Killing The Game

[dave]

News from your sources is that in 7 ticks, 166,500,000 people from xxxx xxxx xxxxxxx [xxxx] will arrive to attack you. Mob ETA was modified by +2 from: Attacking at 30-35% attack range.



attacks like this are killing the game.

some people need to get a life and send proper attacks.

[Martin]

I agree, people should only send attacks that will epically fail.

oh wait, I mean that in total sarcasm - what do you expect people to do?

[dave]

Originally Posted by Martin

I agree, people should only send attacks that will epically fail.

oh wait, I mean that in total sarcasm - what do you expect people to do?

i dont expect sending at +2....

your obviously totally missing the point, you can send at 50% and still totally smash ur opponent.

+2's are cowardly. scorequeeny and as i say...killing the game.

[Alcibiades]

Originally Posted by dave

i dont expect sending at +2....

your obviously totally missing the point, you can send at 50% and still totally smash ur opponent.

+2's are cowardly. scorequeeny and as i say...killing the game.

That's not true. I don't have a lot of targets in my 50% range or higher that I can take on my own. They're either in alliances that can muster vastly more troops than i can, or they are solo and have too high of an AR to currently attack (usually due to idiot rushing).

So I have to make do with whatever targets I can find. I'm sorry that I'm hitting at +2, and I really don't enjoy doing it, if only because it takes so darn long; but I'll be damned if i'm going to be a scorequeen and just sit on my troops and do nothing with them when I have perfectly valid targets in range.

I would happily attack in 50% or higher, I just can't

[Martin]

Originally Posted by dave

i dont expect sending at +2....

your obviously totally missing the point, you can send at 50% and still totally smash ur opponent.

+2's are cowardly. scorequeeny and as i say...killing the game.

I understand your point, I don't understand the tunnelled logic behind your point. Game mechanics allow it with penalties (a bounty placed on the attacker's head, smaller land grab and a larger ETA). At the score you are at your attacker obviously has very limited targets, so taking these penalties still make you a more appealing target.

If someone is SUCH a good target then it's their fault, not the fact someone can attack you. It's a fault of yours that noone else in his 30%+ range is as good of a target as you.

Think of it from the attacker's perspective and you'll be better at the game, set your troops up to deter as many people as possible!

[willymchilybily]

tbh if solo he cant oversend. (though the max limit for sending at some one with 0% ar is a bit high imo)

and if allied you can defend incomings reasonably well if you arent much larger than the rest of your alliance.

I think bushtarion is alot like the economy. It is in a slump, but saying it's **** isnt helping. its making things worse. This to my mind isnt the thing killing the game, considering the game was thriving when you could still send at 17.5%

infact sometimes the larger players sending at people so small are too arrogant, and end up dying horrifically, which is a good moral booster

Died: 297,951,459 [£5,631,210,050,000] enemies dead. 18,969,999 [£152,987,083,100] friendlies dead.

[dave]

woah woah woah, how do i set up my troops to deter some1 with 5.5bill score more than me.
you obviously always play at the higher levels. not to sound like im aiming anything at you, i have no problem with yourself ingame or otherwise.


im merely pointing out that its making alot of players leave the game.

if people love the game as much as the say they shuld stop doing it. simple massing its not good, new players to the game instantly getting massed and think wers the point, and older players who remember when the game was truely great, not just get massed.

the worst ive seen so far is 3 players on 1 tick, 2 send with +1. this cannot be justified with any excuse of target availability.

[Martin]

Originally Posted by dave

woah woah woah, how do i set up my troops to deter some1 with 5.5bill score more than me.
you obviously always play at the higher levels. not to sound like im aiming anything at you, i have no problem with yourself ingame or otherwise.


im merely pointing out that its making alot of players leave the game.

if people love the game as much as the say they shuld stop doing it. simple massing its not good, new players to the game instantly getting massed and think wers the point, and older players who remember when the game was truely great, not just get massed.

the worst ive seen so far is 3 players on 1 tick, 2 send with +1. this cannot be justified with any excuse of target availability.

Why is it I (or Alci) only play at higher levels? I am myself a solo without a PNAP, on this basis I keep my land fat at a low level relative to others around me to stop myself being a target. I make sure I set myself up so that when attackers hack me, other individuals are more appealing to hit...

I also struggle to put forward a well constructed argument when the debate is about being attacked by those bigger than you... people will attack so they win.

I see what you mean but do you normally send attacks where you get hurt, or do you try and take as few losses as possible for the best gain (beit land or bounty)?

[dave]

me personally?
i send on the basis of winning the br, if i take alot of losses i dont mind, so long as i get alot of kills.

i love a good br and if i take alot of losses to get good kills so be it.

i dont suicide my troops i do send to people i can kill.

i just dont send +2...

its not hard to do.

[Martin]

Originally Posted by dave

me personally?
i send on the basis of winning the br, if i take alot of losses i dont mind, so long as i get alot of kills.

i love a good br and if i take alot of losses to get good kills so be it.

i dont suicide my troops i do send to people i can kill.

i just dont send +2...

its not hard to do.

See if it's as easy when you have 5.5bil more score than you have now...?

[dave]

id give it a good go. i appreciate all the points your making to, i just feel the game doesnt have to be played that way, unless your scared of taking a few losses for a damn good br.

but there we go things wont change, and the game will continue to become smaller and smaller.

[dave]

Originally Posted by willymchilybily

Died: 297,951,459 [£5,631,210,050,000] enemies dead. 18,969,999 [£152,987,083,100] friendlies dead.

nice numbers willy i love brs like that!

[LuckySports]

WHAT you can attack is limited on what route you are, and what route your targets are. You can attack at 50% and land/win if your route works well against your targets, otherwise, you go smaller until you meet that threshold needed to ensure a land-grab. Its not attacks like that that kill the game, It's people refusing to learn the game. This game is not newbie friendly, its got a hellacious learning curve.

[Dimitar]

Oh, look, a complaint thread without any real value. We don't see these very often

[dave]

lol your all missing my point.
i dont consider myself to be a bad player, having portalled a few rounds ago in a smaller alliance, finishing honourably because i dont attack +1 +2 unless someone pisses me off in game. it can be done i have done it... the point of people needing to learn the game is redundant, i know this game and it still happens to me.

i understand that maybe you dnt wanna loose units so u attack +1 +2, ur trying to win the game. but trust me it is killing the game people get fed up of putting in the effort and dieing when multiple people send, or some1 just masses with far more units.

i think some people dont really understand what im trying to say here.