it was relevant enough to you as it was basis of your example. Do you clean ovens for a living? Anyway I will give your game a shot.

ex: You are lounging upstairs in the guest room eating a bag of doritos and assuming the oven is on. I doubt you really have a clue as to whether or not it is safe to stick your head in the oven because you are too lazy to even set foot in the kitchen to take a quick look...

Do you see the flaw in your argument?


I have an idea mod edit, why don't you

Stop confusing these strong, child-like emotional responses of yours with critical thinking.

Stop posting these emotions masquerading as well thought-out ideas in the forum.

Stop insulting the intelligence of dissenting members of our grepolis community that bring up legitimate disagreements with your "ideas".


You have taken a complex, multi-faceted and largely unknown new mechanic being introduced to grepolis and reduced it to a simple emotional issue. All you do is supply these emotional examples-peoplez can stack defense twice now omg impossible to take citys!! how hard it will be to take citys now!!! almost impossible!!! frustration!!! argh!!! defenders!!!this is for noobs!! simcity wth!!! And other players will agree with your "conclusions" because you say you have "tested" the revolt system and its bad.

You make the assumption in all of your examples that there is some lone wolf attacking a well organized, large alliance. Poor guy, now thats there's a revolt system he wont be able to take on people stacking 2k biremes in defense. As if he would be able to take on 2k biremes in the conquer system...

Ever consider the possibility of a well played alliance and the moves they might take to use this new system to their advantage offensively? Is there anything that dictates that if you use a revolt attack that you must also predictably launch a colony ship attack there as well? How about the strategic use of opening up multiple revolts on many cities in a war front by an equally organized alliance. Is this change still so pro defense? What about the effective use of fakes to tie up and bog down support in the wrong cities? Have you considered this at all? Where is the intelligent discussion on new strategies?

You spotted a change way out there in the distance, grabbed a gun and proceeded to shoot down a new idea before you could even ask questions about it and formulate a real opinion.

Your "thought" process seems to have been this: You immediately jumped on the fact that it now takes 2 clearing waves to successfully take over a city and came to the conclusion that it must be at least twice as difficult to take a city now.

Have you actually played the revolt system yet? You say here that you did

I have tried the new conquer system.

Thanks for commenting when you have no clue though..

Then follow with this. So did you try to revolt system and test it or not? I doubt it.

Alright allow me to shed some light on this.

1. You don't actually have to try something to know whether it'll be good or not.

mod edit doesn't actually need to try anything, he just knows. He can listen to his emotions and come to the complete truth without properly analyzing like the rest of us. He is just that good. So everyone please blindly follow Darksunx and his fearmongering and lets not give a potentially very positive or at least different change to the conquest system a fair chance.

As for Zeta, its my kitchen now, and you can stay the hell out. Step inside and I will Hansel & Gretel your head into my revolt oven so quickly you won't know whether the heat is on or off.
ro:

 

[DeletedUser]

Who mod edit in your cheerios? Oh must have been me.

And the mod edit doesn't even have to know all the facts to come to the single and only possible undisputed opinion on a completely new system. His powers of perception are so great he can just "feel" the revolt system is bad.

We already do have all the facts. I never said "undisputed opinion". Each person is aloud an opinion as I pointed out to JKP. Plus the information provided is enough to base a pretty good educated opinion on and not just a "feeling" as you put it.

The example you offer seems quite idiotic-who would stick their head in an oven even if it was off anyway? I guess it was relevant enough to you as it was basis of your example. Do you clean ovens for a living? Anyway I will give your game a shot.

That post wasn't aimed at you so not sure why you're getting all upset.

The post does make sense if you understood basic English. It was simply there to show that you don't technically need to try something to know whether it's good or bad.

ex: You are lounging upstairs in the guest room eating a bag of doritos and assuming the oven is on. I doubt you really have a clue as to whether or not it is safe to stick your head in the oven because you are too lazy to even set foot in the kitchen to take a quick look...

Do you see the flaw in your argument?

