Units Will Not Be Dismissed!

81 Reply
Red
18 September, 2015, 9:00 AM UTC

Lord Oberon said:


The Units still consume, even when the number reaches 0. Yes, they stop deserting you, but with 0 food you cannot build or upgrade anything. It's not that now there is no Food consumption at all.


"It severely devalues the Farms and Upgrading them to Higher Levels, The Use of Dark Essence, Obelisk of Power."

You still need Food (the more the better), so it doesn't.



We still need food, true enough, but the value is greatly lessened.  Food is the easiest resource to get and in great abundance.  You can fill your barns in 3-5 raids.  The "value" in farms and all these technology upgrades was in keeping out of negative enough that we could keep producing troops and defend our castles without losing troops due to hunger.  

With that risk of losing troops to hunger gone, there is significantly less value in paying such a high price to boost production of a resource we can get so easily from raids.

Compare for a moment and I'm sure you can see.  Which is a worse inconvenience?  

1) Having all the troops that were in your cue die because you were out of food, resulting in massive waste of resources, loss of a day's troop production, and steady loss of any of your troops at your castle but not in cata (defense/spies).

2) Having to raid a castle before being able to make anything due to being out of food.


UTC +0:00
adder
19 September, 2015, 5:24 AM UTC
A bad patch imo
Bob T
UTC +10:00
Warrior
19 September, 2015, 5:57 AM UTC

After reading the entire discussion i guess it would have been better to have the update as follows..


The troops would not desert or die with 0 food.. but they would fight with say 50% or reduced power..


I am not sure how many would agree to this but i think this will give the big and the small, the Coiner and the No Coiners .. all a fighting chance and still have the balance in the game to make it more interesting and worth logging in everyday for.
Please Like the Post if you agree or if it helps
UTC +6:00
djmoody
19 September, 2015, 11:46 AM UTC

Sorry Warrior but that would have killed the game even more high end players whose only crime was to have played the game hard for a significant time.

The only other sensible alternatives I see would have been:

- to have produced troops go directly to your catacombs. Then when you have built all farms and applied all % increases you could still raid and make troops and your game wouldn't end due to food.

- to allow an infinite level on farms.

- to have regularly released more content that allowed increased food production as large players hit the barrier (e.g. more powerful relics, buildings with food bonuses, a 2nd obilisk of power food consumption reduction to research).

Btw the current position isn't without its downsides for a big non-coiner trying to still play the game (raid and do BG's and build troops etc) as people have implied with their posts. 

You have to make troops immediately your raids get back or the food is gone very quickly. This means you have to be online when your raids get back, not just for when your raids hit. When your resource becomes unbalanced during raiding you can't balance it out because the food will be gone before you can do so. If you want to be casual for a day or two you can't build anything with the resource produced in your castle because you have no food. It's not a cakewalk and a lot of the food you collect gets lost.

I think the negative impacts are sufficient to provide incentive to level farms etc. I guess time will tell.

BUT the update has allowed me to play again. I hadn't played for nearly 2 months because there was nothing I could do in the game. Clearly they couldn't leave that as the end game for players - get big and have to quit. And while there may not be many of us in this position at the moment, as the game continues there would have been more and more.

If you balance the biggest and best players in the game hitting a point at which they can't play anymore with degrading the value of food production I think you will see they made a good decision.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Skramble
19 September, 2015, 6:01 PM UTC

This has to be a joke, right?


Hard to imagine a company that publishes games for a living to come up with such a game breaking idea. 


Would it not be better to brainstorm ideas that increase troop activity within the game instead of making it easier to stockpile troops?



UTC -7:00
Red
19 September, 2015, 11:41 PM UTC

Skramble AOC2 Recruitment said:


This has to be a joke, right?


Hard to imagine a company that publishes games for a living to come up with such a game breaking idea. 


Would it not be better to brainstorm ideas that increase troop activity within the game instead of making it easier to stockpile troops?



The patch lets the strong grow stronger.  Those who weren't impacted by issues with food yet and/or who were putting significant resources into preventing the food problem are upset and understandably so.  There is still a cap of sorts on army size.  If your army is too big, you simply won't be able to keep enough food on hand for long enough to do anything.  There will still be ways around it; redeeming from black market to build, being online and spending second raids come in, temp production boosts, etc.  

There already is a lot to encourage troop activity in the game.  The problem is that the frequency of the tournaments coupled with the fact that it takes a long time to rebuild what is lost ensures that players who want the best rewards will stockpile massive armies and seek out easy wins. 

I agree with DJMoody that something had to be done about food because it was game over for many players once they reached the point that their armies simply weren't sustainable.  The only way to prevent game over without the devs doing something would have been to radically change your play style, and that might not have been feasible if your armies needed to be huge to accomplish league goals.  

It would have been interesting if they'd found other ways to do it such as more technologies to increase production, allow players to have more farms, create settlements with much higher food output, be able to level farms up higher, etc.  Since they chose to solve it this way instead, we're left seeing how it has altered the dynamics of game play and adapting.  

