wkiller wrote:Yesterday 3 guys destroyed my pallisade by hand in a couple of minutes, when the world is not even 1 month old. I think it is too easy for people to destroy everything. They did not even need to build a ram to destroy the walls. Maybe there need to be options to make your walls more secure so it cannot be destroyed without siege equipment. There was no chance defending or preparing against this attack. I like the mechanics of the game, but indeed i see that early on in the new world many people die and lose their property.
boshaw wrote:wkiller wrote:Yesterday 3 guys destroyed my pallisade by hand in a couple of minutes, when the world is not even 1 month old. I think it is too easy for people to destroy everything. They did not even need to build a ram to destroy the walls. Maybe there need to be options to make your walls more secure so it cannot be destroyed without siege equipment. There was no chance defending or preparing against this attack. I like the mechanics of the game, but indeed i see that early on in the new world many people die and lose their property.
Walls take 3 days to harden to prevent people from abusing them and trolling due to past issues. Once hard it can't be broken without siege.
Kearn wrote:ive been here for 14 years and know exactly what i need to do and when i need to do it after world start and none of it matters because some ape spamming naked bucket alts can just set up a bot to walk through half a supergrid worth of area and as long as he can cover every tile once within 8 hours it is impossible to ever set up a claim (let alone get a palisade to be left alone for 3 days so you can actually properly start the game) since any alt can just smash an unhardened claim in about 3 minutes
very cool to have massive area denial with zero recourse to anyone unwilling to spam alts and leantos (AKA defeating stupid game mechanic abuse with even dumber game mechanic abuse) to block the claim post. perhaps there may be some inherent flaws in this regime with respect to player retention
Robben_DuMarsch wrote:I'm not sure what, if any, takeaway there is to be had by this data. My gut feeling based on this data plus steam reviews and other anecdotal evidence is probably that spruce genocide is a contributing factor to the turnover, as people rarely cite gameplay concerns (other than perhaps light tutorial) when giving negative feedback on the game, but often cite negative player interactions.
Fostik wrote:Game reviews on steam at moment is Very Positive (492 reviews), but you cherry-picking bad ones to prove your point.
Users browsing this forum: BLEX [Bot], Claude [Bot] and 4 guests