Dude.. I doubt anyone can even see the point in whatever that was let alone some flaw in an argument... this example doesn't even make sense.

I have an idea mod edit, why don't you

Stop confusing these strong, child-like emotional responses of yours with critical thinking.

Stop posting these emotions masquerading as well thought-out ideas in the forum.

Stop insulting the intelligence of dissenting members of our grepolis community that bring up legitimate disagreements with your "ideas".

I don't believe I've insulted anyone actually.. I believe I made a post telling people to argue the argument other people made and not the people themselves which is what you're doing right now. A proper debate tries to deconstruct the opposing view and not the opposing person. By attacking me and not my argument you make yourself out to be an immature and ignorant child.

And if anyone is getting emotional it's obvious to everyone who that is. I'm not the one running my mouth insulting people. I'm simply stating certain facts and opinions.

You have taken a complex, multi-faceted and largely unknown new mechanic being introduced to grepolis and reduced it to a simple emotional issue. All you do is supply these emotional examples-peoplez can stack defense twice now omg impossible to take citys!! how hard it will be to take citys now!!! almost impossible!!! frustration!!! argh!!! defenders!!!this is for noobs!! simcity wth!!! And other players will agree with your "conclusions" because you say you have "tested" the revolt system and its bad.

Had I built my argument as you presented yes I would agree with you. Lucky for me I'm not a 13 year old that can't put two sentences together. I provided fact and examples to outline my view. You're more than welcome to refute it. The mechanic is not as "complex, multi-faceted and largely unknown" as you think. It's fairly simple, which is it's only saving grace. It's not my problem you can't understand the basics of it.

You make the assumption in all of your examples that there is some lone wolf attacking a well organized, large alliance. Poor guy, now thats there's a revolt system he wont be able to take on people stacking 2k biremes in defense. As if he would be able to take on 2k biremes in the conquer system...

No that's my point. In the conquer system the 2K bireme are usually there once.. not twice. If he catches your CS en route he has a certain amount of time to get biremes in and then that's it. In this mechanic he gets a second chance to stack more biremes 12 hours later.

And no I am not assuming a lone wolf vs an alliance.

Ever consider the possibility of a well played alliance and the moves they might take to use this new system to their advantage offensively? Is there anything that dictates that if you use a revolt attack that you must also predictably launch a colony ship attack there as well? How about the strategic use of opening up multiple revolts on many cities in a war front by an equally organized alliance. Is this change still so pro defense? What about the effective use of fakes to tie up and bog down support in the wrong cities? Have you considered this at all? Where is the intelligent discussion on new strategies?

These same strategies you discuss here are strategies already in use. It's not too hard or expensive to get a an alliance to send a bunch of CS's to a bunch of targets. This doesn't change anything really the tactics are still the same. The only difference now is that in order for it to be a proper fake you have to actually win the Revolt attack. In the new system, if I see a CS coming, it's like.. yeah ok.. whatever..

You spotted a change way out there in the distance, grabbed a gun and proceeded to shoot down a new idea before you could even ask questions about it and formulate a real opinion.

Your "thought" process seems to have been this: You immediately jumped on the fact that it now takes 2 clearing waves to successfully take over a city and came to the conclusion that it must be at least twice as difficult to take a city now.

Have you actually played the revolt system yet? You say here that you did

Then follow with this. So did you try to revolt system and test it or not? I doubt it.

Your argument is lacking in anything that makes it credible. The change is not "way out there" it's actually already out and can be played and it releases in 2 days on Zeta. Had I wanted to "shoot down a new idea before you could even ask questions about it and formulate a real opinion" I would have done so last week or before that when the idea was first talked about.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I don't just jump to conclusions and back a statement without facts and numbers. You on the other hand have been seen saying the most inane things and being pretty much an *** at times.

mod edit doesn't actually need to try anything, he just knows. He can listen to his emotions and come to the complete truth without properly analyzing like the rest of us. He is just that good. So everyone please blindly follow Darksunx and his fearmongering and lets not give a potentially very positive or at least different change to the conquest system a fair chance.

