Quote:
Originally Posted by BloodyButcher
So last two rounds it was quite evident that the winning alliance was also the alliance with the most NAP/Deals with other tags in their close proximity.
Looking at KIA today having less roids makes you a more attractive target to aim for, or atleast so it could look like for a uninformed bystander.
Today roid cap and XP gain is based on only planet score/value/size, and it does not matter if the planet is a part of the smallest tag or the biggest tag in the universe.
Attacking bigger planets in the biggest alliances should give a larger reward seeing that the chance of landing that tag is slimmer than if you attacked a planet in a smaller tag.
|
I guess this proves that you really don't play this game much. This idea is already built in to the war function:
"You get a 3% bonus to base and maximum asteroid capture rates and a 5% bonus to XP
If the alliance has a larger score than you and no one else is currently at war with them, these bonus rates rise to 5% and 10% respectively. This means that there is a bonus for being the first person to declare war on another alliance."
So how much more do we have to give to the lower alliances before you're happy? 50%? 100%? 500%? I mean, are you wanting to start a race to the bottom? Maybe next you'll suggest that Apocco just pulls a Dumbledore and randomly assigns some points to his fav 3rd place alliance to give them the win at EORC? Jeezus man.