Update Update 1.41

[DeletedUser96867]

Unfortunately as we have discovered, the alternative is players being unable to load army management or in some cases, unable to load their game at all. Too many units can unfortunately cause this to happen.

Unfortunately this is once again due to extremely poor game design. As we know these situations arise from large numbers of unattached units, which are not allocated to a specific military building. As such each unattached unit does not always need to be it's own entity but could simply be on a numerical stack (1 for each unit type and age). When selected for use the stacks count is decreased by 1 and a unit as we know it is added to our unit list.

Not only would this simple, and obvious design eliminate solve the current issue, but also go a long way to reduce army management lag for those with well below the 2000 limit, and greatly reduce the need for the very long DEMANDED unattached unit filter.

Why is it the devs never implement the simple solutions which often solve multiple problems at the same time?

As Starzaan mentioned, the main reason the devs are doing this is because army management and the game performance will slow. If they could find a fix for this, I would assume they would lift this limit.

The solution has already been found and suggested a long time ago! A solution which is obvious to someone who only has a couple years(school) of coding experience 15 years ago!



I'll add one of the problems is if you reach your unit limit with too many units of the wrong age. Then you have the enjoyable task of going through and deleting maybe hundreds of units 1x1 to free up space.

Little bit of math. We now have 10 gvg ages each with 5 units. If you are trying to maintain units of all ages&types to take part in gvg, 2000 total units would equate to 40 of each units. 40 units don't last long in gvg.

 

[DeletedUser5180]

Little bit of math. We now have 10 gvg ages each with 5 units. If you are trying to maintain units of all ages&types to take part in gvg, 2000 total units would equate to 40 of each units. 40 units don't last long in gvg.

this is what i was trying to point out in an earlier post (but didn't have time to do the maths)

Really at the end of the day how quickly you could use the max allowed units is irrelevant. the whole point now is that Alcatraz will not function as intended UNLESS YOU CONTINUALLY USE UP YOUR TROOPS if you have reached the imposed limit.

Alcatraz is the largest building in the game (70 tiles) and for it to be rendered useless for some players (those that have many many thousands of fps invested in it) is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[DeletedUser7719]

I'll add one of the problems is if you reach your unit limit with too many units of the wrong age. Then you have the enjoyable task of going through and deleting maybe hundreds of units 1x1 to free up space.

Weird, I thought I mentioned that on my last reply :p

Little bit of math. We now have 10 gvg ages each with 5 units. If you are trying to maintain units of all ages&types to take part in gvg, 2000 total units would equate to 40 of each units. 40 units don't last long in gvg.

I use at most 3 different units per era, and I highly doubt you fight in all ages (even if you do, why wouldn't you use rogues?), but I won't argue much against it as I am still not for a cap with regards to limiting the number of units a player can have (only for the performance perspective)

 

[Decoder]

I wonder how many people have music on?!

 

[DeletedUser4879]

I wonder how many people have music on?!

Is that what it's called? If Mozart had a grave, he would turn a lot!!....:confused:

 

[DeletedUser98465]

I wonder how many people have music on?!

Never had it on in over a year...No interest in ridiculous lift music

 

[DeletedUser96901]

nothing wrong with a cap. 2000 are a lot of armies and you cannot spend them. If you cannot use them in fight, you don't need that many. An army cap is absolutely a great idea to save gameplay.

being able to have an uncapped Alcatraz but not having uncapped troops IS wrong

and sure this wasn't a great idea: I found a MUCH MUCH better one in how long do we know it ?? less than 12 hours.
so how long did the developers think about a solution ?? and the best they have found was a cap ???

the devs don't know how to make the game work if you have 2500 units.

they are stumbling blindly from one fiasco to another

I will post my idea now to make it possible without slowing down the system and have unlimited units again

done: here is an idea which could store unlimited numbers again without slowing down the game

 

[DeletedUser9614]

I like the idea of cap limit.
+1

 

[DeletedUser96901]

I like the idea of cap limit.
+1

will you also like it when another GB will be capped in the future
this time the cap limit is for Alcatraz

I have ideas:
* goods cap: also at 2000. if you have so much of one good you can't get more of that good
* happiness cap from all GB you have: 20000. you should build cultural buildings and deco and not have a city which only uses happiness from Great Buildings (like: you should use units and not collect them) :p
* FP cap: you can't get collect more than 20 from one building. OR you can't use more than 100 per day

 

[ddevil]

I seriously think HA is the one thats causing all or most of the major issues in the game ...and i dont understand the reason why the dev's are so persistent in making their customers use it compulsorily even when players are complaining of the game becoming slow because of that ... Dont remember the game having this many issues before the HA was forced on us...by the way Wasn't the HA forced on us saying it will reduce the load on the servers ??