As for Zeta, its my kitchen now, and you can stay the hell out. Step inside and I will Hansel & Gretel your head into my revolt oven so quickly you won't know whether the heat is on or off.
ro:

Again, talking when you have no clue what you're saying makes you look like an idiot. So good job doing that you saved me the trouble.

Good for you. You take that kitchen and run with it. Be careful not to land yourself ion the Darwin Awards though. Stick your hand in first to make sure it doesn't burn your head ok? Everything needs to be tested before finding out if it's good or bad.

By the way, I find myself in need of someone to see if wearing a meat suit and jumping into a shark tank is a good idea or bad one, do you feel like volunteering?

Edit: You seem to think calling me a mod edit is an insult?? I wouldn't have it as an avatar if I did... you may want to rethink that bit.

 

[DeletedUser]

Aurave Vs. Darksunx!! This is better than watching a giraffe eat a kangaroo

All we need now is for queen mab to return.

*Gets popcorn*

 

[DeletedUser]

This is a heated discussion, it's also a highly emotive issue. We all know that.

A) The personal attacks will stop now or the thread will be closed and infractions given out

B) Keep it on track, anyone wanting to fan the flames instead of contribution a meaningful post to the discussion, don't bother, it will be a short lived post and cost you infraction points.

This is an important discussion, let's not ruin it by being children eh?

 

[DeletedUser]

Being a game run by inno, many players will know this.

Tribalwars; Churches, Archers, different systems introduced.

Some people liked them, some people didn't, like this people complained on the forums about them, sure the public can control some favour, yet if you look at tribalwars these systems are still there, why?

Its a different style of game-play, a new style, a style some players like and enjoy. When they said the earth was round, the people who said this laughed at them, why? the people who laughed were scared of change, they were blinded by their own leaders and religions into believing such things and this sudden idea of change, of thinking for themselves scared them.

The simple fact is Darksun, no matter how much you slate it, this update is being released with Zeta, its a new style of game-play and people will play the world, even if it fails, the developers will not be stopped in testing this world, even with this, i reckon there will still be at least 20,000 Zeta players.

So, as Legion said, if you cannot have a proper discussion, this thread will be locked, and if i find you ignore Legion in his own forum, you will have me to deal with, and compared to the other mods, im hell.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. i really believe that in the history of tw they have never changed as fundamental a system as nobling. No matter what changes have been made at the end of the day nobles still reduce loyalty by 20-35 and village change still happens at loyalty 0. They didnt suddenly say ok now your nobles have to stay in the village and last for 12 hours before village changes hands.


2. I really believe as shown by the first post of zues regarding 1.12 that the original plan of innogames was to implement revolt in all the current worlds. Threads like this as well as the public outcry shown in them have stopped innogames from implementing it in existing world. So while some people are trying to portray darksun as a petulent child afraid of change, no one can deny that these threads have already had some use.

 

[DeletedUser]

If they introduced permanent Beginner's Protection to 'help' players, some people would still think that was a good idea. This new conquering system is a terrible idea but here are twoish constructive questions I would like to ask...

1. If the system can be exploited then what is the point? Are there being in workarounds implemented?

2. Is the system going to be on a x2 server thus reducing conquering to 6 hours so you could basically go to bed and wake up and your city is conquered.

It really is a ridiculous idea, but I'll be in Zeta for the dobby vs ryan bash.

 

[DeletedUser]

Note to mods: I felt this needed to be thrown in before I posted my second, more "on-topic" discussion. I think this is completely valid if you read the actual post. This player came off as a forum hot shot and bully, covering up his fallacies and cut lows with his all-star rep. I was just trying to point it out and not let his...actions go unnoticed. For anyone else who holds Darksunx up high on the pedestal he believes he's on, you should probably not read this wall of text to preserve your opinion of him.

I don't believe I've insulted anyone actually.. I believe I made a post telling people to argue the argument other people made and not the people themselves which is what you're doing right now. A proper debate tries to deconstruct the opposing view and not the opposing person. By attacking me and not my argument you make yourself out to be an immature and ignorant child.

