Hexes 89 and 92, Olympus server

Posts : 47 Join date : 2013-12-13 Location : Dublin

Apparently easy, normal, hard AND nightmare modes are not allowed in solo on hexes next to light capital - 89, 92. (No idea about the ones above it)

Is that something intended or a bug?

If that's intended, don't you think that's overdoing it? Or are you made it like that just to simply stop us from attacking the light Capital? (hint hint stalemate).

It makes no sense, other than the fact you guys are not ready with update for what happens after Capital is down :3

Posts : 774 Join date : 2013-07-26

Taters wrote:: Apparently easy, normal, hard AND nightmare modes are not allowed in solo on hexes next to light capital - 89, 92.

From past behavior on Everos, we had expected the following would be allowed:

Nightmare solo & above;
PvP against opposite faction;

And the following not allowed:

Easy, Normal, & Hard Solo;
Cooperatives

Not being able to do Nightmare modes is a bit surprising (either an accidental or deliberate change which Insane& Suicidal added?).

Are you able to do cooperatives?

Its not supposed to be a stalemate; on the other hand, its not supposed to be a walk in the park either to conquer a capital -- its supposed to be a challenge of better organization & unity.

Otherwise with pure math (larger numbers) dark would win in a few weeks on Olympus.

Light on Everos expects reinforcements to arrive from the new publisher, before dark has a realistic chance to conquer the capital & then the whole balance of power & the real war begins ... so far .. it just warmup preparing for the real event.

Posts : 47 Join date : 2013-12-13 Location : Dublin

No coop allowed.

And we just confirmed it's possible to run Insane solo. 130CPs that James did, are apparently not even enough for even 1% for dark faction there.

Long story short - PVP and Insane mode (and suicide) allowed only.

Posts : 774 Join date : 2013-07-26

Well, realistically then, over the next few weeks you will reduce us (light faction on Olympus) down to 89 & 92 ... while we wait for the promised reinforcements ...

... Its a race to get stronger for both sides ...

The Restless Posts : 445 Join date : 2013-11-24

Rune...now I am sad...incredibly sad. Crying or Very sad

I very much hope that this is changed.

These are the balancing mechanisms that are in play...overall or on these specific hexes:

1. Current Light CP bonus.
2. Disproportionately more Light Capital army attacks.
3. Dark must fight at insane levels or higher...very few can even attempt the fight at this level yet due to their barracks' levels.¹
4. AI controlled PvP has not been activated...thus Dark (and Light) will only generate a meager amount of CPs through PvP.²
5. Dark cannot coop on these regions while Light can. So, even if point #3 were not a problem, we wouldn't be able to overcome this.
6. Larger regional hexes...they just make it incredibly difficult to generate a significant amount of influence in short periods of time, even when perfectly coordinated.

All of this is to say: I think it is impossible for those two hexes to be captured as the game mechanics are right now.

Further, I am almost counting on the Capital to only allow suicide attacks and PvP...

Please tell me this was a mistake of some sort (coding error, a bad joke, you were more ~~wasted~~ tired than you have ever been and it made sense at the time)...that there is, in fact, supposed to be a realistic chance for one side to beat the other at this very moment.

Thank you.

^{1: You also need pretty darned good gear...which takes a long time to repair...making it more difficult to fight for extended periods of time at such a high level.
2: If I were Light and there were ANY chance that these two hexes were in danger...I would make sure every fellow Light knew not to PvP any Dark players...meaning they would have to rely solely on insane and suicide solos.}

Posts : 782 Join date : 2013-07-19

My opinion: ALL game modes should be allowed on the capital and borders, but they should be MUCH harder than normal for no extra CP. For example, hard may be as hard as nightmare, nightmare like an insane, and insane almost like suicide. Suicide would be a true challenge, maybe ALWAYS bring 50% more AP than you. Maybe it could be this way for light as well, since they are now feeling the "full wrath" of the dark side. This would make it much more fair I think, and light would have to work hard to hold their land. It would be a true challenge for both sides, holding the land for light and taking it for dark.

Maybe hell coop mode should be coop when capital or border capital. A special event only activated on border tiles. Coops vs 25-50% more AP than you. Razz

Posts : 131 Join date : 2013-11-10

its a major discourage for dark side, and it reduces the playing field from 500 players to 5-10 for those capable of doing these levels of battles. It is experienced by me as a balance mechanism, and one of gigantic force. We can never never make up for :
a light army that has the distance of 1 hex
And only our best few able warriors to do insane and suicide in a constructive way, while facing about every single player on the light side.