Also there's been an issue of memory leakage too which I believe has to do with the coding...So instead of finding solutions to how to control the memory leakage and making the HA switched off the dev's are opting for the easiest way of putting a cap on everything in the game ... They capped the daily visits by adding the AID feature ...Now they are capping the no. of units in Army management ....What will they do once after capping the units in Army management they find the game's still taking up a lot of memory ?? maybe cap PVP also to only 20-30 fights day per player?? And after that ?? Cap GvG fights per day ??? this way everything in the game has to capped / limited so that the game does not take huge memory and will be playable... what i find really funny is that one end they are saying they are capping the units in Army management due to memory usage, server load etc etc and on the other end they are introducing more animations into the game .... I always thought animations takes up more memory and load on the server ?? Or Am I wrong in my thinking?? and i dont think anybody would have anyways complained for not seeing any of the bunnies or birds in their city...

The dev's should have foreseen these issues even before bringing in all those features ..they should have had a contingency strategy if the game starts to take more memory or overloading the server as it advances ... I am sure anybody would get an idea when its being tested out how it will be as the game advances on a live server with a huge player base ... its not right to penalize your customers / player-base just because the game dev's did not plan / think of these issues beforehand and also do not have any clue or idea to solve the memory leakage / server load issues ...

 

[DeletedUser2989]

Unfortunately this is once again due to extremely poor game design. As we know these situations arise from large numbers of unattached units, which are not allocated to a specific military building. As such each unattached unit does not always need to be it's own entity but could simply be on a numerical stack (1 for each unit type and age). When selected for use the stacks count is decreased by 1 and a unit as we know it is added to our unit list.

Not only would this simple, and obvious design eliminate solve the current issue, but also go a long way to reduce army management lag for those with well below the 2000 limit, and greatly reduce the need for the very long DEMANDED unattached unit filter.

Why is it the devs never implement the simple solutions which often solve multiple problems at the same time?

The solution has already been found and suggested a long time ago! A solution which is obvious to someone who only has a couple years(school) of coding experience 15 years ago!

That idea sounds familiar, however I can't find it (possibly never made it into the ideas section...).

If they were able to stack the units in such a way in the army management it would most likely require the army management window to be recoded (depending on the current coding and it's limits), however I do agree that would be very useful. Acknowledging Test Ament's idea linked above I'm now wondering if such a stack in the inventory would be sufficient or if it's worth pushing to try and get another new army management window that has the units stacked. One idea seems like less work and somewhat effective but not quite as efficient (and convenient) as the other... :confused:

 

[DeletedUser97205]

Can we have a way to easily delete units then? Doing one at a time is going to take forever if you are hundreds!

 

[DeletedUser653]

I don't care about bunnies and deers in my city..I have been working hard to get my Alcatraz leveled up many levels....

....and ultimately all that work turns out to be for nothing....

Mr Beef you have a wonderful ways with words and I 100% agree with you +1

 

[DeletedUser653]

As Starzaan mentioned, the main reason the devs are doing this is because army management and the game performance will slow. If they could find a fix for this, I would assume they would lift this limit.

In saying this, how fast would you spend 2000 units? (Including the gain from Alcatraz + military buildings). With a level 52 Alcatraz, it would take about 40 days to reach the limit and even spending 64 units a day (eight armies in GvG a day), it would take 2000/(64-50) = a little more than a 142 days to deplete all your units (and if you have at least 3 military buildings + 2 rogue/Champion camps, you would gain as much as you loose (if you collect from military buildings at least 4x a day), so you would never spend all the units).

Byeordie,
I lost about 50 attached 150 unattached and about 200 rogues (50% dead or killed) in 2 days about 3 weeks ago in taking 8 sectors across contemp age/PME and then fighting off about 50 sieges, some of which we lost. I would have lost more but I ran out of troops. Remember a unit does not have to be killed for it to be as good as dead and needing to be replaced in an army. The other thing to think about is those 8 sectors took 512 troops to fill with defence. so its not too difficult to use more then 64 units in a day.

