-
RONIN i would have to agree with you \"just as long as it doesnt end up like what happened to W@W, but there should be something done to improve the game for everyone.. it can just favor 1 side and not the other.. Admins.. you all have a great game , i know it can be way better.. but there needs some improvements done to where it favors both sides not just another.. im sure alot of people would agree and im sure others wouldnt.. im just looking as to where it is fair on both ends not just one..
-
I am all in Favor of removing the 20% bonus,if my opinion matters:)
-
your opinion does matter... :) i do miss the good old days of W@W now we have WZ lets see if it can be better.. so far so good.. but needs some improvements.. :)
-
Well,the Devs seem to listen and are willing to work with us,this could be better than the good old days of W@W.I am looking forward to it.
-
Actually, the strategy poll votes were quite balanced. The final results were:
- 31.4% (Keep strategies like they are now)
- 23.6% (Keep strategies, but lower their impact)
- 45.0% (Remove strategies)
This is a tough call, we haven't decided what to do yet, we will probably opt for keeping them, but lowering their impact (from 20% to 15% or maybe 10%).
-
it is a tough call, but then again when u look at it 45% of the players were in favor of having it removed.. lowering it to a 10% would be a 2nd option to consider..
i believe removing it out completely, this way those players who rely on the 20% boost would actually have to work at building there armies to peak performance, wow that would be something of a challage to some of them, as to many of us who have been playing these types of war games know the true meaning of building your armies.. we have to work hard to have a good attack and defense :a balance" so why shouldn't the other do the same.
maybe increasing the money out put say by 10% would help everyone ia little bit more as well , building armies up is very costly....
-
you asked we replied . 45% to remove is more than 31.4% to stay.
dont see the problem, we voted to remove it, so remove it.
if you are going to do these polls and ignore the winner, people wont answer the next poll as we would then believe that you wouldnt change reguardless.
why o why do you need a bonus in the first place??????
like all wars, the toughest should win, not the weakest with a boost
-
ahhhh, but there is always "Chance" in war. A tire goes flat, the scout doesn't detect the enemy movements in time, and you're caught flatfooted with half your armored column without enough fuel because the enemy wiped out your supply line thanks to the flat tire.
I support the chance percentage. Otherwise, it's strictly who can buy the most, (or set up a money collecting program to buy the most while your not playing, (seen that in several games)), and it's strictly numbers, no roll of the dice.
It's the "Chance" that makes it a challenge, an unknown, a gamble. There is a reason that Las Vegas is popular...
Machiavelli
p.s. it's only when players are neck and neck in military strength that the chance ever causes an unusual or random outcome. There are many players out there where chance, no matter how great, favors the stronger and not the weaker opponent. And even when you have two players that are close, you have a 33% chance of gaining a bonus, 33% chance of getting no bonus for either side and it's strictly you verses them, and 33% chance of your opponent gaining the bonus. For a well thought out player with a good attack strength and army, that means that you are still going to have an advantage 2/3rds of the time.
If you can't win either in attacking or defending with a two-thirds bonus or plain out you verses them, then you're doing poorly on your strategy.
-
We're not ignoring the results, but you can also read them this way:
- 45% to remove
- 55% to keep or keep but lower the impact
This is why we're probably not going to opt for removing them, because those 45% don't make the majority.