All Categories

Capital Tragedies

Capital Tragedies

Search
Moderators for Sparta: War of Empires
Moderators wanted!
Aug 15, 2017, 14:5008/15/17
05/06/16
11

Capital Tragedies

This is not a post about not liking coiners.

Have you seen how many coalitions there are with capitals in the level range 10 to 15, and growing. Those coalitions are doing well, players are sticking their defenses in to grow, and having fun defending the capital against assaults from similar strength coalitions. Until one day ... BOOM ... someone comes with 100k Agema and marches right over that capital and wipes it clean. When this happens there is a good chance that many players stop playing the game. 

The sad part about it is that many players in those coalitions do spend some coin, so it is a lose-lose situation for players-plarium.

Someone like me who has been around for a while, can tell you for sure that there are only two ways to go when it comes to capitals. You either have it at level 20 with 4 billion + defense in there (staying clear of wars/challenges) or you leave it at level 5 with zero defense in there. Anything else is just a time bomb. I know this and many others too, but the point is that most don't and are currently sitting on this bomb.

Diplomacy is not the answer, because several coalitions will wipe capitals clean to earn their coalition achievements. Others do it for tournament rewards, example, I was once in a coalition where we all lost 75% of our defenses, which can take easily 1-2 years to rebuild, and at that point you stop playing. We asked the attacker why he destroyed the capital. His answer was a simple response of "XP tournament, Have Fun!".

I don't blame the coiners / stronger players for their actions. The problem is that the current capital system doesn't make sense for the average player and it is not good for the game either. Plarium, you simply can't wave that carrot (the capital) in front of the average players and have them walk into that time bomb. 

What to do about it ... ? I don't know. I am hoping people can shed some light on this and/or give ideas. Perhaps something more sensible in terms of capitals can develop for the average player from this thread.

Views
6k
Comments
21
Comments
Aug 15, 2017, 22:5508/15/17
11/17/16
512

agaghas said:


This is not a post about not liking coiners.

Have you seen how many coalitions there are with capitals in the level range 10 to 15, and growing. Those coalitions are doing well, players are sticking their defenses in to grow, and having fun defending the capital against assaults from similar strength coalitions. Until one day ... BOOM ... someone comes with 100k Agema and marches right over that capital and wipes it clean. When this happens there is a good chance that many players stop playing the game. 

The sad part about it is that many players in those coalitions do spend some coin, so it is a lose-lose situation for players-plarium.

Someone like me who has been around for a while, can tell you for sure that there are only two ways to go when it comes to capitals. You either have it at level 20 with 4 billion + defense in there (staying clear of wars/challenges) or you leave it at level 5 with zero defense in there. Anything else is just a time bomb. I know this and many others too, but the point is that most don't and are currently sitting on this bomb.

Diplomacy is not the answer, because several coalitions will wipe capitals clean to earn their coalition achievements. Others do it for tournament rewards, example, I was once in a coalition where we all lost 75% of our defenses, which can take easily 1-2 years to rebuild, and at that point you stop playing. We asked the attacker why he destroyed the capital. His answer was a simple response of "XP tournament, Have Fun!".

I don't blame the coiners / stronger players for their actions. The problem is that the current capital system doesn't make sense for the average player and it is not good for the game either. Plarium, you simply can't wave that carrot (the capital) in front of the average players and have them walk into that time bomb. 

What to do about it ... ? I don't know. I am hoping people can shed some light on this and/or give ideas. Perhaps something more sensible in terms of capitals can develop for the average player from this thread.

Hello Agaghas,

Truth be told coalitions with weak capitals are an easy target for the coiners.

It is also true that you need much defense in the capital in order for it to survive from the predators.

But what change would you suggest yourself?
Aug 16, 2017, 06:5608/16/17
Aug 16, 2017, 14:37(edited)
08/13/16
118

He said he doesn't know what to do about it. No need to ask him again for his suggestions. It is perfectly fine to come on here and ask, "Hey, this is a problem, does anyone know what to do about it?"


1: Remove the coalition achievements that give direct incentive to hit capitals for no reason other than to earn coalition achievements. It is not an achievement to march over a capital of a group of players who are not nearly as strong as the attacker. Downgrading a capital of a rival coalition in a war between matched coalitions is an achievement in its own right that often has much higher perceived value that the current official achievement on the coalition page. However, if point 5 further below is implemented, then it may not be necessary to remove such achievements.


2: You need some kind of warning system of an incoming attack, perhaps coupled with a new item that can put up protection temporarily at a capital. Below is one way this can be done:

* If an attack is incoming towards a capital, the HM and Poles should be able to see this at the bottom of their screen, similar to how you see raids incoming to your city. Please read this point together with points 5 and 6 further below.

