Glory phase & double strike

[Loki™]

i dont really see an issue, figure if you use it 3 times a week, you can't continue it forever, you will run out, and tbh i dont think i have ever seen this many defs at 80 t plus, lol. if it uses 6 mt's a week, all those people in 5 glory range would be earning more than they can ever use, not to mention it kills any ppt chances one can get on top of that, it severely limits it. at most i see increasing the cost to 1.5 k instead of 1 k, but as stated i see no issues with it.

I say 5k cost each. Every +40t def I've built since double strike came out has been massed with it. That's a couple bil supers.

[Mikgamer]

i dont really see an issue, figure if you use it 3 times a week, you can't continue it forever, you will run out, and tbh i dont think i have ever seen this many defs at 80 t plus, lol. if it uses 6 mt's a week, all those people in 5 glory range would be earning more than they can ever use, not to mention it kills any ppt chances one can get on top of that, it severely limits it. at most i see increasing the cost to 1.5 k instead of 1 k, but as stated i see no issues with it.

I say 5k cost each. Every +40t def I've built since double strike came out has been massed with it. That's a couple bil supers.

Ditto. I haven't had a good sized defense massed without someone waiting for their precious double strike to be ready. I've seen reluctance from most players (both allies and enemies) to build larger defenses in wars since it was implemented also. But hey, if most players are fine with building and massing little baby ~10T defenses on nox until they stop playing then have fun...

[Support]

5k makes this an elitist feature, 1k is a decent cost.

I'm considering adding a cost of Merlins to Double Strike; using the 'planet hiding' technology into an offensive skillset.
Thoughts?

[jedi~tank]

5k makes this an elitist feature, 1k is a decent cost.

I'm considering adding a cost of Merlins to Double Strike; using the 'planet hiding' technology into an offensive skillset.
Thoughts?

It should be a high cost of a valuable commodity yes.

[Loki™]

5k makes this an elitist feature, 1k is a decent cost.

I'm considering adding a cost of Merlins to Double Strike; using the 'planet hiding' technology into an offensive skillset.
Thoughts?

We need some way to make it expensive for bigger players but still feasible for smaller ones. Imo merlin cost would just make it more of a cash user feature.

[Field Marshall]

5k makes this an elitist feature, 1k is a decent cost.

I'm considering adding a cost of Merlins to Double Strike; using the 'planet hiding' technology into an offensive skillset.
Thoughts?

We need some way to make it expensive for bigger players but still feasible for smaller ones. Imo merlin cost would just make it more of a cash user feature.

Exactly his point

[Guild]

make it a minimum of 1k GnR with a % cost on top ?

[Clockwork]

make it a minimum of 1k GnR with a % cost on top ?

Yeah, you could base it on the current strike that's going to be doubled. Say 10 g&r per 1t. Although you would have to take into account people buying double strike with a small strike, to keep it cheap, then building up a large strike later.

[Support]

make it a minimum of 1k GnR with a % cost on top ?

Interesting. The more you use it, the costlier it becomes? Sensible.

We need some way to make it expensive for bigger players but still feasible for smaller ones. Imo merlin cost would just make it more of a cash user feature.

Depends, I suppose. Whatever the cost in Merlins could be (1 day per effect), GnR would be the real inhibiting cost after a while (18 merlins per week from the market; dedication pays).



Alternatively:
- leave it as it is
- leave costs as they are but lose the effect when at war (i.e. only aids the first x hits prior to auto-war - making it a 'wrecking ball' to be used by heavy hitters)
- tie costs to strike or armysize (bigger strike, bigger help, costs more)
- cost per attack - each attack costs more GnR, starts at 1 per AT, up to 50 per AT used
- lower bonus to strike (no more 'double', thanks for the idea Mikgamer)


For now at least leaning towards leaving it as it is, unless a strong case can be made for/against options.

[Mikgamer]

5k makes this an elitist feature, 1k is a decent cost.

I'm considering adding a cost of Merlins to Double Strike; using the 'planet hiding' technology into an offensive skillset.
Thoughts?

How many players actually use it that can't easily jump themselves in to the 5 G&R range to gain that back in no time flat?

It would take 1,000 turns at that pace. There are 48 turns per day. This means just under three weeks to earn the best non-$ advantage in this game right now and is only trumped all-time by the ascended super weapon of years ago. And this does not even account for the many accounts that currently hold 10k+++ stockpiles already.

As it stands it takes a measly 4.167* days in the 5 G&R range to earn one of these superpowers.

And as I stated before people are simply not building as many big defenses as one would expect with all of the resources that has been flowing around. The natural progression of stats becoming larger as the game goes on holds true for all of the stats besides defense for the better part of this year.

