PDA

View Full Version : Home Base Poll: Edited



War_Peace
09-28-2005, 03:07 PM
Since there can not be a reasonable way for rewarding the "victories" in home bases, I think those should be our safe-spots.

How come? Well, here is an example: Two armies of 100 troops and 10,000 troops are destroyed in two different users home bases. In the 100-troop army case, you will give the resources to the "destroyer" which is not fair. In the 10,000-troop army case, the user won't have any Geos and there won't be anything as a reward which is not practical...

In the current system, Home Base attacks are made only for personal grudges...

Mickey says: "We don't want anybody building huge armies..."

My answer: "There are already huge armies out there and more importantly, there are huge banking accounts that can be converted into troops in no time..."

Poll is: Should "Home Base" of users be their shelter, therefor they can not be attacked...

My answer is YES... Apparently...

*Previous poll had the answers in the wrong order...

Lukepuuk
09-28-2005, 03:10 PM
Ok, i'll put it here again:

No way. No army should be able to hide.
You were on that level before but now we kicked you inside your homebase you changed your mind suddenly.

Imagine this: one guy is pissed at another. He is right next to the city of the guy he is angry with. So he builds himself a nice army and every time sneaks out of his homebase and attacks. And then runs back to his homebase when allies of the other guy are coming. Then just waits and attacks again.
Where's the fun in that?

anthonywitt
09-28-2005, 03:22 PM
This suggestion is terroist tactics and should never be part of this game. What kind of game would this be if everyone hid. Pop out of the ground and attack whoever passes by. Next thing you know all players would be hiding and Mickey could delet the game because the game would come to a stand still.
He could change the game name to GETerroist. That would catch on I'm sure.

Nico
09-28-2005, 03:29 PM
ok you are right I see your points and agrre completly....
but if you attack someones homebase, is he dead?

The idea isnt to extinguish a civilization either...

Perhaps you could implement the following: once an army has left the home base, it cannot return.... the army has to protect a city or wander around....

Cato
09-28-2005, 08:56 PM
Since there can not be a reasonable way for rewarding the "victories" in home bases, I think those should be our safe-spots.

If attacks on home bases are completely unrewardable, why would a person attack someones home bases?

Clearly, players attack other player's home bases because there IS a reward.

The reward is destroying your opponent's (along with your own) armies!

If you dont think that this reward is sufficient, then don't attack other peoples home bases!

Lukepuuk
09-29-2005, 01:02 AM
It is also functional.
You can have big enemies who are constantly attacking a player.
An ally of that player could send armies to the homebase to take out those armies.
This is of nu use to small players so they shouldn't have to be affraid of this.
Only reason to do this is because of a big player coming with big armies.
Still keep the function in...no reason to delete it.

rasqual
09-29-2005, 02:10 AM
How about a special alliance base -- or, perhaps, the alliance leader's base -- where some kind of protections are in play. Perhaps the protection would consist merely of having your bros at your back in this way.

I dunno. I'm not sure I like "features" that protect, when that would subtract from motivation to make use of diplomacy and alliance skills to come by the protection you need. The more protection is a soft product of human interaction with other humans, rather than some hardwired "feature," the more interesting and real things are.

Lukepuuk
09-29-2005, 02:31 AM
How about a special alliance base -- or, perhaps, the alliance leader's base -- where some kind of protections are in play. Perhaps the protection would consist merely of having your bros at your back in this way.

I dunno. I'm not sure I like "features" that protect, when that would subtract from motivation to make use of diplomacy and alliance skills to come by the protection you need. The more protection is a soft product of human interaction with other humans, rather than some hardwired "feature," the more interesting and real things are.


Now THAT is exactly what I thought.
This whole game should be like it is in real life. Social contact. Nice people or those who are good with words and 'alliance skills'(diplomacy) can get as much done as those who spend 10 hours a day collecting jewels.
By protection.
Making it a feature is limiting the game's strategic options.

socrates
09-29-2005, 06:04 AM
If attacks on home bases are completely unrewardable, why would a person attack someones home bases?

Clearly, players attack other player's home bases because there IS a reward.

The reward is destroying your opponent's (along with your own) armies!

If you dont think that this reward is sufficient, then don't attack other peoples home bases!

how bout instead of taking out the armies only, you get to see what size his other armies are ? or perhaps... get to peek at his bank account or oil reserve?

Raid an enemy's base to gather information or their supplies....
The bigger players will want information... and the smaller players will want to raid for supplies......

hmmmm well its just an idea.....

anthonywitt
09-30-2005, 05:05 AM
Since there can not be a reasonable way for rewarding the "victories" in home bases, I think those should be our safe-spots.

How come? Well, here is an example: Two armies of 100 troops and 10,000 troops are destroyed in two different users home bases. In the 100-troop army case, you will give the resources to the "destroyer" which is not fair. In the 10,000-troop army case, the user won't have any Geos and there won't be anything as a reward which is not practical...

In the current system, Home Base attacks are made only for personal grudges...

Mickey says: "We don't want anybody building huge armies..."

My answer: "There are already huge armies out there and more importantly, there are huge banking accounts that can be converted into troops in no time..."

Poll is: Should "Home Base" of users be their shelter, therefor they can not be attacked...

My answer is YES... Apparently...

*Previous poll had the answers in the wrong order...What is your definition large armies? Wwould it be like the ones you had?
Cant put size limits on armies. If you think someone is to large just find others to help you take them down. Take Stanleys war with you. This is a prime example of dealing with large bully type army tactics such as the ones you used.
If you want a safe haven then you should pay for it as part of holiday expences. Not for protection during game play.

anthonywitt
09-30-2005, 05:07 AM
ok you are right I see your points and agrre completly....
but if you attack someones homebase, is he dead?

The idea isnt to extinguish a civilization either...

Perhaps you could implement the following: once an army has left the home base, it cannot return.... the army has to protect a city or wander around....Only the armies in his home base are dead. The base can still be used to rebuild new armies.

hypeserver
10-07-2005, 12:57 AM
Since there can not be a reasonable way for rewarding the "victories" in home bases, I think those should be our safe-spots.

How come? Well, here is an example: Two armies of 100 troops and 10,000 troops are destroyed in two different users home bases. In the 100-troop army case, you will give the resources to the "destroyer" which is not fair. In the 10,000-troop army case, the user won't have any Geos and there won't be anything as a reward which is not practical...

In the current system, Home Base attacks are made only for personal grudges...

Mickey says: "We don't want anybody building huge armies..."

My answer: "There are already huge armies out there and more importantly, there are huge banking accounts that can be converted into troops in no time..."

Poll is: Should "Home Base" of users be their shelter, therefor they can not be attacked...

My answer is YES... Apparently...

*Previous poll had the answers in the wrong order...

you can never hide from the enemy........