September 26, 2017, 07:22:26 AM

Author Topic: Regarding RWs  (Read 596 times)

Kinyas

  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +10/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Regarding RWs
« on: April 18, 2017, 07:59:53 AM »
Hello,

There are two concerns regarding the new RW update.

1- Now every country can start 2 RWs constantly, which gives them great chance to be liberated and causes hard times for defender side of resistance wars. However, the gold that is required to start RW is not high enough to compensete this advantage. You need to increase 15 gold to 40+ gold. So that instead of starting random RWs everyday, if a country likes to get liberated it should put serious effort and prepare good organization.

2- It is impossible to know who started RW. Neither Admins nor Moderators can see that as far as I know. It causes a problem, multi accounts can be used to start RW and they will run away with it. Therefore, (one or more of these suggestions can be implemented) there should be either level criteria for starting RW, everyone must see who started the RW in battle page and/or more than one player must be required to start resistance war.

With its current way, this RW update is quite one-sided and just aims to destroy some countries. It has no structure and does not contribute to game-playing. You are trying to avoid game becoming farmville, I understand that but if current situation continue no country will attack each others since there is no point of even wiping an opponent out. They no longer lose MPPs, they do not lose any gold or money, and now they can easily liberate theirselves with 2 RWs -probably started by multi accounts- everyday constantly. Why should anyone put hard effort, fight against Q5 DS, for nothing? Income of holding bonuses is not high enough to compensete all these effort.

I hope you consider it. Regards

mountain

  • Posts: 9
  • Reputation: +2/-1
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #1 on: April 18, 2017, 08:09:57 AM »
but you don't see this? almost 500G tax every day :D

SirJohan

  • Posts: 2
  • Reputation: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #2 on: April 18, 2017, 08:22:11 AM »
I agree with Kinyas and sign his suggest too. Almost small country cant keep regions with 2 rw rule.

mountain

  • Posts: 9
  • Reputation: +2/-1
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #3 on: April 18, 2017, 08:30:43 AM »
I agree with Kinyas and sign his suggest too. Almost small country cant keep regions with 2 rw rule.
so, the small country (your enemy) deserve to be deleted  :o
just let you guys win and end this game please

Stark

  • Posts: 7
  • Reputation: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #4 on: April 18, 2017, 10:12:29 AM »
I agree with Kinyas, there has to be a rework on RWs. If admins wants 2 RWs per country, so they must increase the cost and verify if it's a multi doing it. I sign his proposal.

BIG GIL

  • Posts: 8
  • Reputation: +0/-1
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #5 on: April 18, 2017, 10:18:29 AM »
I think exactly the same as Kinyas
and I add more

That this update in the long run does not benefit any country that has or comes to have control of some type of bonus

When the game started, it was too hard to win
the wars of resistance against SDs that took 35% of the damage

Now, this update It only vulgarizes the resistence wars.

BIG GIL

  • Posts: 8
  • Reputation: +0/-1
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #6 on: April 18, 2017, 10:37:19 AM »
I agree with Kinyas and sign his suggest too. Almost small country cant keep regions with 2 rw rule.
so, the small country (your enemy) deserve to be deleted  :o
just let you guys win and end this game please

And because the little ones
They are small, we must level the game
for the mediocre?

I remember a saying that said:

Capitalism makes one the bad distribution of wealth
Communism makes a good distribution of poverty

This is one update with comunist soul, nothing the bonus
for nobody

You thanks to your hatred for an alliance and for your lack of capacity
To oppose it, they are not seeing the forest.
because of the tree
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 10:55:22 AM by BIG GIL »

mountain

  • Posts: 9
  • Reputation: +2/-1
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #7 on: April 18, 2017, 11:03:46 AM »
I agree with Kinyas and sign his suggest too. Almost small country cant keep regions with 2 rw rule.
so, the small country (your enemy) deserve to be deleted  :o
just let you guys win and end this game please

And because the little ones
They are small, we must level the game
for the mediocre?

