Timmetie has got a point in saying people save up too much.
How about tiding the amount of geos you can have to your troop number?

Like, you have 10,000 troops = you can save up to 40,000 geos.
What do you think of this?

Timmetie has got a point in saying people save up too much.
How about tiding the amount of geos you can have to your troop number?

Like, you have 10,000 troops = you can save up to 40,000 geos.
What do you think of this?

whats wrong with people saving up? some people can only play on weekends and the rest of the time they save up....big deal

whats wrong with people saving up? some people can only play on weekends and the rest of the time they save up....big deal


i don't think the point is for people who can only play in limited time frames, it is more about people who sit back and take no action for weeks while they save..

i don't think the point is for people who can only play in limited time frames, it is more about people who sit back and take no action for weeks while they save..
Yes, and while they're waiting they wander round the forum...

The problem is people saving for months and months(when the game is out of beta) to finally have a million geos...that would ruin the game for a lot of players.
So I like this idea.
That would mean you HAVE to play, instead of just collect resources.

i don't think the point is for people who can only play in limited time frames, it is more about people who sit back and take no action for weeks while they save..

i think limiting savings would limit play styles not to mention the whole point of saving in the first place.

a random attack from a "sleeper"'s what you might call a "natural disaster." ;raincloud

man up and deal ;)

A sleeper who would only be able to be defeaten by another sleeper, not another player, is not what I consider as fun.

It also punishes the players who really play.

The problem is people saving for months and months(when the game is out of beta) to finally have a million geos...that would ruin the game for a lot of players.
So I like this idea.
That would mean you HAVE to play, instead of just collect resources.

How about imposing some sort of income tax based on the amount you have in savings. This might encourage players to "play" vs. just save and pay.

A sleeper who would only be able to be defeaten by another sleeper, not another player, is not what I consider as fun.

It also punishes the players who really play.


yes yes yes!!!!! more active players should have a better chance at winning....and when i say active...i mean attacking!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT'S A WAR GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! not a stock market game..I think yahoo has one of those games :growse

A sleeper who would only be able to be defeaten by another sleeper, not another player, is not what I consider as fun.

It also punishes the players who really play.


aren't there activity time limits for accounts? anyone who's around long enough to maintain their resources, etc - aren't they a "player," too? pegging savings levels to city levels gives an advantage to larger players ("players"?) so that they can save even more. i don't think that addresses the concern.

if there isn't an inactivity lock out (with a drain on savings) or time out for accounts, maybe there should be.

I like the idea, but its too artificial, you know?

maby make it so that you need a certain city worth to get a certain amount of geo's, which in turn would force you to defend the city, it makes the rule a bit more "ingame" and also a bit more realistic. any money above that limit would be subject to severe penalties daily. so when you lose a city, it should get you at least 1 day penalty, and more if you dont take it back (but maintain the same amount of geo's).

I agree with Timmie. *cough* Did I just say that? I must remember to schedule a checkup next week...

It has nothing to do with the real world and doesn't make any sense in terms of reality. The only thing that stops people from doing this in real life is that they have to pay tax (at least in the US they do) on interest, which is the only way I can see to slow it down.

Also, what happens is you suddenly lose 75,000 troops while trying to take or defend a city? You're over your limit and suddenly lose a bunch of money?

I agree there should be some sort of high limit on the number of geos everyone can have, but there shouldnt be any harm in having unlimited size armies.

The problem is people saving for months and months(when the game is out of beta) to finally have a million geos...that would ruin the game for a lot of players.
So I like this idea.
That would mean you HAVE to play, instead of just collect resources.


Is this to be a persistent long term game?

Or is this to be a short term RTS?


If it is a long term persistent world, not allowing people to partake in long term tactics makes absolutely no sense. If this however is a short term RTS, the balance issues are much different.


What are we trying to achieve here? Sounds like we're trying to make it so that someone can start today and tomorrow fight on the same ground as someone that's been playing for a year. If that is the case, then the idea of a persistent game world is completely wrong.

However, if the goal is to create a war game around a persistent game world, then it would simply be wrong to set it up such that someone that starts today can fight on the same ground as a vet right away. TOTALLY wrong. So completely wrong that it will all fall apart.

