DeletedUser276
read my previous posts on this that contain the words re evaluate.
-
Dear forum reader,
To actively participate in our forum discussions or to start your own threads, in addition to your game account, you need a forum account. You can REGISTER HERE!
Please ensure a translation into English is provided if your post is not in English and to respect your fellow players when posting.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Support or Forum Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitment page for more information and how you can apply:
read my previous posts on this that contain the words re evaluate.
DeletedUser9701
The point rebalancing didn't seem to affect my score much. I think I gained 100-200 points, and I'm a player who usually attacks and plunders every one of his neighbors each day. The armies of most people in my neighborhood are at least 2 ages below mine.
Anyways, one potentially unintentional thing that I have noticed is that while the neighborhood bar does not snap back to the number #1 player in the neighborhood after an attack, it does still snap back after you choose to plunder whoever you just attacked. So this convenience fix doesn't seem to have solved much.
Anyways, one potentially unintentional thing that I have noticed is that while the neighborhood bar does not snap back to the number #1 player in the neighborhood after an attack, it does still snap back after you choose to plunder whoever you just attacked. So this convenience fix doesn't seem to have solved much.
DeletedUser
Where as players that dont want to battle all the time can opt out of guild wars.. everyone wins.
I have heard players who don't want to defend talk. They were explaining how to time their harvest in order to protect it from plunder. They collect only once a day. If you collect only once a day, you'll never see EMA in a lifetime. Players with this mentality will not be playing at all in a month. Why, as a game maker, concern yourself with them at all? Let us hasten them out of existence. Plunder only hastens one's development in the game, through added resources and victory expansions. People who refuse to fight only cripple themselves. If you want to make the game more fair to those who don't want to "battle all the time," come up with other nonviolent ways to get more land expansions. Maybe like a system to reduce the time between FP's like schools and scholars instead of military buildings and units. Right now, schools, libraries, and academies only grant happiness. Battle is the only avenue afforded to accelerate city growth. If I saw another option for growth, I probably wouldn't be so aggressive myself. And I could better respect others' decision not to fight. But, since there is only one option, not choosing it is choosing not to play. A football player does not respect another player not giving their all. I have none for a player still in IA after a month. Don't ask me to care. Don't penalize me for stomping on them. It's not weakness to want to weed out the weak, it's nature. It's weakness to tolerate their existence. I respect serious gamers games who put up a fight. I love the sense of accomplishment when I beat them, and they give me 2000 points! I want to run up and hug them! Those who give me no challenge, 216 lousy points, I want to kick in the groin. Trust me, that is the opinion of most of us aggressives. Noone's out there just targeting the easy kills. What's the point to battle points if you won't get enough to place in a PVP? I think that's the problem. The weak have convinced you they're being picked on and taking it personally. As far as balancing out... There's no way in H E double hockey sticks archers and balistae are beating knights and heavy armor. Come off it! It's tricky enough using them to beat soldiers and legionaires. Leave the scoring as it was and stop protecting lazy players.
Also, I have a bug I haven't seen addressed yet. Retreating from a battle brings you back to the last successfully plundered city. The system treats this city as your own. You either have to reset to get the correct city or move on until you reach the next city you can beat. A workaround I found is to return to city after each attack, but that wastes time as it rebuilds your city and snaps the bar back to yourself. Not a big problem, but you can't get updates on your city's progress between battles until you either run out of troops or viable targets.
I have heard players who don't want to defend talk. They were explaining how to time their harvest in order to protect it from plunder. They collect only once a day. If you collect only once a day, you'll never see EMA in a lifetime. Players with this mentality will not be playing at all in a month. Why, as a game maker, concern yourself with them at all? Let us hasten them out of existence. Plunder only hastens one's development in the game, through added resources and victory expansions. People who refuse to fight only cripple themselves. If you want to make the game more fair to those who don't want to "battle all the time," come up with other nonviolent ways to get more land expansions. Maybe like a system to reduce the time between FP's like schools and scholars instead of military buildings and units. Right now, schools, libraries, and academies only grant happiness. Battle is the only avenue afforded to accelerate city growth. If I saw another option for growth, I probably wouldn't be so aggressive myself. And I could better respect others' decision not to fight. But, since there is only one option, not choosing it is choosing not to play. A football player does not respect another player not giving their all. I have none for a player still in IA after a month. Don't ask me to care. Don't penalize me for stomping on them. It's not weakness to want to weed out the weak, it's nature. It's weakness to tolerate their existence. I respect serious gamers games who put up a fight. I love the sense of accomplishment when I beat them, and they give me 2000 points! I want to run up and hug them! Those who give me no challenge, 216 lousy points, I want to kick in the groin. Trust me, that is the opinion of most of us aggressives. Noone's out there just targeting the easy kills. What's the point to battle points if you won't get enough to place in a PVP? I think that's the problem. The weak have convinced you they're being picked on and taking it personally. As far as balancing out... There's no way in H E double hockey sticks archers and balistae are beating knights and heavy armor. Come off it! It's tricky enough using them to beat soldiers and legionaires. Leave the scoring as it was and stop protecting lazy players.
