Removing fort: The worst change even made in Utopia

[DonJuan]

@Milkman your right as I am seeing lots of KDs just attacking and being aggressive with whatever they have.

I think if you consider the fact that most are Undead or Avian due to their overall cheap training vs other races...there isnt much unique variation in the population. Remember as well they reverted to the smaller unit values of the past as well besides all the new things to the game.

BTW im not against the changes tbh...but im sure next age there will be minor TWEAKS in order to keep the new change in the meta of the game but also allow the other attacking races with more expensive units to flourish.

One thing I just suggested is a 96hr EoWCF instead of 72hrs, Prosperous isn't the defensive haven as Fortified was...and if you consider the sudden negative reaction over increase of speed in the game it would be a welcomed change.

[StratOcastle]

Saying players need to man up / be better is so missing the point :'( The game should provide an entertaining environment, making rebuild/recovery harder makes the environment more player hostile. It's nice the "pro" players know how to deal with it (i'd argue they aren't really that much better at dealing with new fake fort, they're just playing in an environment where they don't have to deal with it, in the lower tiers, the less organized kds, it's a whole lot more difficult (take for example the advice "retal on a tm" yeah, it' sane advice, except for those being the tm...), for them this change sucks.

I'm going to support you on the basis of the reality you present. Like you, it doesn't matter if I man up or you man up...it's what the casual player does. You can ask Madchess how often I asked for fort/prosperous. You can ask him how many times I asked for assistance in retaliating. I'm built for whatever the mechanical environment entails.

The casual player is the nerve center of the game. We can see the top or competent war tier as the life blood but the bulk of Utopias hope lies in the appeal to casual players.

Let's say Utopia finds a way to expose itself to developing countries. While a glut of new players would be available we can imagine in large part they must be casual. The worth of survival might not be lost on them, but the expenditure in time may invoke lack of interest.

Many here who disagree with you are siting organizational solutions and I know well that's a ridiculous notion. I think they know it to, but are overly centered on their Utopian environment. To regard your fellow player as a "sink or swim" crash test dummy is to lose sight of the Utopian short goal. - You need the numbers first. The quality is here, but it can't sustain itself.

Obviously I don't need fort and many here don't. The ones that do are the ones that should. Does that make sense? Probably not to anyone who plays hard all the time. You see, I play gently: the basis of my retaliating style of play is based in playing gently with casuals and necessarily hard with the pros. I don't need to play hard or overzealously with casuals. I only want them to enjoy the game. For the rest of you, we all have it coming :)

[joeblogs]

These players saying removal of fort is good are definitely no competitive tier monarchs. I mean for whoring sure why bother with fort, but for war its become chaos - leaders are burning out quickly as there is literally no downtime. And this isn't about noobs not being able to pump etc, it's about having a recovery period (in game and out) from wars.

A good solution would be to have two stances - 1.) a defensive only stance, and 2 .) An economic only stance. If you did this then kds could chose what mode they would be in (the old fort defence mode or a pump only mode).

At least this would give monarchs some rest if needed.

[Vasp]

Saying players need to man up / be better is so missing the point :'( The game should provide an entertaining environment, making rebuild/recovery harder makes the environment more player hostile. It's nice the "pro" players know how to deal with it (i'd argue they aren't really that much better at dealing with new fake fort, they're just playing in an environment where they don't have to deal with it, in the lower tiers, the less organized kds, it's a whole lot more difficult (take for example the advice "retal on a tm" yeah, it' sane advice, except for those being the tm...), for them this change sucks.

Admins are playing in whoring kingdoms, of course they would change the mechanics to improve their favorite element of the game. Eliminating fort means more people to whore, more fun for the kingdoms in the top, more fun for the admins. (its their game after all) They change mechanics in their favor, ban people if its in their interest and cheat if need be to win a game they bought. XD

[umajon911]

Admins are playing in whoring kingdoms, of course they would change the mechanics to improve their favorite element of the game.

Is that so? Where are they then? Last I checked they arent in a whoring KD...

[StratOcastle]

Bart caught on to playing above the game. He essentially came to the conclusion that Aquaseafoam and flogger have.

Bart was asking about belonging to a kingdom without having a province to manage. I understand this mentality from leadership, but also find it indicative of leaders not stewarding a progression in the ranks. May I be so bold?

Brilliant leaders that conclude they'll take their secrets with them are essentially greedy and do a disservice to their legacy. If the game is to encourage whoring, which it is, then stacking the deck is a deplorable stand from virtually retired players.

What does this have to do with anything? Triggers.

Here joeblogs is stating a logical argument from the fixation of competitive warring circles. Now I can clearly see his mission is one of whoring: the only way out is up. - he might not.

The whoring community must acknowledge the migration of competitive war kingdoms, at least this age. I'm not a fan of insinuation, as in "if the warring kingdoms haven't got a clue, then screw them." I'm afraid the top kingdoms should be more aware of a positive outlook. It's time to teach. Sink or swim thinking is imploding the top as is. You are condemned to be an animal if you buy into natural selection. Extinct because you lack the capacity to pick up a rock and use it as a tool. If you're not following, the leaders of the past innovated and the current leaders must continue or they are simply not evolving. Your shrunken gene pool requires diversity. The war tier is a shovel ready resource.

The mechanics are there to promote exploration into the whoring tier. These warring tier players aren't dimwits, but they're conditioned to approach the game from a staid existence. I'm waving the flag so they understand they either try to weather the changes or embrace them to thrive.

The mechanics are instructions. Read them if you don't already know how to rock.

