-
I have a problem with this whole situation.
On one hand, I don't understand why this needed to be done in the first place. It's prestige. It doesn't mean s--- to anything, or anyone, except for those teeny-boppers who feel that they are better than you because they have more than you. I laughed a few days ago when someone "warned" me not to "speak harshly" to someone with higher prestige than I. Prestige does NOT equal military strategy, defensive forces, or even your personal intelligence when it comes to city planning. I don't care what your prestige is.
But, at the same time, this was not a situation like the past ones, where there was a clear unintended side-affect in the code itself, and then the devs corrected it without warning. This was a clearly intended affect of taking the chance of attacking a city, that gave the player a reward based upon the risk. In this situation, the developers have blatantly altered a number of players' scores because they felt it was "unfair" or "unbalanced".
This, more than any other situation the developers have thrust upon us, has shaken my confidence in the higher ups of this game more than anything I have experienced. I cannot believe this. Change the code so that the prestige doesn't add up so quickly? Sure, I could have seen that, and would have supported that. To CHANGE someone's SCORE?! What in the world are you thinking, devs?
You didn't take away all of the medals won by those who exploited the original medal drop rates, did you? You need to learn a word: p r e c e d e n c e
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
Bookmarks