Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

by Kenzu Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:23 am

Most of us will probably agree that it's not fair for a player who started playing 1 month ago has 100% tech and 10% population in defense, to be farmed to death by a player playing half a year with a 200% or even 350% tech (including personal bonus points).

It should be enough for a player not to be farmed profitably if he logs in 3 times a day has 10% of population in each military type (including defense), with tanks from weapon dealers, and moderate advance in technology. Don't you agree?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having seen that a discussion is crystalising about how to deal with players who have much better techs than new players. Let us open the discussion on this thread, and not go on topic here on this one.

The problem arises when players who are much bigger in terms of economy and military than other players can farm them with very little losses, losses so low that the victims have basically no chance of defending their kuwal, unless they wreck their economies and end up with say 15% population in defense (if they keep 15% in each military type, then this would mean 60% of population military, which is crazy)

Here is how other games limit this:
a) Larger players (better rank, or higher population) are not allowed to attack (either farm, or also mass) players who are much smaller by them (artificial restrictions). In AW it could mean that you can only farm someone with a rank within a boundary of say 60 ranks (+0 def players)

b) Players will have their tech advantage decreased in battles against low tech players so that their tech advantage doesn't exceed a certain %. For example a player can benefit from technology, weapons and personal bonus points and be stronger by a maximum of 50%, or 100% (The rate should be discussed)

c) Maximum tech advantage can be decided based on how long the attacked player is already playing.
For example (there can be other numbers too)
Player played less than 100 days (max tech advantage against him 50% including personal bonus points)
Player played 100-365 days (max tech advantage against him 100% including personal bonus points)
Player played over 365 days no limit to tech advantage. Which means a player who still has 100% after 1 year of playing, and is hit by someone with total 300% (including personal points) will feel the full severity of it.
(Counting only days where a player logged in)

=> C option made me thinking that people will be wondering why suddently they are having more losses when farmed and kill less units (they will probably not see that they have logged in for 101 or 366 days already)

d) Advantage a player can have over victim will depend on the days a player has played. for each 1 day the maximum advantage will be increased by 1%, starting from 0% advantage for a newly registered player. If you farm him after 1 month, you can have an advantage of 30%, after 1 year, an advantage of 365%

e) same like d) but max advantage to be limited at 50% (without personal bonus points) or 100% (including personal bonus points).

f) Maximum tech advantage dependent on the size of player compared to average size, or compared to attacking player.
So if you attack someone who has same population as you, you can have 100%+50% advantage in technology against him.
If you are 2 times bigger than someone then you can have 50%+50% advantage in technology against him.
If you are 10 times bigger than someone then you can have 10%+50% advantage in technology against him.
If you are 100 times bigger than someone then you can have 1%+50% advantage in technology against him.
=> This will convince players to fight against players of similar size.
(Of course moving units temporarily away to improve the max advantage isn't allowed and would have to be punished as an abuse)
(If this tech restriction should apply to only farming or also massing is also to be discussed. If it applies to massing too, then it will change how battles are fought and it wont be simply little strike teams massing whole alliances anymore, but there will be more direct action from all players, and even small ones will have more incentive to mass other small players)

Discuss

by Kingofshinobis1 Tue Apr 19, 2011 4:51 pm

Kenzu wrote:Most of us will probably agree that it's not fair for a player who started playing 1 month ago has 100% tech and 10% population in defense, to be farmed to death by a player playing half a year with a 200% or even 350% tech (including personal bonus points).

It should be enough for a player not to be farmed profitably if he logs in 3 times a day has 10% of population in each military type (including defense), with tanks from weapon dealers, and moderate advance in technology. Don't you agree?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having seen that a discussion is crystalising about how to deal with players who have much better techs than new players. Let us open the discussion on this thread, and not go on topic here on this one.