Also, I have a bug I haven't seen addressed yet. Retreating from a battle brings you back to the last successfully plundered city. The system treats this city as your own. You either have to reset to get the correct city or move on until you reach the next city you can beat. A workaround I found is to return to city after each attack, but that wastes time as it rebuilds your city and snaps the bar back to yourself. Not a big problem, but you can't get updates on your city's progress between battles until you either run out of troops or viable targets.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser276
DeletedUser
Urk... an almost unreadable wall of text that reads like an unmoderated stream of conciousness but to address the only point in there that I could see:
What score you get does not matter if every player uses the same scoring system. If you are competing with another player and you fight the same battles then the player who fights the better fight will score better and get a higher ranking. So, it does not really matter if you get 120 or 108 points for a spearman since everyone will get the same points.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser276
thank you... someone actually sees it. Most of the complaining for something that is broad across the board I tend to think is just people complaining because their "advantage" is now gone and they are upset. Without good reasons why I shall break out dat grumpy cat 
DeletedUser
The Great Buildings being nerfed was poorly thought out and an insult to many that have purchased them.
Bad update. Less respect.
Bad update. Less respect.
DeletedUser
I agree with you, WilO. They were not well thought out and were probably too powerful in the first instance. =/ AND, so now they get nerfed...
DeletedUser7719
I agree with you guys. There should of been more updates, which slowly moved these numbers into the position they are in now. (Only 5% change at a time?)
DeletedUser
I agree with Pontified regarding options for growth besides battle. I think he has some good ideas here.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser276
big changes bring complaints... everyone has the same capabilities... no unfairness to anyone. Just takes longer now. Not that much of a reason to complain overly much I dont think. But thats just my thoughts. Since now I am just going around repeating myself non stop I will not refrain from posting in the changelog unless something new comes up.
The update is here to stay folks. Over time if its reviewed as underpowered it will move back up. Until then though might as well get used to it. whether its a 5% change repeatedly over time or a 50% change now.... the change still happened. I think its mostly the shock value of it. Either way.... Blacksmith signing out.
The update is here to stay folks. Over time if its reviewed as underpowered it will move back up. Until then though might as well get used to it. whether its a 5% change repeatedly over time or a 50% change now.... the change still happened. I think its mostly the shock value of it. Either way.... Blacksmith signing out.
DeletedUser
No, not everyone will get the same points. For expediency sake, I stick with my highest ranking offense and go through my list. I am anticipating what I'll need for my last 10 opponents. I don't want to have to change around for each and every opponent. That's a huge time waster. So, I got my trebuchets in there. Trebuchets are 4 ages beyond spearmen. If I lost 10% for one age difference how much will I lose for 4? Now, the guy who hasn't made it to trebuchets and uses catapults will get more than me for the same battle. Now, I'm punished for success. How much more for the players that have made it CA?
Across the board even reduction? I don't think so.
I don't think you have considered the time spent and resource cost of the newer armaments. Those that choose not to defend or defend poorly for their age were unwilling to devote the time and resources for building an army. That is why this is so unfair. If you want to sabotage the fighting system, why not just scrap it altogether? You are screwing over your devoted players to protect players that'll be gone in a month.
See my point? I devoted several months to gather resources to get to trebuchets. My reward is to get the value of my kills reduced. Those who chose to come here once a day for 5 minutes, get rewarded by possibly becoming less interesting opponents to attack.
But, you're in a different PvP with trebuchets than with cats. True, but I'm still in the same global ranking. Now you have just given the advantage to lesser players to advance faster in the global rankings than higher players. And what about guilds. The higher guilds have mostly CA players. They're crippled the worst by this new scoring system. Now, lesser guilds can climb faster. Some guilds have weekly point minimums to remain members of those guilds. You've just made it harder to reach those minimums. When you did your research in this change did any of this factor in?
