Munchy wrote:Wolf359 wrote:Calqulon wrote:i think there should be a way to kill miners or lifers, that would make the game real interesting
There used to be - you used to be able to kill UU, until a lot of players said it was unfair because it meant that all their hard work was ruined.
311 - I have read Munchy's posts - but there are only so many ways I can counter teh same argument. Frankly, we are in this situation because of the introduction of mass availability of turns and raid - now, a lot of people are not going to be happy if a change like this was implemented (AND I AGAIN STRESS I DO NOT CLAIM IT IS PERFECT) - but so what? People complain when every change is introduced. Bottom line - people only use so many AT for raiding becasue they can - if they couldn't it wouldn't be a problem - and we wouldn't have the situation we do now.
My only other suggestion, which I do not want to see, is to RESET main - yes, RESET, let those who have SS etc keep it, and allocate new army sizes on a scalar based on length of time played, army size at time of reset and number of ascensions. But get rid of the things that are dragging teh game (and teh community) down. Hell - I'd probably complain about it - but the simple fact is NOTHING is being done about the state of teh game - and something NEEDS to be done!
But I bet as long as my backside points downwards, the biggest players (even though they would end up with the biggest armies anyway) will complain about it, especially those making real $$ from the game.
What really annoys me though is that quite a few of you jump up and say "no, rubbish idea" , yet apart from 1 or 2, none of you propose anything better - and ANYTHING is better than what we have currently.
I apologize Wolf, I was under the impression that you were looking for discussion relating directly to this topic, I didn't know that you were looking for other, alternative ideas to the problem.
On that note, I would like to clarify the problem, and ask if my interpretation is correct.
-You believe that the unlimited amounts of turns in the game has rid the game of all stragedy by allowing for unlimited massing runs.
-By eliminating market produced turns players will not be able to be so 'mass happy', and the price of at's would rise, thus encouraging small players to sell them.
_______
My counterpoint:
-By eliminating market produced turns there is little chance that any new player will be able to catch up. As it is now by raiding their lives away they can.
_________
I tried to make both sides as simple as possible.
Now you want an idea/compromise?
How about a new resource? Currently we have naq, uu's, turns, and arguably covert turns(though they can't be traded, they do generate).
Why not have destruction turns?
They would be essentially the same as attack turns, but their sole use would be destruction(rather obvious). Unlike attack turns they would not generate on the market, and if you wanted(though I am sure this will be argued), they could not be traded.
Now if this was to be done then some changes would have to be implemented into the current way battles and causalty/weapon damage is calculated. Destruction attacks would not serve to give the attacker/masser any resources, but they would do just what their name says. They would kill defense units, motherships, spies, and damage weapons.
Now if this was done attack turns would have to be tweaked. In my opinion it would be fine to leave it as it is on the attackers end of things...meaning they would still loose the same amount of units/do the same damage to their weapons as it is currently, but the damage to the defender would either: a.Not happen at all(even under successful attacks for naq/uu) or b. Be extremely minimal(on something like fraction of 10 of what it is now).
Under the second senario attack turns could still be used to mass, but the losses on the attacker would be extremely high in comparison to the defender, and it would take many more attack turns than it does now.
Using the first senario attack turns would do no damage do the defender, and thus only 'destruction turns' could be used for massing purposes.
Downside this idea:
-Right now people who currently do not watch their account closely are quickly crushed by the occasional farmer...with this idea they would probably take very little damage, and thus they might care less about being extremely active.
-Means more stat builders, because it is doubtful that people would waste their limited destruction turns on people who just sit there.
-More complicated.
-Might mean less wars and more statbuilding, but no more than if the market produced at's were to disappear. So some might actually count this as less random massings, and thus a good thing.
Upside:
-Less random massings
-People can still raid all they want, and thus grow depending on how active they are.
-Promotes the tactical use of destruction turns, and one person probably wouldn't be able to mass an entire alliance.
-Because destuction turns wouldn't be market produced, all players would have a fair share of them. If they are tradeable then small players could probably make a good amount of naq selling them.
Remember, you asked for an idea
