The Units still consume, even when the number reaches 0. Yes, they stop deserting you, but with 0 food you cannot build or upgrade anything. It's not that now there is no Food consumption at all.

"It severely devalues the Farms and Upgrading them to Higher Levels, The Use of Dark Essence, Obelisk of Power."

You still need Food (the more the better), so it doesn't.

Lord Oberon said:

The Units still consume, even when the number reaches 0. Yes, they stop deserting you, but with 0 food you cannot build or upgrade anything. It's not that now there is no Food consumption at all.

"It severely devalues the Farms and Upgrading them to Higher Levels, The Use of Dark Essence, Obelisk of Power."

You still need Food (the more the better), so it doesn't.

We still need food, true enough, but the value is greatly lessened.  Food is the easiest resource to get and in great abundance.  You can fill your barns in 3-5 raids.  The "value" in farms and all these technology upgrades was in keeping out of negative enough that we could keep producing troops and defend our castles without losing troops due to hunger.  

With that risk of losing troops to hunger gone, there is significantly less value in paying such a high price to boost production of a resource we can get so easily from raids.

Compare for a moment and I'm sure you can see.  Which is a worse inconvenience?  

1) Having all the troops that were in your cue die because you were out of food, resulting in massive waste of resources, loss of a day's troop production, and steady loss of any of your troops at your castle but not in cata (defense/spies).

2) Having to raid a castle before being able to make anything due to being out of food.

After reading the entire discussion i guess it would have been better to have the update as follows..

The troops would not desert or die with 0 food.. but they would fight with say 50% or reduced power..

This has to be a joke, right?

Hard to imagine a company that publishes games for a living to come up with such a game breaking idea. 

Would it not be better to brainstorm ideas that increase troop activity within the game instead of making it easier to stockpile troops?

Skramble AOC2 Recruitment said:

This has to be a joke, right?

Hard to imagine a company that publishes games for a living to come up with such a game breaking idea. 

Would it not be better to brainstorm ideas that increase troop activity within the game instead of making it easier to stockpile troops?

The patch lets the strong grow stronger.  Those who weren't impacted by issues with food yet and/or who were putting significant resources into preventing the food problem are upset and understandably so.  There is still a cap of sorts on army size.  If your army is too big, you simply won't be able to keep enough food on hand for long enough to do anything.  There will still be ways around it; redeeming from black market to build, being online and spending second raids come in, temp production boosts, etc.  

There already is a lot to encourage troop activity in the game.  The problem is that the frequency of the tournaments coupled with the fact that it takes a long time to rebuild what is lost ensures that players who want the best rewards will stockpile massive armies and seek out easy wins. 

I agree with DJMoody that something had to be done about food because it was game over for many players once they reached the point that their armies simply weren't sustainable.  The only way to prevent game over without the devs doing something would have been to radically change your play style, and that might not have been feasible if your armies needed to be huge to accomplish league goals.  

It would have been interesting if they'd found other ways to do it such as more technologies to increase production, allow players to have more farms, create settlements with much higher food output, be able to level farms up higher, etc.  Since they chose to solve it this way instead, we're left seeing how it has altered the dynamics of game play and adapting.  

I don't get that. First you say they will not die/desert you if you run out of food. Then you say, "Do not let your food storage get below 0" So you are saying I can train all the units I want and never have to worry about my food supply. Not that I would do that because it's not right. It's nice to know that if I do run out, then you got my back till I log in again, Thank You

BattleBear said:

I don't get that. First you say they will not die/desert you if you run out of food. Then you say, "Do not let your food storage get below 0" So you are saying I can train all the units I want and never have to worry about my food supply. Not that I would do that because it's not right. It's nice to know that if I do run out, then you got my back till I log in again, Thank You

My Lord, you cannot train any units if you produce zero food. The only thing that was changed is that your units will not be dismissed if you don't have enough food to feed them.

Seriously?  This is dumb.  I'd rather play something else if the rules are going to change like this.  Change it back or I'm done.

This would only be usefull really if you ran food into negatives, and you needed to get it back into posetives to actually make new units.

You would have to raid to keep build units, buit at a certain level raiding wont be enough and you need to start use your units on something.

Lord Oberon

I have two arguments against this update.

1. this contradicts logics from real life - no food, units die

2. it has killed food market. i can not sell food, cant set a lower price either

djmoody said:

This has nothing to do with big players. Big players don't buy food in the market.

so, are we happy about this?

im calling out players who feel this update to be nonsense, 

send your unused food directly to Oberon

kala2 said:

im calling out players who feel this update to be nonsense, 

send your unused food directly to Oberon

Many players have asked us to remove the Food limits to be able to build stronger armies. Our developers have decided to implement this idea into the game. 

I suspect its glitched.  Negative production, food at zero, but according to this thread, troops should not desert.  Had 10 spies at castle but not in cata.  Nobody attacked me, nobody tried to spy on me, but the spies are gone.  

That's not what was stated in the message. It stated we will no longer loose troops if we are lacking food, but we can not hit 0. Example: 100 troops, food source is a hundred percent 100%, You build more troops, now food source goes to +50% -50%. So the old system to maintain, some of your troops would die or run off to find food. Now due the loyalty of troops they ration the +50% until we leaders do something to support our troops. But if we don't and the food source get to 0 or nothing, guess what?

Well, to get that many troops you still need food to buy those troops or to upgrade Lost Arts or buildings. So there is still a need for upgrading those farms.

But I must agree with the people above. I really don't like this change.

You do realize that the playing field would be more balanced in the game had you NOT implemented this change and the player VS player battles would have been more epic and people would use their armies more - beacon hits would require more softeners and beacons would not be defended with 800 million defense requiring 2 billion hammers? - armies would be closer matched and the smaller players would not feel defeated before they even start