Where this game stands imo.

Ok, I'm going to give my critical opinion on this game and it's forum, don't think I don't like this game, but this is a Beta, it's made for people to give the bad things.

Forum:
- So, first of all, the forum is a mess, people are posting their topics everywhere, there are no clear, direct forum boards.
Let me give an example: question, suggestion,.. are all posted in the General board, which we can't blame the users, the FA (Forum Admins) just need to add boards and get this forum organised, multiple threads on this have been posted, nevertheless they did nothing.

- The last posted post next to the General Discussion shows the last one that has been posted in the whole second board, little thing but annoys me.

- The big boards have no header, another thing that leads to 'forum anarchy'.

Game:
I don't know if you guys have noticed it yet, but everything you do will eventually lead to the military side of the game, (eg. Wood-(planks-houses-new resource)coal-copper-bronze-weapons, you can do this for every resource) which means they will really be focusing on pvp when the full game is there.

Well, I don't need the military stuff, I like the game the way it is.
I was assuming some would say this, so I'd respond to it right away.
What are you doing now? Building stuff, building an army, exploring the island,... And then what? After you 'finished' the island you WILL get bored and pvp WILL be the only solution to boredom.

And it's just the pvp thing I'm afraid of, and because of this:
- Implementing pvp will 'destroy' the Settlers' feeling of a kind, economic game, nevertheless is it needed.

- How will they implement pvp?
* Just 'destroy' each other's Island: would be pointless as the other player can just rebuild it's island, real pvp people would be really disapointed due to this.
* Take over each other's Island: Would be the best option imo, but it would give The Settlers a more adult 'face', and it would lose it's charm.

- The combat system need's a HUGE boost to give a decent and fair result.

- Pvp means travelling to a new island, hostile islands and friendly islands to give them cover, to accomplish this they will need some kind of boat-system, which would take up another slot in the already tight building-limit.

- They will have to implement multiple 'races' to give a dynamic feeling to the game (eg. Romans, Teutons,.. in other games), something that is new to The Settlers.

- I fear that 'diamonds' will be too necessary to be really good in the game, which is a pain for the game. This because of Building licences, a better General,... etc.

- There's no 'big goal' to this game, which is needed to make it work. Let me take Travian to illustrate it: After 10 months, the 'wonders of the world' appear, people have to capture it, get it to lv. 100 and they win. Now with this Settlers, that isn't possible, servers don't reset, so you need to give the players some kind of carrot they can keep following. Which will be hard when you make a server last forever and new players aren't 'allowed', because after a year people will have huge empires where they are 'useless'. Resetting the servers and giving them a 'purpose' is the way to go imo.

To summarize: To make this game work, The Settlers has to change a lot, making it lose it's authenticity and kind feeling. There is no other way to make an Online game work. At this time the game has a too Singleplayer feeling.

That's my opinion, feel free to speak your mind!
Before you say this just may be not my type of game, my arguments are based on what I see on good games with a big player base.

Let's see what we can make out of this ^^

- Forums ; I agree we could use a question forum and suggestion one. (The latter I had actually suggested a while ago, I'll send in a reminder.) Not much to add or discuss about this, just makes it look neat.

Regarding this, however ;

Quote:

---

- How will they implement pvp?

---

PvP itself is planned in the future, yes. But all resources we have been getting is leading us to believe it will be Arena based. You will not destroy each other's isle, you will not conquer territory, it'll be armies fighting armies in the Arena. Your buildings won't get harmed. However, there is -no- source on how TSO will implant PvP so I have to say ; You are jumping to early conclusions, fearing something that may never be put in-game.

Quote:

---

Just 'destroy' each other's Island: would be pointless as the other player can just rebuild it's island
Take over each other's Island: Would be the best option imo, but it would give The Settlers a more adult 'face', and it would lose it's charm.

---

This, is highly unlikely as people spend hours into the game. To watch it all be destroyed in hours or days so to speak, will make people leave TSO and provide for an unhappy player-base. Blue byte knows that. ;)

Quote:

---

The combat system need's a HUGE boost to give a decent and fair result.

---

I partially agree and I know others do as well, the question just is ; How. The settlers have a reputation for being a fairly combat simple game, in TS 7 for example, you do make troops and focus more on them.. But in the end, the recruits charge in and archers simply fire dead ahead. There is nothing wrong with that, the question just is ; How would you alter the battle mechanics to keep it simple but more efficient? One thing already suggested is to make the archers/ranged units fire away first, and to prevent bandits from hurting you when they die on the first hit, but in the end, it's up to BB.

Quote:

---

- They will have to implement multiple 'races' to give a dynamic feeling to the game (eg. Romans, Teutons,.. in other games), something that is new to The Settlers.

---

Different races, different units, different buildings, different results. It'll be a huge thing to implant, and while TS have had multiple races before in games, and if they are thinking about this ; What happens to all the players that just started with the base race? Everything would have to be wiped, which is not the way they want to go. This will also be highly unlikely.

Quote:

---

- I fear that 'diamonds' will be too necessary to be really good in the game, which is a pain for the game. This because of Building licences, a better General,... etc.

---

You can get building licenses by conquering regions, 10 for a region which allows you to set up new production chains. Build and plan wisely, and you'll get all the way to 50 while making every resource. However, BB does want to make money on the game so the extra building licenses are an option, but not required.

The general, does not have any fighting bonus. He simply recovers twice as fast after being KO'd in combat. It's a nice addition, but again.. Not required. Play tactfully and you'll never get him KO'd. The scavenger and geologist just find stuff twice as fast.

In the ends, gems help you. True, they are nice to have and use. But they are not required for the game, they do not make you level up to 50 in a week.

Quote:

---

- There's no 'big goal' to this game, which is needed to make it work. Let me take Travian to illustrate it: After 10 months, the 'wonders of the world' appear, people have to capture it, get it to lv. 100 and they win. Now with this Settlers, that isn't possible, servers don't reset, so you need to give the players some kind of carrot they can keep following. Which will be hard when you make a server last forever and new players aren't 'allowed', because after a year people will have huge empires where they are 'useless'. Resetting the servers and giving them a 'purpose' is the way to go imo.

---

I see TSO as a social game, like FB. They have no ending, but they provide a fun environment with chat, trade and interaction with RL players while in the end, you can either play all alone or with others. I think they actually were headed that way with TSO, but can't confirm as I've joined a few weeks ago and don't know of their development plans. :p

Regardless, Travian comes with a cost. It has an end game, at the end of a year you worked hard for, you lose everything. A lot of people never make it to the end of the year due to being crushed by others long before (Though that's not relevant to the post), "wonders of the world" so to speak are an event rarely seen by half the player base. If you aren't active enough on Travian, you get crushed.

This game however, allows people to set the pace they wish (to a degree), some get online and play a few hours, others (us mods with no lives) are online almost all day to simply .. Well, I don't know what the other people do all day but I'm naming my settlers one by one. (I kid) I'm however quite sure that they will add new content to the game at a later point, expanding the achievable goals. Right now, it's a social game which allows you to build, chat and play at your own pace while having a military aspect to it.

Quote:

---

Which will be hard when you make a server last forever and new players aren't 'allowed', because after a year people will have huge empires where they are 'useless'

---

Sounds like Travian, doesn't it? When a server is three months in, you don't stand a chance because you'll be playing with the big boys and their catapults. A newcomer isn't welcome there, and gets crushed if they can't settle away quickly enough. In this game, newcomers can join at any time because of that 'no end goal' factor. You don't join the server (or get forbidden from joining one due to the gameplay being much too far already), to find your account resetted three months later because high-end players won the end-game. I think it's a positive thing really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOD_Psychynius

1) it will be Arena based.

2) You are jumping to early conclusions, fearing something that may never be put in-game.

