I thought it was the curiosity of an innocent child holding a butchers blade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elit
Printable View
I thought it was the curiosity of an innocent child holding a butchers blade.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elit
AMA & BB don't ruin the game. When you have power it is expected to flex it. It's just a shame that AMA took it so personally last round to dealbreak, because they should have understood this concept playing the game for so long.
The game gets ruined because the mechanics are ruined. Essentially with the current mechanics, if you win the first week of the game, you have a very high likelyhood of winning the entire round:
They preach that they want kingdoms to be able to grow through warring and want to protect smaller kingdoms from bigger kingdoms through relative NW and other bull****. Fine. Sounds like a great idea.
But you also have two very counter productive mechanisms in the game that prohibit that: 1) Capping meter where a bigger kingdom can force you into war 2) Explore pool decay where if you cannot use your pool efficiently like the bigger kingdoms can, you are at a huge disadvantage long term.
If you don't form alliances to create blocking situations for one of your allies to grow out, you are basically stuck going in and out of wars to avoid larger kingdoms with more military, science and resources. Eventually your targets will run out. I would hate for them to take the wrong approach to fixing this like they have in the past, and that is to increase the war gains. Increasing the war gains is a terrible idea because it creates a "hostage situation" that kingdoms can threaten to farm out to opponents for ridiculous gains.
I hate to break it to you guys, but the game was much better in the past. All of these mechanic changes have only made things worse.
This is how things should go if you want to truly create a war game:
1) Remove NW. It is completely useless not only as a mechanic but as a metric of achievement as it is highly exploitable. Your province's worth should be composed completely of land, military and resources and your ability to naturally take those from other players, not some arbitrary exploitable formula.
2) Land based gains. If you are land fat, that is your own problem. High amount of land contributing to high NW should NEVER mean less gains. This is not only counter intuitive, it's just a horrible mechanic in terms of equal playing field.
3) Increase raze damage significantly or reduce TM significantly. How a TM can take more land than a raze is beyond my f'ing mind.
4) Replace retarded hostile meter with instant declare within a 5%-10% acreage. Fortified cannot save you. Only a binding CF can. All phased in 24 hour bonuses/penalties still apply upon declaration. The history of instant declare being removed was due to so many fake wars. Since we are policing this now, please remove this garbage ASAP.
5) No pool decay
6) Reduce pool growth
7) Create a REAL relations system where kingdoms can set dates where CF ends.
8) Absolutely ZERO reduction in effectiveness or success rate for ops in war due to size difference. How this is still a thing is one of the great puzzles in utopia. You cry about people banking by reducing exploring effectiveness and then basically hand them complete immunity in war.
9) Potentially have raze in war should also destroy land, but it is returned to you upon winning a war. This can be abusable using a "fake war" where 1 kingdom razes the other the entire time and the opponent TMs and the razing kingdom WDs. Can't really action the kingdom since they fought.
Screw all of this diplomacy/alliance bull**** and let us fight it out every round to see who is the best kd.
I like Godly's suggestions.
I second BoH, Godly makes a lot of sense with his suggestions.
I have never thought AMA or BB, or the collective alliance, were killing the game. If anything it's the developers killing it, because they are the ones that dictate mechanics. It would also help if more of the suggestions made by people in the forums were actually looked in to and not just dismissed so quickly by the powers that be.
Godly for moderator!
The thread was just a self brag like omg we are so good that we dun broke da game.
I will say that the forums are quite entertaining lately!
I think removing NW based gains on ops/attacks when in war would be good for a change up. Without NW based gains NW is kind of a useless stat as it doesn't effect formulas but I would still keep it, it is useful information to have on a province so you don't have to do as much intel when target hunting.
I would keep NW based gains on attacks and ops oow but leave a min gains oow like 3%.
haha John Snowstorm,
I guess I Can take your word for it. I was not paying any attention or anywhere near it when it happened so I have no idea. I just know everyone always says that X did Y because Z ****-played them.
its standard....
One thing's certain, hostile meter or auto declare at max meter needs to go. I think changing explore formula so that you cannot explore when overpopped will be a nice addition to meter removal also. This way people will want to war to get #1, or forced to be stagnant at the top when they hit a landmark.
I think that suggestion is as retarded as the one you want to replace. No kingdom should ever be able to force war on another under any circumstance. The kingdom that initiates the hostilities should never be the one who decides whether it goes to war or not, that decision should always be up to the recipient.Quote:
Originally Posted by Godly
Just because the kingdoms are in 5-10% land range doesn't mean the recipient stand a reasonable chance, if one side has 4k BPA and cows while the other have 100 BPA and no cows the recipient still have zero chance unless the aggressor have 20 provinces go inactive.
Dealbreaks and whatnot is and "always" has been a part of utopia, I don't think that it should be changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Godly
Are you against instant replay in baseball too? Purists will always be there. I'd like to see the CF relation thing, especially since it would add another element. Top cant GB a kingdom if they have CF so makes CFs shorter and more action at the top.Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
finally i agree with you on something.Quote:
Originally Posted by Band of Horses
in-game CF system will make utopia a much more strategical game, and perhaps more dirty?
Only more dirty if the notices are removed, which I would like to see.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOne
You should agree with me more. Because according to Elit I grow up :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elldallan
If one kingdom is better prepared, they deserve to be able to wreck face without having to dance around relations for 8 days. Don't be a pansy. Learn how to play and be prepared at all times. If you let a kingdom near your size pump to 4k BPA (I mean that number alone is ridiculous), you seriously did something wrong. This game wasn't designed to have people sit around for 10 weeks pumping science and running from conflicts and have 1 big war at the end of the round.
Also having "banks" isn't a guaranteed win. In fact, if two kingdoms have equal land and "power" (read the former nw/acre metric) and one kingdom has like 1/4 of their land in banks, I'd take a larger core over banks kingdom any day, ESPECIALLY if we remove this retarded nw based ops in war. Keep MS and fireball those banks and you'll see how useful those provs are. After 4 days of war and their core is destroyed, those banks will be completely alone and must surrender.
The current diplomacy system is completely useless. It's basically just a way for big kingdoms to trick little kingdoms into clearing relations only to break it when their provs become fat again. We (top kingdoms) have been doing relations outside of utopia since round 1. Why? How you are arguing this point just further proves to me that you will argue anything just to argue.
Which is basically the argument that GBP and RNW, RKDNW, should be removed. Feed on the small gain acres, if i hit someone i should get 12% land no matter what. Those kind of arguments are 100% realistic and ideally i'd agree but they dont make for a fun game. :/Quote:
Originally Posted by Godly
So the 3000 acre orc that hits a 2000 acre fae and gets max gain because he is intentionally low NW but high offense is fair. (100 dpa on the fae is only 66.66 opa for the orc) NW manipulation is a strategy and this is a strategy game but that's no reason to adapt and move the game along. Another example KD NW manipulation: Fratzia v Outplayerz, Fratzia intentionally dropped nw to be in declare range with his little ghetto and ruin the rest of the kd's age. Silly NW crowns, like the CR Prov NW crown on the Halfer few ages back or the rage attempt at NW crown after the farm out deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Persain
There is no perfect system but Godly has made a very viable option that I BELIEVE would help the game.