(Survey) Protection for cities after siege

We are thinking about new feature, to protect cities that suffered heavy losses (buildings razed) after massive attack .

The idea: If attack or series of attacks destroy city defence, rob resources (except protected amount) and destroy several buildings. Then there should be some mechanism to protect city. At least for some short amount of time (this time could be dependant from amount of damage to buildings, but not walls or towers). Because further attack on such city won't give any resources profit anyway. And city also won't be able to repel any new attacks from same aggressor or "friendly" neighbours if they know that city have no defence right now.

Such mechanics would give time for "victim", to respond if he/she was offline during attack.

So we would like your opinion on that, what do you think about it? If you are agreed, what mechanics you think should be implemented (conditions for such protection, duration etc.). Also if you have any other suggestion feel free to share them

I think you have already made this into a farmer game. if this is implemented there will be no reason to have an army. Right now if a collectivism player follows the previous advice given on protection there is no need for this. Because some players have chosen to stay in classical age and not reap the benefits of the catacombs and stronger walls given by medieval age you should not penalize the warriors in this game. This would make me quit playing as I am not a farmer. I already have to have and support a massive army just to do any damage to a collectivism player. Or again I say make some of the other achievements work so that there is something else to try for. You have given the farmers everything. Do something for us warriors for a change. 

Because further attack on such city won't give any resources profit anyway. And city also won't be able to repel any new attacks from same aggressor or "friendly" neighbours if they know that city have no defence right now.

I hope this plan is not a late april fools joke, i agree that destroying a town in 2 days seems a bit too much, and now that summer is coming and people cant be always on, it can help.

Maybe it wont give resources,but im sure that some are not attacking constantly due to beeing low on resources, but rather to destroy and to actively expand when surrounded. I suppose you already know my opinion on all this subject, but i suppose that war has to be there in some way.

Also I have to disagree with you, "friendly neighbours" are the best.Even better when there are 3 of them willing to give you all of their love. I suppose that "Love hurts" is true when you have a black widow as your neighbour.

They build a lv 2 wood wall and have maybe 2 hunters and a brave in town,usually no hero and call that DEFENSE and ARMY. Is it our fault they choose culture over defense? I saw the question: what do i do after kyiv?,more than once.....REALLY????

They build a lv 2 wood wall and have maybe 2 hunters and a brave in town,usually no hero and call that DEFENSE and ARMY. Is it our fault they choose culture over defense? I saw the question: what do i do after kyiv?,more than once.....REALLY????

I'm new to the game really, so you might think my ideas on it are not worth taking into account, but looking into it from an outsider point of view I can't help but find it funny how some of you think that your favourite type of game is the only sensible/serious/profi way of playing... Well, PvP, farm games, rpg are all ways to waste your time with pleasure when you should probably be doing something more productive, like working, studying, spending time with your family or at least taking a jog. So what if somebody wants to develop culture and not defense? So what if somebody wants to build a nice town and follow the adventure? Are they worse than you somehow? That's why they chose that politics, you know... It's advertised as being for those who don't want to engage in PvP. Give your opinion to the devs but please do not diminish other players just because they prefer other style of playing, supposedly available in this game.

I was drawn into the game because I loved TT1 - which was a single player, casual game. I loved it mostly because it was both strategy (in kinda starcraft way, where each level is a puzzle/challenge to solve) and rpg. While I might have played it to the end even if it was just one of those things, I don't think I would be coming back to it - which I do from time to time, becuse the (later) levels are still challenging even if you know the story and of course you forget that too. I don't think there's any other casual game I played more than twice.

That's why I looked for a sequel. The FAQ on this page advertise this one as suitable for casual players, thanks to this "collectivism" mode. I don't think that's true and even less when I read the forums - people quitting because their towns get destroyed and because they can't progress in the game as they wish. While I'm not at that point yet, I can already see it can easily get there, no matter what I do. I mostly like following the adventure (the real time strategy part is gone unfortunatelly!) and I'm willing to put up with some attacks if they do not hinder the part of the game that I like. Same as I can put up with the "farm" type accent such as waiting (for days) for your buildings and research to finish. That's why I was asking what's after Kyiv, and how much of the story is implemented. Without that, for me the game is boring and could be frustrating and I'd simply quit. I've already deleted all my heros except for one, on which I plan to spend much less time. Judging by other posts/chats, I wouldn't be the only one.

