Quote:
Originally Posted by Forest
This could change game dynamics quite a bit but I think it is worth exploring.
My thoughts being, if an alliance is in full war status against another alliance, then salvage goes to attackers rather than defenders.
I am not sure how it would work in practice, maybe an alliance would have to declare war ingame or something.
And an alliance can only be 'at war' with 2 alliances at a time. If alliance that is at war with another sends less than say, 30 fleets at the alliance within a 24 hour, the war status is cancelled automatically and cant be renewed for 1 week (to stop abuse).
Maybe even go as far as attackers only get salvage if an alliance is above you in the ranks?
There is absolutely no incentive to hit up the ranks in pa, everyone hits down, for far too long and that needs to change
|
after being at #1 since PT156, i can assure you alliances haven't just been hitting down. We have been at 1 fleet attack or grounded since pt350 as a result of incs, with the exception of 2 nights.
There are some incentives of hitting up, but the trouble landing generally outweights the benefit of these incentives. This, however, is a stats issue more than anything.
The automatic cancelling of war status sucks, as there is no way you can send out enough attackfleets when you are being banged by multiple allies and you are grounded.
I'm all for additional incentives to war, but these have to be 2 sided incentives. Think of additional salvage when defending with additional xp/roidcap when landing. I think this round showed all too much how staying out of war is rather beneficial, look at FAnG taking a roidlead when Vikings was at war with CT/ND/Spore, and CT bridging the gap to FAnG during the Vikings/Apprime vs FAnG/ND war. To promote 'hitting up' these war bonuses should be based around the value between the warring alliances. So say Vikings war Spore, Spore get the maximum bonuses, where Vikings only get a minor bonus.