Activity/Contactability Issue

[xvi]

So, why not jump in and add a thread on contactability. I am an active but non-contactable player. I am also willing to spend the money on P-units and game cash if I get really excited! I support some kind of change to affect the way the game is so dependent on contactability. I do not support a change to give a larger advantage to those who are less active. Thought it important to understand where I come from.

I think the tick time of ten minutes could probably be dropped to 7.5 minutes or so. The long, imo, 10 minute ticks make it harder for me to stay on for 2 or 3 attacks in a row. Shortening them would help me have the ability to grow. Plus, the shorter the tick the more battles and action in the game. Awesome right! If we were to increase them to 15 or 20 minutes it would make the game very boring!

The attack range needs to be adjusted though. I do not think that attacking someone 30-50% of your score is fair. Increasing the eta on the 30-40% range does very little to help players in my position. Alliance members cannot see it if I'm off and I cannot stop it if Im on. Sure, it gives me an extra 20 minutes to get on, but really? Here lies the need for contactability. I say if you cannot manage to do succeed attacking people half your score, you need more practice. Especially the way the routes are set-up to own other routes. I do a lot of my attacking at above my score ffs.
If we must really keep the Attack range in place, atleast consider setting it up so 30-50% you can only send INN. (I only say this cause I understand the need to get land from slackers) :lol:

My thoughts 8)

 

[penguin]

I agree with the ideas 75% love the idea of the attack range though.

The tick time.. yeah.. it takes forever for two attacks back to back [only sending a mob at a time if you are like joseph here ], and I like how he didn't say 5 minute ticks.. winning a 5 minute tick round is purely on activity in my eyes, but.. I like the in-between thing.. taking the best from both tick options, and combining them

the attack range.. I think it should be 50% also, I attack people 40%-45% of my score just solely for land. If I'm actually attacking someone, I go for higher than my score.. and for land too I think no one should be stuck at attacking higher than their score btw.. just a fact.. anywho.. giving people a smaller range of targets to kill might be better cause I can't count the times that I didn't get mad because someone twice my score zeroed me. But I think you should be able to send the starting units, depending on what they have etc. should determine how many hippys and yobs you can send, but have the same amount of inn as usual [if they are solo, without triggering AR]

To add to this idea..
I think the minimal percentage you can attack should raise to 35% instead of 30%, and bump up the added ETAs 5% each.

 

[tobapopalos]

I disagree with this suggestion 100%.

Tick time is fine the way it is. Changes have been suggested multiple times and shot down. 7.5 minute ticks would be clumsy. Ticks should be round numbers. I don't agree with either lengthening or shortening ticks. 10 minute ticks are long enough to organise defence, and short enough that you can do attacks with minimal activity. I mean...you only have to send your attack and then come back 50 minutes later to check on it. You don't have to sit there for the whole hour. I often send an attack and then go for a shower/get dressed/get something to eat and then come back and check on it later. So you can't send 3 attacks in a row...big deal?

The attack range does not have to be adjusted. 30% and eta 7 is fine. You say if you can't attack at 50% then you need more practice...what if you only have targets at 40%? Attacking an allied player at 40% isn't unfair, as they can get 19 people to defend.

 

[Alcibiades]

I disagree with this suggestion 100%.

Tick time is fine the way it is. Changes have been suggested multiple times and shot down. 7.5 minute ticks would be clumsy. Ticks should be round numbers. I don't agree with either lengthening or shortening ticks. 10 minute ticks are long enough to organise defence, and short enough that you can do attacks with minimal activity. I mean...you only have to send your attack and then come back 50 minutes later to check on it. You don't have to sit there for the whole hour. I often send an attack and then go for a shower/get dressed/get something to eat and then come back and check on it later. So you can't send 3 attacks in a row...big deal?

The attack range does not have to be adjusted. 30% and eta 7 is fine. You say if you can't attack at 50% then you need more practice...what if you only have targets at 40%? Attacking an allied player at 40% isn't unfair, as they can get 19 people to defend.

Pretty much everything i would have said.

 

[penguin]

The attack range does not have to be adjusted. 30% and eta 7 is fine. You say if you can't attack at 50% then you need more practice...what if you only have targets at 40%? Attacking an allied player at 40% isn't unfair, as they can get 19 people to defend.

Not that many lower ranked alliances have 20 members so that 19 people can defend them.
As of right now, there are a total of eight alliances with 20 members and there are 39 alliances. That's 5% of the total alliances that have 20 members.

I'm sure there are targets that are more than 40% of any given person's score at a time. I have attacked people that are higher than my score that I attacked sucessfully that the score is basically seeds and I have attacked others that have more troops than I do and landed.
I said the word 'that' too many times :s

 

[pinpower]

I disagree with this suggestion 100%.

