Declaring War suggestion

What if there was something like a separate PvP onslaught? One player attacks, attacked town can't be attacked by anyone else in the meantime? Attacked players would need the ability to instant recall army in case it's on the way to attack some other place.

Question would also be, what about reinforcement in such a single player attack? Either not possible or power of reinforcing units decreased depending on how many are sent, something like that?

This.

Until the game will grow and have more players, top attacker alliances should be careful about attacking others, because if they attack too much, too many people will quit and top attackers will be left alone, got bored and quit too. I have been thinking about ways to solve this problem, motivating warriros to attack each other (war victory, rage), protecting peaceful players better (extended novice protection, towers power up), but it doesn't help, I don't see an easy solution which would suit both sides. I don't want to have peaceful players to be wipded too soon, because people would become frustrated and leave, yet I don't want to weaken warriors too much. because they will become bored and leave too.

I think you addressed this issue very accurately.

Yesterday’s update is a very good idea in order to solve the problem. To me, the problem is not, and never was, about science age, but about how old heroes are. I see no problem in attacking heroes that started, more or less, at the same time but are several ages behind, just because they don’t advance (don’t play enough, are less skilled, are just there to annoy others… etc). But find it really sad when players are being attacked by more advanced ones (multiple attacks!), not because they are lazy or less skilled, but because they simply did not have the time to be that advanced. I have seen it many times and it is not pretty! And if they don’t get attacked by older heros, then there is no need to be reinforced by older heros either.

I have read this is an alpha version and not a finished product. Exactly: we are testers, ALL of us are testers. And not everyone is mainly focused on testing the military aspects of it, or at least not so soon in the session. Some are also focused on testing other things (game has plenty!). Some are focused on testing it all:-)... great!  And all is equally valid! It is great to have a game with so many different features to be played and different types of players to play with (as long as we all find reasons to stay). This is actually what I like most in the game!  Problem is those who are not focused on PVP are being "forced" to play it in a very intense way (daily basis, really) because of constant attacks by multiple players/alliances. I am not saying players should not work on defenses: they should have very solid defenses!  But there is a difference between having defenses to enjoy the game and not do anything else besides defending yourself and the alliance. And I am not saying I defend growing culture to steal globals without consequences, I do not. But there is a difference in having neighbors stealing globals and thinking everyone is in the way, wiping (or almost) alliances just for that.
And again: this is alpha; being wiped in the middle of it is not fun for anyone!

I have read comments about war being a result of players’ behavior.

In my opinion, it's not much the behavior of players that leads to war, but who the players are. We see border building, hoppers, trying to reach a certain global faster than our neighbor... etc, all the time. Just look at the map! Yet, only some of them had war declared as a consequence, and the type of targets does not change! Alpha after alpha it’s always the same type.

I do agree many players are not using all the tools game gives to defend themselves and/or the alliance they are in. Players could (should?) do better. Happens... Still, I find it hard to understand how anyone can think the game is a bit interesting when someone/alliance is being attacked every day, several times a day, by many alliances. It is extremely exhausting to be constantly defending! And many players that criticize others for not defending do not have decent defenses themselves! For the exact same reason: other priorities. Only those are not being attacked!!

To finish, I think players should be more separated in the beginning. The space we get is ridiculous!  In many cases we don't even have room for a decent second town. Yeah, yeah, yeah, the algorithm is perfect for when the game has many players and blah blah blah... , we all read it! Still, game has not that many players and should be adequate to reality as it is now! :)

And a big thank you to devs for the game you are creating and all your efforts to make it a good one (even when we do not like all your changes that much). Good work!

In many multi-player games I played, I came across periodical Tournaments where interested players could compete. Some of the tournaments featured pvp battles where individual players were battling each other, in others, the players would be competing by performing certain tasks in a limited time-frame and the winners would get rewards. Stripes could be one of the rewards here. 

I have also come across tournaments where an effort of whole alliance or at least multiple individuals in an alliance was needed in order to earn rewards. 

Tournaments would allow the more competitive players to get a sense of recognition and accomplishment on top of other rewards earned.

