IHATEFAGS wrote:I liked the game. It's probably the best sandbox game. But u can't do anything if u started like 2 weeks after the start, cause u get owned by fags who don't sleep and eat, but play. Because of the people, this game is shit. U can't play this game for pleasure, it must be a job. If there were more restrictions and caps on skills i would give it a try, but now "wins the one who has no life, aka fagonerds and housewifes"
Exactly how I feel. Well said, would perhaps look better with less rage though.
This is what my friend wrote on this (from a very casual players view):
Not with the harsh realities that exist within the game, where drunk Russian assholes with items I could only dream of owning roll through and crush my little hamlet that took me weeks upon weeks of casual play to build. That is a big, big flaw.
Don't get me wrong- I love consequential games. Games with perma-death, games where victories are real and fleeting, even if they're only modest wins. But this extreme, and with no limiters on who kills or destroys who and what and for whatever reason? That's a breeding ground for assholes.
Let me quantify it. If there are five casual gamers (like us) making a village, but one hardcore player can roll in and CRUSH us with no problem or risk to himself, I have some serious issues with balance. That is stupid game design, and horribly imbalanced. Yes, he should be able to beat us one on one- he's put in the time, we haven't. Maybe even beat two of us, at least if we lack the player-skill to win (like Mount and Blade). However, in a world with, literally NO repercussions, in a virtual world people will return to wretched anarchy and awfulness (read: 4chan).
No balancing factors were put into place. Poor choice on the designers' part.