And if anyone is getting emotional it's obvious to everyone who that is. I'm not the one running my mouth insulting people. I'm simply stating certain facts and opinions.

No, that’s not exactly what you did. It’s what you remembered, and your debates are anything but proper. Let’s see how well you deconstructed the first opposing view and not the opposing person in the following quotes.

If you have (a) used the new conquer, and (b) experienced the new conquer, then fine, speak out against it, but until then, to me it sounds a lot like a child's tantrum over the dinner table.

JK thinks you need to try it before you hate it. Your original post gives no reasoning behind why the revolt change was going to make you quit the game other than you were sick and tired of people crying about being farmed and attacked. “It seems the more you suck and the more you cry the more you get rewarded. A little bit of skill will make it almost impossible for you to get attacked…The team responsible for Grepo is showing us that they will punish those of us that play well and reward the idiots.” Considering this was the only evidence you gave to support your reasoning, I think it was a perfectly fair statement by JK. The following ensues:

I have tried the new conquer system.

Thanks for commenting when you have no clue though..

It does not sound like that in your letter, it sounds exactly as I described

I guess I'll welcome you to the Darwin Awards. Read:

After some time and seeing how the revolt system is going to work I've decided to opt out of Zeta.

First off, your mature and proper retort begins with a complete lie as you never actually tried the new revolt system. You berate JK for pointing out your ambiguous statement, then basically call him an idiot because he couldn’t read your mind before the fact-which is funny because you lied about it anyway. Just because there is no offensive language in what you said doesn’t mean that it isn’t meant to be. Welcoming him to the Darwin Awards is a deft riposte compared to calling someone an idiot face, but the intent is the same.

It is awhile before you post again, let us continue our journey to the next one. Please note that there has still been no further explanation on your part on why the revolt system was so unbalanced and game ruining, other than people with skill get the shaft while QQing noobs get what they want. I think you can understand now, looking back, why there were so many posts along the lines of:

So let me get this right...

You have not tried the revolt system. You do not fully understand how it works. Yet you still fight against it? You are taking other players words for what is, and what isn't. Do you see the flaw in your argument?

Until you have tried the new system, stop fighting it, as you have no idea what you are talking about.

You cannot say that it is going to ruin Zeta, as once again you have not tried the system. This might be the making of Zeta, but until you have tried it yourself, you have absolutely no say in whether the system is good or not.

You do understand that you still have given no reason for your views other than whining. Just because you can read your mind doesn’t mean we can. It may seem like I am repeating myself, but I think this is warranted as I really need to pound this in over and over so you can see my point. Because you have not offered anything substantial other than typical QQ, many people are saying you need to try the revolt system first and understand it before you run off ranting and raving. What is wrong with asking you do this? You bring whining to the table, the community demands more intelligent reasons to understand you position. Failing that, they ask you actually try the system before throwing it under the bus. Your response is to cut low on whoever does not meet your standards of mind-reading intelligence.

2. I know you're a "company man" and have to spew the "company line" but you have no clue what you're talking about. So, how about you sit down, shut up and let people say what's on their minds. Instead of attacking someone's "understanding" how about you attack the argument itself.

There you go again. No clarification of your position yet. When someone tells you that you have no clue what you are talking about(rightfully so, you offered nothing up until now), you respond in a “NO YOU” fashion and repeat the same thing right back. I see your mature ways. Then you say to attack the argument itself…you have none at this point. Your only argument so far is this quote (unless you count your halting of Alpha PnPs as a fact showing that revolt is flawed-if you do your measure of self importance and epeen is way beyond my understanding):

I'm sick and tired of all these people crying that they're being farmed and attacked when this game already favours them enough and then getting even more stuff done for them. It seems the more you suck and the more you cry the more you get rewarded. A little bit of skill will make it almost impossible for you to get attacked and make it 100% not worth it for the attacker... but that's for another discussion.

The team responsible for Grepo is showing us that they will punish those of us that play well and reward the idiots.

