What I don't like: The dicks who play this game. There are far too many players who think that since they can beat 50 other active players + they have been here for so long their word is law. If I was a new player I would be put off by the amount of rude conversations that go on, on the forums. Every conversation turns into an insult/flame war.
I'd like those "amazing" players to help out newer players, if you want a larger player base, then stop insulting people and go out and teach people how to play.
I'd like some way of decreasing the amount of active time required/increase you're productivity (I really enjoyed 5 minute ticks as I could run an entire attack and be home in about an hour.)
I'd like there to be a way for smaller players to stand up to bigger players. (customization of troops as has been suggested or anything else that could work.)
I'd like to see Azzer more involved in the game (sending government attack mobs to top ranked players, etc.)
Polo you are a great model of players be such assholes that people quit this game! I've posted on the forums in a discussion maybe 2 times in the last couple of months and both times you have reminded me why I never post on the forums. Who cares if my ideas are ****, you don't have to be such an ass in the way you tell me. It's like that thing in school, if you have nothing nice to say, don't say it. And don't cut down peoples thoughts just for the sake of it, if you want to cut me down then ffs post something else USEFUL instead of just saying "this sucks, o this idea sucks too." Tell me why it sucks and post another suggestion. At least I am trying to do something useful.....
I would personally love 5 minute ticks because of my activity.
Dont know the burnout factor with 5 min ticks ... is it more cos it's faster or less because you can rebuild faster .. hmm.
I would personally love 5 minute ticks because of my activity.
Dont know the burnout factor with 5 min ticks ... is it more cos it's faster or less because you can rebuild faster .. hmm.
Same. Theoretically, it should go both ways, and by reducing the amount you lose when you're offline, that should reduce burnout as it won't matter as much if you die. Maybe lower insurance whilst attacking but have higher bounty, and increased insurance whilst defending yourself, linking it in with the situation (a sliding scale like it used to be - I know it used to be flawed but hopefully the new fairness calculator would correct that).
More attacking = more fun; but it's not as crippling if you do die in your offline time = you feel safer whilst offline.
Only side-effects I can see are that it may discourage huge battles as it's more cost-effective to let the person die and get high insurance. And also activity plays a larger part in the game, early round in particular. But surely the more active you are the more you deserve to get out of the game (in terms of rushing for kills and winning).
3. min attack percentage is too high. Smaller playerbase means less targets = less growth = staganation.
5. Insurance, injury & bounty - some of the most fun i've had in this game is rebuilding from rank 1300+++ back to the top 100. Those 3 things have taken that from me.
I would personally love 5 minute ticks because of my activity.
Dont know the burnout factor with 5 min ticks ... is it more cos it's faster or less because you can rebuild faster .. hmm.
Same. Theoretically, it should go both ways, and by reducing the amount you lose when you're offline, that should reduce burnout as it won't matter as much if you die. Maybe lower insurance whilst attacking but have higher bounty, and increased insurance whilst defending yourself, linking it in with the situation (a sliding scale like it used to be - I know it used to be flawed but hopefully the new fairness calculator would correct that).
More attacking = more fun; but it's not as crippling if you do die in your offline time = you feel safer whilst offline.
Only side-effects I can see are that it may discourage huge battles as it's more cost-effective to let the person die and get high insurance. And also activity plays a larger part in the game, early round in particular. But surely the more active you are the more you deserve to get out of the game (in terms of rushing for kills and winning).
-snip-
To sum up; i think we can come up with something better than 5 minute ticks.
But WackyJackys post about so called 'experienced' players being dicks i 100% agree with Polo just concreted himself in that group and undoubtedly ill be flamed by him for this...
but the vast majority of the more 'experienced' players I've had no problems and what would appear to some as trivial questions they have answered without making any childish remarks such as 'n00b' or whatnot.
This is no way a gripe at polo or whatever its just Wackyjackys point is so vaild, a little more courtesy towards the newer players wouldn't go amiss and it would probably make us think more about trying to get there friends in the game instead of being flamed for virtually everything that is said/suggested.