I see much here in regard to how the game should develop ... and I also see the understanding that this is alpha and we are testing. What is also being tested here is human nature. In any environment ... false or otherwise ... game or reality ... there will always be those who play more fairly, those who enjoy taking advantage of the weak, those who want to push others for their own gains, those who attack, those who whine because of those attacks. Like minds will understand each other's motives, those who do not have like mind will not. There will always be an "elite" and a "weak", those who will develop according to the "rules of the game" and those who choose to ignore and do it their own way. Consequences of all these personalities in one location is showing itself here, and can in some ways be deterred by environmental adjustments and in some ways cannot. I think .. I am tired of hearing the same complaints over and over again, the nature of the game in its existence will not change because the people who play ARE the nature of the game. If current players are replaced, they will be replaced by a statistically similar group that will play in a similar manner. What I hear proposed here is ... "People please change and play the game my way". This is not going to happen. Instead, understand human nature, accept it and work with it - instead of against it.

Simba is correct about human nature, but game limits and restrictions shape the way human nature can flow and be directed here in this game.

This is only true to a point. Ultimately the behavior will again show itself within the adjustments/changes/directions.

I wasn't going to speak further on this or pretty much any other topic but I have to say a couple of things. 

What I see going on here is conflating the concept of "collectivism" with weakness.  The opposite is actually the truth.  I am not talking about brand new collectives but those who have been playing since the start of the stage, by the way.  Collective players have a 300% defensive bonus (republic 400%) for a reason!  They are very strong against a single, two or more despot players IF they use the tools given to enhance and make the most of that defensive bonus.   It is a numbers game as much as it is anything else.  Numbers of defending units count.  Plain and simple.

By contrast as has been said since at least A3, attacking and defeating a despot player is by FAR easier and a single despot has virtually no chance against massive multiple hero attacks unless he/she has an inexhaustible army with the ability to instantly retrain; or an inexhaustible number of reinforcements (which is impossible since we can't use multiple account heroes to reinforce the same player at the same or even within 24 hours of each other).  Since there is no player ability to instantly retrain this is never going to happen.  Again, it's a numbers game here too.

I do not agree with the unspoken proposition that being collect equals being weak and I do not see this discussion advancing as long as that is the premise.

I do think solo players and new heroes need some consideration especially since they are usually limited in their view of the global map and may not be aware of the shark infested waters 10 cells from their borders.  But, as I tried to make clear I have issues with restrictions on reinforcement for a simple reason:  a 39 day old hero of a player who plays fast and hard or even average is far more advanced than a 10-day hero no matter how hard and fast it  is played. 

I'll make it simple.  Alliance A has 10 members 70 days old.  They take in member 11 who just got his/her mission and is 10 days old.  Neighbor of 10-day hero is 39 days old and has managed to research catapaults, rams and classical army.  10-day hero won't have any of that and will not have defensive weapons.  Since they will always be 29 days apart 39-day hero can go back to 10-day hero every 12 hours (while np is still available) and demolish what little the 10-day hero has managed to develop.  Why?  Because Alliance A has no heroes less than 30 days older than the aggressor 39-day hero and also has absolutely no heroes 29 days or younger to reinforce 10-day hero.  So they can't retaliate or defend, leaving the 10-day hero a sitting duck.  Cue the complaints about that!  Furthermore, no one in Alliance A can meaningfully protect 10-day hero because everyone is aware that the "protector" can't reinforce or retaliate on 10-day hero's behalf.  Protectorate is useless in such cases except to siphon resources from 10-day hero, a concept I find personally abhorrent.

Moreover, even if there are heroes within 30 days of 10-day hero if they are far enough away from the baby hero timely reinforcement will be impossible as no one in classical has the storage to construct a maxed out tavern.  And, of course, stone age does not have the tavern at all which is at the bottom of the classical tech tree.

This is my biggest problem with the changes instituted thus far and I hope some consideration can be given to what I've voiced.

