Quote Originally Posted by japanpimp View Post
Not on purpose. Just had to login to my game account and gather info for a response. You know how I roll....

So here is what I will say.
The Age II hero system is far more balanced and fair than Age I. Yes, spenders in both Age I & II have the initial advantage. But in Age II non-speners can get heros just as strong as spenders if they are patient and game hard. Then everyone can have more or less the same level heros with similar attack levels, say within a 30% range. Here numbers to support it...


In the last 3 months I have gotten the following materials from wheel spins. I have probably spun the wheel about 300 times in the last 3 months. Easy to do if you get facebook ammulets.
72 fabrics
131 Thuroughbreds
100 crude gemstones
74 woods
79 iron ore

Not everyone uses Facebook/not everyone is friends with Prinzessins, therefore can't obtain 1-20 amulets a day.


That is enough to get you at least level 6-7 gear. Add a couple more months and you can get enough materials for level 10 gear as well as enough gems from farming to put 8 stars EASY on each gear. That will give you strong enough heros to compete with the spenders. Why? Because there is a hero cap in Age II.

You spent about 1k on gems. (You said it somewhere.) Therefore, you don't know for certain you'd get enough gems for 8 stars easily. Even if you did, there'd have to be a certain amount of effort put into farming them; the same amount of effort put into leveling heroes in Age I.

Now, in Age I there was NO hero cap. So those who leveled heros the most had the advantage. So much so it was like level 800 attack heros with 2,000 attack or some crazy stuff like that going up against level 100 heros with 200-300 attack. Now that was a problem. Because the kids who stay online and farm 24x7 had the strongest heros, far stronger than the spenders. The spenders should have the strongest heros. People who spend money should have a slight advantage. Slight. But not insane advantage like Age I non-spenders had with crazy attack heros.

Age I players with the strongest heroes are spenders. You don't get heroes with insta-pults by farming unless you're a bot/crazily addicted. Players who put in the time and effort into hitting NPC's get the reward they deserve in the form of good heroes. You shouldn't just be able to spend your way to the top.

All that being said, again, all Age II players can eventually reach Level 10 gear and 13+ stars on each gear. When that happens everyone will be more or less equal in terms of heros. The spenders will get there first. The non-spenders will need to farm and gem hunt for months and months, possible an entire year in order to get there. But at the end of the year you can be a serious contender. Also, in Age II (on the original Age II servers) there is no need to rush to be on top like Age I. You can take your time, 10 months, and build up 9 perfect cities, workshop gear research, the works. Then engage some strong players when you are ready.

Eventually? How many months/years would that take? People don't want to wait months until they can compete with the spenders. Also, what if the strong player decides to engage you first? You won't be ready and the game won't be quite so fun for you. That's why you have to rush. You can't just tell an attacker to wait for you, now can you?
Another thing is that you never responded to the Historic Heroes part. That's an extra 50 levels (50 attack + leadership) that spenders can have. Coupled with far better gear and stars and you've got your imbalanced playing field. Now I know non-spenders can obtain a couple of HH's with coins from quests but not nearly as much as spenders can. Which is fair for the spenders for investing money but I'm making the point that the playing field is not level.