Sloooowwww it doooowwwn.....

[tobapopalos]

Some older players might want longer flak wars, and some won't. Personally I hate flak wars and, like you, I know people who agree with me.

I wouldn't mind a shorter round. I think the only real arguments for keeping the rounds the same length are that it makes it more of an "event". Ie. the shorter the round, the less the sense of anticipation for a new round, and the lesser the achievement of the winning alliance. And also the fact that people might feel they aren't getting their moneys worth out of PUs and ID bookings.

 

[atsanjose]

bah, DS returns for one second and wins the thread

 

[timtadams]

Shake things up a bit:

0% insurance

100% injuries (but injuries extended to around ETA 6-12 hours)

Bounty still applies (yes, defender loses nothing, but attacker still gains some)

Increase value of land

Declaring war allows you to actually kill units so they dont come back. I.e. no injuries when attacking/defending an alliance you are at war with.

Now im actually going to think about what this means...
- now its more about the land
- less scorequeening
- hence probably more attacking and more defending
- defence no longer as necessary (you get all your troops back)
- ETA on injuries somewhat offset bonus of not losing troops
- Focus on land favours blockers/flak
- no losses favours bribers/converters (puppets more competative)
- bounty hunting profitable, favouring LETs
- so LETs/blockers/flak/bribers are all still useful
- this would not change the mechanics of attacking

This could lead to higher activity times if there is more attacking.

It could also lead to lower activity times if you dont mind losing some land and a few hours of attacking time.

Alternatively have zero injuries and only remove killed units from the remainder of the battle. Thus they return home with the rest of the troops. (you know how good modern medicine is these days)

 

[LuckySports]

100% is a bit high, maybe 70-80% (still plenty to keep battling!)

would also lead to more stacking of land-blockers like SDs, Stuns, Gurus, Ect..

buut.. it would decrease the rate of burn out.. since people wouldn't die everytime they went to fight, and wouldn't be as hard on new people just learning to play..

The biggest problem(s) would be.. A - Getting Azzer to implement it..
and B - Having Azzer around enough to lock cheaters that bounty hunt each other over and over to out-grow each other.

 

[timtadams]

Haha, point A, i know this, but still suggest random crap for the sake of it.

As for point B,
Bounty + injuries = 100%

but max bounty of 30%


but then LETs not as favoured, and even more blockers. So really, the only way this would work is with an activish admin, maybe...

 

[willymchilybily]

i liked some suggestions more than others. as for the original suggestion like i stated before i disagreed with it because like toby not a fan of flak wars without intel. (depends what route u go i think) and round legnths are decided just as quickly. imo

the further increase in decreasing returns on land is a good method to increase the time taken for a ftw allie to win. if thats what people actually want. i think it may make it pretty gash for a rank 2 alliance if they didnt want to play ftw but some how rank 1 remains in range.

the previously mentioned ultimate fix = more players. but its not just mroe players its more players that can commit time. i cant play ftw now not really properly how i would like to. im too busy with work. many veterans are the same.

most start bushtarion during gcse/alevel/uni or if thier life style gives them alot of free time. and it fits in as a nice distraction between studdies. but when u work and have deadlines and are meant to not take beraks every 30mins of work u do its no longer feasible to play as competitvely competition doesnt just require more players. but more young players. with the lack of other commitments. familys/jobs etc. u need stoners students and world of warcraft players, and anything of similar ilk, for more real competition.