July 29th 2010 -- look at all updates for balance/benefit

[Robe]

Right now its the worst possible situation with the most powerful groups controlling the only Houses worth having (my alliance included)...

Lets be honest, whatever "tweak" forum introduces is going to make some houses desirable and others not.

There are currently only 3 out of 5 "wothwhile" houses.

You'll still have everyone and their dog trying to get into the best bonus house they can realisticly stay in. A few more houses won't change that and would actually make things worse.

A "small" improvement to the other 5 would encourage more alliances to "risk" joining.

There needs to be a way to encourage people to spread out into all the houses instead of the current situation.

Agreed.

The only way to make ALL the houses desirable is to let them equalize on their own, free market style.

I disagree because the Market is clearly telling us that 5 houses are less desirable now.

Your not going to see 1 alliance hold a house by itself with this change like some of you fear, it can't happen because their is just too much of a chance that a group of non-allied people will move in and take the house from them.

*cough* *cough* TL is just one alliance and we control Time.

There is no doubt that a strong Empire (with allies) can and will hold more than one House.

Also, you wrong to assume that a group of independent alliances, with no common goal would have the desire or capability to take over a house from a powerful empire.

[Wepwaet]

Right now its the worst possible situation with the most powerful groups controlling the only Houses worth having (my alliance included)...

Lets be honest, whatever "tweak" forum introduces is going to make some houses desirable and others not.

There are currently only 3 out of 5 "wothwhile" houses. Thats my point, whatever the numbers are changed to will be static and while there will be a brief reshuffling of all the alliances we'll end up back where we are now with some houses being desirable and others not.

You'll still have everyone and their dog trying to get into the best bonus house they can realisticly stay in. A few more houses won't change that and would actually make things worse.

A "small" improvement to the other 5 would encourage more alliances to "risk" joining. A small improvement won't do anything but reshuffle where everyone is now because some bonuses will always be better than the others.

There needs to be a way to encourage people to spread out into all the houses instead of the current situation.

Agreed.

The only way to make ALL the houses desirable is to let them equalize on their own, free market style.

I disagree because the Market is clearly telling us that 5 houses are less desirable now. You realize you just made my point for me right? The static bonuses we have now means that 5 houses are less desirable. Since the bonuses don't change right now how could you consider the current situation free market style? Things WILL equalize if the bonuses are based on reverse demand.

Your not going to see 1 alliance hold a house by itself with this change like some of you fear, it can't happen because their is just too much of a chance that a group of non-allied people will move in and take the house from them.

*cough* *cough* TL is just one alliance and we control Time. I think you should look harder at that... TL leads time, yes. TL contributes only 15% of the votes (8b pop) in time while the next 2 alliances contribute 14% (3.9b and 3.7b respectively). You lead time because either deals have been made or others let you lead, TL could be easily removed if the other alliances in time wanted you removed. If you kicked out every alliance but TL, like you think everyone will do with houses, then 2-3 moderate alliances could move in and remove you from time. It would be easy to do. Like I said it won't happen because it'll make you too vulnerable to take over.

There is no doubt that a strong Empire (with allies) can and will hold more than one House. No ones arguing against this and their is no way bar removing houses to stop it.

Also, you wrong to assume that a group of independent alliances, with no common goal would have the desire or capability to take over a house from a powerful empire. Thats right because independent alliances have never united in this game before As the poster child for this very thing don't you find it hard to say that with a straight face...

[RoKeT]

Time who wants Time? it equals about 48 turns extra a day, keep it rofl

[stuff of legends]

@Wepwaet, it will always be unbalanced, anything brought in would, but you can make it alot more closer.

I like the idea of just getting rid of the bonuses from the houses and then using houses to just create empires (create a house?). With the amount of things the houses have it would be of great use for empires.

[Iƒrit]

i have to agree with the no bonus, but the whole no attacking your own empire/house whatever label, its unnecessary. At any rate I motion we rap up the balancing and work on new updates and ascension

[stuff of legends]

just remove the houses xD, i still think it would be a great option to congregate alliances into empires, but yeah like you said ifrit a few things would have to be changed.

[Tekki]

Okay a few things

Houses - obviously some houses are popular, some are not. The AC house for example I think is very useful for those at war with the covert house but since it has only limited use it hasn't been taken yet. AC is after all a stat you don't usually train all the time.

So perhaps on houses that aren't in use, there should be a reduced time limit on the ability to take them.

