Posts by TaneMahuta

Will the TAMBO be operational?

Even if not will the ability to move troops back and forth from one player to another be disallowed?
Bearing in mind that by allowing this to happen when a higher ranked player moves troops to a lower ranked player that player's rank gets artifically inflated only to go down once the troops get given back to the higher ranked.

Also though in effect when a lower ranked player returns the troops 'given' to him or 'borrowed' by him he is in fact PUSHING especially if the troop compliment returned isnt exactly the same as was borrowed in the first place be it quantity-wise or else by type of warrior.

Allowing players to donate troops to another also allows an Alliance to get players to concentrate on building one type of warrior so that say the strongest player ends up with a large and varied troop of warriors for attacks. Then the sreonger player can recompense the others by ay of sending them resources to build more troops. This per se is not a bad thing and an interesting tactic but I dont think I favour it.

I certainly think that a player cannot be 'given' a warrior that that player has not the capability to 'build' him/herself due to the fact that he/she has not got the correct levels to build that warrior.

Ugh excuse the typos!

Quote from M0H0

We thought about something like this, the possibility to spy on troop movements of an opponent with a new type of spy, and down the road it is likely to come. But it's a very sensitive feature so we are not going to rush it, like you mention it has to be expensive and has to have its limitations. If anyone else has thoughts about how something like it could work we would happily take notes.

Well what I am proposing is the ability to spy on any and all troop movements from the world map of one's City upto a given radius. Of course if there were no Cities within that radius then you would see nothing and you would have wasted resources as I am proposing some kind of cost to doing this kind of spying.

So just to be clear, say within the spying radius if there were 3 cities of different players and each City had troops moving away or back to those Cities you would get each report. I am not sure if this is quite feasible to program.

If there is not going to be a cost to do this spying, to be able to get to this particular spy function the attributes and assuming it is linked to the watchtower level then resource cost to get to that watchtower level must be v high and then to be able to increase the radius of the spying the espionage lvl must also higher and the cost to get to next leel higher stil nd so on. If the costs are going to be high then as a reward the radius one can see might need to be fairly large for each espionage level one achieves to compensate from a risk and reward viewpoint

Quote from M0H0

The beta server is now as of this minute a quad-speed (x4) server. Good luck! Update is still coming here in a few days, but we intend to keep the beta server around for future testing and updates.

Oh I AM very glad about this.

I do think still that a BETA server works best when the players get to test a specific feature without having to go start from scratch and go through the tutorial and so on.

A player in our Alliance has had a fair bit of experieence helping with BETA testing games or a game so I will ask her to comment also.

Quote from Furry

This actually does sound like an interesting idea, and if I get what you're saying correctly;
Each City that [Player] owns that has an Underground Cave can send troops through this Underground Cave to other cities owned by [Player]?

Yes exactly.

But use of this feature needs to be limited like say once an hour or something.

Also I am no sure if this cooldown period should apply to each city seperately or not.
That is to say if a player uses the underground cave to instantly move troops from City 1 to City 2, then, should the cooldown period apply to any instant troop movement using the Underground Cave between City 1 and City 2 only or for that time period all instant troops movements are suspended between all Cities owned by that player assuming that the Underground Cave in each City is at the lvl needed to use this feature in that City.

Or should player be allowed to instantly move troops say between Cities 3 and 4 while the cooldown period is in play between Cities 1 and Cities 2 or even be allowed to move troop instantly between City 2 and City 3.

Another suggestion.

The idea behind this is to enable a player under attack in one City to move one's warriors from that city to another City owned by that player instaneously. or to enable troops to be moved instaneously from one City to another City of that player that is under attack.

ONLY troops can be moved no resources can be sent using this function.

Again this attribute can only be enabled once a relatively high level of of the Underground Cave is achieved.
To move troops en masse would have to cost a fair bit of some resource maybe corn and of course the City they are being moved to will have to have enough corn for their upkeep.
Once a complement of troops is moved from one city to another City of that player using the underground cave then they cannot be moved back to where they came from for a given period of time.

One has to envisage that the underground caves connect one city to any other city the player owns.

Correct me if I am wrong but from the world view you can only spy one City at a time.

If that is the case I would like to propose a new type of spy and this spy does not go to any destination.
It is activated from your City in the 'World Map' and of course to activate it one cannot be in protection mode or vacation mode.
By clicking on a new icon from your City on the world map you can see all troop movements upto a given radius between different cities.
The radius this spy can 'see' is a function of one's watchtower level.
The higher the watchtower level the further this spy will be able to 'see'.
The starting watchtower level for this spy to be able to be activated will have to be higher than the highest current watchtowetr level by at least say 2 levels. Hopefully the resource cost for getting to this watchtower level wont be easy to obtain.
You only et one of these spies per City.
The cost of the spy should not be that cheap either.
Also once this spy is activated and it does a spying 'mission' there has to be a cooldown period before it can be activated again.
I propose one mission every hour.
With each increase in watchtower level after this spy is able to be activated the cooldown period gets lower by a small margin.

