(Survey) Protection for cities after siege

Still looks like people do not read my last comment or did it briefly without trying to understand the true meaning, despite my attempts to explain logic and motivation in detail and step by step. Not to say that neither me or Spoon have mentioned Collectivism explicitly in this thread.

I read it entirely and my comments point out that 1) there are enough protections built into game already, and 2)  I disagree with the idea of building additional protections into a game - especially "automatic" ones where no effort is required. The game is developed in a way that requires players to build protection. From the point of the tutorial your game points out that protecting yourself is essential and to build walls and towers and then build a good army that includes a variety of warriors and siege. Now players ignore this or simply don't want to waste their time on protection (oh my gosh it gives no culture!) and they don't want to experience the consequences of that? There are lots of achievements available for building protection and armies that are fun to pursue. The game was designed that way. Why not just encourage these players to build up their protection - like you originally meant this game to be played?

Bers this whole thing is about culture. If a player builds an army they lose culture. They are expanding and growing and seizing resources by growing culture. But the game allows for other ways to seize resources and fight the expansion of other players. You are planning to further limit all methods of accomplishment except the cultural pursuit.

Still looks like people do not read my last comment or did it briefly without trying to understand the true meaning, despite my attempts to explain logic and motivation in detail and step by step. Not to say that neither me or Spoon have mentioned Collectivism explicitly in this thread.

I know.  I just divided the two politics up since I see one as weak defensively and one as strong.  So, the bottom line is I am not sure what the benefit is to a one or two hour truce, unless you can set a Lada on top of it to serve to effectively shorten the amount of time you are unprotected while the Lada prepares.

I read it entirely and my comments point out that

...

encourage these players to build up their protection - like you originally meant this game to be played?

If you did and analyzed what I said, you should have understood that this new feature will not help and not designed to help those players who disregard their defense. Like I have mentioned specifically, this will suit the best to those who are willing and able to defend, it's just too hard for them due to particular situation. This feature will be the most beneficial to medium skill players - it will not save those who disregard their protection, but will not help much the most experienced ones, but for more average aspiring types it will be great, to have time understand it better and not loose everything faster than they can comprehend it. You have been there and the fact that it was harder for you back then due to the abscence of all defensive stuff does not mean everyone should suffer as much.

How long is this automatic truce planned to be in place? You mentioned that it depends on the damage or the size of the attack? How about considering that it should also depend on the town's protection in place? If a player does not try to protect himself, he should not earn benefit of extra protection.

One more thing I did want to say ... we all realize that cultural expansion is aggressive. No need to point out that these "passive players" are not playing an aggressive game of their own.

So, the bottom line is I am not sure what the benefit is to a one or two hour truce,

I have already explained what is the biggest benefit - the close neighbors will not be as deadly as they are now. That's the main point as I see it.

I understand that, but maybe I am having a hard time seeing how that will help if, say a person is gone for a day or two.  The damage can still be done when the flag drops and an hour or two hiatus won't save the town in the long run.  I'm not  being critical, but I may be missing something.    So it reduces the attacks from 24 in a 12 hour period to 12.  A lot of damage can still be done in that time.  I've experienced it myself, lol.   What am I missing?

I understand that, but maybe I am having a hard time seeing how that will help if, say a person is gone for a day or two.  The damage can still be done when the flag drops and an hour or two hiatus won't save the town in the long run.  I'm not  being critical, but I may be missing something.    So it reduces the attacks from 24 in a 12 hour period to 12.  A lot of damage can still be done in that time.  I've experienced it myself, lol.   What am I missing?

Yes, it will help you you have neighbor close to you and can attack you 20 times a day or more which is a big deal. With this feature maximum number of (damaging) attacks you can get will be smaller (more like 5-10 at most) providing you better ground for recovery. Also the type of protection is debatable, this could be limited protection like protection only against siege/desctruction, but not from resources/unit losses.

This feature is not about saving the town or player, you are treating it like black/while. I am talking about shades of grey and trying to smooth out the edges.

Okay. Fair enough.  I get it now.  I think.  :-D

I am a new player and just setting up my town/domain and it is difficult with the time required to build to set up the adequate defenses I will ultimately need.  The thought that I will be powerless from attacks if it happens before I am able to reach a suitable defense makes me question whether I should be playing this game.  I am trying to level my palisades and turn them to stone.  I have the research but with each upgrade taking at least an hour, I know I will not be able to reach that point until tomorrow.  I have researched the mission to level 3, and have to wait until I am asked to join an alliance,  Even if I reach the level where I can create an alliance, I feel I do not have the expertise to do so.  Not really sure about all of this right now.

Carol, you can't be waiting to get invited, either you ask some alliance to join them either you ask for protection from someone strong. To sit and wait for someone to notice you won't be fruitful, you will be noticed but most likely by someone who can attack you

In addition to what Berserker have already mentioned above. I want just to point why I start to think about this feature.

Due to military actions in game are “time/distance dependent”. Enemy that 10 times further away from you, compared to your neighbor,  are roughly to say 10 times less danger to your kingdom (If you have no protection right now). And that is the place where abusing can occur. Sure you have to take care about your cities protection and so one..