You keep flip flopping on which stat that you want to reign supreme. Not too long ago attack got a nerf so to speak and the "age of defense" was born. But with the addition of double strikes we are basically back to where we were before the changes in unit deaths was implemented. Now it is true that a few defenses (and one huge on in particular) would have been very hard (and at least one would have been near impossible) to take down without the use of double strike. Those of course are in the minority and most defenses that have gone down with the aid of double strike simply have not required it.

So in conclusion yes, something needs to be done. I personally feel that any price adjustment short of even 10k would leave the situation only partially solved (maybe 50%) because of the massive stockpiles of G&R that some players have. I do not know why you have never considered lowering the bonus that it gives to your strike ever yet. That would be the simplest and quickest fix in my opinion. Giving it a trial run somewhere in the 25-50% bonus range. I personally suggest somewhere on the lower end if no MT or G&R costs for it are changed along with the bonus percentage. Another new suggestion if it could be done would be to keep it in the 50%-100% bonus range BUT either 1.5x-2x the losses for the attacker. As it stands right now the attacker many times will not even lose half of what the defender does. That is the #1 reason many people do not bother building up larger defenses any more.

The defense stat thanks to double strike has been taken back years and most of the update progress to keep all of the individual stats balanced has been lost.

[Loki™]

5k makes this an elitist feature, 1k is a decent cost.

I'm considering adding a cost of Merlins to Double Strike; using the 'planet hiding' technology into an offensive skillset.
Thoughts?

How many players actually use it that can't easily jump themselves in to the 5 G&R range to gain that back in no time flat?

It would take 1,000 turns at that pace. There are 48 turns per day. This means just under three weeks to earn the best non-$ advantage in this game right now and is only trumped all-time by the ascended super weapon of years ago. And this does not even account for the many accounts that currently hold 10k+++ stockpiles already.

As it stands it takes a measly 4.167* days in the 5 G&R range to earn one of these superpowers.

And as I stated before people are simply not building as many big defenses as one would expect with all of the resources that has been flowing around. The natural progression of stats becoming larger as the game goes on holds true for all of the stats besides defense for the better part of this year.

You keep flip flopping on which stat that you want to reign supreme. Not too long ago attack got a nerf so to speak and the "age of defense" was born. But with the addition of double strikes we are basically back to where we were before the changes in unit deaths was implemented. Now it is true that a few defenses (and one huge on in particular) would have been very hard (and at least one would have been near impossible) to take down without the use of double strike. Those of course are in the minority and most defenses that have gone down with the aid of double strike simply have not required it.

So in conclusion yes, something needs to be done. I personally feel that any price adjustment short of even 10k would leave the situation only partially solved (maybe 50%) because of the massive stockpiles of G&R that some players have. I do not know why you have never considered lowering the bonus that it gives to your strike ever yet. That would be the simplest and quickest fix in my opinion. Giving it a trial run somewhere in the 25-50% bonus range. I personally suggest somewhere on the lower end if no MT or G&R costs for it are changed along with the bonus percentage. Another new suggestion if it could be done would be to keep it in the 50%-100% bonus range BUT either 1.5x-2x the losses for the attacker. As it stands right now the attacker many times will not even lose half of what the defender does. That is the #1 reason many people do not bother building up larger defenses any more.

The defense stat thanks to double strike has been taken back years and most of the update progress to keep all of the individual stats balanced has been lost.

[Huxley]

Alternatively:
- leave it as it is

Best option.

It's not broken.

There are many ways to counter it if you catch someone using it, what seems to be the problem? Costs too little? It's not really putting anyone at a disadvantage in that aspect, it's cheap, anyone can use it. Make it more expensive, the average players won't be able to use it and then you're going to be increasing the gap between the big and small players even more.

The people upset seem to be the people bothered about M.E or snipers (which is a valid tactic, guerrilla warfare.)

Debate! I'm probably missing a point somewhere but that's my opinion.

[jedi~tank]

Ever thought of capping certain stats? Some of this stuff can be done away with altogether. 1bil defenses? And maintained at that. Seriously?

[Huxley]

Ever thought of capping certain stats? Some of this stuff can be done away with altogether. 1bil defenses? And maintained at that. Seriously?

Putting a cap on it limits growth though. Ourselves for example, we've been in a state of peace a long time. Why should we be "punished" with such restrictions, as soon as we all got to the "cap" it would effectively be game over till a war eventually broke out.

I, personally, think caps would be a step in the wrong direction.

[Loki™]

Alternatively:
- leave it as it is

Best option.

It's not broken.

There are many ways to counter it if you catch someone using it, what seems to be the problem? Costs too little? It's not really putting anyone at a disadvantage in that aspect, it's cheap, anyone can use it. Make it more expensive, the average players won't be able to use it and then you're going to be increasing the gap between the big and small players even more.

The people upset seem to be the people bothered about M.E or snipers (which is a valid tactic, guerrilla warfare.)

Debate! I'm probably missing a point somewhere but that's my opinion.

Everyone loses because people are less willing to build large stats.