Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

colin · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:08 pm

malicewolf wrote:

I like the idea of only the rank 1 alliance getting the reward, however, I do see the point of some of the counter arguments. The biggest one being, the non-boosters will have a much more troublesome time getting any rewards. Many eras end with alliances comprised of 8-10 boosters. This means, per world, 1 or 2 (or 0) who did not boost, will likely gain anything. And though we have our fantastic fanatics who have stuck with BD for a while, most newcomers will not want to pay to play.

As korupt stated though, it's a common misconception that you MUST boost to do well. I have gone many times without boosting a dime and still ranked well. However, this required commitment and lots of activity/coordination with teammates (something people seem to complain more and more about lately). Truly, I believe those who can commit more deserve more (otherwise, it's like asking for a raise when you put in the minimum amount of work into everything you do).

I would suggest making rank 1 alliance only receives reward, however, add more individual ranking rewards (so then people can at least fight to gain from their own personal achievements). Maybe up to rank 25 get's X amount of blues depending on however you wish to deal out the rewards. The cut off can easily be changed, but I think that would help offset the dismay. Usually, it's only the rank 1 alliances members getting any rewards anyways, so let's still give players a reason to try. Otherwise, if a person see's they can't make rank 1, they'll quit.

example:
individual rank 1-10 = +750 blues
individual rank 11-20 = 500 blues
individual rank 21-25 = 300 blues

probably the best post iv seen so far

Mike · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:08 pm

mostafa2324 wrote:

can u dicrease the amount of blue that 2nd and 3rd take :idea:

because it will be a waste of time and tokens if the alliance got on 2nd or 3rd and at the end no rewards..

That's the point though, don't settle for second. Fight for first and give it everything you have. I'd even suggest 2nd and 3rd teaming up against the rank 1 alliance to take them down. After that they can fight it out with a more equal power level.

Andy · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:09 pm

moonyr wrote:

2nd and 3rd should get tokens because without it players wont really try to get high ranked and the game will get boring

Quite the opposite I hope. It will give those rank 2 and 3 alliances the incentive to actually fight for rank 1. An alliance settling for rank 2 or 3 is far from a trying alliance...

eeeeeeeeeeee · **Joined:** Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:47 pm **Posts:** 2

What if instead of giving tokens to the best ranked alliance you gave tokens to the amount of relics an alliance is holding? Maybe 500 toknes for every relic your alliance is holding. So if an alliance fight to keep it's relics it will be rewarded with a few tokens.

aister · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:11 pm

oriel123 wrote:

Competition will sure get better.

But it also means no mroe brother allies or subs therfore will be a chaos and winning will be way harder - Tokens ammount should be higher than 3500.

Maybe as a first move you should try no tokens for 3rd alliance and see hows it going and later go for "no tokens for 2nd".

I would agree if the competition is high. However this is just a starting point, I believe it will be raised as the effect of this decision is analyzed

pilot14 · **Joined:** Fri Jan 29, 2010 5:36 pm **Posts:** 34

Earlier in this thread it was mentioned that Non-boosters should speak up, so here I am, a player who rarely if ever visits the forum, but been a constant player since the Old Client.

I am a lover of this game and all of the things to it, and though I have disagreed with things in the past, there is nothing I disagree with more than this new decision.

For you to take tokens away from the 2nd and 3rd rank alliances, you basically eliminate any challenge we, non-boosters, can give to red boosting players.

I've seen several people say it before already, it just widens the gap of power and strength and how are we supposed to stand up to someone when we need to wait however many ticks to make 6k-12 gold/metal whatever it may be, when they can just boost it?

Sure, skill and activity may make you somewhat of a threat, but in the end, you're going to lose no matter what.

I can already see myself struggling to keep up with red boosters as-is now, but for you to take out 2nd and 3rd options for players like me seems rather unfair. In the times of old, I used to save up from voting for long periods of time, just for ONE serious era, before going back to accepting the inevitable vs the bigger named alliances, but the amount of tokens for that has went down too.

How are we supposed to compete? Please tell me.

Seth · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:12 pm

It seems we have people pretty well split on the fence here.

I think we will see over time, how the game is affected. If things prove us wrong historically, so be it.

It is the very reasoning we are using for this change. While we thought it would help non boosters and help bolster competition through these means, historically this has proven to be the opposite of the result. All we have done is concentrated more power around the same amount of players because they no longer compete with eachother so much as they shut most other players out.

Please understand that this is not a decision we made lightly.

simmen · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:12 pm

malicewolf wrote:

I like the idea of only the rank 1 alliance getting the reward, however, I do see the point of some of the counter arguments. The biggest one being, the non-boosters will have a much more troublesome time getting any rewards. Many eras end with alliances comprised of 8-10 boosters. This means, per world, 1 or 2 (or 0) who did not boost, will likely gain anything. And though we have our fantastic fanatics who have stuck with BD for a while, most newcomers will not want to pay to play.

Malice, what you're not takign into concideration is how it will change the gameplay, you're basing it on the current gameplay. With this update, diplomacy will be much more important, and the incentive for people to group up to have a chance to beat someone is greater than it was before. And as I commented earlier, rank 2 and rank 3 (which are the ones you want to give tokens) way to often just settles for the rank and hand over relics, leaving it up to rank 4+ to fight the strongest alliance that according to you will concist of 8-10 boosters, do you htink they have more or less chance to fight back with the help of rank 2 and rank 3 allaince who have nothing to lose?

Sunit · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:14 pm

Another step into a "pay to win" experience.

Great. :oops:

abeyant · **Posted:** Mon Jan 27, 2014 4:14 pm

Seth wrote:

It seems we have people pretty well split on the fence here.

I think we will see over time, how the game is affected. If things prove us wrong historically, so be it.

Unfortunately, I think, if this is the case a large portion of the non-boosting community will be gone by the time you can see it. That is just IF it ruins competition. Can't say whether it will or not, but I believe it will.

No tokens for 2nd and 3rd alliance!