Facing the 1.3k cp army at hex 88 was bad enough, but I feel like this is a bit overdone.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

Taters wrote:: Is that something intended or a bug?

It is by design, no bug.

Same mechanism as in Erevos. Look below

Pearl wrote:: From past behavior on Everos, we had expected the following would be allowed:
Nightmare solo & above;
PvP against opposite faction;
And the following not allowed:
Easy, Normal, & Hard Solo;
Cooperatives
Not being able to do Nightmare modes is a bit surprising (either an accidental or deliberate change which Insane& Suicidal added?).

Correct Pearl. The change was made when Insane and Suicide battle difficulties were added.

Taters wrote:: If that's intended, don't you think that's overdoing it? Or are you made it like that just to simply stop us from attacking the light Capital? (hint hint stalemate).

It is intended and what is valid for one Capital is valid for the other as well. Players are under the assumption that they can rush in with lvl 11-12 units and conquer the enemy capital. They think that just because they made their way to the gates of the Capital, it is going to be a walk in the park. Wrong assumption... Let us think about it for a sec... In most of the games, there is a goal...a boss fight or multiple bosses... IN ALL games in the history of gaming, the end of a game has the biggest challenge, the most difficult of all the challenges and the player is either led there via a linear progression scheme or he has the option to find ways to either surpass the difficulties and win the game or simply level up in order to be able to cope with the challenge itself. BC has a unit level cap of 20, so why would the Capital (the GOAL of the game) be protected by mediocre armies or be a matter of winning a few nightmare battles?

It has been mentioned a lot of times before that we want to retain a stalemate in our game. I can't understand this argument...I am trying to find a reason why we would try to do that, but I fail every time. Since you mentioned it, can you help me out? Let us say that you win the game and the map is reset. Do we have anything to lose? Let us say that we "force" a stalemate...Do we have anything to win out of that? What? More Gems? Why? Less development? Why? Fame? Women? Real Estate?

Taters wrote:: It makes no sense, other than the fact you guys are not ready with update for what happens after Capital is down :3

Taters... I mentioned in another post what happens when a Capital goes down. Do you really want me to comment on what you said?

Taters wrote:: And we just confirmed it's possible to run Insane solo. 130CPs that James did, are apparently not even enough for even 1% for dark faction there.

Regional Containers near the borders and the Capital itself are larger than the normal ones. It has been mentioned numerous times and it is by design from day 1. I won't comment on that again.

ysosad wrote:: 1. Current Light CP bonus.

This mechanism is there to even out the population between the Light and the Dark Faction. This is old news. The Dark Faction has received it before.

ysosad wrote:: 2. Disproportionately more Light Capital army attacks.

Wrong. The targeted region is 1-2 Regions from the spawning point (Capital) of the Light Capital Army and therefore it reaches the Region much faster.

ysosad wrote:: 3. Dark must fight at insane levels or higher...very few can even attempt the fight at this level yet due to their barracks' levels

And who said that taking the Capital is a walk in the park?

ysosad wrote:: 4. AI controlled PvP has not been activated...thus Dark (and Light) will only generate a meager amount of CPs through PvP

That is valid for both Factions.

ysosad wrote:: 5. Dark cannot coop on these regions while Light can. So, even if point #3 were not a problem, we wouldn't be able to overcome this.

This is part of the challenge of taking an enemy Capital. Again..who said that taking the Capital is a walk in the park?

ysosad wrote:: 6. Larger regional hexes...they just make it incredibly difficult to generate a significant amount of influence in short periods of time, even when perfectly coordinated.

Correct.

ysosad wrote:: All of this is to say: I think it is impossible for those two hexes to be captured as the game mechanics are right now.

Not impossible, but quite difficult, as it should be, since you reached the enemy Capital and you are 1 step closer to winning the game.

ysosad wrote:: Please tell me this was a mistake of some sort (coding error, a bad joke, you were more wasted tired than you have ever been and it made sense at the time)...that there is, in fact, supposed to be a realistic chance for one side to beat the other at this very moment.

No mistake..by design. There is a realistic chance for one side to capture the enemy Capital, IF they are strong enough. Let me give you an example...I am going to use a very famous game, Diablo III. Do you think that if you were to face Diablo at level 10, you would have a chance to beat him, or should the game allow you to? Their game design is linear...follow the storyline, reach an acceptable level range and face Diablo to end the game. Our game design is more fluid..It is not a linear experience...You can reach the enemy Capital....question is...are you ready to capture it?