I would think the spy reports are seen in a similar format to what one gets when one spies on another city currently but all one sees is the troops who are in transit not the troops who are in any city.

The report will show what the complement of troops are and how many of each troop is on the move and also how long the troops are from reaching their destination.

One can then use this information to see if one can attack a City that the troops are returning to.

I am not trying to PICK ON Nikneim or RR but since all the 'issues' have related to them I have on this thread tried to offer some ideas in the hope that this issue can be laid to rst once and for all by the DEVS.

I a not suggesting that MY suggestions MUST heeded.

But something needs to be done.

It is a bit nit picky to say that Nikneim started a new account as opposed to being allowed to re-start his own one. The fact is he is the same person and he has started from scratch and that is ok by me if your ruling was to give him a second chance.

I really think enough is enough. We might not agree on the decision made by M0H0 when it comes to Nikneim but the decision has been made.

We stay or we go.

My view is that once a player is caught multi accounting he should be perma banned.

In many other similar games I have played and that is very many of them - KOC, Travian, Evony, Forge of Empires, Battle Pirates, The O game, Astro Empires, Starfleet Commander - just about every universe in that game and at last count it was over 6 Unis in that game , Battle Dawn - multi accounters do get perma banned though if I remember right in one or two of those games they might get a lengthy suspension where the account is allowed to lie dormant while opponents are allowed to progress or else the multi accounter is allowed to re-start an account from scratch but is then watched like a hawk. I really can't remember now what the rules were in each of the above mentioned games.

If as it seems Nikneim has been allowed to re-start his account then that IS a punishment.

In the good Alliances I have been in on the games mentioned above IF a player in our Alliance was ever banned or suspended they would NEVER EVER have been allowed back into our Alliance.

The fact that Nikneim was allowed back into RR is I feel what is also adding to the anger players are feeling and expressing. A good alliance Leader who wants to have his Alliance seen to have integrity should take a stand against cheating. But El Draque might say that if it was good enough for M0H0 to give Nikneim a 2nd chance he is only doing the same.

The final issue that has NOT been addressed is the fact that NIkneim continues to try and defend the indefensible. He cheated got caught. If he is going to post on the boards all he should be saying is "I am sorry, I fubarred and it wont happen again".

The fact that he keeps on commenting and trying to defend the indefensible and is allowed to do so is only inflaming the situation.

For that ALONE he should be BANNED from the BOARDS. I was a board moderator in one of the above games and believe me his behaviour would NOT be tolerated.

If Nikneim is allowed to post on this board then it should not be to inflame anything at all.

IF he chooses to keep posting trying to defend himself then he MUST be perma banned from the boards.

So I do ask Nikeim that if he reads this post to NOT comment any further and that IF he does then I ask M0H0 that he be perma banned from the boards.

BUT the other players also should now stop flogging a dead horse and desist from posting about this particular matter.

Also we need to agree that the best course of action in reporting cheating is to do so in private. If somoene gets banned as a result of a PM to a DEV from a player and this is brought to the attention of other players on the boards after the event then that is ok but if that is done the thread should be immediately locked by the DEVS. M0H0 I think has already commented about this.

I have not read all the posts from overnight but if I am right in thinking that El Draque has not been inflaming the situation then that is helping. If he has been jesting in gloabl chat then that is not wise. The fact that he continues to post battle reports is his choice though I am no sure it is wise.

I share your frustration Shadow. I also fear that the next updae might e more a teaser to tempt us than a more fundemental overhaul of the game in general.

That said I think we sould give the DEVS a chance to get things right.

To further convince us it would be good to know what else is going to happen in future updates and a likely timescale for them.

For instance will the so called TAMBO update be rolled out with the batte mechanic change?
At the very least will the ability to send troops back and forth between players be stopped.
as to update the batle mechanics and then still allow players to send troops to one another makes little sense to me.

What I can see happening is that with the next update there will be an add placed on facebook to get new players to join the game.

I would prefer more than just the battle mechanic change with this much touted update.

Would it be possible to view a battle report so we can see how a battle went?

It might help get people a bit interested and give them time to work out battle tactics / scenarios.

Thanks in advance

Quote from M0H0

Short update: Our data suggests that the test in the beta server is going well and the update is stable, so as originally estimated it will likely hit this server in a matter of days, not weeks. Stay tuned for the final date.

So does this mean that in the BETA server there have been some battles and if so were they PvP?

I for one am still in protection mode there I think thought I am ranked 20 odd.

Anyway if the update will be sooner than later it is greatly appreciated.

Quote from M0H0

We would recommend that you double check with the team first whether using that script is ok, but note that that doesn't mean that any script not reviewed by our team is automatically illegal, or that using them is legal before we review them and declare them illegal. Up until now we have not seen any scripts being out in the wild, but once they appear we would treat them on a case by case basis.

I am glad at your reply and I think we should send scripts for reviewing if an Alliance or a individual were to use them.

My personal preferance is if scripting is allowed any script to be sent to the DEVS and the DEVS to consider releasing the script to the whole playing community.

Now before anyone thinks I am about to point fingers this is NOT the case.

