Permanent Attack Overhaul

[CobyCopper]

Your idea wouldn't be an issue really to players with 200m net. ut what if a new guy with like 40m net has finally got the hang of scraping? Any indy who logs in could just keep trickling him troops and smash him into the ground. The problem with your idea, as I stated before, is that it favors big players while harming little players. And that is not something we want to promote here.

The clan thing is just not something that I think would add anything to this game other than another layer of complexity and would require a ton of balance testing that just really isn't worth it when there are so many other things to test and so little time to do it.

but the current count of having .03% of food sacked or .15% on a good day is simply NOT ENOUGH.

I completely agree, I just don't think that your suggestion is the way to go about it. Your suggestion heavily favors non-massing strategies. And because massers rarely keep a standing army, OP/DP ratios are almost always going to max out, so that isn't a good measure either. The defense ratio system has the advantage of giving leader players a choice between defending against indy or defending aaginst other leader players, but not both, so they would no longer be the invincible tanks they are now. Plus that system has the added advantage of already being tested.

By indy missions do you mean "enslave" and "drive" and all those? I agree, the only 4 needed are drive, sack, capture, and attack, the others are useless code.

I've used it as much as the next major holder in keeping my net protected, but getting maxed at $200m and being pumped to $2b makes it rather pointless.

That's not really that much a problem. Because if you max them intentionally without taking land you get disabled, and if you take land, then who cares how much net they have? They'll go down sooner or later, but for now, they aren't locking. The unmaxxing by net is simply too unblanced and easily abused to make avoiding this rare situation worth the change.

So Shadow and quite a few other people, politely, get the [haties] out of my thread if you can't contribute anything positive to my concept.

Watch where you are going with that line of thought. I am contributing something positive - realism. If all you want to do is argue hypothetical situations then say so so that we can stop wasting time explaining why these ideas won't work. If you want your ideas to get facetime in development, then accept the criticism and modify your ideas accordingly.

I've quite often seen (and done in fact) 21 attacks on an ally to max them before pumping them up. If they had a 175 before they probably have a >280 after. At numbers like that, it's darn near impossible to open ops or even suicide, with the attacks being so random. But overall there are a few things that need to be fixed. I'm not saying that Sack or Capture should be taking 4-5% each and every time; perhaps only using Standard would yield a big number (perhaps 2-2.5%) half the time while using troop-specific attacks would yield half that. What I'm asking for is to give better numbers. There are so many different ways to work it out so that using each feature does not vary wildly. But I really don't think that low-NW players should be so heavily favored. Almost everything in this game (it seems) is catered towards the bottom 10. Bottom-feeders exist in every game. A thought to limit their vulnerability is to limit attacking under to 1/10th and keep attacking over at 20x. Doing things like that will keep the little guys protected from being raped while also limiting their ability to go from protection to takedown in 450 turns.

[Shadow]

Doing all those attacks is perfectly legal as long as they don't fail. I see no problem there. Giving someone a high ratio to protect net is a good move, and leaves land free. No ned to code it out.

Different numbers, fine. That will be worked on. Redoing the logic that those numbers apply to. Not so much.

If you make attack limits for high and low different, you get people abusing that by doing suicides and attacks from ow in the ranks so that they can't be retaliated against, and you make high players unable to get land back from low players. We don't want to favor little guys either.

Almost everything in this game (it seems) is catered towards the bottom 10.

Like what? If there is something truly skewed in that direction, we should take a look at it.

[Firetooth]

Er.  That's like me saying you're Freddy Mercury is a personal attack. 

Its a rather known fact by now, pretending otherwise isn't going to make a diff.  I can list anyone's alias, you and Sharptooth have quite a few.

Also, the attack op code -does- need to be tweaked, as it favors leader players too much for my liking.  It'd be nice if there was an indy version, somehow.
Having attacks open by networth change is a horrible suggestion though, and there's nothing you can do with it other than throw it out.  Soo easily abused.

Sharptooth has none, I have Paul David Hewson (bono), Freddy Mercury, Matthew Bellamy, Corey Taylor AND Firetooth :P
Now that's clarified, I'm getting the hell out of this forsaken thread hole, goodbye