| PreCrossworlds |
22:51:38 Nov 4th 09 - Mr. Arch Shade:
This is just my personal opinion and it is not a rant or rave. I was just sitting here thinking back to my most fun eras and most memorable. And it seemed to end when they implemented cross-worlds.
Ever since then, the personal glory from dominating or even losing on a map seemed to disappear. Even if you defeat or hold off an enemy, and things begin to get intense, out of nowhere someone swoops in and takes you both out. This passion you had built up against your previous enemy vanishes and you are left going wtf.
When they took away merges, I felt like they ripped apart something that help bind members to each other. A good leader can always keep it fun and communicate, but merges added something different to the game. Your friends would all join together for a big fight. Each one, whether he or she was a newbie would contribute something. If you did succeed and take over that invincible city, everyone was cheering and excited. It would allow you to be playing actively on all front, even if you sent just a small army.
Zeta did a great job at removing tricks like land dropping. Though it was unfair, it was kinda neat learning these off-the-wall tricks. It gave members something to learn and do, rather than just filling blockers and attacking. Spending all era trying to make that super army was exciting and dangerous at the same time. Having halflings swap cities to gain exp and find treasure was more of a tactic than a cheat. It's hard to explain, but all of these methods almost added to the game rather than hindered it. It helped break away from the constant pump and go methods.
Like I said this is my personal opinion. I know tons of players who love the new system. As I stated before, the game has just lacked the feel that it had ever since cross-worlds and other changes were added.
|
22:58:00 Nov 4th 09 - Mr. Bartimaeus XII:
Very well put Shade :) I agree 100%
|
23:25:41 Nov 4th 09 - Wolflord Karac:
Im with ya man. I'd almost take three man eras over this stuff.
|
23:54:44 Nov 4th 09 - Mr. Arch Shade:
Continuation*
I remember in the past, we used to worry that veterans would sneak down to the lower worlds and attack weaker players for glory. Well as the new changes happened in VU, I realized something profound about the previous system.
It is impossible to ever keep veterans from killing newbies. But in the old system, there were far less experienced players slaughtering beginners. Instead they would actually be helping the system. My first era, I landed on Nirvana. I formed The Gauls. Zeon had landed on that map. We fought furiously, and it was obvious many of their members were kinda relaxed after being killed off Fantasia. But we held our own and actually learned so much about the game without being slaughtered out of protection as if we landed on Fantasia.
I hear Veterans mention all the time, that the old system was for players to have a fake nonFantasia win. They are completely correct! It actually allowed less active players to gain some sort of glory, without fighting on Fantasia.
I will admit, I have never had a Fantasia win nor ever achieved anything great there. But I am fine with that. I actually find more enjoyment training new players to fight and sending them off on their own.
I can't say that I hate all the new changes. For awhile the races were a complete fail. I believe Zeta if finally going in the right direction by giving races unique abilities, rather than balancing troops so every race is equal. It still needs work, but right path.
One of human beings worst traits is the ability to step back on progress that they have achieved whether it was good or bad. In many examples, humans will actually create and form something. When it is realized that this system was flawed, instead of moving backwards, they will try to keep adding to the new changes. For example, there are many online games that have failed due to this. In the next few posts I will give more details on this.
In this thread, I will continue to post my thoughts on VU.
|
01:19:01 Nov 5th 09 - Lady Miley Cyrus:
|
01:25:17 Nov 5th 09 - Duke Ryan The Laughing Storm:
I agree, I learned a lot from "holly" and i enjoyed the game way more when it wasnt "nap and farm" because now if you don't land in a great spot and if you dont nap the right people you will get drained fighting oop and when a farmed up army of 200k archies shows up you are screwed. the old mass merges were fun because everyone contributed.
|
01:36:46 Nov 5th 09 - Mr. Urist:
I remember 'pre cross worlds' as a ranking system. All of the veterans were up there in whatever it was called, and all the newbies in nirvana. After one era i went up one 'rank' and i was overjoyed. It wasnt long before i was completely owned though.
