I'm going to make a suggestion.

People say they don't like the current server politics? Well, I'm going to look at game changes over the years that serve a more agressive, politics that is a part of the game's slow suicide.

1. Change from 3 month sets to 2 month sets.
2. Increase in rate of turn acquisitions.
3. 120/120 turn/storage.


I'm going to make 3 suggestion, for alliance only.

We go back to 3 month sets.
We dial back the turn rate to 40 minutes a turn as it once was.
75/37.

This may sound crazy to some, but I think this would do a few things.

1. With new kill rules in place (which I know most can't stand, the new rate of new turns and less turns, will truly force the game towards more ABing/Bring to destory buildings, even grabbing land, and use of Spy ops (I recommend they stay at 50 a day for this reason.)

2. This gives mroe time to breathe...normally. People aren't going towant to FS OOP as much when it a 3 month set. The more turns faster, only makes for a more agressive server. Its lke giving 2 adjoining countries that can't stand each other more sophisticated weapons, but leaving them short of nuclaer....they'll destory each other conventionally since there is no deterrent.


I also think that this type of situation will open things up to more grabbing, as the threat of a FS's damage is lessoned. ANd potentially even over time, a less emphasis on having sign tight knit dominant blocks.

This also makes the game more practical for the many 20 and 30 yr olds who are getting married and raising kid, that is the current demographic of this game.


Now, before this thread gets moved to another board, I am suggestin alliance specefic changes, not game wide:) hence, the need for this debate to happen on the alliance Server forum.

Discuss:)

Servant

You mean 2 months to 1 month?

move the reset from 2 back too 3 months

who wants to war for 3 months at a time? even with less turns its still 30 more days of needing to keep highlights on. nobody CFs anymore, its full set wars nowadays.

stupid idea is stupid

Longer reset, more turns

that creates more action, wars over quicker still allows winner time to possibly net

Allinaces did CF under these conditions, I would think that they would again,

With far less kills, that's less highlights being set off...

you're talking 42 turns a day!......so 15-16 hits in a war chat, = more AB's, kill runs will happen, chats will be faster.

It dials back the intensity of everything....and I think you'd find more CF's:), as people wouldn't want that longer war:)

I doubt the CF thing, since once an alliance is defeated they are used as landfarms. This wont change unless enough land sources become available through NPCs or something.

I can't stand this game for more than 3 weeks, never mind 3 months.

hmm not sure if I like this idea or not.

horrible idea.

shorter resets, more turns.
make it 1.5 months. turns every 12 minutes

also i think the logic that a longer set would deter alliances from making OOP fs' is deeply flawed.

if anything it gives even more incentive for an alliance to hit hard and early and pick from restart farmland for the entirety of the set.

we could also just reduce damage across the board, that would do the same thing =/

game changes should be 10 civies per BR/GS and 20 buildings for BS/AB/BR Chems 1000 civies and 100 buildings max, this would make wars suck...lol

All this would change is that Laf/Sof and their fluffes get to oppress the server 4 times per year instead of 6. Lol, there is not a snowballs chance in hell we would EVER CF under the current political setting. If that means 89 days of war, so be it.

Make resets one month long and accelerate the turns.

Nobody wants to play a 3 month game, especially not a 3 month long game that is as fluff as this.

yes me and anoniem have our heads on straight, get with it guys

<3

But of course vic nobody will listen to us, because they still think having a reset every 2 months is a good idea for a dwindling game.

3 months, more turns, more play, more fun, pretty simple

I agree with the shorter sets, gives less brooding over a set. 3 months is too damn long, and causes even more hostility towards a clan/alliance. and if the winner decides not to accept a cf that will kill off people from the server at an even faster pace.

people will be less upset over a 1month war, than they will from a 1 month war, and 2 months of being farmed.

exactly. a shorter reset ensures wars have less of an impact on an alliance's membership count, especially as you said if the opposition refuses a CF.

and if we accelerate the turns then restarting is less of a drag.

