Alliance Balancing

[Dimitar]

Mods, I'll consider it double standard if the above post doesn't get deleted, thanks.

 

[Davs]

I got from 3m RPG up to 30m in one day, just rushing the top. Nerf was soooooooo needed

Completely agreed. It encouraged suicidal attacks which personally I don't think should be profitable. Why on earth should you get rewarded for losing all your troops? And it is far too favourable to quick-firing routes like SAs and RPGs.

if your bounty was so high that suicide is worthwhile, you deserve suicide attacks. Besides, sending out was always an option, as was quick help. In my opinion.

Yes, you're right. Sending out was always an option, let's encourage contactability - it's obviously helping the development of the game. And yes, quick help is an option as well, adrenaline rushed RPGs and SAs at the end of the tick only appear at eta 1, there is a variety of helpful units you can send to defend, like jeeps, humvees, hippy vans - them firing late and doing no damage are essential to this tactic. I also agree with your other point - suicides, by defenition, need to make you grow several times above your previous score.

I am sorry I ever disagreed with you.

Contactability is killing bush? You're right. If an insane amount of troops are coming to sodomize a player, they should just let themselves get killed.
Against SAs, jeeps and humvees are insanely useful, as they provide armor, and SAs do HEALTH damage. Likewise with Attack dogs or VDs against RPGs.

Or, you know, send the **** out.

I've always been of the impression that contactability is one of, if not the, worst requirements of the game. This is a game, why the **** should we be expected to have people calling/texting us to go online because we're being attacked/some other crap which bares no relevance to anything important in our lives is going on. I don't like being rude to people on here unless humour's involved - but your response here was really retarded.

 

[Alcibiades]

I got from 3m RPG up to 30m in one day, just rushing the top. Nerf was soooooooo needed

Completely agreed. It encouraged suicidal attacks which personally I don't think should be profitable. Why on earth should you get rewarded for losing all your troops? And it is far too favourable to quick-firing routes like SAs and RPGs.

if your bounty was so high that suicide is worthwhile, you deserve suicide attacks. Besides, sending out was always an option, as was quick help. In my opinion.

Yes, you're right. Sending out was always an option, let's encourage contactability - it's obviously helping the development of the game. And yes, quick help is an option as well, adrenaline rushed RPGs and SAs at the end of the tick only appear at eta 1, there is a variety of helpful units you can send to defend, like jeeps, humvees, hippy vans - them firing late and doing no damage are essential to this tactic. I also agree with your other point - suicides, by defenition, need to make you grow several times above your previous score.

I am sorry I ever disagreed with you.

Contactability is killing bush? You're right. If an insane amount of troops are coming to sodomize a player, they should just let themselves get killed.
Against SAs, jeeps and humvees are insanely useful, as they provide armor, and SAs do HEALTH damage. Likewise with Attack dogs or VDs against RPGs.

Or, you know, send the **** out.

I've always been of the impression that contactability is one of, if not the, worst requirements of the game. This is a game, why the **** should we be expected to have people calling/texting us to go online because we're being attacked/some other crap which bares no relevance to anything important in our lives is going on. I don't like being rude to people on here unless humour's involved - but your response here was really retarded.

Davs is bang on here. Absolutely spot on.

 

[Walking_Death]

While I agree that contact is the curse of bushtarion, it means that if you don't want bounty hunters at all hours, you shouldn't be dishonorable.

 

[Dimitar]

fffffffffffffffffffffffffacepaaalm

 

[atsanjose]

While I agree that contact is the curse of bushtarion, it means that if you don't want bounty hunters at all hours, you shouldn't be dishonorable.

Fact stays that the bountyhuntingsystem, before the nerve, was flawwed, not only did they give an unfare advantage to fast firing routes on the attackers side, but also late firing routes on the defenders side.
All in all it was a far to easy system to inprove rankwise which wasnt reflective with the time and dedication someone put in or the experience they had.

 

[Dax]

I've always been of the impression that contactability is one of, if not the, worst requirements of the game. This is a game, why the **** should we be expected to have people calling/texting us to go online because we're being attacked/some other crap which bares no relevance to anything important in our lives is going on.

I totally agree, but surely only a person with little/no personal activities would endeavour to be doing this at all hours anyway? If you're good enough at the game, you should be able to recover in no time.
I'm not arguing 'for' this suggestion, I'm just saying that a progressive evolution of sadness has occurred in this game (that yes, I was also a part of at one stage), and no matter what you do the active people will be more successful than the inactive people. If people choose to be contactable, then by all means let us be waking them at all hours to show them the error in their ways.

 

[Alcibiades]

The problem though Dax is that these people are just playing as the game allows (demands?) and it's not fair that an overpowered mechanic be used to "teach them a lesson". That's bollocks. Besides which the less inactive people aren't going to be teaching anyone **** since they are, by definition, less active. Many people don't think CRA is a fair way to punish the top, so why should we think another equally overpowered an absurd mechanic is a viable alternative?

The bounty nerf was very well deserved and necessary

 

[Dax]

The problem though Dax is that these people are just playing as the game allows (demands?) and it's not fair that an overpowered mechanic be used to "teach them a lesson". That's bollocks. Besides which the less inactive people aren't going to be teaching anyone **** since they are, by definition, less active. Many people don't think CRA is a fair way to punish the top, so why should we think another equally overpowered an absurd mechanic is a viable alternative?