Now, to the supposed goal of this change, to cut down on lesser players being attacked. Let's have a poll to see how many PvP competitors are going to stop attacking non defenders because of the new scoring. It looks like the scoring change is going to accomplish nothing but to tick off a whole lot of devoted players. Better rethink this one.
DeletedUser
I think you have got the wrong end of the stick...
You have not lost 10% of the points because you are using troops one age above the defender - the points are the same for all ages they have just been changed from the previous values (click here for the new values). If you attack 1 spearman with a bronze age or a colonial age army you will get the same 108 points.
It is still balanced as EVERYONE gets the same points.
You have not lost 10% of the points because you are using troops one age above the defender - the points are the same for all ages they have just been changed from the previous values (click here for the new values). If you attack 1 spearman with a bronze age or a colonial age army you will get the same 108 points.
It is still balanced as EVERYONE gets the same points.
DeletedUser9701
What are you talking about?
The amount of battle points you get from a battle depends on the units you defeat, and has nothing to do with the units you defeat them with.
DeletedUser13082
So in real terms what your saying is "we do what we want it's our game get over it or stop playing" Personally I've already seen 3 people all from the guild I am in say that if things keep getting slowed down to a snails pace then they will simply quit the game and find another instead.
The game is quite blatantly being changed for the worse and is clearly obvious by the amount of complaints. If you expect the players to keep playing then you need to give them what they want not what you think is better. If everybody complains about the same thing then obviously it should be changed. The phrase "The customer is always right" exists for a reason. If the company view the customer as wrong then the customer will no longer be a customer.
Why not try updating with all the excellent ideas in the ideas forum? or maybe something that's even slightly useful instead of changing things that don't need changing. As already said, if everybody complains about a specific thing then obviously the mass majority should be listened to?
If it aint broke dont fix it!
DeletedUser
hahahahahah reading all the complaints in this thread is funny. this update is a lot better than the ones I'm used to.
example: version 0.10.0 introduced 11 serious bugs to the game. This only introduced 4 or 5 less serious ones. Not bad at all.
example: version 0.10.0 introduced 11 serious bugs to the game. This only introduced 4 or 5 less serious ones. Not bad at all.
DeletedUser13082
If you read the complaints then how do you not realise that nobody is complaining about the bugs? The complaints are aimed at the fact that the update has changed things which in turn makes the game worse for majority of players. Things that had no reason to be changed were swapped around and screwed up and players are annoyed as they don't want the changes that have been implemented.
DeletedUser
that's my point. people are complaining about minor inconveniences which actually DON'T make the game worse for most people. 99.9% of the players do not have Deal Castles. Every player has to deal with combat exploits, quest bugs, collection problems, and plundering problems. The changes made in this patch are not serious changes. Obviously the the GBs that were nerfed, were done so because they were blatantly too good. The other change, related to points earned from combat, affects every player in the same way, so it really isn't "worse" for the majority of players.
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser8813
the most important balancing act is still not sorted the small neighbor hoods..this should have been the most important balancing act of the lot,,so that all players have the same chance to score xp points..some of us like to climb the leaderboard although its only a board it gives us a purpose...guilds like to be no 1 players like to see there name high on the board..its an individual thing .so when i can only do 41 fights in 24 hour and the person i am chasing can do 79 that is a huge in balance..and to me much more pressing than balancing a few building because a few people thought they were to powerful
DeletedUser5026
Let's lay out some numbers and see how your arguments work out, shall we? Just in case Martynius and Lohengrin's answers still don't make sense:
- Stone Age player use stone throwers to attack 2 spearmen, he gets (90*2) = 180 battle points
- Iron Age player use ballistas to attack 2 spearmen, he gets (90*2) = 180 battle points
- Early Middle Age player use catapults to attack 2 spearmen, he gets (90*2) = 180 battle points
- High Middle Age player use trebuchets to attack 2 spearmen, he gets (90*2) = 180 battle points
- Late Middle Age player use cannons to attack 2 spearmen, he gets (90*2) = 180 battle points
- Colonial Age player use field guns to attack 2 spearmen, he gets (90*2) = 180 battle points
- Space Age player use Death Stars to attack 2 spearmen, he gets (90*2) = 180 battle points
*Note 2: The Space Age example is fictitious/made up, I'm trying to illustrate a point here
I hope you think so now, this is as blatantly obvious as I can put it, I did all the math for you. Your neighbour in the Colonial Age will get the same number of points as you in the High Middle Age and the catapult guy. So, exactly who is being punished here?
L.R.