A question for long-term campers

[Czari]

But what then becomes the end goal?

There are so many variations to approaching this game and different people enjoy different aspects but here's my personal take on the end goal/game: Prior to this game I spent seven years in Everquest then maybe four years in WoW. When I began playing EQ the highest level was 60. By the time my main character was in the late 40's, it had increased to 65...then awhile later 70. I haven't played for quite awhile but the last time I played the highest level was either 85 or 90. In addition to regularly moving the goal post, new content, new types of characters, new equipment, gear, etc. were also released on a regular basis. My point is that these games are like the proverbial carrot-on-a-stick - there really is no end game. There are always a group of people who want to be the first to race to the top and they may get to whatever the current "end level" is, but about the time they do...another level/era is introduced to the game.

Not always but many times in all these games, those who race to the top often have weaker characters or cities. I'm encountering many cities among guild mates and friends that are either in OF or VF but don't have one building - even a simple one or a decoration - of the era they are in and often most of the buildings are still in CE. There really is no "answer" per se to this question but I'm the type who plays all games of this nature more slowly and thoroughly with my personal goal of making my city very strong before moving to the next level. YMMV.

 

[Czari]

I took my former main city to Arctic Future (so far), but it became much less enjoyable above CE. Tomorrow sucks. Future is better than Tomorrow, but still much less enjoyable than CE. Arctic Future stinks on ice. I hold out no hope of Oceanic Future being any better, nor Virtual Future. Right now, I plan on keeping my now main city in CE indefinitely. Any other cities I currently play or start later will take their time and stop at CE permanently.

Thank you as well for posting. Can you elaborate a bit of the less enjoyable aspects of the higher ages? I'm in nooooo hurry to leave CE and, frankly, I might not go any father in these two cities. I have a third city that I began some months ago in Z world specifically to try my hand at Cosmic Raven's Heavy Questing. I'm having a ball in that city!!

 

[Agent327]

I hate when people say the goal of the game is to progress ... the goal of the game is to enjoy playing the game!!! To each their own

I hate it when people claim to enjoy the game, but complain all the time and want the game to be adjusted to their wish not to progress.

 

[DeletedUser]

Thank you as well for posting. Can you elaborate a bit of the less enjoyable aspects of the higher ages? I'm in nooooo hurry to leave CE and, frankly, I might not go any father in these two cities. I have a third city that I began some months ago in Z world specifically to try my hand at Cosmic Raven's Heavy Questing. I'm having a ball in that city!!

Well there is no military unit before or after that can compare to the AAV in Contemporary. That's fine for the previous ages, because you either don't know yet what you're missing out on or you are looking forward to getting to them. Once you've gone past, though, you can't go back. Also, CE and PE goods are in more demand than most other eras. Three of the four GBs from PE/CE are in high demand even by low era players. And then there's the "special" goods that you get hit with in AF and beyond. They are a royal pain to produce.

 

[DeletedUser10720]

There are so many variations to approaching this game and different people enjoy different aspects but here's my personal take on the end goal/game: Prior to this game I spent seven years in Everquest then maybe four years in WoW. When I began playing EQ the highest level was 60. By the time my main character was in the late 40's, it had increased to 65...then awhile later 70. I haven't played for quite awhile but the last time I played the highest level was either 85 or 90. In addition to regularly moving the goal post, new content, new types of characters, new equipment, gear, etc. were also released on a regular basis. My point is that these games are like the proverbial carrot-on-a-stick - there really is no end game. There are always a group of people who want to be the first to race to the top and they may get to whatever the current "end level" is, but about the time they do...another level/era is introduced to the game.

Not always but many times in all these games, those who race to the top often have weaker characters or cities. I'm encountering many cities among guild mates and friends that are either in OF or VF but don't have one building - even a simple one or a decoration - of the era they are in and often most of the buildings are still in CE. There really is no "answer" per se to this question but I'm the type who plays all games of this nature more slowly and thoroughly with my personal goal of making my city very strong before moving to the next level. YMMV.

I definitely get wanting to prepare yourself for progressing and having a strong enough city to move up. And that with the way new ages and chapters release here, it's a never-ending chase. And definitely pushing ahead faster than necessary will result in a weaker city, temporarily at least.


When I started playing FoE, there was no progressive era and no Cape Canaveral, or GE or DC. Events had months between them and forced tech and map progress.

