It's been brought up again and again....what use should the homebase have?

Well...Timmetie's idea was that one should be able to steal a little bit of geo's or resources when you succesfully attack a homebase of a player who has no cities left.
Succesfully means: you defeated the last army in there.
This attack could only be done once every 24 hours or maby even once a week, and would steal a little of his geos/resources in the range of 5% of total banked money.
This would also mean that the homebase would now have a function and you would need to defend it if you do not have cities.

I've also said this should only be the case if you have no cities.

and i had an idea about scaling it, which would require a score based on troops, geo's, resources and cities. 3 steps or so, Equal then the defender(or sorta equal) gets 20%. smaller gets 30%, bigger gets 10%.

this would add a little tactic, a wave attack taking down someone's cities and then his homebase.

also its pretty easy to defend against, just put a higher troops worth in your homebase then 30% of ur cash.

and don't go complaining you could use money, this is a wargame, maby we should stop armies from totally killing your armies, who wants a 10% limit to enemy troops you can kill.

wimps ;)

i want an open poll, so i can attack everybody's homebase who voted against ;)

c'mon, resources? then you'd just convert those every 10 minutes. noone would even be able to stop a script that small.

come here, post, defend yourselfs!

i'm calling you wimps and game wreckers.

En garde!

i want an open poll, so i can attack everybody's homebase who voted against ;)
I voted against! But you'll never catch my armies in homebase.

good, ill just take your money then.

hup, state your reasons to vote against, so i know what idiot notions i have to fight.

c'mon.

fight for your freedom man.

GIVE ME GEEEEEEEEOOOOOOS!!

[/Hulk]

i vote for steal geos, but you shoud only be able to steal about 20% or something like that

Less than 20%... How bout like 10% or less.. Not to much... We it does happen we need to start small to see how it works.. Nice poll we got going herer.. pretty even.

Where's the option to cut my enemy's heart out of his chest and eat it while he watches me with his dying breaths?

Oh, I guess that would be in Google Klingon War.

you know i'd soo like that option birq. but i'm guessing its sarcasm?

this is a wargame, in war, you don't let your enemy just prepare, you strike out and destroy them!

and to the others, ofcourse it would be limited, when talking about total geo's its probably going to be like 10% only every 2 days or so.

but remember this is only for people without cities, so you'd only need 20% of your money as troops (when talking about stealing 20%) to make sure people won't attack (as they'd lose money doing it).

next, please.

I myself would choose for resources rather then geos.
Resources can be protected. So you'd just have to be smart and convert.

luke c'mon, you can just convert those things every time, lets say you sleep 8 hours, after 8 hours (you'd have to hit the perfect time) people only have like 200 geo's worth resources max..

and scripts, some scripts arn't feasable with jewels (just brute force number crunching?) but could be for this.

i voted yes! What about 20% all the in-hand Geos (should not be too much) plus 20% of each resource?

...or 10% of Geos and resources plus some intel information (makes sense as one enters the enemy base and steals the data from the computers). intel could be random, like total number of armies, Geos in the bank, total income, troops in some cities... ouch :p

to compensate for this feature, troops defending the home base may have much cheaper upkeep cost (was suggested before as well). So we add another strategic element and provide a good, yet vulnerable, place to leave troops while on vacation.

if we do 20% every week, a 2 week vacation would set you back 36%.

and thats given that you didnt leave a proper army to take care of your homebase.

Although I'm not against it now, I need better poll results then this. Otherwise people are gonna look for my home adress to give me a visit :D

I'm closer..

I'm closer..

Your avatar doesn't seem so sure about that ;)

them weelchairs pack a punch when wrapped in dynamite.

;)

I voted yes, but I'd use extreme caution with it. If the NAR pact was able to control all the main cities, what could happen if they could continually launch attacks against newbies that just joined?

wouldnt be very profitable wouldnt it..

and thats why im proposing a new scoring system that weighs down very heavy on money and troops, which now would decide what percentage of geo's one would steal, and maby eventually make sure only people of thesame score can attack each other.

I'm sorry for being lazy so this may have been mentioned in the thread already.

I think only Resources should be stolen because there could be countless amounts of unused player acounts homebases over the globe, just waiting for people to steal from them. The reason I say resources is because if they are not playing, after a certain amount of time there will be no resources to collect.

P.s Being able to collect resources or geos may incourage fake acounts because people may just let there other acounts easily go and attack a homebase of another of their fake acounts, free geos/resources for them.

We're only talking AVAILABLE GEOS here aren't we?

Banked Geos would remain protected. Sequestered safely away in an off-shore account... (hey maybe whoever controls Switzerland should be getting percentages)

personally I'll like to see the player's information; last login date;
how much geos... what his army sizes are... that sort of thing...
but given the choice...
I'll go for Resources....

But !! you can only attack when there's an army there...

I've thought this was a great idea since the beginning - I'm all for it :) I think a pillage should obtain you some geos (a randon small %) and some intelligence - I also think atacks on a persons homebase should be limited somehow, if word gets out someone is away for a week - their homebase becomes free-for-all.. thats no good :( this will take some hard thinking! :cool:

T.

well make it once a week or so.

and you would have to keep the word in..


also, what's wrong with stealing the money of the people who dont play anymore? after a while they wont have any money, and before that its a free for all grab id say.

and seriously stealing resources and on hand geo's is pretty useless as both can be brought to safety waaay too easy.

But the poll must be convincing enough.

Go for it Tim. Convince the people.

i can't, i've not heard any reasons as to why this is a bad idea. in theory, everyone should be liking it.

we have more than 60% for Yes. And maybe some would agree on "Yes, intel information please". Or a smart combination of the 3.

i would suggest introducing the feature with very conservative parameters (intel + 10% on non-banked geos and resources, 1 x week) and we do the poll again in about a month...

cheaper upkeep for troops in your home base would be very interesting as well.

Ps: new accounts' bases cannot be attacked for 1 week as well, let the newbie read the rules :p

but look at the poll.. doesn't look good for timmie... :confused:

I like the Idea of when an attack is succesfull you grab valuable infomation about them, army size etc.

g******** people, TELL ME WHY YOU ARE VOTING AGAINST.

it is "against the little people" again? darn communists, the little people will be able to grow by raiding other little (or large) people.

is it because you're afraid you're going to lose money? It's g***** virtual money used for a WAR GAME.

let the g****** money roll people, roll over and vote yes.

Someone should run the poll again and add the different options that have been mentioned here...

g******

Hehe, revenge of the censor. Watch out or Tim will be after you...

hmm i'm sorry, i thought i took those out after i reread it. it was way worse before. thanks to whomever censorred me.

let's just say im irritated.

at the moment you cant lose anything on this game, bonus cities and huge cities exempt ofcourse, when you lose everything you only lose city tax, but as you also lose the troops in it, that equals out, and as you dont have any cities to defend you can just wait it out and attack again when strong.

It should be hard to rise from the lowest level, easy to stay there, but even harder to get to high level. This is one thing that could make this happening.

and still, on hand cash and resources are just too easy to get wrid off, and intelligence is all nice, but there is nothing to "find" at someone without any cities.. they all probably have maxed out mines after a while.. woohoo, the info man.

don't be so scared of losing anything, its relative, if you can lose geo's, everyone can lose geo's. there has to be a flow in the game, which is now stagnent. I always hear complaining about ruling alliances etc.

This would/could change that! not just dragging on like we've always have.

