I really think Firefly messed up this time.

This is the first world using the The New Era System.
zafont
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: I really think Firefly messed up this time.

Post by zafont »

...
Warped
Posts: 33
Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2010 12:30 pm

Re: I really think Firefly messed up this time.

Post by Warped »

The rules don't seem well thought out, that's fine, so long as FF learn from this and future worlds have an adapted ruleset.

I don't mind them trying things, but it's just waiting to see if they learn from mistakes.
User avatar
President Snow
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:18 pm

Re: I really think Firefly messed up this time.

Post by President Snow »

I agree with this post. I think the Flag costs in parishes are extortionate. So much so, most houses are creating pacts to allow players to grow for 100's of days if not an age because of fireflies silly executive decisions.

If you want wars, you need to allow groups of players to be in the same house. Currently only 10% of the existing player populous can remain within the protection of a house. Granted that will die back in time.

You also have a silly low faith point cap. Faith adds a little zest into proceedings and prevents money spenders getting an instant win on players, combat is already heavily skewed towards attackers, preventing players from being able to use a legitimate form of protection for a few weeks (at 40 villages, 200K faith won't even last that). Excommunication and Interdiction are a fundamental war mechanic which allows a player to survive unless a group of players are working to remove them. Its fun, and now rather useless under the new era rule set.

If you want to prevent alternate accounts being able to attack, you should remove all peacetime on new villages after day 100. That way if you troll you cannot hide behind a free 3 day peace timer.

The razing was also a mistake, it prevents players from being able to remove legitimate problems from their areas, and should be rethought asap, along with the above.

Yours

President Snow

PS: Whether zafont uses alts is imaterial to the points being made in the main body of the post, I'd rather this stay on topic and FF actually listen rather than a load of insult slinging that belongs in kindergarten.
zafont
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: I really think Firefly messed up this time.

Post by zafont »

One more thing noone mentioned: Firefly never announced the new flag costs in Parish prior to launcing E4. If they did i think many would not have joined...


Archers, Pikes, Cats and barracks for example, sum up to almost 500 flags...(Archers:10, Pikes:30, Cats:60 and 19 barracks starting with 2 and increasing by 2 per barrack...)

That means you need close to 500 flags to build a parish army...
220897
Posts: 227
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 10:02 am

Re: I really think Firefly messed up this time.

Post by 220897 »

I do find it intresting that none of the admins or Devs/mods choose to actually respond to player feedback, maybe we will still hear from them, who knows..
...
User avatar
Dumpster Fire
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue May 02, 2017 7:40 pm

Re: I really think Firefly messed up this time.

Post by Dumpster Fire »

Too many alts to count

Still waiting for Android ^_^
I burn, therefore I am
Tyrron
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 9:46 am

Re: I really think Firefly messed up this time.

Post by Tyrron »

I agree with many of zafont's complains, like about the ridiculous numbers of flags needed and the too restrictive limits on house & faction sizes.
But not about this bit below.
zafont wrote: But it was you and your friends who helped me realize all the things i have written above: IF you were alts on a mission or IF/WHEN some alts copy your behaviour, as you so eloquently described above, to act in disquise against an enemy, then this game is dead.
Well the rule changes about razing are targeted against exactly that: using fairly low level ALT accounts as razers.

In the past lot's of high level players used their own pet alt accounts to clear out any opposition, or to cleanse area's like Corsica from any opposition ( .... :) ) .
And yes to act against enemies in disguise.

IMHO razes were typically not used to clear out obnoxious low level alts, simply because the cost was already too high for that.
The best thing to do against a rogue player (alt or not) is not to raze them out, but to deconstruct their villages, while letting them keep them. That is because one can only abandon 1 village/week, whereas when you raze them out they simply return much quicker.

Instead razes have been used a lot by the neighbor bully against normal (paying) players of any level. Because the raze costs were too high in honor for higher levels, it was common to abuse dedicated raze Alts.
It was that or get a faction member to refrain from leveling up after say Knight and have them act as dedicated razer.
Of course the raze alts might even be used to really go after any low level player (alt or not) in an area and raze them all, as that is not something the faction raze specialist would do (again it was already too costly in honor ).

I'm all for lowering the rank restriction for razing a bit more than it is now, but not to such a low level as it was; otherwise we'll see the return of the raze alt.
Perhaps grant it to Marquis? And certainly keep the honor penalty very high, much higher than capture, pillage or ransack.
User avatar
MiladySkye
Posts: 595
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 8:38 pm

Re: I really think Firefly messed up this time.