So where is the intelligent argument in that? Is there anything of substance there? Do you see why people are saying you need to try revolt, that you do not understand it? Lord knows this is getting repetitive.


Here's what really goes on in Darksunx ‘s head: I will offer nothing constructive and will personally attack other players for disagreeing with me, if they respond in turn by saying I should offer something constructive to the debate I will retort by calling them idiotic and hold them to the standard of attacking my argument and not my person. But because I never offered any valid argument there is nothing to attack and I AM INVICIBLE.

Time to edit that avatar and make the rainbow longer Darksunx, you obviously earned it.

 

[DeletedUser]

6 pages in you finally offer some type of coherent argument, and it’s not bad. But it doesn’t erase the fact you were a complete jerk in your earlier posts, and to top it off outright lied in your attempt to make someone feel like an idiot for questioning you.

Here's my explanation:

In the old system your alliance could help you by stacking defenses in your city in the process of being conquered for the 24 hour period.

You had to of course clear a city first and that was sometimes difficult enough. As everyone knows, clearing a full pop defense city takes about 3x the amount of pop in offense units.

The good news about that was that the roles eventually switched and you were able to send in defense after the clearing with your CS.

The roles still eventually switch. If you get the 2nd “clear” in with the CS wave after waiting through 12 hours of revolt you are now on defense and can defend the city, and have your allies send you stacking defenses to support the city just as before. You are now defending against future takeovers in an overall shorter time period, enjoying all those benefits that defenders get, including the ability to instantly begin producing troops and calling militia right after you take the city.

Now.. you technically have to clear a city twice.
Once to get the revolt going and then once again to get your CS in successfully.

Since the game is skewed towards defense, this means that the attacker needs twice as many attacking troops as the defender.

You're making no sense to me. Having to clear twice doesn’t mean each clear is going to be stacked with the same amount of defense units. Just because a player is on defense doesn’t mean their farms get a 2k pop bonus or magically have double the units laying around. The same support is still going to be sent, adjusting for the extra rebuilds that might be available in whatever portion is left of the 12 hour time window. The actual attack to start the revolt is not sent at colony ship speed, and will happen much faster. A well timed revolt could have the target logging in to see such a small amount of time left on the uprising that there will be no way to bring in significant, extra support to the city. Being that this is going to be implemented on Zeta (x3?) it’s possible the total uprising time could be 4hours. How’s that for skewed totally for the defender? Wake up and your city is gone…the attacker is not going to need twice as many units as he is sending now because he won’t be facing twice as many defense units. Yes you have to clear the city twice. But no a defense city cannot rebuild back to full in 12 hours, and while you do have to "clear twice" the argument of having to clear twice as many troops is invalid.

We've seen stacks of defense in well organized alliances - TG, TW-S, DDW to name a few - using Zeta as an example, team Ryan has enough experienced players to be able to pull off the same deal and I'm sure team Dobby has the same amount of skills.

So as long as someone is active enough to catch it, the revolt system has now given him two chances to stack defense instead of just one.

Good luck breaking through the stacks of 1000 biremes.

Not exactly the whole picture. The conquest system gives the defender a chance to stack defense, then very long time period to “defend” his city with offensive units should the CS land. The revolt system gives the defender a chance to stack defense in a much smaller time window (faster revolt attack, no CS in the first wave) followed by a moderately timed second chance to stack defenses. Of course any defenses wiped out already don’t magically reappear for the second clearing. And the time windows are different enough so that it’s not just a 1:1 comparison in the amount of defense you can stack anyway. It will be interesting to see how this affects dodging.

Yes I understand that Alpha and the rest are to be left alone but I don't care. Neither I nor any other player asked for the revolt system. The dev team took it upon themselves to add something that they thought was wanted because of a few crybabies that wanted to play simcity.