It should be hard to rise from the lowest level, easy to stay there, but even harder to get to high level. This is one thing that could make this happening.


you're trying to sell this idea?

how does making it hard to rise from the lowest level make it appealing to new users or those of us who don't spend much more than 20-30 minutes per day on the game?

speedfreak227

harder then it is now.. there is no lower level.

you believe anyone who plays 20 minutes a day should be thesame as you? you're a regular player, you want them to all be thesame? the unknown names?

A game is about rankings, the better ones, the smaller ones, the smaller ones try to get bigger, the bigger ones try to stay there and get even bigger.

atm, there's nothing whatsoever except the time you can spend in it.

i mean lets say you wanted to destroy me, never going to happen, even worse, i could probably keep hitting you with 10k every day without any cities and no way to defeat me.

does this sound fun to you or any new player?

i mean lets say you wanted to destroy me, never going to happen, even worse, i could probably keep hitting you with 10k every day without any cities and no way to defeat me.

does this sound fun to you or any new player?

maybe i'm interpretting you incorectly, but i'd almost say you're backing me up on this.

you're strong, i'm weak, i have no chance to beat you. if i can't stay in my base and grow you can continually hit my base because you're tougher.

and if you're saying someone could stay in their base and use 10000 geos per day, how are they supposed to come up with 750 per day? maxed out resources is near that but they can't earn much in interest and it would be difficult to support an army on that as well. besides, they guys holding cities have the same access to resources as anyone else.

i just think it's a bad idea to make bases vulnerable to attack. IF it passes i think there should be a re-vote on to exactly what will happen during base attack.

speedfreak227

how do you have no chance to beat me?

my problem is that you have too big a chance to beat me, my only saving is that you dont realise it.

and yes, people with cities get the same resources, but they get attacked as well. if this was a 1 on 1 game, it would be fine.

it's not, and thusly the current system sucks, say i spent months defending riyadh, whilst someone saves up thesame money i use, but NEVER gets attacked. He can then attack and destroy me.

This is what i dont like, not playing actually improves your chances.

until recently i had cairo, tehran and baghdad, i've lost and left those now, because its just not feasable, or usefull.

I think this is a good idea in theory but it does need alot of ironing out. Problem is that the rich would have to spend alot of money on upkeep for the huge armies guarding their homebase that they would probably end up losing money (when you only factor in city taxes) until they cashed in resources.

The money should be stolen from the bank though, that's the only place to put money where there is an actual advantage to it, and this would place a little risk factor into it.

If this change were to be implemented, it would require warning newbies before they place their homebase to take it into consideration, and also allowing existing home bases to be relocated once.

On another note, the site needs to be changed so new players download the city/base/army files before placing their homebase because the first thing you see when you register is that you need to set up a homebase, and often the location can be regretted later because there was no knowledge of city locations when placing it.

firstly, the big guys have cities, and as i already stated a few times, it wouldnt count if you still have cities.

And noobs will just have to read the rules, and this will ofcourse be added.

Also, if we can steal more then 50 geo's from someone, its not a noob anymore. if we steal less, its not really important isnt it?

I have always supported some meaing behind home bases.

I think some % (less than 30) of available Geos is fair.

Info about size of top 5 or 10 armies would be cool.

a note on "your main GEWar" page should be posted about what the attacker got and who it was should also happen.

if this is going to happen i would like to be able to relocate my base every so often...might as well make it a little harder for the to find you..

For what it is worth I suggest the home base represent the only true safe haven for players.

My cotton fields are states away from my home base, my mines an ocean away, oil continents away. And, my bank’s in the Islands.

As a new lad looking in and enjoying the game, I would leave it as it is.

the only safe place? why is that good?

from your homebase your just as strong as any of us in reality, so why make it safe, thats ridiculous.

the only safe place? why is that good?

from your homebase your just as strong as any of us in reality, so why make it safe, thats ridiculous.

The poll is not going very well here Tim ;)

well there's this huge clog of moron in the way.

;)

one final time, a good game has some self-determined (not entirely regulated) "layers". When you want to advance to a higher one, you work for a while, when you want to stay there, you dont have to work as hard, cause otherwise the earlyer ones wouldnt have to work that hard..

etc etc. all the way up to the final ranks.

Atm, when things get serious, i dump cities, thats NOT right people.

the only safe place? why is that good?

from your homebase your just as strong as any of us in reality, so why make it safe, thats ridiculous.


Ravaging a home base is not necessarily tantamount to having capability to pillage resources. Cotton, oil and diamonds are harvested in various places most often nowhere near one’s home base. And no home base can be collocated with all three major resources. This being true, from a practical perspective, how could one ‘take’ my home base in Illinois and have access to material in Atlanta? I had that worm hole removed weeks ago ;)

People, regrettably for my position, are present, but not the resources. They could be targeted. But I would and did not vote for that either.

I prefer the home base remain the one bastion of hope for new players until or unless geography or defense played a more significant role in calculating the effect of conflict … but, that lads is probably a different subject.

For what it’s worth, I’d keep things as they are regarding the homes base. But, heck, rules are rules. If they change we would have to change with them.

Most respectfully,
~L

Well I voted for - don't care if it's geos, resources or info but you should loose something if your homebase is attacked.
Also, how about adding the morale factor into it - if your home base is attacked then all your armies (wherever they are) are affected - defending armies lose say 20% of their defending capability and attacking armies lose 20% of their attacking capability, and it also affects members of your alliance who also lose some capability say 5%. If more than one alliance members home base is attacked then the alliance losses a maximum of 10% capability.

Just my geos worth :)

Lasker, i fully agree, if cities were only worth more then the homebases in functionality and money, we wouldnt be having this problem.

but this fixes it, and adds another element.

I dont think noobs would really have problems, 1000 troops is enough to saveguard a lot, cause people would have to guess you have more then 750 geo's (taking 10% as an estimate here) to make a profit.

and it would slow down the savers with a less static rule then the 2500 geo's, which can be ignored by a really small city.

And casper, i'm way for things like that, but they are a bit hard to add, and when they are, im guessing luke will start with the easy stuff like defense bonus etc.

im all for taking geos attacking homebases, It'll make things real interesting.....europe is going to turn into a den of thieves with all the homebases there....heheh

he, more votes coming in for the yes side, common sense prevails!

I don't think three more votes than "No, Never," is gonna do it, Tim. You can stop refreshing the page.

It seems to me this would make it easier for wealthier players to keep ahead of everyone else. If you have thousands of geos banked, several cities, and multiple, sizeable armies, where's the fun in stomping on everyone else trying to start the game? I've played this game for about a week, and been soundly routed from every city I've taken. Why would I care to keep playing if, in addition to being unable to hold a city longer than 2 days, I lost what money I have saved just because someone brought a 15000-troop army to my base? Sure, I understand the idea of building yourself up to another level of gameplay, but where's the fun in having several small groups of high-end players and a lot of new players that can't really advance?

Or, hey, go the other direction: make any and all resources stealable and garrisonable, with the only thing not able to be taken be your bank account. Your homebase would represent what current (non-banked) money you have.

It seems to me this would make it easier for wealthier players to keep ahead of everyone else. If you have thousands of geos banked, several cities, and multiple, sizeable armies, where's the fun in stomping on everyone else trying to start the game? I've played this game for about a week, and been soundly routed from every city I've taken. Why would I care to keep playing if, in addition to being unable to hold a city longer than 2 days, I lost what money I have saved just because someone brought a 15000-troop army to my base? Sure, I understand the idea of building yourself up to another level of gameplay, but where's the fun in having several small groups of high-end players and a lot of new players that can't really advance?


Hear Hear!

Or, hey, go the other direction: make any and all resources stealable and garrisonable, with the only thing not able to be taken be your bank account. Your homebase would represent what current (non-banked) money you have.