I feel 1-month sets are too short though. After playing on Team for a bit, it feels like each set is a "throw-away reset" because it simply is too short, just like how Express is.

Perhaps 6 weeks is a compromised between 1 and 2 months.

I don't like the idea of less kills, it's already been scaled way back. I dislike warring, but to sit here for 3 months and exchange AB attacks....well it's time for me to find something else to do with my time. If I'm going to be forced to fight, at least let's kill each other.

only 3 wars per year instead 4, not good.

40 mins per turn, forget it.

max turns in hand 75 + login bonus = 78/81, not good, 90 turns in hand + login bonus is much better and 1 turn every 30 mins.

mehul's ffa had 3 months sets and (at least) 40 mins per turn and it was total pain in the ass when war started early and when tagkill happened in 2-3 days then war became justing waiting for set to end and doing some warchats (at worst I went once to bed at ~4/5am my time cause we wanted target dead and we had all ran out of rediness and turns so others went to bed (had to wake up early in morning) and I stayed up and hit target every 2nd/3rd turn so very long and boring wait since turns were gotten slowly and not much to do at middle of night).

I'd go for a 6-7 week set thing, slight turn boost. only people who net might like the 3 month set thing...

only if explore rates are increased, I never netted full set in FFA so no idea how all-x would have worked but there was plenty of land to grab so some players stopped exploring and started grabbing after they got oop.

you're talking about way bigger changes than will ever be implemented

small tweaks might be doable

large overhauls? yeah right, okay. me getting into a threesome with mary kate and ashley is more likely.

With the attack changes in place the dynamics of warfare have been effected enough. Getting kills is already incredibly costly in terms of turns and damage from crippling is easily recovered or shrugged off over the course of a long term war. The advantage still lies with who has superior numbers on their side.

The problem is not formulaic. We all play by the same rules in terms of the numbers that govern the game. So, (assuming skill is around about even) superior numbers will always reign supreme.

In the days of old, political situations could turn on a dime. This was due to a heavy player base coupled with general organizational difficulties once alliances got to a certain level of membership. If one side overstepped the normal boundaries, there was more than enough firepower lingering around to bring things about.

We no longer have that luxury. SoF/LaF hold 25-35% of the total countries on the server on a regular basis. They both also seem deathly afraid of the possibility of having to face each other, or any other alliance on even terms.

The lack of organization among the smaller alliances along with pact isolation tactics (agreeably, well executed on the part of SOF/LaF) ensure that this is how the game will end.

So, with that in mind I think we should leave the game formula alone for the time being. Here's what I suggest (without too much detail);

-The game needs a solid business plan to help create a better player base.
-Incorporate a tag wide declare war option from the alliance admin page and introduce restrictions.
-Create an alliance of bot run countries that are “neutral” in terms of grudge type game politics. They can not be allied to any one alliance but can offer assistance based solely on the numbers involved.

e.g: Tag 'A' declares war on Tag 'B', whereas Tag 'A' has 100 countries and Tag 'B' has only 25. Upon the declaration of war, a message will pop up in tag admin for Tag B from this “police tag” offering assistance. If the alliance decides to use the assistance they can only get a maximum of 75 countries hitting from the policing tag, thus making the #'s “even.” I also recommend restricting the police tag in terms of numbers to 25% of the entire country base of the server.

I won't get any more detailed than that. The formulas have been adjusted countless times since I've been back in the game in the last 18 months and the decline has continued. Obviously, it's time to tackle the problem from another angle.

Yeah, ruin game more;) Its not bugged enough.

The NPC's idea is definitely on the table, I'd like to do that, it's a bit of work for sure though

Well, I'll say that wars were far more entertaining with the old setup. Unfortunately, the politics here are so messed up that I don't think it would change much.

This is not really true with the new changes.

You can do a fast kill run and use more turns to kill. Or you can do a slower kill run that uses way less turns. So a larger alliance with superior numbers might throw away their war advantage if they end up with a higher "hits per kill".

Just play Team Server if you want shorter resets

... and meet your target online.
Sry, i had to say it:)