* A new item can become available in coalition tournaments (should not be be easy to earn) where you can put up protection at a capital. 

* It should also be possible for the HM or another coalition member with "capital rights" to evacuate all defenses in a capital, safely into the acropolis of all the contributing members.

The above system suggested is similar to how players prevent their armies at their cities from being destroyed by stronger players.


3: While this doesn't directly address the problem, it does make capitals more meaningful to many players: Introduce a way for coalitions to increase the level of their capital at which it cannot be downgraded, for example, from the current level 5 to level 10. You can make the cost of raising it by one level very high (perhaps use the medals and tools resources for this). This will close the gap between mostly level 5 and level 20 capitals a bit and also give smaller coalitions something sensible to work on, while they build their defenses.


4: Introduce an information page in the game where everybody can see which capitals were downgraded by which coalitions. Also show the rank of the defending and attacking coalition on this page. The hope is that if stronger coalitions see these things happening, a handful of their players may feel obligated to help out.


5: If none of the above works, I see no option but for an in-game feature to allow/disallow attacks on another coalition's capital based on a sensible differential between the defending and attacking coalitions total defense and offense. By "total defense" and "total offense", I mean the total across the coalition, not what sits in the capital only. For example, if per the "statistics tab", coalition A's total defense and total offense adds up to 300mil and coalition B has 1.5bil offense, then coalition B can't attack the capital of coalition A. The reason for combining the offense and defense of the defending coalition to do this "test calculation" is to prevent coalitions who focus purely on offense from having a "safe" capital on this system.


6: Or combine the warning /evacuation system suggested in point 2 with point 5. For example, if the defense to offense differential is very large, the minimum amount of travel time to hit the capital is increased.



Alyona KolomiitsevaCommunity Manager
Aug 16, 2017, 09:4508/16/17
09/17/15
8278
tsunwu85rsa said:

He said he doesn't know what to do about it. No need to ask him again for his suggestions. It is perfectly fine to come on here and ask, "Hey, this is a problem, does anyone know what to do about it?"


1: Remove the coalition achievements that give direct incentive to hit capitals for no reason other than to earn coalition achievements. It is not an achievement to march over a capital of a group of players who are not nearly as strong as the attacker. Downgrading a capital of a rival coalition in a war between matched coalitions is an achievement in its own right that often has much higher perceived value that the current official achievement on the coalition page. However, if point 5 further below is implemented, then it may not be necessary to remove such achievements.


2: You need some kind of warning system of an incoming attack, perhaps coupled with a new item that can put up protection temporarily at a capital. Below is one way this can be done:

* If an attack is incoming towards a capital, the HM and Poles should be able to see this at the bottom of their screen, similar to how you see raids incoming to your city. Please read this point together with points 5 and 6 further below.

* A new item can become available in coalition tournaments (should not be be easy to earn) where you can put up protection at a capital. 

* It should also be possible for the HM or another coalition member with "capital rights" to evacuate all defenses in a capital, safely into the acropolis of all the contributing members.

The above system suggested is similar to how players prevent their armies at their cities from being destroyed by stronger players.


3: While this doesn't directly address the problem, it does make capitals more meaningful to many players: Introduce a way for coalitions to increase the level of their capital at which it cannot be downgraded, for example, from the current level 5 to level 10. You can make the cost of raising it by one level very high (perhaps use the medals and tools resources for this). This will close the gap between mostly level 5 and level 20 capitals a bit and also give smaller coalitions something sensible to work on, while they build their defenses.


4: Introduce an information page in the game where everybody can see which capitals were downgraded by which coalitions. Also show the rank of the defending and attacking coalition on this page. The hope is that if stronger coalitions see these things happening, a handful of their players may feel obligated to help out.


5: If none of the above works, I see no option but for an in-game feature to allow/disallow attacks on another coalition's capital based on a sensible differential between the defending and attacking coalitions total defense and offense. By "total defense" and "total offense", I mean the total across the coalition, not what sits in the capital only. For example, if per the "statistics tab", coalition A's total defense and total offense adds up to 300mil and coalition B has 1.5bil offense, then coalition B can't attack the capital of coalition A. The reason for combining the offense and defense of the defending coalition to do this "test calculation" is to prevent coalitions who focus purely on offense from having a "save" capital on this system.


6: Or combine the warning /evacuation system suggested in point 2 with point 5. For example, if the defense to offense differential is very large, the minimum amount of travel time to hit the capital is increased.



