How many hits should it take to descend someone?

[Jixxi]

I'm thinking, as said by others, 5 would be a good number of hits @ 2.5h per hit.


In line with the topic;
Perhaps inactivity should be 'rewarded' by being descended faster?
5 hits for a regularly active person, strictly counting logins to keep it fair;
4 hits for a person who has been inactive for 2 weeks;
3 hits for a person who has been inactive for 4 weeks (~1 month);
2 hits for a person who has been inactive for 8 weeks (~2 months), and finally;
1 hit for a person who has been inactive for 16 weeks (~4 months).
(Provided, of course, that you have sufficient ToC to take out the person in that number of hits.)

like this ldea

[Iƒrit]

then people cannot be decended while they sleep, or while at work

and those who are trying to deascend should miss out on sleep? play games while working? ect...

[Juliette]

then people cannot be decended while they sleep, or while at work

and those who are trying to deascend should miss out on sleep? play games while working? ect...

Priorities, priorities. If you want to descend someone it will always be a team effort. That is effectively how it is already. Tag team someone and take them out by 24/7 coverage. Eventually they will break.
Your argument has been scuttled. Return to port or sink on the High Seas (or use the secret argument you have not yet brought out).

[Iƒrit]

then people cannot be decended while they sleep, or while at work

and those who are trying to deascend should miss out on sleep? play games while working? ect...

Priorities, priorities. If you want to descend someone it will always be a team effort. That is effectively how it is already. Tag team someone and take them out by 24/7 coverage. Eventually they will break.
Your argument has been scuttled. Return to port or sink on the High Seas (or use the secret argument you have not yet brought out).

how about you develop your account to block someone for that amount of time instead of capping it
see what I just did their, now the other sides argument is irrelevant

[EbilCC]

i am sorry i have 55 kills on ascended one took 48 hours just because of there LF before any TOC updates i forgot who but was in an alliance FF was in

I dont mind working in a team but Id prefer to be able to do kills myself more pleasure in that

yes people sleep fine 10 hours max to decend 12 hours to high

[EbilCC]

ive taken down 55 on my own and helped marshall get a kill just one yesterday as he had to out and we have same toc

I want kills myself no offence i want 100 ascended kills myself its my own goal and acheivement as I like to do things myself like having the same one accoutn since i started playing and not buy it and get cheap good account by buying one

[Iƒrit]

ive taken down 55 on my own and helped marshall get a kill just one yesterday as he had to out and we have same toc

I want kills myself no offence i want 100 ascended kills myself its my own goal and acheivement as I like to do things myself like having the same one accoutn since i started playing and not buy it and get cheap good account by buying one

so, your own argument is pure selfishness?

Why not work as a team with you getting the final kills? Work with someone to get things done, share the fun of it?

I know this is a radical thought, but since you think we should put effort forth to decend someone maybe you should put effort forth to protect yourself instead of having a cap protect you

[ƒëmmë ƒatalë]

where is the challenge in decending inactives? its like someone with a TUK massing someone with a small army.

I could just go through and decend many inactives now, but I find it better to do it you are at war with not just cos I/you can do it..

[EbilCC]

i farmed everything i got on ascended thanks

[Colos]

I'm thinking, as said by others, 5 would be a good number of hits @ 2.5h per hit.


In line with the topic;
Perhaps inactivity should be 'rewarded' by being descended faster?
5 hits for a regularly active person, strictly counting logins to keep it fair;
4 hits for a person who has been inactive for 2 weeks;
3 hits for a person who has been inactive for 4 weeks (~1 month);
2 hits for a person who has been inactive for 8 weeks (~2 months), and finally;
1 hit for a person who has been inactive for 16 weeks (~4 months).
(Provided, of course, that you have sufficient ToC to take out the person in that number of hits.)

I like this. Let's say, when you are online, the max damage you can suffer is 33% of your reserves.

You log out, and a timer starts.
You stay offline for 3 hours: the figure goes up to 34%. You stay offline for a day: the figure goes up to 41%.
You stay offline for 3 days and the figure goes up to 57 %.

Though I would implement a maximum for this, so it would take at least two hits to descend an account, os, around 70%?

Colos

[EbilCC]

and I said about the size TOC rank implentation which is good to like for planets big ones cant take out tiny ones smaller ones but medium ones can and take them 5 hits but big accounts dnt get protection then from other big accounts or shouldnt

[Iƒrit]

and I said about the size TOC rank implentation which is good to like for planets big ones cant take out tiny ones smaller ones but medium ones can and take them 5 hits but big accounts dnt get protection then from other big accounts or shouldnt

so what stops me from having a high planet production and just smashing off my planets...... it works but easily manipulated.

[Juliette]

I'm thinking, as said by others, 5 would be a good number of hits @ 2.5h per hit.


In line with the topic;
Perhaps inactivity should be 'rewarded' by being descended faster?
5 hits for a regularly active person, strictly counting logins to keep it fair;
4 hits for a person who has been inactive for 2 weeks;
3 hits for a person who has been inactive for 4 weeks (~1 month);
2 hits for a person who has been inactive for 8 weeks (~2 months), and finally;
1 hit for a person who has been inactive for 16 weeks (~4 months).
(Provided, of course, that you have sufficient ToC to take out the person in that number of hits.)

I like this. Let's say, when you are online, the max damage you can suffer is 33% of your reserves.

You log out, and a timer starts.
You stay offline for 3 hours: the figure goes up to 34%. You stay offline for a day: the figure goes up to 41%.
You stay offline for 3 days and the figure goes up to 57 %.

Though I would implement a maximum for this, so it would take at least two hits to descend an account, os, around 70%?

Colos

I like this version better. It somehow seems more reasonable.

[GOLDEN WING]

make it that you can only ascended attack someone every turn change....once per player/account.

BUT


the descention only lasts for 1hour in main....Giving you a strategic opertunity to kill someone's defense with no AB or stats Boost from ascending.

Thus adding more strategy involved then camping on ascended descending someone every 9hours

Dunno but i would think that would bring more strategy into the game + Teamwork.

3 or 4 people sit on ascended ready to descend (this helping smaller alliances) and 1 person in main ready to begin massing and poof they descend him and main person has an easier time massing because his pretty unk title goes bye bye for an hour/30min

[Tekki]

make it that you can only ascended attack someone every turn change....once per player/account.

BUT


the descention only lasts for 1hour in main....Giving you a strategic opertunity to kill someone's defense with no AB or stats Boost from ascending.

Thus adding more strategy involved then camping on ascended descending someone every 9hours

Dunno but i would think that would bring more strategy into the game + Teamwork.

3 or 4 people sit on ascended ready to descend (this helping smaller alliances) and 1 person in main ready to begin massing and poof they descend him and main person has an easier time massing because his pretty unk title goes bye bye for an hour/30min

So... 396 turns in ascension - that's about as many turns as you get in a day on average on ascension for 1 hour of descension in main, that if they are online they will cover with an alliance PPT anyway?