Post by MiladySkye »

Tyrron wrote: IMHO razes were typically not used to clear out obnoxious low level alts, simply because the cost was already too high for that.
The best thing to do against a rogue player (alt or not) is not to raze them out, but to deconstruct their villages, while letting them keep them. That is because one can only abandon 1 village/week, whereas when you raze them out they simply return much quicker.

I'm all for lowering the rank restriction for razing a bit more than it is now, but not to such a low level as it was; otherwise we'll see the return of the raze alt.
Perhaps grant it to Marquis? And certainly keep the honor penalty very high, much higher than capture, pillage or ransack.
Yes, I agree that it's the best way to deal with alts/trolls. Ransack, pillage and keep them at max villages if possible. In this world they will need their Princely friends to pay the honour cost for razing them. I'm okay with leaving the ability to raze at prince level, although lowering it to Duke wouldn't be too bad. AS you say, the honour penalty needs to remain very high.
When injustice is law, resistance becomes duty . . .
zafont
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2015 8:24 pm

Re: I really think Firefly messed up this time.

Post by zafont »

Tyrron wrote:I agree with many of zafont's complains, like about the ridiculous numbers of flags needed and the too restrictive limits on house & faction sizes.
But not about this bit below.
zafont wrote: But it was you and your friends who helped me realize all the things i have written above: IF you were alts on a mission or IF/WHEN some alts copy your behaviour, as you so eloquently described above, to act in disquise against an enemy, then this game is dead.
Well the rule changes about razing are targeted against exactly that: using fairly low level ALT accounts as razers.

In the past lot's of high level players used their own pet alt accounts to clear out any opposition, or to cleanse area's like Corsica from any opposition ( .... :) ) .
And yes to act against enemies in disguise.

IMHO razes were typically not used to clear out obnoxious low level alts, simply because the cost was already too high for that.
The best thing to do against a rogue player (alt or not) is not to raze them out, but to deconstruct their villages, while letting them keep them. That is because one can only abandon 1 village/week, whereas when you raze them out they simply return much quicker.

Instead razes have been used a lot by the neighbor bully against normal (paying) players of any level. Because the raze costs were too high in honor for higher levels, it was common to abuse dedicated raze Alts.
It was that or get a faction member to refrain from leveling up after say Knight and have them act as dedicated razer.
Of course the raze alts might even be used to really go after any low level player (alt or not) in an area and raze them all, as that is not something the faction raze specialist would do (again it was already too costly in honor ).

I'm all for lowering the rank restriction for razing a bit more than it is now, but not to such a low level as it was; otherwise we'll see the return of the raze alt.
Perhaps grant it to Marquis? And certainly keep the honor penalty very high, much higher than capture, pillage or ransack.

I get what you say. But let me give you the perspective of how i thought that would be a problem: If, like in my example, there was an army of alts at Alderman rank spawned in an area with a specific purpose, and razing for a Prince to an Alderman costed 9 million as now, then razing is almost out of the question or extremely limited at best. The 20 alts of my example, with a total of 40 villages and enought gold after pillaging every neutral in sight, can build 500 peasant armies maybe 2 times a day on X5 popularity. That means their 40 villages can build at least 50-60 armies like that per day at least and with no cards (they have the gold for that from all that pillaging) If they use cards then there is no limit. Now if they coordinate 10 500-peasant army-ransacking attacks on one enemy village, they can do that on 5-6 villages per day. Noone can defend against 10 of these timed attacks unless in ID. 5-6 villages a day will be reduced to nipple...
I know that this in a way could happen in the other servers too. But back there, the defender had turrets, tunnelers, ballistae, he had a Church to give him FP faster, he could have a decent parish army to use and he could have a Knight or Baron razer to remove the problem. If that was an alt too- i dont know. The point is that this could be removed. Now it cannot. Thats why i said that the game is reduced in a pillaging/ransacking competition since this is the only way to respond.
Maybe they know something i dont-but should share it with us-, maybe Mylade and you are right that razing should be cept in higher levels...If that is the matter, then i think it should be cheaper or it is close to pointless.

I am trying to point out what i believe is an inconsistency between Firefly's intentions before launching E4, as they stated them, and what i understand as the impact of their new Era rules. I really think they are achieving the excact opposite.
Locked

Return to “EU4 World Lounge”