H? attacks upon me

I feel ATH's review was mostly true.

The game is a great game. The only downside to this game is the community. ATH stated that by calling it, "a fancy social interaction." That quote explains that the community is very boring and uptight.

This game was very much like farmville till the tournament started. So, ATH was very correct on the GM's having to put in a tournament to get players to actually fight each other. I can say from my perspective that the Curse alliance became 100 percent active due to the tournament excitement appeal. The factions going live will create even more excitement appeal and completely erase any thought of a farmville comparison.

"The game is fun, i know it is since i play it, however again once some players dislike you, and them being senior players, the rest usually follow suit" (ATH). This quote is also true in this game and pretty much for most war based games. Once a certain player with power dislikes a player in this game, the dislike will most likely grow from one person to a group of the community. There are a lot of sheep that play this game and in real life. They will save face by backing the bigger group instead of the smaller group. Sooner or later the community will seige the target just due to not liking the player.

So, basically this game is all about making more friends than your enemies. It is a very political game with not much diplomacy. Why do I say that? An apology in this game means nothing at all. In real life yes, but not in this game. Once a player is forced to apologize or to make a contract, he or she most likely will get sieged again because the players that wanted the apology in the end also wants to siege that player once and for all. There is a slim chance that a player can avoid getting sieged, but these players need to have a lot of friends and friends that are indeed more powerful than the enemy player base threatening such a player.

I also agree that once a player is getting sieged, there is not much a player can do to avoid the siege other than having more troops than the bigger force. I feel this game needs to work on the siege defense dynamic. Players like Cyan, Nige, Gigi, and myself that were fighting against overwhelming odds to save towns were in a lose, lose situation. Perhaps this game should not allow as many siege engines to a town or make the siege process take 5 time longer. I have been really thinking of a way that will improve the defense against sieges, when a player is facing overwhelming odds. I think the GMs should really give the advantage to the defender 10 fold. That even when an alliance attack a player with 8 towns, it will greatly deplete their forces and make it more strategy than simply throwing 20k troops on a reins square to siege a town.

As a player I have made mistakes in the political side of the game. For whatever dumb reason, I thought my hardwork would be enough to save me from attacks. In reality, I should have put more time in making friends and less on working hard.   

So, yes chatting in the forums and global chat can make a player a target just simply on a difference of opinion. This difference of opinion will be followed suit by insults by a player which will then draw the player getting insulted to retaliate. Pretty much one of these players will eventually get sieged, but that will only be based on who has stronger friends than the other.

Anyways, I think this game needs face lift on the defensive side of things. I want this to be improved for the betterment of the game. The game favors the attacker too much.     



   

Diplomacy is war with words- and I much prefer it to bashing people's heads in with sharp, metal objects. If this game were about war, then the meta-game would be nonexistent, as most people would rage quit the moment someone attacked them for resources.  Making friends is a LOT better than making enemies -in real life as well as in this game- and it happens to require a LOT of work.  I learned this through an experience that was almost the same as yours Lionz, but with a different outcome -I was ridiculed by my alliance, which I had been a member of since I had 5 population, for doing something against my leader's wishes.  All I felt was hate, but slowly I built up my own alliance and made peace with my old alliance.  I did not cuss out that leader in Global Chat.

I am a realist, so I always say what is true and I do not BS about anything. I feel I can see things before most people. This goes with me knowing the game was broken till I came up with the tournament idea. As for Kumo disagreeing with the defense idea, I feel Kumo only disagrees with it since his alliance does attacks 100% of the time with really no time defending at all. Based on that alone, I feel Kumo has no idea what he is talking about. It is like asking a King to be able to understand what a poor citizen is going through. Regardless, the defensive mechanic needs to get improved regardless what the player King Kumos says about it.

As for SRG, there is no diplomacy in this game, there is none at all. It is all about having more friends than the other person. A player is better off not chatting on global chat and the forums for the chance of offending a player. I know of several players in this game that do not chat in the forums and global chat for that reason alone. They do not want to say anything that will upset the wrong person with power that easily gets upset. I mean look what you did to Hammy, you made that player apologize and agree to a contract. In the end, you seiged that player because you did not like him. The reason you disagree with what I have said is because you are guilty of not using diplomacy. So, in the end, if any player is forced to say they are sorry or agree to terms, they are better off just quitting unless they have more powerful friends than the other person. Most of the time the terms agreed to is a scam that in the end will leave no choice but for that player to get sieged.

Hammy was given 5 chances to behave- all of which he blew, spamming global chat and being a complete management nightmare.  He left the game by his own choice, and I sieged him 3 weeks after he left so new players could move to our alliance capital (he had jumped from alliance to alliance at an average of 2 per week and eventually created his own alliance - Coolies).  I left his second city standing, so that he could restart if he wanted to.  And I don't believe you understand diplomacy- its very essence is about making more friends than enemies, and those who are decent players will quickly develop a large friend base who will come to their aid if necessary.  

It's a bug my computer has, although it seems more prominent now than before.