Eugenia Misura said:
Djmoody, Hamlets have own mechanics, it's hard to compare them to Settlements since the mechanics is very different. For example, defensive Units don't take part in the battle and offensive Units go back to the Catacombs automatically after a Hamlet was captured. New and different doesn't mean bad.
Each player should always have a strategy. Resources are not infinite, you can't buy all troops you see at the Black Market, and all troops and bonuses that you have will be useless if you don't learn how to use them wisely.
the comparison is in value: risk vs. reward; when my level was in the 40's, new to the game, my first couple months, i could take settlements by jousting with other players, some of those players levels were in the 70's. once i established myself, i would hold on to the settlement for 2days to 2 weeks. gathering gold twice a day. that gold was valuable. when i got bumped off a settlement i then had to establish myself again.
there was a topic on changing settlements, the only good suggestion was making teirs, that would have meant that i would go against level 40's instead of 60's and 70's. plus if they kept the same amount of settlements for each tier, that would make more resources available with less jousting. i could tell from the suggestions that the main push was to turn settlements into a duck hunt.
and that is exactly what hamlets are. a duck hunt. risk vs reward. there is no longer any value in gathering at hamlets. its only value is a duck hunt.
what strategy is there in being a sitting duck pertaining to "resources are not infinite"? and what do you mean by "learn how to use them wisely? is being a sitting duck "wisely".
it is extremely easy to compare settlements to hamlets. settlements were a valuable risk vs. reward gathering of the "not infinite resources". hamlets are a duck hunt.
the comparison of risk vs. reward also includes this: there was never a settlement open, therefore if you wanted one you had to joust for it. again there was never a settlement open. hamlets on the other hand when there were 90 hamlets, only 3 or 4 would be taken, 3 or 4 out of 90. that is with players being allowed to hold 3 each if they find the risk vs. reward valuable. this is within a 150 mile radius, that is a 300 mile diameter. even 3 weeks ago it was difficult to find one hamlet with a player on it in order to pvp it for the quest. that is, that it was difficult, to find one sitting duck in a 300 mile diameter. just one duck!
so why is it that when a player makes a thread that the risk vs. reward in hamlets is absolutely of no value to the gatherer, that the message is not, way to catch up Einstein!, i saw from the suggestions when hamlets were being proposed that that would be the case.
instead the messages are copy and paste: some players like this, some players like that, you can participate or not, be super duper smart and use strategy. or my favorite, you just aren't putting enough defense on them, please put your entire defense on a hamlet, plz, plz, plz.
strategy, wisely, be smart...........i am definitely toooooooo dumb for this game.
comparison: risk vs. reward; actions speak louder than words. settlements not one open ever. hamlets 95% open within a 300 mile diameter with players allowed 3 hamlets. not used does = bad, used does =good. you can participate or not. that is why i love bot castles, without bot castles there would be no game. that is why the only part of the game i participate in is raiding bot castles for the "not infinite resources". i wonder if that could be strategy, maybe i am smarterest after all.
while i wait on the returning raids to my favorite and only game content i participate in, i am here in the forums. if i had actual game content, i would not be here.
