Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dictator2
You see, this is the kind of objections I am happy with, not simply: No, blocks are bad, booo!!!
101% agreed with Kjel, I actually woke up this morning and realized 7-3 = 4 (pff, do'h) while smoking my 1st cig.
Look at my previous 2 posts, maybe this would be resolved by eliminating the block defense bonus and keeping alliances -1
Truth be told, blocks have happend and will keep happening for X reasons (from legitimate, to stupid, to plain cheating), so why not make them part of the game and "de-criminalize" them? As I posted elsewher:
|
I wouldn't say that the "blocks are bad" paradigma is one preached by top players / alliances to keep minor ones weak, nor do I think that this is the main reason why your idea isn't very welcome.
As you noticed yourself by now, the -3 eta is too much, -2 is maximum and that would mean either no battlegroups or no blocks, as one of them wouldn't get an ETA reduction. I dislike largening up to a thing like a "block" for the sole reason of rendering alliance memberlimits useless, you simply recruit as many people as you want to and group them in different 'wing alliances'.
As for the battlegroup concept ... it might be worth a more indepth look, but then again we got buddypacks you can share with your battlegroup people, or alliances (or both) - admittedly there are certain trade-offs (f.e. all bg people in one bp would ensure your galaxy gets pretty high on hostile lists, while all in same alliance give you less eta bonus on defense), but that is perfectly ok. Additionally, battlegroups could also be abused for unterminating the alliance member limit, just create lots of bg's with people from a few different alliances and you can cross-defend in your 'block' (not as efficient as with having the block option, but still).
Personally I don't see the need for another cooperation option, nor the good stuff it could do.