And when your non-banked money is gone, you end up loosing troops. I'm liking this idea more and more.

This can go either way to me: make homebases just as untouchable as resources, or make everything fair game. Having to guard everything would make paying for massive armies more difficult, but make starving an enemies troops of a viable strategy.

..but if our homebases are up for attack surely we should be able to further reinforce them? Build moats?!! Or set traps?!! You know what I mean! Home bases is a user's private area and hence he/she should be able to strengthen it as much as possible

fine, but for that to work you'd have to steal all the onhand cash available, and even then, i think its too easy to script this, as there is no verification code for the bank.. any scripter would have a script getting 10 geo's from the bank every 2 hours in no time, absolutely useless.

and also, why do you think a big player would go raiding your homebase? certainly not for the money, because if its there, you should buy troops out of it. thats what this is all about, getting people to play the game instead of waiting and lurking like a bunch of (breathe Tim, breathe..).

And i even think this is the ONLY way to kill big players, get their cities and follow up with a strike for their homebase. take that money before they strike back.

I'm sick and tired of noobs complaining off the "big guys" killing them, if you just take a city, you think they let it slide? i usually dont. and then you just stop jeweling and caring and come here to cry about it.

work a little for it, some do, and they've joined the leage of big guys. but this would bring more flow in the game, and flow means that some big players will be brought down, and some smallers rise, etc.

It's ridiculously easy to advance in this game, i ensure you, invest an hour a day in a game and take a city, hold on to it and you're in.. i'm acually saying noobs have it too easy.. and when things start to slide more to passive income then active this will just increase.

but dont let me change your expert vision, i'm sure you're right having played this game so long and well.

PS. Patrick, yes ofcourse i think homebases should get thesame military upgrades cities will eventually get.

What about this?

If somebody attacks somebody elses Homebase, than that person logically occupies this Homebase.In order for the previous base owner to win his Homebase back he must pay a certain percentage of his money to the occupier.In the meantime, the previous owner of the occupied homebase Can not make any Moves, while his homebase is occupied till he or she bailed out their Homebase.Their should also be a maximum of days that a Homebase can be occupied lets say 5 days, after wich the occupant has to vacate the homebase again and can not attack the same homebase again within let's say a week. The ransom could also be structured to make it more expensive to bail out the Homebase emidiately or after 5 Days.

Let me know if this makes any sense

Eisbein

Yeah I like that Idea, but I also believe whilst one occupies the home base you should beable to attack them with an army so you don't just have to pay them?

Thats very true!

But only if you happened to have any armies on the move that you can redirect, otherwise if they catch you with your pants down- tough luck

EISBEIN

Eisbein i like it as well, ofcourse if jeweling and internet and resources are cut off while you keep on to the homebase, or maby given to the one holding the homebase even (a %age).

good thinking man, just going to ask luke, it might be impossible to code. which means he gets 2 days instead of 1.

and also, why do you think a big player would go raiding your homebase? certainly not for the money, because if its there, you should buy troops out of it.

I've had too much experience with online games where the game rules support the ability of high end players to go "noob hunting." In a competitive game like this, if you can prevent a threat later, why not do so? If you have 5 hours a day to devote to this game, and the rules support your ability to wipe out anyone who has less available time to play, why should you not? I don't think "I'm being nice: I'm not completely destroying you" should be a valid answer. Sure its fun being on a higher plane than most others, but there is no fun at all struggling to do anything, only to have some behemoth roll over you.

Also, I'd like to hear how you would support that army, if you had no resources and no city. Jewel gathering? And if you really don't have the spare time it takes to jewel-gather to support an army sizeable enough to hold a city? Get enough money to buy a resource...but what if that resource doesn't produce enough money to cover the expense of building it and the upkeep of the army protecting it? And again, what is to keep someone with multiple cities/resources and tens of thousands of troops deciding to take it from you? Niceness?

I'm sick and tired of noobs complaining off the "big guys" killing them, if you just take a city, you think they let it slide? i usually dont. and then you just stop jeweling and caring and come here to cry about it.

Equally, I'm sick of hearing how little the "big guys" care for anyone's fun but their own. So we're even on that one.

All I'm really concerned with is that this game be fun for someone to start playing, as well as for people who have been playing for a longer time. I admit, I'm not very experienced with this game. Maybe you're right, and I'm wrong, but too many online games seem to only ever try to please the "big guys" - high-end expansions, added high-end equipment, stuff like that...while the upper levels always seem to get further away from someone who has just started the game.

All of these *features* are nice and interesting for the players with a foothold. But for the newbies trying to gain ground it's another story entirely. Combined with the new bank limitation (which isn't the best thing, IMHO unless a significant amount of cities are added) these are going to make this place miserable.

On that thought,

If your homebase gets attacked and you are not logged in, or you are logged in but you don't play, then after the time is up a certain amount gets deducted from your account and you are free again.
If one makes it a percentage of a players money then it should be more rewarding to attack big players, because the loot is just bigger.
Here is another twist - If you attack a Homebase of an alliance player then the alliance should have to bail him out as well.

I'm getting carried away here!!

I've had too much experience with online games where the game rules support the ability of high end players to go "noob hunting." In a competitive game like this, if you can prevent a threat later, why not do so? If you have 5 hours a day to devote to this game, and the rules support your ability to wipe out anyone who has less available time to play, why should you not? I don't think "I'm being nice: I'm not completely destroying you" should be a valid answer. Sure its fun being on a higher plane than most others, but there is no fun at all struggling to do anything, only to have some behemoth roll over you.

Also, I'd like to hear how you would support that army, if you had no resources and no city. Jewel gathering? And if you really don't have the spare time it takes to jewel-gather to support an army sizeable enough to hold a city? Get enough money to buy a resource...but what if that resource doesn't produce enough money to cover the expense of building it and the upkeep of the army protecting it? And again, what is to keep someone with multiple cities/resources and tens of thousands of troops deciding to take it from you? Niceness?



Equally, I'm sick of hearing how little the "big guys" care for anyone's fun but their own. So we're even on that one.

All I'm really concerned with is that this game be fun for someone to start playing, as well as for people who have been playing for a longer time. I admit, I'm not very experienced with this game. Maybe you're right, and I'm wrong, but too many online games seem to only ever try to please the "big guys" - high-end expansions, added high-end equipment, stuff like that...while the upper levels always seem to get further away from someone who has just started the game.

It's true that some new guys don't check a person's background info before attacking their city, but even when they do. There are alot of big guys out there that are considerate and don't go newb hunting, but then there are also some pathetic jackasses who get satisfaction out of stomping on ants.

The idea is nice however, what's to stop the top players to set up shop around a number of homebases and attack all the time. As soon as someone buys 5X100troops. The guy attacks with his 10000troops, gets whatever and the other guy is left with smaller and smaller amounts. The top alliances could in effect stop anyone from doing anything. Hard but not impossible. The newbies would probably end up leaving. The homebase should be a safehaven(yes I know this is a war game). All war games do have some neutral areas though. I think it would be better to be able to attack armies that are enroute to your city. As long as you can catch them that is. Again the concept is nice, but in the long run if not done properly I think this could do more harm than good for new and upcoming gamers, as well as veterans who are occasionals. :(

Right, oke, you might all be stupid, just telling you.

i have no said about 20 times, it would NOT be profitable to attack noobs, in the first place because i want to add a sliding scale which compares each players "power levels".

And because you're all smart enough (right?) to (if 20% can be taken) keep troops in your homebase worth a little more then 20%.

