The Two "Apparent" Changes

[Twigley]

Just a quick suggestion to NOT put in place 2 changes that are meant to be happening.

1) The attacking below 70% giving you less land grab. Take it out.

Reasons: There is already a burn out, we dont need top allies warring like that from the very start, it already happened too much this round.
There isn't a need for it anymore. With the new changes, the top will always compete.
It suxs.

Edit: Also, i can see it creating a less want to attack, i aint gonna bother attacking for 5% land ... back to the old days of scorequeening.

2) This "War won" "War Lost" idea. Don't put it into place.

Reasons: This idea will never work. It wont give an accurate picture.
I think that the way it is works. It does its job well. Why change it?
It suxs.

[f0xx]

Agreed with Twigley here... even tho he is a neub.

Just want to add something. The fact that there is no real winner this round is a good thing. You dont like constant wars - then dont go for the win. Quite simple really. LeftOvers had it MUCH worse back in their and they DIDNT whine and still everyone were saying that they werent the ones that deserved to win.

Why am I agreeing with your point 1) then.

Because it simply wont work. Poeple would still be attacking at eta 7. The only thing that will change is this:

Case 1:
Now we have:
Eta 7 attacker (happy when he lands)
Eta 7 defender (miserable when the attacker lands).

Case 2:
If the change occurs:
Eta 7 attacker (half happy [because he landed] and half miserable [because he would have stolen more the old days])
Eta 7 defender (half miserable [because he lost land] and half happy [because he could have lost more])

In case 1 we have one happy and one miserable guy.
In case 2 we have 2x(half miserable) and 2x(half happy) guy => one happy and one miserbale.

Therefore, we have the same results in case 1 and case 2, so the change will bring nothing good, therefore there is no need to implement it.

[DarkSider]

You only see a part of the change. That thing should come imo as an initiative to wage alliance wars instead randomly attacking/vulturing for easy acres.
I think Azzer will work on fixing the injuries and from what i heard alliance wars should be more interesting and benefical. If you remember in an alliance war there was no or very low law loss .. so with this change you will try to focus efforts and play a team game in attacks aswell instead the way it's done atm: everybody gets acres attacking alone or very small groups and when it comes to defending they start playing as an alliance.

[pinpower]

Just want to add something. The fact that there is no real winner this round is a good thing. You dont like constant wars - then dont go for the win. Quite simple really. LeftOvers had it MUCH worse back in their and they DIDNT whine and still everyone were saying that they werent the ones that deserved to win.


1 Interlude Interlude [A-Mail] 0 0 0 20 685,951 £1,452,556,164,238
2 Enigma Enigma [A-Mail] 0 0 0 20 491,143 £1,102,172,457,479
3 [r] Pestiferous Pestiferous [A-Mail] 0 0 0 20 569,095 £1,076,210,181,914
4 [r] KHaoS [A-Mail] 0 0 0 19 183,629 £278,467,494,329


Is this really any better than most rounds...

now rather than there being a huge gap between rank 1 and 2...its just between 3 and 4...which you could argue is a step in the right direction...BUT...it isnt solving the problem...just moving it about 100 ranks down...

im not particularly bothered, but i know a few ally mates (and people in others allys) are fed up of not being able to grow even into the top 100 without getting 6/7/8 incomings...i think it was better before...at least you could get to a high rank and have some fun while the top had no targets..



(i realise this is barely on topic..if at all but its kinda related to f0xx's comment i guess..meh)

[f0xx]

Attacking as an alliance takes a lot of effort...
No matter what changes are implemented 90% of the people will still be attacking solo, especially at lower ranks.

[willymchilybily]

i disagree. The implementation of the full injuries and full land advantages for attacking hounourably will cause fighting to ensue in the 70% margin...aka honourable. because any one not attacking honourably no matter how long they are online will never accumulate land as quickly and will spend more getting what little land they can.

or in other words

target : steve of madeupid [1337] 6,000 land

1 guy [targets 70% range] attacks with 1bill of troops looses 50% of his mob but lands gaining 1000k acres.
he gets 60% ?back for an honourable attack. ends up only losing 30% 300mill so gets 200mill back as injuries. and gains 1k acres

another guy attacks 30% target range. picks on steve again. sending exactly the same mob.
he looses 500mill of troops and only get 75millback and only bags himself 333 acres

It takes guy2, three attacks to gain as much land as one honourable attack. so it could cost hm over 5 times as many troops to get the same land as some one attacking honourably.
[hidden:314vgq2c]((70% loss/40%loss= 1.75)*(1000/333=3))=5.25[/hidden:314vgq2c]
in no time its going to add up. and those who are tacticle and can attack 70% range and can work out exactly what to send. and DO fight fair will be getting that advantage of loosing less and gaining more

It WILL make it more benificial to be tacticle. There is no point in only half introducing these changes. especially when they currently encourage attacking 30% not penalise it.