 

[DeletedUser96901]

and it is not difficult to get 2000 units :p
so why should I be forced to stop recruiting more ?
or forced to lose them in battles ?

because the programmers aren't good enough to find a good solution of this problem on their own?

they gave us Alcatraz to get UNLIMITED troops and the opportunity to get them really fast with UNLIMITED levels
but now they say: no its over at 2000 because that is the best we can do to keep the performance at an acceptable level

if I would be the boss of a software company and someone comes with such a solution I would fire his ass

 

[DeletedUser5180]

Byeordie,
I lost about 50 attached 150 unattached and about 200 rogues (50% dead or killed) in 2 days about 3 weeks ago in taking 8 sectors across contemp age/PME and then fighting off about 50 sieges, some of which we lost. I would have lost more but I ran out of troops. Remember a unit does not have to be killed for it to be as good as dead and needing to be replaced in an army. The other thing to think about is those 8 sectors took 512 troops to fill with defence. so its not too difficult to use more then 64 units in a day.

this scenario is exactly what problems are to be encountered now

 

[DeletedUser15526]

are we going to recieve a warning when we are close to the threshold, because i really do not fancy counting my troops everyday.

or perhaps a counter on army management saying e.g 1500/2000, so we now where we are.

a counter of each unit type would also help alot, we could then delete appropriate units to balance the books.

i bet they did not think of putting any of the above in tho to help us :p

 

[DeletedUser99588]

Unfortunately this is once again due to extremely poor game design. As we know these situations arise from large numbers of unattached units, which are not allocated to a specific military building. As such each unattached unit does not always need to be it's own entity but could simply be on a numerical stack (1 for each unit type and age). When selected for use the stacks count is decreased by 1 and a unit as we know it is added to our unit list.

Not only would this simple, and obvious design eliminate solve the current issue, but also go a long way to reduce army management lag for those with well below the 2000 limit, and greatly reduce the need for the very long DEMANDED unattached unit filter.

Why is it the devs never implement the simple solutions which often solve multiple problems at the same time?

This seems a great idea. Would you select the stack to see the contents to be able to choose least damaged unit? Also would you have different stacks for the attached and unattached of the same unit type so you could select easily whichever type you needed?

 

[Addonexus]

maybe a better solution for this to make a limit on how many units are displayed at once. lets say for every 1000 units you have, you will get a different page. also make filtering better, so when you load the army, it should only load your current age units by default, something similar like when in a certain gvg map, so if you want units from lower age, you will just change it. hopefully it will make the game much easier to load this way

 

[DeletedUser96867]

That idea sounds familiar, however I can't find it (possibly never made it into the ideas section...).

If they were able to stack the units in such a way in the army management it would most likely require the army management window to be recoded (depending on the current coding and it's limits), however I do agree that would be very useful. Acknowledging Test Ament's idea linked above I'm now wondering if such a stack in the inventory would be sufficient or if it's worth pushing to try and get another new army management window that has the units stacked. One idea seems like less work and somewhat effective but not quite as efficient (and convenient) as the other... :confused:

Being able to move units out of army management to inventory would require changes to the coding of the army management window anyhow. I don't see how stacking the units in the army management could require any more coding than stacking the units in inventory. Stacking them in inventory would also require the additional coding for the process of moving the units back and forth from one game element to the other. Depending on the existing coding in place I would think that moving units back and forth between army management and inventory would perhaps be the most difficult part to code.

This seems a great idea. Would you select the stack to see the contents to be able to choose least damaged unit? Also would you have different stacks for the attached and unattached of the same unit type so you could select easily whichever type you needed?

I would leave the attached units displayed as they currently are. Since each unit is assigned to a military building slot they are not equal and would be more difficult to stack. As well these units are not a concern because who has more than maybe about 100 attached units in total????

The unattached units would each be stacked by age and unit type(believe that is currently a max of 67 stacks) ONLY full health units would be on a stack otherwise each individual unattached unit would still need it's own unit aspects which would have to tracked individually(that would accomplish nothing other than reducing the display burden). When you select a 'unit' off a unattached stake only than is an instance of that unit actually added to the management window which would have to be tracked and processed as a normal unit. Unattached units which are damaged would remain individually displayed units. On opening the army management window as it begins displaying your units any unattached units which were damaged but are now fully healed would be added back to the unit stack. If deselecting a undamaged unattached unit from either your defense or selected attack army it would immediately be added back to the unattached stack(of that unit age/type)

NOte: The army management window would appear exactly the same as it currently does except a large number of the same unattached(undamaged) units being displayed individually would now appear as a single icon with a number count on them.

Under this scenario the game would only have to track a max of say 100 attached units, the 67 types of unattached units, and any temporarily damaged unattached unit. This would vastly improvement the performance, efficiency, and unability of the army management feature for those with far less than the current proposed 2000 limit, even those with a couple hundred units would likely experience improvement.

It would also basically solve the entire unattached filter issue.