Posts : 782 Join date : 2013-07-19

RuneSlayer wrote:: No mistake..by design. There is a realistic chance for one side to capture the enemy Capital, IF they are strong enough. Let me give you an example...I am going to use a very famous game, Diablo III. Do you think that if you were to face Diablo at level 10, you would have a chance to beat him, or should the game allow you to? Their game design is linear...follow the storyline, reach an acceptable level range and face Diablo to end the game. Our game design is more fluid..It is not a linear experience...You can reach the enemy Capital....question is...are you ready to capture it?

I think the main issue people have with this mechanism isn't that it's technically too hard to beat the battles, but that only a select few people can even try, especially given people won't want to pvp them when they know they are trying to accumulate cps to take the capital regions, and only gem payers or guild drainers could possibly have a barracks 17 by now to do insane mode.

Maybe pvp versus AI will turn this problem on it's side though, since most people are capable of pvp but stay out of it for various reasons. Then also the losing faction would have motivation to enter pvp queue since they generally can use their own armies better than the AI. So maybe, we should all wait until that is implemented before we decide whether we should complain about it more or not?

I think capital requiring most people to pvp and pvp AI armies being fightable will be a very interesting synergy.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

Bobba wrote:: So maybe, we should all wait until that is implemented before we decide whether we should complain about it more or not?

I think capital requiring most people to pvp and pvp AI armies being fightable will be a very interesting synergy.

The finest beer to the gentleman over there!

Couldn't agree more..

Posts : 98 Join date : 2013-07-25

Yup, new PVP system could solve the problem. Only question is: when does it come? Very Happy

Btw, the concept every player PVPing against each other and it's outcome deciding the game is epic and it's what the game always needed, and what we always cried for Very Happy

(you could even erase all unneccessary hexes between capitals lol)

The Restless Posts : 445 Join date : 2013-11-24

RuneSlayer wrote:

ysosad wrote:: 1. Current Light CP bonus.

This mechanism is there to even out the population between the Light and the Dark Faction. This is old news. The Dark Faction has received it before.

ysosad wrote:: 2. Disproportionately more Light Capital army attacks.

Wrong. The targeted region is 1-2 Regions from the spawning point (Capital) of the Light Capital Army and therefore it reaches the Region much faster.

ysosad wrote:: 3. Dark must fight at insane levels or higher...very few can even attempt the fight at this level yet due to their barracks' levels

And who said that taking the Capital is a walk in the park?

ysosad wrote:: 4. AI controlled PvP has not been activated...thus Dark (and Light) will only generate a meager amount of CPs through PvP

That is valid for both Factions.

ysosad wrote:: 5. Dark cannot coop on these regions while Light can. So, even if point #3 were not a problem, we wouldn't be able to overcome this.

This is part of the challenge of taking an enemy Capital. Again..who said that taking the Capital is a walk in the park?

ysosad wrote:: 6. Larger regional hexes...they just make it incredibly difficult to generate a significant amount of influence in short periods of time, even when perfectly coordinated.

Correct.

ysosad wrote:: All of this is to say: I think it is impossible for those two hexes to be captured as the game mechanics are right now.

Not impossible, but quite difficult, as it should be, since you reached the enemy Capital and you are 1 step closer to winning the game.

ysosad wrote:: Please tell me this was a mistake of some sort (coding error, a bad joke, you were more wasted tired than you have ever been and it made sense at the time)...that there is, in fact, supposed to be a realistic chance for one side to beat the other at this very moment.

No mistake..by design. There is a realistic chance for one side to capture the enemy Capital, IF they are strong enough. Let me give you an example...I am going to use a very famous game, Diablo III. Do you think that if you were to face Diablo at level 10, you would have a chance to beat him, or should the game allow you to? Their game design is linear...follow the storyline, reach an acceptable level range and face Diablo to end the game. Our game design is more fluid..It is not a linear experience...You can reach the enemy Capital....question is...are you ready to capture it?

I don't think it is fair to dismiss my points with "who said that taking the Capital is a walk in the park?" I'm not attempting to say every feature is a problem, it is the combination of them all.

I'm not expecting an easy button.

I was hoping for an honest assessment of the game that you have created (and I wish to be clear that I think it is an amazing game) and conceiving of a scenario that has a better than 1% chance of occurring over the next 3 months that allows for one Faction to defeat the other that does not rely on either: 1. Incredible attrition rates from the losing Faction coupled with low influx of new players. 2. A decision by one Faction to allow the other to win just to be done with it.