|
01:37:44 Nov 6th 09 - Wolflord Karac:
The game could easily have been fixed by maxing merges out at 3 armies only, or something of that nature..... but look what we have come to =(
|
02:25:05 Nov 6th 09 - Grand Ape Kongdust:
|
12:40:10 Nov 7th 09 - Mr. Wilover:
|
13:08:18 Nov 7th 09 - Mr. Tyrgalon:
I agree 10000000000000000000%. Crossworlds are fun in their own way, but theres always someone that comes and interrupts your fight with a honored enemy.
Merges where also a great part of the game, it was a kd vs kd challenge to get the biggest merge, made up of armies from all the players, even ones that had just restarted and the players on HoH, everyone joined the common effort of the kd.
Now all this is gone...but I plead to Zeta, that it is not gone forever. Because otherwise I dunno if this game can survive in the end.
|
13:17:05 Nov 7th 09 - Dr. Happy Pants:
I have noticed that many kingdoms have problems with team play now that the merge is gone. Lots of lone wolf type playing in kingdoms.
|
19:05:23 Nov 7th 09 - Duke Jictelious:
My activity hasn't been all that great for years now. I don't have the time to go out and actively take over cities or for OOP wars anymore, so these days all I really do is stuff blockers and defend.
It seemed like the game was much more fun with merges, even if it did lead to a lot more stalemates. There was something fun about wondering how large an enemy merge was in a blocker and scrambling to throw together your own horde to repel it. You could bring a kingdom's power together into a single wrecking ball. OOP wars were more fun, too, as it allowed players who had a slower start to get help from teammates and capture a few of their own cities, rather than this system now.
Even though everyone hated them, I also enjoyed Great Walls. I still hope we get those back some era or other.
However, I don't really mind Crossworlds. I like this era's changes where we all have to fight to get on Fantasia, though it does come with its own share of problems.
|
20:09:09 Nov 7th 09 - Wolflord Karac:
With cross worlds, great walls are needed more than ever imo.
|
20:30:30 Nov 7th 09 - Grand Ape Kongdust:
back when, you could be protected by the edge of a map, that's why you didn't need big kingdoms, you would only be fighting on one or 2 fronts. now you need t be prepared to fight from all sides. although it does add more challenge to the game, it makes it so that you need more players to defend all sides of your territory.
i agree about the great walls being needed because of the loss of merges the game has become much more 1-1, and often that means One person needs to pump into one blocker if the kingdom wants to kill off the big army coming their way. but right now, there are places on the map where you need 3 blockers to defend one opening, that becomes 3 people focusing most their troops on the blockers (if they want to kill the army) or 5-7 people just putting troops in the blocker to hold him off.
and that's just one entry point. most cores need 10-15 blockers to cut off all entrys. it's no wonder kingdoms need to be so big and Mass Napping is a problem! it's the only way to secure a core now days :(
|
20:52:48 Nov 9th 09 - Mr. Arch Shade:
As it stands right now, it is in the best interest for larger, more experienced kingdoms to gobble up everyone on "their" world. There is no way to ask nicely for them to not do this. I and most of us, would also do the same. It's too risky to nap a kingdom that you are unsure about. Your enemies could swarm from one side, take all of your nap's cities and have a major advantage against you. It is essentially more productive to cleanse the world and secure blockers that you know will be worthy of defense.
By getting rid of merges and making defending easier, the game has actually slowed down and become tedious. It would actually be better to die quickly and spawn on a lower world, than holding on for half the era while you defend your cities with mass GTs, Walls, and troops.
A lot of experienced players feel that newer players should not create kingdoms as they are so fresh to the game. Being able to lead and organize your own kingdom is actually what draws a majority of players to VU. In the past they would often land on lower worlds and gain a "fake" win or have a grand battle with newer players. Though I agree that they would learn more from within an experienced kingdom, that is not what will keep them excited about the game.