There are plenty of stricly PvP games so complaing that other players - coming here from the casual market of TT1 - do not want to engage in PvP in this one is funny to me. You can always choose another game, and believe me, those who want stricly farming games will not get cozy here either and will quickly find a more suitable one from just as big a market. Btw. there are also really great multiplayer games in which the interaction between players is to fight together against something... It is fun too, you know?

Having said all that, I still think the devs are trying to fit too much into a single game and I'm not sure it's possible. The result is, it's gonna be fairly good on all these aspects (rpg/farming/PvP) but will not be great at any. Sorry if this is harsh, but that's my quick impression as not-a-hardcore/addict player (yet! we'll see how it goes...). The people who love PvP will not be satisfied if you continously limit their expansion/attacks because they are doing it for just that - expansion! Resources have little to do with it... (besides, once you got past Kyiv, there's little else to do...) The farm/rpg fans will not be happy and will quit because it's not about  how much the attacks disturb and hinder you but because they don't like being attacked at all! Being attacked a single time, without much damage, can still be very discouraging if you want a stressless game. 

I think the only way to accomodate both groups will be to have separate servers - one for PvP, the other with PvP blocked. I know some parts of the story (even the tutorial) might be pointless in such a case (i.e. building walls and towers, stash, shelter, etc.) but it will still be fun for the casual player. In my opinion the game would still be very competitive, compared to your average casual/farm game, because of the need for culture expansion, seizing of resources, etc. You could still end up unlucky and boxed in completely if you happen to be neighbours with players who simply have more time than you to spend on the game.

Also, beginners still can train and learn on such a server to later (once they finish the story) start with another hero on the PvP server. You can then judge based on user activity how many servers you need for each type of players. I would guess this would actually increase your potential target market of players far more than trying out new ways of fitting collectivism and leaderism in a single world.

I feel a great urge to react on the above. I do think it is a good idea to build in some kind of mechanism to prefend someone to become a target. Not just for one player, but for others surrounding him, and then over and over again.
I don't think that means that TT2 becomes a farm-game. I talk to a lot of other players who do like this game very much, but prefer to fight the monsters, and don't like the fighting between players.

Remember what Gromus said in Opposition Hide Out; Teya was a peaceful world. It seems to me the storylines tells us there is more than war... And above all; TT2 is not just another wargame either!

I know fighting can not always be avoided, but being targeted is not always fair. And indeed, it is everyones responsibility to work on a good defence. But if a player chooses culture over defense, he shouldn't be punished for it, over and over again.

I think the game is good the way it is. 

You created lada's wards for a reason

Lada ward,catacombs,shields,helmets,towers,walls,reinforcements,Alliance,doves etc,etc.

I think the only way to accomodate both groups will be to have separate servers

(sorry if an empty citation box apears) Even if it seems like the best idea, this has been already sugested more than once,lets say in this post: http://www.totemtribe.com/talk/different-servers-for-different-gameplay-styles/    but it seems that it's not a good idea,im not quite sure why.Good for "farmers", good for "warriors" (if they can fight their own kind)and good for you ,as you need peolpe to play if you want some money.Having complete prohibition in attacks may be too much but a peacefull server with a bit more of control beeing implemented in the future (as with alphas, betas and all that you have more than enough work)would be the perfect solution, i cant see any downsides.

Everything in this game is about time, location and food. 90% of the time your neighbor started same day as you so for me, if you haven't thought your defense through thats on you.

If  neighbor is 5 cells away then it is around 1 attack every 20 min. If neighbor is further away then it is one attack per hour or higher. Attacker has 12 hours to do damage between chain of peace flags. 

So, my questions are: what timeframe are you proposing to set to be safe from an attack? How are you going to evaluate the attack and what damage is great deal and what isn't? If town had zero defense to begin with what is going to happen?

Post deleted - no option to do it otherwise, at least I can't find one.