I think part of the reason was that for any new player, and potential customer with 1 city, getting conquered wasn’t all that fun being completely locked out of the game for 24hours. Not everyone is pro/1337/uber and has the time to be logged on a majority of the time. I don’t think it really matters whether you asked for it or not, it was something the devs felt was needed to improve the game experience. If you examine the revolt system it really doesn't make or break anything...it's not good, or bad, just different. Your server isn’t being affected so what’s the problem? Of course I wish the dev team would look into and implement some of the many well thought out changes the community has offered/requested already. But does that invalidate anything they wish to change because YOU don’t want it?

Zeta was a very hyped up world. Mainly because myself, Dobby, Aicy, Ryan, Lev, Leg and many others that would take me 20 minutes to list were joining as premades. This would have made Zeta the most fun world thus far. Add the rumored 3x speed world and Inno had a gold mine on their hands as many people were talking about paying specifically to get ahead in Zeta, myself included.

I do not think revolt will fundamentally change the game as you do- I believe it will shift the strength during city takeovers more towards the player on offense than defense, but that this will be offset by the fact that pure offense won’t be able to be used defensively anymore to break sieges. I am also man enough (or 13 year old enough according to you) to acknowledge that I can’t say definitively what the effects of revolt will be. All I have is loose speculation. You say it will ruin the game, and ruin zeta. I see clear flaws in your arguments, mainly stemming from their scope not being wide enough and focusing narrowly on negatives that I don't think even exist. But I am eager to actually play it, figure it out, and be a part of it.

 

[DeletedUser]

This is so geared towards defense I can't see wars being much fun at all with the revolt system.

Someone had mentioned opening multiple fronts in order to pin down troops, that won;t work too well as fully built defense is already more powerful vs fully built offense.

For example if each player A (Offensive player) and B (Defensive player) had 2 villages each, I do not see how player A can take Player B's village, unless A got lucky and was close enough to player B to take his village in 6 hours without B having a chance to retaliate, and this is only doable on x2 severs. I am sure the more experienced player can play out all the scenarios in their heads without needing me to list them.

You can scale this up to alliance v alliance, and what you will probably end up with is just large alliances attacking puny alliance. As it is pointless for alliance of roughly the same size to go at each other, so it will probably just make the sever very boring tactically, and stale in terms of wars between alliances.

In my opinion, this is implemented purely as an attempt to keep a larger player base per sever for longer, as it will be more difficult to "rim" a player, so therefore a larger base of players playing & paying over time. Quite reasonable from the devs point of view as theoretically this could bring in more revenue for them, but the question is would this system keep the players interested long enough to keep them playing & paying.

I am sure there are other much better ways that could increase revenue gains at the same time enriching the game play.

But of course by all means try it out on the new sever and prove the us wrong, just leave the existing severs alone please.

Nef

 

[DeletedUser]

My main concern with this update isn't the game leaning towards defence further, although that is certainly true. Right now it's definitely easier to defend than conquer someone but alliances that work together well can and do dominate areas of the map against seemingly larger opponents.

The one area that I want to see more detail on is the units. As I stated in one of my other posts this change effectively renders Hoplites, Chariots and Triremes as obsolete, since there is now no real need for an expensive unit that can both attack and defend. You only need pure troops to attack with and pure troops to defend with.

This also changes the mechanics and desired researches for conquer specialised cities, where previously Battering Rams, Phallanx etc were not as useful as some of the other techs.

I am however assured that there will be other changes following this update, particularly a rebalancing of the units. So I intend to wait until this comes out and give it a whirl and see what happens. I must admit, like a number of others I very much like the conquer system as it is, but that doesn't mean that with a bit of tweaking the devs can't come up with a different system that people will like on different worlds, as long as the knock on effect of this isn't ultimately a third of the core units being rendered unusable.

I am going to wait and see, I suggest others do likewise.

 

[DeletedUser]

Im not receiving looting report -notices anymore after this update. Is it meant to be like this or can it be switched somewhere on/off?

EDIT:
By notice i mean that roll which use to flash next to "Report" -text.

 

[DeletedUser2795]

Dang, I read page 7 and did not see page 8, but I guess my argument still applies

That post wasn't aimed at you so not sure why you're getting all upset.

The post does make sense if you understood basic English. It was simply there to show that you don't technically need to try something to know whether it's good or bad.