This is a question directed at the DEVS mainly M0H0 since he has been the one on this server.

So my question is that if an Alliance or a player develops a script that is not necessarily illegal should they be asked to send it to the DEVS for evaluation before using it in the game?

What I am thinking about in this instance is a script to calculate say to work out how long an attack will take to be sent from One City to another depending on the troop compliment being sent.

I have BTW not developed such a script and nor am I likely to do so.

So this si a hypothetical question.

Based on private chats had with M0H0 I am more than happy that they are doing their best to keep up with what needs to be addressed and if my post sounds a bit too strong I sinceerly apologise.

In the absence of our Alliance leader those of us left in charge were getting quite concerned and hence this post expressed our frustrations.

Quote from El Draque

I can't say what's wrong with her battle report, but I told Zexa how she was caught

So I gather and we (CHI) appreaciate it.
As I understnad it long after the battle she finally got a battle report.
But she did say she spied on you City and she never sae your troops arriving.

She also said you were very nice abouit it all and we (CHI) appreciate that.

It is very possible that since we cant see one another we dont get body language cues so all we have is the written word to go on to get some idea if the other person is joking or not when they write something and this is more so when English in not someone's language of choice or first language.

BTW English is NOT my first language either. I was born and educated mostly in Sri Lanka and came to New Zealand for my last two years of schooling.

The querstion still remains as to why Zexa never got a battle report.
This needs to be addressed by M0H0.
Was there a glitch in the system?
If a defender is able to time his/hr troops to return at the last minute or second and defend his City does the ensuing battle not get correctly recorded.
What is not at dispute is that Zexa launched the attack.

According to her she kept spying all thru the attack and still never saw the defenders troops returning.

How can this be? I assume and Zexa can verify this that her wall lvls are oer at the time of the attack launch WERE higher than the defenders.

As I write this one other scenario I can think of is that the defender upgraded his wall during the atttack and before it landed and as a consequence Zexa never saw the troops return to the City to defend it.

If so it would be good to know as else one could well think there was a glitch or worse.

Right now who cares about you battle system guide when the game and how it is played needs addressing and fixing.

Why dont you guys re-priotize what needs doing and address the various complaints before trying to fix what is broken as you are running the risk of losing players on a daily basis.

Thanks for that I missed that post

I have noticed that one can use the scroll 'button' (whel) on the mouse to zoom in and out of one's City.

Can this same function be enabled when in the world map please?

It is a pain to move around the world map by holding the left mouse button down and moving up and down the map.

Also as an aside it would be even cooler to break the world map down into grids - numbered grids.

For some historical peerspective I am using the following:

http://www.historyonthenet.com/mayans/mayans-at-war

It says in there:

Long Distance Weapons

The Mayans had both long-distance weapons and melee weapons. The long
distance ones included bow and arrow, blowgun, slings and throwing
spears. When the atlatl or spear thrower was brought to the Mayans from
Teotihuacan around 400 A.D., it was quickly adopted and became the
Mayans’ dominant long distance weapon. The atlatl greatly increased the accuracy, force and range of the spear; when thrown
from an atlatl a spear reportedly could pierce the Spaniards’ metal
armor. The blowgun was predominantly used for hunting, but it had some
wartime uses as well. Mayan warriors used bow and arrows more during the
Post-Classical era.

Melee Weapons

When armies clashed in battles, they used melee weapons, including
clubs, axes, stabbing spears and knives. They Mayan war club resembled
that the Macuahuitl of the Aztecs in that it was lined with obsidian
blades on three sides. These 42-in long clubs could stun, break bones or
cut. They were capable of cutting off a horse’s head. Mayans also used
axes with heads of stone, obsidian, flint or bronze. The sharp edge of
the axe could kill, but the dull edge could stun. The object of the battle was often to capture, not kill, enemy warriors, making the axe a good weapon.
In hand to hand combat, the Mayans used the same 10-inch blade knives
they used in sacrifices.

Defensive Weapons

The Mayans built fortifications around some of their cities. Examples
of this include Seibal and Tikal. For defense, warriors carried shields
and elites and veterans wore thick, cotton armor treated with rock salt
that could withstand obsidian. Helmets were unknown and warriors wore
elaborate headdresses instead. Warriors also used body paint and animal
skins to show their status.

Unusual Weapon

The Popul Voh, the book of the Kiche Maya, tells of hornets and wasps
used as defensive weapons. When attackers came, defending warriors had
gourds filled with hornets that they threw into the midst of the
attackers. Hornets erupted out of the gourds and angrily attacked,
killing many warriors. The defenders won the battle.

What I am trying to propose is to let players have a warrior who has defensive capabilities to counteract the attacking capabilities of the more attacking warriors.

I would think that if the Mayans had fortifications it is likely they would use some warriors with bows and arrows more for defensive purposes. So I propose such a warrior.

Also if possible have something like a moat - basically a static type of defence - that acts as a bulwark so that the wall can withstand siome damage before losing a level.

I have no issue with the attackers having more chance of winning but if such defensive warriors and some kind of defensive structure could be added the game it might be interesting.