Everwinter Resource Villages

Damon78 · 11.02.2013

I am starting a new thread since I didn't see this topic in the main page. I am pretty upset.
I have sent out six expeditions for RV's and three of them have turned back without fighting because someone beat me to it. These are hundreds of clicks away, costing many coins and RUBIES to save travel time. Still, I am being beat to the few villages to be found and I am wasting time, money, rubies, and food to feed these useless troops!!! Why don't they fight for what they have travelled to get to? I want my costs back, expecially the rubies I wasted. 1500 on three trips to get the travel time now from 24 to 40 hours down to 4 to 6 hours, for what??? Wasted time, effort, and costs. This is a complete ripoff!!!!!
If someone is already going to the RV then I should get a notice that I cannot get it, if someone closer sets out for the RV then my troops should immedietly turn around, or magically reappear at my castle with the costs refunded. Again, this is a ripoff, I feel as if my actuall money has been stolen from me!!!!!!!!
I would add more but I think you get my drift.X(

Ante55 · 11.02.2013

This game is about taking risks and that's what makes it exciting, otherwise it would be boring...

Didn't Prince Hamlet say "To Be...Or not To Be" well I say the same thing about attacking except for a minor change like this "To attack...or not to attack..."

MaceLord · 11.02.2013

i agree there should be an update abut that

Damon78 · 11.02.2013

except that I am not attacking. That is my main complaint. If another player beats me to the village, my troops simply turn around. What the heck is that all about. I want a leader with balls who will attack what he went to secure in the first place.

Baldrick (GB1) · 11.02.2013

The thing is that if there was a rule where as soon as someone launches it is theirs then that would be unfair to those who are closer surely?

Also, if your troops actually fought whoever was in that village it would be mayhem. Can you imagine what it would be like if 20 players launched at the same village? 20 battles and the slowest would end up with it. Not good.

The system is the way it is because it's the fairest way.

Many players are leaving the game and there's really no excuse for not having villages in ice other than laziness. Keep searching for new villages and most importantly keep looking for players who have left the game that have RVs close to you. Do not, however attack ruin ed players RVs if they are still connected to an alliance, there will be a good reason for that.

Damon78 · 11.02.2013

This brings me to an interesting thought. I am not happy about the "fairest" way to run the server. It is silly to take such expensive risks with such a low rate of return. Not to mention I have wasted a lot of time looking for open villages. What happens if I send whatever troops and resources I have to my main castle and abandon the Everwinter site?

evets4 · 11.02.2013

You actually can't abandon your Everwinter castle.
Like Baldrick said, everyone fighting for the same RV would be crazy, and it's much beter with No Battle in my personal opinion.

Also, I can get RVs, and I use coin horses with Level 1 Stables and I'm not a ruby player..

Damon78 · 11.02.2013

The only way to increase resources, as far as I can tell, is to get RV's. They are few and very distant, making them very expensive. It is silly to take such a gamble. Maybe I can't abandon it, but I sure can ignore it. Like the complaints I see about the most recent campaign, this game sets objectives in front of you that are bottomless pits of effort. There should be more reward and less LOSS of risk capitol!

evets4 · 11.02.2013

Damon78 wrote: »

The only way to increase resources, as far as I can tell, is to get RV's. They are few and very distant, making them very expensive. It is silly to take such a gamble. Maybe I can't abandon it, but I sure can ignore it. Like the complaints I see about the most recent campaign, this game sets objectives in front of you that are bottomless pits of effort. There should be more reward and less LOSS of risk capitol!

Well, taking RVs isn't a dangerous gamble.
Just look on the borders, send 25 or so men without tools and use the stable to get there in a couple hours. Most of the time, you get the RV. I got all my RVs for the princely sum of less than 1K coins, because I only use coin horses-so I don't see how it is expensive.

Ignoring your Everwinter castle isn't a good idea too, because then people there will farm you for honor and resources. Later on, you'll also need it to level up. If you want to play the game for the rest of the time at level 30 or so, ignore your glacier castle.

ResinRubber · 11.02.2013

Do what you think is in the best interest of your own game strategy. Most RV complaints are due to laziness or impatience on the part of the complainer. Don't go for distant RV's if you don't like the risk. Wait patiently for a closer spawn or spend the time it takes to search out an RV attached to ruins. This one can take hours of scanning and looking.....but it works.

