Increase the number of Attack turns give per turn

[Prior Or Ori]

well maybe if you up the turns, it should cost the player, like the nox thing. say 25% (just throwing that out there) of your income gets you an extra turn. now the bigger incomes would be way overpaying for the turns, but still have the choice, while the smaller players would seem to get a little bit better deal.

It would help the black market situation some for the amount of turns, and hopefully, sources of turns available would be increased.

otherwise just upping the turns, i can't agree with.

[iKon]

how is it not going to help smaller players? more AT's = The chance to farm and accumulate more often = The chance to build resources and therefore troops, weaponry et al. Basic principle, and it carries right from the top to the bottom. How is that idea not beneficial to everyone?

[thorslittleworld]

I would say no because it would only end up on the black market anyway, as a percentage I would expect less that 20 percent of the at's being used by the lower ranks would actually be used for attacking, the rest would most likely be used for trading or ppt's

[undead21]

exactly, thosue turns would end up on the market for others to buy their fore increaseing market stability.

[Wolf359]

how is it not going to help smaller players? more AT's = The chance to farm and accumulate more often = The chance to build resources and therefore troops, weaponry et al. Basic principle, and it carries right from the top to the bottom. How is that idea not beneficial to everyone?

The idea was suggeted with, I believe, the premise to help smaller players 'catch up' to the top players - but at the same time it gives teh top players twice as many turns to mass the smaller players with when they see them becoming a threat.

It's a Catch 22 situation - it benefits both, therefore it benefits neither.

[iKon]

how is it not going to help smaller players? more AT's = The chance to farm and accumulate more often = The chance to build resources and therefore troops, weaponry et al. Basic principle, and it carries right from the top to the bottom. How is that idea not beneficial to everyone?

The idea was suggeted with, I believe, the premise to help smaller players 'catch up' to the top players - but at the same time it gives teh top players twice as many turns to mass the smaller players with when they see them becoming a threat.

It's a Catch 22 situation - it benefits both, therefore it benefits neither.

hence why introducing minimum rank you can attack would also be a good idea - look. If you introduce a gradual increase in ATs along with the max you can have as well as a minimum attack protocol, where's the harm? It gives the big fish a chance to bolster their egos cause they're like...oh so cool, and gives people everywhere else a chance to progress. I'm all for a fair game at the end of the day, and I'm not seeing much of that while the people at the top remain untouchable.

Another question while I'm here cause I'm not sure how effective it would be: why have a strike and defence rank? why not consolidate the defence and attack troops into one solid number...wouldnt that make more sense?

[Munchy]

how is it not going to help smaller players? more AT's = The chance to farm and accumulate more often = The chance to build resources and therefore troops, weaponry et al. Basic principle, and it carries right from the top to the bottom. How is that idea not beneficial to everyone?

The idea was suggeted with, I believe, the premise to help smaller players 'catch up' to the top players - but at the same time it gives teh top players twice as many turns to mass the smaller players with when they see them becoming a threat.

It's a Catch 22 situation - it benefits both, therefore it benefits neither.

I disagree.

Currently you make 336 at's per week. Well, over the last week I have used about 150,000 at's while raiding. That is 3,125 days worth of at making. Needless to say, I get my at's from the market

So doubling or tripling the amount of at's you get per turn would have no effect on me. For someone who can't use the market yet it could help though, to a noticible degree.

It would dramatically increase the amount of at's they get to use, and would help in their initial growth, while hardly affecting players like me

And because all players would get the additional at's, it wouldn't be a "newbie only" kind of thing. The newbs would just appreciate it more.

Just my opinion....

[Rockhard]

Well i like the idea alot. okay not really alot but it could be very useful to make the market more stable. The people 1-4,000 make 1 AT a turn 4,001-20,000 make 2 AT a turn and 3 AT a turn.

It would creat and buying and selling market for people the lower ranks will be selling ATs for what they need and the higher rankin will be buy ATs and other stuff for the ATs so the lower can buy and build themselves better....etc....etc

you see what i mean

[Wolf359]

how is it not going to help smaller players? more AT's = The chance to farm and accumulate more often = The chance to build resources and therefore troops, weaponry et al. Basic principle, and it carries right from the top to the bottom. How is that idea not beneficial to everyone?

The idea was suggeted with, I believe, the premise to help smaller players 'catch up' to the top players - but at the same time it gives teh top players twice as many turns to mass the smaller players with when they see them becoming a threat.

It's a Catch 22 situation - it benefits both, therefore it benefits neither.

I disagree.

Currently you make 336 at's per week. Well, over the last week I have used about 150,000 at's while raiding. That is 3,125 days worth of at making. Needless to say, I get my at's from the market

So doubling or tripling the amount of at's you get per turn would have no effect on me. For someone who can't use the market yet it could help though, to a noticible degree.

It would dramatically increase the amount of at's they get to use, and would help in their initial growth, while hardly affecting players like me

And because all players would get the additional at's, it wouldn't be a "newbie only" kind of thing. The newbs would just appreciate it more.

Just my opinion....

But you are also saying that you don't need this increase - and neither should anybody else. You use a lot of ATs because you can afford them and choose to RAID - not everyone does - and from what I have seen in this (and past suggestions on this topic) is taht it is people who do a lot of raiding that want more ATs. Whether it is raiding or something else - I still haven't seen a real valid reason for an increase in ATs, other than impatience, and until I see a better reason i will continue to oppose it.