If this is to be a persistent world, and someone's worked a year to become a superpower, well it makes sense that it would take someone else a year to overthrow them. What's wrong with that?

The only problem becomes if EVERYONE can become a superpower, and it takes a new player a year to even get in the game. That would be very very bad for obvious reasons. But this is a balance issue to be solved by making sure there are lots of things to do at every level of the game. (Personally, I think it would help if there was some good reason for bigger players to NOT hold small cities, this would help a LOT. I think this is actually the biggest problem right now, and has NOTHING to do with income or bank savings)

Besides, isn't the long term vision to have cities that GROW?
There's a whole HUGE layer to this game that isn't even in place yet that will have a HUGE impact on everything. I've had an idea that should wait until we see what happens with city features in the future, but one obvious problem right now is it's REALLY hard for noobs to get their first city. There aren't enough cities now, we know this. What if EVERYONE got one city to start, and had to start growing it. IE: Your home base is your first city....don't get caught up on minutia, look at the big picture and see the balance and holes I'm trying to fill here.


Balance balance balance. Balance is EVERYTHING in a game like this. Problem is, right now we're arguing about balance, but we have NO IDEA whether all the new changes will result in balance in the long run or not, because things haven't run their course yet! Making further changes like income caps etc at this point would be a VERY bad idea until we know whether we're even on the right track yet or not.

I really hope we wait long enough to figure out where we're at, then solve the actual problems before diving into making huge changes that may not be required, or worse, could actually kill the game.

Concur with Wayward.

OPEN systems will regulate their internal environments to reach balance. CLOSED systems retard these self-regulatory tendencies.

I am not in favor of persistent tweaking of the rules and certainly do not favor arbitrary caps or limits.

The environment will regulate itself if it is allowed.

Now as a long time player i've seen the flaws.
What happens is that at the end the game is only played by a few players.
We've seen it before.
There was a point when 1500 players were playing months ago, and in the end it was more like 30 rich ones.
New players didn't bother anymore.
With the rules we now have, it makes it a little more difficult to just save up until you are filthy rich and then strike out and destroy all those players that are actually playing.

The goal of the game is to play, not to save and then punish the players that are playing. I'm willing to tweak as many rules as I need to to achieve that.
Reward the players!

Now with the rule of Geos-Troops, it would mean you need 25k troops to be able to have 100k geos. Now come on....thats not much...but it will help.
I don't think anyone could really complain about that rule as players can easily buy that.
But when the game comes out of Beta, there should be no more resets.
So someone could just have a fake account(or just doesn't play), occupy a small town, and then save up until he has a million geos.

But with geos-troops, it would mean that he really still has to play.
But I also like the other idea that was said here. That the amount of geo's is tied to the cityvalue. Maybe also a little bit more realistic.

And I'm also FOR stealing out of homebases when someone has no cities.
To sabotage the secret savers. They would have to start defending their homebases, and it would also give homebases a meaning.

People wouldn't put them next to big cities anymore, but could put them on a small island where they are more hidden.

A sleeper who would only be able to be defeaten by another sleeper, not another player, is not what I consider as fun.

It also punishes the players who really play.

Saving is playing, I think.

I see your viewpoint as well Luke, and I do agree with your principals outlined. You are correct that there is nothing overly severe about what is proposed, and the point of the game is to play, I'm in total agreement with that.

Balance is of utmost importance, and if adding these things in in moderation helps achieve that end, than I'm all for it.

I am still a bit concerned that the current changes effects haven't been measured yet so are still unproven, thus making it somewhat difficult to counter effectively in a balanced way, but knowing how things are done around here, I don't think I have to worry about everything changing overnight. I'd like to see home base thievery implemented, and see what that does, before seeing much else in this area myself, but that's just my humble opinion :)

Reward the players!

'Will always support this guiding principle.

let me just say i saw this all coming without looking at current numbers. yes, bow to my supreme knowledge ;-).

and i think it would be easy to link these things to cities, but make it a really slow flow, do not make people lose everything (like with bonds) when they lose a city. you know, get some counter-attacks going, some frontline action etc. bla bla. all this will make more sense when we get some of the more advanced functions in many people have been brainstorming about.

I wouldn't let them lose anything at all.
Just that when you don't own the cities(or troops) anymore and you are above a certain amount you don't receive bank interest and resources until you do own enough.