DeletedUser
Guest
Heh, that's pretty sad considering the first worlds lasted a good 2 years. =/
Heh, that's pretty sad considering the first worlds lasted a good 2 years. =/
DeletedUser
Guest
You jumped the gun there a bit.. Don't de-rep someone so easily without hearing their counter-argument against your accusations
Ok so I jumped to a conclusion, really. He changed his "opinion" after my post, seems like he understood what his words in the first post looked like and then changed in second post i a bit less pessimistic opinion on Paros.
But if you think I was wrong in any way to react the way I did, just read his original post again,
1.5 months he gave to the world! Is that nice to say to other players in Paros. "Hey guys and ladies, you are doing a good job farming, building and staff, but listen all your hard is for nothing because this world will be dead in 1.5 months, yea sorry". That is just nice, but hey respect for enemies and allies in resent times in grepo is becoming a commodity anyway so I understand this "optimistic" way thinking.
EDIT:
PS
de reping someone without giving a name tells more about that person that the one you de reped.
I always sign with my de rep to someone, but hey seems I am a weirdo around here
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Guest
ImPreeetySure said:
Agree to some extent.
Well, there used to be a day when there were 10 worlds each one filled with at least 20000 players and next worlds would open in 2-3 months apart, no one had the rush to go into a new world, yeah I am talking about 2010 (Iota, Kappa, Gamma...), but seems Innogames has a resolution to make it to 100 worlds at the end of 2013, still have nt figured out the reason myself.
But the point is We are not looking for the crown above our names, staying till the end of a world at the cost of simming is not what our team is after, we might get bored, we might leave, but it does nt mean it has to happen all the time, it depends on many factors.
Seriously why 61 worlds each with 2000 to 3000 players (half inactive)? :supermad:
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser39031
Guest
I agree with you completely, I don't care about the crown either, the only part I differ from you is that if my alliance was going for wonders, I would also.
I am simply saying that PV did quit after they topped all four core oceans, not taking anything away from them, they would be in the running for best alliance if you ask me.
DeletedUser
Guest
its a revolt world which needs more skill teamwork and effort. not surprised if many leave quickly. they are too used to being in a big alliance hiding behind other players and chewing on what ever bones get tossed their way. very few decent inactives and ghosts around. no-where to colonise where farms are. yes, they will run.
DeletedUser5554
Guest
If you couldn't work out that I de-repped you then you probably should take a class involving basic logic. My bad for not signing it, don't contradict your point next time and it won't even happen. You must not be very experienced here so i'll let you in on a secret...All these players will be in other worlds in a month and a half. Mostly due to boredom and pessimism. If you in your seemingly self proclaimed infinite wisdom knows about worlds in Grepolis then you probably know that there hasn't been a truly lasting world since mid first gen. Because a world doesn't consistently have 30,000+ players then there really is no more upset factor. Powers don't shift like they used to where you'd have multiple #1 alliances over the course of the world. Now a day you tend yo have 2 maybe 3 #1 teams before it all is over. As I said with multiple world releases there isn't much time before paros becomes just a number.
As far as de reping goes don't cry about it. Truthfully it isn't a big deal and you whining to everyone on Paros is going to change that it happened. It will however possibly make you look less mature and likable. That will reflect bad on your own alliance.
DeletedUser
Guest
@nodcrush about de reping, I wasn`t talking about you I know you de rep me no problem there but other peps did without signing, that is honorable thing to do (my opinion anyway).
About world dieing out faster, that is a problem that really need to be addressed to mods and developers, I agree with you on this part ,to many new worlds in short amount of time, and when someone gets rimmed he just quit and move on to the next world (easy way out). But the thing I didn`t like about your first post you can again read my first post.
And you really got me thinking, maybe we should tell to the developers to make some changes
-lesser number of worlds;
-world should hold much more players;
-if players doesn`t move from 175p in 3 days delete him so more space can be allowed for new players;
-voting on world settings etc.
About world dieing out faster, that is a problem that really need to be addressed to mods and developers, I agree with you on this part ,to many new worlds in short amount of time, and when someone gets rimmed he just quit and move on to the next world (easy way out). But the thing I didn`t like about your first post you can again read my first post.
And you really got me thinking, maybe we should tell to the developers to make some changes
-lesser number of worlds;
-world should hold much more players;
-if players doesn`t move from 175p in 3 days delete him so more space can be allowed for new players;
-voting on world settings etc.
DeletedUser5554
Guest
There's a lot that I didn't like about your first reply either. So we'll leave it there.