Tick time is fine the way it is. Changes have been suggested multiple times and shot down. 7.5 minute ticks would be clumsy. Ticks should be round numbers. I don't agree with either lengthening or shortening ticks. 10 minute ticks are long enough to organise defence, and short enough that you can do attacks with minimal activity. I mean...you only have to send your attack and then come back 50 minutes later to check on it. You don't have to sit there for the whole hour. I often send an attack and then go for a shower/get dressed/get something to eat and then come back and check on it later. So you can't send 3 attacks in a row...big deal?

The attack range does not have to be adjusted. 30% and eta 7 is fine. You say if you can't attack at 50% then you need more practice...what if you only have targets at 40%? Attacking an allied player at 40% isn't unfair, as they can get 19 people to defend.

Yeah, i agree with everything said here ^^^

Nice to see suggestions but i think Tobapopalos is completely right.

Ticks any shorter would be bloody annoying after a round or 2 and the burn out rate would increase IMO. Also, for lower ranked allies which usually have more trouble organising defence that would mean you have even LESS time to get on and get organised etc. Ive seen people argue before that it wouldnt matter as much when you died as you'd get funds back quicker (real time quicker i mean) as the ticks are shorter but its all relative as everyone will be the same.
Longer ticks would cause alot of people to leave the game i think. Imagine an attack taking 4-5 hours...(i know you didnt suggest lengthening them, just saying...its fine as it is!)

Hmm I dont know if that made sense...See, this is why i dont ever get up early in the morning! My brain isnt made to work before 12!

 

[penguin]

Ticks any shorter would be bloody annoying after a round or 2 and the burn out rate would increase IMO. Also, for lower ranked allies which usually have more trouble organising defence that would mean you have even LESS time to get on and get organised etc. Ive seen people argue before that it wouldnt matter as much when you died as you'd get funds back quicker (real time quicker i mean) as the ticks are shorter but its all relative as everyone will be the same.
Longer ticks would cause alot of people to leave the game i think. Imagine an attack taking 4-5 hours...(i know you didnt suggest lengthening them, just saying...its fine as it is!)

Hmm I dont know if that made sense...See, this is why i dont ever get up early in the morning! My brain isnt made to work before 12!

I have seen alliances that have difficulty with organizing defense, and I personally don't see how they manage to get to top 15 @.@, but Pipower does make a good point about the alliances that already have trouble defending, so shortening the ticks would have negatives.
You shouldn't be awake before 12 then

But in all fairness, there will always be a negative somewhere.

 

[Garrett]

the only reason lower ranks have less people is due to having less players.

as most of the lower ranked allies haven't moved in acre/score/ranking in quite some time, i doubt most of them are even playing.

clicking your id active and sending mails isn't playing. no need to ratchet up the minimums on the remaining active base to cause an even further lack of targets.

just bad all the way around.

 

[aGit]

tick of 7.5min is and awfull idea due to it not being an even number as someone above already stated. Also, lower the tick, more offence based the game becomes, longer the tick more defence based. Bad bad idea

attack range should be lowered if anything to avoid stagnation of the game, not risen. again, bad bad idea.

 

[saint1d]

10 min tick time is perfect.

Attacking at 30% is lame, yes you might have 19 defenders, in which case it wouldnt make any difference what % the target was.

I'd say increase the land cap so it really wasnt worth the time attacking at 30%. Also AR should be adjusted depending on the type of attack, if it was a pure LET mob then AR should be more easily triggered

 

[Enrico]

Ticktime should stay at 10minutes.

As for the attackrange, I agree that bottomfeeding is a hassle but just uping the attackrange would not be a good solution.

Maybe less insurance on attacks the further down you attack would help, would make it less profitable to send on smaller targets.

 

[Kuda]

I don't think either of those suggestions have any real chance. Infact you should have probably suggested the exact opposite to attempt to resolve the issues you are having with the game.

reducing the tick time to 7.5mins whilst not only a ridiculous duration as you'd have such messy ticks e.g. xx:07:30, xx:15:00, xx:22:30, etc it's also the wrong direction to try resolve the activity/contactability issue. As we learned a few rounds back with the 5 min ticks, the faster the ticks the better it is for the extremely active and contactable alliances. The less active/contactable players and alliances will only feel the bite even more as when they log in, they've been landraped even more than they would have, those troops coming out of injury would have died again even quicker, etc.

- I've played and still do play several similiar style games which have 1 hour ticks and we don't provide our contact numbers, etc. Sure you might be only able to attack 1/2 times a day but you also don't have to be insanely active. I much prefer however Bushtarion with it's 10 minute ticks, I find them about the perfect duration. Not too long for an attack to take place and not to short that you cant organise effective defence. It's one of the things I like about Bushtarion infact.