3) This, is highly unlikely as people spend hours into the game. To watch it all be destroyed in hours or days so to speak, will make people leave TSO and provide for an unhappy player-base. Blue byte knows that. ;)

4) The settlers have a reputation for being a fairly combat simple game, in TS 7 for example, you do make troops and focus more on them..

6) Different races, different units, different buildings, different results. It'll be a huge thing to implant, and while TS have had multiple races before in games, and if they are thinking about this ; What happens to all the players that just started with the base race? Everything would have to be wiped, which is not the way they want to go. This will also be highly unlikely.

7) You can get building licenses by conquering regions, 10 for a region which allows you to set up new production chains. Build and plan wisely, and you'll get all the way to 50 while making every resource.

8) the extra building licenses are an option, but not required.

9) The general, does not have any fighting bonus. He simply recovers twice as fast after being KO'd in combat. It's a nice addition, but again.. Not required. Play tactfully and you'll never get him KO'd. The scavenger and geologist just find stuff twice as fast.
In the ends, gems help you. True, they are nice to have and use. But they are not required for the game, they do not make you level up to 50 in a week.

10) I see TSO as a social game, like FB. They have no ending, but they provide a fun environment with chat, trade and interaction with RL players while in the end, you can either play all alone or with others. I think they actually were headed that way with TSO, but can't confirm as I've joined a few weeks ago and don't know of their development plans. :p

11)Regardless, Travian comes with a cost. It has an end game, at the end of a year you worked hard for, you lose everything. A lot of people never make it to the end of the year due to being crushed by others long before (Though that's not relevant to the post), "wonders of the world" so to speak are an event rarely seen by half the player base. If you aren't active enough on Travian, you get crushed.

---

1) So what would be the exciting part of pvp? The thing that keeps people interested in pvp is the fact that you can win a lot but lose greatly as well, giving a challenge.

2) Early conclusion? Sure, this is a beta, I give my opinions on things to come.

3) That's what keeps us playing, no? Having a lay-back feeling, kinda.. makes is feel like I'm playing sims..

4) Yes, I'm aware of that, but that's the thing they need to get rid of to give this game a bigger player base if u ask me, if not then u can just give this a place on facebook, making it look like a farmville clone.

6) Don't u think boredom will be there quite quickly when not resetting servers?

7,8,9) Nevertheless Diamond people will get advantages, it will be small things, but then in the end, many small things make one big thing.

10) And that's one of my biggest concerns, 'Why do u play The Settlers?', .. Well, ..
Without that one thing you are going for, an RTS game feels so .. useless imo. You may say well, I play for fun and I'm having a great time!
Well sure, I'm glad you are! But when you aren't giving people a goal to go after, people won't have a reason to put money into it, because it doesn't carry a purpose and no diamonds, no income for BB, no income, no game. Simple as that.

11) Yeah sure, you crush and get crushed, keeping the tension in the whole system, people joining to late in a server? There is always a server that has started a month ago max, giving u a fair chance.

___

You may disagree with me here, but a game runs on money, people put money in things to achieve things, reach a goal. When u don't give them competition or a goal to go for, people won't be so interested.
Why do u think Starcraft is the most popular RTS game ever? It has a good pvp system, gives a challenge,... While Anno or Settlers is a (with all respect) less known game, that fixates on a smaller player base. That isn't bad, but it just doesn't work that way in an online game.

Quote:

---

1) So what would be the exciting part of pvp? The thing that keeps people interested in pvp is the fact that you can win a lot but lose greatly as well, giving a challenge.

---

True, but admittedly, I have never played The Settlers for PvP. In fact, I've never played it MP and PvPed in it. I think that goes for a decent amount of the player but I'm going to try to not speak for everyone. :p

Quote:

---

2) Early conclusion? Sure, this is a beta, I give my opinions on things to come.

---

Which I would agree on, if there was any solid information out there. The only lead we have regarding PvP is that'll be Arena based. Nothing else. ^^ I don't think anyone reachable here knows anything more about it then we do.