As for reinhardt's comment about rank limits - we used to have rank modifiers which were effectively limits on who you could atatck within a certain rank range - these were hated and removed, although made more rigid for RAID - which doesn't really matter as it is easy to lower your stats and drop your rank if you want to.

[semper]

ok..i didnt read the rest of the post..so kill me if this has already been suggested..but why not have it dependent on the army size....less then 100k get 4at a turn, those with 1mill+ get 1 a turn....

or...on another hand (i think this is what u were just suggesting)..do it by rank..60k - 25k get 4 a turn, 24999k - 15k get 3 14999k - 5k get 2 a turn and 4999 - 1 get 1 a turn...(maybe a bit different) and alll probably hard to arrange to for that matter..but its just a suggestion..

[hidden]

i support this these days the turns you get the normal way are nothing hardly even worth it

the amount you can get on the market means the ones you get per turns are now completely usless

[Lord Ho Chi Man]

how is it not going to help smaller players? more AT's = The chance to farm and accumulate more often = The chance to build resources and therefore troops, weaponry et al. Basic principle, and it carries right from the top to the bottom. How is that idea not beneficial to everyone?

The idea was suggeted with, I believe, the premise to help smaller players 'catch up' to the top players - but at the same time it gives teh top players twice as many turns to mass the smaller players with when they see them becoming a threat.

It's a Catch 22 situation - it benefits both, therefore it benefits neither.

I disagree.

Currently you make 336 at's per week. Well, over the last week I have used about 150,000 at's while raiding. That is 3,125 days worth of at making. Needless to say, I get my at's from the market

So doubling or tripling the amount of at's you get per turn would have no effect on me. For someone who can't use the market yet it could help though, to a noticible degree.

It would dramatically increase the amount of at's they get to use, and would help in their initial growth, while hardly affecting players like me

And because all players would get the additional at's, it wouldn't be a "newbie only" kind of thing. The newbs would just appreciate it more.

Just my opinion....

But you are also saying that you don't need this increase - and neither should anybody else. You use a lot of ATs because you can afford them and choose to RAID - not everyone does - and from what I have seen in this (and past suggestions on this topic) is taht it is people who do a lot of raiding that want more ATs. Whether it is raiding or something else - I still haven't seen a real valid reason for an increase in ATs, other than impatience, and until I see a better reason i will continue to oppose it.

As for reinhardt's comment about rank limits - we used to have rank modifiers which were effectively limits on who you could atatck within a certain rank range - these were hated and removed, although made more rigid for RAID - which doesn't really matter as it is easy to lower your stats and drop your rank if you want to.

Sorry have not replied to you sooner Wolf. Yes My Way would help both Higher level Players and Lower the Same. But I do not See a way to Make it so only the Lower level players Get a benefit and not the Higher. Some suggestions in here try to address this issue By rank, but like Raiding, People will not build up so that they can benefit from the increase in Attack turns. Army Size has a possibility But would have to find the approriate amount.

Also for some of you newer players, The idea of only being able to Attack a Few ranks under you Was implemented once and really hurt the game.

[semper]

yay! a good idea at last..

[raistlin majere]

ok..i didnt read the rest of the post..so kill me if this has already been suggested..but why not have it dependent on the army size....less then 100k get 4at a turn, those with 1mill+ get 1 a turn....

or...on another hand (i think this is what u were just suggesting)..do it by rank..60k - 25k get 4 a turn, 24999k - 15k get 3 14999k - 5k get 2 a turn and 4999 - 1 get 1 a turn...(maybe a bit different) and alll probably hard to arrange to for that matter..but its just a suggestion..

Will someone say this with me, rank means NOTHING.

[gordash]

i tink i saw this sujestion a couple months ago get shot down because they are attack turns but now i think with the current chrises of the shortage on the market then i would have to agree that to stub the current rapid inflation of prices on the market that we need more turns avaliable.

Ok, i fail to see how suddenly shoving more turns into the market would slow inflation. Usually i would say no, do not do this under any circumstances, but one idea here has tickled my fancy - making you pay a percentage of your income for more turns. This meets the issue of the larger players getting more of a benefit than smaller players. For players with a larger income, they wouldnt want to do this because it woudnt be worth their while. Smaller players would get more Attack Turns per turn, and the larger players get more turns available on the market. I understand Wolf's position, but if you are sacrificing income you get a slightly uneven benefit towards the smaller players.

eg.

Player A is a turn buyer. at the moment he buys 40 turns a day from player B

Player B gets 120 mil per day from selling turns ( i know these numbers are all a bit out, but thats not whats important)

now the turns come in.

Player A doesnt bother to get the extra turns because it isnt worth it to him. Player B does, because he has such a small income.

Player B can now sell twice as many turns to player A.

Player A still has to spend the same amount per turn - he gets more turns but has to pay more naq.

Player B only loses perhaps 10 mil per day, and gains an extra 120 mil per day.





The only question then is whether or not we want the small people to be able to get more turns, because this way it wont actually be of much more benefit to the larger players because they still have to pay the same amount for turns.