I remember a saying that said:

Capitalism makes one the bad distribution of wealth
Communism makes a good distribution of poverty

This is one update with comunist soul, nothing the bonus
for nobody

You thanks to your hatred for an alliance and for your lack of capacity
To oppose it, they are not seeing the forest.
because of the tree
if they can not hold those land(lack of capacity), why should they keep it? and blame the rules?
i don't hate anyone, i reply because you guys are funny.

btw, some people live in the forest and can not see the world's change, are you one of it ? :D
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 11:07:12 AM by mountain »

Stark

  • Posts: 7
  • Reputation: +2/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #8 on: April 18, 2017, 02:04:11 PM »
the way you say, no country will ever hold their regions unless there's a world nap  :P

SirJohan

  • Posts: 2
  • Reputation: +1/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #9 on: April 18, 2017, 02:08:57 PM »
But only strong country can have bonus, small country cant. And the rule was created for help weak country but this is not the real. The server lost all of strategic and only strongest country can have bonus
« Last Edit: April 18, 2017, 02:10:56 PM by SirJohan »

BIG GIL

  • Posts: 8
  • Reputation: +0/-1
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #10 on: April 18, 2017, 04:40:03 PM »
I agree with Kinyas and sign his suggest too. Almost small country cant keep regions with 2 rw rule.
so, the small country (your enemy) deserve to be deleted  :o
just let you guys win and end this game please

And because the little ones
They are small, we must level the game
for the mediocre?

I remember a saying that said:

Capitalism makes one the bad distribution of wealth
Communism makes a good distribution of poverty

This is one update with comunist soul, nothing the bonus
for nobody

You thanks to your hatred for an alliance and for your lack of capacity
To oppose it, they are not seeing the forest.
because of the tree
if they can not hold those land(lack of capacity), why should they keep it? and blame the rules?
i don't hate anyone, i reply because you guys are funny.

btw, some people live in the forest and can not see the world's change, are you one of it ? :D

Zero arguments
If you do not talk, you're a poet.

mountain

  • Posts: 9
  • Reputation: +2/-1
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #11 on: April 19, 2017, 08:48:56 AM »
I agree with Kinyas and sign his suggest too. Almost small country cant keep regions with 2 rw rule.
so, the small country (your enemy) deserve to be deleted  :o
just let you guys win and end this game please

And because the little ones
They are small, we must level the game
for the mediocre?

I remember a saying that said:

Capitalism makes one the bad distribution of wealth
Communism makes a good distribution of poverty

This is one update with comunist soul, nothing the bonus
for nobody

You thanks to your hatred for an alliance and for your lack of capacity
To oppose it, they are not seeing the forest.
because of the tree
if they can not hold those land(lack of capacity), why should they keep it? and blame the rules?
i don't hate anyone, i reply because you guys are funny.

btw, some people live in the forest and can not see the world's change, are you one of it ? :D

Zero arguments
If you do not talk, you're a poet.
we don't need arguments when we tell the truths.
or you guys are powerful, so your words are the truths?

BIG GIL

  • Posts: 8
  • Reputation: +0/-1
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #12 on: April 20, 2017, 06:09:06 PM »
I agree with Kinyas and sign his suggest too. Almost small country cant keep regions with 2 rw rule.
so, the small country (your enemy) deserve to be deleted  :o
just let you guys win and end this game please

And because the little ones
They are small, we must level the game
for the mediocre?

I remember a saying that said:

Capitalism makes one the bad distribution of wealth
Communism makes a good distribution of poverty

This is one update with comunist soul, nothing the bonus
for nobody

You thanks to your hatred for an alliance and for your lack of capacity
To oppose it, they are not seeing the forest.
because of the tree
if they can not hold those land(lack of capacity), why should they keep it? and blame the rules?
i don't hate anyone, i reply because you guys are funny.

btw, some people live in the forest and can not see the world's change, are you one of it ? :D

Zero arguments
If you do not talk, you're a poet.
we don't need arguments when we tell the truths.
or you guys are powerful, so your words are the truths?

Neither do they need a partial update for your
Inability to gather more power

Dibex

  • Posts: 12
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #13 on: May 21, 2017, 11:17:11 AM »
For me it was a good idea add the possibility to open 2 rw aganist his invader, i wasn't agree in increase gold for open it BUT it was a good news if will appear in rw the name of the citizen who was opened.

savko

  • Posts: 2
  • Reputation: +0/-0
    • View Profile
    • Awards
Re: Regarding RWs
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2017, 05:19:03 AM »
If I understand this complain against update...

Imperialist countries are weeping over the inability of occupying the whole foreign country?
Considering RL it is very hard to do so because occupied have home advantages while invaders don't.
This is why having rules that makes it difficult to occupy large aeries is logical.

And for the "argument" of Capitalism makes one the bad distribution of wealth... well these rules puts majority of players in betters position and that is also owners's interest.
I don't know when are you going to realize that 5 top players leaving the game doesn't change a shit in the game. Most players see this as opportunity to gain something.