Nerfing of Solos.

[DarkSider]

Re: Nerfing of Solos.

I agree with thejo0vler, l&f + old bounty were imo great additions that needed some tweaks not removed. So much repeat attacking at bottom of attacking range, mindless bashing of alliances that simply can't put a decent fight back and get sick and tired of phone calls and choose to go solo. There's not as much bashing on solo's since most of them go routes that are not as easy to be farmed and they are harder to be killed with minimal/no looses as everybody likes to.
And to septimus and all others picking on the word "solo" - that is just a word that signifies ar mod, no alliance defence, pnaps and stuff like that. At no point solo means lack of mates, alone against the whole world, no diplomacy or coordination with other players/groups/alliances.

 

[Alcibiades]

Re: Nerfing of Solos.

but the idea is to give the zeroed players -something- to come back to (including seeds), and making it a tedious business totally zeroing a player, while still enabling a hostile force to practically eliminate him from the war.

I always was intrigued with the thought of making a certain percentage of your harvesters virtually unkillable. or give them a fast enough injury return rate that you don't lose too much in seeds. Now obviously you would have to limit this with such things as only given when killed at home (defending yourself) so you can't abuse it in sending out flak and getting it back faster; you could limit it to the entire harvesting complement back in time for full harvesting within say 6 ticks or w/e or maybe some other percentage of your harvesting ability... scaled appropriately to be balanced of course.

So that would address the problem of having too many troops to be a target again and yet retain some income. It obviously needs a lot of refinement but the general idea always intrigued me.

 

[f0xx]

Re: Nerfing of Solos.

but the idea is to give the zeroed players -something- to come back to (including seeds), and making it a tedious business totally zeroing a player, while still enabling a hostile force to practically eliminate him from the war.

I always as intrigued with the thought of making a certain percentage of your harvesters virtually unkillable. or give them a fast enough injury return rate that you don't lose too much in seeds. Now obviously you would have to limit this with such things as only given when killed at home (defending yourself) so you can't abuse it in sending out flak and getting it back faster; you could limit it to the entire harvesting complement back in time for full harvesting within say 6 ticks or w/e or maybe some other percentage of your harvesting ability... scaled appropriately to be balanced of course.

So that would address the problem of having too many troops to be a target again and yet retain some income. It obviously needs a lot of refinement but the general idea always intrigued me.

Or allow players to construct something like "Shelters" which can hold customizable amount of each unit (not just harvesters) that can not be killed. It will have endless levels but each level will have exponentially growing cost to be constructed. This is somewhat abusable though...

 

[Augustus]

Re: Nerfing of Solos.

True Maxi, but the burnout rate has soared and that is due in large portion to the injuries. Solo is far less demanding physically and emotionally than is allied play. And those two seem to be the largest factors imo.

I couldn't agree more. And as I have stated in another thread, crippling solos wont solve the issue that playing in an Alliance can be too demanding. People won't suddenly choose the option they don't like just because the option they did like was removed, it is more likely they will leave the game altogether.

 

[Maxi]

Re: Nerfing of Solos.

Another 'slice' of the solo-problem-pie is the fact that it's hard to find an alliance when you're a new player- so they just go psolo. I'm pretty sure a big part of the solo players would love being in an alliance, but just don't have the acces to it. They don't read the forums and don't want to create an account and post in the recruitment forum. Getting in an alliance without knowing the leader or one of it's members is too hard, Imo. This is why I supported the idea of a certain 'random alliances' system and/or training alliances(although the initial suggestion still needs a LOT of tweaking). Make the way from solo to alliances easier!


Maybe people who want to lead can 'flag' their ID, and then get allocated an alliance. New players would head over to the alliance page and then be able to either enter an alliance name/pass themselves, or click on 'join random alliance' (obviously we need a more catchy word here - 'open' alliances or something), and get a small text explaining the solo/alliance/random alliance system, and a tickbox to confirm. You'd be stuck with the ally a certain amount of time to avoid spy's, and later in the round you'd get allocated automatically to a certain alliance related to your activity stat and rank(s). Just some ideas tossed in.

Edit:
Bumped the topic related to 'random' alliances once again - with some more discussing we might find some good ideas.
Here - viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1024&p=22173

 

[TehPantz]

Re: Nerfing of Solos.

This round have proved that Solos are to popular, while very few play in alliances.

Thus Solos need to get a more bumpy ride!

I think the reason more people are going solo, is that if you can't get into a top 3 or 4 ally, you get into an ally that is kick raped and bashed. It doesn't really bother you much if its a 'for fun ally' but for people who really try to beat personal goals, most allies can't do it for you.

 

[Garrett]

Re: Nerfing of Solos.

the psolo eta return reduction has to go. you send a let attack eta 4, get to eta 2, recall at end of tick, you are home. defense was sent eta 4 to meet head on, even attentive defense would be eta 2 on the return. psolo sends end of tick and then bam is eta 3 while your defense is eta 1 returning.

solos can easily pick apart even good to great allied players as this is quite an unfair advantage.

 

[Alcibiades]

Re: Nerfing of Solos.

This round have proved that Solos are to popular, while very few play in alliances.

Thus Solos need to get a more bumpy ride!

I think the reason more people are going solo, is that if you can't get into a top 3 or 4 ally, you get into an ally that is kick raped and bashed.

My incoming screen this round belies your statement about rank 3-4 ally. ranks 2-6 get pounded mercilessly until they crack without respite due, despite Maxi's belief, almost entirely to injuries.

SB got relentless bashing from YS of anywhere from 2-10 (?) players on a tick. Not overly devastating but certainly tiring on the players, nightwatch especially, and forcing players to be either very active or very contactable. neither of which are particularly conducive to a good night's sleep or a functional work/school day to say the least. Eventually you just want to 'hit them head on' so that we could lose all our troops and have 18 ticks of rest before you popped back into range :S

Injuries absolutely must go; save for that coded harvester protection system