Higher the attack % min.range

[qaerwe5r4556]

I think highering the attack % min.range would be a good idea.

I think something at 45% would be the lowest allowed to attack. It would help smaller alliances to stay alive and would create a more fair battle among players and alliances. Meaning that the top players/alliances would actually need to think whom to attack.

Another problem I see when rank 1 alliance is growing away is that they can suicide to get land, im not saying that they shouldnt but now how you can do that when growing big is just abusive. I mean that you can actually have zero leths and mass inn.

I dont know buts quite lame and imo shouldnt be that way cuz rank 2 and rank 3 and rank 4 should always make a threat to rank 1 alliance even if they arent. I think when the rank 1 alliance has grown away from attacking range they should be good, problem is that IT IS TOO EASY TO GROW AWAY.
I want changes to do that so the game can become competive, for real.

Take away attacking at 30-40% and put the limit at 45-46% atleast with an eta+2 and 47-50with eta +1.

Now you u will tell me that the game has so little players that the top wouldnt have any targets. Ofc there would be targets but not SOME FREE BASH TARGETS. And this would also help the lower rank alliances to make a threat to rank 1 ally since rank 1 couldnt grow away so easily.

Also remove the inusrance for players attacking at minium range.

 

[Ogluk]

Potentially a good idea, given the current size of the playerbase, but the loss of potential targets could just make thing worse and lead to more mass bashing on the new minimum ranges with multiple people.

More players would solve alot of the problems you've highlighted imo, and perhaps a dynamic insurance/injuries rate dependent on h/f, high h/f higher (probably max about how it is now) insurance/injuries, low h/f, low-no insurance/injuries, would provide more of an incentive to play 'nicely'.

As for slowing down growth of the rank 1 ally after they've beaten their opposition, i personally have no problem with how it is atm, but if it's seen as a major issue, perhaps tweaking the exponential seed formula thingy so that for much lower amounts of land (which is what alot of their lead is built on) it kicks in and limits growth. (perhaps introducing a mechanic that triggers a seed limiter on the rank 1 ally when they grow X% larger than rank 2).

 

[IceOfFire]

I like the less insurance for the bad h/f attacks! That is a good idea

 

[Polo]

I like the less insurance for the bad h/f attacks! That is a good idea

This was suggested years ago. With such a small playerbase, the attack limits should be lowered rather than raised, imo. Although it's pointless talking about it, Azzer has clearly decided not to bother with the game anymore.

 

[tobapopalos]

Increasing the minimum attack range I don't believe will work. It has been done already and yet, zomg, we still have bashing?! If you change the minimum attack range I can guarantee that after a couple of rounds people will say it's unfair how you can get bashed at just 50% by some lame attackers and that the attack range should be changed so you can only do honourable attacks. Down that road madness lies.

And on top of that, as you have accurately pointed out already, this would limit targets even further for higher ranked players. Some of them can only attack with a mod as it is, and it is unfair to lay all the blame for the game's wellbeing on those who play it well. Without them there would be no game.

Also, you have to think of the implications for route balance. Solo puppet and bunker players rely on the lower attack margins for land and bribes a lot of the time and removing 30-40% attacks will make life much harder for them.

 

[Twigley]

Suggestions are pointless when we have no Admin.

It's not a bad one, im just saying its pointless to get anyones hopes up.

Sorry to be the negative of the thread but please dont kid yourself.

 

[LuckySports]

I remember when the minimum range was more like 20%, and we didn't have an AR mod..

Raising the minimum range would only stagnate the game sooner, and make bashing more prevelant.. instead of 1 person 3x your size, you'll have 2 people twice your size.

it will also result in a decline in certain routes that depend on hitting lower than themselves..

The problem is better solved by more players, which can be accomplished by a bit of aggressive advertising.

