Search results

Indeed. Casual worlds are a place for calmer and more stable gameplay, so they favour defence.

I sincerely hope there is a way to make this new controversial concept work on conquest worlds as well. Change is nice! At least there is always some fun to be had.

I've never said this change is a magic spell that will erase all of the players' communication issues. It's just that you can see someone's offline and consequently you won't bother with messaging them in vain. Of course, it isn't flawless, but a rough, approximate activity monitor is a better...

Hard to judge. The "everything getting worse" phenomenon has to be more complex in its causes and mechanisms than a single person joining a large team. There have been some questionable steps taken recently (the invention of the GPC is not that new, but can still be called relatively recent)...

No, I'm serious. Just try and spend a while focusing on the upsides this brings, the cooperation opportunities instead of the abuse risk. It's up to you to compare these two for yourself, but I think the former completely dwarfs the latter. But as always, actual play will tell us more.

I think this change presents us with a useful new feature. The possibilities of exploitation are actually quite slim. Generally, only in-game abuse can be based on online time knowledge, so no damage is done to one's privacy outside the game itself. And even in the realm of unfair in-game...

:D, I remember that. It was in 2.124. Just for the sake of posterity, let's recall the feedback the change received back then. So, perhaps, it will be better if such situations do not repeat.

That is probably going to be a recurrent pattern after Sandbox 12 starts to live a life of its own. ;)

Of course, the change to revolt did not remove the problem entirely, but hampering conquest is generally preferable to hampering defence. The latter causes frustration when merely trying to keep one's own cities, whereas the former just slows the game down. That's why, regardless of being...

I think the abolition of conquests and making conquering on casual worlds revolt-based is a very good decision. To start, conquest doesn't play very well with morale, but this would be likely very frustrating. And the morale is not an issue. It just doesn't have an effect on the game, because...

I guess there were two issues directly related to casual-specific gameplay open when the question-turned-feedback thread got closed. The first was the dubious possibility of lifting a siege. Not just whose points will be considered, but also whose points should be considered. Should any points...

This raises a similar question. Why is Stone Hail stopped by the blessing? On a different note, I'm now interested in the answer to the siege-lifting question. How can this be solved without introducing an exception from the established rules? I can't see a more satisfactory option than a...

This is now but a minor question in this thread, which has by now turned into a general feedback thread for casual worlds (as represented by Sandbox 12), but still. What is the reason behind lightning getting blocked by blessing? The city can still be attacked as usual, so why this exception?

Thank you for the fast clarification. I should have been more thorough when checking out the linked post.

:D My bad. I failed to copy-and-paste correctly. What the post actually lists is: Slow = 5 months, Regular = 4 months, Fast = 3 months. For some reason I copied your post instead of the devlog when trying to show the discrepancy. How silly my reply looks now... My question should now make...

The Devlog post you linked seems to list base values for Domination value decrease delay per world config as follows: Slow = 10 months, Regular = 8 months, Fast = 6 months. Why so? Is the post outdated? I don't play on any Domination world, so I can't get a reliably up-to-date answer quickly.

Looks like someone has finally perceived the people's opinion. I will probably start Sandbox 8 as I am by now done with Sandbox 5.

This is some exceptional likebait (haven't seen anything like this on this forum yet) and I am happy with the new layout (the old was OK, too). However, I will still give you a like (because why not).

I agree with you, Thasoss, that a "50% decrease in time" is more intuitive than a "100% increase in speed" (even if they mean the same thing) because recruitment times are a simpler concept than recruitment speeds. What I was trying to say is that the wording referring to a "100% increase in...

It is correctly 100%. 100% increase in speed means 50% decrease in time. 50% increase in speed would mean 1/3 (~33%) decrease in time. Let's take recruiting a swordsman at world speed 1 in freshly built barracks (level 1). It takes 18 minutes (or 1080 s, if you prefer). Thus the recruitment...