There were players I met then, who I have surpassed in tech and score since.
Quite a few actually. The majority of people that I knew from the start of my gaming have been those that seem less likely to move up.

While some ages are definitely more entertaining than others. I do think AF was basically a dumpster fire. I also think that progressing IS the point. This game moves you through history and tech development and ages in time. At no point in time did humanity say " Oh yeah. I like it here. We're done developing now.". Your citizens want to move past these ages. Give them antibiotics and indoor plumbing, let them access the internet and invent. I don't think that a players run through the middle-ages should actually take as long as the middle-ages did for us.

Now it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. But I have to agree with agent here.

I hate it when people claim to enjoy the game, but complain all the time and want the game to be adjusted to their wish not to progress.

While I have no conflict with those that choose to camp and play as they wish. There have been several changes that seem to be specifically designed with the intent of allowing a player to never progress in tech. Plenty of proposals and quest adjusting.

To return back to the carrot & the stick method mentioned above.
The stick has been removed. There is no deterrent for camping anymore. No reason other than expansion carrots for progressing. In the past, you would have had to sacrifice at least something. The ability to finish an event, or you'd be put into a hood with people ages ahead of you. And you would NEED to progress, at least a little in order to maintain.

Now the stick is only there for those that move too quickly. To hobble their progress and make them slow down. With all of these additions and alterations the only reason to progress is now the players own will or want.

And while that's cool. It's true that now you are basically only punished for advancement and the only reward is a higher point earning in a system with no actual value.

 

[Salsuero]

I definitely get wanting to prepare yourself for progressing and having a strong enough city to move up. And that with the way new ages and chapters release here, it's a never-ending chase. And definitely pushing ahead faster than necessary will result in a weaker city, temporarily at least.


When I started playing FoE, there was no progressive era and no Cape Canaveral, or GE or DC. Events had months between them and forced tech and map progress.

There were players I met then, who I have surpassed in tech and score since.
Quite a few actually. The majority of people that I knew from the start of my gaming have been those that seem less likely to move up.

While some ages are definitely more entertaining than others. I do think AF was basically a dumpster fire. I also think that progressing IS the point. This game moves you through history and tech development and ages in time. At no point in time did humanity say " Oh yeah. I like it here. We're done developing now.". Your citizens want to move past these ages. Give them antibiotics and indoor plumbing, let them access the internet and invent. I don't think that a players run through the middle-ages should actually take as long as the middle-ages did for us.

Now it does leave a bad taste in my mouth. But I have to agree with agent here.




While I have no conflict with those that choose to camp and play as they wish. There have been several changes that seem to be specifically designed with the intent of allowing a player to never progress in tech. Plenty of proposals and quest adjusting.

To return back to the carrot & the stick method mentioned above.
The stick has been removed. There is no deterrent for camping anymore. No reason other than expansion carrots for progressing. In the past, you would have had to sacrifice at least something. The ability to finish an event, or you'd be put into a hood with people ages ahead of you. And you would NEED to progress, at least a little in order to maintain.

Now the stick is only there for those that move too quickly. To hobble their progress and make them slow down. With all of these additions and alterations the only reason to progress is now the players own will or want.

And while that's cool. It's true that now you are basically only punished for advancement and the only reward is a higher point earning in a system with no actual value.

I look at it like this:

a) Inno wants to slow players down because it's a LOT of work coming up with the ideas and the programming for new ages. Each one is more and more fantasy-driven given that they've run well past reality at this point. There's lots of artwork to be created, bugs to be worked out (in theory), and all the time the developers are working on other issues that still need attention (and new additions that no one really asked for or that aren't really necessary). So, they wanna slow people down to give themselves breathing room AND to push back the brick wall of boredom at the end of the tech tree that people eventually run into before new content is released.

b) Inno wants to keep the campers at least somewhat happy compared to the more traditional non-campers because they've discovered it to be a significant playerbase. Probably more to the point, campers also pay real money to play (and there are many towns that are easy evidence of this). Forcing a player who doesn't wish to age up to do so is not necessarily conducive to making a happy player. In theory, happy players keep playing... and paying. They have given in to the fact that there are many players who wish to take THEIR time and not move at the pace that Inno devises for them.

That's at least what I believe to be the impetus behind the changes you've described.

