• 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
  • Forum Contests

    Don't forget to check out the current contests here.

Update Update 1.41

  • Thread starter DeletedUser97349
  • Start date

DeletedUser96867

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
This is due to have the AID feature is designed. As I understand it after the 3 priority buildings: shrine, oasis, tiger dens(don't ask me why????) it chooses 50:50 between polish and motivate. Since most players only have a handful of cultural buildings, even if cultural buildings are prioritized regardless of age over decos, it doesn't take long before the cultural buildings are all done. Hence after the 50:50 split if polish is picked the game is left polishing decos no matter the age.

A simple solution would be a sliding bar for players to choose the % chance of polish vs motivate. Far from perfect as supplies would still end up not getting motivated a whole lot due to normally having a lot more houses than supply buildings.
 

DeletedUser97883

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.
I don't really mind the cap. Looking at it from the perspective of realism, 2000 is enough for a standing army, more than that would cause upkeep problems. However, the military interface needs severe upgrades to deal with OTHER problems, not least of which is that it gets pretty slow well before you've reached the 2000 units cap, unless you have a pretty powerful computer. The cap doesn't solve the problem, it just prevents it from becoming unbearably bad. That's what I'd call a band-aid, not a solution.

Edit: Band-aids are, of course, necessary as short-term solutions, while more permanent solutions are being worked on. However, I get the impression that the devs have no interest in long-term solutions, if they involve a lot of work...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser96867

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.
Seems INNO has a surplus of graphics designers, and to the extent make work projects are being found for them. On the other hand INNO seems to have a shortage of programers who can deal with game mechanics, as well as game designers and developers that have any idea what they are doing.

As I have stated previous the reason for implementing a proper solution has as much to do with solving other long term issues as it has to do with just the unit max. If I find the time I'll do a count through the beta forum feedback thread for players requests changes to any number of long outstanding issues with army managed. Would not surprised me if that comes up as the topic 3x-4x as often as the next most requested item. But hey lets just ignore that because it's 'too much work' and they 'can't clear their schedule.
 

DeletedUser15986

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

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
Just to give you some advice based on experience... You're wasting your time. In the words of Henry The Red, "I dinnae think he'll listen lad."

You're going to get yourself worked up over what is an excellent solution that they just aren't interested in spending the time on regardless of how good it is, how well it deals with additional issues, or the extra benefits it gives in the long term. (Not even how many complaints it prevents.)

Seen it several times, did it myself as well before I wised up and stopped trying to help a game that I (once) cared about. Do yourself a favour and stop caring too.
 

DeletedUser13737

Other than the forum I have not logged into the game since the brilliant Aid button update was introduced. Has anything changed? Did they modify or go back to the way things were? If not I'll check back in 6 months or a year. Meanwhile I'll spend my time and money elsewhere. :) lol
 

DeletedUser7719

A simple solution would be a sliding bar for players to choose the % chance of polish vs motivate. Far from perfect as supplies would still end up not getting motivated a whole lot due to normally having a lot more houses than supply buildings.
There would also be the fact that upper-age decorations are polished before the lower-age cultures ;)
 

Seserous Omega

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?
1) the notion that only ghost guilds are capable of multiera mass expansions in one day makes no sense. Many guilds make massive moves in multiple eras on the map. And since people in IA will take more damage in IA GvG than people in CE with 90%+ attack boost, it does make sense that a higher player would be in multiple ages during a multiera expansion. And until ghost guilds are prevented from existing, or people get banned for being in one, they do exist and it is a valid (though as you say, not intended) way to play. Not many people like that (myself included) but there it is.
2) reasonable? of course not but even in big guilds because this is a 24/7 game sometimes there is only one person on at any particular moment watching the map, so having the ability to respond in an era is kinda nice (and thanks to the rogues, don't need 2,000 units to respond to a siege as was already pointed out.) Personally I can fend off, or at least poke at, a siege from three quarters of all the eras so far.
3)/the rest of it. I was refuting starzaan's logic, not supporting anything or trying to discuss side effects. I don't know if the side effects are good or bad. I am not deluded enough to think it will make a difference to ghosting much especially since it is an incentive to burn through troops, but I don't know if it is a good thing. As the game currently allows us to play, there are valid reasons to having more than 2,000 units. If one were to take the original argument to the logical conclusion, saving unattached units is not a valid thing to do ever, because if you aren't using the units right when you collect them what is the point?

The point is to save them for when they are needed. That is at least why I have a traz. The reason to have more than 2,000 units is so that when you need them, you have them.
 

