~Dä Vinci~ wrote:In reference to several posts:
Reading through the posts just sounds as if we should give up, it's a game that's getting smaller each year, why make fixes that could result in players leaving who have been supporting the server upkeep. I don't agree with that, yes the game is small I don't think these updates will bring new players, they might how ever retain current ones.
No one said anything about giving, up but as usual with TAF you have your mind set on one thing & are unable to comprehend something else that may differ from your plan.
People have suggested things in here & in previous threads you have put up, yet you always revert back to your idea without much consideration for theirs.
Frankly, thats what math is good at.
You have a good teacher...
As for the game getting smaller each year, its been hovering around its current account standing for a couple of years now.
Some people need a break & later come back when their ready, others leave for a while with unknown plans when they will return & then from time to time you get old players who want to have abit of fun/see old friends.
As you have noticed there has been a great influx of late due to the facebook page that was set up, I dont see them in here whinging like you are & yet you have one of the best accounts in the game....
~Dä Vinci~ wrote:
I have spoken to large amount of players who have lost interest due planets taking control over the way massing/losses work. Reducing planets is just one idea, they need several implementations so that they retain there power but also don't mean you can take next to 0's losses. Changing the % to raw strike will mean you have to build bigger to reap the rewards, you also stand to loose more. This won't fix the issue, if anything it could make it worse as you have to destroy even bigger stats.
Well if you have indeed spoken to these players, maybe you can ask them to come here & voice their opinion.
Forgive me if I dont take your word for it.
~Dä Vinci~ wrote:
You focus too much around $$ and the upkeep on the game, this should not be something we need to take into consideration when thinking about adjustments. This is the for admins to think about before implementing changes. You can't presume to know if these changes will decrease annual yield, just like I can't
The harsh reality is this is a major factor, because without the income generated from this game (merlins, attack turns etc) then this game would not have been here for as long as it has.
At the end of the day this is a business, yes its a fun game for us but for the admin team first & foremost it is a business & dismissing the idea that they don't need to consider what effect this update would have on the generation of income is just absurd.
Your right I dont know what effects this would have on the income generated, just like you dont know if this update will grow or decrease the population/loyalty of its members.
Unless you have some kind of magic ball you're not telling us about.
~Dä Vinci~ wrote:
My idea's are not for new people, they are for existing people. This is not a simple fix at all, one simple fix will require re-work of nearly everything. IF you decrease MS power, people will focus on planets. IF you decrease MS + planets, people will focus on covert/ac. All these points can be devastating when playing against. The main issue is there is only a few viable routes to invest in.
Indeed it is not a simple fix, so let me get this right.
You want to make motherships smaller, you want cov/ac capped so you cant go past a certain point & you want planets to have minimal effect.
Sounds like taking the game backwards not helping it progress.
At the end of the day, its a game with not alot of areas to spend your naq on so there is always going to be that of not balanced areas.
Limiting things is just silly.
~Dä Vinci~ wrote:
I honestly can't see any of this being agreed upon and implemented, I only created this post due to various people looking into the game and seeing planets/ms still broken and turn there nose at it.
Its a discussion that needed to happen, but just not down the path your wanting it to go....
~Dä Vinci~ wrote:
Houses don't do anything, they can all be countered so this doesn't have much say in the matter.
As you know, houses were never introduced as a sure thing.
But like I said, if you speak to others and get a few alliances in the one spot and give your vote to one of the alliances you trust then you cannot be kicked from that house unless by said alliance.
Ofcourse you can join (cheaters i think it is) that cancels all the bonuses, but this is apart of the fun.
Maybe a time limit needs to be set where an alliance can only spend so long in a certain house before being auto kicked & having a cool off period, would avoid people abusing it.
So in that regard I think my statement holds true.
~Dä Vinci~ wrote:
Motherships and planets need to be amended so that they are not the main drive in the game. Maybe a nerf is not the best solution but all ideas are welcome. If you reduced MS by 100%, give it and year and we are back at square one. I feel as if motherships and planets are too consistent, they add too much power consistently. You could add planet blockers ect.
No matter what path you go down, motherships & planets are always going to be the main drive in this game that people will work on.
A big covert or anti covert level doesn't affect losses like a mothership/planet does, just means with them you have to train more uu to get the desired result if your a lower level.
Adding a planet blocker is silly sorry to say, how would you aqquire it?
Then what is to stop big accounts having this said planet blocker & hitting accounts without it, then basically your making the smaller accounts even more helpless then they were before.
~Dä Vinci~ wrote:
Boosting new account is always a good thing for an old turn based game, I like the idea of implementing more alliance functionality. Paying 200t alliance bank for 35 covert boost, 400t for 37 covert boost, 500t for 38 covert boost. This way alliances will focus on building naq and keeping active. You could implement 200t naq + alliance G&r, alliance members need to be in top 30 for 15 days ect for 10k g&r. This is just an idea, the next question is how do we help lone wolfs then, well you will need to get G&R as well but compete against alliances, it also costs less maybe.
I like the idea of putting the alliance bank to use for something, but it would have to be something for the alliance not individual accounts.
