Conquest forum game: Discussion thread

This isn't the conclusion I reach when I see my battle reports.

 

Where does it say this has to be mentioned in the description?
Not all has to be in the description, it is part of the game to figure certain things out on your own.
And, pretty much from day one everyone knew about it, i have even posted the exact number, so same conditions for everyone.

The were using a mechanism that was not intended - the troop minimum is part of the game, and has to be there - how much fun do you think it is to built up from zero?

It is no advantage, it's a compensation mechanism, players with higher populations benefit from other things - i think i pointed that out sufficiently in my post above.



And, seriously, if all that favours others but not you, because you are already ahead (!), is considered cheating all of a sudden... isn't that a very limited perspective?

Which conclusions you reach then? Being crytic helps noone...


And last but not least: i am sick of the whining everywhere - the game is set up as it is, except fixing exploits i will not change it in mid-game, so play it or leave it, but whining about alledged advantages others have is nothing short of kindergarden.

When others build their troops up to a similar size, they will have to deal with the same things - this is FAIR, because it's the same rules for everyone.

If your perception of fairness differs, well, nobody forces you to play - and honestly, if you get so upset about a FUN GAME, you should maybe not play it in the first place.

 

Wizzszz, the point is that people are actively devolving village size to utilise this against tougher opponents. It's not that we "haven't escaped" the minimum, there are a number of players who have decided to go the other way.

I'm not calling this cheating, but I fear it is a bit counterproductive if it encourages NOT growing.

Perhaps it will resolve after we have all trimmed down to minimum levels and are forced into a weapons and armour race, I don't know.

I do think it should be included in the guide, it is a pretty important aspect of the game.

As for protecting the weak, that also doesn't really fly. Every new player is jumped on appearance in the game, because they appear near the top of both lists. So the truly vulnerable are exposed, and experienced players are hiding behind the meek shield.

Look, it's a great game, too damn immersive actually :) We're trying to help by identifying possible areas for improvement.

 

I agree that it has to be there.


I could be wrong but to me it seems that nobody will ever be able to maintain a population higher than 600 for a long time unless there is an unbalance between the number of his active allies vs opponents.

 

To win the game, you need to grow - this is a temporary situation and will resolve soon - why someone who has the most troops and can't even be "robbed" because of his strong (and relatively cheap) defense is whining here is above me, really.

It will, the game is meant to run way longer than 1 week only, please read what i posted before.

Frankly, it is a bloody non-issue, everybody knows about it - everybody perfectly knows about it - so... WHY?

If it makes you happy, maybe Peter will change it, as it is oh so important all o a sudden - i wont, sorry, lack of time.

None of you was here during beta testing of the game - it is laughable to think that someone with 250 troops will stand a chance against someone with 10,000, who can produce 10K gold every 10 cycles....

Nah, you are not helping in any way, actually, you addressed only issues that would, if changed, favour your tribe - that's not selfless help, that's anything else but that.

 

The aspects which make huge differences in terms of possible strategy options should be there.
The reason why is: reasonably intelligent player would not use his first turns recruiting troops if such description was there
because he would reach the conclusion that it is pointless.

Because a player who had previous knowledge to the game (beta player) told his allies and once so many turns are spent in doing such things it becomes hard to hide.

 

You are right
The problem is that you will never have somebody with 2000 troops

 

The beta game setup favoured growth, attacking would harm the attacker almost as much as the victim, no matter if successful or not.

Give the game a bit time, things will change very soon, and you will no longer care that all the li'l ones have their troops reset to 250, 250 troops is nothing, last round was won with over 900 billion (!!) troops, the second biggest had ~50K (i stopped growing to block out others, or i would have had several billions around game end, too).

"Free" reset to 250 troops is peanuts, really.

 

So that new players are aware of it, and don't quit the first time they are hit hard. Certainly those of us who are playing now know about it... the guide is for those who are yet to come, and this aspect is, in my opinion, important enough to warrant inclusion in the guide.

Please don't be defensive, or assume this is about "changing the rules". It's about making the rules known.

Anyway, I'm going to keep enjoying it as it is, and see how the whole picture reveals. Making it last longer is a good thing :)


*In case I'm not making it clear above, I accept your arguments in favour of not changing the system. No longer an issue, reality taken on board, and strategy being revised.

 

I could not wrote it better.

 

Well, i did not even read this "guide" as we started, but i never read manuals - more fun to figure things out on my own, maybe that's why i do not think this is important... ;P

But fine, that you think this is important is enough, we will include it there, but don't expect that happen immediately, when i ran into it, i will change it - feel free to suggest a text snippet that we can add there.


The setup will change in the future games tho, to keep it interesting because players have to adapt their strategies - not sure if it's a good idea to give an exact number there (it doesn't have to be 50% of the starting populations, just fyi)


I hope this is acceptable for everyone :)

 

How about this? (In "Spending your turns") :


Trading:
Players can trade Gold and Troops with others in their tribe. Troop trades consume 1 turn and Gold trades consume 5 turns. Each player has a minimum population, and only those Troops in excess of the minimum can be traded. Should any player's population fall below minimum through combat, they will be resupplied up to the minimum on the following cycle.There is no limit on the amount of Gold that can be traded.

 

Sounds good, thanks for providing :)

There is, btw, a reason why the trading is not included in the original description, the trading subsystem is kind of an add-on to the conquest game - but you're perfectly right, it should be in there, too.

There is a limit to the amount of gold that can be transferred, altho not limited in the same way as troops (you have to preserve a minimum there) - both, troop and gold transfers have a maximum limit as well, but it is "dynamic" - if you include that in your text somehow, we can just copy that from here and paste it into the game description - thx again :)

 

Cool, I've tweaked it a bit, hopefully this works :

Trading:
Players can trade Gold and Troops with others in their tribe. Troop trades consume 1 turn and Gold trades consume 5 turns. Each player has a minimum population, and only those Troops in excess of the minimum can be traded. Should any player's population fall below minimum through combat, they will be resupplied up to the minimum on the following cycle.There is no minimum on the amount of Gold that must be retained by a trading player, but both Troop and Gold transfers have a maximum limit that can be traded. The maximum limits are dynamic, and may vary dependent on other conditions in game.

 

I call it cheating because it is't in the guide.

 

I believe it is unfair because

(among other things)

it will make everybody (including me) have their troops limited to the range of 250-300.

 

I saw your defense reports and I understand why you think it is unfair (you should show it here in the public part of the forum).
But I don't know how can wizzszz at this moment change things without giving a tremendous advantage to those who like you (or even me) already got lots of weapons and armor.

 

I have considered to raise the population growth per cycle a bit, to keep things interesting and kind of "reward" people for doing attacks with their "own" troops and not have them respawn on every cycle.

This is an exception to the rule, usually the game settings will not be changed during a running game.


I hope everyone is able to see this is done in an attempt to iron out potentially negative effects of one of the most controverse settings.


If there are no objections, i will change the setting later today,
please comment!