I for one wouldnt go attacking homebases because a. i dont know how much money you have, you could have zilch and b. id lose troops, and make enemies.

This would enforce you to really play, get out there, when you have the cash, to use it to do something.

I can't believe you all just want to save up, take a city, and lose it.

Yes lose it, because some other sad sob is saving up just like you for that city! you all have to get some perspective on this. and im comforted by the fact that most long time players realise this.

don't you see that any step helping noobs is also keeping them noobs? cause any noob "ascending" to the divine status of city holder, will be killed off by another noob who plays for like 10 seconds a day.

i close my argument with the fact that you're all short sighted fools, but there might still be some hope left..

i have no said about 20 times, it would NOT be profitable to attack noobs, in the first place because i want to add a sliding scale which compares each players "power levels".

You made a longer post than this, but I just want to address this single point:

Define 'profitable'.

Because yes, you might lose a bit of money by continually wiping out everyone who's just joined. However, what you are also doing is reducing the competition. If you're a member of a large alliance - that is, one that can finance this - and have the time or inclination to watch the list of homebases, you could nip every single one in the bud. In fact, the way to do it would be to designate a few members of the alliance to be city-less (if you're sticking with the only-for-no-cities thing) but recieve a proportion of the other members' income. They shunt that into building armies by the bucketload and wander the globe wiping out anyone who's just joined.

But it's not profitable, you say. That depends - would you say it's 'profitable' to keep the number of opponents down, and moreover to know who those opponents are? In effect, to make, as others have said, a group of elites who can walk all over anyone they like. Well, it sounds profitable to /me/, but... no one who joined would stay (I've just signed up, and reading this thread horrified me; I'd leave) unless they were willing to play according to a single method - it's all very well saying 'Oh, you can guard against this by putting more than 20% into armies', but by doing so you limit the possibilities, because everyone has to put more than 20% into armies straight away - and, well, I just think it'd be a bad idea.

But hey, I'm new, what do I know about how newbies will react?

Resources..... and money you have at hand.....
Same as if a burglar came into your house and takes everything that’s lying around.....

@ Huinesoron,
look, at the moment, when i have riyadh, play every day, even have a few cities, i might have the income of like 4 of the lowest noobs.

if i go pissing them off at random i'm in deep doodie. at the moment there is a state of mutual cease fire, a cold war so to speak, any of them attacking me dies, if i attack to much of them, i die.

thesame is true for almost all big players, the differences are minor, it's only the noobs extreme low self esteem. you want to get over 2500 geos? thats 33k troops, ive never had more then 50k troops in riyadh.

and it's not as if it would destroy the noobs, lets say they lose 20% each week, the only way they arn't going to make profit is if they dont spend nearly anything each week, simple mathematics you say? i agree.

So this would force people to fight, without "forcing" them, but by changing the best behavior to play.

and at your last paragraph, this is meant to stop people from saving, and to start them on playing the game. I've never had more then 50k troops or 500 geo's so far, and im happily playing along, ive had over 60 mill city worth, had riyadh for a while (darn you all).

just get in there and join the frenzy man..

so we get some new fluent gameplay, and it didnt get there by some silly rule (like the 2500, or 250 or 10.000 limits) but by ADDING a feature.


amazing and brilliant and sexy you say? i tend to agree.

Resources..... and money you have at hand.....
Same as if a burglar came into your house and takes everything that’s lying around.....

too many scripting problems nico..

There must be a way to overcome this newbie vs big players and alliances scenario. Maybe one could structure the game into multiple levels, so one starts at a "newbie" level and as one gaines momentum and achieves certain goals one then progresses into the next level which insures that the playing field is more even at certain levels and in the end one has some kind of a master level where all the super serious people can cut their throts.
I know this probably belongs into another thred but for some reason all longer threads end up in exactly this conversation.

Eisbein

as i've already said, there's some ways to go about doing this, and if you do, you have to see it like a piramid, there's lots of space at the bottom, and only 1 at the top, and the piramid doesnt grow in width.

So everytime someone climbs up, someone must go down. So it should be harder, on both noobs and big players.

and i think this would help, it would give the active noob the chance to raid others, gain momentum etc. eventually, i'd like to see a game, where the only possibility (by rule or reason) to attack someone is when that someone is of equal strenght.

thats also why i think a scoring should be made that counts money and troops more then cities, say every geo is 1, every geo worth of troops would be 0.75 (upkeep etc), every city would be worth its taxes in 2 days, and every mine would be worth it's resources for like 4 days.

This would give a good figure of someone's attack power, and on this the % of money stolen at homebases could be calculated at first. but could be changed to do thesame with a lot of things balancing the game.

this is meant to stop people from saving, and to start them on playing the game.

I admit that my arguments would hold more weight if there was anything to /do/ with this money other than bunging it straight into either resource collection or armies... okay, so you could stick it in the bank and gain interest, but there's nothing else. Except upkeep, which is both predictable and passive. So, at the moment, the fact that it forces people to follow the same plan is irrelevent, because they're already forced to do so by the way the game is played.

/However/, if there is at any time in the future a modification to that... well, I'll make up a random example.

At the moment, you buy troops for your armies at, I believe, 0.75 geos/10. You /could/ buy nukes, but I think you need cities for that, you couldn't just stay in base and save to buy them. However, if there was a new unit type that cost, say, 100 geos (what would it be? Dunno. I'm making this up on the fly), you would want to save up for it. If you're having to pour your money straight into armies so as not to have it stolen, that makes saving up for your new, expensive unit near impossible - especially if people start thinking 'hey, he's not attacking, he's probably saving up money, let's get him!'. /That's/ when the whole no-choice-but-to-follow-the-majority rule comes in, and it affects the people who /don't/ have a high income.

So at the moment, what you suggest might actually work (unless bugs stop people buying armies - always worth considering). It depends on how the game is planned to develop, though.

oke, im not sure what you're saying but for the sake of argument ill assume you agree with me ;) .

at the moment, the smartest, most efficient way to play this game, is to have no cities, and a small one once you get over 2500.

well that gameplay sucks i think we can all agree on, but its still the best way! what to do? change the game!

i'm saying that people shouldnt have large amounts of money, they should invest it. and believe me, there are a lot of ways coming to invest it. Now its only troops (only? wtf? this is a war game). but it'll be more.

so essentially this helps change the game, into a game where the best way to play is to be active, attack, etc.

i'd say everyone here thinks he/she is a pretty smart fellow/gall. so you should all believe that in a game with more action, you'll land on top because you're the smartest.

so in short, voting no makes you stupid, and possibly a homosexual. not that there's anything wrong with that, but we might wanna add a feature to put up frizzy curtains at the homebases where they all are hiding (not making the hiding in their holes joke.. not doing it.. not..).

oke, im not sure what you're saying but for the sake of argument ill assume you agree with me ;) .

Roughly, I was agreeing with you as the game stands now, but saying it could cause some problems depending on how the game develops.

i'd say everyone here thinks he/she is a pretty smart fellow/gall. so you should all believe that in a game with more action, you'll land on top because you're the smartest.

Appeals to arrogance only work if everyone is arrogant. Alas, I know perfectly well that I'm going to lose horribly. Doesn't stop me playing, though. ;)

so in short, voting no makes you stupid, and possibly a homosexual. not that there's anything wrong with that, but we might wanna add a feature to put up frizzy curtains at the homebases where they all are hiding (not making the hiding in their holes joke.. not doing it.. not..).

:D Timmetie...this may be the best post ever.....you made my day :p

I just want to make one point.

If you keep giving n00bs advantages, there will be more and more fake accounts setup. And these will be used to attack the 'big guys' who have been playing forever and working there butts off. Thus being a disadvantage to the 'big guys'.

