Results 1 to 10 of 372

Thread: Risen cost of Comfort.

Threaded View

  1. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dawnseeker View Post
    Capping cities is a good thing. It keeps the game fresh and keeps the landscape from going stale. It is certainly still possible to defend, but now a defender has to win battles. Defenders still have the advantage but its no longer possible to simply say "this far and no farther" with any city, anywhere.
    As a few in this thread have stated already in AGE II HC's that were nearly impossible to capture now may be actually changing hands on several occasions. This alone will change the dynamic of some servers and may possibly lengthen a servers life..........I know I left an age II server due to the constant monotony of the "this far and no further" mentality you described. Being much more of an offensive minded person than a defensive one (defense is boring plus I prefer to fight on my terms) after months and months of not having goals other than wiping cities over and over again with nothing but the same results I said screw it and moved on. A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results funny I find similarity in some of the arguments against the change.

    I'm one for having state caps and 0,0 switch hands on occasion to provide continued goals and opportunities for a team to work together. A group of individuals that work towards a goal shouldn't be shut down by the defenders cowardice of actually admitting defeat and clicking 1 button until the attackers grow tired and give up. Nothing wrong with constant changes in the control of power. Makes things more worthwhile and people can justify the time and money invested in building armies and the boredom of endless farming requirements.

    For teams of people who are vested towards continuing to grow or earning back something that was taken or lost through battle they have a slightly better chance at doing so as it seems. Things should be won and lost at or near the same scale.......this comforting adjustment took away the massive unbalanced favor the defender with NO TROOPS always had. The guy WITH TROOPS still has the same advantage as it should be. There is no reason to change something when someone can actually defend their city.

    This is a war game, you are suppose to lose stuff and fight to get it back. If you dont want to comfort, put troops on your city.
    Well said!

    This is exactly what it all boils down to........need more players with this perspective, not people who play the blame game, cast theories and make excuses for lack of troops....lack of experience....or lack of skill.


    EDIT: Didn't use a reference to bot's 1 time......lets see if someone opposing my post can do the same in their argument.
    Last edited by xTONYx; 10-02-2012 at 01:41 PM.

    I say the comforting change is a step in the right direction, I argue facts and real ongoing situations of the matter...
    You dream up ideas that don't exist and STILL blame botters and STILL feel it's fair to have something forever in a war game...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •