AN UNTOLD AMOUNT OF BEACONS FALL AS MADNESS ERUPTS

18 Replies
Lord Oberon
Administrator
15 May, 2017, 10:49 AM UTC

AN UNTOLD AMOUNT OF BEACONS FALL AS MADNESS ERUPTS
Check the latest Stormfall Chronicle episode here


Discuss below and have fun!


P.S. More episodes -> http://plarium.com/en/strategy-games/stormfall-age-of-war/chronicle/

Oberon, Heir of Veyon, Scion of the Firstborn, Lord Regent of Stormfall
UTC +2:00
test
15 May, 2017, 1:52 PM UTC
Talk about a big shake-up.   Hope everyone enjoyed the fun!
UTC +0:00
Roy
15 May, 2017, 6:47 PM UTC

Interesting Massacre, there were also some nice battles like Ratcoms and Pretoriani, or The Dragon taking down some beacons. 





On the Rebels side, Anarchy successfully took down one of our beacons, then they softened 2 more, but apparently was too much for them. 

UTC -3:00
djmoody
15 May, 2017, 9:27 PM UTC

I thought long and hard about this. Is massacre good for the game? 

We have had enough massacre's now to assess the event pretty well.

My conclusion is NO.

Massacre has created activity. You could argue whether it increases activity or just filters beacon activity into a small 24hr window. I suspect both are true to an extent. I'll be nice and say it's increased beacon activity slightly, rather than argue the point.

But that activity has come at a big price. It further unbalaced an already unbalanced game. It made it even more difficult for smaller leagues to take and hold beacons.

Before massacre a small league had to get about 50m in a beacon to get to the point where most people wouldn't want to take the losses to deal with it. 75m gave you a really good chance of holding and 100m sealed the deal for you. The troop loss to clear you was simply too high to justify for 1 beacon.

It wasn't easy to achieve this. You had to be well organised and get that level of defence in quickly. Limp in slowly and your forces would be destroyed and the beacon lost before you got most of your defence inside.

These days when a big league loses a beacon to a small league they simply wave their hands of it for a few weeks, knowing that they can evict a smaller league from even a 100m beacon with their hammer during massacre, for only a very minimal troop loss.

Small leagues never had the offence to take beacons. They still don't, even during massace. But they used to be able to jump in and steal beacons by virtue of quickly being able to move their defence. If they were successful in getting their defence inside, they could lock down a beacon for the foreseeable future.

Now having executed a difficult exercise flawlessly they are simply rewarded as a temporary squatter until beacon massacre.

A bit more activity (arguably) for greater imbalance wasn't the right direction for the game.


Everyone has a right to an opinion. No one has a right to their opinion being respected by other if it can't be backed up with rational and logic explanation
UTC +0:00
Jezebel
16 May, 2017, 1:48 AM UTC
djmoody said:

I thought long and hard about this. Is massacre good for the game? 

We have had enough massacre's now to assess the event pretty well.

My conclusion is NO.

Massacre has created activity. You could argue whether it increases activity or just filters beacon activity into a small 24hr window. I suspect both are true to an extent. I'll be nice and say it's increased beacon activity slightly, rather than argue the point.

But that activity has come at a big price. It further unbalaced an already unbalanced game. It made it even more difficult for smaller leagues to take and hold beacons.

Before massacre a small league had to get about 50m in a beacon to get to the point where most people wouldn't want to take the losses to deal with it. 75m gave you a really good chance of holding and 100m sealed the deal for you. The troop loss to clear you was simply too high to justify for 1 beacon.

It wasn't easy to achieve this. You had to be well organised and get that level of defence in quickly. Limp in slowly and your forces would be destroyed and the beacon lost before you got most of your defence inside.

These days when a big league loses a beacon to a small league they simply wave their hands of it for a few weeks, knowing that they can evict a smaller league from even a 100m beacon with their hammer during massacre, for only a very minimal troop loss.

Small leagues never had the offence to take beacons. They still don't, even during massace. But they used to be able to jump in and steal beacons by virtue of quickly being able to move their defence. If they were successful in getting their defence inside, they could lock down a beacon for the foreseeable future.

Now having executed a difficult exercise flawlessly they are simply rewarded as a temporary squatter until beacon massacre.

A bit more activity (arguably) for greater imbalance wasn't the right direction for the game.


Well said I agree with this totally
UTC +0:00
Trentos
17 May, 2017, 4:22 AM UTC

Too true DJ. I'm not a fan of the massacre events. 

I also wanted to question the author on the following statement

"Meanwhile, in the Western marches, the Unforgiven Knights were once again wiped off the map, an event that Destiny has repeated over and over again at their enemy's expense"

Whoever wrote this needs their head read. To my knowledge Unforgiven Knights lost near zero defense, even though finishing in 15th position for the massacre event. NOT ONE BEACON WAS DOWNGRADED. 

All I saw is Unforgiven Knights jump back into the top 20 leagues while this massacre was happening, and Destiny continue their petty daily ponging of lv1 beacons using accounts of players that have long quit the game. Meanwhile Destiny lost their last two beacons and have fallen further down the rankings. Just saying....

UTC +11:00
Jezebel
17 May, 2017, 6:02 AM UTC

Trentos said:


Too true DJ. I'm not a fan of the massacre events. 

I also wanted to question the author on the following statement

"Meanwhile, in the Western marches, the Unforgiven Knights were once again wiped off the map, an event that Destiny has repeated over and over again at their enemy's expense"

Whoever wrote this needs their head read. To my knowledge Unforgiven Knights lost near zero defense, even though finishing in 15th position for the massacre event. NOT ONE BEACON WAS DOWNGRADED. 

All I saw is Unforgiven Knights jump back into the top 20 leagues while this massacre was happening, and Destiny continue their petty daily ponging of lv1 beacons using accounts of players that have long quit the game. Meanwhile Destiny lost their last two beacons and have fallen further down the rankings. Just saying....

I think they got the time frames confused Destiny took their beacons and fortress down over a month ago?  And you keep trashing Destiny but the players that hit Knights were all quitting the game - they were on their way out and wanted to use their armies that they spent so much time building before they left the game for good


I didn't pay much attention to the last massacre as I think they have damaged the game but maybe they ponged some beacons ....

UTC +0:00
Trentos
17 May, 2017, 6:52 AM UTC

Jezebel said:


Trentos said:


Too true DJ. I'm not a fan of the massacre events. 

I also wanted to question the author on the following statement

"Meanwhile, in the Western marches, the Unforgiven Knights were once again wiped off the map, an event that Destiny has repeated over and over again at their enemy's expense"

Whoever wrote this needs their head read. To my knowledge Unforgiven Knights lost near zero defense, even though finishing in 15th position for the massacre event. NOT ONE BEACON WAS DOWNGRADED. 

All I saw is Unforgiven Knights jump back into the top 20 leagues while this massacre was happening, and Destiny continue their petty daily ponging of lv1 beacons using accounts of players that have long quit the game. Meanwhile Destiny lost their last two beacons and have fallen further down the rankings. Just saying....

I think they got the time frames confused Destiny took their beacons and fortress down over a month ago?  And you keep trashing Destiny but the players that hit Knights were all quitting the game - they were on their way out and wanted to use their armies that they spent so much time building before they left the game for good


I didn't pay much attention to the last massacre as I think they have damaged the game but maybe they ponged some beacons ....

"Destiny took their beacons and fortress down over a month ago?"

We are talking maybe closer to 6 months ago now. The author definitely does has his time frames confused. And Unforgiven Knights fortress was never downgraded.

I'd love to see the authors of Chronicles articles put their name to their literary works. Sometimes you have to wonder where they come up with such propaganda. 

UTC +11:00
gildore
17 May, 2017, 7:16 AM UTC
djmoody said:

I thought long and hard about this. Is massacre good for the game? 

We have had enough massacre's now to assess the event pretty well.

My conclusion is NO.

Massacre has created activity. You could argue whether it increases activity or just filters beacon activity into a small 24hr window. I suspect both are true to an extent. I'll be nice and say it's increased beacon activity slightly, rather than argue the point.

But that activity has come at a big price. It further unbalaced an already unbalanced game. It made it even more difficult for smaller leagues to take and hold beacons.

Before massacre a small league had to get about 50m in a beacon to get to the point where most people wouldn't want to take the losses to deal with it. 75m gave you a really good chance of holding and 100m sealed the deal for you. The troop loss to clear you was simply too high to justify for 1 beacon.

It wasn't easy to achieve this. You had to be well organised and get that level of defence in quickly. Limp in slowly and your forces would be destroyed and the beacon lost before you got most of your defence inside.

These days when a big league loses a beacon to a small league they simply wave their hands of it for a few weeks, knowing that they can evict a smaller league from even a 100m beacon with their hammer during massacre, for only a very minimal troop loss.

Small leagues never had the offence to take beacons. They still don't, even during massace. But they used to be able to jump in and steal beacons by virtue of quickly being able to move their defence. If they were successful in getting their defence inside, they could lock down a beacon for the foreseeable future.

Now having executed a difficult exercise flawlessly they are simply rewarded as a temporary squatter until beacon massacre.

A bit more activity (arguably) for greater imbalance wasn't the right direction for the game.



UTC +1:00
gildore
17 May, 2017, 7:19 AM UTC
As one of those 'small' leagues I couldn't agree more. There is a sort of resigned acceptance that there will be no beacon for the likes of us and a lot of players are leaving because of it. It causes apathy and a feeling of hopelessness in many. Me included at times. Well said
UTC +1:00
Jezebel
17 May, 2017, 3:25 PM UTC
Trentos said:

Jezebel said:


Trentos said:


Too true DJ. I'm not a fan of the massacre events. 

I also wanted to question the author on the following statement

"Meanwhile, in the Western marches, the Unforgiven Knights were once again wiped off the map, an event that Destiny has repeated over and over again at their enemy's expense"

Whoever wrote this needs their head read. To my knowledge Unforgiven Knights lost near zero defense, even though finishing in 15th position for the massacre event. NOT ONE BEACON WAS DOWNGRADED. 

All I saw is Unforgiven Knights jump back into the top 20 leagues while this massacre was happening, and Destiny continue their petty daily ponging of lv1 beacons using accounts of players that have long quit the game. Meanwhile Destiny lost their last two beacons and have fallen further down the rankings. Just saying....

I think they got the time frames confused Destiny took their beacons and fortress down over a month ago?  And you keep trashing Destiny but the players that hit Knights were all quitting the game - they were on their way out and wanted to use their armies that they spent so much time building before they left the game for good


I didn't pay much attention to the last massacre as I think they have damaged the game but maybe they ponged some beacons ....

"Destiny took their beacons and fortress down over a month ago?"

We are talking maybe closer to 6 months ago now. The author definitely does has his time frames confused. And Unforgiven Knights fortress was never downgraded.

I'd love to see the authors of Chronicles articles put their name to their literary works. Sometimes you have to wonder where they come up with such propaganda. 

Destiny took their beacons several times but they took them down along with the fort less than six months ago, I think your confused because it happened so many times :)  This may explain why recent events there were few defense losses because they probably don't have much left
UTC +0:00
Roy
17 May, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

djmoody said:


I thought long and hard about this. Is massacre good for the game? 

We have had enough massacre's now to assess the event pretty well.

My conclusion is NO.

Massacre has created activity. You could argue whether it increases activity or just filters beacon activity into a small 24hr window. I suspect both are true to an extent. I'll be nice and say it's increased beacon activity slightly, rather than argue the point.

But that activity has come at a big price. It further unbalaced an already unbalanced game. It made it even more difficult for smaller leagues to take and hold beacons.

Before massacre a small league had to get about 50m in a beacon to get to the point where most people wouldn't want to take the losses to deal with it. 75m gave you a really good chance of holding and 100m sealed the deal for you. The troop loss to clear you was simply too high to justify for 1 beacon.

It wasn't easy to achieve this. You had to be well organised and get that level of defence in quickly. Limp in slowly and your forces would be destroyed and the beacon lost before you got most of your defence inside.

These days when a big league loses a beacon to a small league they simply wave their hands of it for a few weeks, knowing that they can evict a smaller league from even a 100m beacon with their hammer during massacre, for only a very minimal troop loss.

Small leagues never had the offence to take beacons. They still don't, even during massace. But they used to be able to jump in and steal beacons by virtue of quickly being able to move their defence. If they were successful in getting their defence inside, they could lock down a beacon for the foreseeable future.

Now having executed a difficult exercise flawlessly they are simply rewarded as a temporary squatter until beacon massacre.

A bit more activity (arguably) for greater imbalance wasn't the right direction for the game.




Well, from the Rebels, we don't play the Beacon Massacre, if someone wants to hit us, fine, we'll take care after the event 
UTC -3:00
Jezebel
17 May, 2017, 6:28 PM UTC
Mad Roy said:

djmoody said:


I thought long and hard about this. Is massacre good for the game? 

We have had enough massacre's now to assess the event pretty well.

My conclusion is NO.

Massacre has created activity. You could argue whether it increases activity or just filters beacon activity into a small 24hr window. I suspect both are true to an extent. I'll be nice and say it's increased beacon activity slightly, rather than argue the point.

But that activity has come at a big price. It further unbalaced an already unbalanced game. It made it even more difficult for smaller leagues to take and hold beacons.

Before massacre a small league had to get about 50m in a beacon to get to the point where most people wouldn't want to take the losses to deal with it. 75m gave you a really good chance of holding and 100m sealed the deal for you. The troop loss to clear you was simply too high to justify for 1 beacon.

It wasn't easy to achieve this. You had to be well organised and get that level of defence in quickly. Limp in slowly and your forces would be destroyed and the beacon lost before you got most of your defence inside.

These days when a big league loses a beacon to a small league they simply wave their hands of it for a few weeks, knowing that they can evict a smaller league from even a 100m beacon with their hammer during massacre, for only a very minimal troop loss.

Small leagues never had the offence to take beacons. They still don't, even during massace. But they used to be able to jump in and steal beacons by virtue of quickly being able to move their defence. If they were successful in getting their defence inside, they could lock down a beacon for the foreseeable future.

Now having executed a difficult exercise flawlessly they are simply rewarded as a temporary squatter until beacon massacre.

A bit more activity (arguably) for greater imbalance wasn't the right direction for the game.




Well, from the Rebels, we don't play the Beacon Massacre, if someone wants to hit us, fine, we'll take care after the event 
if everyone felt this way the beacon massacres would be a failure and maybe discontinue but as long as people keep playing them they will keep happening :(
UTC +0:00
test
18 May, 2017, 3:19 AM UTC

Trentos said:


"Destiny took their beacons and fortress down over a month ago?"

We are talking maybe closer to 6 months ago now. The author definitely does has his time frames confused. And Unforgiven Knights fortress was never downgraded.

I'd love to see the authors of Chronicles articles put their name to their literary works. Sometimes you have to wonder where they come up with such propaganda. 

Alright everyone, you're gonna need to sit down for this next comment that I'm about to make...


-------


I agree with Trentos.


--------


There, I said it.  Waaaahooooo!!!


Who woulda thought the day would ever come?  haha


It would be great to see the authors name placed somewhere in every chronicle article, so that we can all see who is writing each segment. 

UTC +0:00
Trentos
18 May, 2017, 3:31 AM UTC

See Test, it's not that hard  I don;t see why the authors wouldn't want to claim their work, unless it was BS propaganda and they wish to remain anonamous?


As for Jezebel,

"Destiny took their beacons several times but they took them down along with the fort less than six months ago, I think your confused because it happened so many times :) This may explain why recent events there were few defense losses because they probably don't have much left"

I really think you are getting your leagues confused. Fortress was NEVER taken down (downgraded), either was a beacon for at least 3months, probably closer to 6months.

UTC +11:00
Jezebel
20 May, 2017, 4:34 PM UTC

Trentos said:


See Test, it's not that hard  I don;t see why the authors wouldn't want to claim their work, unless it was BS propaganda and they wish to remain anonamous?


As for Jezebel,

"Destiny took their beacons several times but they took them down along with the fort less than six months ago, I think your confused because it happened so many times :) This may explain why recent events there were few defense losses because they probably don't have much left"

I really think you are getting your leagues confused. Fortress was NEVER taken down (downgraded), either was a beacon for at least 3months, probably closer to 6months.

darn i think you are right you all really should form some kind of individuality rather than try to be of one mind - it really doesn't work that well 


UTC +0:00
Trentos
21 May, 2017, 3:42 AM UTC

Jezebel said:


Trentos said:


See Test, it's not that hard  I don;t see why the authors wouldn't want to claim their work, unless it was BS propaganda and they wish to remain anonamous?


As for Jezebel,

"Destiny took their beacons several times but they took them down along with the fort less than six months ago, I think your confused because it happened so many times :) This may explain why recent events there were few defense losses because they probably don't have much left"

I really think you are getting your leagues confused. Fortress was NEVER taken down (downgraded), either was a beacon for at least 3months, probably closer to 6months.

darn i think you are right you all really should form some kind of individuality rather than try to be of one mind - it really doesn't work that well 


You THINK I'm right? Sure you don't KNOW I'm right 55555

The rest of your post makes no sense at all sorry
UTC +11:00
Jezebel
21 May, 2017, 8:15 PM UTC
Trentos said:

Jezebel said:


Trentos said:


See Test, it's not that hard  I don;t see why the authors wouldn't want to claim their work, unless it was BS propaganda and they wish to remain anonamous?


As for Jezebel,

"Destiny took their beacons several times but they took them down along with the fort less than six months ago, I think your confused because it happened so many times :) This may explain why recent events there were few defense losses because they probably don't have much left"

I really think you are getting your leagues confused. Fortress was NEVER taken down (downgraded), either was a beacon for at least 3months, probably closer to 6months.

darn i think you are right you all really should form some kind of individuality rather than try to be of one mind - it really doesn't work that well 


You THINK I'm right? Sure you don't KNOW I'm right 55555

The rest of your post makes no sense at all sorry
Unforgivens were a group of leagues who all had the same banners and "unforigiven" in their names - Emps included until they got their own banner and removed unforgiven from their name - its really easy to mix kings and knights up - you are not the same league nor do you appear to work together 
UTC +0:00
Spectral Knight
22 September, 2017, 8:42 AM UTC
we dont need to appear to work together in unforgiven just know we do in one form or another
UTC +2:00
1721635 users registered; 42508 topics; 271455 posts; our newest member:ray.a