The problem arises when players who are much bigger in terms of economy and military than other players can farm them with very little losses, losses so low that the victims have basically no chance of defending their kuwal, unless they wreck their economies and end up with say 15% population in defense (if they keep 15% in each military type, then this would mean 60% of population military, which is crazy)

Here is how other games limit this:
a) Larger players (better rank, or higher population) are not allowed to attack (either farm, or also mass) players who are much smaller by them (artificial restrictions). In AW it could mean that you can only farm someone with a rank within a boundary of say 60 ranks (+0 def players)
The rank idea sucks imo. I think army size would be a better way to separate things. Everyone can attack everyone for just a slightly higher cost. This idea has already been discussed in another thread I believe

b) Players will have their tech advantage decreased in battles against low tech players so that their tech advantage doesn't exceed a certain %. For example a player can benefit from technology, weapons and personal bonus points and be stronger by a maximum of 50%, or 100% (The rate should be discussed)
Maximum tech advantage? This is stupid. Admins idea was much better than this. 50% no penalty and the next 50% 1/2 power penalty (so 25%). anything after that is regular power.

c) Maximum tech advantage can be decided based on how long the attacked player is already playing.
For example (there can be other numbers too)
Player played less than 100 days (max tech advantage against him 50% including personal bonus points)
Player played 100-365 days (max tech advantage against him 100% including personal bonus points)
Player played over 365 days no limit to tech advantage. Which means a player who still has 100% after 1 year of playing, and is hit by someone with total 300% (including personal points) will feel the full severity of it.
(Counting only days where a player logged in)
This is stupid. Why are you limiting only the older players? I am 100% against this.

=> C option made me thinking that people will be wondering why suddenly they are having more losses when farmed and kill less units (they will probably not see that they have logged in for 101 or 366 days already)

d) Advantage a player can have over victim will depend on the days a player has played. for each 1 day the maximum advantage will be increased by 1%, starting from 0% advantage for a newly registered player. If you farm him after 1 month, you can have an advantage of 30%, after 1 year, an advantage of 365%
I don't know how many bad ideas you can come up with in one post but this is your best one so far. I could live with this.

e) same like d) but max advantage to be limited at 50% (without personal bonus points) or 100% (including personal bonus points).
hell no. you are placing limits over top limits. wtf

f) Maximum tech advantage dependent on the size of player compared to average size, or compared to attacking player.
So if you attack someone who has same population as you, you can have 100%+50% advantage in technology against him.
If you are 2 times bigger than someone then you can have 50%+50% advantage in technology against him.
If you are 10 times bigger than someone then you can have 10%+50% advantage in technology against him.
If you are 100 times bigger than someone then you can have 1%+50% advantage in technology against him.
=> This will convince players to fight against players of similar size.
(Of course moving units temporarily away to improve the max advantage isn't allowed and would have to be punished as an abuse)
I would consider this a type of strategy. not abuse.
(If this tech restriction should apply to only farming or also massing is also to be discussed. If it applies to massing too, then it will change how battles are fought and it wont be simply little strike teams massing whole alliances anymore, but there will be more direct action from all players, and even small ones will have more incentive to mass other small players)
I don't know what to say about this. I don't know if I like it or hate it

Discuss
Overall I think admins idea is far better than any of these in the sense of limiting players technological advantage over smaller players. I didn't really like any of them.

by buhcoreTheGreat Tue Apr 19, 2011 7:04 pm

Most of us will probably agree that it's not fair for a player who started playing 1 month ago has 100% tech and 10% population in defense, to be farmed to death by a player playing half a year with a 200% or even 350% tech (including personal bonus points).

I think most will agree that your thinking is wrong and not logical. A player who started 1month ago probably wont be big enough farm for someone who plays half year and even if so, he is playing the game for half year longer and he deserves to have an advantage to farm smaller players but even that is very rare.
This was mentioned dozen times but if a new player with this low income is active and bank regulary will never get attacked but if not, then it deserves to be farmed.

by Kenzu Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:11 pm

I havent said I agree with all of the ideas, but I wrote them there as a starting point for a discussion.

buhcoreTheGreat wrote:
Most of us will probably agree that it's not fair for a player who started playing 1 month ago has 100% tech and 10% population in defense, to be farmed to death by a player playing half a year with a 200% or even 350% tech (including personal bonus points).

