Smile.....
You are wrong, I am not calling it broken because of my lack of resources - that is not what is being discussed, that is what you are trying to turn the discussion into. Stop trying to take over my discussion with your irrelevant nonsense. I am well aware that there are other ways to get the resources, so stop repeating the same nonsense.
Also, I've never said Golems are broken because of trade.
I've also never said nor suggested that the "system must comply to me".
And I've most certainly never claimed Golems are "broken because [I] can't play", I can play just fine.
I've told you multiple times now that you clearly don't understand what's being discussed, and instead of figuring out what I'm saying, you've resorted to creating strawman arguments about my position and making false statements about what I've said, which is beyond ridiculous. What is your problem with having a discussion about the Golem mechanics to the point that you feel you need to go so far as to lie about me and what I've said? Seriously, this is ridiculous.
Last edited by Cinphul; 29.10.14 at 14:15.
To claim that it's okay that a level 35 can very easily kill golems every day of the entire event, while a level 37 player is only expected to get as far as killing 2 Ancient Golems, and then maybe a few more for the entire remainder of the event, simply makes no sense. It's a completely illogical argument on your part, which is why you've not and can't provide any substantive justification for such a nonsensical system.
"By design" means it was an intentional, planned consequence of the tiering of golems... To suggest this massive imbalance between level 35 and 36 was setup on purpose is nothing more than unsupported, illogical speculation, and frankly pretty absurd.
I know what the options are. You're missing the point - as a level 35, I don't have to spend any gems or buy tons of expensive resources to completely kill all the golems - I just need to mine some iron, which takes no effort and is easily achieved while paying out zero gems or gold etc.Well, you could spend gems, instead of effort and buy a deck or two of titanium from the merchant, the option is always there , but I will always opt for a little effort myself . A month ago I had only around 1k of titanium ore in store, right now I have enough to kill all my golems and a friend or two's to boot...and I have not spent a `ton of gold' to do it either. So my feedback to your thread, is My Golem is working perfectly, he's popping up nice and regular, and is being sent back from whence he came with a puff of stone dust and titanium residue. Traders will pfft at the price correlation to pumpkins and the cost in titanium, but I do it to push my little islands economy to succeed in the quest, like I have always done in both these and the crisis quests, the material `pixel' return is only a small part of the game, the satisfaction of doing as much as you can, what ever your level, is much more satisfying
Again, the issues is the huge difference in expense required for a level 36 compared to the almost free cost to a level 35, which is absurd. And, as several have pointed out, the number of additional pumpkins that could be earned by spending all of those resources are actually better off being spent on buying pumpkins directly. That is a broken system. To claim this is "by design" is simply misleading nonsense that you can't support with logic or facts.
Last edited by Cinphul; 29.10.14 at 14:17.
Well...
It certainly seems like you are to me because of this:Originally Posted by Cinphul
And this claim...Originally Posted by Cinphul
...sure seems like it is contradicted by this:Originally Posted by Cinphul
But yes, you are right when you say:Originally Posted by Cinphul
However, you are wrong when you say:Originally Posted by Cinphul
I think you will find that, in fact, you do not appreciate the messages your words convey. I think you do not understand the answer you have already received in that the Golems are designed as an optional feature. Every player (regardless of level) has the option to gain some for the cheaper resources. But the nature of this game is such that, generally speaking, higher level players should be in a better position to obtain the resources required should they wish to continue killing golems regardless of how efficient a process it might be.Originally Posted by Cinphul
Now... I'm not saying that they chose the cut off points perfectly. In fact I'd be very surprised if they had. But that leads to a conclusion that the idea could use some fine tuning... not that it is "broken".
Seeing as most adventures start dropping titanium at the level 36 mark, I would say it would be difficult for any player who has just turned level 36 to have any great stock of this resource. Level 42 would at least allow the player to have played some adventures and built a little stock up.
While it would be possible for players under level 36 to accept loot spots to gain titanium ore, Would the average newer player be utilizing this? Not every player reads the forums daily.
There of course would be titanium returned from explorers but they return such minimal amounts it would never be enough to complete the golem quest chains.
I too have not bothered with the ancient golems and I am level 50, The reason for this is because black knights drops so many pumpkins that I don't need to do the quest chains, But if the pumpkin drops from adventures were reduced or my capability to do the so frequent that would be a very different story.
Last edited by Brayarg; 29.10.14 at 13:48.
Well...
It's obvious you are specifically and deliberately pulling quotes out of context to create a false argument.
I have repeatedly made my point very clearly, using other information to support my position. You have now edited out all context and only pulled the supporting information to create this false argument. Why the word games? Or are you going to claim you actually believe pulling snippets from entire posts is representative of what I've said?
When pulled out of context as you've done, they no longer represent what I conveyed, they represent the edited, butchered version of what you want them to convey.I think you will find that, in fact, you do not appreciate the messages your words convey.
If I used your standards for quoting, I could attribute this statement to you:
"I do not understand Golems"
After all, you've said all of those words, so clearly I'm just presenting the parts of your argument that I find relevant, and you no doubt agree with me that this is a correct representation of what you've said?
This is an absurdly ridiculous statement. I don't understand that the golems are optional? Not only does this have absolutely nothing to do with what I've said, it's simply down right laughable and totally wrong of you to level such a baseless claim against me.I think you do not understand the answer you have already received in that the Golems are designed as an optional feature.
See Brayarg's post, he address this perfectly.Every player (regardless of level) has the option to gain some for the cheaper resources. But the nature of this game is such that, generally speaking, higher level players should be in a better position to obtain the resources required should they wish to continue killing golems regardless of how efficient a process it might be.
http://forum.thesettlersonline.com/t...l=1#post267797
Any system where it's a fantastic idea to complete the quest at level 35 if you want pumpkins, while it's a terrible idea to complete the quest at level 36 if you want pumpkins, is broken. To claim it's not is simply trying to split hairs over what amounts to irrelevant semantics.Now... I'm not saying that they chose the cut off points perfectly. In fact I'd be very surprised if they had. But that leads to a conclusion that the idea could use some fine tuning... not that it is "broken".
Last edited by Cinphul; 29.10.14 at 14:48.
Cinphul.. nothing I have quoted from you is out of context.
You claimed that you had not called the golem system broken due to your lack of resources and that you never claimed in that it was broken because of trade. However, you used BOTH of those points when you started the (now merged) 'broken golems' thread to support your opening post in that thread. That is not me creating a false argument, that is you denying the plainly obvious.
Now I tried to minimise my level of confrontation in my previous post, but you seem determined to pick a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with everything you have said regardless of their own experiences or opinions.
No, I do not believe what I quoted was representative of everything you have said. I do, however, believe it demonstrates quite clearly why others in this thread have come to the conclusion that you are saying that Golems are broken because of your lack or resources and the increased prices in trade... because you give no other reasons for your conclusion in your original post.
You've given your feedback. You believe the golems to be broken. We get that. You are entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to express both that opinion and your reasons for it. You are not entitled to attack people for disagreeing with you and picking holes in your reasoning. There is a word for that... it is called flaming.
Last edited by Ozzymandeus; 29.10.14 at 15:40.