Oh come on Bers. Please...

The towns in this game already have enough to deter battle. The players just don't use it. They have to put forth some effort for that. They fail to build the items that protect them in favor of culture. They have determined that if it doesn't have culture it is worthless. So then, when they realize that raw unprotected culture is going to be destroyed - which is what you meant to occur - they have asked you to create an "automatic" safety net. They don't have to build it, it takes no culture, or resources. No effort.

Leaderism players who are attacking towns have worked hard to build up an army that will accomplish that task. It is not easy to do, it is expensive to keep up, expensive to send an army, and leaderism players find it nearly impossible to damage a well protected collectivism town. Instead of giving yet again another concession, why do you not encourage players to utilize the resources you have already provided them within the game - just like you have done in previous Alphas - and play the game the way it was meant to be played....

Lets go back to TT Gold. How many would have beat that game - that final level - without a huge army and lots of towers? None. Come on people stop crying because you are building a losing battle and begin to learn how to play a winning game.

I've read this thread and I think I can be objective here.  For the newer testers, and yes testers is what we currently are, it seems an assumption is being made that none of the veterans have ever been attacked and thus never suffered a total loss of either army or buildings or both. Therefore, it appears that the supposition is the veteran players can't possibly know how disappointing and frustrating it is to lose what has been built over time.  This is simply untrue.  Some of us have been here from the beginning, while others of us started in A2.  There is not a veteran player/tester among us that has not been hit, and hit badly, whether we suffered the loss of an entire army or the loss of an entire town.  Some have suffered the loss of an entire domain.  What they did in response to those challenges is learn how to defend and how to attack.  Something everyone can do when they have no more quests to finish for the time being, along with reading the forum from front to back, where the peaceful players vs warriors issue has been beaten into the ground.  So, when I read comments above I felt it necessary to comment. 

That being said, I think collectivism is great as it is for defense.  Defense of your towns takes dedication and patience and the willingness to defer the gratification of a large domain for the safety of your people and towns.  It seems to me that many players who are complaining want the luxury of expansion without the risk it poses when you expand to the point where you are a)blocking another player b) building on others' borders and c)hording global resources.  That is not possible.  If you do those things and you do not build your defenses you are a sitting duck and you cannot then complain when you get hit by others wanting your land, to keep their own land or some global resources.

I speak from the perspective of one who not only has a collectivism hero but I have played leaderism as well.  So, I have both been attacked (this stage is no exception) and done the attacking.  Collectivism has all it needs to more than adequately defend.   Sure, it's hard when you have multiple heroes hitting you at once with bigger, better armies and weapons, but if you make your towers and walls and army you are in much better shape than a leaderism hero with equivalent defenses.  How do I know this?  Because I have been hit playing both forms of politics and my collectivism heroes are much better able to defend than my leaderism heroes.  Do not take this as a complaint.  Being hit taught me valuable lessons and I am still learning things even in A4 and I have been here since A2.  I am grateful for the lessons taught, even though they were painful at the time.  :-)  FYI this is not an invitation, lol.

If you want to survive you have the tools at your disposal when you play collectivism.  No one, can survive this game alone.  Make friends, form alliances and help each other out with reinforcements, resources, what have you.  Use your Lada's Wards when needed and if you are leaderism and just can't keep up change politics.  Make it expensive for others to attack you.  You have all you need to play in peace if you make use of it.

As to the question at hand, I am at a loss as to how much more can be done to help collectivism defend when it is all there.  I think leaderism defense is seriously lacking however.  Should that change?  I don't honestly know, but I do think that the only way a leaderism hero can effectively defend even close to collectivism is to have tons of reinforcements from alliance members (not just a few units, btw, entire armies).  Or to be big enough and strong enough that no one hits you.   :-) 

I can't see the benefit of having an hour or two truce because with build times the way they are in the later eras not much will be done in that time frame.  Yes, you may limit the number of attacks in an hour but that just gives your attacker time to retrain and come back as strong as ever.  So, really what would be gained?  I'm not contributing much but I could not sit quietly by so here I am. 