 

[timthetyrant]

i cant beat ppl half my size to start with

 

[Nickk]

i cant beat ppl half my size to start with

why dont you send with some other people? ...oh wait

On a more relevant note i agree with twigley.It seems unlikely any suggestions will be implemented so might as well lock/remove the suggestion thread. (I am hoping Azzer will prove me wrong)

 

[xvi]

i cant beat ppl half my size to start with

why dont you send with some other people? ...oh wait

On a more relevant note i agree with twigley.It seems unlikely any suggestions will be implemented so might as well lock/remove the suggestion thread. (I am hoping Azzer will prove me wrong)

Thats good advice everyone. No one make anymore suggestions because Azzer is gone. Also, gripes should be locked too!

Dont be active on forums because old timers might call you a troll and poke fun.

Oh yeah, and no one play anymore cause the game isnt set-up for a small player base.

And yes, it totally does make sense that raising the attack range minimum would make things MORE unfair (hint of sarcasm). But wait, there are actually people playing this game that have green titles...and wait, there are actually people from every route who are playing with green titles atacking at the 70% or higher range and are successful... just not most of the people posting here ofc.

**dont listen to him he's trolling you guys he's trolling you!

 

[Nickk]

just trying to be realistic but hey, guess we can all keep dreaming. BY all means keep making suggestions. What i am trying to say is whether they get implemented is another question.

 

[Dax]

Myself and perhaps a couple of others have been the only people to ever actually have the conversation with Azzer - Most of you are assuming with no evidence at all.
He's been relatively absent for 3 rounds, yes. But it doesn't mean he doesn't pop his head in occasionally. He has personally come back to me on a couple of my suggestions I have made previously, and I've had a couple of good PM convo's with him as well.
Note that Bushtarion is not the only source of his income; He does work, and he is trying to create an entirely new game (and by the sounds of it, none of you have a clue as to the effort and work required for this by 10-20 people, let alone one guy on his own).

 

[atsanjose]

bla bla bla I talked to azzzman bla bla bla you have no clue bla bla bla he's busy bla bla bla

did you know that Azzer is a hypnotoad?
clearly he has you under his control, talking propaganda, and therefor your arguments are invalid.


PS. iam really looking forward to his new game @_@

 

[Dax]

bla bla bla I talked to azzzman bla bla bla you have no clue bla bla bla he's busy bla bla bla

did you know that Azzer is a hypnotoad?
clearly he has you under his control, talking propaganda, and therefor your arguments are invalid.


PS. iam really looking forward to his new game @_@

I don't know about looking forward to it - But I do know how much work is involved in coding and entire game and self-testing it and ensuring it is functioning enough for Beta release. It's that knowledge that convinced me I never want to be involved in game design and production.

 

[LuckySports]

i cant beat ppl half my size to start with

why dont you send with some other people? ...oh wait

On a more relevant note i agree with twigley.It seems unlikely any suggestions will be implemented so might as well lock/remove the suggestion thread. (I am hoping Azzer will prove me wrong)

Thats good advice everyone. No one make anymore suggestions because Azzer is gone. Also, gripes should be locked too!

Dont be active on forums because old timers might call you a troll and poke fun.

Oh yeah, and no one play anymore cause the game isnt set-up for a small player base.

And yes, it totally does make sense that raising the attack range minimum would make things MORE unfair (hint of sarcasm). But wait, there are actually people playing this game that have green titles...and wait, there are actually people from every route who are playing with green titles atacking at the 70% or higher range and are successful... just not most of the people posting here ofc.

**dont listen to him he's trolling you guys he's trolling you!

Not less fair, just more stagnant, a problem the game already deals with, when you stop worrying about making the game competitive and start worrying about trying to even things out between 1 group that is more competitive than another by removing their targets, you start to see a lot less attacking.

And we all know less attacking = more stagnant = more players leave.. The opposite of what the game actually needs right now


Its nice to be able to attack honorably and all that good stuff, but its not really viable once you get into the higher rankings. You start losing out on those easy solo targets or inactive alliances where you can fight someone 1v1 offline with their counter-route.

