Agreed
Agreed
I like it...DO IT!
"We're winning, surrender!"
"No, WE'RE winning, YOU SURRENDER!"
...followed by someone explaining the pool gains, and how both kingdoms are up but one is up by more than the other. ;P
I support removing the pool gains if there is no way of showing the same gains in both papers without introducing further confusion.
If it's that close then how can you say that you're really winning? There are Mutual Peaces in the game and to my surprise people do still use them.
If you didn't beat them, then you didn't win, so why should they surrender?
if its so hard to new players to understand this points, try to explain this, change the Guide, our guide is terrible... ;)
"There's no Knowledge that's not Power."
Yes please. This does confuse in times of tallying wars
Or utopia could tally the war itself, as it goes, and display the information so everyone knows who is up in land.
Last edited by HumanoidTyphoon; 12-03-2011 at 18:10.
Perhaps we can do both. Clearly state in BOTH papers the pool gains/losses and DON'T put them in the attack report, but award them at the end of war.
Palem
Agreed. However I think this applied not just to issues like this, but to a raft of things including the relatively poorness of the guide. The recent Anri / Purplehaze discussion involving the turning out that Purplehaze (a monarch in a top 20 KD) didn't know Raze oow removed acres surely shows that if people in top KD's aren't aware of all the nuiances of the game, then expecting new player to be is a little much.Or remove the ignorance. This is much better for the game.
Not saying education isn't an issue, cause it is. It's just a much bigger issue than one limited to this topic and can't be used to simply argue people should learn to play better. They should, but it's not a solid arguement against this particular change.
DHaran
Is exactly the reason it should be removed. Having constant land 'creation' (albeit from the pool) for both sides just encourages people to war for longer. If the land within the war was finite, then it would not be possible for both sides to grow simultaneously, as currently happens.You grow in wars by winning the war... both kingdoms "gaining" in war is silly.
My understanding was that explore pool gains helped to counterbalance land lost by razes (I may well be mistaken however) making it so that significant land wasn't destroyed in a war and their would be some 'new' land to help those razed recover. As Raze no longer takes land in wars, it would seem defunct.
I've already had this exact discussion before. I'm ok with the suggestion. I'm not alright with basing the suggestion on "It confuses new/ghetto players"
I wouldn't expect a new player to tell me about how raze works at various times and such, but you can't learn if you don't ask and just because a bunch of players refuse to ask how a game mechanic that actively confuses them in nearly each and every war works isn't strong enough alone to base a suggestion on.
Palem - all good then, and apologies if I missed that (which I can now see I did) :-)
Pestermenot - no the 'new' land (and hence inverted commas) come from the explore pool. The point is that the land is 'new' in terms of not being part of any prov prior to the start of the war. Hence over the course of a war, particularly a close one, it is possible for both KD's to actually end up with more land than they started with (in terms of the 'size' of the KD as shown on the KD page). If nothing else that's counterintuitive.
Raze, when it destroyed land in war, meant that the overall amount of 'available land' (i.e. that which a province could gain on a hit) was constantly diminishing in wars. This made it hard for people badly razed / chained to recover as the amount of land available at any one time constantly decreased. Hence explore pool gains increases the amount of available land (that which one can hit for) during war to counterbalance this.
However, as raze no longer possesses (ugghh is that even how you spell it) that quality this is no longer a concern and hence the additional 'available' land should not be needed.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)