Posted: Sat Dec 02, 2006 8:58 am
Wolf359 wrote:Munchy wrote:Wolf359 wrote:
....
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
I've read it now (at last)! From what I gather you are proposing to have:
Attack Turns (AT): which will continue to be used for raid/gathering naq - but will cause no or minimal damage damage to the defender.
and,
Destruction Turns (DT): which would only be generated by players and used solely for destroying units/weapons etc, but will give the attacker no resource reward for the attack.
While I like the idea of having 2 separate types of attack turns for two different objectives - I don't think it goes far enough (yet) to address the exisiting problem - which is that AT are too readily available so that in combination with raid, they serve to let the bigger accounts grow exponentially, whilst simultaneously removing the skill/strtagey from the game.
Don't get me wrong - I like this idea - and it could work - it just isn't there yet, and I don't think it will be unless AT are limited in some way. Without limiting AT the round the clock raiding and removal of skill/strategy from the game still exists.
Thanks for the response
But I ask you this: With this system in place, what is the problem with having some players with more power than others? It would be like the current system except that the bigger players would not have a reason to bother the small ones.
Yes, they would grow faster than the smaller guy(assuming the smaller guy puts in equal or less effort), but why would that matter? They wouldn't be able to use that power like they can now, which is the main problem currently in the game.
With this system, the players who want to build their accounts could do so.. and the ones who didn't want to put in the 'monotonous time' wouldn't be forced to. They wouldn't be able to compete against the bigger players in a war, but that is their choice, and they don't have to do it. In a war the bigger players would be forced to focus on the opposing sides bigger players, and vice versa...leaving the small guys to fight the small guys(assuming it is a balanced war...which happends rarely now).
Anyway Wolf, that is why I called it a compromise. It takes away the massive war power that big players have, yet still leaves attack turns unlimited for farm&growth purposes. As you can see by the poll, which is now 35 yes, 45 no; you can't completely going one way without angering half the community.
) - I do see your angle. I'm convinced - nearly. 
...& if this is to intense for you , just retire & start plaing one of those MMORPGs through email - I heard is quite exciting - one turn a week 