I think most will agree that your thinking is wrong and not logical. A player who started 1month ago probably wont be big enough farm for someone who plays half year and even if so, he is playing the game for half year longer and he deserves to have an advantage to farm smaller players but even that is very rare.
This was mentioned dozen times but if a new player with this low income is active and bank regulary will never get attacked but if not, then it deserves to be farmed.

not sure how about you, but farmers with good techs farm a lot of players, including players who are much smaller than them. It's often for me profitable to farm some players with 5 million population (10 times smaller than me), they have barely no chance of defending against me. My techs are much better than theirs, and they got not much chance against my attacks and I don't think that's fair or reasonable.

by buhcoreTheGreat Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:16 pm

They may have no chance to defend your attacks but its their own fault to have income they can't afford. And its much easier for a new player who comes half year later to upgrade techs than a bigger player who had to invest a lot more money because resource rates are changing.

by damgood Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:41 pm

buhcoreTheGreat wrote:They may have no chance to defend your attacks but its their own fault to have income they can't afford. And its much easier for a new player who comes half year later to upgrade techs than a bigger player who had to invest a lot more money because resource rates are changing.

Finally someone who think like me. You should post more often Razz

by Nomad Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:15 am

buhcoreTheGreat wrote:
Most of us will probably agree that it's not fair for a player who started playing 1 month ago has 100% tech and 10% population in defense, to be farmed to death by a player playing half a year with a 200% or even 350% tech (including personal bonus points).

I think most will agree that your thinking is wrong and not logical. A player who started 1month ago probably wont be big enough farm for someone who plays half year and even if so, he is playing the game for half year longer and he deserves to have an advantage to farm smaller players but even that is very rare.
This was mentioned dozen times but if a new player with this low income is active and bank regulary will never get attacked but if not, then it deserves to be farmed.

Absolutely and 100% agree with you Buhcore!!!!!!!! Well said!

damgood wrote:
buhcoreTheGreat wrote:They may have no chance to defend your attacks but its their own fault to have income they can't afford. And its much easier for a new player who comes half year later to upgrade techs than a bigger player who had to invest a lot more money because resource rates are changing.

Finally someone who think like me. You should post more often

Agree again.

Kenzu wrote:
not sure how about you, but farmers with good techs farm a lot of players, including players who are much smaller than them. It's often for me profitable to farm some players with 5 million population (10 times smaller than me), they have barely no chance of defending against me. My techs are much better than theirs, and they got not much chance against my attacks and I don't think that's fair or reasonable.

You stated elsewhere that you had a 20 to 25 bill strike or somewhere close to that area. If you can hit an account with 5 mill total population and still turn a profit after buying back, training, and arming your men then they deserved to get farmed as far as I can tell. That would have to be 12 to 24 or more hours of unregulated income being left out in the open.

by Nomad Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:27 am

Kenzu wrote:Most of us will probably agree,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Spoiler:

Discuss

I can't say I agree with much of any of this. I think its more backwards thinking about a decent idea. I would be more inclined to give a bonus to a beginner based on time and or size then to slamm the most active and committed part of the playerbase with unwarranted negatives.

Possible alternative suggestion is an "opposite" idea to AE in the form of Strictly defense bonuses(As in no strike or assassin bonuses, its debateable if you can call covert strike or defensive) to smaller accounts. If GAAS is 10 mill then anyone under 5 mill gets a bonus to their defensive tech stats to counter the long term and larger players. Once you hit GAAS then no bonuses or protections should be offered.

The biggest reason I am against stopping bigger players from farming or raiding smaller is because it stops the growth of those who push the GAAS and total populations, and allows those who sell off to remain small the oppurtunity to take the best of both worlds. Small enough to hit the small/weak and large enough to strike the strong/large.

