It is not a stalemate. You are simply moving too fast too soon. Wait until you have a slot open and take the city. Now I won't call you a dumbass but... Was thinking of it....lol
Printable View
It is not a stalemate. You are simply moving too fast too soon. Wait until you have a slot open and take the city. Now I won't call you a dumbass but... Was thinking of it....lol
I agree...all this angst over a game is a bit extreme isn't it? If Damendar is such a great tactition then I believe that the Armed Forces are a great place for him. I am sure any branch would be more than happy to rid him of his delusions of what is important and worth getting his boxers in a bunch and what isn't.:cool:
Fanboi much? Don't act like a fool, constructive criticism is a part of any game. Any game that wants to stick around or ever generate any revenue by the way. And I'm hardly alone recognizing the flaws that I see.
Using your logic, one should just 'adapt' to the server rollbacks which are causing people to lose hundreds of thousands of resources and tens of thousands of troops. Hey, it is what it is, right? ADAPT! No sense in improving or changing anything at all!
Tool.
Let's face it, this is a VERY unrealistic game. The combat system also totally sucks, including the castle attacks.
I agree you should be able to take a player's last city. Not being able to do so leaves you with few strategic options. It's especially important to do be able to do so, I think, when players also have the option of just teleporting away from trouble when they need to.
I think the game designers have made it too hard to conquer other players because they don't want anyone to get discouraged and stop playing the game. The problem is that it's the people who are actually sticking with the game and mastering the gameplay who are the ones being discouraged. So in the long term I don't think this is a smart strategy for the company to adopt.
Funny how you proclaimed "constructive criticism" and "logic" in one breath, then resort to name calling like "Fonboi", "fool". Logical fallacy here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Hypocrisy at its best here, folks.
And to quote your OTHER counter arguement against someone else : Don't try to change the subject. This discussion is not about server rollbacks. Instead it is about a player's options in avoiding pillaging. Read your own link : http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...d-herring.html
.
.
.
Yeah, I kinda hate to be you just about now.
This thread got derailed quick.
This discussion was about using/abusing the ability to move troops/resources from a city being attacked. Some would say this is a lame tactic (me) others argued this to be a viable tactic (the lamers). :D
Problem is, it's entirely too easy to do. AND for those arguing about the smaller players doing it...you must realize that even the higher ups can and will use this tactic much more as they are generally more active.
Eventually, what is going to be the point in attacking a city? You will not crush their army (perhaps to stop them attacking smaller members of your alliance) nor will you slow their development down as they will lose no resources.
THAT is the main point here. Not stopping people from doing this but giving the attacker more options to try to prevent this or to make it less viable for the defender to do.
Yes, participating in a discussion by calling the people on the side you oppose as "lamers" is a really productive, constructive and good faith chat that would facilitate frank and honest discourse of the subject at hand.
Oh wait...
Don't complain about the thread being derailed in one breath then resort to name calling in another if you want people to take you seriously.
If players wanna move resources that's their business. And anyway, it's **** easy to find tons of people to rob so who cares.
Scout spamming is a little odd though. So cav spam instead.