Field Battles becoming obsolete!

[DeathQueen]

Hi, I received this message in game

Gameplay changes
[14.02.2013 14:43:50]
The following changes will take effect on February 28:
1. The archers ‘attack value of the attacker will be divided in 5 during fortress siege.
2. Army recovery after battle:
- in a field battle, the defender will always have his army recovered as if he were a winner, even if he had lost the battle;
- in fortress siege, the defender will have his field army recovered as if he were a winner, if he wins the fortress siege itself
3. The 6 hours mandatory offline block will be removed from the game.

Well As you see, field battles now are only a waste of the attacker's armies. So you attack and you win and loose some soldiers but the defender always has his army magically healed!

The only way to destroy a defender's army is a Fortress Siege. Otherwise the attacker always looses. I hope I understand this right. I think it means the Field Battles are useless anymore.

[Mexicane]

I think the most biggest mistake is to take out the 6 hours break

[-qc-stones]

I think the most biggest mistake is to take out the 6 hours break

That's exactly what I said in the french forum. Why changing all the rules???


The field battle have to disapeard if they do that!!! And why doing that??? What IO think when they make that decision??? Why dont you just go back 5 years ago and put the option to participated or not into a field battle. It was like that in the V1 of IO. 


They ask in polls, What might make you leave the game: My answer, changing rules as you do know!!!

[brrano]

this is the worst rule change

[ratko]

That's exactly what I said in the french forum. Why changing all the rules???

The field battle have to disapeard if they do that!!! And why doing that??? What IO think when they make that decision??? Why dont you just go back 5 years ago and put the option to participated or not into a field battle. It was like that in the V1 of IO.  

I guess , many new or occasional players leave this game after they get knock down and they lose their army.
With these changes players like them will be more protected.
Heads of IO are probably thinking it will create larger player community.

If it does , which I doubt, it will create a new game for new players.
The large chests openers, diamond spending, lazy farmers.

Good luck IO !

[DeathQueen]

We were all once new players, the game was hard at first but after a round or two, you get to read and learn from your mistakes. It's a game some one will always win and another will loose.

I think they're doing this change to protect players from Mulits. I think this is how it goes, One big multi kills your army then other small players farm you. Yes it it bad I agree but why do we have field battles then? There is no point in keeping them now. I think it would have been better if they would just cancel Field Battles and adjust Siege Battles so that the Attacker gets to reset their Morale back to Max after the field rounds and before the siege. This way I can say it's a meaningful change.

But this way is actually adding more stagnancy to the game, now a strong player will always be protected leaving their armies at home cause no matter what you do in a field battle will never touch them in the end. So if they have a powerful fortress you can't kick a larger player ever.

Terrible change.

[ovizxc]

over 80% from io players disagree these rules and "they said they want to improve the quality of services" with these rules 

[GOONS]

Who cares what you think for the new rules  you just pay to play....you are not the man who make the rules  .... if they back at least the Enter hiering army i mide think whit the countinuing playing ...and it was like that and in Version 4 btw...at least when i was playing it...whit the reatriting i mean  .... worst and worst rules...bigger comunity...ok lets see