Time is of course a popular house though because it can't be taken away from you. And it, with House of Science are the only houses who's bonuses are completely and utterly safe. The rest of course carry risks.

Though with the 'independent alliances' and the house update taking away from them, when was the last time ingame that independent alliances - I mean truly independent alliances significant impact and a lot of power? I think at the moment the game is still skewed towards the snipers though it's gotten a bit better.

[stuff of legends]

As for you last sentence on your last paragraph..i think its gotten worse. Doubling sab to let players kill snipers more? Thats just given them another tool to use.

Other than that, so...what will happen to the 'unpopular' houses that will be removed or whatever? do they just go forever?

[Tekki]

A decent sniper can still farm a lot and still not have stats to kill. You can sab the weapons away but you can't get the troops.

[stuff of legends]

thing is they dont hardly need weapons anymore. They can just sab a def to 0 almost in a few attacks and then build a small strike..which is now doubled.

[Robe]

A small improvement won't do anything but reshuffle where everyone is now because some bonuses will always be better than the others.

There is no such thing as a little improvement.

You realize you just made my point for me right? The static bonuses we have now means that 5 houses are less desirable.

We agree that there needs to be away to spread the alliances.
However, we dont agree with your solution to constantly change the house bonus based on population size.

This would result in most independent alliances never being able to secure a foothold because the controlling "power" house would have a strong incentive to boot them to increase their bonus.

Thats right because independent alliances have never united in this game before As the poster child for this very thing don't you find it hard to say that with a straight face...

Thank you for acknowledging my experience in this subject

[Brdavs]

Alliance houses are in their current form a bad idea alltogether imo.

They highlight and contribute to the staleness of the game. Out of 462 alliances on record some 70 are partaking in the houses updates and decent chunk of them are on the be booted shortlist.

People already have enough incentive to boot alliance and/or barely tolerate those that vote for them in enforced NAPs.

And we can either delusionally cling to ideal scenarios of possibilities or we can wake up and face the truth of the political landscape.

There are relativly few very active players and they`re concentrated in groups that dont want to fight eachother nor does the rest of the game want to fight them. This ads up to houses of their choice becoming their ingame incorporations. Could all the independants bind to oust the top 5% of the game out of a house? Sure, on paper. On paper 10 000 hampsters could probably zerg a lion to death. Are they inclined to do so or are we every likely to see that happen? Fat chance. So theres a fat friggin chance you`ll ever see a house "claimed" by a force properly contested.

I mean the votes option is totaly redundant. Most people can only vote one way in a house and then they get a chance of staying in.

And there are ideas to basically incentivize the houses being even more tightly controled lol? What are you smoking people? Have you lost all touch with reality? Who is gonna wrestle with us for house controls, we wont even do it properly with eachother, after the last 2 year long stint. The "mighty independants" lurking out there in the wild will plot to take their chance? 4 years ago, maybe.

Bottom line the houses turned from mini UNs to ingame clubs or group incorporations. And no sane person would bet against that ever changing.







I would suggest you either remove the illusion by removing the voting and make them creatable for a group of alliance OR you disable the enforced naps and kick by leader options.
Then have votes on house policies/bonuses or whatever. Where each alliance, nomatter how small their vote, actually counts and has a say and a bonus, even if it isnt towing the house leader line.

[Iƒrit]

the one thing i do like about it is it does add a bit of political play and could even bring about wars other then that its rather useless....

[Sarevok]

The flaw in your plan is, that there is one day where alliances are very vulnerable... the period between the 5th and the 6th day. Unless you make the vulnerable moment = vote counting moment the same, the house leader at that time has got plenty of time to kick out any unwanted alliance. And make that x8 for every house, and you'll see how few alliances will be in each house likely and in the end how much alliances just won't be allowed to even get into an house if they want to...

However, if a federation of alliances all get into that 5-6day period together, and vote for one another, then the leader will be booted. You can't boot till the 6th day, but you can vote for leader on the 5th

[BenjaminMS]

The flaw in your plan is, that there is one day where alliances are very vulnerable... the period between the 5th and the 6th day. Unless you make the vulnerable moment = vote counting moment the same, the house leader at that time has got plenty of time to kick out any unwanted alliance. And make that x8 for every house, and you'll see how few alliances will be in each house likely and in the end how much alliances just won't be allowed to even get into an house if they want to...

However, if a federation of alliances all get into that 5-6day period together, and vote for one another, then the leader will be booted. You can't boot till the 6th day, but you can vote for leader on the 5th

I just re-read the updates, and I got the dating wrong...