Printable View
I will level up to 48 .. almost there, so i can get the cannons unlocked, my buildings are almost all lv5 ... then i will put my acct on sleep till pvp comes, i do not look forward to do the wheat fields/mines/buff rinse and repeat every day. Since you cannot go beyond lv50 anyway to unlock new options, from 48 to 50 is just an ego journey, that i am no looking forward to do.
I too am in no hurry to lvl up anymore. I got to lvl 42 and decided to take an entirely different path with my empire to keep me going and interested. The rate I was going I would have reached lvl 50 within a month or two and would have been bored and probably moved onto a diff game. This is another reason I'm not interested in getting cannons/'crossbows/etc to make adv's even easier and to be able to do even more adv's in a day/week. I've already veered off my path to slow the game up Dev's, but just a matter of time before I start getting the coins i need to buy what I need to do adv's again, whicn means lvl'n will resume again. 50 ain't that far away! Bring more stuff to do...**cough** pvp...something, anything!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brae
Same here. I'm sick of every **** game shoving pvp up my ***. Here to waste some time playing a game, not for a job defending from invasions from every corner from some lamer thinking spending their time invading people makes them heroes. If it isn't opt in, I'm gone, despite the gems I bought.
I would have to totally agree with this.. I'm not really fond of PVP, myself due to the cost of it. My personal experience has been that if you have BIG money to spend on a game then you come out on top. As I have limited funds for such drama, or to spend on such frivolous actions. I do agree that the game is needing more action. I wouldn't mind seeing guild battles that are optional. I am currently level 35 and I am already bored with the game to a point, with the repetitive building and spending. I do enjoy the adventures though.. they really make you think about what you have to do and what guide needs to be used as a reference. I don't think that I will be playing much longer if it doesn't get more interesting. Most of the people that I have come across have been great at helping and are very friendly, but I would hate for friendships to go awry due to PVP, even though I know this is only a game. Thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by ErasmusCrow
I have played a handful of games now and enjoy the uncertainty of pvp games. People are much more sneaky than any computer but along with that I have grown bored of every pvp game too for its pettiness. The only way to stay on top is spend more money than anyone else or become a slave to the game and stay on at the expense of your real life. I am ready for a new challenge and if it ends up as pvp that is fine, but there are many options to add life into the game. I am not as far along as some on this thread so I am not to the boredom level yet but I see it on the horizon. Something new would be welcome.
I agree. We should have PvP for those who enjoy it. But it should not be mandatory. I also agree with your prior post "PvP or not to PvP".Quote:
Originally Posted by ErasmusCrow
Oh and by the way, the server is down and all I get is flickering avatars.
If you could not tell before you signed on how slow this game was being developed, and fixing simple bugs and making simple upgrades in OBVIOUS areas such as trade (which should have been a simple fix with a slide bar the week after it was released) then you have not been playing the same game I have. This game is the log in at lunch at work game cuz it is the only browser based game that does not entirely blow and consume too much time to play. Blue Byte has very little clue how to develop a real game they just throw 4 or 5 titles at the market every year that have very little behind them ... sort of like 99% of the games in the free genre, it would appear you get what you "initially" pay for and most "free" games are an under supported scam to make money with very little development cost.
Time to graduate from "free games" and move to sub games that no one has an advantage except able to spend a lot more time developing their account ...
I don't know what's more entertaining, waiting for pvp to arrive, or ppl thinking they already know what pvp is going to be like when it does arrive. If it ever arrives.
P.S. Is the chat server down for everyone else too?
I am a fan of PvP - that said, I do get tired of those that spend major amounts of cash as those people ALWAYS tend to come out as the victor no matter how hard I worked on my army or reinforcements. I think PvP can be implemented in a way, that if you want to join in you can, and if you don't, then fine.
The dev has the adventure format, and if they used that format to implement PvP, then I believe that would be a solution that would satisfy everyone. For an example: take any adventure island and clear it of bandit camps, then place resource mines - like granite, etc on it. then place several bandit camps (not many, like maybe 2-3) around these resource mines. Then have 2 players (to start with) "join" the adventure. Let's say it is me and another player (not a guildie mate). I send what army I think will kill not only the bandit camps, but the other players army as well. He/she sends their army. When both players "accepted" the challenge, a timer was set, that would count down to a "START" time. This will alow each player to get their army there, so let's say the time each player has is an hour. The clocks begins counting backwards, and after that hour expires, then it is a free for all. Each player is then allowed to move their garrioson (each player has a starting location on the map that they can not move from until the clock expires) to better postion themselves for battle. The battle commences - I attack them, they attack me. Even using the same, exact troops (cav vs cav, rec vs rec, etc) with the same HP and damage, the battle would end with each of us killing each other with no victor - so to adjust for that, the game needs to implement a "grading" system for the general's of each garrison. This grading system would award a "point" to each general for each victory it had won (including adventures - which we all know are easy to do). This grading system would cause each player to use "ALL" of their generals and not just the 250 general, thus creating more "work" for the player so that they can come out the victor. Also, if a general is "wounded", one point is removed for each defeat (this I know will not sit well for many players as they use blocking schemes and of course, there are some adventure camps that require 2 waves, even with 250 general), but this will level out the playing field so to speak. When or if the general's given "rank" is reduced back to zero (through defeats), the general can not go any lower than "zero" so this would also allow players the option of just using that general for blocking and/or first wave assaults.
Where the chat tabs are located, the dev could add a PvP tab, and any player could throw out a challenge and select a island - let's say from 2 different layouts, one easy, the other more difficult. The "easy" island would be smaller, with less resources, and fewer bandit camps that are easy to conquer. The other island would be larger, with more resources (maybe even different types of resources), and more bandit camps that are difficult to conquer. This would give the player the option of selecting what level of challenge he would be willing to try his/her hand at. Also, once a challenge has been posted by a player, another player simply clicks on the challenge and details will be given, letting that player know the details of the challenge: the opposing player's level (to know if that player may have xbows, cannons, etc); the level of the challenge (easy, hard); and two boxes should appear at the bottom asking if the player wants to accept or decline (like with a trade). If the player declines, nothing more is done. If the player accepts, the acceptance is sent to the challenger, and he/she would also have the option to accept or decline based on the info sent along with the acceptance - ie: (AK) Sargon, level 46, wishes to accept your challenge. Do you accept or decline?? If the posting player sees that I am level 46, and they are only level 32, then he/she would have the option of declining me in hopes of another opponent at a level they were comfortable going against.
So, PvP could be developed using the "adventure" format. When I do mutiplayer adventures, I send a invite and the player joins, etc. The same can be done with PvP, only the player that "joins" isn't there to help me, he/she has come to destroy me.
I think this would work and would make EVERYONE happy. For those who do not want PvP, they do not have to accept any challenges or post them, and for those that want PvP, they can post a challenge or accept - and this should also be done like the adventure format, meaning can only do one at a time. And when one challenge is over, then can start or join another, and so forth. Once one player is defeated, the victor can go to work killing the bandit camps and "winning" the resources they offer.
Anyway, just a thought....