Lol at the new "balance"

[Plumz]

From test server forums "..while special incredible super mega iper powerful abilities such as splash damage should be given only to a little range of limited troup types, not every single unit in the history of the game. I can't believe a caltrop can destroy a thousand recruits, damnit."

I am reading and loling there this is fun

[Plumz]

"...Most games try to entice players with exciting new levels, items, or rewards. Not TSO - they want us to do the same adventures, take much longer to do them, experience greater losses and be satisfied with less rewards AND rework our islands to produce the needed weapons. What a complete and total joke !.."

[Plumz]

"... I think we all realize this game has never really worked the way BB originally envisioned it would work. But it's too late now you can't "fix it" by punishing intelligent, successful players - we can only play the game in front of us. I will tell you this: we WILL NOT play the garbage you are turning this game into. It's a simple choice really TSO - you can be right and have no players. Or you can stop trying to make the game you wished you had and start offering the content your dwindling number players want... and sell a bunch of gems...."

Nothing else to said mate. To the point.

[Plumz]

"...People have tried playing by the new rules and they are baulking is because they have spent many months, if not years developing and building their islands and economies based on a system that currently revolves around sacrificing 'cannon fodder' to keep your 'heavy hitters' in the fight. It's been a basic principle of combat tactics for centuries. Why should TSO be any different?

So, you'll have to excuse me if I, personally, baulk at the thought of sacrificing crossbowmen to finish a DP (as one of my guild mates had to do) or needing to sacrifice hundreds of Soldiers to complete an RB. But more so I utterly reject the idea of messing up the building ratios that some people have spent years fine tuning.

If BB want to re-write the rules they should make a new game... oh... wait a minute...."

[Plumz]

"...And I see no purpose in removing weapons from loot tables, other than to annoy the living **** out of everyone with a stable island. The alterations to bronze swords seems odd too: double production cost, half usage to make a soldier, so no reduction: x amount of copper/coal per soldier..."

[Plumz]

"...It has, Calvary has always eliminated a large chunk of low HP but high attack damage units, allowing less of your more important units from being killed. Which is why the MMA was a godsend because it limited the need to have cavalry which takes a lot of resources probably technically the most resources by weapon amount. But now with enemy units having more HP, you can't eliminate those certain threats and the battles are longer and hard..."

[Plumz]

"...Adventures should be worth doing, and the current test system does not make most of them seem worthwhile because losses will be too high..."

[Troll-Phu]

post there, thats where they need the input. if it gets here, it's too late!

[Plumz]

Nope. At least people who don't go to test forums can read a quick sum of what is going on there. And its going on A LOT. Besides. Most people are just pissed off at BB for doing something that nobody wanted that will cause tsunami waves over the entire game. And more jewels from the test forums

"..This early stage is laughable, at best... You don't need to test anything to see the consequences. Just look at some numbers and you will see it is a complete fail. Giving splash dmg to all units is bad, to say the least. Messing the order of attacks in this manner is a joke. Firedancers hit units before they had a chance to hit, really? Why? What is the reason behind these outrageous design choices? Bosses in FT changed to hit weakest targets? WHY?>>"

[Plumz]

And this is the pricey one

"...If it is one and the same, why has it been thrown into test so quickly?
The only answer I can come up with is that the Devs had an idea to `re-balance the game', took a cursory look at what was happening and then all took sledge hammers of ideas to the perceived problem, stood back to see what they had done, realised that they could not get it to work and decided that maybe the players could put it back together again, and they could then justify their efforts by using the term `re-balancing'. ..."