Tbh I always remember you being up for it :P But anyway I basically played normal or didn't play in the last set, alliances at the time were crazy well stocked against suiciders except ones like ICN but honestly why would I hit them?

I miss 3 month resets.
As much as I would love to balance things I don't play enough to be willing to give up 120/120.

If you drop the turn rate, it will mean that smaller clans will be at a big disadvantage. 120 -> 80, will mean they need roughly 30% more members in a kill chat to kill a target.

With the current turns rate, the two months are the same as the three months in terms of total turns.

90 (90-160), would drop initial FS power by 25%. Whether you have stored turns or not, is a clan decision, which is more of a strategic issue rather then a game mechanic issue. I'd prefer I higher stored turns eg 90 (120). So roughly you didn't have to play turns for three days without losing too much. This would also slow the effective return of stored turns per day.

Currently it takes 3 days to deplete full stored turns, if it was 90 (120) it would take, roughly 6.5 days.

i prefer the 120(120) for alliance. I have played all other servers and they are not the same for me.The way it is now is good. It allows a few days to miss to store turns and restarting is not as much of a pain. Reducing turns or reducing turn rates would bore me. Why slow down a game that is already slow? I like that we actually have a decent number of turns per chat, and that even smaller alliances can hit back and kill.

Besides i am used to running strats with the 120(120) turns rate. I would actually be very upset with a change to the turn system now as i have never had as much fun with the actual game play as i do now.

I feel that 120(120) is more dynamic.

I'd prefer to put a rate limiter of 2 hit per second on the attack page.

I'd leave it 120(120) but would like to see it go back to 2 an hour instead of three. Wouldn't object to a 3 month reset instead of 2 either for that matter. Right now there is so much "rise and repeat" going on, in part because the reset is as short as it is.

All that is optional however.

I argued for weakening the FS while leaving the ability to war itself more or less intact back when I joined EE, I'd make the same argument now.

Seems to be okay as is. FS will obviously look incrediby overpowered when a bigger clan drops and tag kills a smaller one within 24 hours, but when the numbers are closer it is a diferent story.

clanA = clanB (#'s): clanA FS goes in with advantage and should, they got the strike off. clanB fights uphill in the war but otherwise needs a good performance & strat to turn it around.

clanA < clanB (#'s): clanA FS goes in and the war turns out to be pretty even, clanB's numbers advantage helps absorb the FS. (see sol v lcn/imag/icn - close war up until the tipping point).

clanA > clanB (#'s): clanA FS obliterates clanB, having number advantage and FS advantage. (sof -> rd ?) In this situation clanB would need to FS instead or call in allies to offset the FS.

Just some thoughts in my head.

i like the current turn system.

Dear Pang,
I like the current system. But I do have request. For the next upcoming Imag war, up the turns for like a few hours :P
Sincerely,
galleri

It seems most people are happy with the 1 turn per 20 mins.
I agree with this because if u reduce it and ill get bored.

Probably best to take the 100(100) turn option or something along those lines.

But i tend to net. So all i care about is that the frequency of my turns remains teh same, and dont reduce the turn count too low or people who go away for a weekend might start losing turns.

All I see is... The fs is over powered...

How is that new? The fs has always been a powerful and decisive factor in warring, thats kinda the point of 'ambishing' your foe.

You'll notice however, war alliances tend to cs better... And fsing a war alliance although still powerful has to be damn good to completely end a war outright.

All netters really have to do is look at why this fact is what it is... War alliances value sdi and weapons, along with slightly higher military to begin with. And turn saving.

netters sacrifice these basic protections to get a higher networth thats thier choice and thier risk. If they want to play that way, they need to be ready to suffer the consequences of thier choices when they fail at the political game.

Even 50% sdi, 110% weapons with an extra 500k mil will make a huge difference in surviving a fs, saving 50 turns (just over half a days) after the first week will allow for a better cs... None of this is too costly, combined with better politics phone lists and the new spy ops to tag admin, netters already have a huge advantage they didn't used to have.

With increased survival from the minor things I suggested, netters can easily turn things around, they know how t war, we all do.

And to add; the new attack button its no different than the old f5 enter... infact it is worse because you lose your target data more easily, as a vet warmonger I've had to relearn attacking to use the new button.

AndTo be on topic, turns are fine at 120(120) 1per 20.

I do agree with dagga. Rather then limiting the number of stored turns, why dont let it return slower, like 1 turns on each hour.

There are many people leaving the game because they are forced to login frequent to run turns. Some people are soo busy, they had no time and they can login like 2 times a week or so. That was one of my reason is stoped playing before, when E2025 came to end and before EE started.

I return to this game now coz im free at the moment. but if i get damn busy, i might leave back coz i dont have time to login each day. Decide the turns(stored turns) wisely. It will affect the players freedom on playing.