 

[DeletedUser10720]

I look at it like this:

a) Inno wants to slow players down because it's a LOT of work coming up with the ideas and the programming for new ages. Each one is more and more fantasy-driven given that they've run well past reality at this point. There's lots of artwork to be created, bugs to be worked out (in theory), and all the time the developers are working on other issues that still need attention (and new additions that no one really asked for or that aren't really necessary). So, they wanna slow people down to give themselves breathing room AND to push back the brick wall of boredom at the end of the tech tree that people eventually run into before new content is released.

b) Inno wants to keep the campers at least somewhat happy compared to the more traditional non-campers because they've discovered it to be a significant playerbase. Probably more to the point, campers also pay real money to play (and there are many towns that are easy evidence of this). Forcing a player who doesn't wish to age up to do so is not necessarily conducive to making a happy player. In theory, happy players keep playing... and paying. They have given in to the fact that there are many players who wish to take THEIR time and not move at the pace that Inno devises for them.

That's at least what I believe to be the impetus behind the changes you've described.

Those are actually really valid points. There is a lot of development that goes into all of the new features and no doubt, It takes less time to play through it all than it does to devise build and implement. So in order to keep the masses from pressing against that wall forever, offering a means to delay progress is definitely viable for the business. And a happy player, that remains engaged and interested will be more profitable regardless of age progression, over a dissatisfied player that moved up in tech.


I do think there should be more of an incentive to move up. It shouldn't necessarily punish a camper for staying in lower ages. But players that do push farther do deserve something rewarding for their efforts.
Early on in EMA we had a whole side challenge on the Cmap fighting the barbarians and winning the monestary. But there hasn't really been anything like that since. No special side quest leading us against an actually challenging map enemy to give up a one time special reward.

I think there should be a special one-off reward for each age, more valuable than monestary, but similar in concept. And only accessible by completing a story quest / bonus line that would include completing an age or some kind of advancement. ( this borders on a different proposal idea I plan on making for use of the still cloudy map bits)

The best thing about being at the end of tech and the map are the auto completed event quests. Which do make some events significantly easier, but even those prizes have debatable value depending on the player.

The added challenge of the harbor goods in arctic and oceanic is a huge added cost with no added reward. And while I really like it in concept, as a slow down and regulator for tech progress, as well as a great lead in for a much larger future age making use of 5 harbor goods, and I want to see more things that actually make it challenging to advance other than a clock. It needs a counterbalance for payoff.

GE is tons of fun but after a couple years, by now most of us have all the Tfarms and sky watches we will ever need, they have no real increased value or ability. Which is fair in one sense, but given the incredible increase to demand of resources for these ages, it becomes a burden.

I love being in the higher ages. even in my other cities, if it's a city I plan on doing anything more than well collections in, I'm planning on getting to the end. I do want to do a speed run city and see how quickly one could make it to the end at some point. I guess I never found an age I wanted to camp in. Maybe that was due to varying strategies and a lack of certain abilities back in those ages but I think it's personally more of a feeling of stagnation. Which is why I like the new chapters, one has relatively little time for things to wear out before at least a few new things get brought in to play with.

 

[DeletedUser29726]

I took my former main city to Arctic Future (so far), but it became much less enjoyable above CE. Tomorrow sucks. Future is better than Tomorrow, but still much less enjoyable than CE. Arctic Future stinks on ice. I hold out no hope of Oceanic Future being any better, nor Virtual Future. Right now, I plan on keeping my now main city in CE indefinitely. Any other cities I currently play or start later will take their time and stop at CE permanently.

I'd be wary of taking others advice as gospel in terms of which ages are simply 'better' (get reasons if asking for opinions). Everyone's feelings about them are different because people play the game for different reasons. People might have different preferences wrt: difficulty, efficiency, aesthetics, military balance, questing options, etc, etc.

I actually personally liked Tomorrow Era the first time through. I found it to be one of the better balanced ages militarily in a while with only 1 unit i consider to be useless (anti-materiel sniper). It is harder than CE so if easy GE is your thing - I can understand not leaving it (on diamond mines if I manage to make it there, that'd be my choice). But TE is more pleasant to fight in my eyes than anything from PE to PME. And more interesting than CE.

Then when time came that i asked my friends if I should move to Future Era they said I'd love it - that it was way better than TE. I hated it. FE has to be my second (maybe 3rd now) least favorite era in the game - I HATE railguns, hate using em, hate facing em - they're boring as hell, don't have a good counter in age (drone swarms are terrible, so are spotters), and attritiony on both ends unless you have ridiculous boost already.

