We take feedback given on the same day of an update with a grain of salt. If time passes and people have given an update a chance, negative feedback would certainly have more weight.

Do you still see problems with the new persian positions system? We stopped receiving feedback on it a few weeks after the announcement, which is when it would have been most effective.

We take feedback given on the same day of an update with a grain of salt. If time passes and people have given an update a chance, negative feedback would certainly have more weight.

Do you still see problems with the new persian positions system? We stopped receiving feedback on it a few weeks after the announcement, which is when it would have been most effective.

TheElitePhantom said:

We take feedback given on the same day of an update with a grain of salt. If time passes and people have given an update a chance, negative feedback would certainly have more weight.

Do you still see problems with the new persian positions system? We stopped receiving feedback on it a few weeks after the announcement, which is when it would have been most effective.

You take alot with a  grain of salt because you actually don't give a damn.

Uncle Junior said:

No I dont see negative feedback because those ALREADY LEFT THE GAME!! I still didnt get the positive outcome from the persians since the change. I get shit rewards that just make it longer and longer and longer and longer and longer and longer and longer and longer to get to the payout. I find 2x pvp much more "profitable" in rewards. Before the change, sometimes I would do persians regardless of tournaments and would be positive, now there just not worth it without tournament rewards. At least before I could adjust my strategy and plan for persians, now only leonidas knows what comes out next. For f sake we just had 3 pvps in a row. Now I'm guessing pantheon takeover is next, another fuck you from plarium to senior members.

Part of the problem with persians is that we get a group of players saying they're bad, and another group saying they're good. Some issues rest on the players, and some issues rest inherently on the system. We don't get much feedback regarding the system and only the system.

Why not make a post requesting a tournament calendar? Or some degree of predictable organization? 

As a brief note, the pantheon tournament was created to promote player interactions. Back then there were a grand total of 4-5 coalitions controlling the pantheons and doing nothing with them. There was no incentive to attack, and the game was stagnating. The pantheon tournament is by no means an attempt to punish veteran players.

Pallas. I'm sorry it looks that way. We're actually forwarding a lot of the feedback we get to the developers, but their schedule is different from ours.

Because I will not ask Leonidas anything anymore, he is a fool and a greedy sob. Besides I already see his smug answer "we cannot reveal blah blah blah"

Part of the problem with persians is that we get a group of players saying they're bad, and another group saying they're good. Some issues rest on the players, and some issues rest inherently on the system. We don't get much feedback regarding the system and only the system.

Gorgo said:

Hmm only group saying they are good is Moderators and those cant be trusted :)

It's like you're ignoring the other players who gave good feedback and immediately got booed for it, discouraging other players from giving their opinion.

Uncle Junior said:

Because I will not ask Leonidas anything anymore, he is a fool and a greedy sob. Besides I already see his smug answer "we cannot reveal blah blah blah"

EDIT: Besides theres no rebuild period anymore, its one tournament after another. Even with schedule theres no period in between them. Thats exactly the point, to force players to spend in order to catch up

Would you prefer if we revealed things for you? They won't be official, and they would be prone to cancellation/postponing.

Edit: Response to Edit. Why not set your own limits, such as limiting yourself to only one position tournament every two weeks?

What I would prefer is to play Sparta: War Of Empires, the game I started playing a year ago

Edit:

Uncle Junior said:

What I would prefer is to play Sparta: War Of Empires, the game I started playing a year ago

Edit:  In response to your edit, because than you fall behind in rankings

Of course, you were one of the only coalitions to have a pantheon. I, for one, am glad that the map has opened up to smaller coalitions.

Edit: Response to edit. Nobody is forcing you to stay in the rankings 24/7. It's just as fine to place every other week.

I think the moderators aren't quite getting the picture in this feed.

The original topic was the new "buy experience pts" which is utterly ridiculous!  

It is just one more update that is going to make the actual players (who we will define as those that have been in the game the LONGEST, know the game dynamics better than anyone and have REAL experience) to quit.  In the last few months of "wonderful" updates and new features we have lost the many of the players in the game.  So now we have the players that have been in the game since day one that will have to put up with the new cash warriors that can BUY their force BUY their upgrades and now BUY their level and will have no clue how to play the game (experiencing it step-by-sometimes-painful-step is how you learn how to play it !!!!).  The new players that get handed everything (ie: gps is ten times easier to get now then it was when I began) ruin it for the rest.  Delayed gratification is a valuable lesson and they never experience it.

