Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

simmen · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:02 pm

Logical123 wrote:

This decision, even though in fact it can make worlds more competitive, is really bad. First of all, forget diplomacy, which is personally my favorite part in the game!

If this is how people think diplomacy works, that there is no talk between allainces because everyone want to win, then we REALLY need to make this happen to broaden people's understanding for how diplomacy can be used.

Trogh my time as a player I've played many eras, fighting side by side with alliances i knew I would have to fight later. If people think that this will not be an option, then the settling for lower ranks mentality must have gotten deep into the game..

Because really, it's not removing diplomacy, it rises it's level. It's no longer enough to be good enough to just get peave with everyone, you now have to do diplomacy in such a way that you have a shot for rank 1.

Logical123 wrote:

Top alliances wont need to even talk to one another because its clear, everyone will want first place. This decision also only helps the people boosting

Basically, there is no point in playing unless ur paying. You could play for fun but that wont challenge anyone who is not boosting. Maybe it could be a good idea to take out third place but second also. Thats crazy

It should at least decrease the amount of blues an alliance in third or second place get.

Looking trough these messages I get everything from "I won't boost if I don't get tokens for rank 2/3" (even by you later here), to your comment that it only helps boosters.. really, something doesn't add up.

Logical123 wrote:

I personally hate this idea, its only good for the boosters and even they might not like it because diplomacy will change. If there is a player that is unhappy with the amount of competition going on, them maybe u should attack a strong alliance and enjoy yourself fighting.

I would sure hope so

Logical123 wrote:

Plus if a third place alliance looks at a top alliance and their score is maybe 3 times as high, it will be very risky for the third alliance to boost reds and maybe they wont at all!!!!

If the rank 3 alliance was 1/3 of the score of the rank 1 alliance today, and he know he can settle for rank 3, do you think he would attack? Or do you think he had greater incentive of using diplomacy to try and reach rank 1 when he got nothing to lose?

moonyr · **Joined:** Mon Mar 22, 2010 6:03 pm **Posts:** 2

2nd and 3rd should get tokens because without it players wont really try to get high ranked and the game will get boring

rickie28142 · **Joined:** Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:35 pm **Posts:** 1

fatman74 wrote:

:twisted:
THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE

but for the folks who have never heard of highlander.. there does need to be more competion between groups, and it might even allow the odd surprise group to slip in

..rlly?
dude, i don't agree because, as we all know, an are ENDS whenever an alliance conquerors it... eras will end too quick and people will leave this game, lowering the income by quite a margin. :evil:

simmen · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:05 pm

jebosamtimajku wrote:

Ilona wrote:

This is only the discussion thread. Main thread can be found here

Please state your opinions!

I generally dislike the idea because a "break" shoud be allowed for the top teams where they come to watch the next era and still get some tokens so they can go and win it again.And not everyone can boost that amount of reds to win an era.

Why should tokens be handed out for watching a world?

mostafa2324 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:06 pm

can u dicrease the amount of blue that 2nd and 3rd take :idea:

because it will be a waste of time and tokens if the alliance got on 2nd or 3rd and at the end no rewards..

simmen · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:06 pm

moonyr wrote:

2nd and 3rd should get tokens because without it players wont really try to get high ranked and the game will get boring

How will peple not go for a high rank, when a high rank is the only one who gies payout?

sparta23 · **Joined:** Mon Feb 25, 2013 6:28 pm **Posts:** 94

I agree with malicewolf. I just think its gonna ruin it for so many players. And not taken badly at all Korrupt, this is a discussion forum. A lot of teams fight hard to just get that 3rd place and for them thats a big accomplishment. Reducing rewards, only going to second, but fully eliminating I think is a bad iea

Leaderm · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:07 pm

Admins talking about decreasing the gap between 1st / 4th -10th.... which is usually (skilled vs. unskilled) or teams with less skills or maybe players who didnt boost ..

Rewarding only 1st is actually increasing the gap between (reds / blues) boosters, as now blue boosters who at least try, will only watch how red boosters eating all the era, with no competition at all

abeyant · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:07 pm

mostafa2324 wrote:

can u dicrease the amount of blue that 2nd and 3rd take :idea:

because it will be a waste of time and tokens if the alliance got on 2nd or 3rd and at the end no rewards..

That would be because the point of the game is to get 1st, not 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

oriel123 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:08 pm

Competition will sure get better.

But it also means no mroe brother allies or subs therfore will be a chaos and winning will be way harder - Tokens ammount should be higher than 3500.

Maybe as a first move you should try no tokens for 3rd alliance and see hows it going and later go for "no tokens for 2nd".

No tokens for 2nd and 3rd alliance!