I ask this because I am trying to envision a realistic scenario where either side can overcome the hurdles you've set up for us...and I don't see it...not as the game currently exists.

Two out of three modes of CP generation are off the table for the Dark Faction. The third is limited in how many people can fight there and how often they may do so.

I honestly believe that if for every 1 Light player that could fight at insane/suicide there were 2 Dark that could (or vice-versa)...we still couldn't defeat the Light Faction.

Yes, this should not be about pure numbers...but if all other things are equal (or are incredibly close or are removed from the equation)......

Please hurry with the PvP changes and strongly consider making coop possible (even if more difficult) on these hexes.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

ysosad wrote:: I don't think it is fair to dismiss my points with "who said that taking the Capital is a walk in the park?" I'm not attempting to say every feature is a problem, it is the combination of them all.

I'm not expecting an easy button.

I was hoping for an honest assessment of the game that you have created (and I wish to be clear that I think it is an amazing game) and conceiving of a scenario that has a better than 1% chance of occurring over the next 3 months that allows for one Faction to defeat the other that does not rely on either: 1. Incredible attrition rates from the losing Faction coupled with low influx of new players. 2. A decision by one Faction to allow the other to win just to be done with it.

I ask this because I am trying to envision a realistic scenario where either side can overcome the hurdles you've set up for us...and I don't see it...not as the game currently exists.

Two out of three modes of CP generation are off the table for the Dark Faction. The third is limited in how many people can fight there and how often they may do so.

I honestly believe that if for every 1 Light player that could fight at insane/suicide there were 2 Dark that could (or vice-versa)...we still couldn't defeat the Light Faction.

Yes, this should not be about pure numbers...but if all other things are equal (or are incredibly close or are removed from the equation)......

Please hurry with the PvP changes and strongly consider making coop possible (even if more difficult) on these hexes.

Truth be told ysosad....if we allowed the influx of the new players from day 1 on Olympus..we wouldn't even have this conversation now...which is why I do not consider it a design flaw or anything else...

Right now... you have two basketball teams consisted of 2 players on one side and 1 player on the other....Basketball wasn't designed for 3 players... Even so, in BC we do provide the chance for a Faction to do what the Dark Faction did...Reach the gates of the enemy Capital in about a month...Now, taking the gates down and going in...that's another story...

Things will be a lot different when new players come...Currently, we do not drive ANY traffic to Olympus... (though to be honest we decided to drive a bit of traffic from Kongregate and ArmorGames to Olympus...but not at a volume that it would make a difference..)

Trust our judgement...trust our intentions..and have fun... Have we ever disappointed you or favored one and not the other?

The Restless Posts : 445 Join date : 2013-11-24

RuneSlayer wrote:: Trust our judgement...trust our intentions..and have fun... Have we ever disappointed you or favored one and not the other?

OK, good point. I'll try to be patient...no promises though.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

ysosad wrote:

RuneSlayer wrote:: Trust our judgement...trust our intentions..and have fun... Have we ever disappointed you or favored one and not the other?

OK, good point. I'll try to be patient...no promises though.

Fair enough..lol

Posts : 32 Join date : 2013-12-10

I think there is a disconnect here between what you say, Rune, and what we read. I'm going to get a bit wordy here, because I like the way you devs care about this game, and when I say "we" I meant the players I've talked to, mostly DI.

We’re afraid of stalemate being inevitable, and every time you deny it your words make it look more and more obvious that stalemate is what we will get. I feel that way and most people I have chatted with share that feeling. Some examples:

RuneSlayer wrote:: ...The most important changes in Olympus... A new LARGER map... in order to create a more competitive game and a faster conquest experience...

And yet resource requirements, research times, construction times, healing times, repairing times… everything is substantially slower in Olympus than it was in Erevos. Maybe we all came here with the promise of a faster paced game but what was planned was the opposite? Like the LARGER map being actually smaller?

RuneSlayer wrote:: ...Same mechanism as in Erevos... it is by design from day 1...

Sure, Erevos worked like that... do you think we all jumped ship to Olympus because we love starting over and grinding everything again or because we thought this would be different than Erevos' stalemate?

RuneSlayer wrote:: Truth be told ysosad....if we allowed the influx of the new players from day 1 on Olympus..we wouldn't even have this conversation now...

I’m sorry but from here this reads as “If we could use the main equalizing mechanisms nobody would be able to move this quickly.” Or even “One faction winning is a problem. We have a problem but we would not if we could have things our way.

