This topic is closed


9 Replies
28 January, 2015, 2:27 AM UTC

so I've always wondered what would happen if you attack a settlement and at the same time someone else attacks the same settlement. Today I found out and it is not pleasant. After scouting the settlement I sent a large force to take it over. When my army arrived I recieved two messages at the same time. One to inform me of my victory and the other to show me a battle report where my entire offensive army was destroyed. I don't understand why they would not give you at least a few seconds to get your offensive troops out of there. Unless of course it is to generate revenue. Personally I think this is a terrible mechanic and needs to be looked at. We're i 1 second late the other guy would be the one with no army. Settlements are a potentially fun area of content but losing every single unit due to poor game mechanics rather than poor decision making is pretty lame. Especially since you don't really gain much from settlements. Sent plarium a message but doubt they will even read it

UTC +0:00
Stephen Brandon
28 January, 2015, 5:02 AM UTC

Lord Mark.hainey I understand the frustration but there is not bad mechanics on this. Its sending your troops at settlement and someone else sent theirs so since your troops hit first next guys will destroy your offense. 

UTC +0:00
29 January, 2015, 8:25 AM UTC

What makes this a poor mechanic is the fact that I can't do anything about it. I can either assume the risk or avoid it altogether. And no I wasn't exaggerating. I was waiting to recall them the second they appeared and I got both mails at the same time. So in the milliseconds it took between them arriving and me getting the report I recieved two reports. A good game mechanic would allow you to negate some of the risk by skillful play.  

UTC +0:00
31 January, 2015, 1:11 AM UTC

I totally agree with Mike.Hainey. This need to be fixed. Why there are defensive units and offensive units. Maybe i want attack with my offence then place my defense instead of. Is it ok that 10 ppl attacks one settlement at one time. So u never know what u can expect... What is exciting about randomless. Its strategy game not Lucky Slots. And finally what is all about 6 saphires for hour. 

UTC +0:00
1 February, 2015, 12:50 AM UTC

i will have to agree with mark hainey here, but also in the same aspect i'd have to say that is just pure bad luck. if it really only took a millisecond or even 5 or 8 seconds for that matter i don't think you could have stopped it. that being said lets take this in to a metaphor -  "struck by lightning" (stool happens)

UTC +0:00
19 March, 2015, 7:53 PM UTC

As several people have pointed out, settlements aren't really that great.  Occasionally I've managed to hold on to one overnight and gained substantial resources, but usually they are only worth it when linked to a quest reward (i.e. capture a Sapphire Mine, gather resources from a Farming Village etc).

Since settlements aren't really that valuable tactically, I would suggest simply not sending large numbers of troops to them.

UTC +0:00
5 May, 2015, 11:11 PM UTC

I just avoid them altogether.  Of all the settlements I've captured, I've only been able to hold onto one for an hour once.  Too much of a hassle for very little reward.

UTC +0:00
29 September, 2015, 4:51 PM UTC
Is there any reward when you help another player to defend a settlement???
UTC +7:00
Amelia Stormfall
30 September, 2015, 9:37 AM UTC
andyliedel said:

Is there any reward when you help another player to defend a settlement???
You get experience points accordingly your losses, my Lord. 
UTC +0:00
1 October, 2015, 1:43 PM UTC
i will point out that you can mitigate the risk of offense being destroyed before you can pull out, by simply sending a large defensive reinforcement to the settlement before hand. This way, some of your offense will still get killed, but your defense will absorb the majority of the blow. 
UTC +4:00
1719469 users registered; 42308 topics; 270100 posts; our newest member:eidri.eidri