zynshmily
01-13-2012, 03:36 PM
For the past few weeks, every friday night involves one major update on gameplay.
Many ppl now are complaining the ridiculously high random casualty rate. as a player who has fought more than 15k battles, i also detected the drastic increase of mortality since last firday's update. I surely hope the casualty would be rejigged to make more sense. I don't wanna see my few low-casualty $640k osprey VTOl lose faster than my buttload of high-casualty units. It's ridiculous in both real and virtual gaming world.
And the weekend before that, it was the shortened rival list fiasco. I once only had two opponents on rival list. thats what happened to high-level players when level and alliance number are both criteria for rival list.
despite all the complaints and rants, i like the current rival list setting.
Level(rank) should be only criterion on make up of rival list.
alliance number and attk/def score are counted for one's strength. They shouldn't be the shield for the weak to hide from the "bullies". There is no reason that a superior player can only fight another superior player. that way, a weak rascal can mess around and provoke the powerful with no consequences. Its the player' own responsibility to be far less powerful than the ppl at same level. no exemption from others' attack
The only thing up for debate, i think, is the level range. I don't think its fair that a lv100 fight a lv50.
I like the idea that every 10 level is a delimitation for low-levels. It would be like lv10s fight lv10s, lv20s fight lv20s.
Since the air is thin up there, for high-levels, the delimitation could be widened to make at least one complete rival list.
Anyway, i don't expect this anytime soon. I hope the rival list can remain the same when i wake up tomorrow morning. Really not in the mood for any surprises.
Many ppl now are complaining the ridiculously high random casualty rate. as a player who has fought more than 15k battles, i also detected the drastic increase of mortality since last firday's update. I surely hope the casualty would be rejigged to make more sense. I don't wanna see my few low-casualty $640k osprey VTOl lose faster than my buttload of high-casualty units. It's ridiculous in both real and virtual gaming world.
And the weekend before that, it was the shortened rival list fiasco. I once only had two opponents on rival list. thats what happened to high-level players when level and alliance number are both criteria for rival list.
despite all the complaints and rants, i like the current rival list setting.
Level(rank) should be only criterion on make up of rival list.
alliance number and attk/def score are counted for one's strength. They shouldn't be the shield for the weak to hide from the "bullies". There is no reason that a superior player can only fight another superior player. that way, a weak rascal can mess around and provoke the powerful with no consequences. Its the player' own responsibility to be far less powerful than the ppl at same level. no exemption from others' attack
The only thing up for debate, i think, is the level range. I don't think its fair that a lv100 fight a lv50.
I like the idea that every 10 level is a delimitation for low-levels. It would be like lv10s fight lv10s, lv20s fight lv20s.
Since the air is thin up there, for high-levels, the delimitation could be widened to make at least one complete rival list.
Anyway, i don't expect this anytime soon. I hope the rival list can remain the same when i wake up tomorrow morning. Really not in the mood for any surprises.