The availability of type-C people would be considerably higher than type-A people if everyone were to ignore the mechanics of this game (a.k.a bosses, piling weapons, hitlisting) most in part due to the easiness of not having to do something versus doing something, although it would be a lesser fun game overall. Although one could argue both ways seeing as though you need a considerable amount of time to be a type-A person and doing the repetitive tedious tasks to be able to progress via fights via type-A persons is just as boring (a.k.a adding 1000 codes manually by hand). The only downside to everyone adopting this rationalized approach to gaining the most XP and reaching the highest end level is that the developers wouldn't be making money, or likewise there would be a much more serious problem of pointlessness from merely considering the ends to be several million clicks away without abstracting it as some principle of conflict.
You get more XP in totality per clicks-wise consuming stamina when targeting specific bosses (aka Power Attacks). However your overall XP per stamina efficiency is much higher when fighting people and this process would be streamlined if both individuals took turns attacking after one or the other leveled. While energy does fully return every level, stamina can be healed up fully once with a friend sending a boost and consuming it every 24 hours plus the daily 5, 10, 30, 50, 70 and 100% boosts.. making it much more worthwhile to dump points into stamina.
It almost seems like prisoner's dilemma for me. Guy A has 2 mobs. Guy B has 1 mob. Guy C has 0 mobs. Everyone wants to be like Guy A or better. You lose time, energy, effort and possibly money to be like Guy A. If everyone is Guy C, Guy A will never win. If everyone is Guy A, and you're Guy C, you'll be the one losing out. However its harder to be Guy A then it is to be Guy C. Cooperation/Level Partner with a relative strength of 2-3% difference = win-win. Differentiative strength vs everyone = lose-lose it seems.
I'm going to make an observation here. XP depends on maximum damage output and relative strength between two individuals. Assume a system where everyone does not bother to get mobs, weapons or stockpiled items. Now assume everyone puts their points mostly into stamina and health respectively with a modest amount in energy. If everyone fought eachother, they would gain maximal experience. They also spend less effort on buying, maintaining and using weapons/items/mobs/real money. In this game if you tend to be overwhelmingly strong, you get little XP against people who are weaker. And no XP if you're weak and everyones strong. Likewise if everyone aims to be strong, they are spending overall more effort and must be able to maintain a status quo of attack/defense in their level league to get XP out of fights.
The way to solve the elevator problem is by zigzagging the elevators in a S/Z-pattern with micro-managed centers next to it. I.e. (food+elevator then elevator+food); please elevators next to every [type] of building. Don't stack up 10 elevators in one column, put like a max of 5/6, then place the next elevator at the top to it. Lower queue time = no complains, 10, 20, 30+ row buildings + one elevator = complaints. Minimize floor to floor movements by assembling your building into components.
http://trick.ly/5Wd
Go to http://www.fantasyuniversity.net after logging in kongregate
Cntrl + Scroll with mouse to zoom out or use a firefox add-on / chrome settings to default auto-zoom out. Either way works fine.
add hotkeys or autotarget attacking. HP and MP potions are a bit expensive. Only weapons cost silver, everything else costs gold..should change that. Add some quests that involve minigames or something. Polish the interface a little bit and then perhaps a 4/5 rating as a flash game
THen we get that dead units are lost forever. Add this to the massive "luck" factor. Should i risk an upgraded, expensive unit only to see it crit'ed at some random moment? Or do i use a cheap horde that might suffer the same fate? IMO it isnt strategy; its damage control.
When i send infantry/cavalry to take a town, the only thing that break the status-quo is when there is a critical. Wich takes ages to happen (unless im lucky.. eh) Otherwise im uselessly picking away at the defenders... with no other option than long, boring attrition. And the clock is ticking away the turns.
Frankly, it is such a massive factor that i never know what to expect from my mens... or from the ennemies.
Sometimes they crush alll before them, Sometimes take ages to kill a clearly inferior opponent just cuz he rolls ridiculously low all the time. Or the ennemy get to crit my mens for some massive number, (or my general) basically putting their unit ouf of the game.. and the only "reasonable" option is to retry the battle or risk it with vulnerable units. (a nearly depleted unit doesnt lose firepower btw, i saw a 8-strong light infantry score a devastating crit once)
Getting the gloriously displayed "weak attack" isnt much fun really, it just shows hom much our mens are randomly useless. Unless it means that our attack was heavily penalized at the time?
Ennemies that defends towns/camps/whatever are overpowered. Its just a battle of attrition with a big gamble of "will i get a critical and get it over with?"
But my biggest problem in the game is; Luck based gameplay. Too much randomness.
The tutorial isnt clear, its mostly a massive list of facts without structure. Making it more accessible would help a lot.
The time limit is arbritrary, and is working only against us.
Turn initiative is random, that means ennemies can get two turns in a row = lots and LOTS of damage coming your way. (but same for us) Why isnt it just a regular one-after-the-other thing? You cant strategize with random happenings. Or maybe make it clear so we know who's turn is next at all time.
Pretty graphics, system that seems well made. AI can handle itself very well (they like to backstab a lot and capture your objectives).
I can see a whole lot of work went in this game. System, AI, Art and UI are well done.
An autosave feature would be nice.
So far, my horde of light infantry worked well, cheap, i can control the movements of my ennemies, i get a lot of facing options, lots of armies = high odds of scoring a crit on a overwhelmed target, and losing them doesnt cost me much.
My massively upgraded general too often performs worse than my average infantry. I rarely see any significant difference between him max upgraded and my lowly light infantry. Isnt cost-effective. And even his powers can fail to make any difference.
In the end, i dont like it. I find that the the luck factor is so huge it makes strategy almost meaningless.
But it is a good game, that is well made, so you get good points for it anyway.
 "Mob Wars: La Cosa Nostra"){kind=icon}
 "Theme Hotel"){kind=icon}
 "Fantasy University"){kind=icon}
 "My Pet Protector 2"){kind=icon}
 "Sacred Seasons MMORPG"){kind=icon}
 "Fantasy Kommander"){kind=icon}