Advantages for Solo play

[Haha1091]

I will start with a little introduction. I have played this game for six or so rounds now. The majority of the time, I was a solo player. I only joined an alliance one of the six times. I believe alliances to be unfair and as we all should have learned from WWI, they are bad. I prefer solo play and having solo partners. It allows you to see who the best is, not what group of people is the best. This is just my opinion however, but I believe all of the emphasis is on alliances. I have a few ideas that could make solo play more beneficial.


-Solo players can get route units back from injuries. A small percent, but it is something to incourage solo play. (5-10% seems fair)

-Solo partners are assisted with a basecamp system. A persons solo partner can send troops to defend against attacks like normal. However, they also have the option of sending troops that can stay with their ally. Maybe not forever, but for a lot longer than normal defense. The troops that are at the basecamp are cotrolled through the temporary owner and he/she can do with them as they please. A limitation that might have to be set in order for fairness is that they can only send a certain percent of your valuation. Maybe like 20% or something. You could also put the limitation of you can't receieve defense from that ally if you have troops at the basecamp.

-Solo players benefit more from sleep mode. I read Polo's suggestions for sleep mode and I thought they were pretty good. Something such as that would be great, if used. Points from it being:

-Increased percent of seeds
-Increased percent of insurance
-Land cap is increased
-Player's can still be attacked while in sleep mode.

Now, I'm not saying the idea is perfect, but I honestly believe it to be better than the one implemented now. (no disrespect to Azzer or whoever thought of it)

I rather enjoy the basecamp idea and I can think of many times that it could have assisted me. It has a potential of being abused, but it depends on the rulz you make.

 

[Garrett]

the game is all about alliances. the solo option is for those that don't want it.

all the perks of psolo just got abolished.

The focus of the game and improvements should be alliances only. Solo's aren't meant to compete competitively for a high ranking spot. Mostly those that rank high, are on safelists or have a network of mutual attackers which is illegal but hard to prove.

Sorry, but this suggestion should get 0 traction.

 

[Antinoobkiller]

I also think that this game would be more cool if you cut the alliances sizes in half, would be more battles, more action, more competioton, yes more of everything.

I mean you cant see who is the best player. that so stupid. Because I really belieave I would beat the crap out of anyone in this game. Its so stupid when I know the players that are above my rank are getting help from others to stay in that rank. Im probably the best single player in this game, i fight everyone, everyone in this game is my enemies.

Best single player, yes thats me.

 

[DarkSider]

The game is not all about allies, it wrote on the old intro text that you can play solo or join an alliance
It's a matter of preferences and each chooses what they like more and fits their style.

I don't really like the send defence and leave it there for solo's, i had a similar thought in the past but for alliances only, to decrease the need of beeing online, players could park their troops at a powerfull member or mix their troops a lil bit for better overall defensive setup.

I kinda agree with the injury tho, there was a 6-7 ticks window when a zeroed solo was free land in previous round .. now you're zeroed farm for many hours, plenty of time to loose all the acres you worked for till that point.
Solo's got severely weakened on all fronts, ar triggers harder, ar mod drops faster, -1 return lost which can force you give a free grab if you're vulnerable to a mid/range tick like if you play vamps/robo and i think there are still many that enjoy taking on the game by their own or with a reduced group just chilling without putting the many hours needed to play in a decent alliance.

 

[Turnip2k]

One change I would make would be to give solos benefits if they don't have a 'Solo Partner' spot occupied.

I am so horribly inactive, that I have decided not to look for anyone to solo partner with next round or the rest of this round - its not fair one someone who is active, and I'm never around to ask for / give defense anyway. I play solo because I am inactive and don't want the requirements of activity an alliance places on you - forcing people like me into an ally would force them out of the game in alot of situations. I think people who wish to play completely alone should get a little somthing more than those who have 2 people which can defend them.

 

[Haha1091]

Solo's aren't meant to compete competitively for a high ranking spot. Mostly those that rank high, are on safelists or have a network of mutual attackers which is illegal but hard to prove.

That is exactly what I am attempting to fix. Solo players are too severely weakened, and don't stand a chance. That is just plain unfair. Why should the game only be alliance based? I believe that everyone should have their fair chance.

