Quote:
Originally Posted by TheoDD
Are you not seeing how this directly affect every other alliance daily target picks? The whole concept of the idea is to avoid gangbangs. What if (and if being a very loose term) the "gangbang" on one alliance is random? And what if (again a very loose term) it isn't random?
The only thing this whole idea is adding to the game is lots of idle fleets that won't launch in the first place, due to a limit.
What if 40 people prelaunch 2 each fleets on one alliance, do the game decide which ones get launched?
Since several alliances regurarly hit the same targets, intentionally and unintentionally.
I can't remember the last time or if ever there has been a tag on tag fight. From one side to the other, yes maybe... But rarely if ever both ways. That is basicly how politics works, it is barely for defence support, and mainly for attack support.
You honestly think the number of fleets that you try to point out make a difference, well probably for yourself... Mister i need help to do basic math! And this has nothing to do with math.
|
Do we have to hammer this idea into your skull to make you actually read what he wrote???
ITS ON A TAG BY TAG BASIS. It doesnt not affect Alliance B if Alliance C sent 40 fleets at Alliance A. Alliance B can also send 40 fleets. So can Alliances D,E,F,G etc.
The whole point is to stop OTT gang hammerings. Its to stop 'bandwagon' tatics of 5 alliances chucking 500 fleets at 1 60 man alliance and then half of them making out they were just 'gal raiding' when infact they were doing anything but. If you want to pwn an alliance then you need to declare a war against them to do so. This gives them a heads up of what to expect and may stem the extent of the beating. Which in turn would stop some of these smaller alliance coat tail riders from coming along.
I think that if this idea was entwined with buff for war state for both sides then it could be another dimension added to the game.
If the cap was delayed until tick 400 as i said then that would give ppl a 1/3rd of the round to gather intel and that in turn could add a further political and strategical element to the game. The accquisition of intel would be something worth doing again which has no downside.
All i get from you TheoDD in every post you have made in the last 6 months is that after many years of toiling away as a mediocre player in a less than mediocre alliance finally enough players have quit the game and you have had an ephiany and can now rank somewhere in the top half of the scoreboard. Is this why you are scared of change? Is this why you are so negative to any idea or change ever proposed here? Why you gripe away about new and different stats that are proposed?? Is it because you have finally worked out how to play and any change could mean its back to the drawing board and another 10 years of being shit!!!