In theory here what would stop someone with a bigger account using said alliance bank for themselves & its easier for certain people then in bigger alliances with more members (TAF/DDE/OE) to choose certain members & jump ahead of all those in the smaller alliances whom do not have the member base to generate such a large alliance income.
Also on that last note, whats to stop a big player sitting there with 1Q naq just banking and banking on 4% to build up the bank which is essentially putting $$ into an alliance bank for individual use.
Maybe something to think about for an alliance bank use would be maybe another an extra alliance PPT for 50T naq or something along those lines, I just think having the alliance bank for individual use could be exploited.
~Dä Vinci~ wrote:
We need to help speed up the account building for people a lot smaller, I can appreciate people spending 100's and I don't want it to be a quick fix, 100t for 40 covert ect. You have to work hard for any change.
Now you're getting somewhere, WE NEED to help the new players/small accounts that don't have time to farm a huge amount nor the money to buy naq.
I have put together a list of things I personally think would be beneficial for everyone.
1) Motherships do not need to be touched, they are fine as they are.
Like I said in a battle with another mothership of similar stats/slightly bigger then they cancel each other out.
Yes it costs more to mass a big mothership, but the rebuild cost for those big motherships is also expensive, that is why I stopped rebuilding mine 2-3x a day for you lot because plain & simply it became too expensive for me to do so.
So there is always two sides to the story in that regard.
Changing motherships for everyone by reducing how big they are & how effective they are will have no effect on the current situation what so ever, its basically being in the same situation but with smaller numbers because there will still be gaps between the big accounts & the smaller accounts regardless of what you do with motherships.
2) Planets I do agree on this actually, I would personally like to see a change in the amount of uu needed to max out/fully utilize your planets.
Atleast double (even triple) what it is now, this makes it more expensive for bigger accounts to mass people (I dont think the effectiveness/kill/lose ratio needs to be touched) but the amount of uu required should increase.
It will promote bigger builds & with people standing to lose more uu they will quite possibly train more spys etc.
I think a change like this could breath new life into the planets saga, no need to limit the amount of one type of planet because like I said before people will just dump 5 planets, sit with 5 attack planets and basically not build a defence & just use attack.
Then also this does not require people to buy merlins from the BM as MT's/PPT would suffice so there is income lost there for the admin team should they go down this path (not saying everyone would do this, but its a possibility).
3) Helping new/older players with small accounts in a
MUST.
Like I said above reducing everyones mothership will address this issue in no way, will be like throwing a pebble at a concrete wall.
What I propose in this regard is reduce the cost to get to a 15-20T mothership by half (Yes 50%), this then reduces the time/resources needed to be somewhat competitive.
It is the only way the gap will be closed to an extent, something similar could be done with covert/anti covert levels say up until level 38 (I wont say 39 because then it makes it too easy to get to level 39 for the last ascension).
Hell, if the admin team wanted to get adventurous then they could even explore this with planets as well although I feel this could be exploited and too hard to police so probably not worth the thought.
But in regards to motherships/covert/anti covert levels then reducing costs for small members are a must to help close the gaps, but with that you also run the risk of people whom dont play by the rules using this as an excuse to make illegal multis and getting them to a decent level (mothership/covert/anti covert wise) and sniping with them which is the last thing we need, this is why I dont think the ascension process should be sped up in anyway.
It is already sped up for the first 10 ascensions i think it is where you gain 2 GNR where you would normally gain 1 at that rank.
Another negative on this matter is say you do make it half price for those to get to a 20T mothership, then the guys with 20-30T motherships are the ones that lose out to a degree.
But I'm sure they would enjoy the challenge of having more people to have battles against.
So over all what I propose is: (in the short version, no essay lol)
1) leave motherships as they are
2) Increase the amount of uu needed to fully utilise planets (atleast by double what it is now)
3) Make it cheaper for smaller guys to catch up via cheaper mothership upgrades & cheaper covert/ac levels (to a point)
In my eyes, this is the ONLY way the gap will start to close.
You cant expect small guys to turn around one day and all have 40t motherships with little work, make it easier for them to a point & then things go back to normal for them.
It might also help with if we do get new people, it may help them want to stick around.
At the moment it takes far too much naq to build a mothership from 0-20T if your just starting out.
But in making judgement, just remember all those guys who are not $$ spending whom have built up planets/their mothership over the years by long hours farming that do not have the luxury of spending $$, by trying to make it harder for $$ spenders you are also giving them a kick in the face.
That is also something to remember.
Also with ryu's idea about mothership percentages, when I was massing da vinci flat out even though my mothership is bigger then his I was losing more shields on each hit.
I was only more effective because my strike was blowing through his defence (but the prick fixed that by making his shields bigger lol)
So I dont think this is really necessary.
But yeah at the moment for me I can spend **Filtered** on my mothership and get next to no benefit, thats how expensive it gets but thats understandable because thats what happens when things evolve over time.
You can't spoon feed people, but I feel my ideas above will help even the game out to a degree, $$ spenders will always maintain a gap & so they should.
hope you enjoyed your essay
Until next time kids