I know i worry about the changes personally because it will make it so hard to get land with a quickie attack. And it relys more using lethals and other units apart from flack, due to the implications and cost of flacking some one 70% of your score. This therefor will make it harder for inactive people to find the time to plan an attack. But I still believe the pros outs way the cons. And Only the honourable alliances will succeed.

[f0xx]

You are talking BS... I prefer stealing 10% land from someone who I know I would steal from than attacking someone that is my size (i.e. being in a good ally = good defence), taking a lot of time and effort to organise a perfect attack and then recall just because of defence...

People will always prepfer to attack smaller, non-allied people... that is the natural way of things. Try changing this and the game is going to lose even more players, and I am not talking about casual players, I am talking about the hardcore veterans who spend a lot of time and who buy P-units, who book ids, who pay for PWs and who pay for game cash.

Gah... some people just dont see it... the perfect world doesn't exist so wake up.

[pinpower]

is the land really going to be affected that much? like...5% land grab for a 30% target...

i thought it was going to be like...10% maybe at 30% range up to like 12/13% at 40% and the full 15% at 70%...

also, willy...your thing doesnt work...cos its unlikely the guy attacking at 30% would get as many losses...

[willymchilybily]

[hidden:1yqjk3r8]was assuming that you reqiure a certain amount of men to get through and a certain amount not to rape. with previous statement. i know i didnt account for the bigger guy being able to send more and send more than one attack. I was working purely from cost and yield point of view. I***39;m not saying im going to be a big fan of changes. i***39;m anxious about change. but if your going to do something you dont do it half arsed. azzer WILL impliment these changes. and if they suck or dont work then he will remove them. I***39;m not saying i want any change. I***39;m saying im not aposed to change entirely because it could yield a better funner game. no point on speculating further.

In my opinion new players Is the only change this game needs. People that dont play in thier set ways. People that are after fun because they know they will never be top. New player base whilst keeping the vetrans to add some spice. like bounty did. where people played for killing and fun. not score. you know when some one messages me saying. you ******* im going to kill you. you will regret killing me.. I dont get annoyed. I get excited some one still has that passion. after bw***39;s semi depressing all things end speach i Just want to embrace anything that could help this game and make me enjoy it even more than i do.

I was just of the opinion that azzer may as well finish these changes and then people decide. and that actually, they have benefits, and maybe it would be nice to see the system working.

but if you want to be naive, hell ill leave you to it, in your cut off little world. Un-able to embrace or except change. sounds quite dull to me. but thats just my opinion.[/hidden:1yqjk3r8]

Edit

Contemplates deleting all previous posts because Melnibone communicated it so well below

[Melnibone]

A Change is not always a good thing, it only becomes so when it has been fully thought out, all the implications considered and a full debate on its benefits/drawbacks is done, anything less is leaving it to luck, so while i disagree with Twigleys original post on whether it will be a good thing i think you should appreciate people are not necessary being naive or negative they are simply voicing serious concerns on something that will harm more than help

What these changes will do i hope if you'll allow me to ramble

Less land on bashes and better War system

1) alliances at all ranks will be encouraged to declare war on each other not only will they still be able to bash for land against similar scores with better injury returns and full land grabs the losing ally will also not be bashed to oblivion as once they drop below 80% valuation the war declaration is removed, the attacking ally will get a 'win' giving them bragging rights and the losing alliance can still recover
2) Solos will benefit as the current level of returning injured troops (in 12 ticks for real solos) combined with less land loss if they're bashed will allow them to compete more evenly
3) It will go someway to alleviating the current negative trend towards these forums as every ally has something to play for it'll be as easy if not easier for a rank 12 ally for example to have as much chance as being the top 'war winner' of the round, so some extra incentives to play will be added without any real unfairness on the player base
4) Its the easiest concept to add more depth without complexity to the game its very easy to pick up something when its done in simple steps with instant results, that is its much easier for new people to grasp that a dishonourable attack gives you less land than - attacking dishounarably gives you a title after an equation and once that equation reaches a certain level you gain a title that lets others attack to gain funds etc etc
5)It will promote a playstyle rather than punish you for refusing to follow it (i've always preferred the carrot over the stick)

All in all it looks promising behind the scenes l/f needs to be spot on and the injury system needs to work properly if those 2 things happen Bushtarion could be ready to expand again i think age 5 might be the start of something much better for this game if its given a chance

[Augustus]

I totally agree with Melnis points. I think something needs to be done to prevent the constant bashing of this round. People are getting lazy with their attacks(me included). We all need a kick up the ass so we actually put some effort into attacks. The arguement of 1 person is happier than the other is ridiculous. Why would Azzer have introduced red titles if that was his mentality?