Hi! Why don't you leave your ideas in Suggestions thread? :)
Aug 16, 2017, 13:2808/16/17
Aug 16, 2017, 13:38(edited)
08/22/15
65

If you moderators can't even move a topic to a the "proper" section , then you sure do a lot with comments (nothing). My 2cents , i would sure love to know if mederators gets paid by plarium like a salary or something , if they do get paid .... free money ? i wanna join hahaha


Also , does anyone ever wonder how does some selected peps reach to have 100K agemas ? Or did a real admin/tech ever checked such accounts and see how they made the army ? All looks legit ? I doubt it , i play for 2years , every single day , even buying something from time to time.


TSUN , perfect description m8 , great job.

Aug 16, 2017, 19:2108/16/17
11/05/15
1208

d3vnul said:


If you moderators can't even move a topic to a the "proper" section , then you sure do a lot with comments (nothing). My 2cents , i would sure love to know if mederators gets paid by plarium like a salary or something , if they do get paid .... free money ? i wanna join hahaha


Also , does anyone ever wonder how does some selected peps reach to have 100K agemas ? Or did a real admin/tech ever checked such accounts and see how they made the army ? All looks legit ? I doubt it , i play for 2years , every single day , even buying something from time to time.


TSUN , perfect description m8 , great job.

a topic is its own thread and cant be added to an existing thread 


most people with armies like that are SERIOUS Persian Position's players who have worked hard to work out a system for the most efficient way to gain a huge reward on them, at least the ones I know who have massive armies are :) 
Aug 16, 2017, 22:1508/16/17
02/27/17
247
Excellent post, Tsun!
Aug 17, 2017, 13:3608/17/17
11/27/15
13

OR 7 WEAKER COAS SHOULD LOWER THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND START THINKING THE POSSIBILITY OF MERGING WITH STRONGER COAS.SOMETHING LIKE POWER THROUGH UNITY THING.


PS: I LIKE THE NO 4 SUGGESTION. THE ONE WITH THE INFORMATION STYLE  LIKE THE PANTHEONS, WHERE YOU COULD SEE WHO DOWNGRADES WHOM

Aug 18, 2017, 05:4708/18/17
08/13/16
118

FOLAS said:


OR 7 WEAKER COAS SHOULD LOWER THEIR EXPECTATIONS AND START THINKING THE POSSIBILITY OF MERGING WITH STRONGER COAS.SOMETHING LIKE POWER THROUGH UNITY THING.


PS: I LIKE THE NO 4 SUGGESTION. THE ONE WITH THE INFORMATION STYLE  LIKE THE PANTHEONS, WHERE YOU COULD SEE WHO DOWNGRADES WHOM

Thanks ... but, even if you can combine 500 average players into one coalition from smaller coalitions, this will still not address the problem.

Many who are strong enough to meet recruitment criteria don't like to play in the top coalitions. I am one of those players - most top coalitions I played in are full of politics and restrictions and it is not fun for me there.

Alyona KolomiitsevaCommunity Manager
Aug 18, 2017, 08:5208/18/17
09/17/15
8278
tsunwu85rsa said:


Thanks ... but, even if you can combine 500 average players into one coalition from smaller coalitions, this will still not address the problem.

Many who are strong enough to meet recruitment criteria don't like to play in the top coalitions. I am one of those players - most top coalitions I played in are full of politics and restrictions and it is not fun for me there.

Interesting...So you like more freedom when it comes to choosing the PvP targets?
Aug 19, 2017, 08:5708/19/17
Aug 19, 2017, 09:04(edited)
08/13/16
118

Alyona Kolomiitseva said:


tsunwu85rsa said:



Thanks ... but, even if you can combine 500 average players into one coalition from smaller coalitions, this will still not address the problem.

Many who are strong enough to meet recruitment criteria don't like to play in the top coalitions. I am one of those players - most top coalitions I played in are full of politics and restrictions and it is not fun for me there.

Interesting...So you like more freedom when it comes to choosing the PvP targets?

1: Mostly the diplomacy restrictions, particularly the importance of diplomacy in top coalitions, is what kills it for me in top coalitions because it is too restrictive IMO. Further, if you don't have an army of 100's of millions of offense and defense, then the extent to which you can make a difference in those coalitions is further limited.


2: I do agree that if you have a strong army and enough drachma to revive losses to contribute meaningfully at those higher levels, then it can be a lot of fun, particularly because those top coalitions have highly active players. Most don't have those armies or drachma to really play in top levels.