Why don't you try attacking MLP or YoChoko by yourself and see what I mean, and then now imagine that your in the top 40 per-se, and these are your only targets, minus a few over-active solos whos AR never goes down because they are the only people in range of these people

 

[CFalcon]

This links in with the idea of "honourable" attacks, which I've never quite understood.

Attacking an RPG 120% of you when you're SA is no more honourable than attacking a robo who's 40% of you. The % size has almost no bearing on whether you will attack them or not. It's a simple case of whether you can beat their troops.

And yet for some reason this game and its community glorify the SA attacking RPGs at 120%, even though he's doing nothing different from another spec-ops player hitting robo at 40%. He's just picking targets he knows he can beat.

Simply changing allowable % attack ranges will not resolve anything. Whether you can attack at 1% or 100%, people will still always look for targets they can beat with relative ease.

The *whole* *point* of the game is to attack unfairly, to bring about battles where you kill more than you are killed, or steal enough to make the losses worth it. If you actually wanted completely fair battles, then all battles would result in equal losses on both sides.

I'll say it again: The *whole* *point* of the game is to attack unfairly.

I'll say it again: % ranges WILL NOT CHANGE THIS.

Anyone who claims to attack fairly is full of sh*t, unless all their battles genuinely result in equal losses.

If you actually care about addressing unfairness, stagnation, bashing, burn-out etc. you should see some of the suggestions about insurance and bounty that will actually solve this (threads by myself, Polo and Dax come to mind).

 

[Dax]

The *whole* *point* of the game is to attack unfairly, to bring about battles where you kill more than you are killed, or steal enough to make the losses worth it. If you actually wanted completely fair battles, then all battles would result in equal losses on both sides.

I'll say it again: The *whole* *point* of the game is to attack unfairly.

I'll say it again: % ranges WILL NOT CHANGE THIS.

Dude, we all know talking sense in these forums is totally aimless, and will be ignored.

 

[Iamsmart]

scary, I almost thought CF made this thread, wouldn't want to lose a sensible chap to the dark side

 

[Dimitar]

Higher isn't a verb

 

[xvi]

This links in with the idea of "honourable" attacks, which I've never quite understood.

Attacking an RPG 120% of you when you're SA is no more honourable than attacking a robo who's 40% of you. The % size has almost no bearing on whether you will attack them or not. It's a simple case of whether you can beat their troops.

And yet for some reason this game and its community glorify the SA attacking RPGs at 120%, even though he's doing nothing different from another spec-ops player hitting robo at 40%. He's just picking targets he knows he can beat.

Simply changing allowable % attack ranges will not resolve anything. Whether you can attack at 1% or 100%, people will still always look for targets they can beat with relative ease.

The *whole* *point* of the game is to attack unfairly, to bring about battles where you kill more than you are killed, or steal enough to make the losses worth it. If you actually wanted completely fair battles, then all battles would result in equal losses on both sides.

I'll say it again: The *whole* *point* of the game is to attack unfairly.

I'll say it again: % ranges WILL NOT CHANGE THIS.

Anyone who claims to attack fairly is full of sh*t, unless all their battles genuinely result in equal losses.

If you actually care about addressing unfairness, stagnation, bashing, burn-out etc. you should see some of the suggestions about insurance and bounty that will actually solve this (threads by myself, Polo and Dax come to mind).

On the surface, this seems like a well thought out message. Probably because it is longer and has some *s in it. If the point of the game is to "attack unfairly", why dont we have Azzer just go ahead and eliminate the minimums. Then, all of you peeps can bash everyone in the game...What a revelation, then the game would be so exciting! Wow!

So, guess what i am saying is that the conversation is the level of Attacking percentage, not whether there should be one. There is one!

The *whole* *point* of my response is to not let *people* like you bash an idea without thinking it through. Sorry, had to use the ******* *s to show you how ridiculous they are