But, let's just “visualize” one of examples of this problem. Lets assume next theoretical situation: there are 3 players/kingdoms (K1, K2, K3). K1 and K2 are "new players", in the middle of development and they are enemies to each other. K1 and K2 both have strong military and protections.. so they are equals right now, and don't poses big treat to each other. But K3 are late stage kingdom (or K3 and K2 could be even kingdoms of same player, but K3 are his much “older” one kingdom). So K3 could have strong “later age” army. Overall K3 don't poses great threat to K1, because due to game mechanics it will be located far away from new ones (K1, K2). But K3 could destroy any protection K1 have at current moment. So if strong player with K3 decide to wipe some city protection of K1. This will allow with right timings for K2 to wipe whole K1 city over “one night”, just because protection there was destroyed, and K2 are close to K1.. not because K1 don't care about military/protection and so one.. but just because K1 player was offline for some time... Variations of such abuse could be different.. it's just an example, of how this “weak spot” could be used right now...

So I think there should be some mechanics to “limit” this.

How long is this automatic truce planned to be in place? You mentioned that it depends on the damage or the size of the attack? How about considering that it should also depend on the town's protection in place? If a player does not try to protect himself, he should not earn benefit of extra protection.

That's one of the point we would like players to discuss there. To guide us from yours perspective of opinions and experience. On how you think it should be implemented, so it would bring more balance in game and not brake current one. We are not announcing this feature..

Still looks like people do not read my last comment or did it briefly without trying to understand the true meaning, despite my attempts to explain logic and motivation in detail and step by step. Not to say that neither me or Spoon have mentioned Collectivism explicitly in thi

Since I clearly do not understand the "cheat", I cannot respond to what you are asking. I had no idea this was even possible!

I can see that this was a difficult concept to explain. It can be misinterpreted in many ways. There is an unfairness to being the immediate neighbor of an aggressive hero... or two. I do finally "get" what you are trying to accomplish with this change. My original opinion stands, though, that the primary burden of protection still should be the responsibility of the player.

I feel that we are stacked together closely in order to promote aggression for domain space. This can be accomplished in several ways... build culture or build army or both. Only the army aggression is being addressed or limited with this proposal. If you are second-guessing the neighborly aggression and the results it has cultivated then maybe reconsider the tight stacking of heroes?

The question stands: what amount of damage are you counting as a threat to the town? One hero can barely drop a promoted medieval building of a collectivism, same army will wipe leaderism in no time.

I can see that this was a difficult concept to explain. It can be misinterpreted in many ways. There is an unfairness to being the immediate neighbor of an aggressive hero... or two. I do finally "get" what you are trying to accomplish with this change. My original opinion stands, though, that the primary burden of protection still should be the responsibility of the player.

I feel that we are stacked together closely in order to promote aggression for domain space. This can be accomplished in several ways... build culture or build army or both. Only the army aggression is being addressed or limited with this proposal. If you are second-guessing the neighborly aggression and the results it has cultivated then maybe reconsider the tight stacking of heroes?

Thank you.  It is much clearer now and I agree about the tight stacking of domains.

A problem that I've always had with 'starting town cannot be destroyed/captured' exists from 2 parts:

1. It is annoying for the attacking side, since whatever you do, the 'threat' of the other players will always be there. It decreases the amount of space you have to move around etc. What does this most often means? It means that you are forced to keep this player small, attack him once a day so he can never become a true threat.

2. It is annoying for the defending size, more obvious probably, an enemy army rolling over your town at least once a day is not fun. Does not matter if you are more of a hardcore player or a casual player.

Having played a lot of MMORTS games, that were the things that annoyed me the most in some other games. If you had a stronger player next to you, you were basically done. No way to overcome that and IMO, that should be the case. If another player is better, you should not get weird bonuses to counter that.

It was one of the reasons why I have always prefered Tribalwars. Tribalwars was much harder in that aspect. Once you were out of beginners protection, the enemy could simply take over your city and you would start at the edge again. It meant that you had to start all over again, BUT, it also meant that you were placed in a completely new surrounding with new chances.

I don't have a settler yet, so I'm not sure how more towns etc. works. But I am in huge favour of the ability to just capture the enemy's main towns. In my opinion, the positives outweigh the negatives in this aspect. Starting over completely again, but having equal chances, or continuing, but without a chance to ever really expend.

You could give the player who needs to start over again a bit of a starting boost. The player can keep the rank of his leader, maybe keep his research (or needs less research points for the technologies he used to have).

By not allowing to take main towns, I think you scare away more people than when they need to start over. Furthermore you also slow down the game a lot. Like I said if you can take over enemy city's, you allow players to expend a lot more. Grow a lot more.

1. It is annoying for the attacking side, since whatever you do, the 'threat' of the other players will always be there. It decreases the amount of space you have to move around etc. What does this most often means? It means that you are forced to keep this player small, attack him once a day so he can never become a true threat.

You can damage the main town of a collectivism player down to 0 population 10 culture, which is 1 cell, with no buildings left it's pretty much destroyed. Why would u attack him only once per day? there is no limit to how many times u can attack someone.

I have been playing TT since 2009. Initially when I downloaded this game I thought it would be similar to TT and TT gold. It's not, it's totally different , but I continue to play because I enjoy the challenges the game offers as much as I enjoyed the previous TT's. That been said, I really do get frustrated when I get attack by my neighbor who is a level 20 player . As a level 4 player there's no way I can match his/her power! I feel bullied!! and I understand the concept of war, but what challenge is there in attacking a weaker army?? why not make attacks "compatible" , meaning stronger armies shouldn't be allowed to attack newbies which are still very weak and trying to beef up their army. It is NOT that we (newer players) don't want to improve our defenses, it is the fact that it takes time and one must build up resources that are required to improve defenses first.  I do like the idea of some sort of protection , even if just for an hour to recuperate as explained by Bers. At least that gives players some sort of chance to catch up.