But anyway, back to the homebase thing. Maybe we need to introduce villagers (like in Age of Empires) that can work at the home base (planting resources, producing weapons etc.) and have an economy. You will need an (or more) army to protect them. After the army has be killed, every attack on the homebase kills off a villager. Thus making your economy fall.

I know its a long shot, but thats my 0.02 geos worth.

That sounds a little too complex to have a whole economy, if anything needs to be better its the battles that take place between armies, the player has no say in what happens. But before I get too distracted I would like to say that the level idea sounds good, maybe a little help for newbs when defending against higher levels but no offense bonus to reduce the amount of false accounts.

i proposed this, but luke tells me its too hard.

atm there are a couple of plans when attacking homebases, you get:

information: bluch, what does one want with that?
available money/resources: will just convert/bank every 10 minutes
banked money: my original idea, brilliant ofcourse
you take homebase and it cant make troops or get money until they pay you to leave: Like this as well
You destroy money-making things instead of money: I like, but luke sais its too hard to code, and it wont really help against the savers.

i proposed this, but luke tells me its too hard.

atm there are a couple of plans when attacking homebases, you get:

information: bluch, what does one want with that?
available money/resources: will just convert/bank every 10 minutes
banked money: my original idea, brilliant ofcourse
you take homebase and it cant make troops or get money until they pay you to leave: Like this as well
You destroy money-making things instead of money: I like, but luke sais its too hard to code, and it wont really help against the savers.

Never said that was too hard.
I said it's too hard to STEAL a mine and put it in yours...due to coordinates and such. Would get messy.

misscomunication then, i never intended on stealing mines.

I'm against the idea and here is why.

1) There will be users who just travel n00b base to n00b base to raid them. n00bs will NEVER get anywhere, they already have a steep up hill climb

2) Code to do it. Like Luke says I can not see a simple method save for the take some of the bank account of the user.

3) I'd rather see code to Merge armies, build armies in cities you own and finally to train elite armies. (Leave them in a city 24 hours they get a defense bonus and special Shock troops for attacks.

RomJ

1) has been discussed a 1000 times, it will not happen, those people would lose money FAST. we'll make sure of it.

2) Luke proposed it himself, and this is just aproving the theory, dont think about code time etc.

3) I'd like to see both.. we're not chosing here..

But although i've been defending this for a while, i don't think i've changed anyone's mind about this.

araT, i believe you said you were for it, speak out! you're way smarter then me, maby you can gain some ground here.

I believe mickey was against it? well, if so, another reason to vote for it ;)

I'm several posts behind on this, but I think the homebase idea would open a big "hitman" market.

Big alliances would pay little guys to attack the homebases of their enemies as sabotage, and say that they get to keep the winnings.

Little guy takes the money, but instead uses it to attack Cape Town. Fails miserably. :D

As far as the whole newb thing goes they can be given a few advantages, provided that isn't too hard to code, and so long as most of the prominent players have any decency it shouldn't be a problem.

ya, what i said with the scoring system would help noobs make it unfeasable to attack their homebases.

also, the hitman market? why would one do that, if you make a profit out of it, you do it yourself, if you dont, why would the noob do it? and how would a noob take all cities of the one attacking and then breach the homebase?

:D 1) has been discussed a 1000 times, it will not happen, those people would lose money FAST. we'll make sure of it.

2) Luke proposed it himself, and this is just aproving the theory, dont think about code time etc.

3) I'd like to see both.. we're not chosing here..


1) Not really, what about the dead n00b bases.. Really there are hundreds of them.. Raid the dead n00b might get you onlt 20 geos but hey there is 12 others int he area to raid!

2) Are we claiming here Luke always has good ideas :D :D

3) Okay the set up Army merging and splitting and the sending armies into your alliancemates cities to bolster defenses. First! We're not choosing we're prioritizing! ;)

Actually to nr 2...it wasn't exactly proposing...it was more like cracking under the pressure Timmetie put me with this idea :D

As this suggestion is now at page 10, can we have a summary of what is being proposed as I am forgetting

Can homebases be attacked if you have a city or is it then assumed you'll build youself a nice office in the city and take all your homebase stuff there?

nope, the idea is to let homebases be attacked only if you have no cities, this is because you ofcourse take all your papers, people and money to the front line.

the matter on what and how you steal the earlyer what, is what this poll and thread was about :)

ya, what i said with the scoring system would help noobs make it unfeasable to attack their homebases.

also, the hitman market? why would one do that, if you make a profit out of it, you do it yourself, if you dont, why would the noob do it? and how would a noob take all cities of the one attacking and then breach the homebase?

Fear of retaliation of course.

right, and a noob wouldnt have this problem?

but i think you've just proved my point that attacking noobs wont be as profitable.

Well noobs are more eager to take what money they can get. One of my friends has hired noobs to perform offensive scouting missions before, it gives the noob some money, and it helps keep your attack strategy on the dowlow.

*achum*

*cough*

I think it would be nice to get something if we take over a base. It would make the game a lot more challenging.

someone get this guy a city!

More than one third of this thread are Timmy's posts. And thread has three digits in number of replies. So I think coders should read this post carefully and implement things he suggested.

More than one third of this thread are Timmy's posts. And thread has three digits in number of replies. So I think coders should read this post carefully and implement things he suggested.

Oye, don't give into Timmy's hypotic (dictatorship) ways;) :p

Still against it.

Doesn't encourage newbies at all. At the moment they only way they can really get going is to save a bit of money first and here we are talking about a proposal that will let the alread-rich and powerful further rape and pillage and stop them before they even get started.

You can't tell me that's good for the game.

Good for individuals perhaps but not the big picture. Or are we trying to discourage new players?

Still against it.

Doesn't encourage newbies at all. At the moment they only way they can really get going is to save a bit of money first and here we are talking about a proposal that will let the alread-rich and powerful further rape and pillage and stop them before they even get started.

You can't tell me that's good for the game.

Good for individuals perhaps but not the big picture. Or are we trying to discourage new players?

quite the oposite, people saving without ANY way to stop them, that's bad for the game. with passive income and such, it isnt hard to get that 2500 geo's... and thats quite a lot...

For people actually playing the game, a sudden noob attack by someone who has saved 2500 geo's without EVER having to fight anyone sucks.

but only the case if the owner of the attack armies has no citiy.

yes.. for instance, a while ago i left the game. for about 2 weeks, when i came back, i retook riyadh.

when i defeat someone, you have to be able to pound em.

and 10 or 20% of someone's money a week wont kill them..

yes.. for instance, a while ago i left the game. for about 2 weeks, when i came back, i retook riyadh.

when i defeat someone, you have to be able to pound em.

and 10 or 20% of someone's money a week wont kill them..


i guess i'm one of those pesky noobs you want to pound. but getting pounded isn't fun, and jeweling for weeks isn't fun, and its not so easy to get passive income with the resource fields so full from all the new players, particularly when you start from close to nothing. luke's 1k geo distribution was a great idea.

if the game is really just for the established alliances, then make it even harder on the noobs. if you want wars, which are fun, make it easier/quicker to be competitive so people don't sit in their homebase or >10k city for a month so they don't get squashed.

if you want wars, which are fun, make it easier/quicker to be competitive

Resting my case.. As i've already said a HUNDRED times, big players wouldnt get as high as a % as small players if this goes the way i want...

So it would be noobs fighting noobs with it, and bigger players fighting bigger players with it. There, competition at the lower levels, and inmediatly a reason to have armies with having a city. Involve noobs into the game. add a new feature for the big guys. protect everyone from money saving gamewreckers who only log on for 5 minutes every 36 hours.