Same. Theoretically, it should go both ways, and by reducing the amount you lose when you're offline, that should reduce burnout as it won't matter as much if you die.
I'm going to have to state that it increases the burnout factor for the active players; whilst allowing the more inactive players a chance to accomplish more in the short time they are online. It's a double edged sword imo; if you're in one of the top handful of allies, 5 minute ticks is a punishingly brutal experience. In the 5min tick mini round i just about died from staying up for so long and simply having to spend all my time organizing defence which is a hectic enough process in 10 minute ticks; let alone 5. I'm sure anyone who organized defence in that mini round will know precisely what i'm talking about.
While I feel that 5 minute ticks certainly does increase the 'efficiency' of those inactive players who get to accomplish more in the time they are on, i feel that the cost is too high for the active playerbase. There have simply got to be better ways to go about this.
Ahead I like the idea of a sliding scale of bounty/insurance in theory but as we've witnessed so far, it's proved very tricky to actually institute this kind of sliding scale (remember the first round injuries/insurance was introduced? it was a nightmare! ). However, with the advent of this new Fairness calculator it's entirely possible that a sliding scale can be structured around it. Also while i don't necessarily approve of the idea of simply 'letting your teammates die' because they get high insurance and rebuild faster, it would reduce contactability.
Maybe lower insurance whilst attacking but have higher bounty, and increased insurance whilst defending yourself, linking it in with the situation (a sliding scale like it used to be - I know it used to be flawed but hopefully the new fairness calculator would correct that).
To sum up; i think we can come up with something better than 5 minute ticks.
Same. Theoretically, it should go both ways, and by reducing the amount you lose when you're offline, that should reduce burnout as it won't matter as much if you die.
I'm going to have to state that it increases the burnout factor for the active players; whilst allowing the more inactive players a chance to accomplish more in the short time they are online. It's a double edged sword imo; if you're in one of the top handful of allies, 5 minute ticks is a punishingly brutal experience. In the 5min tick mini round i just about died from staying up for so long and simply having to spend all my time organizing defence which is a hectic enough process in 10 minute ticks; let alone 5. I'm sure anyone who organized defence in that mini round will know precisely what i'm talking about.
In your opinion. I, however managed to play in the winning alliance (not just as a sit-back and watch my alliance mates do everything sort of player - I'd like to think I played a decent part) without being on the brink of death. Your experience was possibly due to the rest of your alliance not putting the time in for their rank and you did the work of 2-3 people. That is bound to happen in 5 and 10 minute ticks, but as with most things in life generally it creates an equilibrium whereby you are in an alliance you deserve to be in afterwards.
While I feel that 5 minute ticks certainly does increase the 'efficiency' of those inactive players who get to accomplish more in the time they are on, i feel that the cost is too high for the active playerbase. There have simply got to be better ways to go about this.
Ahead I like the idea of a sliding scale of bounty/insurance in theory but as we've witnessed so far, it's proved very tricky to actually institute this kind of sliding scale (remember the first round injuries/insurance was introduced? it was a nightmare! ). However, with the advent of this new Fairness calculator it's entirely possible that a sliding scale can be structured around it. Also while i don't necessarily approve of the idea of simply 'letting your teammates die' because they get high insurance and rebuild faster, it would reduce contactability.
Maybe lower insurance whilst attacking but have higher bounty, and increased insurance whilst defending yourself, linking it in with the situation (a sliding scale like it used to be - I know it used to be flawed but hopefully the new fairness calculator would correct that).
I did actually say that And I said that "letting your teammates die" could be a side-effect of it for alliances that have no chance of contacting the player or beating the inc.
To sum up; i think we can come up with something better than 5 minute ticks.
That something better can be 5 minute ticks combined with something else, such as increased insurance/bounty as I suggested. Then mix that with some sort of personalisation and this could also make the game more skill based instead of activity based as increased bounty and reduced insurance whilst attacking means picking targets and calcing battles better (a skill-based thing), but dying when you are offline (an activity-based thing) nets you higher insurance so isn't as crippling.