When I joined terminators they had no pantheons, they took pantheons. 

Rahna said:

I think the moderators aren't quite getting the picture in this feed.

The original topic was the new "buy experience pts" which is utterly ridiculous!  

It is just one more update that is going to make the actual players (who we will define as those that have been in the game the LONGEST, know the game dynamics better than anyone and have REAL experience) to quit.  In the last few months of "wonderful" updates and new features we have lost the many of the players in the game.  So now we have the players that have been in the game since day one that will have to put up with the new cash warriors that can BUY their force BUY their upgrades and now BUY their level and will have no clue how to play the game (experiencing it step-by-sometimes-painful-step is how you learn how to play it !!!!).  The new players that get handed everything (ie: gps is ten times easier to get now then it was when I began) ruin it for the rest.  Delayed gratification is a valuable lesson and they never experience it.

I think players are going to enjoy beating similar leveled players who chose to level up instead of increasing their army count. It also makes it easier to fulfill the daily quests that involve raiding/sieging somebody at least ten levels below you. It's far too early to tell.

Rahna and TK's are the perfect example of teamwork and careful planning and an example that you dont need pan tournament in order to grab a pan.

Uncle Junior said:

Rahna and TK's are the perfect example of teamwork and careful planning and an example that you dont need pan tournament in order to grab a pan.

It isn't a question of ability, but one of incentive.

And yes, yes we did.

Well orgonised coalition is all the incentive you need

Well, the problem is I can't even see the point to buying levels. And NO, it's NOT pay to WIN at all. You'll win NOTHING out of this.

As it has been pointed it's not even real experience, in the meaning of learning how to master the game.

We'll now be seeing complete beginners asking beginners questions on the forum but owning high level cities... Note that it's not really a problem on the forum after all, as everybody is welcome to ask questions and we'll answer them anyway, plus their city level is not shown anyway.

Maybe sometimes it won't help when someone would write "I don't understand how to transfer resources to my acropolis, my city is level 85"... LOL

Well, it will just be weird, but questions are questions, after all. ^^

As I said, the only problem is it's pointless. What we expect from  level 70+ players is having finished upgrading all their buildings, signed all agreements and upgraded them quite high, and having grown an army strong enough to join a high level coalition.

Now writing level requirements on the coalition front page message will mean nothing...

What's important to know for people being tempted by artificlally levelling up is they'll be evaluated on their capacity to cooperate, and if they're under-developped, don't meet troops requirements and are unable to master the game basics, they'll be kicked out of coalitions as deceivers...

... While simple logic would command those beginners would start by joining a beginners coalition and grow up together with their fellow members, building  bonds, making friends the same (real) level as them, etc.

Actually, i wouldn't advice buying this. Now the feature exists, so everybody is free to use or not to use it.

But I thought it was important to warn people who would be tempted that deceiving others won't give results. Nothing can replace a year or two of hard gaming. We've all earned our levels through patient building and battling, so they're meaning something for now.

Adding the possibility to buy a level will only give you an empty shell : no real experience, no developped city, no army.

So use it if you want, but please don't be surprised if it only has negative results, such as your actually defenseless city being farmed by real players who have quests about raiding or besiegeing high level cities (that are currently rare, but could become abundant with this feature).

As all decisions, this one requires wisdom, so always think twice. ;)

As you can see, there's no real reason to freak bout this new feature. We may just get more high level farms in the end... :p

Players who would follow that way will mostly be victims and would hope they could get back...

As it has only disadvantages :

- You'll have to compete in higher ranking ranges for tournaments, meaning  you'll never be able to catch up with your weak army.

- Levelling up the regular way grants scrolls and drachmas for every level : would you get them this way ?