3: Top coalitions require 80% + of your defenses to be in a capital. You can get up to 20% bonus to your BASE offense and defense statistics from the capital disciplines if they are maxed out, which is probably around 5% to 10% effective bonus. Therefore, you lose access to 80% of your defense troops (which you put at risk as well) for a 5% to 10% total bonus. Therefore, it is questionable whether it is worth it to load that much defense into a capital in the first place, regardless of who you are. Some do care enough about coalition rank to do that, which is fine. However, if you are small-medium sized coalition, it is 100% clear cut to me that you should not put anything into the capital (regardless of whether you care about rank or not) because the added disadvantage of it getting wiped out is just too great (the time bomb referred to above).


4: In top coalitions, because you hold pantheons and significant defense in a capital, you really need to be careful who you attack in PvP. One little PA can lead to a capital or several Pantheons falling a few weeks later.



Anyways, it is getting a bit off topic. The point being that I think there are lots of reasons to want to play in small to medium sized coalitions. It would be nice (as suggested in this thread) if capitals could have more meaning there and also not be so much at the mercy of a few stronger players. I would personally never really care about a capital because of what I said in point 3 above, but many in small to medium sized coalitions do and would like to be more active with their capitals.

I really do believe that addressing some of the issues raised will have a positive impact on the game.

Aug 19, 2017, 13:5208/19/17
02/25/16
223

How about a free unit revival system like the city for the capitals?  It could even be scaled: 

Losing 0-10% of your capital troops =0% revival, 10-30% =20% revival, 30-50%=30%revival, >50%=50%revival.  Only coalition that lose a lot in one hit would benefit.  Big coalitions with huge defenses would not benefit unless destroyed by an even bigger coalition.

Aug 19, 2017, 14:4108/19/17
Aug 19, 2017, 14:47(edited)
08/22/15
65

boisdejustice said:


How about a free unit revival system like the city for the capitals?  It could even be scaled: 

Losing 0-10% of your capital troops =0% revival, 10-30% =20% revival, 30-50%=30%revival, >50%=50%revival.  Only coalition that lose a lot in one hit would benefit.  Big coalitions with huge defenses would not benefit unless destroyed by an even bigger coalition.

Nice idea. But I'm quite sure that Plarium will never implement something like that (because they are greedy and they will say they will lose money , even if they make millions). Welcome to the greedy corporate world.

I bet that if they would put a maximum daily/monthly spending in the game ( like 50$ max spending per day ) the game will be much more balanced (as right now the difference between spender and non-spender is ridiculous). But they will again say they will lose their millions of real money (compared to intangible "goods" they provide inside the game).

So for me the name of the game is " Sparta - War of Wallets ".

Dec 29, 2017, 13:3312/29/17
12/30/14
5
either get rid of the capture the flag tourney or allow coalitions to preemptively give their flags away
Dec 29, 2017, 20:0712/29/17
Dec 29, 2017, 20:07(edited)
01/10/16
152

very interesting topic

most of sugested above i do like and vote for.

especially like the following:

1.safe capital lvl of 10

2. remove capital downgrade coa achievment

3.infirmiry at caital

4. warning for incoming atack

5. high rank ability to evacuate forces from capital

------

Dec 30, 2017, 01:0312/30/17
10/09/14
216
I support the idea about protection, revival... I spoke with a lot hegemons of small coals. everyone prefer to keep capital to lvl 5 because is worthless.. Game is loosing interesting.. A lot of players quit when defence and them invest lost in capitals... Plarium is loosing money from those players.. You can see it... It needs to be protection max 3 lvls lowest capital to attack... Like this bullies stop terrorising small coal capitals for PVP... 
Dec 30, 2017, 13:1112/30/17
01/27/15
547
And you should be able to automatically upgrade your capital to the levels it once was.  If a coalition took months to get to level 20 meeting the requirement of ranked 10th or better, then that requirement should only have to be met once.  It's total BS if they have to do something over again.  It is very discouraging and ruins the morale of the average to moderate coiners.  The mega coiners don't give two sharts about the rest of the players and if they quit or not.
Dec 30, 2017, 18:1912/30/17
06/12/16
118

It is absolutely necessary to implement more levels of security in the capitals, in addition to level 5. And also a nursing in the capital ........

But have troops in the capitals is the most useless game ... When they want the 6 7 coas that dominate the game, you will lay it down without any problem.

Dec 31, 2017, 18:3112/31/17
11/29/15
43

With the advent of "The Four Corners", which is 4 of the top coalitions joining together as one federation, closing out the pan field and having enough power to obliterate even strong capitals. What future is there for a game which is purportedly free to play when it is being taken over by coiner coalitions who just want to control everything?

