BETA UPDATES 2010

[MaxSterling]

seriously max, why not just come out and say what you're trying to get at, instead of sidestepping the issue, beating around the bush, and trying to be polite and tactful -- nobody can read your mind-- just say it!!

Admin should stop trying to add more bonuses...

Now that I've edited all of my posts in this thread, you think Admin will get the hint not to add any more bonuses to this game than there already is?

Well could you blame me for trying to get my point across? It's been over a year since anything's been done, and I can never be sure if something I say may get overlooked. I still think stat bonuses are unnecessary and that other types of bonuses should be looked into... if any bonus is given at all.

[MaxSterling]

and if this proves true in play, agreed by all, we can nix the bonus, or nix the houses....been done bofore...

Some of this update is good, just the houses that are not.

I think most of us are concerned about another admin leave of absence for another year.

[MaxSterling]

But kind of pointless without some sort of bonus attached...if one house doesn't make a difference from another, then you may as well all just join the same alliance if you want to "be together"

That's why most people are encouraging Empires replace the Houses. There would be a purpose to join an empire as everyone would then be under one flag. It would also serve a purpose if Empires could see attacks on all alliances within the empire or communicate with all alliances within an empire.

[Forum]

i keep seeing the 'jason does not listen' and the 'i express my opinion' and 'show how it is a bad idea' etc etc etc but i have not seen yet the reasoning behind 'it will fail' or 'it is bad' or a list of 'still broken' issues you keep referencing...
if you could spell it out, would make it easier to address....
for now i am left guessing which '2 or 3 characteristics' you're thinking of

I don't mind the "houses" update. Its 2 maybe 3 characteristics of the update which I feel will make it fail. So I feel its important to express my opinion and show how and why I have said opinion.

[EbilCC]

perg should be for those only below Living God and 30 million or taken away altogether now as it gives us more to play with

[Wepwaet]

Yall heard the man, who's up for a rousing chorus of "Jason does not listen"?



Were their any plans on reducing the science house's bonus?
Are Alliance bought perks permanent? As in would the increase in bank capacity stay if you switched alliances?

[Forum]

of note on why things get added, over time, is because i get such a headache trying to REMOVE anything
so if you have 2 items; A and B -- and want to equal them... you cannot decrease B so you increase A... and so it goes....
not that anyone cares, but I wanted to say it.

it.

[Forum]

not against this, but not today.

He could have also added under that idea, a message board for that house, that only house alliance members can see, like a quick message system, ( like the old chaos server ) would allow vastly greater communication. ( i even suggested this message board idea several times, but gave up when you know admin aint listening )

I asked Jason this for races few monthes ago (races over a certain amount of members of course, like 20), to make races like in the old chaos server. Would be good to see that for houses.

[Forum]

the nice thing with houses you can join/leave, is i can do things like add negatives in future, nerf bonuses, or create attack multipliers bigger than 2 for 'wars' between houses....
opposed to layering these directly on an alliance, and being stuck with them, i can change houses as requried over time/feedback, and if you don't like it, you can just leave the house.
so - we start here, where it is, and see... if it needs changing, it is easily done. this suggestion is just the catalyst for my reply for all 'houses should be like...' posts

yeah, i see what you mean by that GC. I hope to try to get jason to make them a redistribution instead of an out right bonus.

Or do people prefere it just a grouping with advantages like group pms etc?

[MaxSterling]

the nice thing with houses you can join/leave, is i can do things like add negatives in future, nerf bonuses, or create attack multipliers bigger than 2 for 'wars' between houses....
opposed to layering these directly on an alliance, and being stuck with them, i can change houses as requried over time/feedback, and if you don't like it, you can just leave the house.
so - we start here, where it is, and see... if it needs changing, it is easily done. this suggestion is just the catalyst for my reply for all 'houses should be like...' posts

... and yet don't you just contradict yourself here?

of note on why things get added, over time, is because i get such a headache trying to REMOVE anything
so if you have 2 items; A and B -- and want to equal them... you cannot decrease B so you increase A... and so it goes....
not that anyone cares, but I wanted to say it.

If that's true, then creating Empires instead of houses would be a better way to start things off... and then build from there instead of adding bonuses and constantly needing to adjust and remove to try to even things out.

[Clarkey]

perg should be for those only below Living God and 30 million or taken away altogether now as it gives us more to play with

Maybe scrap the perg army size limit and only make perg accessible for the first 90 days since an account has been created? Or something along those lines...... a certain amount of time that gives a new account enough time to grow in perg and ascend to a decent level before being kicked out of perg after 90 or whatever days?

[Forum]

hmmm...fairly well thought out. size versus power is also slower....less radical revolutions...
i will think on this. the flip side is also valid though - you get powerful, you get crushed so you're not a threat....
AC is less powerful than before, but still a big part...
i am not sure the 'best' answer, but will think on it. maybe a combo..

not sure if this has been addressed and i refuse to read so many pages so i'll just say, it appears the alliances houses are due to be determined by army size rather than total power, i am fairly against this, i dont have much power or army size atm but i really liked the idea that there was finally a reason to have total power, atm there is no good reason to have stats, making the houses based on power would of given people a reason to build up and a reason to want to weaken others......

doing things by size basically eliminates the smaller alliances and empires from the running permenently, the more popular empires will rule unopposed, at least when it was power there was the option to fight for power within a house now there is nothing, no chance, boring, stupid, pointless.

of course this is all hinging on the fact the houses are going to be size based still, if not ignore this post

[renegadze]

hmmm...fairly well thought out. size versus power is also slower....less radical revolutions...
i will think on this. the flip side is also valid though - you get powerful, you get crushed so you're not a threat....
AC is less powerful than before, but still a big part...
i am not sure the 'best' answer, but will think on it. maybe a combo..

not sure if this has been addressed and i refuse to read so many pages so i'll just say, it appears the alliances houses are due to be determined by army size rather than total power, i am fairly against this, i dont have much power or army size atm but i really liked the idea that there was finally a reason to have total power, atm there is no good reason to have stats, making the houses based on power would of given people a reason to build up and a reason to want to weaken others......

doing things by size basically eliminates the smaller alliances and empires from the running permenently, the more popular empires will rule unopposed, at least when it was power there was the option to fight for power within a house now there is nothing, no chance, boring, stupid, pointless.

of course this is all hinging on the fact the houses are going to be size based still, if not ignore this post

@ Heka
and power cannot be abused? the perg alliance currently ranked 2 have a LOT of untouchable power....but are fairly small in size

[Forum]

done and done.
def weapons now corrode more slowly, and are also helped by realm alert...

...and weapons lasting longer.

This is really the only option to increase a defense's usefulness. Which is why my suggestion to tie weapon fatigue to realm alert would probably work the best.

Increasing costs hurts smaller players.

No matter what the power levels are, massing will not change unless the weapons last longer.

[Forum]

ok - perg limits.
can do ascensions.
can do power.(kinda hard as its relative)
can do population (and do).
can do no ranks in perg. or no glory.
could also do a month delay between leave/reenter...

why do the powerful sit in perg?
what exactly am i trying to fix?
just 'weaker' accounts in perg? people abusing perg in some way?

willing to give this more thought/attention...

There is also no reason for people TAG and above to be in perg. You should include a ascention lvl cap on perg as well.