The potential source of unbalance I see has to do with the fact the strongest players tend to gather in the strongest leagues.   To me, that means that the strongest leagues will see disproportionately more growth in power than the other leagues.  Whether that becomes game breaking or not depends on how they choose to play.
UTC +0:00
djmoody
20 September, 2015, 1:23 PM UTC

Skramble AOC2 Recruitment said:


This has to be a joke, right?


Hard to imagine a company that publishes games for a living to come up with such a game breaking idea. 


Would it not be better to brainstorm ideas that increase troop activity within the game instead of making it easier to stockpile troops?



Well that is somewhat down to the player base. If players choose to be completely risk adverse and just grow and do nothing to risk troops they could do all kinds of things and never change behavior.

If you continue to play and gain more experience of other leagues and players you will find your underlying premise is wrong. Big players aren't big because they never did anything with their troops. More often than not its because a) they have played a long time or; b) they have spent a lot of money or c) they have an excellent understanding of the game mechanics and squeeze every last advantage out of the game (or a combination of all 3)

Opposite of your argument, the big players actually have to do nearly all the heavy lifting for their leagues and are the only ones that risk and lose big amounts of troops. When beacons needs taking is call the big players time. The big leagues are supported by their big players, the wider member base do little more than add defense to existing beacons. It's actually the smaller players who are risk adverse.

Normally there comes a time when you grow big enough that you are asked for the first time to lose troops for your league. It's a big wrench and it feels like you are going backwards and losing the last x weeks of progress. Once you have done it a few times though it ends up feeling like what you produced the troops for in the first place. You grow back from it and realise you can recover quite quickly and there isn't much purpose for your troops than expanding and helping your league.

There are exceptions to the rule. A handful of players are just aggressive by nature and always want to fight and do so when small. Generally you find these people waste their troops in badly thought out escapades and often don't amount to much (unless they back themselves with significant sapphire sending). But in the main most people are risk adverse until they learn to sacrifice for their league.
Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Skramble
20 September, 2015, 2:47 PM UTC

DJMOODY and RED, I do agree with you on all of your points with the current game mechanics. well, all but "there is still a cap of sorts on army size"


Food is easily obtainable through raids, my barns are usually maxed out within 4 or 5 raids. Train up troops and 4 or 5 raids later maxed out to train more. No longer is the worry of over training my food supply. Many of us have our buildings and arts maxed out, so all we need the food for is training.


The problem I see with an unlimited army is it farther encourages the congregation of large players into a League (or multi-league). When that happens, the only time the large Leagues will have any real excitement is when there is a diplomacy breakdown (those are fun to watch, probably main reason I still play this game)


Smaller leagues, such as mine, will no longer stand a chance of gaining any ground.


My original point was why does the developers not look into incentives for players to use their troops, instead of implementing something that allows and eventually forces) players to stockpile. 


One example is that League Challenges burn A LOT of troops. But there is no real individual (or league wide) incentive to participate for the rewards are squat compared to the time and resources spent. 



UTC -7:00
ThatGuy
21 September, 2015, 2:41 AM UTC

Skramble AOC2 Recruitment said:


DJMOODY and RED, I do agree with you on all of your points with the current game mechanics. well, all but "there is still a cap of sorts on army size"


Food is easily obtainable through raids, my barns are usually maxed out within 4 or 5 raids. Train up troops and 4 or 5 raids later maxed out to train more. No longer is the worry of over training my food supply. Many of us have our buildings and arts maxed out, so all we need the food for is training.


The problem I see with an unlimited army is it farther encourages the congregation of large players into a League (or multi-league). When that happens, the only time the large Leagues will have any real excitement is when there is a diplomacy breakdown (those are fun to watch, probably main reason I still play this game)


Smaller leagues, such as mine, will no longer stand a chance of gaining any ground.


My original point was why does the developers not look into incentives for players to use their troops, instead of implementing something that allows and eventually forces) players to stockpile. 


One example is that League Challenges burn A LOT of troops. But there is no real individual (or league wide) incentive to participate for the rewards are squat compared to the time and resources spent. 



I can see the cap on army size becoming more dependent on time with this change.  If you have time to do 3-5 raids and get building, you're golden.  If you don't, then you're effectively capped.  For some bigger improvements that take almost all the food you're able to hold, army size might become a problem.  I'd assume that players who have their massive armies from being older players and from knowing how to get max rewards out of the system would already have max improvements and not worry about it; it would most likely be a problem for armies built from cash before the player is built up enough to support it.  

I agree that the game encourages and rewards stockpiling.  Certain elements of the game, like beacons, almost require it.  PvP also seems based on attacking those you can beat, defending if you think you can win and hiding in cata if you're fairly certain you can't.  The lion's share of rewards go to the winner and the more overwhelming the win, the fewer losses you take to get that reward.  Not exactly a dynamic to encourage fair fights or risk taking.  