Quote:

---

3) That's what keeps us playing, no? Having a lay-back feeling, kinda.. makes is feel like I'm playing sims..

---

Settlers always had a simple combat system, it's more of a "Build and get your production chains & economy running perfectly." then a "World domination, military comes first." game. At least, S6 and S7 went more in that direction. I believe this one is more aimed at the older settlers. S1, S2, perhaps S3. While they had combat, you could also simply.. Build.

Quote:

---

4) Yes, I'm aware of that, but that's the thing they need to get rid of to give this game a bigger player base if u ask me, if not then u can just give this a place on facebook, making it look like a farmville clone.

---

The playerbase for the closed beta has already reached 8k while initially only 4k players where invited. ^^ I got no clue how many people play Farmville admittedly, but I can't really see the comparison to that. For starters.. You are not on a farm. Secondly, you do not 'need' friends to get further into the game. You do not have to post messages constantly on a wall about what happened, and so on. :)

Quote:

---

7,8,9) Nevertheless Diamond people will get advantages, it will be small things, but then in the end, many small things make one big thing.

---

The small things make a big thing, but again, the big thing can be achievable with time and patience. This game wasn't developed to be finished in a month. I believe the German server has been up for a year and people are not level 50 yet. Diamonds are the games way of gaming income, like many web browser games. If you do not like micro-transactions like that, what do you suggest to take it's place? A pay to play method?

Quote:

---

But when you aren't giving people a goal to go after, people won't have a reason to put money into it, because it doesn't carry a purpose and no diamonds, no income for BB, no income, no game.

---

Farmville has no goal and makes quite a bit of money. :p Couldn't resist there. The goal of the game is to have fun, if people are having fun, people may consider expanding their fun by purchasing diamonds. PvP is fun for some, but loathed by others. I tend to see people in chat every now and then going like "Thank god there's no PvP. I just want to build." I guess that's for each person to decide how they feel about it.

In the end, I can almost tell with 100% confidence that PvP will not be forced onto people in the way Travian does. Looking at that, Travian is a whole other game so perhaps not the best comparison. You play Travian to fight, building comes with it. This is the other way around. You play Settlers to build, fighting comes with it.

Quote:

---

11) Yeah sure, you crush and get crushed, keeping the tension in the whole system, people joining to late in a server? There is always a server that has started a month ago max, giving u a fair chance.

---

A month equals 3 if you got people running an account 24/7 ;) We have rules for that on here however, simply put.. Don't do it.

But for the settlers, you will always have a fair chance whether you joined early or late because in the end it comes to building, not PvP.

Quote:

---

Why do u think Starcraft is the most popular RTS game ever?

---

I can't agree to the comparison to Starcraft here either. Whole other theme, whole other genre, whole other game. It's like comparing cake to cheese. Both have milk in them, but taste very differently and are eaten very differently as well. ^^

Small edit ; It's also good to remember that The Settlers, is a simulation game genre, not an real time strategy.

I agree about the forum, it's badly organised and the new posts doesn't always show new ones.

I'm not quite sure exactly what you mean by resetting servers? If you been wipe everything you've worked for so you have to start again, then that will be the time I leave the game. I'm not working for weeks / months to have to start all over again.

I don't feel this is a competitive game, you are not really playing against anyone, it is after all just a variation on a sim game. The friends are there to make it a community where you you can help other out if you choose, but you can also play entirely on your own if you wish.

I feel the PvP arena game will be an option and not a crucial part of the game, perhaps a way to win extra rewards. I'm not into games where it's about wiping out your opponent so don't want that to be essential.

Like all "free" online games, if you're willing to put real money into it, you'll get advantages.

I've never heard of starcraft, so obviously "most popular RTS game ever" may only apply to people of a certain mindset. Shoot-em up games aren't my thing, my favourite online game is actually a farming game (not farmville).

At the end of the day not all games suit everyone, I quite like what I've seen of TSO so far. If it's not quite to your taste, there are plenty more games out there that might suit you better.

