• Dear forum reader,
    To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account you need a forum account. You can
    REGISTER HERE!
    Please ensure a translation in to English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
  • We are looking for you!
    Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
    Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
    Apply
  • Fall Event 2021


    Calling all Bakers! Read all about the Fall Event 2021 here!
  • Forum Contests

    Do you want to win great prizes? Don't forget to check out the current contest here.

Update Update 1.41

  • Thread starter DeletedUser97349
  • Start date

DeletedUser97883

I'm not a programmer, but I cannot understand how spending their time on fancy little tweaks can be considered less wasteful than rewriting a part of the code that is really impractical for the current version of the game, and causes endless headaches for the players - as well as the coders themselves, trying to work with an outdated code. I realise that rewriting is probably a lot of work, but it should be considered an investment for the future: solving many problems now AND accommodating future changes better. Avoiding that and trying to work with the current code when it's clearly no longer suitable for the game sounds very short-sighted.

From a clueless player's point of view, the longer I play this game, the stronger my impression that the programmers working on this are simply incompetent. Perhaps they have good reasons for their actions, but if so, those reasons are not very well relayed to us, and what little we hear through Star rarely sounds very well thought out. It's always band-aid upon band-aid, rarely touching the root of the problem.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser2989

Units are intended for battle.
GvG allows for a lot of battles, it is intended that we can fight in multiple eras using era specific troops.
As people keep pointing out, using math no less, there are a lot of varieties of units to use. Most would agree that to be effective in GvG one needs to be able to use all the different types of units for that era.

In order to wipe out a well established enemy in say 5 or 6 eras in one day would require more than 2000 units. (lets see, 80 defending armies, even at minimal losses would be say 15 of your armies dead which is 120 units dead, for say average of 8 sectors would be 960 dead units per age, times that by 5 ages and oh, well over 2,000!) Thanks to the auto battle feature, it is completely reasonable that one person could do this if they had enough units. Thanks to ghosting it is completely reasonable that someone would want to wipe out an enemy by themselves. Thanks to rogues, completely reasonable to attack in all eras every day if you have the opponents.

I think that disproves your quote.



except for, as stated above, saving them for something really big and epic to happen... destroy 1 sector in GvG? No big loss, save up enough units to destroy all the sectors that guild owns in GvG in one day, yeah that is a big loss.
So far the reason for having 2000 plus units would seem to be the following:
1) So ghosts/demo guilds can do what they do best
2) So that you can respond to a siege in every era using any combo of units
3) So that you can collect units that add to and ever increasing pool which will get to the point where some of what you just collected won't be used. (essentially the whole "alcatraz is useless once it gives more than the cap" situation)

I may have missed some reasons but I'll add them if people point them out after this post.

1) We already know that Inno doesn't want ghost guilds to exist so this is yet another action that restricts their abilities (not 100% effective on it's own I know but it does somewhat impact their effectiveness).
2) Is it reasonable to expect that every player should be allowed to respond to sieges in EVERY age with any combo of troops they want? Personally it might add a bit more to the tactics and planning guilds go through if each member can only retain enough troops to cover a few ages at the same time. Another side to it is we now each have the exact same limit to the troops we can get, we know that a single player can't cover all ages alone (they'll need to work as a team). So suddenly all those guilds that own sectors in every age are much more appealing targets as they are now bound to have weak spots. No more infinite troops to be able to retaliate regardless of the age attacked.
3) Your Alcatraz would have to give you more than 2000 unattached units per day for it to technically be constricted by this unit cap. All it means (assuming you get your alcatraz to such a point) is that you no longer need to care if your troops live or not, because the very next day your alcatraz will bring your troop total back up to the full amount. Sure as it gets to the higher levels you might miss 1 or 2 (and as it gets higher more and more) collections but it just means that as soon as your pool of troops drops to below 2000 you can instantly top it up (once again adding to the whole "no fear" idea behind using troops)

Edit: the above are NOT the core reason for the cap (which is the game stops working with too many troops), they are side effects of bringing in the cap. So this post is about are these side effects actually bad? or is it that a cap for solely the above reasons is bad?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser96901

you know that this will increase not decrease ghost guilding

reason is simple:
what should someone do when he reaches 2000 or even worse: the people who already have more than 2500 ???
a) nothing: only stop recruiting units
b) make a ghost guild and get rid of the units

so this will force many players who maybe would never uses their units into ghost guilds

so what is worse?
- a few players who decides with 4000: now it would point for my own ghost guild
- many players with 2000 units with the only option to make a ghost guild

:rolleyes:

2) So that you can respond to a siege in every era using any combo of units
you can already respond to every siege in every era with less than 1000 units :p
a few units of each age (lets say 100 in total for all ages) + 900 rogues

but maybe you simply don't know
fighting with 7 rogues and one correct unit (easy because after the first fight you know what awaits you as siege army. and the first fight you can abort) is much better than any combo of 8 regular units :p

3) So that you can collect units that add to and ever increasing pool which will get to the point where some of what you just collected won't be used. (essentially the whole "alcatraz is useless once it gives more than the cap" situation)
people also collects and never uses other things (I have many useless buildings in my inventory)

or what is with coins and supplies ?
today is a good day to spend my 350 million supplies
no I sure never will use them: how about capping coins / supplies

or medals: when can someone uses his 500000 medals ??

capping because someone don't use it as an excuse for not being able to find a better solution is a disappointment
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser99588

So far the reason for having 2000 plus units would seem to be the following:
1) So ghosts/demo guilds can do what they do best
2) So that you can respond to a siege in every era using any combo of units
3) So that you can collect units that add to and ever increasing pool which will get to the point where some of what you just collected won't be used. (essentially the whole "alcatraz is useless once it gives more than the cap" situation)

I may have missed some reasons but I'll add them if people point them out after this post.

1) We already know that Inno doesn't want ghost guilds to exist so this is yet another action that restricts their abilities (not 100% effective on it's own I know but it does somewhat impact their effectiveness).
2) Is it reasonable to expect that every player should be allowed to respond to sieges in EVERY age with any combo of troops they want? Personally it might add a bit more to the tactics and planning guilds go through if each member can only retain enough troops to cover a few ages at the same time. Another side to it is we now each have the exact same limit to the troops we can get, we know that a single player can't cover all ages alone (they'll need to work as a team). So suddenly all those guilds that own sectors in every age are much more appealing targets as they are now bound to have weak spots. No more infinite troops to be able to retaliate regardless of the age attacked.
3) Your Alcatraz would have to give you more than 2000 unattached units per day for it to technically be constricted by this unit cap. All it means (assuming you get your alcatraz to such a point) is that you no longer need to care if your troops live or not, because the very next day your alcatraz will bring your troop total back up to the full amount. Sure as it gets to the higher levels you might miss 1 or 2 (and as it gets higher more and more) collections but it just means that as soon as your pool of troops drops to below 2000 you can instantly top it up (once again adding to the whole "no fear" idea behind using troops)
Now I'm getting confused. Is the introduction of the 2000 cap due to technical reasons or changing the mechanics of the game because of GvG.

Firstly, alternative ways of managing military units has been suggested and from what I can gather the only real reason for not implementing is the developers do not have time. Well they have time to add animations and other additions rather than working on major issues with the game. Seems to me they are working on stuff that interests them rather than improving the players gaming experience.

Secondly, the idea that this will have any significant impact on ghost guilding is ludicrous. The bottom line is the army management system is no longer fit for purpose. The game has grown and now the army management system needs to grow with it.

There are technical solutions to the problem the only thing missing is the willingness to implement them.
 

DeletedUser97349

Blaming the graphic designers for not working on issues with game mechanics you're unhappy with is not really reasonable, that's not their job :)

The reason for the cap is that it is necessary to avoid game breaking issues, and as there seems no real reason to need more than 2000 units, it is the logical solution.
 

DeletedUser96901

The reason for the cap is that it is necessary to avoid game breaking issues, and as there seems no real reason to need more than 2000 units, it is the logical solution.
the logical solution would: make the customers happy

and you find a solution that can be implemented without changing the army management basics in my signature

btw when will other things be capped
because there will be no real reason to need more than xy of coins/supplies/medals/whatever

and for the work: we can 2 weeks longer for the next era
and if your programmers are not good enough to do that solution in 2 weeks you really should fire them
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser2989

you know that this will increase not decrease ghost guilding

reason is simple:
what should someone do when he reaches 2000 or even worse: the people who already have more than 2500 ???
a) nothing: only stop recruiting units
b) make a ghost guild and get rid of the units

so this will force many players who maybe would never uses their units into ghost guilds

so what is worse?
- a few players who decides with 4000: now it would point for my own ghost guild
- many players with 2000 units with the only option to make a ghost guild

:rolleyes:
This would be a short term effect assuming people aren't content to just let their Alcatraz sit there for the day they may need to collect to bump their troops back up. Is it worth being locked out of your guild for 7 days to go on a meaningless ghosting campaign just so that you can keep collecting from your Alcatraz?

