DO SOMETHING

[Mystake]

about people who choose to play with NO stats?

Like, seriously?

If two countries go to war and one has "nothing" to destroy
than the other one is clear to go into the country and either seize their land, destroy their homeland or flatout whipe it off the face of the earth.


Start implementing things like if the person has no defense then a % of their miners start revolting!

[Iƒrit]

strike isnt a stat

[Wolf359]

lol - touche Ifrit!

I see Mystake's point though! If someone chooses to have 0 defence, then perhaps things such as miners revolting should happen....? After all - if you have no 'Homeland Security', then who is there to keep these workers in check?

Maybe raiding should become exponentially more effective if the defender chooses to have 0 defence?

Maybe if you have 0 defence, and there is nothing left to defend your realm, then any attack towards your realm should have to be defended, at a reduced effectiveness, by your 'attackers' - a bit like what things used to be like?

[GrizzZzzly]

I'd like to expand on this,
If we implemented the idea as you said Wolf, people would keep building small defences of 3 bill, they wouldn't lose much but would be safe from the increased raid bonus.

On the other hand if we have a set defence, which a player must have to prevent the increased raid bonus, that wouldn't exactly be fair. It would effect larger players much less than smaller players. So the only way i can see this happening is if the defence has to be directly proportional to the army size of that account. This would potentially work but is it necessary.

Gains:
People with defences under a certain level are easier to raid, might help with people fighting with 0 stats. But not necessarilily

Considering not everyone has a large UP this may provoke little change. I would suggest that there is a huge raid increase. Maybe one that allows a player to take all the UU in several raids.
Bottom line is that this idea would nead a lot of development to become viable to implement. Also it may cause more harm than actually solving the problem. This could just be one extra thing the server must process, therefore increasing the turn lag for those that experience it. If the server has to process and calculate if each account has a proportional defence to their army size.

[Iƒrit]

I'd like to expand on this,
If we implemented the idea as you said Wolf, people would keep building small defences of 3 bill, they wouldn't lose much but would be safe from the increased raid bonus.

On the other hand if we have a set defence, which a player must have to prevent the increased raid bonus, that wouldn't exactly be fair. It would effect larger players much less than smaller players. So the only way i can see this happening is if the defence has to be directly proportional to the army size of that account. This would potentially work but is it necessary.

Gains:
People with defences under a certain level are easier to raid, might help with people fighting with 0 stats. But not necessarilily

Considering not everyone has a large UP this may provoke little change. I would suggest that there is a huge raid increase. Maybe one that allows a player to take all the UU in several raids.
Bottom line is that this idea would nead a lot of development to become viable to implement. Also it may cause more harm than actually solving the problem. This could just be one extra thing the server must process, therefore increasing the turn lag for those that experience it. If the server has to process and calculate if each account has a proportional defence to their army size.

interesting, that would make massing someone for UU a bit more effective

[Wolf359]

I'd like to expand on this,
If we implemented the idea as you said Wolf, people would keep building small defences of 3 bill, they wouldn't lose much but would be safe from the increased raid bonus.

On the other hand if we have a set defence, which a player must have to prevent the increased raid bonus, that wouldn't exactly be fair. It would effect larger players much less than smaller players. So the only way i can see this happening is if the defence has to be directly proportional to the army size of that account. This would potentially work but is it necessary.

Gains:
People with defences under a certain level are easier to raid, might help with people fighting with 0 stats. But not necessarilily

Considering not everyone has a large UP this may provoke little change. I would suggest that there is a huge raid increase. Maybe one that allows a player to take all the UU in several raids.
Bottom line is that this idea would nead a lot of development to become viable to implement. Also it may cause more harm than actually solving the problem. This could just be one extra thing the server must process, therefore increasing the turn lag for those that experience it. If the server has to process and calculate if each account has a proportional defence to their army size.

I know Grizz - in fact, when I first posted it I added 'would be unfair to implement now unless it was done cleverly', but removed it to provoke discussion.

Personally, I'd be all for, if there was 0 defence, the 'defenders' attacking force is then forced into defensive duties at reduced effectiveness. The game used to be like this - but the only problem with trying to implement it now is that due to the ease at which attacks can be sustained (because of limitless AT) it would be too easy to wipe out both def and strike - unless some safeguards were built in. However, the advantage would be that there would now be a need to invest in both def and strike, instead of just concentrating on one - i.e. more balanced.

[grimgor]

maybe after 24 hours with no defence miner start to untrain them self

would help the raider a bit but any active player would build some weapons

[GeneralChaos]

Thats funny, because when i suggested back when raiding was screwed up, to put the % to like 10% a hit if the target has 0 def, i was shot down rapidly claiming the % was to high,

Now a few weeks later you want to take all the UU if the target has 0 def, so which is it?????

[Sarevok]

I disagree with the raiding. I mean, if you go in and take someone's people, then as you start, people are going to run are they not?? And not stand there and just get taken?

[GrizzZzzly]

GeneralChaos, i never accused or said anything on the matter when you suggested it. furthermore I only posted it for people to think about it, toss a few ideas into peoples heads. I never said anywhere in my post, any specific ways in which this should be implemented. what i said about taking all the UU in a few hits wasn't meant to be taken specifically, i was just pointing out that the rates of raiding should go up considerably. I just gave my 2 cents on what i think on the matter.

[Reschef]

I like the "miners are revolting / running away" when @ 0 deff. That way raiding wouldn't get too imba with all the inactive accounts.

[Juliette]

Seconded.

[GeneralChaos]

Admin will never make it that you can take or kill miners, as it slows growth via income, and thats a no no in his book, if an account has 0 def, after say

6 hours the UP/Income drops by 20%
9 hours the UP/Income drops by 40%
12 hours the UP/Income drops by 80%

Make it both, this will stop the guys with a 500k + Up sitting there able to grow but never lose anything, if they dont build a def they lose temporary growth, when they build a def, the % goes back to 100% full growth.

[Iƒrit]

Admin will never make it that you can take or kill miners, as it slows growth via income, and thats a no no in his book, if an account has 0 def, after say

6 hours the UP/Income drops by 20%
9 hours the UP/Income drops by 40%
12 hours the UP/Income drops by 80%

Make it both, this will stop the guys with a 500k + Up sitting there able to grow but never lose anything, if they dont build a def they lose temporary growth, when they build a def, the % goes back to 100% full growth.

the only problem I see with that is it would greatly affect raiding for the whole server. But I agree with the idea for the most part.

[Wolf359]

Admin will never make it that you can take or kill miners, as it slows growth via income, and thats a no no in his book, if an account has 0 def, after say

6 hours the UP/Income drops by 20%
9 hours the UP/Income drops by 40%
12 hours the UP/Income drops by 80%

Make it both, this will stop the guys with a 500k + Up sitting there able to grow but never lose anything, if they dont build a def they lose temporary growth, when they build a def, the % goes back to 100% full growth.

I don't know. Why should attackers miss out on big hits because the defender refuses to build a defence? It would actually mean that there is less reason to attack someone with 0 defence - which means that the defender doesn't have to logon as often to bank! Therefore, in one respect, making it less complicated still for them.

I'd much rather it would mean that the defenders attacking force can then become subject to attack. Make it fair though - it only kicks in after a certain amount of time of 0 def (and something would have to be built in so that they don't just have to build a token defence for 1 turn and then dismantle it again - perhaps that they'd have to build a defence that was in proportion to their income/UP, and it would have to be maintained for 'x' amount of turns, otherwise dismantling it would not reset the counter..?)

the only problem I see with that is it would greatly affect raiding for the whole server. But I agree with the idea for the most part.

Not necessarily a bad thing!