I'll make it simple.  Alliance A has 10 members 70 days old.  They take in member 11 who just got his/her mission and is 10 days old.  Neighbor of 10-day hero is 39 days old and has managed to research catapaults, rams and classical army.  10-day hero won't have any of that and will not have defensive weapons.  Since they will always be 29 days apart 39-day hero can go back to 10-day hero every 12 hours (while np is still available) and demolish what little the 10-day hero has managed to develop.  Why?  Because Alliance A has no heroes less than 30 days older than the aggressor 39-day hero and also has absolutely no heroes 29 days or younger to reinforce 10-day hero.  So they can't retaliate or defend, leaving the 10-day hero a sitting duck.  Cue the complaints about that!

And you can't force people to start a new hero, just to protect the newest ones. 

As I said before Bers, you are too rigid and you have tunnel vision.  Look at the big picture!!

As far as not being able to reinforce younger heroes: if someone attacks them the attacker should know that that hero is part of an alliance with older heroes. They take therefore the risk to be wiped out by the reinforcements, but that is their choice, they are the aggressor!

And what about protectorate? what is going to happen with that?

What if there was something like a separate PvP onslaught? One player attacks, attacked town can't be attacked by anyone else in the meantime? Attacked players would need the ability to instant recall army in case it's on the way to attack some other place.

Question would also be, what about reinforcement in such a single player attack? Either not possible or power of reinforcing units decreased depending on how many are sent, something like that?

I am not sure I understand your proposition, perhaps you can elaborate on your idea?

Not so much, but I admit it was pretty vague.

When I write PvP, I mostly mean individual player vs. individual player. Which is imo rather impossible in this game, or very restricted at the very least, because alliances might not be at war (and majority of alliance might likely not want to declare war to accomodate individual player's "target wishes"), and even if war was declared, it no longer is individual player vs. individual player because you now you have a much larger group of potential attackers and defenders (plus alliance members who are beginners, learners, not so interested in fighting, exploring something else at the moment, friends with opposite alliance members, etc... there are so many [understandable] reasons why there is so little [inter]action in this game!).

So when I wrote "separate PvP onslaught", I meant some a sort of (additional) mode in which individual players can attack other individual players regardless of many of the above factors, and regardless whether they are in an alliance or not. (Not being in an alliance is rather impossible in this game also, do you spend much thought on whether/how to enable or strengthen solo play?)

I agree with River regarding the disparity of defense Vs offense based solely on a hero's day of creation. There will be no "even plain" there. I understand the devs idea of trying to decrease the attacks and wiping out of new players, after all if we don't get new players (or testers) there's no possibility of  increase in revenue and how would the devs get paid? I dont think anyone works for free and creating/upgrading a game is still work. No money, no game, its that simple.

Imo the over all idea was good, the end result not so much. If that new player (Despot or Collect) gets to start near an experience player the disadvantage is still there! is not that the player is lazy, but perhaps just trying to learn how to advance and play this game. While the experienced player will know what to do to advance and develop faster and still potentially wipe out the new player. A potentially more effective way of protecting these new players can be perhaps limiting how many ages below a player can attack.  What gives a player an advantage is not how many days old the hero is, but how advanced in research/ ages they are.

In multiple occasions players have been encouraged to join alliances. We all know that single player option leaves that player vulnurable. That being said, whats the advantage for those new players if that alliance can't protect them?

I for one I'm against attacking newbies and stoneage heroes. Those that know me know that to be true and also know I paid the consequences for voicing my opinion on that issue. Those same issues are still around a few alphas later and will continue to be present unless real solutons are worked on. I also agree with Simba that human nature will be a huge factor regardless of the strategies implemented to try to "balance the field".

Another idea to "balance the field" can be limiting the amount of heroes that can attack a town at once. Regardless of politics a player imo will not have enough defence or reinforcements to protect against 6, 7, 8 or more heroes coming to attack in a single trip. (i've been in both parts of that equation, not pretty ).              These are not braves and archers being sent, lets be real ! Perhaps the size of the domain can dictate the amount of players that can attack at once?

Maybe a post can be started ( like a work group) by some of the more experience players on ideas for the devs on how to overcome this disparity amongs attacks. Maybe is not one single idea but a combination of multiples that will work. What I know for sure is this "30 day rule" is not the solution.I have not seen many post cheering for this idea, but instead stating this is not a real solution.

I

Maybe the 30 day rule is not the best way to go about it, but we still need some way of preventing trolls from ruining new players' experience by killing every hero that they start.

