DarkSider
Tree Surgeon
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2007
- Messages
- 796
Let's not introduce units with 2 stars damage because they kill units with 1 star health and the ppl less active will get killed more [/sarcasm]
Some need to stop thinking in the same pattern that it's all about winning and all about score and all about not allowing the top alliance to "get away with the round". I estimate 90% of the server doesn't give a crap about who's winning or if top alliance does this or that.
The only ones who will get in contact with top alliance are the 2nd tier allies who have very strong defence, good activity and awesome contactibility so i'm not sure why you compare top with the "inactives".
The game might be complex but in a totally different area, in the tactics departament all you have is 2 big options - send attacking mob or send defending mob. Hardly complicated. In fact most of the game is memorising some templates and be very active/reacheble, skill and tactics are not required for 19 members.
Don't you think a weaker alliance would like 50% insurance instead 30% if they get killed alot ? Why you always see just the other side where hostile alliance (the bad guys) is winning something from it so the suggestion must be bad.
Some need to stop thinking in the same pattern that it's all about winning and all about score and all about not allowing the top alliance to "get away with the round". I estimate 90% of the server doesn't give a crap about who's winning or if top alliance does this or that.
The only ones who will get in contact with top alliance are the 2nd tier allies who have very strong defence, good activity and awesome contactibility so i'm not sure why you compare top with the "inactives".
The game might be complex but in a totally different area, in the tactics departament all you have is 2 big options - send attacking mob or send defending mob. Hardly complicated. In fact most of the game is memorising some templates and be very active/reacheble, skill and tactics are not required for 19 members.
Don't you think a weaker alliance would like 50% insurance instead 30% if they get killed alot ? Why you always see just the other side where hostile alliance (the bad guys) is winning something from it so the suggestion must be bad.