Relm Submistion

[undead21]

Ok, we have a lot of inactive players.

so I am thinking that because the leader of the realm hasn’t been seen for a couple months the people of the realm have lost their spirits.... so after a while they loose their will to fight (after all defense has been eroded to 0). so as a player repeatedly attacks them for raiding, farming and such the % granted per turn increases due to the realms loss of loyalty. but as soon as their beloved leader returns to them they are now non-submissive lest their leader leave them for an extended time again.

so the change is: when an inactive account isn’t accessed for a while the more a player attacks that inactive account, that account becomes more "submissive" to that attacker and each time the "submissive" scale increases to a point that it is much easier to farm for naq/ uu. (% of uu/naq taken increases)

[Grand Admiral Martin]

i dont get it ypu want us to be able to beat someone until they give us 100% of naq per hit? we already get 100% of the naq per hit already

maybe i read it wrong

[undead21]

well for UU mostly......
the amount of naq taken could also be toned down.. insted of 100% it cold start at a bais of 50-75%

[Zeratul]

would be better to have production on account increase temporarily... (till person logs on) but it also needs something to prevent it being exploited...

[gooseman the first]

i think it'd be better the account got deleted after about 1 or 2 months of inactivity, unless on vacation

[Zeratul]

no, that would cause g&r limit to go up... and remove lots of good farms...

[gooseman the first]

g&r limit going up is good in my opinion, tis too easy these days, and about the farms, ah well, you'll just have to risk attacks

[*~Starry~*]

I actually agree about the GR limit going up...

it's WAAYY to easy to ascend nowadays... and most of the bigger players aren't really taking the top spots

and farm deletion isn't good...
but the smaller under 20k army size should be deleted

~starry

[Zeratul]

or be placed on unranked list... that way, they can return later on, but still not be problem and annoyance...

[gooseman the first]

or be placed on unranked list... that way, they can return later on, but still not be problem and annoyance...

actually that makes more sense, i retract my statement, they should become unranked instead of deleted

[Grand Admiral Martin]

no they should be deleted thatd free up server space, ive seen armies under 5k they should go now

[Zeratul]

maybe both?

if under 30k army and inactive for 3 weeks, become unranked, if under 10k army and unranked for 2 more weeks, deleted... if 10-30k army and unranked for 4 weeks, deleted...

and maybe also for 30-50k army... where 5 weeks inactive = unranked, and 5 weeks after that equals gone... and for army 50-100k, 7 weeks both...

is that idea good?

[GAT-X207]

zeratul, your idea is OK except one thing, becoming unranked. many ppl farm the inactives as do i. the time limits can work to put into effect larger returns from atking them (although not too high a %)

[Hells__Angel]

I like Zeratul's idea

[urogard]

well concerning the top players not taking up the spots. have a look at the first 100 people.
I'd say the first 2 pages maybe 1 person wants to ascend. the next page maybe 2 and then out of the next 2 pages you have maybe another one person wishing to ascend.

So as you see the 5gr points per turn are all filled up with those who will not want toascend. soon we got the top 1000 filled up with ascended people. wouldn't really agree on making teh inactives unranked (before anyone brings up the argument: I am lg+1 and don't intend to ascend anytime soon and if i wanted i could get to gr range even if it meant getting to top 10)