Coins or Packets?

Which do you perfer, coins or packets?

  • Total voters
    53

the uber luberz

Guest
pyker42 said:
As was said, packet worlds are not easy. The solution to your initial problem only solves that initial problem. It does bring it's own risks and as well the rewards. The point of such settings(and I have enjoyed worlds with those settings, W19 comes immediately to mind as one of my all-time favs that I have played) is to make the game more challenging, and some might even dare say, fun. If it is not your style, and you prefer to be able to time your support to stack your new prize and never worry about what the incoming list might look like when you capture the village, then staying away from such settings would be a good idea. Others of us prefer to excitement. I mean, after all, it may be a pain in the ass to lose all those resources put into the noble, but what is a game without some excitement?

As for actual help instead of ranting, there really is nothing you can do except send support as soon as you obtain the village, or risk over-nobling yourself and sending full D escorts with the final noble. Things you can do to minimize the chances of being sniped would be to noble villages close enough to your own villages, or villages of your tribemates, that you can quickly support them. In terms of a drawn out war between major tribes, this equates to constantly shifting village specialization and keeping the immediate front lines as defense villages to be able to provide quick support.

Of course, doing this means that your offense will be coming from farther out and therefore the chances your opponent will be able to stack gets higher.

As with everything in this game, it is about trade-offs. The trade-off you get between coins and packets is this: coins make the game easier and more automatic. Packets make the game more interesting, but harder to stay on top of.
Click to expand...

Agreed, it is about preference. I hope you know I am not saying one setting is definitively better than the other, but expressing my preference and the reasons for it is the point of the thread. Generally I do stay away from packet worlds, since to me excessively large wastes of resources does not equal "excitement". Its just annoying.

Its not about the incomings, its about the unneccesary and senseless waste of resources through something that really makes little sense in a war game. The trade-offs you describe have the effect of actually slowing the game down if you try to mitigate risk through implementing the strategies you described, to me that makes it less exciting. My issue isn't so much with the idea of packets in general, just the consumption of them upon nobling. But as far as I know, you can't have one without the other.

More resources being used up because the owner of the defending village decided to attack them self just makes no sense to me when thinking about a real-life parallel. But I suppose the same can be said for most game actions when analyzed that closely.
 
Last edited:

DeletedUser

Guest
the uber luberz said:
Agreed, it is about preference. I hope you know I am not saying one setting is definitively better than the other, but expressing my preference and the reasons for it is the point of the thread. Generally I do stay away from packet worlds, since to me excessively large wastes of resources does not equal "excitement". Its just annoying.
Click to expand...
Oh, most definitely I understand that you are expressing your preference and I, mine. I'm just pointing out that if you feel settings such as that to be detrimental to the game, then not playing a world like that is a better option, don't you think? :lol:

the uber luberz said:
Its not about the incomings, its about the unneccesary and senseless waste of resources through something that really makes little sense in a war game. The trade-offs you describe have the effect of actually slowing the game down if you try to mitigate risk through implementing the strategies you described, to me that makes it less exciting. My issue isn't so much with the idea of packets in general, just the consumption of them upon nobling. But as far as I know, you can't have one without the other.
Click to expand...
They only slow down the people who do not take the time to plan strategies anyway with this game. And, yeah, it is more exciting to not have any idea what is going to happen to your new village after you capture it. That's not to say that with a coin world, or a world you can time support with the conquer on there is no risk to losing the village immediately, it is simply a much greater risk with no outside support settings activated.

Of course, that is simply my opinion. To me the biggest problem with this game is the mundane routine and redundancy of managing everything. If nobling becomes routine and mundane, then what is left to enjoy in the game? (Besides the forums? :lol:)

the uber luberz said:
More resources being used up because the owner of the defending village decided to attack them self just makes no sense to me when thinking about a real-life parallel. But I suppose the same can be said for most game actions when analyzed that closely.
Click to expand...
You just answered your own question. :icon_wink:

But, quite obviously, to each his own. And by that I mean yay packets. :icon_biggrin:
 

Repinski

Guest
PYKER!!!!!!!!!!!! <3 <3 <3 Oh and Coins all the way. I grew up on them.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
repinski said:
PYKER!!!!!!!!!!!! <3 <3 <3 Oh and Coins all the way. I grew up on them.
Click to expand...

^ this.

I 'grew up' using the coin system and find it a far better way of nobling and the like. Stuff the extra costs (or whatever), its the same for everyone. :p
 

Repinski

Guest
The fact that I agree with Lewder means that hell has officially frozen over....
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Pfft, and I thought winter woolies was funny. Jumpers is laik...... ultra rofl!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top