UTC +6:00
OwainGlyndwr
23 September, 2015, 1:15 PM UTC
Turning stone to bread ! Useful , eh !
UTC +1:00
Warrior
3 October, 2015, 9:15 AM UTC
Agree with Red and DJMoody..
Please Like the Post if you agree or if it helps
UTC +6:00
BattleBear
6 October, 2015, 8:48 PM UTC
I don't get that. First you say they will not die/desert you if you run out of food. Then you say, "Do not let your food storage get below 0" So you are saying I can train all the units I want and never have to worry about my food supply. Not that I would do that because it's not right. It's nice to know that if I do run out, then you got my back till I log in again, Thank You
Jerry McCahan
UTC -4:00
Lord Oberon
Administrator
7 October, 2015, 8:03 AM UTC
BattleBear said:

I don't get that. First you say they will not die/desert you if you run out of food. Then you say, "Do not let your food storage get below 0" So you are saying I can train all the units I want and never have to worry about my food supply. Not that I would do that because it's not right. It's nice to know that if I do run out, then you got my back till I log in again, Thank You
My Lord, you cannot train any units if you produce zero food. The only thing that was changed is that your units will not be dismissed if you don't have enough food to feed them.
Oberon, Heir of Veyon, Scion of the Firstborn, Lord Regent of Stormfall
UTC +2:00
Red
11 October, 2015, 8:50 AM UTC
Lord Oberon said:

BattleBear said:

I don't get that. First you say they will not die/desert you if you run out of food. Then you say, "Do not let your food storage get below 0" So you are saying I can train all the units I want and never have to worry about my food supply. Not that I would do that because it's not right. It's nice to know that if I do run out, then you got my back till I log in again, Thank You
My Lord, you cannot train any units if you produce zero food. The only thing that was changed is that your units will not be dismissed if you don't have enough food to feed them.
To clarify, you cannot train troops if you do not have food.  You can be in negative production and train troops, so long as you have enough food in your barns.
UTC +0:00
Morten Peterson
27 October, 2015, 3:06 PM UTC

Oberon, forgive me, for this will only add to the controversy !

First off, if we don`t have enough food, then ultimately, we die. So should it be in the game.

I have some sympathy for DJMoody who may use his troops to help his league and such, however, having much sympathy for players that have grown armies so big that they are constantly running out of food, is a little difficult!

Throughout history leaders have had to deal with this problem. Those leaders did not have any `boulders to food` ability. If they did, who knows where we would have ended up. It`s possible that none of us would even be able to play games!

An army marches on it`s stomach. To attempt to change such a fundamental fact only invites myriad problems.

                                                                            ...............................................................

As for those players big enough for loss of troops due to lack of food, the solution appears to be simple and already been given by DJMoody, kill some troops until situation is manageable again! That way, at least it keeps you competitive with other big players in the same position.

Assuming that all BG`s have been cleared, there are many ways to do this, which I`m sure the big players know. Coiners or no, once the ceiling is hit, then it surely acts as a leveller, in that you can no longer have more than what another coiner or long time/good player can have. If big players fought more with other big players, instead of going more for easy targets, then it would also be more eventful for them & could reduce troops at the same time.

Further increasing advantages of big players over the rest can never be a good thing. 

                                                                             ...............................................................

Unless some more features such as some kind of Arena or other events can be added to help reduce those big player`s troops more interestingly, or maybe as DJMoody suggested, more Relics with higher food reduction and/or Obelisk food consumpton reductions, which apart from the Arena, would be open to everyone, then I cannot see any way that the no food - no troops lost makes much sense or is in any way fair.

Sorry peeps. :)
MP
UTC +0:00
Rough1n1t
9 November, 2015, 9:17 PM UTC
Seriously?  This is dumb.  I'd rather play something else if the rules are going to change like this.  Change it back or I'm done.
cg
UTC +4:00
Lord Oberon
Administrator
10 November, 2015, 9:38 AM UTC
Rough1n1t said:

Seriously?  This is dumb.  I'd rather play something else if the rules are going to change like this.  Change it back or I'm done.
Just saying that something is dumb is hardly constructive, my Lord. Would you possibly like to elaborate on your statement? 
Oberon, Heir of Veyon, Scion of the Firstborn, Lord Regent of Stormfall
UTC +2:00
Gadheras
10 November, 2015, 6:21 PM UTC


This would only be usefull really if you ran food into negatives, and you needed to get it back into posetives to actually make new units.


You would have to raid to keep build units, buit at a certain level raiding wont be enough and you need to start use your units on something.



UTC +2:00
Morten Peterson
12 November, 2015, 2:44 AM UTC

Lord RED said,

`To clarify, you cannot train troops if you do not have food. You can be in negative production and train troops, so long as you have enough food in your barns.`


This is a welcome & good clarification.



Wyz.
MP
UTC +0:00
kala2
25 February, 2016, 2:03 PM UTC

Lord Oberon


I have two arguments against this update.


1. this contradicts logics from real life - no food, units die

2. it has killed food market. i can not sell food, cant set a lower price either



UTC +3:00
1723465 users registered; 42956 topics; 270700 posts; our newest member:snjn-simple43ninja22