It's perfect and you all know it is.

i refer to my earlyer statement:

so in short, voting no makes you stupid, and possibly a homosexual. not that there's anything wrong with that, but we might wanna add a feature to put up frizzy curtains at the homebases where they all are hiding (not making the hiding in their holes joke.. not doing it.. not..).

protect everyone from money saving gamewreckers who only log on for 5 minutes every 36 hours.

This recommendation will not create conditions that prevent people from investing and saving. Nor will it lead to a natural segmentation ... n00bs against n00bs, etc.

For what it is worth, I would cast another 'No' vote if given the chance to vote twice. ;) Taking loses in my home is not tantamount to incurring a loss at the bank, my fields, wells or mines. It’s a non sequitur discussion.

… but, these are simply my two cents …

coming from a noob alliance set up to fight the NAR, this is ofcourse what you'd say..

It's been brought up again and again....what use should the homebase have?

Well...Timmetie's idea was that one should be able to steal a little bit of geo's or resources when you succesfully attack a homebase.
Succesfully means: you defeated the last army in there.
This attack could only be done once every 24 hours, and would steal a little of his geos/resources.
This would also mean that the homebase would now have a function and you would need to defend it.

Ooow this is bad... I feel there are going to be people sending 15 armies to rich homebases to repeatedly spam it every two minutes and try to steal every cent out of it...

Ooow this is bad... I feel there are going to be people sending 15 armies to rich homebases to repeatedly spam it every two minutes and try to steal every cent out of it...

i'd suggest you read the thread first? this wouldnt be possible.

i'd suggest you read the thread first? this wouldnt be possible.
Timmetie, I read the two first pages and saw you filled half of these... I know you like this idea, but I don't, because people like you, alliances like yours, that are already rich, will abuse noobs like me every single time they can.



also, what's wrong with stealing the money of the people who dont play anymore? after a while they wont have any money, and before that its a free for all grab id say.
You're going too far. A game is a game, it must be built so that people that play every ten minutes can enjoy it as much as people who play once a week, even if these last ones aren't as advanced as the first ones.


g******** people, TELL ME WHY YOU ARE VOTING AGAINST.

it is "against the little people" again? darn communists, the little people will be able to grow by raiding other little (or large) people.

is it because you're afraid you're going to lose money? It's g***** virtual money used for a WAR GAME.

let the g****** money roll people, roll over and vote yes.
Good! Prevent people from having an opinion! Is this allright to the eyes of the moderators ?
...Also, if it's 'virtual money', why should you be more envious to have more then be afraid to lose some ? You don't need any virtual money just like 'they' don't want to lose it.



I prefer the home base remain the one bastion of hope for new players.
Equally, I'm sick of hearing how little the "big guys" care for anyone's fun but their own. So we're even on that one.
That expresses what I think, too.


So... why not protect newbies (0 value, or less than 5000 troops ?) and let everyone fight someone of his level ?

ofcourse i filled half of these, i've played more internet games then you have ever missunderstood posts, and i know this is important.

You cant have people saving up, invincible, to become able to attack a big player, it seriously damages the game. and instead of a formal boundry (with like, you cant attack above 10 size ur own points) im proposing a self inflicted boundry, something that's always better, and more subtle.

What this is creating, is a way for noobs to start the fighting, and the actual playing of the game without having to save up for weeks to get to the big cities. I'd daresay i have convinced Luke of this, but he's too chicken too implement this without support, so i set out to get some for him.

Now to your posts, i am in no way denying people their opinion, if i was, i would have left this at my first post and not look back. Instead im trying to convince people that i'm right, which i am.

I do not get annoyed by people not agreeing, i get annoyed by people not agreeing for the wrong reasons, every reason you've mentioned, i have countered, after which the reason is completely abandonned. According to any rules of argument, i'd have won, so yes, this annoys me.

So stop PMing me, maby try to play the game a little, see a docter about that unfortunate sitting-on-the-broomstick-accident, and go away until you have something new to add instead of digging up older quotes of mine.

the following post includes one original use for the home base:

http://www.gewar.net/forums/showpost.php?p=7342&postcount=5

that would be so :love -ly

You cant have people saving up, invincible, to become able to attack a big player, it seriously damages the game
Do YOU read all replies completely? Because I suggested there would be a limit to the 'noob protection' to effectively prevent this.


According to any rules of argument, i'd have won, so yes, this annoys me.
Congratulations! You have succesfully intimidated other persons and destroyed their opinions!

So stop PMing me
It hurts ?

sitting-on-the-broomstick-accident
Did I insult you? How old are you? Can't you have a civilised discussion with someone?


im trying to convince people
Sorry, but 'You're all stupid', 'I'll destroy your bases', and such, are not ways of convincing people...

go away until you have something new to add instead of digging up older quotes of mine
Are you ashame of what you said ? Because you should. You have posted 50% of the 'I want to steal geos' replies in this post. About 10 people have replied they do not like the idea, and you just insult them away... There may be an even number of people who DO like the idea, and I respect this (you should, too)...

I vote to make geos possible to steal on base attacking.

But I do urge you to vote whichever way YOU feel is best after having weighed up the benefits to gameplat etc

I don't agree with people trying to influence votes. (no names mentioned, but I think you get the idea)

ofcourse i filled half of these, i've played more internet games then you have ever missunderstood posts, and i know this is important.

Discuss with reason. Check the emotion and self-aggrandizement.

i'd be happy to discuss with reason, anyone please start a discussion.

this isn't one. Until then, excuse me for not following normal rules, its not the way i talk in here unless some reasonable suggestions or problems are raised.

But as you found the courage in yourself to go complaining to Luke, ill keep it down for the forums sake.

goodbye homebase idea! i love you my baby!

There should be some reason to attack home bases, but it would have to be regulated so big powerful players couldnt just go around wiping out smaller players.

I don't like the idea of stealing resources\geos\etc, seems it might be too profitable than fighting for cities. I think just destroying the resources\geos would change the motive of such an attack. You would be weakening the enemy's economy in order to more easily take their cities. The attack itself would provide information on the player, just like attacking his armies would give you info on his troops. Your 500 troops attack his # of (you pick - oil refineries, cotton gins, jewelers bungalows, banks) you destroy 3 out of a possible 9 oil refineries. Which essentially takes out 3 wells. Yadda yadda yadda.

I suppose if you saw such an attack coming you could just transfer your geos to an alliance member... Actually that scenario makes the whole, "attacking the homebase to get\destroy geos" thing moot. Just make one guy in your alliance the cash holder with a crapload of troops in his homebase. Everyone else is essentially safe from losing too much.

ehm, as cities would still be giving passive income, and as you'd have to TAKE ALL CITIES away first, id say cities still have thesame importance?

but anyways, this thread is full of people linking stuff to having at least 1 city, or to city values.

*edit* thats another thread, the immortals one, who revived this corpse? *edit*

great ideas with the homebase..i also feel that the homebase is a white elephant taking up precious city space. so with something implemented it should turn it into something of a stratigic importance.. but tim.. i feel u sort of have the concept but i think the idea is still very raw as it has raised a lot of doubts.

1-luke says we can only attack the homebase 24hrs later... is it the attacker who canot attack within 24hrs or is it the homebase is out of bound for the next 24hrs?
2-how would u be able to steal the resources says for example i have no recources for u to steal as i just converted them into geos. and if u auto-convert it in says every 10mins.. then i do not need to defend my home base... as how much can he steal in 10mins of my resouce productions? and the next attack is 24hrs?

just some thoughts.

great ideas with the homebase..i also feel that the homebase is a white elephant taking up precious city space. so with something implemented it should turn it into something of a stratigic importance.. but tim.. i feel u sort of have the concept but i think the idea is still very raw as it has raised a lot of doubts.

