Mass Resistance

[Zaheen]

Is everybody happy with the game as it is?

Should there be massive peace on all alliances until there is no certain leading alliance?

If all alliances agree to form a nap with each other until they rip apart the leading alliance I'm sure the round would be much more fun for all, and may even help eliminate the contactability factor.

Have your say now, need not reply to this post at all, just vote on it

 

[Dimitar]

Wouldn't this mean all the alliances will sit targetless, seed whoring until an alliance gets big? And how is this alliance supposed to get big if it's napped with the others ;o

Hitting only solos will hardly be enough to make a decent gap between alliances

 

[Zaheen]

Seems like you're reading something completely different.

Who would be targetless?

 

[Dimitar]

because this suggests players in top (or all) alliances will sit around waiting without any targets which will somehow make their round more fun

 

[Zaheen]

because this suggests players in top (or all) alliances will sit around waiting without any targets which will somehow make their round more fun

Do you not understand the poll?

(Just an example of what I meant)

Rank #1 is leading...

Ranks #2-20 all nap each other to take out rank 1, until all alliances decide that Rank #1 is no longer a threat...

Continue the game, of course it wouldn't need 20 alliances.

-----

If a new Rank #1 pulls away too much, making it less fun for everyone, then they may see the same treatment, or not.

 

[Hobbezak]

Because the faster the most active players get away with the round, the sooner the other alliances can continue business as usual, without being constantly bashed to death.

I'm telling you, longer rounds = faster burn-out = faster decay of the playerbase. The faster the round is over, the better for all (except for those at the top, but they have they key, they can do a 10v10 if they're bored, or pull a ReRR etc etc)

 

[john]

powerblock.

 

[TehPantz]

Is everybody happy with the game as it is?

Yes.

 

[Alcibiades]

Because the faster the most active players get away with the round, the sooner the other alliances can continue business as usual, without being constantly bashed to death.

This.

 

[Alvestein]

im fine with the way it is. tis plenty fun for any alliance rank 2 down if you assume people in rank 1 arent actually play and pretend rank 2 are rank 1, it makes the game seem as if it did a few rounds back xD

 

[Stegosaurus]

If your suggestion went ahead, rank 2 and belows land would stagnate - short of hitting solos.

As it stands, rank 1 have more acres than any other alliance, and therefore more income, plus they would continue to steal. They'd simply pull away faster. Every loss of land, results in a gain in land for someone. Your plan would perhaps minimize losses, but it also curbs any possible gain for anyone outside the rank 1 alliance.

 

[Zaheen]

As it stands, rank 1 have more acres than any other alliance, and therefore more income, plus they would continue to steal. They'd simply pull away faster.

Unless the current rank 1 alliance get their asses handed to them? Some of them currently have around 500M Gardeners and like 10-20M LET units, yes some have more, some have seeds...but they will eventually lose their troops and land if they are constantly attacked. Once they are at a reasonable level normal play can continue?

I just thought it's what most people would have wanted...or at least, when I use to play - that's what everybody wanted...I think it's quite boring like this, I've been up at the top and I've deleted when I've been top 10 multiple times. Oh well, no biggie =]

 

[Jonny]

I would love to see a successful resistance to be honest, but I get the feeling that this is already too late

 

[tobapopalos]

It isn't a coincidence that History won this round so easily. It certainly isn't because they're uberskilled and totally awesome. It's because there simply isn't any competition for rank 1. They're the most active, so they won. All the rest of the alliances are varying shades of "for the fun" (hate that phrase, but it is accurate). Nobody cares enough to resist. It used to be that the top 5 alliances were all active and organised and actually thought they could win, so they were more motivated to resist when the time came. Now it's just one alliance who actually cares, hence the ease of their victory.


@ Stegosaurus: They might have more acres than the other alliances, but they do not have more acres than those alliances combined, which is what they would be facing if there was a resistance. Your post makes very little sense and implies you don't really know how the game works. If there is a resistance the idea is to grind down the rank 1 alliance until they crack. Sometimes this can happen on the first night if you're lucky, other times it doesn't happen at all. You keep the pressure on them so they don't have time to steal land while the resistance is going on. Or you can have a retal policy where if one of the resisting alliances gets incoming one of the other ones can retal and hope to get some land from rank 1 themselves. And defending a resistance is pretty tiring so when you're not defending against incoming, you're asleep.

 

[Zaheen]

Thanks for the definition toby, didn't think I needed to give one xD

 

[IceOfFire]

Out of pure curiosity - Isn't napping against the rules now anyway??

 

[Iamsmart]

im hoping that one of the players whos been playing for so long isn't asking such a stupid question

 

[Ogluk]

Out of pure curiosity - Isn't napping against the rules now anyway??

only if it causes the game to go nowhere

napping in the name of a resistance (and actually resisting) is well within the rules

 

[IceOfFire]

Out of pure curiosity - Isn't napping against the rules now anyway??

only if it causes the game to go nowhere

napping in the name of a resistance (and actually resisting) is well within the rules

I didn't mean within a resistance, i just meant in general

 

[Davs]

Out of pure curiosity - Isn't napping against the rules now anyway??

only if it causes the game to go nowhere

napping in the name of a resistance (and actually resisting) is well within the rules

I didn't mean within a resistance, i just meant in general

His reply still answers your question, though.