As for the attack range suggestion, again all wrong. Moving it back to how it used to be at 10% is better for the player base as it would give people more targets meaning they won't just keep hitting the same couple of people over and over and over and over and over again. Whilst changing it to 50% is great for the really low ranked people, as it gives them a bit more time to grow and tech without encountering p-units when they've only got officers. It would only drive more and more people from the game. Increasing the attack range minimum would do 2 things. a) cause the rank 1 alliance to run out of targets even quicker than usual and b) cause even more incoming and mass bashing and waves to those people who do venture into the 50% range of rank 1 alliance as it would be even more rare for someone to get in range that when it happens they are going be waved to death.

There are no quick and simple solutions to resolving the activity/contactability issue in bushtarion and there are certainly no easy changes such as the ones suggested that would be fair to the entire player base, otherwise Azzer would have already implemented them.

 

[Iamsmart]

Random question, what exactly inspired Azzer to make +1 and +2 eta mods on below 40% attacking?

 

[Melnibone]

as it takes 4 extra tick total it still allows you to hit people at 30% of your range but the added eta as well as the landcap means 2 people sending the same amount of attacks one at 30-40% and the other at 40% plus, the 40% plus attacking player will be able to do more attacks with higher land grabs (think carrot and not stick if you get my meaning)

Basically its to encourage 'fairer' attacking without making it mandatory and i think its one of the better features of the game.

On to the original suggestion i'd have to say no to both... tick times are 10 mins for all the reasons already quoted and more, and definately no to increasing attack range if anything id decrease it to 10% range being able to be attacked

The reasons behind this are simple... it makes very little difference to solos and can be altered to not destroy alliances, i'll explain as best i can, if im solo i can still only be attacked by a certain % of my score without AR triggering if the player has 3 times or 10 times my score its irrelevant at my end he can still only send the same amount without triggering, on the reverse side if im allied and i have a single incoming if my alliance cant defend it this is the problem but can be dealt with through injuries and landcap

what id love to see is the % attack level reset to 10% but the dynamics of the landcap/injuries system set to compensate as follows

attacker -

attacking at 10% 20% injuries and 4% land
attacking at 20% 40% injuries and 6% land
attacking at 30% 60% injuries and 6% land
attacking at 40% 80% injuries and 10% land
attacking at 50% and above normal (all %'s of the original 33% injury rate)

defender -

if the target is 50% of the attacker it is exactly as now
if the target is 40% of the attacker an extra 20% injuries
if the target is 30% of the attacker an extra 30%
if the target is 20% of the attacker an extar 40%
and finally if the attacker is 10% of the attacker 50% (all compared to 33% now giving a total of 83% injuries for being bashed by someone 10 times bigger)

i'd also institute that anything in the 10-30% range also provides insurance for the allied defenders or p-naps this will increase targets for all including the top alliance while making it less suicidal to defend huge incomings might have the follow on effect of giving lots more BR's as they will be less destructive which lets face it is the REAL cause for the game dying slightly in my experience.

comment/ignore as you see fit.......

 

[Iamsmart]

Raping solo's 10% of me.

Lulz.

 

[Melnibone]

Thanks for adding to the discussion Iamsmart as always, with your reasoned and logically put forward constructive criticism i'm so glad your so active in the suggestion forums, a few more players like you and the game is indeed in safe hands ^^

 

[Kuda]

Nice suggestion Melni, good to see someone putting some thought into it rather than stupid comments like the person you mention in your above post

 

[Souls]

You don't say anything about bounties. If the top alliance is coming and attacking at their 10%, they're going to care less about how much land or injuries they get. All they want is to kill troopies. Sure, it's all good and well that the defender gets 80% injuries, but what about the bounty? The attacker will just walk away with all of it and chuckle the whole way along.

And I'm pretty sure we tried the whole bashing-gives-more-injuries / getting attacked at overwhelming odds gave you all your troops back, and nobody liked it.

 

[Iamsmart]

You may not like my post but It got its point across just fine.

 

[Melnibone]

You may not like my post but It got its point across just fine.

so your point is if the attack limit is 10% you'll rape solos at 10%? i'm guessing you already do that at 30% then as its possible now? that says more about you as a player and a person than anything to do with my suggestion or any proposed changes not sure if anyones explained how discussion forums work but in a suggestions forum you either say you agree or disagree then give the reasons why so the discussions can advance you bring nothing but a cheap pointless comment if your point is that your name is purely ironic job done ^^


Souls as for bounty there wouldnt be any below 30% and combining this with the 'fairness calc' when it comes in would mean once the top alliance has currently 0 targets they would in fact have a huge amount of 'unlawful' targets but as i assume the calc will reward attacking fairly and impose penalties for attacking below this this means that they will become more and more attractive as bounty targets for those below aiding resistances and lengthening the round. Thanks though for actually reading, thinking and posting something constructive unlike the person quoted above