I apologize for not being entirely helpful, but as it is, I think collectivism at least is fine the way it is.

Personally, I'd like to see some of the other achievements implemented.  That may help mitigate some of these complaints.  :-)

thank you River for the clear and concise answer. You said what I was trying to say exactly. I also have been on the side of being destroyed in previous stages. 

looking into it from an outsider point of view I can't help but find it funny how some of you think that your favourite type of game is the only sensible/serious/profi way of playing...

I was once playing this game for the first time. If you look through the ZILLIONS of threads on this very subject you will find a few of mine. I thought a separate server was a great idea and wanted to play single player peaceful game. But after playing for a while I realized that the true nature of the game goes way beyond stretching your land out to grab the next set of horses. I mean .. really .. how boring? But how would you know this if you haven't tried any other part of the game?  Your visions are limited there is a whole wide world out there. Try to get some achievements that are outside your current comfort zone. Try some of the many other things that this game offers. You offer your opinion about the success of this game??? You have yet to play it.

thank you River for the clear and concise answer. You said what I was trying to say exactly. I also have been on the side of being destroyed in previous stages. 

:-)  Exactly.  It is part of the game experience.  Our new players should recognize that we have all been there and done that, as it were. 

thank you River for the clear and concise answer. You said what I was trying to say exactly. I also have been on the side of being destroyed in previous stages. 

:-)  Exactly.  It is part of the game experience.  Our new players should recognize that we have all been there and done that, as it were. 

I get what you all are saying - it all boils down to that it is a PvP game. As you say, there are few quests now implemented and when you finish them - it's just that. As I wrote earlier, I'm mostly interested in the rpg aspect and I was glad to hear there's much more to come (all the questions "what's after...?" are actually a sign that the devs are doing something right there!). If it was only PvP - I wouldn't even be here. All of you probably like that - that's why you're still playing! ;)

My concern is - and I stated that in the first post - that it's probably impossible to fit in one place the casual adventure seekers with the dedicated PvP players (once the whole thing is implemented, that is when you have a lot to do beside PvP). I'm a casual player and while it's easter holiday here (Btw, Happy Easter everyone!) I can have the game on and schedule tasks all day long by just looking at the screen from time to time. So I have no problem now fending off attacks, hiding army and using up resources so that not much are captured. But once the holiday is over, I won't be able to do that. I'll have 1-2h max a day plus some days I'll be totally offline. So do I have a chance of surviving? And - what's the most important part for me - surviving AND following the story at the same time? I don't think so. Maybe I shouldn't be here testing the game, simply.

The suggestions that Bersker and the long time players are giving here and in previous threads all take for granted that people would - just as you do - spend a lot of time, if intermittently, on the game. With the time needed for re-building defenses (around an hour for a 5 level wall/tower, but I guess that gets much longer later), an average casual player will manage 2-3 tasks each day in each city. An hour long truce after a damaging attack will help nothing. Especially if the player is offline at that time, and god forbid gone for let's say 2 days. He or she might be left with nothing to rebuild.

My conclusion is - this is not a game for casual players. No matter what the devs wish it to be, it's a classic PvP game where you need to be there most of the time or have replacments (but if you're on the account only for a fraction of the time they are, it's really them playing, right? You'll probably pick another game anyway). It is probably so obvious to you all that you're surprised and bothered when somebody asks for more defenses - it's a PvP so they should naturally learn how to defend and later how to attack! Of course it takes time and effort, but that's what the game is all about! But that wasn't clear to me when I started the game and that's why I wrote that I get my mistake now (in the post that got deleted...).

A PvP is a great thing - lots of people love that and there are already dedicated players here. I just ask the devs, as in the post Berserker has deleted, to be clear about it. In the informations given on the website I have read that yes it's a PvP but you can still play comfortably without bothering much about it (section "Playing solo" in the FAQ). It's simply not true and you would save casual players a lot of frustration seeing their kingdoms destroyed if you describe it as majorly a PvP. Some of them might try it out and like it (actually, it's really friendly and people are extremely helpful to the beginners...), but others would steer away and save also you the hassle of dealing with their complaints and frustrated expectations.