Just popping a comment in and fearing for my life.
Darksunx, so you claim that because it is common sense not to stick your head into an oven (or any other bad place), then therefore it is common sense to hate the revolt system? So the revolt system is the equivalent of a hot oven, yet you still claim to have tested it :Huh: I guess that that means that you have no common sense, or that the revolt system isn't quite as bad as we might be thinking, or that you have not actually tested it.

I don't believe I've insulted anyone actually.. I believe I made a post telling people to argue the argument other people made and not the people themselves which is what you're doing right now. A proper debate tries to deconstruct the opposing view and not the opposing person. By attacking me and not my argument you make yourself out to be an immature and ignorant child.

And if anyone is getting emotional it's obvious to everyone who that is. I'm not the one running my mouth insulting people. I'm simply stating certain facts and opinions.

(That is what we call emotional) What facts?

Dude.. I doubt anyone can even see the point in whatever that was let alone some flaw in an argument... this example doesn't even make sense.

If you are having trouble with figuring out the argument, then let me parse it.
You are being lazy and having fun by being up in the TV (or on the forums and current game) and then you are assuming that the bad thing (the oven) is bad, and am yelling at people that because you think that the oven is hot they should not even go downstairs and see?

We already do have all the facts. I never said "undisputed opinion". Each person is aloud an opinion as I pointed out to JKP. Plus the information provided is enough to base a pretty good educated opinion on and not just a "feeling" as you put it.

This seems like an oxymoron to me. And what information, I do not see it.

Had I built my argument as you presented yes I would agree with you. Lucky for me I'm not a 13 year old that can't put two sentences together. I provided fact and examples to outline my view. You're more than welcome to refute it. The mechanic is not as "complex, multi-faceted and largely unknown" as you think. It's fairly simple, which is it's only saving grace. It's not my problem you can't understand the basics of it.

You base someone's ability off of age, interesting... As I already said, where are the facts and examples? And your proof that it is simple? Two is multi...

No that's my point. In the conquer system the 2K bireme are usually there once.. not twice. If he catches your CS en route he has a certain amount of time to get biremes in and then that's it. In this mechanic he gets a second chance to stack more biremes 12 hours later.

And no I am not assuming a lone wolf vs an alliance.

This one I am fighting because of the flaws in the argument. Okay, fine, have you heard of sending attacks at intervals so that you only will have to face fewer Biremes at a time? Do you realize that the conquerer can get help from his alliance in clearing 2k Biremes before the C-ship comes over? You do realize that in the initial revolt attack it only has to take as long as any other norma attack and in normal attacks you usually do not have time to stack the city :Huh:.

These same strategies you discuss here are strategies already in use. It's not too hard or expensive to get a an alliance to send a bunch of CS's to a bunch of targets. This doesn't change anything really the tactics are still the same. The only difference now is that in order for it to be a proper fake you have to actually win the Revolt attack. In the new system, if I see a CS coming, it's like.. yeah ok.. whatever..

You only see the C-Ship itself some when the actual conquer will happen. the original attack is not a C-Ship.

Your argument is lacking in anything that makes it credible. The change is not "way out there" it's actually already out and can be played and it releases in 2 days on Zeta. Had I wanted to "shoot down a new idea before you could even ask questions about it and formulate a real opinion" I would have done so last week or before that when the idea was first talked about.

If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I don't just jump to conclusions and back a statement without facts and numbers. You on the other hand have been seen saying the most inane things and being pretty much an *** at times.

You did talk about it last week as you say. What facts and numbers, yours? Yep, he has been an ***, but better a hard working donkey then a lazy little chicken. You are saying that 5 days of testing on the Beta server is sure to give you time for a new opinion, I don't think it should.

Again, talking when you have no clue what you're saying makes you look like an idiot. So good job doing that you saved me the trouble.

Good for you. You take that kitchen and run with it. Be careful not to land yourself ion the Darwin Awards though. Stick your hand in first to make sure it doesn't burn your head ok? Everything needs to be tested before finding out if it's good or bad.