- You'll be offered only quests about raiding or besiegeing cities that are far too strong for you, so you'll be unable to quest at all

- Plus in the end, the level itself gives NOTHING. Only the army you've gathered over months or years, and the agreements upgades you could have made during the same period would. And you won't have any of them. ^^

So what's he point of this ? Bragging about your level ? Well... Seriously ? :p

Anyway, this is pointless, but people would be using this would be actually much more pointless than the feature itself.

Chances are it has ben added because people actually asked for it, as usual. It's sometimes hard to imagine how many silly people demand silly changes, but in the end, Plarium is just giving what people are asking for, even f it looks weird. ;)

Seriously, suits themselves. There's no need to make a scandal about this.

Does it hurt your pride that some complete noobs would be bragging with an empty level 85 city ? Well, seriously... Don't care. It won't kill you, and would just give you good laughs.

We could say the same thing about moving cities.

Yes, it's a nonsense, from a historical simulation point of view.

But check the forum : it has been asked for, a long time ago already, and with insistance. Plarium had to detach the automatically generated coordinates from the game account ID so they could be swapped.

In the end, did you use them ? None of us in he coalition did.

It could still prove useful for isolated players. Some want to group with their friends and coaltion (a bad idea, because they'll have to fight for the same few farms, and will all be the same far away distance from targets such as pantheons  instead of covering the map, but their choice, after all). Or some would want to get closer to the centre (a much better idea, but beware, players in this area can be much stronger than you are. But still your choice).

Another use would be to escape raids. Well, here there could be a good an a bad reason. It could be a good reason if you're getting hopelessly bullied in your area. In this case, and if nothing else can be done, adding this opportunity could be a great relief to solve some extreme cases. The bad reason would be to escape any confrontation. That's not how to fight, nor to progress in the game. And it will end up being very expensive. But hey, once again, your choice, and your money. :)

One last word about the recent changes.

I disagree they were all negative. Some are, some have good and bad angles, some are unfairly turned down.

- Persians : I don't know about level 125 positions that may pose a specific problem, but honestly, once you've understood the bank is not, and has never been (as partial payouts could drop before, though rarely) only bsed on your large payout, but is calculated form te sum of all payouts you got on the way, you know better the amount to be paid back and you stop waiting for a new payout too early.

The fact you get partials does not affect the moment when your new big payout must drop : it's still based on your losses only, so nothing has changed. Not even talking about the fact partials can end up doubling your reward in the end. So please, even if each partial look weak separately, don't turn them down nor reason as if hey weren't there. They are, and they count quite a lot in the end.

- Political units are only negative. OK, the only "positive" point is lazy PVP. Seriously, then, something has to be done to rebalance this, as it totally spoils real combats. Was the idea everybody would log on everyday, dispatch 10 bombs and log off ?

We're missing real combats, retaliations, trip duration calculations to surprise the opponent, etc.

I really regret those assassins have been introduced. but, well, watching all this money getting wasted can sometimes be fun...

- Grain changes : well, now I'm rather glad I can almost feed my troops (at least when Dominion is on). But it's an egotistic feeling. Timber and bronze trading is still stricken.

But, well, at least, I can feed my army. As announced, it allows to feed larger armies, and yes, it fulfills its role.

So my opinion is rather shared on this one.

- Troops dismissing removal : our first feeling was it would advantage the strongest players, so they wouldn't be limitated anymore. And it's actually the case.

But ! We weren't aware at first sight of the actual range of this change. We had aways thought our troops could be affected wherever thay were garrisonned.

Actually, it was not the case. Only the ones that were guarding your walls were, so the main victims were actually beginners with low grain self production who were building troops, that were leaving as they were trained.

In this context, things appear very differently. Plarium received lost of complaints, and judged something had to be actally done.

Of course the high end players are no limiteless, but they're less numerous than the crowd of players who were losing the few troops they were hardly producing overnight, so we really can't blame Plarium to have eased their lives.

All players have to be taken in account, experienced (from real experience ! :D) ones and beginners alike, and Plarium was looking for a way to help beginners to get past the first difficulties as rookies, so they just wouldn't lose hope and leave prematurely.

I know it follows a general tendancy to make online games less challenging as a counterpart to making them more accessible to everybody... But it's not specific to Plarium.

@ElitePhantom

Moved our discussion here