1-luke says we can only attack the homebase 24hrs later... is it the attacker who canot attack within 24hrs or is it the homebase is out of bound for the next 24hrs?
2-how would u be able to steal the resources says for example i have no recources for u to steal as i just converted them into geos. and if u auto-convert it in says every 10mins.. then i do not need to defend my home base... as how much can he steal in 10mins of my resouce productions? and the next attack is 24hrs?

just some thoughts.


im not sure if i like the over all idea of stealing from homebase why not make it like

steal from their city or sumtin but not a home base

cause not many ppl have their armys stationed at a home base they usally have them at their city .

but if they dont have a city then they usally are stationed at home but yeah .


overall i would like for any of these suggestions to happen

but hey thats just me and i cant control what the admins do so if it happens well it happens

i'll just have to deal with it

hmm, ive only mentioned a weekly timer in which your homebase can be attacked, daily would ofcourse rock even more :)

o, and im hotly against stealing resources, cause a simple bot could just convert the darn things every 5 minutes, its never that much, and it wont dig into the stash of interest gathering geo's we're targetting.

I'm bringing this thread back to the surface after Timmetie mentioned it in the How To Prevent Big Savers (http://www.gewar.net/forums/showpost.php?p=31556&postcount=5) thread.

I like the idea of doing something more with the homebases but have a potential issue with the current idea.

What is stopping another member of your alliance attacking your homebase to buy you immunity from attack for a week? They would also then transfer any "spoils" of war back to your account so you will have lost nothing but gained protection?

so if there is no armies in ones homebase it cant be attacked?

I support the stealing geos and the intel would be a nice addition but not necessary. However, I would prefer that there was a limit to homebase attacking like once every two or three days. Make it random like how long it takes nuclear radiation to clear. The amount of damage to the homebase should somehow reflect the turn around time. Not sure though if heavy damage means less turn time since in reality this would cause disorganization and allow for an easier enemy attack to occur or if more damage should grant the defender a longer grace period to lick their wounds...Let the forums and timmie battle continue!

Pest

so if there is no armies in ones homebase it cant be attacked?
I think Timmeties idea is that you can attack a homebase whether it has armies in it or not. This means you would have to potentially defend your homebase as well as your cities.

My point is that alliances can use this to defend there homebases by attacking each other gaining immunity from further attacks.

Hey another twist on this, if the problem above can be fixed......

How about if you sucessfully attack someones homebase you can take some form of control over some of their armies... A bit like giving bad intel to the troops from the homebase.
This could involve sending their troops elsewhere, attacking a city with their troops, attacking another member of their alliance with their troops, abandoning cities they occupy.

What about crippling the homebase?

Instead of stealing geos from a player you shut down his homebase for X days. No army creation, no resource collection. This would mean that you have some way to strike back at those players who are just radiers from their bases but also alliances wouldn't be able to "immunize" their own party's bases since they likely don't want to shut down the system for a few days.

What about crippling the homebase?

Instead of stealing geos from a player you shut down his homebase for X days. No army creation, no resource collection. This would mean that you have some way to strike back at those players who are just radiers from their bases but also alliances wouldn't be able to "immunize" their own party's bases since they likely don't want to shut down the system for a few days.
I like the sound of that. :)
The homebase would still need to be granted some form of immuity once it comes back online otherwise it could get re-attacked once it has recovered from the previous one and the player would never get back into the game.

Or even better.... You get control of the homebase for a random number of minutes. During this time you can move as many of there troops around as you can in the time permitted.

What about crippling the homebase?

Instead of stealing geos from a player you shut down his homebase for X days. No army creation, no resource collection. This would mean that you have some way to strike back at those players who are just radiers from their bases but also alliances wouldn't be able to "immunize" their own party's bases since they likely don't want to shut down the system for a few days.

This whole idea of attacking someone's base is not right. It will cripple all the new players. All a "veteran" player has to do is send 10-15 armies around new players bases every day and keep getting geos/resources from them. Unless you have different stages where all players are somewhat comparable and at the same level, this idea will make the game very hard for everyone just starting. ;ranting

This whole idea of attacking someone's base is not right. It will cripple all the new players. All a "veteran" player has to do is send 10-15 armies around new players bases every day and keep getting geos/resources from them. Unless you have different stages where all players are somewhat comparable and at the same level, this idea will make the game very hard for everyone just starting. ;ranting
THere's another feature coming in the "New GEWar" called 'levels.' It will seperate teh n00bs from teh warlords.

THere's another feature coming in the "New GEWar" called 'levels.' It will seperate teh n00bs from teh warlords.

I have heard of that, thinking about it, even then it would mean kicking someone once he is down. If someone has no cities, generally that's when he is weak and has little power/geos/resources, if he is your enemy you could potentially keep harrassing him every 2-3 days and make sure he can;t get back up... that would really suck if you are the fellow inside the base...

Hmm wesleys, a problem indeed but one with a solution. You steal 5% but only 2.5% you get yourself (remember that all numbers named are fully fictional).

And of it damaging noobs, well, that's just nonsense. Noobs will just have to protect their homebases with more troop worth than the 2.5% you can steal, and if they do that noone in their right minds will attack them continuously.

Even more so, in the current game one has to save for weeks/months to get way up, even if you're a very active player. This way you'd be able to wage war with your fellow noobs, get money from them and basically climb to the top on their shoulders.

And even more so, i also asked for a simple ranking system that would further discourage attacking noobs..

Now on a general note:

I still think this idea would rock. It would force people to instate huge armies. But what would you do to support these armies? indeed, take cities and raid other people's homebases but they'll be doing thesame ofcourse.
The game will be more based around cash flow than cash reserves, no inactive players would suddenly jump up and take over the world, some real tactics would come into play etcetera.

Even the problem of the too big players and alliances could be solved. Let's say i was a moderately rich person, id never attack a rich alliance now cause they'd just get everything back.

Not so with homebase stealage! Id take their cities, raid their homebase, steal their money and use to money to hold the cities. This ofcourse becomes even more fun in alliances, giving new players a real good chance.

In conclusion, this would make sure the active, networked and smart playing people get to first place, not the inactive, self-centered savers :).

Ah yes bacterius, one could do that. But you'd only be able to steal like 5% of someone's banked money once a week, so if the one under attack is not a complete moron he'd just make troops and troops and attack you back.

And i think it's good that you could just defeat someone. If i were to attack someone with 400k geo's and take their cities, nothing would force them to come out and fight. they could just sit their and wait forever, that is wrongery people! some risk has to be involved in a war game.

And to the cripling of the homebase idea, and things like that. I like them, but i still think there should be a way of taking someone's banked geo's. as they are completely safe now.

Maby make the cripling etc a payed for troop type, get the army there alive and you criple the homebase.

I've readed almost all the long thread, and I consider myself a noob, yet.
I normally have this "kamikase" style of attack with all my Geos ("Softing" the defenses for someone else come and take the city that I had attacked), that you're deffending, Timmetie. And this doesn't work (At least doesn't work WITHOUT an alliance).
Jewelling to conquer a city, with the actual game, and with tha actual defenses, doesn't worth. 10k to 15k troops is hard for a newbie to get. This to CONQUER one small city. What more to keep it?
This goes more then "20 minutes per day".