 

[Antinoobkiller]

solo's aren't meant to compete competitively for a high ranking spot. Mostly those that rank high, are on safelists or have a network of mutual attackers which is illegal but hard to prove.

that is exactly what i am attempting to fix. Solo players are too severely weakened, and don't stand a chance. That is just plain unfair. Why should the game only be alliance based? I believe that everyone should have their fair chance.

so true!!!

 

[pinpower]

I actually agree to an extent. Alliance play should be encouraged ofc but i think solo's need to have a couple more perks than they currently do. Maybe not back to psolo level (which personally i didnt think there was anything wrong with) but somewhere inbetween.

I do actually like the idea of rewarding solo's that have no "solo partners". So if you truly play "solo" you get a couple of perks over solo's in a group.
x

 

[timtadams]

One change I would make would be to give solos benefits if they don't have a 'Solo Partner' spot occupied.

I am so horribly inactive, that I have decided not to look for anyone to solo partner with next round or the rest of this round - its not fair one someone who is active, and I'm never around to ask for / give defense anyway. I play solo because I am inactive and don't want the requirements of activity an alliance places on you - forcing people like me into an ally would force them out of the game in alot of situations. I think people who wish to play completely alone should get a little somthing more than those who have 2 people which can defend them.

lol, that is exactly me. Im didnt want any partners cause im soo inactive. Im on for about 10 min a day, if that. Some days i dont even log on. But i aint doin too bad....

I did get absolutely zeroed by a robo in TBA, and then massively land raped. You get insurance, but it still hurts. Especially when twenty four hours later you realise you have no income cause stealth harvesters dont get injuries, doh! xD

It would be good to have some sort of system to make it a little harder to land rape solos with no naps. Im not too worried about getting zeroed, cause there has to be some room for that, but when people can just flak the little troops you have left and just take all you land, its a little annoying.

Maybe make AR mod rise above 75% if you continue to get inc, or the more land you lose. So 75% is still max, but if you lose x amount of land in y ticks, or have x attacking mobs in y ticks, increase the mod above 75% by a certain amount. Maybe depending on the number of troops you have left.

 

[Polo]

Maybe make AR mod rise above 75% if you continue to get inc, or the more land you lose. So 75% is still max, but if you lose x amount of land in y ticks, or have x attacking mobs in y ticks, increase the mod above 75% by a certain amount. Maybe depending on the number of troops you have left.

Since when? Max AR mod is 90%.

 

[timtadams]

Since when? did it change recently, cause i dont ever check my AR mod, even when i have been attacked

Or has it always been 90%?

Am i that blind?

 

[timtadams]

Sorry for double post, my effing wireless keeps going in and out from down this part of the house :bad-words:

 

[Polo]

Or has it always been 90%?

Am i that blind?

Yes.

 

[Garrett]

Solo's aren't meant to compete competitively for a high ranking spot. Mostly those that rank high, are on safelists or have a network of mutual attackers which is illegal but hard to prove.

That is exactly what I am attempting to fix. Solo players are too severely weakened, and don't stand a chance. That is just plain unfair. Why should the game only be alliance based? I believe that everyone should have their fair chance.

this isn't a game about fairness. solos suck. solos don't need buffing.

 

[Turnip2k]

To be honest, I'm missing having lots of solos this round. They were always the easy targets - check AR, check offline, kill. Ally targets take so much more time to sort out in most cases It's ironic that making solos weaker has made finding targets harder and more time consuming....meh.

 

[timtadams]

Or has it always been 90%?

Am i that blind?

Yes.

lol, shows just how much attention i pay to these things

Anyway, same idea still applies (me replaces 75 with 90):

Maybe make AR mod rise above 90% if you continue to get inc, or the more land you lose. So 90% is still max, but if you lose x amount of land in y ticks, or have x attacking mobs in y ticks, increase the mod above 90% by a certain amount. Maybe depending on the number of troops you have left.

So you can still get zeroed, but it makes it a bit harder to lose a large percentage of your land from continuous inc of just some geos and a little flak. Dont forget, it is still possible to flak your way through government defence

I would say it can go right up to 100% should they lose a significant proportion of their land.

Im not 100% sure of what the trigger points, x, y, ect would be.