I have to agree on the messy forum with people opening new threads on the same subject,but I think the uppermost importance was getting the beta underway,the forum been less important,the events over the weekend didnt help the cause,but that couldnt be helped,without looking Im not sure who admin the boards,but I can tell you that since yesterday the BB guys have spent alot of their time with the new MODS explaining things,which all takes time away from them doing other things like organising the forum,Im hoping in time to see a better organised one myself.

I agree, the forum issues are of minor importance but will only get worse unless they are started to be be resolved soon. Perhaps it is something the new MODs could take under their wing?
On the forum of another game I play, known problems are posted under Official Announcements and player asked not to start any further threads about them to save cluttering the forum, just an idea :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheUpSide

- I fear that 'diamonds' will be too necessary to be really good in the game, which is a pain for the game. This because of Building licences, a better General,... etc.

---

You get plenty of diamonds after reaching level 30 just by levelling. On top of that before you reach 30, you will get alot from login bonuses, random events and random ocasions (like after a long downtime, which at this stage should occur more often). This put together should be enough for everyone to buy necessary things without investing money and to keep up with those who do invest.

I think PvP would best be suited in an arena form;

Visually this would take place on an island that is geographically similar to yours in-game. Though you will have side A and side B for each team. Also these islands could change for special events, or the arena battles could be on random islands based on the Earth's elements - Fire, Wind, Water & Air (Captain Planet, no? haha)

This could open up new PvP game styles such as Cops and Robbers (need a Settlers name), Siege the Base, deathmatch etc.
With cops and robbers you could have strategically placed watch towers and other buildings that your men could use to get to higher ground. There could be traps set up outside the castle gates and swamp snakes in the moats around a castle, all which do damange. The enemy would be that of a theif, trying to steal the crown jewl from the middle of the base.
You wouldn't directly see your settlers run around the map, but instead the map would be smaller and groups of, say 10, would be placed inside a watchtower, 50 men to protect the crown etc. All the while 'real' characters would represents your men. So for 10 of your army, 1 man would be represented. depending on your army type.
So if you had 40 archers in a watch tower, it'd show 4 archers. 20 recruits and 30 swordsmen, 2 recruits, 3 swordsmen etc etc.

In Siege the Base the idea would be similar but for sieging a base - useable weapons such as cannons could be used which you'd purchase with Arena points. These items would do X% damage to your units.

Lots of options could be made; such as having an RTS style game with a time limit of 30 minutes or more. Each player has to build their base as quickly as they can in the land they've been provided to beat the opposition. This would take place in battle form - sending your armies over to their towns.
Just another idea.

Having something implemented like this would allow the use of a building called - The Arena. Here you get to send a general to fight with as much army as you want from your actual army. This would in turn allow players to participate in the PvP side, or not.
This would allow multi-pvp (teams working together, 2x2 etc) to be used, increasing the social in the community as well as bringing new members due to the multiple PvP options available.
This, again, would allow for races to be introduced. Only in the arena can you choose a race and each race would be changeable every 24 hours. A max of 4 - 6 races would be available to begin with.
Each race would have it's special attribute, adding more complexity to battles. Players would have to optimise their armies in accordance to the race others have picked.

On terms of browser games however, nearly all browser games are now PvP. The ones that are drawing in money from more 'adventurous' gamers at least.
I can't compare Farmville or such games to the likes of games like this because they are too different. Similar business strategy, but completely different elements in game that define the money they make.
I play several games that are browser based, and they make a lot of their money due to PvP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOD_Psychynius

True, but admittedly, I have never played The Settlers for PvP. In fact, I've never played it MP and PvPed in it. I think that goes for a decent amount of the player but I'm going to try to not speak for everyone. :p

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOD_Psychynius

PvP itself is planned in the future, yes. But all resources we have been getting is leading us to believe it will be Arena based. You will not destroy each other's isle, you will not conquer territory, it'll be armies fighting armies in the Arena. Your buildings won't get harmed. However, there is -no- source on how TSO will implant PvP so I have to say ; You are jumping to early conclusions, fearing something that may never be put in-game.

