Are we entitled to a proper explanation then?
Thirded.
From my own point of view, I have used camps several times and believe that they offer to large an advantage to the attacker, if used correctly they are virtually impossible to defend against, I must have nobled 40 villas using them with 100% success rate. Can only assume this has something to do with it (not me but the advantage they give).
I would say if this is the case it would be better to put additional constraints on them, some examples might be:
- Designated as pure O or pure D, no mixed camps.
- Restricted from attacking villas within 12hr radious or something to give defenders a chance
- Restricted to being built x fields from tribes villa or within a church zone in order to remain religous
- I also personally think they are too cheap and should have an incremental pricing system.
- You could also make them player specific so the player has to pay rather than the tribe
Its disappointing that we the players and customers have not been asked our opinion, at the minute seems like the decision has been made by people not even playing the game with them.
I would also rather they where switched off much sooner, otherwise we're going to spend the next 5 weeks with tribes sticking random camps every where which is going to get pretty annoying. Better to switch them off now and refund the coins donated by active players (sure mr lucaboy will agree
)