Quoting defintions = as lame as intarw3v arguing gets.Pretty spot on, if you ask me.
Guilds may have same "Avatar", but its true that colors are really close each other so sometimes it is hard see who is who before click sector.Yes, the owning Guilds' Avatar should / could be on every province owned
Uh huh. And arguing with that person isn't?Quoting defintions = as lame as intarw3v arguing gets.
And that's a nice way of refuting someone by saying they're distracting. Saying something isn't "deserved" is subjective and therefore an opinion. That's all there is to it.But it makes a nice distraction from you being wrong.
Another opinion.doubtlessly been smug
Not at all the same thing, but ok.Saying its not fair has the same hollow ting as those whining about being in a hood with players with big cities.
Uh huh. I'm doing something about it. I'm providing requested feedback, even though you think it's your job to police that feedback.Your choice. Now the game has added a new feature. You can whine about it, accept your lot as a lower tier Guild ,or do something about it.
I'm sure you'll find out when the rest of us do.Let me know how the whining works out for you.
I totally agree with this - our second round and already our little Guild of 13 is put up against 2 huge Guilds of 80 and 57 respectively. Also in our grouping are Guilds of 1 and 4 respectively - How is this even close to equitable?I'm not interested in your evaluation of who I am. Putting a 20-member guild that participates hard against an 80-member guild that may or may not participate equally as hard is an unfair matchup. You don't agree. I don't really care.
The usual amounts of points for spending goods. Just tried a 1x negotiation in mars and got about 300 points from it for spending 8 goods.Does anyone know what the player points are that are awarded for negotiations in GbG? I know the player points are calculated the same when you battle but have yet to see any player points awarded for negotiations.
I'm expecting that this will be an ongoing issue. Whatever algorithm Inno employ to allocate guilds into comps is bound to have flaws. Theoretically as the weeks progress it should get better but will probably never be perfect. (Like Hoods)I totally agree with this - our second round and already our little Guild of 13 is put up against 2 huge Guilds of 80 and 57 respectively. Also in our grouping are Guilds of 1 and 4 respectively - How is this even close to equitable?
As everyone has equal access to Siege Camps, how is this a problem? It's also only the second round. Last week everyone was speed building palaces. In my battlefields, I've also seen a large number of traps and fortresses. Again, second week. Folks are exploring strategies. The question is also, what is sustainable over the long term? Even with a guild filled with Arcs, guild goods are not infinite.After playing with battlegrounds, I have to say even this early that I think siege camps are too powerful and should probably be adjusted or have their effect changed completely. I know this opinion isn't going to be very popular with any players who read this, but I think it's a problem that one can look at the map and see pretty much every sector on it filled up with exclusively siege camps because bypassing the primary limiter for GbG participation is simply the best building benefit compared to anything else.
No, you're whining, saying 'It;s not fair' without offering reasonable alternatives.I'm providing requested feedback, even though you think it's your job to police that feedback.