Waiting on update 5.3

[Tower]

We were "promised" that update 5.3 were not far away and defiantly not months away, but days turn into weeks and weeks into months...
So, we are all (at least I) growing impatient...

Any news on 5.3 and what it will bring?
Mensa Musa?
Stronghold - a stronghold which you cannot donate just troop cards too... Perhaps this is the hold back... they are changing this thanks to the massive negative response in the forum..

What else can we expect?
Can we hope dreaming for WW replays?

 

[JuDomines]

Return of the training blessing and reduction of damage if demolition on resource buildings will be more than welcomed.

 

[Bowmore]

"we’ll be introducing a new building in early 2017: the Stronghold." This is now the 3rd week of the new year. They never "promise" anything regarding release timing. Try a little patience, and enjoy what we have today. The Assassin event was great !

 

[Green Master]

And get rid of the snow

 

[Quovatis]

I don't expect the stronghold yet, but I do expect the trap blessing to be added back very soon. It's been too long.

 

[Empire Guard]

Trap blessing would be nice, but I am ok with a slight delay until the next update arrives. Need work more on the items we have before adding new things that take worker time.

 

[Nb4powerup]

The update is still coming with some neat surprises.

 

[BigKahunaDave]

Reduction of damage, on oil wells, from demolition tactic would be a "neat surprise"

 

[ColdestRage]

Fix for both sandbagers and Stalemates would be neat.
Don't need anything else than that

 

[Vixen]

yes ... the only neat update is the one that gets rid of sandbaggers and stalemates

 

[Tenacious D]

And mixed alliance sandbagging.

 

[Tower]

Nb4powerup; "some neat surprises" ooooh - so cryptic

 

[Mountainking]

The only neat update I want to hear is the NON INCLUSION of the stupid idea that is the Stronghold. Seriously.....Geez.

 

[S_How]

Ive never experienced this in our hundreds of wars. Every team aside from the top 20 developed teams is 'mixed' and existed just fine before glory for months and months. The only sandbagging everyone cares about, and the sandbagging Ive seen alliances youve been in use, is intentional manipulation of matchups using max atomics mixed with inactive iron age bases.

 

[S_How]

Im excited about stronghold, hoping its a good implementation. Added defense and reduction in troop cards sounds good to me. This should really help for stalemates.

But, like others in this thread, my biggest concern remains sandbagging. We are currently in a 35v35. All our team is within 3 ages of each other, all active and developed bases. The opponent is all global-atomic 1-27, and completely undeveloped bases from 28-35. Its lowering their level average from about 195 to about 155 (2 age differential). Our top atomic players will do ok, but our globals and industrials all have mirrors about 30-40 levels higher than them. They appear to be an offshoot of an already established alliance that just started. Because their glory is low, we stand to lose nearly 800 glory if they beat us with this mismatch. Until this is fixed, nothing else really matters to middleweight teams that have chosen not to load their rosters up with inactive irons (something that has to be bad for nexon?)

 

[K1ng_kriting]

maybe another gate acrros the embassy

 

[Tenacious D]

Alliances like Elite Generals have been using mixed level sandbagging since the beginning of time. No one cared until the glory system was instigated. Then all if these mixed sandbaggers, including your alliance, vaulted into the top 100. The old top 100 wondered why these weak alliances were getting all the glory. So they copied the same strategy.

You are right about one thing. Only the weak alliances are complaining about sandbagging. Just not about their version of sandbagging.

 

[poop_]

Tenacious D, maybe it was because the previous list of top alliances was based off medals not on winning wars....

I think anyone that knows anything would agree that getting medals and winning a war are very different things.

One is an individual effort and one is a team effort.

You may have brought up an interesting point though: those alliances that were good at winning wars (working as a team) were the ones that launched into the top 100 when glory was introduced, while the alliances that were good at getting medals (a very self-focused goal) fell off.

Stay with me.

So, not surprisingly, those players who are good at working together are now complaining about something that hurts the community, while others are saying, "Suck it up. I'm gonna get mine!"

Coincidence? Probably not.

Thank you for bringing that interesting observation to my attention. You probably meant to the whole time just wanted me to think it was my idea.. So sly lil Tenny D. This is why I love you!

 

[Feibs]

Tenacious D, i think ur view of sandbagging alliance is severely flawed. You call Elite Generals, an alliance that ranges from AA-IA a sandbagging alliance?? seriously?? u must be in a snobby elitist type alliance, cause our alliance is friendly and open to all ages as long as you install line for communications. Warring alliance members are selected based on understanding of war , a decent war base and agreeing with our alliance rules. We strictly do not run any non attacking members. We are a small but very close knit alliance, also we dont have that many members for us to segregate our members based on ages, this doesnt mean we are sandbagging. Dont run off your mouth without knowing anything, if anything ur just a serial labeller/troll

 

[DMT÷)]

As a member of the Elite Generals we are against sandbagging, cheats and hacks, if you need proof in-game Search us and look at our walls LOL. We accept players that are active having fun no matter what age they are, the enjoyment of the game is not just winning wars but playing as a team growing and helping people get stronger. So Tenacious D Is "Fake News" and only a disgruntled ex team member of us and many So Sad.