While for the most part, I agree that a player above classical should not attack a stone age player, however, there have been 2 cases that come to mind, where I do not think this rule should apply.

We had a player in A5 that did not progress from stone age through most of the alpha. And how long should we have to wait for her to age up? She did age up after we started attacking her, but she would not have progressed past stone age, had we not forced it.

The second case, and I think most of the victims of Goz's massive stone age army would agree, that we should be able to strike aback against what hit us. Can't help but chuckle at his army of 63 prim rams...lol They were pretty wicked and at no time should someone be able to strike at me and I can't strike back.

I rarely strike at stone age, past classical age. I feel that every player deserves a chance to get a good start on a hero. Enemy or friend. It just is not good sportsmanship to not let them have a fair start.

Triggering the novice protection flags has helped a great deal to detour older heroes from attacking the very young heroes. So I guess I am at a loss as to how much more can/should be done. We also do not want to discourage other new players from being able to play as despots. And if they get no reward for attempting to attack, then they will abandon this part of the game, and that is not what we want either. Then only very experienced players would play despot and that is not good for the game either. Not to mention that Bers would lose a lot of players that would enjoy the despot/war part of the game early in their game experience.

War is an aspect of the game and something that comes with a player vs player game. But like most, I want this game to work for all players. I enjoy having the wonderful community of players that we have and want everyone to enjoy the game as much as I do.

The cases of stone age players with large army can be changed by reworking novice protection. War is basically a numbers game between 2 armies, so novice protection should be removed after a player reaches a certain attack power for army.

The most common reason for new players to be wiped (other than trolls or personal attacks) is border building. Therefore, if neighbours (and their alliances) are happy with the town placement of a new player (ie. not on borders), there is not as much reason to attack it.

This type of thinking can be implemented by decreasing early defense of new towns, giving a buffer time for neighbours to check whether they are satisfied with the new location. The implementation could be to make requirements for towers harder (ie. needing greater levels of prerequisite buildings). The scaling for tower damage could also be changed, for example:

If stone age tower scaling is 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 per level, it could be changed to 3,7,12,18,25 for each level.

Under this system, a neighbour with capability to attack the town can either ask the person to relocate, or if they wish, attack more easily. If they do not attack, the trade-off should be that when the town is fully developed, defense is slightly higher.

In addition, relocating towns is often an investment of time and resources, which can be made quicker for new players, for example, by reducing demolish times of low level pacifistic buildings of new towns (this prevents abuse with training large armies by constructing and demolishing). Also, a new player relocating his town should not count for Sir Fred (it might not, just checking).

Trolls can still start new heroes to bully inexperienced new players though, and get around the 30-day rule. As we know, every game has trolls. Does anyone have ideas to get around that?

Maybe the 30 day rule is not the best way to go about it, but we still need some way of preventing trolls from ruining new players' experience by killing every hero that they start.

Who does that?  I don't know anyone who kills every single new hero new players start.  Advising relocation is not killing.  And, what is with calling people trolls?  Now you are saying that experienced players should not be permitted to play within the rules set by the devs by making additional heroes?  And that those new heroes should not be allowed to attack anyone else nearby regardless of the fact that they started at the same time?  Exactly how far do you want to go in tying the hands of anyone who has played more than a stage?

I am arguing for fewer restrictions, not more.

If a bully wants to bully a new player, they still can. So what is the point of the 30 day rule? I just see experienced players (who are not bullies) being restricted by the actions of few (the bullies).

On trolls; they exist in most, if not all online games (WoW, LoL, to name a few). These range from in-game bullies to spreaders of hate speech, the latter of which seem to have already found their way to common chat.

I am arguing for fewer restrictions, not more.

If a bully wants to bully a new player, they still can. So what is the point of the 30 day rule? I just see experienced players (who are not bullies) being restricted by the actions of few (the bullies).

On trolls; they exist in most, if not all online games (WoW, LoL, to name a few). These range from in-game bullies to spreaders of hate speech, the latter of which seem to have already found their way to common chat.

Oh.  I apologize.  I misread what you were saying.  Carry on.  :-)