Revert to Old Style MAX level 125 Battlground System. What are your thoughts?

10 Replies
26 January, 2016, 6:04 AM UTC
There has been alot of talk about how the players enjoyed the Battleground system when the Max level was 125.  Its well known that the new system has caused people to exhaust all their resources and totally quit the game.  I have seen 4 people personally delete their accounts because they lost all due to the difficulty and long rounds before a payout.  What is the Nord's community thoughts? 
UTC +5:00
26 January, 2016, 6:11 AM UTC
i believe  the game was better before , revert back
UTC +5:00
26 January, 2016, 6:33 AM UTC

Honestly, I wish they never changed it in the `1st place................

But OF COURSE Plarium saw how everybody was doing on the Battle grounds...and decided to make it more difficult with "seemingly" good rewards.... but of course one would have to PAY (in some way) to get their troops back or something.

Plarium is a money making business...they can't deny that.
Fighter Black Star Vega, Knights Templar.Warrior UNI
UTC +0:00
26 January, 2016, 7:18 AM UTC

As a company everyone needs to earn to be in market so we have to accept this with a broad mind instead of calling it a way in which it sounds bad.

2ndly no one wants to ruin their "Money Making Machine" nor they want to kill a hen who gives golden eggs.

So whatever changes has been brought to the game it is because they think it will do little better to players.

They want to keep players happy, if they won't than they can build audience.

Regarding this battle ground thing i will vote in favor of having 125 lvl battle ground. 

Payout system is not changed it is still the same, maybe we guyz have lost our patience while facing lags etc in the game.

Th' rougher th' seven seas, th' smoother we sail. Ahoy! ahead ye coward
UTC +3:00
26 January, 2016, 9:23 AM UTC

I think that 125 levels is more then enough. We are losing troops anyways and the higher the level the more troops we need to spend to pass it. Furthermore if your blood pact Highcliff is not high enough you can't really uphold your own in the battlegrounds (and the bloodpack cost a lot of scrolls and for a person that doesn't buy emerald it's nearly impossible to make it pass level 5).

So as for Plarium wanting money, in my opinion, it's a very good game and i think it's worth spending a bit, but people how can't afford to buy emerald will leave the game sooner then later which will cause in more gamers leaving the game. So i don't know if the problem is in the level system of the game for the battleground as much as the game progress without buying emerald. In my opinion, the game should offer a way for people to progress in the game without needing to pay money (or to pay a little bit) and the one's who do pay can get there faster.

In conclusion, I would like the battleground level to be up to level 125, it would be nice not to lose so much troops in the higher levels and get nothing in return (most of the times), but the game designers should think about making the game more affordable for those how can't pay for the game :). 
UTC +2:00
27 February, 2016, 1:48 AM UTC

I find it hilarious that they say the payout system hasnt changed.. Before this upgrade i would play bgs nd come out a head most days lose a lil another day but majority i was ahead.. The battles over 100 paid hout nicely enough to were i was h\very happy to do them. Now i will never do one over 100 as the cost to try it is doubled or tripled and the rewareds are maybe one out of 5 and the payout doesnt come close to the cost of 5 attempts. Mods and the customer support have repeately told me that they are the same but i been playing for very long time and i call bull**** on them. Even now i did the 5 bgs i had under 100 3 def adn 2 atks and in all 5 not one single payout.. You tell me that is how its supposed to work.. The defense side for levels no higher then 78(so 3 bgs 78 being highest) and it cost me 400k in defense... And no reward.. That is not how they used to work but again they will say all is fine take the blue pill you will understand... This game is fun is why i still play.. But this game is turning into a company deperate for funds and will to step on the lil guys(you know the ones the big guys pay to dominate) and eventually the lil guys will get bored they they cant even really pick on each other due to the admins making everything so costly that they will leave and the big guys will have no one to pick on but each other.. And that will get old quickly.. Wake up and fix your game so free players can also enjoy it survive grow and have a virtual lands to escape into.. We get f**ked over enough in real world dont need a game to do it to us too

Mod Edit: No Need to Shout (Using Capital letter for whole message)

Be nice while writing here instead of swearing. (FaZi)

UTC +7:00
27 February, 2016, 4:10 AM UTC
i would love to see it reverted back to a max lvl of 125 its was still challenging but reachable for average joes as they stand now i just went stone cold turkey on them iv'e seen too many quit the game as turbomaster has also said from either losing all to the bgs and not getting thier regular payouts when u put it outta reach of the average joes u just lose more revenue as its another area people lose interest in...
UTC +0:00
27 February, 2016, 6:41 AM UTC
I can't comment on reverting back as I joined the game late and started playing after they deployed the changes but listening to how the old birds complain I kind of support it as now I am lvl 71 and I can feel the burn.
UTC +8:00
Alyona Kolomiitseva
Community Manager
29 February, 2016, 11:19 AM UTC

I understand your pain, but the game evolves. Yes, it is getting harder to compete with others, harder to build your strategies, especially when you have no idea if the payout comes soon. I understand that many of you would like to see the lover level Battlegrounds. 

I have good news for you. We are working on the improvements of the Battleground systems. I do not know any time frames, so I cannot promise that you will see the changes soon, but I am sure that when the time comes, you will feel much better and you will enjoy raiding Battlegrounds again!
Plarium Community Manager. Please note that I will be unable to respond to your private messages, review your tickets, or check your account information. All technical issues should be directed to our Support Team at
UTC +2:00
1 March, 2016, 5:36 PM UTC

i think if we reverted to the old system it wold damage the game,

i think keeping it interesting might be the best method to go and doing that brings new challenges

we might not like what is given to us at first, seems nobody likes new change.

I think it's for the best, the challenge of finding a way to beat it brings a whole new life into the game  
I am a daughter of a High King who is not moved by this world for my God is with me and goes before me, I do not fear because im his
UTC +2:00
1 March, 2016, 6:45 PM UTC

I've been sitting on MAX BG of 73 for 3 months for this very reason.  The game penalizes you the higher you go.  At some point it becomes unplayable.  I too would like to see some kind of proportionality to the rewards of the play.  Regardless of what you moderators say, I can sit there and clear 2-3 rounds of BGs and at the end of it I'm typically at or slightly worse off than I was.  So from my experience it only makes sense to do them during BG tournaments or if there is an individual quest that pays something.  Outside of that mine sit there.  And the game was more interesting when it wasn't like this.  

I suspect that the system pays out after a certain trigger is threshold is reached and then the next BG you get paid.  But if you are 100K away from said trigger and you hit a BG that takes you down 200K in defense then you wasted that extra 100K and it doesn't get counted towards the next trigger.  It must be something like this because the results are NOT consistent to say it's directly connected to the resources you lose.  It's much more variable than that and the higher BGs you hit the more you get hosed.  That's why I believe it's possible that the above scenario or something like that where you lose the benefits of losses, is taking place.
UTC +4:00
1724608 users registered; 43496 topics; 271461 post; our newest member:saihaan