The 4 coa's are Cultus United, Nordmann, Titans300 and AO Outlaws. There should be a limit as to coalition levels that can be attack, for example if the coalition is 50 places or more, below you in the rankings you can't hit their capital. And there should be a limit to the number of Pantheons that can be controlled by one coalition. Otherwise there is no future for smaller coalitions and therefore no future for the game.
Dec 31, 2017, 21:4212/31/17
10/08/14
18

As Hegemon of Bellators Coalition with a capital at level 18 I can tell you straight out that our capital is under constant threat. It is our only asset and provides much benefit to our players in certain areas. My wife and I both play the game and have personally invested right at a thousand dollars plus to help get our capital to it's current level. I certainly agree with most of the suggestions offered and I am astonished that players or coalitions put up with the current system. The answer to that is simple, they have little to no choice at this time.

We are one of the last independent coalitions and one of the more senior ones in the game. We are not ranking freaks and generally do not engage in fighting unless provoked or in defense of our assets. As far as the time bomb remark made early on goes, yes indeed, not one capital tournament goes by without a great deal of anxiety for us. To many we are an inviting target, independent, higher level capital, and it likely is only a matter of time before our capital is downgraded. So, I concur that when that happens it will likely be a huge event for us and will be a game changer. The requirements to upgrade our capital past it's current level are very steep and from the sounds of it only grow more stringent as you go.

The difficulty I have with all this is the blatant money grab by Plarium in the current scheme of things. First money, real money, is spent on the upgrades as they are not cheap, and then the people who sold you the ability to upgrade it also are encouraging the taking back of the money and resources spent to get it upgraded in the first place. Before anyone reminds me that Plarium is in this to make money, it seems to me hypocritical to sell the tools and boosts to upgrade it, then encourage the destruction of it by dedicating a specific tournament to take away the very difficult effort it took to get it upgraded. Sort of like a jewelry store selling you a diamond ring and then sending burglars to your address that you provided them to steal it back the next night.

Yes, some changes need to be made, but will they? Unless players object more strongly I doubt it will change. I have played this game for 1181 days without ever missing a day, so I have seen the evolution of many things in this game. I know that it has taken our coalition as long as the capitals have existed to get it to this stage, and as earlier posted, all that money and time can be destroyed in minutes, not cool. I would even say it would be discouraging enough for many that it would simply spell the end of trying to accomplish things here.

So, from my viewpoint, it is more than time for Plarium to re-think the way this all works at the present. There is a huge divide now amongst the have money to spend without limits, have some to spend occasionally, or have little to spend or none to spend. Yes, it is up to each player to decide at what level they spend, but at some point when the game is no longer fun and engaging for those who do not, or they lose what they have spent years building due to this imbalance that exists, players will have little or no choice but to reduce or terminate the time and little money they invest here in the game.

I have spent a significant sum over my 3+ years of playing and will likely spend more, but unless there is at some point, efforts made at considering ALL of the players in the game I simply do not see an environment that encourages future growth and participation. To feel that your efforts and expenses are appreciated and rewarded would seem to be key to the games long-term outlook, but if one logs on to see that their capital and troops have been downgraded, with a high likelihood of it being taken down another level after each protection expires is not pleasant or reassuring to players. I was reluctant to call any attention to my coalition, but after reading all the previous post here, I simply had to say something.

Many of the suggested remedies should seriously be considered for implementation, or in my opinion, like some of the other posters, if this current scheme is allowed to continue unabated, many will be discouraged enough to simply find something else to do with their time and money. Plarium is always quick to ask us as players to accept some of these flaws in their game, and have little problem asking us as players to do this or that to remedy some issue like the lag, but when good solid players ask something of them there is usually only some verbal response making excuses as to why that cannot be done. And, yet it is Plarium who nearly in every thread here speaks of the balance of the game, ignores said balance in favor of a flaw that allows for honest, hard working players that make every effort to play under the constraints of a huge imbalance, to lose all they have invested, time, money and troops in a matter of days because this outright de-valuing of players contributions to their capital.

So, unless changes are made this is just another area where the game is diminished for players, who, especially in lower ranked coalitions, to benefit from upgrading their capitals and deriving the bonuses it provides to them. Yet, players keep on even when the game and odds are stacked against them, and for that, I can only watch and admire their perseverance in the face of such adversity. In the final analysis the game has evolved into a constant loss and revive or rebuild cycle, with no endgame, no safe place, or final outcome and for those who have little choice but to rebuild, the long build times almost guarantee that any significant loss will force any player to consider their continued presence in the game. Some sort of protection of the investments coalitions have made in their capitals begs for some protection from those who are much stronger and richer. If not the imbalances that exist now will only increase.