RuneSlayer wrote:

ysosad wrote:: 2. Disproportionately more Light Capital army attacks.

Wrong. The targeted region is 1-2 Regions from the spawning point (Capital) of the Light Capital Army and therefore it reaches the Region much faster...

We understand the mechanics there. What worried ysosad here is not that you were favoring one faction or the other, but that the game mechanics by design give the defending faction three times more horse support.

RuneSlayer wrote:: Right now... you have two basketball teams consisted of 2 players on one side and 1 player on the other....Basketball wasn't designed for 3 players...

2 vs 1 happens all the time in basketball. What you mean is that if basketball was like BC, when a player steals the ball and tries to score, the hoop will go up one foot for each feet he runs up court, and only come down when the full defensive team gets between him and the hoop.

I think this is the main disconnect, you talk about end game as if conquering the capital was the whole basketball game, and it would happen once in a lifetime.

We see conquering the capital and resetting the world more like winning a quarter in that basketball game, with several map resets per year.

You talk of equalizing mechanisms as in reducing the hoop size for the winning team so nobody will have a lead that makes the game uninteresting. We talk about equalizing mechanisms as in adding or reducing players to/from the winning/losing team bench between quarters, but having a fair game in each of those quarters.

We want tension, the feeling that the end of this cycle of the eternal war between light and darkness could happen at any point and if a faction slips for a month or two it will lose the game. We expect a smooth transition to new maps and adequate rewards due to map resets so there is some end game growth for veteran players. This will allow for new maps and features to be seamlessly introduced at map reset, as well as ego-boosters like permanent lists of top 100 CP contributors for the winning faction of each map reboot.

I think at this point you are in danger of going into that eternal stalemate that scared some of us in Erevos, in which the only way to see something new is by attrition, waiting for the other faction to get bored and stop playing.

Or you can figure out how you want to handle world resets, give good aether rewards, and have a good paced, engaging game.

I have no idea how many users you will be able to retain in each mode. But I know that my Platinum VIP just expired one hour ago. Last week I viewed renewing it as a no-brainer, but after reading the forums these last few days, I’m not sure whether I want to purchase it again.

Posts : 98 Join date : 2013-07-25

A big +1 to Valmeijar.

I would like to add that I don't want BC to be simply a tug-of-war game. But that is a deeper problem which can not easily be changed (and what I was sad about 7 months ago too)
The map could have more capitals or something. Third faction. Dunno.

To the problem Ysosad brought up: give players hard difficulty possible on last hexes and capital - as Nightmare. Give players Nightmare difficulty as Insane.
It won't be a walk in the park, yet almost every players will be able to contribute.
(you could even think about giving Normals as Hard there, as newbies coming won't really appreciate they can't do anything for the faction concerning those last hexes.

Let players sweat, you can even give them the possibility of regular defeats on last hexes because of extreme difficulties.

But if you don't let somebody to play basketball at all, he will surely just go home.

Posts : 3124 Join date : 2012-11-13

Valmejar wrote:: We’re afraid of stalemate being inevitable, and every time you deny it your words make it look more and more obvious that stalemate is what we will get.

The fact that the Dark Faction has reached the gates of the Light Capital proves exactly the opposite... Problem is, you want to storm the enemy Capital and end the game with unit levels half the level cap of the game. In fact, only a few armies in the Dark Faction have reached lvl 10-11....So, what you want, is storm the castle with lvl 6-8 units... Congratulations to the Dark Faction for pushing the Light Faction all the way to its Capital, but capturing the Capital is a different story.

Valmejar wrote:: And yet resource requirements, research times, construction times, healing times, repairing times… everything is substantially slower in Olympus than it was in Erevos. Maybe we all came here with the promise of a faster paced game but what was planned was the opposite? Like the LARGER map being actually smaller?

The game is divided into many sections. Progress of the player is 1 and is consisted of upgrading his city, crafting items, leveling up his units and heroes, researching technologies etc. Conquest is another and is divided into two parts..Faction warfare and Guild warfare... Reducing the progress rate of the player does not reduce the conquest process, especially when Regional Containers are smaller and therefore it is required much less CP to control a Region. Having said that, I find your argument weak....as the fact that in a month the Dark Faction has reached the gates of the Light Capital proves you completely wrong when in Erevos it is 6-8 months now and no Faction has reached the enemy gates. In regards to the "LARGER" map, that was the original idea, but in an effort to make the game even more fast paced and more interesting we made it a bit smaller and changed the size of the hexes in order to make it look nicer...Finally, all the changes in Olympus were mentioned in the patch notes and players in general had been informed about the new game world. We didn't force the immigration.