DeletedUser97718

i can't see a problem with the alcatraz limit after all you should be using these troops, pointless stockpiling for a rainy day (a few hundred okay for a special siege or whatever ) and as for being stuffed for a quest simply use or delete some.

My main point however is with yet another load of "bugfixes" still nothing done about the defence and attack boosts from gb's _ I have 88% from my gb's which are pointless when attacking CE tanks and Anti Aircraft (which is what I only use) as they will have an equal if not better force than mine even if their boost is 0% it is particularly bad in GVG as against hood attacks - despite support denying there is a problem the other 3 units in CE behave more or less as they should do and also why do we have to keep refreshing constantly during attacks to avoid even more damage, I say something has been wrong ever since the changes to attack and defence GB's
 

DeletedUser96901

you could simply use one CE tank and 7 rogues
with that you win every time with your 88% against any combination which has 0% ;)
(maybe not on world map: because the rogues aren't transformed first)

and it is now necessary that we lose units
because if we would win without losing units we couldn't get new units from Alcatraz :p

i can't see a problem with losing troops if you fight
but losing troops when not fighting is a problem for many players here :eek:

and as for being stuffed for a quest simply use or delete some.
or much simpler than deleting 500 or more units:
the support will end the quest for you ;)
 

DeletedUser5180

have just read on the confirmed bug thread that you cannot donate to an Alcatraz GB if the owner has 2000 units.

so a player may have donated perhaps a 1000 fps and only needs to donate 1 more to collect perhaps 4 BP's they are desperately seeking and will have to beg the owner to lose some troops. if the owner is away on holiday or refuses then the donator is totally stuck, donated 1000 fps and can't collect their BP's

puts a whole new side forward to this cap on units.

maybe this won't be a bug but an 'intended feature'...........what happens then.?
 

DeletedUser14394

have just read on the confirmed bug thread that you cannot donate to an Alcatraz GB if the owner has 2000 units.
I thought it was a bug that only the owner of that GB will not be able to donate.
 

DeletedUser12778

Well i don't think the cap will reduce the amount of ghost guilds, if i reach the max cap and need to spend units what would be the best solution?
1-Delete them? No
2-Fight in the gvg map? Yes but if you reached the cap probably your guild can't expand more because of the goods cost and you're not fighting
3-Replace armies on gvg map? Well you can but most of the time units from barracks are enough for this purpose
4-Fight in the NH? You can but since what you get from plundering is not worth (it's better to exchange aid) and cities can be filled with watch-fires making you lose a lot of troops
5-You can create a GG and for a few amount of goods that can be collected from you atomium and observatory you can attack sectors on gvg make more points than you'll do in NH fights and losing less units? This seems the best solution

Well it is just my opinion
 

DeletedUser4879

Advise to management of Inno: Make it compulsory to read the forum EVERY DAY
for about half an hour before starting to work!! This would solve a load of the problems
you're having!!....;)
 

DeletedUser97718

if i could get some rogues from alcatraz maybe i would but i don't get many at all and if you actually fight manually you will see that using 7 rogues plus 1 proper unit doesnt actually work very well in gvg - but my origianl point remains we have gb's that have cost us 1000's of fp's and now they are practically worthless when i fight a tank in ce with 0% how can it take my units out in the same number of shots as me - programming error but INNO deny it as usual - get it sorted or another player is going to find a better game no more diamonds from me
 

DeletedUser14394

if i could get some rogues from alcatraz maybe i would but i don't get many at all and if you actually fight manually you will see that using 7 rogues plus 1 proper unit doesnt actually work very well in gvg
And how could you manage to survive in GvG in long term without 7 roghues + 1 unit as offense. You can use 8 troops to offence for now, but this will not help you in a long run if you have to fight in other ages, making you to build military building to use that units. 1 unit + 7 roghues saves up a lot of troops and to maintain the fighting spirit for long time.

- but my origianl point remains we have gb's that have cost us 1000's of fp's and now they are practically worthless when i fight a tank in ce with 0% how can it take my units out in the same number of shots as me - programming error but INNO deny it as usual - get it sorted or another player is going to find a better game no more diamonds from me
This is how the tanks are designed to work, no matter how your offence boost is, tanks can only intake atmost 4 damages per attack on it. You have to strategically plan on how to defeat those 8 tanks defense which I cant reveal publicly. There is nothing about the programming error as they are correctly working like they're intended to.
 

ddevil

Chief Warrant Officer
Thats really a great news Starzaan ... thanks a lot for taking our concerns to the dev's, making them understand (which I am sure would have been a difficult thing to do) and having the cap removed...

regards

ddevil