That would certainly be interesting. I wonder if we'd end up with a few more defended beacons.Alina Phoenix said:
Hello, my Lord!
Welcome to the Forum :) I agree with the comments above, this server was closed and players from it were moved to the 3rd Server.Here is an idea.... delete all inactive castles, and merge all the 3 servers...
Here is an idea, interact with other players in a multiplayer/mmo game. The entire raid dead castles thing is very bad gameplay.Gadheras said:
Here is an idea.... delete all inactive castles, and merge all the 3 servers...
and where can we take the resources raided from ?? or where can we go to do the siege tourney ?? or do the liberate missions ??
wainting for a how to... for dummies
Regards
Juglar del Viento said:
Gadheras said:
Here is an idea, interact with other players in a multiplayer/mmo game. The entire raid dead castles thing is very bad gameplay.
yep sure all we were going to raid castle plenty of defense every day 10 times to improve our castle
;)
Majority of players leave no def out when they log off.... Stalking someone and find out when they on and when they off... half the problem solved. :p
Why should resources be something easy, low risk and little effort to get?Gadheras said:
Alina Phoenix said:
Hello, my Lord!
Welcome to the Forum :) I agree with the comments above, this server was closed and players from it were moved to the 3rd Server.Here is an idea.... delete all inactive castles, and merge all the 3 servers...
Hello.
It won't be done for several reasons:
- to have the game loading faster it's better to keep 3 servers and have the lower server load on each of them then put all active players in one server and have high server load;
- inactive Castles are also required for the reasons described by Juglar Del Viento in his replies. Plus, we regularly change the inactive Castles in the Teleportation Slots to allow players to relocate their Castles.
Well, when I start look at the game, and then hear things like worried about server load...... I really start doubt on the allocated budget for the server park they use.Alina Phoenix said:i dont think thats an issue in this game.Gadheras said:
- to have the game loading faster it's better to keep 3 servers and have the lower server load on each of them then put all active players in one server and have high server load;
thats what i was thinking...if the low traffic here bogs down the server, are the devs really competent to handle a game engine transfer?IronApex Turok said:Well, when I start look at the game, and then hear things like worried about server load...... I really start doubt on the allocated budget for the server park they use.Alina Phoenix said:i dont think thats an issue in this game.Gadheras said:
- to have the game loading faster it's better to keep 3 servers and have the lower server load on each of them then put all active players in one server and have high server load;
IronApex Turok said:
Gadheras said:
thats what i was thinking...if the low traffic here bogs down the server, are the devs really competent to handle a game engine transfer?IronApex Turok said:
Well, when I start look at the game, and then hear things like worried about server load...... I really start doubt on the allocated budget for the server park they use.Alina Phoenix said:
i dont think thats an issue in this game.Gadheras said:
- to have the game loading faster it's better to keep 3 servers and have the lower server load on each of them then put all active players in one server and have high server load;
Well, game architecture, network solutions, and actual hardware solution, different things. Some manage to have fights with 5000+ players going on at the same time IN ONE SINGLE BATTLE, with several hundred thousand players living in the same unsharded game world filled with complexity. Maybe Plarium can look towards Reykjavik for some help on the subject.
But I guess there is a big difference between actually own and operate your own servers, than rent what "you feel you need" at some server park.