Valmejar wrote:: Sure, Erevos worked like that... do you think we all jumped ship to Olympus because we love starting over and grinding everything again or because we thought this would be different than Erevos' stalemate?

Again....your argument is wrong. As I mentioned above...look where the Dark Faction is...right at the gates of the enemy Capital in about a month. This hasn't occurred in Erevos since its creation....6-8 months? Maybe more? There is no stalemate here...Unless of course you call stalemate the fact that you want to end the game and receive the prize with half the effort or even less? Not..in this game...

Valmejar wrote:: I’m sorry but from here this reads as “If we could use the main equalizing mechanisms nobody would be able to move this quickly.” Or even “One faction winning is a problem. We have a problem but we would not if we could have things our way.

Runeslayer wrote:: Truth be told ysosad....if we allowed the influx of the new players from day 1 on Olympus..we wouldn't even have this conversation now...

Actually, I don't understand how from my above sentence, you reached to the conclusion that I was talking about equalizing mechanisms, or one Fqaction winning is a problem etc.. Let me elaborate.... Olympus was created so as to receive traffic from a specific publisher . Erevos would continue to receive traffic from the other game portals BC is integrated in. Therefore, Olympus would only receive players from our new publisher. The plan was that players will start flooding Olympus in the first week of January. As we always share everything with the community because we believe in our community, we wanted to give you guys the opportunity to start afresh in a new game world earlier than the new players. An Early Access....Some players from Erevos migrated and most of the players chose the Dark Faction. Since you had the opportunity to transfer all your Gems to the new world, there were a lot of people who bought their progress up to the point where they could earn substantial CP. Although this is true for both sides, the Dark Faction had a substantial advantage in numbers AND CP compared to the Light Faction. With NO new players flooding in to balance the populations between the 2 Factions, this difference in population and therefore CP generation continued to exist further in the game and the Dark Faction was able to reach the Light Capital in less than a month. I hope now it is crystal clear...

Valmejar wrote:: We understand the mechanics there. What worried ysosad here is not that you were favoring one faction or the other, but that the game mechanics by design give the defending faction three times more horse support.

That is a challenge that the Faction sieging the enemy Capital has to overcome. This is something that applies to both Factions and it is by design.

Valmejar wrote:: 2 vs 1 happens all the time in basketball.

Last time I checked, teams in basketball are 5 vs 5...

Valmejar wrote:: the hoop will go up one foot for each feet he runs up court, and only come down when the full defensive team gets between him and the hoop.

I think you are confused here... There is no mechanism which changes the difficulty of conquering the Capital. "There"..... is the basket....and "you" have the ball...If you can pass the 6'1 muscled men and make the basket....victory is yours...

Valmejar wrote:: We see conquering the capital and resetting the world more like winning a quarter in that basketball game, with several map resets per year.

I'm with you on this... In fact, there is a lore behind the resets.... Wink

Valmejar wrote:: I think at this point you are in danger of going into that eternal stalemate that scared some of us in Erevos, in which the only way to see something new is by attrition, waiting for the other faction to get bored and stop playing.

I disagree...Again...the fact that the Dark Faction reached the gates of the enemy Capital proves that.... Again...if players want to conquer the enemy capital without even reaching half the progress in BC....I am sorry...this is not Farmville.... Are you strong enough? Go and get it! Not yet...? Then level up and show the enemy Faction who is the boss...

Valmejar wrote:: I have no idea how many users you will be able to retain in each mode. But I know that my Platinum VIP just expired one hour ago. Last week I viewed renewing it as a no-brainer, but after reading the forums these last few days, I’m not sure whether I want to purchase it again.

You cannot keep everyone happy Valmejar, but you can provide a fair game and a challenging game to everyone... This is our goal...

To make a long story short.... BC is not a race of who can reach the enemy Capital...BC is about progression, Guilds, politics and gaining power to be ABLE to storm the enemy Capital... I am not going to sugar coated or say something that isn't there... No linear progression....no linear story....Players affect and shape the world... Players don't need to do X Y Z steps to reach the capital....This was proven in Olympus... Capturing the Capital? I am sorry...but the Faction which wants to capture the enemy Capital needs to sweat to achieve it...

One last point.... Battle Conquest's Community.....ROCKS....

» Server down?
» Poll/Petition to lower the repair times on the new Olympus server
» Is the server down?
» Server Down or Something?
» Shadow keepers hexes not getting any influence when putting cp