In many cases, the proud newbie win on a lower world would move up to another world. They are excited, the leader is psyched and active. The next era they either get lucky and win, or fight well for a long time against other fellow mediocre players. It is not usually till the third or fourth era did they land on Mantrax or Fantasia and get destroyed. But it was actually alright for that to happen. They had still gained a few wins in the past and their spirit was still soaring, even though they were humbled by their quick loss on Fantasia.
I also agree that some players on lower worlds would get discouraged or killed off quickly, but it was by far much fewer than it is now. When you look at the maps are they are filled with dead starter kingdoms and one dominate kingdom owns all the land, it's a bit "distrubing".
Lets discuss some alternative methods of crossworlds. As I do not believe they will be removed.
|
20:58:19 Nov 9th 09 - Mr. Arch Shade:
X-Valhalla
X-Starta
X-Mantrax
X-Fantasia
X-Zetamania
X-Armageddon
X-Talents
*This is just a quick diagram, I know there are more worlds.
I know this has been discussed before, but would a linear world system serve better? It would be absolutely silly for a kingdom striving to win an era to start on any lower worlds, as they would have to fight constantly to move towards Fantasia. It would actually encourage them to spawn on Mantrax or Zetamania.
Also having the sides not connected to worlds, it would help relieve stress from kingdoms trying to secure cores and advance.
By having only two maps connected closely to Fantasia, larger more aggressive kingdoms would be forced to OOP each other earlier as to get an advancement into Fantasia.
|
22:13:27 Nov 9th 09 - Grand Ape Kongdust:
linear... i wouldn't mind that. the game becomes more 'King of the hill' like.
or to increase the challenge, have it + shaped with only Fantasia that connected on all sides
|
22:39:28 Nov 9th 09 - Mr. Master Mind:
I like the + shape more : P
M
S F V
Z
Just add the other worlds but something like that, with the worlds behind valhalla, start, zeta, and mant instead of square shape.. will help stop the nub bashing I think...
|
22:44:36 Nov 9th 09 - Mr. Arch Shade:
I would support the + shape for worlds.
|
22:50:58 Nov 9th 09 - Duke Ryan The Laughing Storm:
I think having a couple noob worlds would be better, either that or give certain worlds some sort of bonus against opthers, IE the 50% worlds get a defence bonus to deter asshats from bullying them. then let people drop where they ask, so that noobs dont get dropped on fant or something.
|
22:52:45 Nov 9th 09 - Lady Miley Cyrus:
the + shape could work, but I think the spread of the kds would also need to be changed significantly. If its:
V
M
A S F N T
Z
And some big kd is forced to start alone with a bunch of smaller or new kds on say Talents, it would be no different in the end.
|
01:09:08 Nov 10th 09 - Duchess Mama Bear:
why don't we put all the KDs on fant and noone on lower worlds :)
leave map the same size, that'd be fun :D
|
01:19:24 Nov 10th 09 - Lady Miley Cyrus:
I'm all for that :P That would be a blast :D
|
10:27:00 Nov 10th 09 - Mr. Tyrgalon:
the king of the hill or + organized worlds would be better than the current on, atleast the king of the kill would make kds start on fant again instead of farming up and then invading. And merges really need to come back, maybe along with great walls. The game has just gotten more and more boring during the couple of years that I have played it.
Zeta! please let people have a taste of the old times, and then let them decide what they want to have.
|
22:57:25 Nov 10th 09 - Mr. Arthur Dent:
Why can't we have two worlds next era? One with the old stuff, the other with the new stuff. The scores and everything would come from the new world, but people who wanted to could play the old world.
|
13:17:29 Nov 17th 09 - Mr. Tyrgalon:
not bad idea, but zeta might need a lot more capacity to be able to do that
|
| [Top] Pages: 1 |