I then kinda liked Arctic Future because it saved me from FE - it's not my favorite age by any stretch, but ignoring the treasury GB issue and the sheer amount of effort needed, i'd get through FE as fast as i could. AF GE4 was an interesting puzzle that I was slowly figuring out how to fight more and more of it - but I was accepting of needing to negotiate the last bit (I was in TE when GE came out, so I never got caught on the crutch that 4 must be fightable for me to be happy).

Oceanic Future is then my least favorite age in the game - GE4 wasn't a puzzle, hovertanks ruled over it and it was just tedious, especially once turturrets came out - it was neat the first time I did it (yayyy i fought all of GE4), but as the weeks passed it became more and more a chore i dreaded and put off til the last 2 days of the week. And Virtual Future is off to a terrible start in that regard as well.

One of the advantages of going forward whether you like the new age or not comes with advanced GBs and the goods required for them. If you're in the age you get to build the building on your own power and help set the terms for others to acquire the goods - it often makes up for a lot of the bad aspects of ages.

 

[DeletedUser26965]

I look at it like this:

a) Inno wants to slow players down because it's a LOT of work coming up with the ideas and the programming for new ages. Each one is more and more fantasy-driven given that they've run well past reality at this point. There's lots of artwork to be created, bugs to be worked out (in theory), and all the time the developers are working on other issues that still need attention (and new additions that no one really asked for or that aren't really necessary). So, they wanna slow people down to give themselves breathing room AND to push back the brick wall of boredom at the end of the tech tree that people eventually run into before new content is released.

b) Inno wants to keep the campers at least somewhat happy compared to the more traditional non-campers because they've discovered it to be a significant playerbase. Probably more to the point, campers also pay real money to play (and there are many towns that are easy evidence of this). Forcing a player who doesn't wish to age up to do so is not necessarily conducive to making a happy player. In theory, happy players keep playing... and paying. They have given in to the fact that there are many players who wish to take THEIR time and not move at the pace that Inno devises for them.

That's at least what I believe to be the impetus behind the changes you've described.

Where do you get these ideas? I've never seen IG express anything you're saying. Regarding your first point the only thing that slows players down from progressing is really tired age releases and the reason they gave for doing that was to get content out in quicker intervals rather than waiting 6 months in between. Special Goods slows it down a bit but nothing compared to tiered releases and they never said why that was added.

Regarding your second point the only things that really incentivizes one to camp, aside from mere personal choice, are GE and the hood change and neither of those were done for campers rather they inadvertently created an incentive to camp. Maybe you could say because people were complaining about having to do tech and map quests for events they offered the options to not do them and that some of those players were campers but that's kind of stretching it really to say it was done for campers to begin with.

 

[DeletedUser10720]

Where do you get these ideas? I've never seen IG express anything you're saying. Regarding your first point the only thing that slows players down from progressing is really tired age releases and the reason they gave for doing that was to get content out in quicker intervals rather than waiting 6 months in between. Special Goods slows it down a bit but nothing compared to tiered releases and they never said why that was added.

Regarding your second point the only things that really incentivizes one to camp, aside from mere personal choice, are GE and the hood change and neither of those were done for campers rather they inadvertently created an incentive to camp. Maybe you could say because people were complaining about having to do tech and map quests for events they offered the options to not do them and that some of those players were campers but that's kind of stretching it really to say it was done for campers to begin with.

I don't think it was done specifically for the campers. But it did take away a large portion of the motivation for progress when events stopped forcing tech and map movement. When GE began giving such consistent rewards and when harbor goods made a much more expensive process.

Personally I think VF is off to a good start. Maybe that's just me and my enjoying the new things. As new chapters come out I could very easily change my mind. But I'm enjoying battling again and the timing of its release worked out quite well for me.

A big thing for me is keeping the challenge. I have quite intentionally throttled my own boosts and abilities. I'm moving my GB collection up in even increments so no one is significantly more of my focus than the others. Even though rocketing a few to 80 would make everything much easier. It would also remove challenge and therefore take away the joy i get from coming up against an obstacle and finding a solution. It's the reason I never continued use of hover tanks and why I self leveled my Notre dame and colosseum to 10.

