Achievements = Prestige

A simple idea really, basically to encourage more people to focus on the achievements aside from a few new ones is to give you prestige per hour based on you achievement score.

eg. achievement score is 500 points this will give you 500 prestige per DAY.

however a few new achievements would be great!

good idea but a 1 to 1 ratio would mean too much prestiege, especially for lower ranked playerss

not really. not many low levels have high achievement so would be only have maybe 10-30 achievement.so it wouldnt be that much pp per hour

That's good. I like it. It would call for more ppl focused on achievements along with regular play.

Good idea...but I dislike it. And here is why.

The achievement rankings are supposed to be a SEPARATE ranking form. If achievement is incorporated into your pp that eliminates achievement being a good measure of individual success in and of itself. Some players will choose to try and achieve a lot of achievement. Others won't. Personally, I don't put much stock in it mostly because you can't actually see your success in game which makes it not very viable to me as a measure of the game.

most people who have high achievements will just be big coin spenders though, even achievements can't be used to measure true skill, pvp is better for that

most people who have high achievements will just be big coin spenders though, even achievements can't be used to measure true skill, pvp is better for that

lol PVP doesnt do that either... nothing measures true skill till you take armies of an equalling prestige into battle against one another and have a good old whack at each other. then by a series of elimination the best players can be found

I know this is straying but Nathan wouldn't part of good skill be picking your own battles. Hunting troops ect not neccessarily te best commander

I know this is straying but Nathan wouldn't part of good skill be picking your own battles. Hunting troops ect not neccessarily te best commander

that is part of it,a small part as usually most people who claim this only choose battles that they are guarenteed to win with little or no losses and no commanding skill needed henceforth re3sulting in it being less of a skill and more of a risk averse strategy

But to calculate the possible differences. Personally. I would rather choose a fight that I have high chance of winning then going on commanding. But that's because that's how I always played. Not big on even fights lol