Different races, different units, different buildings, different results. It'll be a huge thing to implant, and while TS have had multiple races before in games, and if they are thinking about this ; What happens to all the players that just started with the base race? Everything would have to be wiped, which is not the way they want to go. This will also be highly unlikely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheUpSide

- How will they implement pvp?
- They will have to implement multiple 'races' to give a dynamic feeling to the game (eg. Romans, Teutons,.. in other games), something that is new to The Settlers.

---

This I totally agree with. The fights need to be made fair. I find it quite frustrating when building up a sizeable army then to have half of them wiped out by dead troops.
This makes gathering resources more time costly when you shouldn't have lost so many troops to begin with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOD_Psychynius

I partially agree and I know others do as well, the question just is ; How. The settlers have a reputation for being a fairly combat simple game, in TS 7 for example, you do make troops and focus more on them.. But in the end, the recruits charge in and archers simply fire dead ahead. There is nothing wrong with that, the question just is ; How would you alter the battle mechanics to keep it simple but more efficient? One thing already suggested is to make the archers/ranged units fire away first, and to prevent bandits from hurting you when they die on the first hit, but in the end, it's up to BB

---

Yes you did, Psychynius.
Was meant to be implented last week some time. I guess with the down time their priorities were lay somewhere else. Though it would be nice to see the forums cleaned up a bit and a suggestions thread available.

The only other problem I can see that is forum specific is when clicking the 'Mark forums read' button under Forum Actions, It will mark ALL posts read, even if a new post has been made in a read thread.
This is quite annoying as when clicking on 'New Posts', you want all posts players have posted in if it's a new message, regardless if you've read the forum before. It should still show up as a 'New Post'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOD_Psychynius

Forums ; I agree we could use a question forum and suggestion one. (The latter I had actually suggested a while ago, I'll send in a reminder.) Not much to add or discuss about this, just makes it look neat.

---

Completely agree with you on your second point there, Up. Would be nice if it was thread specific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheUpSide

Forum:
- So, first of all, the forum is a mess, people are posting their topics everywhere, there are no clear, direct forum boards.
Let me give an example: question, suggestion,.. are all posted in the General board, which we can't blame the users, the FA (Forum Admins) just need to add boards and get this forum organised, multiple threads on this have been posted, nevertheless they did nothing.

- The last posted post next to the General Discussion shows the last one that has been posted in the whole second board, little thing but annoys me.

- The big boards have no header, another thing that leads to 'forum anarchy'.

---

I agree. If you pay real money for in game items, then you're going to get an advantage, that's the point of items. What will determine if it becomes gem oriented is down to a player. If someone wants to add 5000 gems to their wallet, then let them. This will only be a true nuisance in PvP, but from scrolling through the shop, the gems are at a reasonable price for what is being offered.

As Sparkz said. You do get a fair amount at the end of the week, and if what he is saying about level 30 is true, then hopefully it won't become a pay-to-win based game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkz

You get plenty of diamonds after reaching level 30 just by levelling. On top of that before you reach 30, you will get alot from login bonuses, random events and random ocasions (like after a long downtime, which at this stage should occur more often). This put together should be enough for everyone to buy necessary things without investing money and to keep up with those who do invest.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MOD_Psychynius

In the ends, gems help you. True, they are nice to have and use. But they are not required for the game, they do not make you level up to 50 in a week.

---

This I also agree with. At the moment there doesn't seem to be an end goal, but at the same time, you do get to go on adventures (when you're a high enough level) which in itself brings on exp, rewards and fun.
I am sure that they have a plan for all this. Maybe at conquering an island, a new patch of land appears with more bandits, ever increasing your land mass?