Damon78 · 11.02.2013

I can see the ruins, but no association with any RV's. ? They could be anywhere? Not sure how to work this out.....I am interested in this game but it seems there is quicksand everywhere

The Chosen · 11.02.2013

why cant you just kill those soldiers who take it before you? it would be the most fair method i could see if you already spent rubies to launch the attack...they left to take that RV, it doesnt matter if somebody else controls it/change in leadership doesnt matter because they should leave with that same RV since it was their mission to take it (excluding Pact and Allies)

evets4 · 12.02.2013

The Chosen wrote: »

why cant you just kill those soldiers who take it before you? it would be the most fair method i could see if you already spent rubies to launch the attack...they left to take that RV, it doesnt matter if somebody else controls it/change in leadership doesnt matter because they should leave with that same RV since it was their mission to take it (excluding Pact and Allies)

So the slowest wins?

Damon78 · 12.02.2013

What kind of arguement is that evets4? The most prepared and most armed wins. I spent my money and rubies and you can win by beating me with fewer resources and one minute quicker. That's fair?

Baldrick (GB1) · 12.02.2013

Damon78 wrote: »

What kind of arguement is that evets4? The most prepared and most armed wins. I spent my money and rubies and you can win by beating me with fewer resources and one minute quicker. That's fair?

That's nonsense.

If all attacks landed it would be attackers attacking attackers, everyone would win. It would be mayhem, as I said before. You take an RV and immediately you see 20 incoming attacks. That would cause more complaints than the current situation and believe me, you wouldn't like it.

The guy who launches a 12 hour attack could get it, that would be totally unfair.

When I joined Fire Peaks it took me three weeks to get my first RV. Did I complain? No, I just kept trying. Eventually you'll get RVs if you send enough attacks. It's all about percentages. Get one out of ten? Then send a hundred attacks. And if you can't afford the rubies then don't spend them.

Damon78 · 12.02.2013

Baldrick, I understand what you are saying. But, being first should not be a winning strategy. You could make an attack window, you could make it so you could see that attacks are already lauched. There are many ways the game could make it so I do not spend money that is wasted. I spent my hard earned money to make my journey as fast as possible and made sure I sent more than enough troops to take my target. There is no reason at all that simply being beat to the target is enough to waste my time, effort, and MONEY!

Baldrick (GB1) · 12.02.2013

I too understand your frustration but what you must remember is that if you were to see all the attacks on a target I think you would see what chaos this would bring.

My only advice is not to spend money (rubies) but instead take your time and try to launch as many attacks as you can.

As previously mentioned, it is possible to capture an ice RV with a very small number of troops and no tools. Sending as many attacks as you can will significantly increase your chances.

I just think an all out attack strategy for RVs is unworkable. If you were to see all the current attacks on that target and then launch accordingly what's to stop the next guy outgunning you? The RV would continually change hands as nobody would ever have the time to support it and with an open attack system it would never be owned by anyone, surely it would just be a constant target open to all.

Therwin1 · 12.02.2013

I can understand his fustration it took weeks for me to finally get one every day tring now I have 4 an its getting better I think that what makes it kind of unfair is that guys r grabbing 7-8 or more there should b a limit the early guys kept getting more an more until they were all gone the new guys that can get in have to wait until one opens up

Damon78 · 12.02.2013

Once again, other answers resolve this. If an attack window is set, then you have an understading, start now, start quick and win. No problem with bigger, faster is the answer. With a notification that another has already launched toward this target, no problem, you know not to launch. As it is, it is a money maker, and a rip off.

tigervarm2 · 12.02.2013

They do have a limit on rv`s. You are limited to 5 of each rv. Some players do have more because they had them before the rules changed and i have heared that those rv do not produce as much. Also if a player has more than 15 and looses one they are not able to get it back.

Baldrick (GB1) · 12.02.2013

Damon78 wrote: »

Once again, other answers resolve this. If an attack window is set, then you have an understading, start now, start quick and win. No problem with bigger, faster is the answer. With a notification that another has already launched toward this target, no problem, you know not to launch. As it is, it is a money maker, and a rip off.

But do you know not to launch? Unless it tells you the time to target then you can't know whether you would be faster or whether to launch or not. You could then simply send a faster attack to beat the one you can see, which leaves the previous attacker in the exact same situation again.

Then what would happen is that anyone who can get there faster would launch and get it so all those players who thought they would get there the fastest wouldn't and we'd be back in the same situation once more.

If you're talking about holding an RV for the first player to launch a capture then nobody would ever bother to hurry, everyone would send the slowest attack possible. This wold reduce income for GGS, who only continue to operate as a company by people buying rubies. They cold then abandon the attack after 9 minutes and 59 seconds and resend, holding that RV so that nobody else can take it.

I've thought about this a lot and there have been many, many suggestions but I have still to see one that is workable or any fairer than the current system.

Everwinter Resource Villages

Comments

Leave a Comment