The bounty nerf was very well deserved and necessary

It's cool, I never got a chance to use it when it was revised either time, anyway! I got hit by it, but the amounts I lost were always minuscule in comparison to my general income. Free HF/Eff ftw

 

[Alcibiades]

Lol yeah I never used it or was hit by it but watched people make stupid profits. It was just silly. I like the idea, but the rewards were too high

 

[Dax]

Lol yeah I never used it or was hit by it but watched people make stupid profits. It was just silly. I like the idea, but the rewards were too high

The intention was honourable, but the implementation was wrong. That is all that really needs to be said on the entire thing.

 

[Walking_Death]

The problem though Dax is that these people are just playing as the game allows (demands?) and it's not fair that an overpowered mechanic be used to "teach them a lesson". That's bollocks. Besides which the less inactive people aren't going to be teaching anyone **** since they are, by definition, less active. Many people don't think CRA is a fair way to punish the top, so why should we think another equally overpowered an absurd mechanic is a viable alternative?

The bounty nerf was very well deserved and necessary

Punishing the top for being the top is not fair. Punishing people because they got there by playing like dickheads is good.

 

[Alcibiades]

The top doesn't have an option eventually. They are going to get bounties by virtue of having won. How is it fair to punish them for winning?

 

[Davs]

It's in the nature of the game that those who reach the top, if given a chance to gain a significant lead in terms of acres, will gain a sufficient lead in terms of score which means for them to continue to participate in the game, they have to attack people much smaller than them, or else they run out of people to attack, so just sit around doing nothing - last time I checked, no one enjoyed doing that in this game.

 

[Walking_Death]

It's in the nature of the game that those who reach the top, if given a chance to gain a significant lead in terms of acres, will gain a sufficient lead in terms of score which means for them to continue to participate in the game, they have to attack people much smaller than them, or else they run out of people to attack, so just sit around doing nothing - last time I checked, no one enjoyed doing that in this game.

or they could slow down and not grow so big. It's a choice they'll need to make; keep growing and have a CRA attacking them reasonably, or not grow so much ahead of everyone else.

 

[Alcibiades]

It's in the nature of the game that those who reach the top, if given a chance to gain a significant lead in terms of acres, will gain a sufficient lead in terms of score which means for them to continue to participate in the game, they have to attack people much smaller than them, or else they run out of people to attack, so just sit around doing nothing - last time I checked, no one enjoyed doing that in this game.

or they could slow down and not grow so big. It's a choice they'll need to make; keep growing and have a CRA attacking them reasonably, or not grow so much ahead of everyone else.

Bollocks, again. You don't want them to slow down. Remember HELL round? You don't want a top ranked ally within range of everyone in the game. You really don't. Trust me. I don't know why I have to state this but it should be self evident that we shouldn't punish people for winning.

 

[Walking_Death]

It's in the nature of the game that those who reach the top, if given a chance to gain a significant lead in terms of acres, will gain a sufficient lead in terms of score which means for them to continue to participate in the game, they have to attack people much smaller than them, or else they run out of people to attack, so just sit around doing nothing - last time I checked, no one enjoyed doing that in this game.

or they could slow down and not grow so big. It's a choice they'll need to make; keep growing and have a CRA attacking them reasonably, or not grow so much ahead of everyone else.

Bollocks, again. You don't want them to slow down. Remember HELL round? You don't want a top ranked ally within range of everyone in the game. You really don't. Trust me. I don't know why I have to state this but it should be self evident that we shouldn't punish people for winning.

How does this punish people for winning? It just makes it harder to win, as you have to make a tough decision. The alliance won't be within range of everyone unless they're doing a bad job. Or, they could just grow and be dishonorable, and deal with a nerfed CRA

 

[tobapopalos]

How does this punish people for winning? It just makes it harder to win, as you have to make a tough decision. The alliance won't be within range of everyone unless they're doing a bad job. Or, they could just grow and be dishonorable, and deal with a nerfed CRA

Deliberately not growing fast is one of the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. "Hey guys, we finally beat our closest opposition and it looks like we have the round secured at last! Let's leave them all their land and let them catch up again so we have to do it all over again!". Fun.

And how does it NOT punish them for winning? You get to be in the position of power, probably after a few weeks of solid activity, contactability and warring, and then you have the glorious options of either waiting around to get butt****ed by the playerbase in a resistance, or grow and get butt****ed by the game mechanics.

This is a truly, mind-bogglingly, bafflingly stupid idea.

 

[Twigley]

Off topic - Do you really see Azzer even making tiny little bitsy changes? Yet this one he'd put time into. Sorry but I don't think so.


But just to entertain - This idea is stupid. As leader of the rank 2 alliance for the past two rounds, I would hate this change. I'd prefer to keep out of the range of the top allies players and hit down. Screw them bringing down their score and messing with my round.

I also think its pretty sad how people still blitz the round to win. Past 2/3/4 rounds have been fail in terms of going for rank 1. The ones before that were not much better but still had something.

As leader and player of a fair few rank 1 allies I would naturally be against it too. I once got raped by cra(p) 7 ticks before the end. Lost 100b score. What was the point in that? All CRA did was kill a few people and make them pissed and or quit the game. Didn't balance anything.


The game is dead. You can't balance it anymore. If you've got lazy people (which I believe 90 percent of the game is) then youre already onto a fail.

Kinda sick of people suggesting game mechanic changes when the problem is with the player base attitude and size.

 

[Walking_Death]

YOU WOULDN'T GET BUTT****ED BY THIS CRA. Jesus, I didn't make that clear? Reread the first post. 3 or 4 attacks if your alliance is completely and totally dishonorable, and those could easily be turned back without much losses. You wouldn't lose 100b score. I said it would be tuned down greatly. Please, for the love of God, read the posts before you respond.

The attacks would not be scaled up until the alliance is designed to lose horribly.