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

arslan48792 · **Joined:** Wed Oct 24, 2012 2:16 am **Posts:** 21

if it is for all the eras.. i totally disagree it.. it will just bound the game more.. no boosting means no win... bd will lose more players..

@@ GRUST@@

simmen · **Posted:** Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:52 am

mustafa960 wrote:

Is this for just CE ,or all eras?

I will assume it's for all worlds , firstly this idea would definitely make Battle dawn , much more competitive as there are no more "battle-hugs" and players will play only to win. However , it would mean the majority of players who are experienced and usually settle for second - like me , are those that can't spend reds lavishly due to the fact i'm in school. Also , those who finish second and third will have to either spend ages voting and creating a token pool to play an era , where red boosters will most likely dominate due to the fact they have a large head start , and lastly diplomacy will no longer exist.

Yes, it's for all worlds.

And my post here will require some answers from you.

And the question is, why do you settle for seccond? From what you wrote, it seems like it's what you normally do, and if people do get into that mindset tat settling for rank 2, instead of trying to be the best is a good thing, I think it's hrtfull to the game.

And may I ask you like I have asked many others, how will this remove diplomacy?..

If anything it will raise the level from how I see it. Because, just saying "era long allies?" because WAY less attractive. It will now be more NAP based, and you need to not do diplomacy with an alliance just once, but maybe several times. It will also give much more option for alliances to band together, rank 2 and 3 had little incentive to risk their tokens, leaving only rank 4+ to fight rank 1. While now, all rank 2 and 3 has to risk is their rank, and will much more willing to join in on the figt against rank 1, if you're good enough at diplomacy that is

Network45 · **Joined:** Tue Dec 24, 2013 8:58 am **Posts:** 1

Disagree.

DameHORD · **Joined:** Sat May 11, 2013 7:27 pm **Posts:** 58

This will make less people watching want to try lol
The comeback game for a top 3

Dont like this plan

babul16 · **Joined:** Mon Oct 21, 2013 1:10 am **Posts:** 4

Ilona wrote:

This is only the discussion thread. Main thread can be found here

Please state your opinions!

Totally Disagreeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Not a good decision

Seth · **Posted:** Tue Jan 28, 2014 9:24 am

I hear alot of "THIS WILL"...

can some of you psychics give me the winning lotto numbers this week too, please? :lol:

I mean really. "This will stimey watchers from playing", or "this will kill the war for 2nd or 3rd"...

Really? War for 2nd or 3rd?? As an admin, I can tell you that 99% of the time, that "war for 2nd or 3rd" is decided long before the end of the era, and the top teams will hold the era out long enough to secure their deal AND/OR the top teams acquire #2 or #3 by cycling in and out members, and building at the last minute. There is no "come back game for 2nd or 3rd" beyond that!

Now, I see a few who seem to think that there is some magical formula that says only free to play players end up in the #2 and #3 teams. Take it from me, this is an illusion. One fellow decided he was going to try and fight for a top 3 win recently, and was bullied out of it. Told that if he even tried to get top 3 for his team, 10 alliances would turn on him.

He quit and tried to refund every payment he made, this is how unhappy he was. This is becoming a common story, and I am sorry if you do not understand what we are trying to do here. Hopefully you will in time.

serenity54 · **Joined:** Mon Jan 02, 2012 8:25 pm **Posts:** 15

Hi all just adding my 2 cents worth,

I understand the rationale by the admins to create a more competitive era. I personally miss those days when 10 players would fight 10 others in one glorious battle and you would either die or walk away with just a few units.

Is this the answer I guess only time will tell. I would suggest that on top of that the admins make the eras a bit more interesting to attract new players.

Its all about numbers. Some place to build tokens others are new and those that place help to provide income. The key to BD in my opinion is revenue. The higher the revenue per tick the bigger the army and so on. Of course tactics also comes into play but I never understood why you choose to reduce the number of free tokens. The more players that join even if it is to build their blues the higher the chances of overall revenue by those that boost reds, I would think or at least keep the new guys interested enough to learn and the older players interested enough to stay.

Then I noticed the number of garrisons have reduced and the amount of defence in place has gotten predictable and with less and less crystals. I don't care who you are we all like our shinnies and having less major events in an era makes it boring.

So for me 1. Increase the number of free tokens for voting 2. Increase the number of major events like garrisons relics etc and make it interesting to keep the numbers of players high and attract new blood

Seth · **Posted:** Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:46 am

Doing my best there mate

Tokens for voting is an issue, because too many people were not actually voting. If we saw ourselves on the top of all the vote lists, as it should be, then we would happily keep the tokens up for that. Unfortunately, most people can't be bothered to follow through with the instructions on the vote site.

Special thanks to those of you who do!

I do agree though, that we can find more productive ways to make sure that blue tokens make it into circulation. I think this will come up at the next meeting. If we are going to take something away, perhaps we can find more consistant ways of counter-balancing that in a way that has less of a direct effect on gameplay...

georgeshelou · **Posted:** Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:58 am

I totally agree with you Admin Seth, firstly there are a lot of top teams which guarantee the second or third position to their subs, brother alliances or whatever they are called, I've been a victim of team strengthening at the last minute many times, there are some of those ranked second or third teams team which don't even deserve their position and after all I encourage the idea of not to reward tokens for the second and third alliance to be more democratic and fair to everyone in a way plus fortify fighting, learning, art of war and skills through the game and let it have its purpose back.

Secondly, I am not under any illusion when playing eras to end up in a ranked third or second alliance and I have to admit that I am actually playing these kind of eras. I am sorry for your fellow anyway, he is a little intimidated and for sure I would behave the same way if I was to play to get top 3 knowing that 10 alliances would turn on me.

Finally, this is all about time and let's hope people will understand ...

aashis123 · **Joined:** Sun Mar 10, 2013 12:41 pm **Posts:** 7

I completely support this idea of not giving tokens to 2nd and 3rd ranked alliances.And those who say you need tokens to play/win ,i think you should start playing facebook games

.
If you don't have confidence that you can win no matter how much token you spend its worthless and you are gonna lose every time.
Lets say there are 3 teams in top 3 that are going for rank 1 .They fight with each other and at the end one team wins ,others get defeated.Then say rank 4 and rank 5 team now come in top 3. They were just building and sitting doing nothing whole era and are happy that they got into top 3,don't even dare to fight for rank 1.Now ,you are trying to say that these two teams deserve to get tokens for doing nothing?If i were in those two teams who fought and got defeated,i wouldn't cry that i didn't get tokens.I would come back again next time and still fight for that top spot.Comparing the rank 2 and 3 teams with the other 2 teams who actually fought ,i think the earlier two don't even deserve a mention.

No tokens for 2nd and 3rd alliance!