By the way, I find myself in need of someone to see if wearing a meat suit and jumping into a shark tank is a good idea or bad one, do you feel like volunteering?

You have the oddest thought process I have to say. Yes, everything does need to be tested first, have you tested it enough? Depends on the shark

So, overall, I would say that (so far) Darksunx is making a big fuss because someoen is heading over to change the thermostat, though he does not even know how much and in what direction.

Edit: I am trying not to take sides on if it is good/bad, but rather that I get a chance to choose between good and bad, so if Aurave starts trying to force me to believe that it is good, I will resist

 

[DeletedUser]

Stupid morale... Is there anyway we could know what the morale hit is going to be before the attack hits? That'd be nice...

Way to bring the game down to the lowest common denominator. Sigh...

 

[DeletedUser]

Stupid morale... Is there anyway we could know what the morale hit is going to be before the attack hits? That'd be nice...

Way to bring the game down to the lowest common denominator. Sigh...

I got a bunch of 38% morale. One of them was coupled with -25 luck:Unhappy:

How does morale work? I think it works based on enemy size vs our size.

I wont be surprised to get a 0 morale run when my attack party reaches the farm. :Unhappy:

 

[DeletedUser]

I got a bunch of 38% morale. One of them was coupled with -25 luck:Unhappy:

How does morale work? I think it works based on enemy size vs our size.

I wont be surprised to get a 0 morale run when my attack party reaches the farm. :Unhappy:

i just attacked a 1000 point village and i had 100% morale :0.

id also still like to know how this works i dont want to get blindsided by a 10% morale attack anytime.

Sigh another case of updates with no explanation whatsoever.

 

[DeletedUser]

1. i really believe that in the history of tw they have never changed as fundamental a system as nobling. No matter what changes have been made at the end of the day nobles still reduce loyalty by 20-35 and village change still happens at loyalty 0. They didnt suddenly say ok now your nobles have to stay in the village and last for 12 hours before village changes hands.

True, maybe not, But Churches and Archers are two very different and fundamental systems which did change the game a lot.

 

[DeletedUser]

This seems to be based off player size and not city size.

I attacked a 9K city with a 10K city and got 65% morale.

If that's true, this is a big problem. I'm number 2 in my ocean and have a lot more points than anyone around me. I like to toss troops into my alliance assaults becuase this is a team game -- alliance against alliance, not player versus player.

This morale thing has everything wrong. This is a team v. team game. It's not a player v. player game. Who is the bigger player doesn't even matter.

This is terrible design. It discourages bigger players helping smaller ones. It discourages team play. It make it so painful for larger players they're better off not playing the game and sitting around using resources for festivals so when they attack someone its worth the cost.

Really great idea.

 

[DeletedUser]

This seems to be based off player size and not city size.

I attacked a 9K city with a 10K city and got 65% morale.

If that's true, this is a big problem. I'm number 2 in my ocean and have a lot more points than anyone around me. I like to toss troops into my alliance assaults becuase this is a team game -- alliance against alliance, not player versus player.

This morale thing has everything wrong. This is a team v. team game. It's not a player v. player game. Who is the bigger player doesn't even matter.

This is terrible design. It discourages bigger players helping smaller ones. It discourages team play. It make it so painful for larger players they're better off not playing the game and sitting around using resources for festivals so when they attack someone its worth the cost.

Really great idea.

yep. no more helping the little guys grow cause it costs you 3-4x what it wold cost them to clear people.

What i really do not understand is why morale is kept a secret till you attack. i mean in tribal wars you knew how much morale you had even before you clicked the button. Now you dont even know that.

I mean the simulator even has a value for morale. Whats the use of that if theyre not going to tell you beforehand what your morale is?

 

[DeletedUser]

yet another confusing post in the announcements. Zeus has recently edited his first post on update 1.12 thread; where it says that revolt will be implemented in existing worlds in 2 weeks time. The second post which is unedited says that only future worlds will have revolt. I'm confused.

There is an explanation of something unrelated under Morale in the edited update.