That's nowhere near a strategy you'll find in any of these guides and goes directly against a lot of the advice others will give you. I think it keeps things interesting. Eventually I'll have a level 80 arc, and all the others will follow suit in a similar fashion.

I like to think of what the citizens of my city might want. And they have me to allocate their resources to benefit them. This means improving their abilities and giving them access to better technologies. I build some things bases on their constitution and how aggressive they are.

 

[Salsuero]

I think there should be a special one-off reward for each age, more valuable than monestary, but similar in concept. And only accessible by completing a story quest / bonus line that would include completing an age or some kind of advancement. ( this borders on a different proposal idea I plan on making for use of the still cloudy map bits)

Good luck. I don't have an issue with you getting something for questing in higher ages that isn't accessible to the lower ages in the same vein as the Monastery. As long as your gain doesn't negatively impact the ability of people to move slowly and it's only a "bonus" to those who move faster, I don't see why this should be problematic.

I love being in the higher ages. even in my other cities, if it's a city I plan on doing anything more than well collections in, I'm planning on getting to the end. I do want to do a speed run city and see how quickly one could make it to the end at some point. I guess I never found an age I wanted to camp in. Maybe that was due to varying strategies and a lack of certain abilities back in those ages but I think it's personally more of a feeling of stagnation. Which is why I like the new chapters, one has relatively little time for things to wear out before at least a few new things get brought in to play with.

And this is an opinion that is entirely appropriate for you to have, though it only applies to you and others who think the same way, but not the entire playerbase, which is what I read you to understand. You enjoy what you do, while the rest of use enjoy what we do. Inno has tried to make it so that there's something for everyone where it hasn't always been exactly the case. Could they do better at that? Sure, I'm thinking this is a work in progress.

 

[DeletedUser10720]

Good luck. I don't have an issue with you getting something for questing in higher ages that isn't accessible to the lower ages in the same vein as the Monastery. As long as your gain doesn't negatively impact the ability of people to move slowly and it's only a "bonus" to those who move faster, I don't see why this should be problematic.



And this is an opinion that is entirely appropriate for you to have, though it only applies to you and others who think the same way, but not the entire playerbase, which is what I read you to understand. You enjoy what you do, while the rest of use enjoy what we do. Inno has tried to make it so that there's something for everyone where it hasn't always been exactly the case. Could they do better at that? Sure, I'm thinking this is a work in progress.

The game is definitely always a work in progress. It's always evolving and changing, and thats half of the reason I started this line of questioning, the other half you also touched on, being my playstyle is clearly just one of many options and I don't really understand the allure of camping, so I am trying to sort of pick the brain of the minds here and see what the motivation is for some, and for so many to choose camping over progress. Weigh it's benefits and get a broader understanding of the strategy.

I'm also trying to formulate a balance in the means of progression incentives. As it does seem to be discouraged at times. That's something that I think can confuse a lot of new players and their interest in the game. Cause looking at the tech tree alone, from a new game and only getting 24 hourly fp. Is already overwhelming, Then nearly every strategy and advanced player will tell you to not progress. It seems contradictory and easily intimidating.

 

[DeletedUser]

I started out this game intending to progress to the end. Then I discovered the multiple world option and began starting cities where I could "correct" the mistakes I made in earlier ones. Then at some point I started letting many of those cities go because of the sheer drudgery of playing more than a handful of worlds, especially once events ramped up and GE came into being. The cities I kept playing, I was still mostly intending to keep progressing to the end, although not at as fast a pace as when I started. I enjoyed almost every age on the way up, and Contemporary was the most enjoyable of all for a multitude of reasons. Then at some point in the last year I took my most advanced city, the one I enjoyed playing the most, out of CE and into Tomorrow Era. And the fun ended. For a lot of reasons, not the least of which is the military troops available after CE. As I stated earlier, Future Era was a little better than TE, but still a chore rather than a fun time. And Arctic Future is the worst. I will probably keep advancing that city to the end game just to say I did it, but I doubt I will find much enjoyment in it. The other cities I have (or will have), I will probably take no higher than CE. And at some point I will probably tire of that and simply stop playing.

 

[DeletedUser35712]

The game is definitely always a work in progress. It's always evolving and changing, and thats half of the reason I started this line of questioning, the other half you also touched on, being my playstyle is clearly just one of many options and I don't really understand the allure of camping, so I am trying to sort of pick the brain of the minds here and see what the motivation is for some, and for so many to choose camping over progress.