you can already respond to every siege in every era with less than 1000 units :p
a few units of each age (lets say 100 in total for all ages) + 900 rogues

but maybe you simply don't know
fighting with 7 rogues and one correct unit (easy because after the first fight you know what awaits you as siege army) is much better than any combo of 8 regular units :p
Ah but that isn't "any possible combo" and even it has limits, for example right now you can both respond to sieges against you and have unattached troops (not rogues) to instantly recover. If you only hold onto a few of the "real" troops you need to rely on your other guild members to build back up the defenses.

people also collects and never uses other things (I have many useless buildings in my inventory)

or what is with coins and supplies ?
today is a good day to spend my 350 million supplies
no I sure never will use them: how about capping coins / supplies

or medals: when can someone uses his 500000 medals ??

capping because someone don't use it as an excuse for not being able to find a better solution is a disappointment
The actual reason for the cap is not because unlimited troops is pointless, it is simply a side effect that we are no longer able to build up pointless numbers of troops. If possessing large numbers (and to some point pointless amounts) of those other things you mentioned introduced technical difficulties then surely a limit on those wouldn't be bad. The point of the cap would be to ensure the game keeps running, the side effect is you now have to spend/use things you were not planning to spend/use.

Now I'm getting confused. Is the introduction of the 2000 cap due to technical reasons or changing the mechanics of the game because of GvG.

Secondly, the idea that this will have any significant impact on ghost guilding is ludicrous. The bottom line is the army management system is no longer fit for purpose. The game has grown and now the army management system needs to grow with it.
I'm sorry for causing confusion, the core reason (possibly the only actual reason) is due to technical reasons. However with most changes to the game it has side effects which I was looking into.
 

DeletedUser96901

If possessing large numbers (and to some point pointless amounts) of those other things you mentioned introduced technical difficulties
so the the real reason:
bad work in the past and not willing to find a solution that makes the customers happy

thanks for letting us know that

but how would be the world if for every problem the easiest way out would have been chosen
and not a good solution

btw:
you can find a solution that would also increase the speed for the people with many units in my signature
(moving already existing units to inventory would make the army management faster)

the core reason (possibly the only actual reason) is due to technical reasons
and that technical reason makes my solution impossible to implement ???

The point of the cap would be to ensure the game keeps running
a good other solution would also ensure the game keeps running :rolleyes:

but thinking less than 1 minute gave them only the cap-solution
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser2989

so the the real reason:
bad work in the past and not willing to find a solution that makes the customers happy

thanks for letting us know that

but how would be the world if for every problem the easiest way out would have been chosen
and not a good solution

btw:
you can find a solution that would also increase the speed for the people with many units in my signature
(moving already existing units to inventory would make the army management faster)


and that technical reason makes my solution impossible to implement ???


a good other solution would also ensure the game keeps running :rolleyes:

but thinking less than 1 minute gave them only the cap-solution
Not that I'm aware of, I'm not privy to what parts of the game have what limitations (any more than the average player) so I wouldn't know if your inventory idea will run into the same sort of technical issues. As such it is why I supported your idea :) it negates the side effects of the cap and somewhat restores the game to a similar state to what it was.

Realistically you could have both the unit cap and the inventory solution running at the same time. The cap would prevent people from slowing their game play if they chose to "unpack" lots of troops and the Inventory idea would allow people to store up lots of troops in a more compact manner.

If implemented I'd loose the knowledge that all players have their troop limits (and thus attacking other guilds in GvG goes back to the undesirable side of things) but other things may come to liven up GvG and I'm prepared to wait for that.
 

DeletedUser15432

Well, I know for sure that currently the capping issue on Alcatraz will not bother me as I tend to use the troops I have and therefore my increase might be 1 or 2 units per week in one week or I might have a net decrease in available units for the same period and this is with a level 13 Alcatraz throwing me 11 units every day
 

DeletedUser99588

Blaming the graphic designers for not working on issues with game mechanics you're unhappy with is not really reasonable, that's not their job
Graphic designers may draw the animations but their implementation into the city I would imagine would need the coders or do they magically make it into the game.

The reason for the cap is that it is necessary to avoid game breaking issues, and as there seems no real reason to need more than 2000 units, it is the logical solution.
There isn't anything logical about this solution. The logical solution would be to address the army management failings for the long term benefit of the game.

Capping is a lazy solution. It means very little effort went into resolving the issue. I'm guessing they have decided to work on the filtering and sorting of the army management system and have found it to be slow due to the potential quantity of military units. So instead of some lateral thinking and coming up with alternative ways of displaying and storing the units they just think oh well lets just restrict the total number.