Although I'm a little more open to changes on the number of turns that can be held at any given time (i.e., 120(120) is good, but I would be fine with 100(100) or 80(160) ), I strongly propose maintaining the current rate of gaining turns. If we go to 30 mins or an hour per turn, then not only are we reducing the total number of turns in a reset--thus changing strategies and giving less flexibility for strategic changes that the longer game would include (a two month reset is 4300 turns with 20 mins/turn, and only 2800 turns with 30 mins/turn)--but we also would be limiting the ability of an alliance to CS properly. Longer times per turn means longer times to store the turns necessary to CS.

Well the double-edged sword is that FS's can be awesomely powerful (for those who do it right) but also that with fewer players / smaller clans you have to have those turns in order to actually have a war.

But instead of making KILLING HARDER, what if we made RESTARTING EASIER?

FS's dominate because restarts have to go back to 100 acres / 100 troops. So all your great netgaining/wargaining goes to waste with sub-min kills. And you cannot recover because the restarts are so weak.

So leave the turns / readiness alone. Killing is fun and it needs to be there to prove alliance warfighting skills and to kill off suiciders/idiots.

Make a 'resurrection' option. If you country is killed and you login within 24 hours you can salvage civilization from the wreckage. Your country is 2/3ds the acres and half of that is barren acres. Your population and military are devestated. But you have 100 turns of protection to put it all back together - or at least together enough to help your alliance in the war!!

So now an FS still has a major advantage - but an active and skillful alliance can recover.

______
|B O X| Get Outside :)
|____|

If you want to reduce FS's without changing more than the bare minimum just change readiness regain.

From 3% per turn back to 2% per turn.

This changes very little for netgaining because bottomfeeding isnt very prevalent at the moment. But it does quadruple the minimal desirable landgrab to some extent.

And produces fairly major changes to war. Reducing tyrannies advantage. Making demo viable. And generally increasing missiling and spying.

Instead of usuallly only tyranny being able to throw all missiles in the first wave everyone would of course, so depending on warfare time in the set and sdi that would reduce some of the reduction in FS power.

everyone has some good ideas, but i think there is a solution which should not be completely ground-breaking to implement but can be quite effective.

i think dagga or someone said what i had been thinking a long time ago, which was formalising clan pacts in-game as a way to counter-act the supposed too many turns thing. the number of turns is great atm and doesnt need to change. :D

you could have a proposal to war clan-on-clan option, which gives opposing team 48 or 72 hours of warning. If accepted, then its a completly level playing field.
If it is not accepted, or aggressor wishes to fs anyway, they get nerfed (maybe gaining no new turns for 48 hours, or losing a number of turns).

How about we made kept the current turns thing as it is but made killing a country take more turns! Tweak the formula a bit so that it takes 50-100% more turns to completely pop kill a country, that'd shut the whiners up. :P

if you want to change how many countries it takes to kill a country you really should change walling so that you dont need to have a higher percentage of a tag needing to make a warchat

apart from making it so it would be harder for small tags to kill suiciders it would mean once a clan starts losing countries it will eventually drop below a point where the whole war effort basically falls apart

So people are upset they died in a minutes or 2. wasnt the record in 2025 like 11 seconds or so?

Marco, IF I remember right, that was with like 200 people all attacking at once in one of the big wars.

That is differnt then someone unloading 120 turns in 20 seconds now.

Use bonus points to auto buyup once/twice off public within a 72hr window while being attacked? could be enough to throw off an enemy trying to rush and gives the defender a chance to get on and wall?

Turns are fine.

We could just lower it to 1(1) and 1 turn per day, that would make the FS weaker =/

yes!

lemon curry?

the More turns the better.

If you lower turns on hand. You have to increase the explore rates

Because it would suck for mass explorers.

And 2% readiness suggestion is the best so far. But would again gimp the attack power of smaller alliances.

How about. If your alliance has a country killed, all your stored turns would come out and there is no upper limit.

And it doesn't work if your alliance killed a country of another alliance within 24 hours.


So the alliance doing a CS could have like 250 turns on hand each. Hmmm

FS is way overpowered. An easy way to fix this without affecting other things is to go to 80(160) as suggested...

that sounds kinda awesome :D

but what would stop a clan killing one of their own countries just before they FS, or having one of their allies kill one of their countries
imagine a FS where everyone had 250 turns on hand >_<

Say you have 80 (160)

You save to full turns.

You play once a day.


When can you next miss a whole day without losing turns? (10)

How many days does it take you to use those 160 stored? (20)

I would say it's about 2 days before you can miss another whole day, and about 4 days to use up all 160 stored
rough guesses :p

actually, now that i think about it, i could be completely wrong
are those numbers (10)(20) the actual answers? :p

yes those numbers are the actual answers ;)

why are we worried about people who store up 3 days worth of turns and also can only play once a day qz? There are literally 0 players who fit that profile.

!!!

on my hawaii vacation i played every 2nd day or so

nope