Mob slots

[pinpower]

I dont see the harm in applying the rule to bots tbh. The bots are there for the newer/smaller players to be able to attack and get land (which then filters up through the game). If you only have bots in your 30-35% range then you shouldnt be able to hit 4/5 of them. Either only hit 1/2 or attack higher targets.

I think its another good point of the suggestion.

 

[Alcibiades]

Another point of the debate is, 5 targets at 40% beats 2 targets at 30%. Why exchange? It's simple enough to do if you understand the game enough.

That pretty much sums it up. If you've just been killed, you're going to have loads of available targets. In early flak wars, 40% is as good as 30% tbh. If you want to guarantee yourself land at 30%, suffer the consequences. This idea is merely an extension of scaled land caps and H/F.

 

[Iamsmart]

I like it, although I'm pretty sure somebody has suggested it before

I think attacking at 30-34% taking 3 mobs spots is too much though.

Maybe 1 for 40% 1.5 for 35% 2 for 30%, max of 5 mobs.

 

[webvictim]

I don't see the problem with not attacking below 40%. I've been trying to stay at 70% to get some H/F under my belt this round and I've managed alright. Granted, I'm solo and not amazingly high ranked, but it's actually more fun this way. Not to mention that the extra 40 minutes waiting for mobs when you send them 5+2 is horrible.

I really like the idea of stopping people just bashing tiny players all the time. It forces people to attack a little bit more fairly and might help to calm the level of land whoring.

 

[Twigley]

Maybe 1 for 40% 1.5 for 35% 2 for 30%, max of 5 mobs.

That still means you can send to 2 30% targets and a 40% target.
That wouldnt change how people play.
I see people just send 1 mob at +2 full force

I've dont it recently with the lack of targets i have.
Just sending 2 mobs 30%.
I mean it's not even close my full staff that ive sent.

If 1 +2 mob was 3 slots this would mean that then id only have 2 defending ones left, i know for sure i would never hit 30%. +1 possibly but id have to think about it.

 

[pinpower]

Maybe 1 for 40% 1.5 for 35% 2 for 30%, max of 5 mobs.

That still means you can send to 2 30% targets and a 40% target.
That wouldnt change how people play.
I see people just send 1 mob at +2 full force

I've dont it recently with the lack of targets i have.
Just sending 2 mobs 30%.
I mean it's not even close my full staff that ive sent.

If 1 +2 mob was 3 slots this would mean that then id only have 2 defending ones left, i know for sure i would never hit 30%. +1 possibly but id have to think about it.

Agreed. Its the lack of defending slots that'll scare people. 3 for 30% // 2 for 25% // 1 for 40% gets my vote

 

[Iamsmart]

'That still means you can send to 2 30% targets and a 40% target.'

That would be equivalent to sending out 5 mobs, you couldn't send out a defense or send out. You even contradicted yourself later in your post. It would mean you could send 2 30% (2 mobs), or 1 30% 1 35% (2 mobs), or 1 30% 2 40% (3 mobs), 2 35% 1 40% (3 mobs), 1 35% 2 40% (3 mobs), 4 40% (4 mobs as usual)

 

[Davs]

Agreed. Its the lack of defending slots that'll scare people. 3 for 30% // 2 for 25% // 1 for 40% gets my vote

Gets mine too.

 

[Polo]

I like it

I think attacking at 30-34% taking 3 mobs spots is too much though.

Maybe 1 for 40% 1.5 for 35% 2 for 30%, max of 5 mobs.

Agreed. It's an awesome idea but 3 mobs and +2 eta seems excessive. What Ias suggested works or perhaps remove the eta modifier and use this idea as an alternative? Or keep +1 eta and remove +2 eta? Regardless of the specifics, I really hope this idea gets implemented.

 

[Alcibiades]

Agreed. Its the lack of defending slots that'll scare people. 3 for 30% // 2 for 25% // 1 for 40% gets my vote

Gets mine too.

You can attack at 25%? :|

 

[pinpower]

lol, only cos im awesometastic.

(But yeah 35%*)

 

[Alcibiades]

Always knew you were a 1337 hax0r pinpower.

I agree with POlo/Iamsmart in terms of numbers.

I also like the idea of removing +2 eta, and making it take up more mobs. That's an intriguing idea.

 

[pinpower]

I think if its not going to take up as much slots it should definitely still come with a +2 eta. We want to discourage people from doing it even more.

(Although like i said, my vote still goes for the higher amount of slots taken up like twigs said)

 

[Angela]

So your in an alliance that is rank 3 or 4 and are one of the highest in your alliance you go to war with another alliance but you need to attack the low member of that particular alliance (for any number of reasons try get them to recall there defence/they are the only viable target you have etc etc) and you get +2 so that takes up 3 slots? well it will make wars interesting but i don't agree with it, unless you also do it the other way as well adrenaline rush also takes away slots .. why allow one and penalise the other side of the board

 

[Iamsmart]

Most smaller rank 3/4 alliances:

a) don't get in 'big wars'
b) like to attack above 40% for H/F purposes

Making adrenaline take less than 1 mob doesn't really make sense to me.

 

[alwaysnumb]

Well thanks all, finally a suggestion from me that gets pretty much all round possitive responses .

 

[alwaysnumb]

A change that I was thinking was that its possible to go over the 5 slots as long as before the last mob you send there is a least 1 slot left. eg
send 4 normal attacks then send a +2 using up a total of 7 slots or
send 2 +1 attacks then a +2 using up 7 total slots
then before you can send out any more mobs your slots have to go back to 4

 

[Davs]

Most smaller rank 3/4 alliances:

a) don't get in 'big wars'
b) like to attack above 40% for H/F purposes

Making adrenaline take less than 1 mob doesn't really make sense to me.

I think she meant to make adren rush attacks take up more slots, so -1 eta would get 2 slots and -2 would get +3. Unless I've misinterpreted what Angela's said.

 

[Weeble]

I quite like it. Will put it forward to the Big Cheese and give you some feedback.

 

[Enrico]

Gets my stamp of approval. I think it would make bashing small targets less interesting, and its not *that* much harder to attack at 45% than 30%...