I just like steamrolling people in my hood, and like @Ognor the Hood said, it would be awesome to be in a lower age and have these insanely high-level GBs, especially ones that are of later ages. On my US main, I'm going to camp in IA for at least until I get my Arc set up and to lvl 80 and powerlevel my GBs to some crazy levels. There's just something thrilling about intimidating people with a glorious city at such a low age.

On my Finnish main, I'm probably going to have to camp in IA for at least a couple weeks because I just entered a deal with the only player on the server with a Chateau Frontenac. Of course the price for the PE goods are ridiculously expensive (1.33 PE goods for 1 FP), but it would be cool to have a Chateau in IA.

I'm also trying to formulate a balance in the means of progression incentives. As it does seem to be discouraged at times. That's something that I think can confuse a lot of new players and their interest in the game. Cause looking at the tech tree alone, from a new game and only getting 24 hourly fp. Is already overwhelming, Then nearly every strategy and advanced player will tell you to not progress. It seems contradictory and easily intimidating.

I know this is a very hot take, but I think if a player doesn't spend at least 2 weeks researching the game and thinking of a long-term strategy on the get-go, they deserve to get screwed over by their lack of preparation.

 

[DeletedUser35475]

I just like steamrolling people in my hood, and like @Ognor the Hood said, it would be awesome to be in a lower age and have these insanely high-level GBs, especially ones that are of later ages. On my US main, I'm going to camp in IA for at least until I get my Arc set up and to lvl 80 and powerlevel my GBs to some crazy levels. There's just something thrilling about intimidating people with a glorious city at such a low age.

How many people do you think actually bother to look at your city? I've looked at maybe 20 in about a year.

 

[DeletedUser35712]

How many people do you think actually bother to look at your city? I've looked at maybe 20 in about a year.

If you plunder the heck out of people, and have a million points in IA, sure they'll look.

 

[DeletedUser31592]

How many people do you think actually bother to look at your city? I've looked at maybe 20 in about a year.

I typically only load cities by accident. Or because they auto load after I win a battle. I rarely go snooping around.

 

[DeletedUser10720]

I know this is a very hot take, but I think if a player doesn't spend at least 2 weeks researching the game and thinking of a long-term strategy on the get-go, they deserve to get screwed over by their lack of preparation.

While I do agree with the idea that everyone needs a long term strategy and do their research into game mechanics and such. It does take a while to get a grasp on for a new player. With forge in particular, being one of the rarer games that have permanent decisions at pretty much every step. The vast majority of games are fluid in those decisions and most can be undone or you can load from an earlier point. I don't want to alter that permanence in forge. It's one of the best aspects to the game in my opinion. So I'm torn in my agreement here. Because I don't think a new player should be punished for approaching the game and basically following the directions given during the tutorial and continuing progress based on quest direction.

I think there should be something that comes up around the end of BA / start of IA. something like a goal list or strategy guide. That can show someone very new that there are several playstyles and goals to reach. As well as a few quick tips on strategy.

I also think that an update to the end-game is in order. As many have pointed out above, ages above CE have at best, mixed reviews. Leaving many people to feel like that increased cost and challenge has no extra value or reward. So I believe adding a new layer onto these high ages with something more to it, could bring their appeal back up and make the end game more entertaining.
----

And for the record, while I look at significantly fewer cities since the aid button was added, I do check out a few hoodies every week just to see who is ahead of me and what they're doing.

The disorganization I see, even in VF/ OF cities makes me want to cry sometimes.

 

[Graviton]

New cities can be started at any time, to try again and avoid any mistakes made the first time through. This forum contains tons of helpful advice and different perspectives, and videos can be found on YouTube that cover different strategies and different ways to play the game. So I don't think there's any need at all for an in-game strategy guide, or any other in-game help. Players learn as they go and can seek out advice and guidance if they want to, I see no need for any hand-holding beyond the existing tutorial.

 

[DeletedUser35475]

If you plunder the heck out of people, and have a million points in IA, sure they'll look.

I wouldn't.

I have been in a guild with an IA camper for about 4 months. I only looked at his city when someone posted a congrats for him reaching 1.2 million points and it was exactly what I thought it would be, Arc, Inno, DT and other up aged GB. Reaching 1.2 mil is impressive but are people impressed when they see GB's?