What's more "normal"?
A big player come to control no cities (And then the mechanism proposed in this thread becames available)?
Or a noob that doesn't hold cities becames an "easy target", or a "target of convenience"?

Maybe thinking only on the risk of someone (lets say: a little number of players) stay sitted "geoing" is less then the risk for the noobs (That MAYBE are a lot of number of players).

But I'm a stupid newbie... Don't read my words... :D :D :D :D :D

(...)they could just sit their and wait forever(...)

well, let me just repeat myself again.

If you're a noob, you dont have mone for the big ones to steal. If you have money, you start attacking either other people's homebases, or cities.

This will simply force people to stay moving as to speak, and give noobs a better chance of joining the arena.

Randomly attacking noobs around you would suck for bigger players as well, lets say i attack 50 random noobs. Well id have gotten 5% of each etc, but i'd have made enemies out of them and their 95% could still hurt me..

Hmm wesleys, a problem indeed but one with a solution. You steal 5% but only 2.5% you get yourself (remember that all numbers named are fully fictional)
I do like the idea of attacking homebases and this certainly would solve my issue with it.
There may be some other issues that will need sorting but i'm for it. ;drunk
Damn, can't change my vote. :mad:

I thinkd this is reasonably well thought out and relevant to the thread, MOds fell free to move it if it belongs elsewhere. Thought up by Wes, Me and the Band

City-bank interest and investment system

Assumptions:
"Available Geos" becomes homebase bank.
Every city has a bank.
Anyone (with a city) can invest in any other city's bank

Investor Interest Calculation:
1. Interest is variable based on the length of time a city is owned, rising over time to a fixed limit.
2. Homebase bank interest is fixed and lower than interest paid by cities.
3. The rate of rise (not the rate of interest) is based on the city's risk- calculted on a formula based how many troops are killed defending it over a period of time. More risk, faster rate.

Owner Interest Calculation:
1. City owner gets 5% of the investment interest of the city.

Penalties/Bonuses:
1. Interest rate is reset to zero or a very low rate when a city changes hands.
2. Conqueror gets one day's interest from the investments in that city's bank, paid out of the investor's funds.

Access to Funds:
1. Investors can move money from city to city to get better interest. BUT, a transfer penalty is paid to the originating city
2. The number of transfers allowed per day is tied to the number of cities the investor owns, i.e. no cities, no transfers.
3. Purchases in the store, troops, and resources can all be paid for from any bank, no transfer required.
4. Troops are always paid/fed from the homebase bank.
5. Resources are always paid to the homebase bank.

Risk/Benefit.
Assuming the formulae can be balanced out.

Owner risk- loses city, income from city as we do now
Owner benefit - It becomes more profitable to own cities longer as interest increases, the city it not as attractive to attack right after you take it because of the takeover interest payment.

Attacker Risk - your troops, attacking the city make it's risk go up so it's interest increases faster.
Attacker Benefit - The one-day's interest bonus means that you want to attack cities that have been owned for a while.

Investor risk - you lose a day's interest and your rate goes down when a city changes hands
Investor Benefit - If you can own a city for a long time you can make a better interest on your money

Homebase rules:
If your homebase is defeated you lose your homebase bank, but troops in homebase should get a hefty home-field advantage. an wncourage ment to diversify and invest in other cities.

Possible abuse-
Attacking your own or aliance member's cities to speed interest.
Possible solution -
Set rates so that this is not profitable.

Possible abuse-
Repeatedly attacking players home base
Possible Solution
Home-field advantage mentioned before

Wow, i like it.

I assume you want to get wrid of the world bank then?

I really do like it, you're money would always be vulnerable but you could spread it. You could make money by putting 500k in a city and advertising it.

Just a small adition regarding the homebase fund stealing itself, i think that should only be possible when you do not have cities or it becomes too big a handicap for the bigger players, i'd like to hear if you agree.

that way i dont think you'd need a homeground advantage, but a 2 day timer or something in which you cant steal it would be nice.

great work!

Dang...a bolt of inspiration strikes.

Great work guys!!!!! I love it!!! and with Tim's addition....I think it would work great.

2. Conqueror gets one day's interest from the investments in that city's bank, paid out of the investor's funds.

I like this, but city income-troop upkeep is going to be zero, and then what’s the point? Cities are supposed to provide income, NOT be a vulnerability and a risk (In my opinion). If you thought cities are hard to get now, imagine when large players put 100k troops in every city to protect their geo investments. I believe that if this was implemented, the game’s focus would once again shift heavily towards interest rather than owning cities for profit.

Also, I don’t believe strong players should be penalized for having a fear factor which detracts the number of attacks on their cities. Instead of calculating the “risk factor” through attacks, the “risk factor” should be based on city value. Big players are going to put more geos in their largest city, and at the same time spend more on troops. This will also give another advantage to owning a large city.

I am for the homebase idea, but I can’t come up with a solution for the “attack timer”. If there is a lot of money in a homebase, large players will get hits on their homebase for invulnerability. Even if the timer is based on size of the attack, it will be worth it to spend 5k geos a week to protect against the loss of money and the necessity to keep a large amount of troops there.


I have a different suggestion for homebases that ties in with City Infrastructure: Make each homebase a city.with a small initial income, say 50 geos per day plus bank interest. Homebases can be upgraded and their income would be fluctuating, maybe something like 1/2 total city income plus whatever upgrades. Just like cities, you can lose your homebase. If your homebase is taken, you initially lose 5% of your money. While the person occupies your homebase, they get certain statistics about you, such as total number of troops, amount of money, etc. They also receive your homebases income plus 5% of your daily income each day.. You can, obviously, retake your homebase. Where your troops would spawn, I am not sure yet. This system requires savers to defend their homebases well.


I realize that there are many ways to make this system work; my idea is just an idea after all.

If you thought cities are hard to get now, imagine when large players put 100k troops in every city to protect their geo investments.
One of the things that I discussed with Georover, was that the more money invested into a city the less interest it earns. Similar to how the bank interests are calculated currently.

So the interest will be based on: city risk and current investment value.

This way it will stop the larger alliances/players putting all their money into one city to push the interest rate up and then, like you say, defend the city with 100k troops to protect their investment.
I liked the idea when geoRover first mentioned it to me and we evolved it to pretty much what he has posted. There maybe a few tweaks needed but it may be a good starting point for a new addition to the game.

I assume you want to get wrid of the world bank then?
Either get rid of it or make it's interest very low, your money there would be safe but unprofitable.

I like this, but city income-troop upkeep is going to be zero, and then what’s the point? Cities are supposed to provide income, NOT be a vulnerability and a risk (In my opinion).

Cities should still generate tax revenue, the interest is just a one-time bonus to help recoup costs of conquerage and encourage attacks. Troop upkeep would remain as it is.

Also the fear-factor works both ways because of the bonus for taking a city, the bigger the investment in the city, the bigger the bonus = more attacks = more interest to attract investors = more investment = more bonus = more attacks = more interest ...

Dang...a bolt of inspiration strikes. I'll pass that on to Wes and the Band :)

A note regarding hombase stealage. To protect noobs and very small players, make the homebase "invisible" until the player reaches X geos or owns a city. Once they own a city they can diversify, but to keep them from hoarding put them on the radar when they hit 1000 geos, more than enough to take a city.

=Geo

I voted against but I think that you have had a great idea there!!!!!!!

saying that it would cost more cause people would protect their cities better is silly.

Cause at the moment i could defend a large city like riyadh with about 1000 geo's, everone knowing i'd try to take it back with all i have, i do not need to put in all i have..

whereas here you'd really need to invest to defend your assets, and ofcourse the troopcosts would be dragging you down.