~ Rant on above the game mentality concluded.

[Korp]

The day Strat0 manage to be on topic in one post will be a day of amazement.

Isnt it ironic that the most selfish player in a team based game is talking about other people being greedy though?

[Zombies are people too]

Admins are playing in whoring kingdoms, of course they would change the mechanics to improve their favorite element of the game. Eliminating fort means more people to whore, more fun for the kingdoms in the top, more fun for the admins. (its their game after all) They change mechanics in their favor, ban people if its in their interest and cheat if need be to win a game they bought. XD

Is this not a perfect example of agitation propaganda? Lol Pics or it's not true. xD

-DM <3

[Squee311]

These players saying removal of fort is good are definitely no competitive tier monarchs. I mean for whoring sure why bother with fort, but for war its become chaos - leaders are burning out quickly as there is literally no downtime. And this isn't about noobs not being able to pump etc, it's about having a recovery period (in game and out) from wars.

A good solution would be to have two stances - 1.) a defensive only stance, and 2 .) An economic only stance. If you did this then kds could chose what mode they would be in (the old fort defence mode or a pump only mode).

At least this would give monarchs some rest if needed.

I mean you have to ask then how do the devs want the game to develop... the long drawn out pumping leads to some weird dark places they seem to want to leave behind. IF they are looking to blend the 4 charts as closely as possible then the idea of having less protection periods and removing more forms of gains protection is a way to do that and open up more out of relation hitting to what was in the previous age as well as promote warring to grow. Except now wars will be more of a risk for the quality reward they provide.

It how the devs are looking at the game moving forward. I am not sure of that plan but my guess would be they want to tear down the "tier" war as much as possible at least with my outlook on how they have changed the game.

[calamity]

Prosperous is by far my most favorite change this age.

[Proteus]

I was a fan of the fort removal as it accelerated gameplay. I always dreaded the "fort off" stare down where you sit in fort and op, bouncewave, or stare at your opponent for several days waiting to get kicked out before any sort of action begins. Drags outs are always boring.

I do think the cool down period for prosp is too long given the stance no longer offers -50% gain protection, that is something that should be reconsidered.

The one issue right now, is while warring is significantly strengthened and has become more attractive, it is still very hard for a kd winning war to be in better shape than an opponent that sat OOW the entire time and stocked money, pumped wpa, ran labs, and used explore pool. More often than not, the kd waiting oow that pounces on a war victor, will win.

War recovery mechanics need to be strengthened and accelerated to allow for an equalization of preparedness between kds oow and those in eow.

Few ideas:
- Increase eow length to 4 days
- No explore penalty for provinces below median up to median size (i.e. No 5x multiplier)
- Max pop immediately on non-explored acres (underpop provs at war end will be restored to full pop)
- Enhanced wizard production
- Free training credits equal to combat losses in war

If eow mechanics are strengthened a kd could actually jump between wars and not get crushed by kds sitting oow entire time and stocking tons of gold/wpa/sci that are dumping pool.

In 3 day eow there is not enough time to recover by exploring, stocking gold prior, and drafting deeply. Whereas kds oow can begin their prep to jump someone a day or two before war is even over.

[Meep]

The risk in buffing EoW is the acceleration that EOW gives if your war is leapfrogging you out ahead.

If you get a farmwar OOP, and EoW gets any stronger, that's pretty bad for balance.

If you get a decent mid-late age victory, with the new escalating ww bonuses, it's a really fine line to balance.

This is also relevant with really not being able to grow much OOW as it is, and just how badly a smaller KD that doesn't auto-surrender can **** over a top KD that bothers to try and grow OOW.

[Meep]

Also remember just how insane meter throttling is this age.

It's -75% gains at +125 meter.

If you come OOW bigger, with high BE, high GS, and then dump explore pool and prosp, you don't even have to be ready to hit back.

You've got endless one-way ops, with them having throttled gains after two waves, and the ability to take land back with LL that doesn't even impact the meter.

Also remember, all ops were buffed. They're easier to land than they used to be, and they kill offense dramatically faster than they used to.

What does the 'vulturing' KD do, sit there in aggro paying high wages eating high losses hitting you for 20 acres a pop?

Stop hitting and eat one-way MS all home while you're in prosp?

You show me how you can take a KD with any sort of size advantage to a critical spot within 63 hits into GS, GBP and escalating meter throttling, without getting ****ed by one-way ops and their prosp pump.

[Persain]

The risk in buffing EoW is the acceleration that EOW gives if your war is leapfrogging you out ahead.

If you get a farmwar OOP, and EoW gets any stronger, that's pretty bad for balance.

If you get a decent mid-late age victory, with the new escalating ww bonuses, it's a really fine line to balance.

This is also relevant with really not being able to grow much OOW as it is, and just how badly a smaller KD that doesn't auto-surrender can **** over a top KD that bothers to try and grow OOW.

ideally if u buff eowcf by a day, u'd make gains a bit easier to get. personally i think they should just lower the "min ww gain" you get from a war win from 5k, to 1k/week. war would still be viable but u wouldnt jump as fast the first week or two of the age.

[Meep]

ideally if u buff eowcf by a day, u'd make gains a bit easier to get. personally i think they should just lower the "min ww gain" you get from a war win from 5k, to 1k/week. war would still be viable but u wouldnt jump as fast the first week or two of the age.

But you can't just mess with gains in light of people coming EoW stronger.

The point of the increased meter throttling and surrender mechanic were to reduce bullying.

When people get 'stuck' without a war for a while, they can end up in a pretty sucky situation if they aren't in a position to bully.