And people have been screaming for that for the better part of two years now. I get the player cap as if you let 100k on a world it would lag and crash often ruining the game. The main problem with world release with WW. WW's were made so winning alliances would advance to the hero worlds. Originally it was just going to be winning alliances until developers realized there would be a lot of alliances joining late or not joining at all. So instead they made the Heroic Tactician badge to get more players in. Well even then they couldn't fill the Hero Worlds and even better now people who didn't really belong in them were there. So now we have these WW's and worlds being released at god speed to fill two dead and gone worlds. Clearly nothing is going to be addressed until fourth gen. Thankfully for us 4th gen is right around the corner and a WW change has been announced. With that world releases will hopefully drop to their old rates and we can all end this problem.
And people have been screaming for that for the better part of two years now. I get the player cap as if you let 100k on a world it would lag and crash often ruining the game. The main problem with world release with WW. WW's were made so winning alliances would advance to the hero worlds. Originally it was just going to be winning alliances until developers realized there would be a lot of alliances joining late or not joining at all. So instead they made the Heroic Tactician badge to get more players in. Well even then they couldn't fill the Hero Worlds and even better now people who didn't really belong in them were there. So now we have these WW's and worlds being released at god speed to fill two dead and gone worlds. Clearly nothing is going to be addressed until fourth gen. Thankfully for us 4th gen is right around the corner and a WW change has been announced. With that world releases will hopefully drop to their old rates and we can all end this problem.
DeletedUser22448
Guest
I would say the biggest problem with people jumping worlds is because they can't deal with playing multiple worlds, so when one comes out Conquest over Revolt with a speed setting of 2:2 or better people jump and quit playing in the first world. I for one have played in as many as 9 worlds at the same time. Didn't have any problems jumping between worlds. I also think that there are times when people are affraid to use the same name on multiple worlds and the forums. I think anyone that uses a different name in the forums and in game with different worlds just can't be trusted when it comes to joining any alliance I have power in. I have never changed my name for new worlds, I use the same name in all worlds I have played in. I still play in Byzantium and PSI to this day. I play in lindo's where I have be Restarted twice so far and not afraid of it again. I don't have any issues with people from server to server, Now if you are the type to keep grudges between worlds then it must mean you are such a big person that you must be a god. I for one Play the game to have fun. Weather I make it to the top players on server or stay in the middle is no problem. I enjoy the game and I have the knowledge that there are very few people that would be able to defeat me if I was able to get to a level where I could defend myself and grow at the same time.
DeletedUser5554
Guest
I have to disagree with name changes. A few friends of mine have changed their name and are all trust worthy people. They also have had long and productive gaming careers here and one of them even survived and won on a first gen world.
DeletedUser
Guest
looks to me like somebody has never played a conquest server for very long
DeletedUser
Guest
Conquest is much more interesting.
DeletedUser5554
Guest
Nah I think revolt is...Its a lot easier to confuse defenses then conquest. I kind of always viewed conquest as a football team that runs the ball right now the middle every play. Where as in revolt you can choose how you play the game and balance offense with defense better.
That being said they are both fun.
That being said they are both fun.
DeletedUser
Guest
nod, you must've also started on a revolt world
conquest has WAY more tactical options, and you need to be more active to time both clearing and support for a siege. to me revolt is the one that's much more smash and grab
conquest has WAY more tactical options, and you need to be more active to time both clearing and support for a siege. to me revolt is the one that's much more smash and grab
DeletedUser
Guest
I've played both conquest and revolt. I see positives and negatives for both conquer systems. Unfortunately, many of Revolt's positives are negatives to me. Now I'm not bashing revolt, I'm merely explaining that I'd rather be dragged bare-bottomed across a pile of broken glass and salt, then play it again.
I realize for many, revolt fits their schedules and play styles. I'm happy there are two systems, and I'll be happy to stick with conquest.
I realize for many, revolt fits their schedules and play styles. I'm happy there are two systems, and I'll be happy to stick with conquest.
DeletedUser37948
Guest
Ive played both as well and for me revolt is better. conquest is far more team orintated as its almost impossible to take cities alone. where as in revolt its slightly diferant as in ops you work on your own as part of a team.
both are great to play and ive enjoyed both but i feel more able to be an individual in a team in revolt were as in conquest i tend to feel like a clone going through the motions.
in fareness its horses for courses and diferant personalities suit diferent conquering stilesro:
both are great to play and ive enjoyed both but i feel more able to be an individual in a team in revolt were as in conquest i tend to feel like a clone going through the motions.
in fareness its horses for courses and diferant personalities suit diferent conquering stiles
ro:DeletedUser5554
Guest
To each his own but I started on Gamma. I just figured ways to spread out defenses easier in Revolt. Though I have a few tricks for conquest also.nod, you must've also started on a revolt world
conquest has WAY more tactical options, and you need to be more active to time both clearing and support for a siege. to me revolt is the one that's much more smash and grab
@ Zero point that is correct. I can play both competently and I like both. But I'd take revolt usually over conquest. Another point that zero raises is that its easier to work on your own. While a team is generally a must for big targets you still be be effective as the lone wolf which comes in handy if you wind up in a bad alliance.