Hoochivette wrote:CABAL wrote:I actually prefer a game, where you would never be able to catch up with someone who started earlier.
It gives a incentive for a lot of the older players to continue playing. imo it's almost disgraceful seeing people with 196xxxx,197xxxx IDs being able to catch up to some pre 19xxxxx IDs with just a few dollars.
Why would the people with IDs in the 19xxxxx range bother play if they knew they could never catch up to people who started playing earlier? They'll just be on the recieving end of massings/raids/naq hits. Then they'll quit when they realise they cant catch up.
Who will the early starters play with then? Themselves? Same old wars fought again and again, old players will quit so that's a very bad thing.
@Nimras, reducing turns brought back no tactics whatsoever. Its still the same clicking thing its always been, just people PPT more now than they used to
Your wrong actually it would mean that 1 player can't take down like 30 alliances in one go without his members in his alliance having to do anything.
If the turns was down there we would see teamwork between accounts and alliances not mass for 1 single hit because it is to expensive in turns.
If you talk to many of the legends around and people in the big alliances most of them will actually agree with me on this one, turns are to plenty and ruining the game, the fact that new accounts at no expensive can catch up to the old accounts.
I mean honestly i remember my first 9 ascentions the cost it was because I always had to rebuild my MS, now a days i see new accounts rock past me in MS with ease because they didn't have to rebuild their MS after each ascention as i had to and many others here. The fact is the new commers in many ways has it way to easy.
I ask, because that seems like an apt comparison in gravity of the measure you propose to address an issue which I -personally- don't consider a huge problem in itself.