I doubt they'll restart the servers though, especially now. I'm sure that it's been said a few times by the BBs that when we are out of BETA, those who were playing during will keep their islands intact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheUpSide

- There's no 'big goal' to this game, which is needed to make it work. Let me take Travian to illustrate it: After 10 months, the 'wonders of the world' appear, people have to capture it, get it to lv. 100 and they win. Now with this Settlers, that isn't possible, servers don't reset, so you need to give the players some kind of carrot they can keep following. Which will be hard when you make a server last forever and new players aren't 'allowed', because after a year people will have huge empires where they are 'useless'. Resetting the servers and giving them a 'purpose' is the way to go imo.

---

Great work to the devs and the BBs for working so hard so far on the game though. It's looking fantastic! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rohab

As Sparkz said. You do get a fair amount at the end of the week, and if what he is saying about level 30 is true, then hopefully it won't become a pay-to-win based game.

---

170 gems on every level starting from 30; +10 licenses on levelling up from 31 to 32 (one time, instead of gems); 200 gems on each level starting from around 40 (?), 250 gems on each level starting from 45. That is unless they have some special plan for this particular server.

Also when it comes to paying real money, you buy a package of 1700 and youre set for life with licenses, shouldnt be that much of an expense for a game you will spend few months on.

Cheers Sparkz. That's good to know.

@Rohab. Really like your suggestions for the arena, a bit of a different angle to the game that could be fun, but as you say not essential to gameplay. Play it if and when you feel like it as a variation to the rest of the game.
Was I right with my interpretation of resetting the servers?

Just a thumbs up on the replies and how the discussion is handled. :) A good brainstorm without disrespect, that's how everything should go in the world. ^^

Didn't had much to add apart from that, I'll pester Azariel about the forums when I see him.

Edit; Both have been added.

Suggestions can go Here!

Questions can go Here!.

I agree, also because the really addicted will buy gems, so not strategy but money is the key issue here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doen

I agree, also because the really addicted will buy gems, so not strategy but money is the key issue here.

---

Read page 1, bottom comment by Sparkz. He explains why this won't become a 'pay-to-win' game (I think he played on the German servers, which has been live for much longer than the UK server).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkz

170 gems on every level starting from 30; +10 licenses on levelling up from 31 to 32 (one time, instead of gems); 200 gems on each level starting from around 40 (?), 250 gems on each level starting from 45. That is unless they have some special plan for this particular server.

Also when it comes to paying real money, you buy a package of 1700 and youre set for life with licenses, shouldnt be that much of an expense for a game you will spend few months on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rohab

Read page 1, bottom comment by Sparkz. He explains why this won't become a 'pay-to-win' game (I think he played on the German servers, which has been live for much longer than the UK server).

---

That is technically not true. I mean with gems you can speed up production(provision house) and most likely you will in the future be able to instantly create the resource from a resourcebuilding(I guess that is what the buttons in like iron smelter is for). So technically you get get to level 50 MANY times faster than if you do not pay for gems. However, I don't really see a problem with this, people can play at their own pace and no one else cares!

For endgame stuff I hate what trivian does, its basically boring! It would be better to have some sort of quests much like instanses in WoW(I don't play the game myself but still). Guilds could unite in a wide variety of quests like creating enormous buildings or defeat an island in a few days or whatever BB can come up with. This would probably increase the lifespan of the game. I haven't tried aventures yet so I do not know what they bring to the table but I would think that having like some way of expanding to a new island, do a few quests and then return back with a lot of LOOT is also fun :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Todilo

That is technically not true. I mean with gems you can speed up production(provision house) and most likely you will in the future be able to instantly create the resource from a resourcebuilding(I guess that is what the buttons in like iron smelter is for). So technically you get get to level 50 MANY times faster than if you do not pay for gems.

---

Wrong.

Whats slowing levelling down is not the production, its the time needed to finish an adventure plus time to earn enough and buy a decent adventure. Given current situation on market (on well developed servers ofc ) there is really no way to get more than 100k XP a day, which is barely 30-50% more than people make without investing ANY diamonds.

Whats an unfair advantage though is the gift shop, where houses, watermills and silos are gifted in exchange for lots of gold.