Most of the so called solutions we have seen this year have been in the same vain. Not what is the best solution for the game but what is the least effort to implement.
 

DeletedUser97349

Graphic designers may draw the animations but their implementation into the city I would imagine would need the coders or do they magically make it into the game.



There isn't anything logical about this solution. The logical solution would be to address the army management failings for the long term benefit of the game.

Capping is a lazy solution. It means very little effort went into resolving the issue. I'm guessing they have decided to work on the filtering and sorting of the army management system and have found it to be slow due to the potential quantity of military units. So instead of some lateral thinking and coming up with alternative ways of displaying and storing the units they just think oh well lets just restrict the total number.

Most of the so called solutions we have seen this year have been in the same vain. Not what is the best solution for the game but what is the least effort to implement.
There is still a distinction between who does what in the different teams; it is not necessarily the case that time spent implementing graphics changes is time that could have been spent on bugfixing or implementing another change; design changes are handled by the game designers not the developers, backend is distinct from frontend, etc.; this is the point I was making.

As I have said numerous times now, the cap is not being implemented only because army management is slow, but because players will not be able to log on at all. The change has been implented due to us receiving cases of players unable to access their games; this is of course a pressing concern which needed attention quickly.
 

ddevil

Chief Warrant Officer
As I have said numerous times now, the cap is not being implemented only because army management is slow, but because players will not be able to log on at all. The change has been implented due to us receiving cases of players unable to access their games; this is of course a pressing concern which needed attention quickly.
And that INNO is very sure is not got to do with the forced HA but only because of the units being more than 2000 ?? Somehow I dont think this problem existed before introducing the so-called forced new HA engine ...atleast we never heard of it or felt the lag in the army management before the new HA engine ... By the way what happens if after few months it is again found that some players are not able to access the game (very much a possibility because the solution applied now is only a band-aid not solving of the main problem) ??? if there's still memory leakage?? Will more capping happen in the game at that stage???
 

DeletedUser99588

There is still a distinction between who does what in the different teams; it is not necessarily the case that time spent implementing graphics changes is time that could have been spent on bugfixing or implementing another change; design changes are handled by the game designers not the developers, backend is distinct from frontend, etc.; this is the point I was making.
So on the one hand the game is going to stop completely because you have over 2000 units but on the other hand lets throw in a bunch of useless animation at the same time. So you remove something that can be utilised in the game and add something that doesn't help. Adding periphery animation is the sort of thing you do when everything else is running smoothly.


As I have said numerous times now, the cap is not being implemented only because army management is slow, but because players will not be able to log on at all. The change has been implented due to us receiving cases of players unable to access their games; this is of course a pressing concern which needed attention quickly.
If this had been announced as a temporary fix and confirmation that a long term solution would be implemented within the next 2 months it would be a valid argument. That isn't the case so I think the response you are getting is fully justified.
 

DeletedUser15425

could the game makers please concentrate on things that are actually relevant to be fixed/improved rather than cosmetics??
whereas having birds flying around in the town is a nice touch, what use is that??
on the other hand, the AID button is still so annoyingly nonfunctional. it is supposed to show when a player has NO buildings that can be polivated BEFORE one wastes an action on clicking the button and thus can not visit for another 24 hours.
also, the unnecessary cosmetics of the aid function now telling me what exactly it is that I've polivated or not in someone's city is BS. it slows down the aid feature, it should be an opt-in or opt-out thing! whereas it took me 3 minutes to polivate my entire guild of 74 members last week, now it takes 4 min for 68 members because I have to wait for the popup message to disappear before I can click the next aid button

please focus on what's important... the word is "prioritizing" thank you
 

DeletedUser914

1) So ghosts/demo guilds can do what they do best
this makes ghost/demo guilds more difficult, because 2000 troops is not much to cause some damage. It is 2000 troops max vs all guild troops. From this point of view this cap limits the possibilities of lonewolfs.
 

joesoap

Major-General
its even funnier when the 4 or 5 popup messages say decs have been polished....even though we keep getting told they arent a priority
 

DeletedUser99588

this makes ghost/demo guilds more difficult, because 2000 troops is not much to cause some damage. It is 2000 troops max vs all guild troops. From this point of view this cap limits the possibilities of lonewolfs.
Most ghost guilds do substantial damage with less than 2000 troops.
 

DeletedUser99588

its even funnier when the 4 or 5 popup messages say decs have been polished....even though we keep getting told they arent a priority
At least we can easily monitor what is happening now :)