I'm seeing a new trend in some duels, whereby players are destroying nuetral mines and walls in an attempt to gain experience to win games.

My suggestion is that any nuetral buildings destroyed should yield no experience. Player owned buildings should still give points, just not the nuetral buildings.

I'd go along with that.

I'd definitely support that.

Thumbs up.

Sounds good to me.

I disagree with this. Why? Well, not to be oppositional, that's for sure. I think that the so-called neutral mines should be worth experience points due simply to the fact that they are worth something when owned. The fact that they give the enemy points for destroying should give both parties motivation to not simply play the straight-line, castle to castle assault - but instead to play the whole map and develop strategies to utilize and defend them.

Jmac

We should defend our resource buildings so that we can deny our enemies resources. We then have to reach a strategical decision of how many lives it's worth to deny them that particular quarry.

In a close game, we HAVE no decision. We MUST defend what would otherwise be a worthless quarry, because if we allow our opponent to kill it over and over, he'll gain enough exp to beat us.

Eventually we'll get players who realize that it's more worth it to just kill his own quarry rather than get the stone. Over the course of a 120 turn game, with resource buildings regenerating every 5 turns, that's almost 2000 exp you could get from a quarry...

ur balless if u need to win by score along in duels...u beat ur opponent and u simply win...simply win

a win is a win and if you're not significantly better than your opponent, you will NOT win by elimination. if both sides are evenly-matched or at least fairly close, it's gonna come down to points, plain and simple. if someone has a slight edge but isn't good enough to flat-out crush their opponent and they try to assault the castle anyway, they run a huge risk of losing the duel when they could have won.

It makes duels more interesting if you make them more turns. I think you need to b a member to do that tho.

-Biodus-

i agree whith bio on that one i had a great duel whith ethedog awile ago that i lost because i went in for a barracks kill i got the barracks and had a huge resorce advantage but lost the duel on time because i gave up the lead well attacking his barracks (by quite alot it must be said never attack ethedog in his castle!!)

had it went on longer he would have to have come up whith somthing to break my sieg befor my cats took out his new barracks (i had just produced my first 10 pop when the duel ended)

of cource he would have fought diffrently in a longer engagment but the point that when players are more equily matched a castle takover is all but impossible is very relavent and a longer game would be alot more fun

well, Crest... your mistake was waiting all day on a 10pop cat.

you shouldn't have waited any longer than 5 at MOST... but honestly, I would have immediately deployed on 1pop and started chipping away ASAP, sending out more 1pops as they came up... cats are ranged, so you can use more of them to attack the same thing. it was bad seige tactics on your part that caused the loss in that scenerio.

Bump. I've seen my duel opponents forgo taking over a quarry nearby their castle in order to kill it over and over throughout the game.

That's close to 1000 exp they gathered over the course of the game...

i didn;t know you could do that...cool

@ Sage

Well, doesnt he need stone to build towers to get the same range your units have in your towers? In that case I would say:

Poor opponent... he will lose though!

I agree with the 1st. five people on this issue,I bet most of the players agree also.

heh funny this has recently become a problem for me where my opp in a tight score took first, I just have to put a stop to it.

It was mostly the barbarians in the top corner of the map...Zues left them untouched, so there were a bunch of big, sticky ten pops to kill.

but you still harvested instead of taking them over, I don't mind it's part of the current game mechanics, just wish I thought of it before taking them, neither of us need the resources that's certain lol.

I'd like it to stay as it is. It is a minor thing but it adds to the variables, the more variables in a game the more complex don't you think? The player who learns and uses all the little nuances of the game knows to play every angle available to him. The more variables in a game the further from tic tac toe the game becomes...chess is a complex game with many variables, yet checkers is more like tic tac toe.

This minor change would have very little affect in most cases, the only way I've seen it effective is to force the other player to come out and fight. What are the point values?

mine, mill & quarry are worth 80 points, gem ponds 100 and gold mines 120. Then you have to wait 5 turns for them to regenerate. Well nobody is going to win a game that way are they.

It would seem a lot of work for such a small thing, I think I would rather see req work on other things like clans...leaders should be able to set pw for clan games, zoc issues corrected, and a few other suggestions I've seen. Perhaps a seperate link for clans beside priv games.