Would also like to point out another issue being overlooked. What if the smaller/weaker player is hounding or stalking a larger? Using his small size and "protections/bonuses/extra defenses" against the larger player, causing many more losses for the larger account then it should have to suffer?

by ghyogod Wed Apr 20, 2011 2:51 am

investing in techs is a good deed and it should not be punished. so max tech advantage should be out of the question.

limiting the area of atacks could work still.
player of rank K to be allowed hits in the interval (k-200; k+200) wich is not to be added the list of zero def players outside the interval
this limit should be put in practice after the new player reaches GAAS/10 so that he has the chance to farm freely all the inactives on the server and catch the taste of the game.

if k<200 then interval of possible targets should be (0,400).

so that is THUMBS UP for point a)
and a NO for max tech advantage. if a new player wishes to shorten the tech gap he is invited to buy his percents like anyother player. it is enough he gets cheaper percents at start. the cost gap is enough.

by Kenzu Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:48 am

ghyogod wrote:investing in techs is a good deed and it should not be punished. so max tech advantage should be out of the question.

limiting the area of atacks could work still.
player of rank K to be allowed hits in the interval (k-200; k+200) wich is not to be added the list of zero def players outside the interval
this limit should be put in practice after the new player reaches GAAS/10 so that he has the chance to farm freely all the inactives on the server and catch the taste of the game.

if k<200 then interval of possible targets should be (0,400).

so that is THUMBS UP for point a)
and a NO for max tech advantage. if a new player wishes to shorten the tech gap he is invited to buy his percents like anyother player. it is enough he gets cheaper percents at start. the cost gap is enough.

So you think its ok if a players who start playing now will have to have 15-20% of population in defense, and equal percentages in spy and assassins leaving him to only 40% in income to make sure not to be farmed, even if he logs in 3 times a day to bank?

Because someone who has 300% in attack (including personal bonus points) armed with MLRS can farm a little guy armed with tanks each day, unless the little guy builds 15%-20% of his population into defense.

Also if they need so much military, after one mass, they will lose practically everything!

Small players will not be able to grow.

While this problem is only starting to appear now, it will become much more serious in the comming months, when top players might reach 350 or even 400% in attack. Just think about it, top players can increase by 1% each day, what will happen after 100%? Some will have increased it a lot, and small players will be very upset about that.

by ghyogod Wed Apr 20, 2011 12:54 pm

a good algorithm for farming involves the idea of never farming less then 700milion from a zero def player. under that a simple raid for 2500 UU turns to be a little more profittable. if the farmed player has def the thief must add the cost of the farm to those 700milion. so haveing 1b defence should protect around 2.5b that is produced is lets say 25 turns of 100milion income.
if i do not login for 25 turns i wil get farmed by curumo/stevenaya.

so what is fair here and what is not? as admin stated (answering to another post of mine in "the galactic developpement" tread) the advantage of bigger players is that they are bigger players. so advise the newbies to raise a def proportional to the income they wish to protect. some players even pay huge piles of kuwal to their officers to prevent getting farmed. if they do not wish to get farmed they should put up a def or just dont train anymore farmers until they can do so.

we are not bad people. bad people hurt little children. and the small/new accounts are just like little children here. so why hurt/farm them when it clearely is so much more fun and profiytable fighting their parents? Smile

i dont understand why in the gods name would a big player waste ST to make sure the new player wont catch up or grow.

by Mystake Wed Apr 20, 2011 5:50 pm

ghyogod wrote:investing in techs is a good deed and it should not be punished. so max tech advantage should be out of the question.

limiting the area of atacks could work still.
player of rank K to be allowed hits in the interval (k-200; k+200) wich is not to be added the list of zero def players outside the interval
this limit should be put in practice after the new player reaches GAAS/10 so that he has the chance to farm freely all the inactives on the server and catch the taste of the game.

if k<200 then interval of possible targets should be (0,400).

so that is THUMBS UP for point a)
and a NO for max tech advantage. if a new player wishes to shorten the tech gap he is invited to buy his percents like anyother player. it is enough he gets cheaper percents at start. the cost gap is enough.

if we're gunna make zero def accs hittable, then a compromise needs to be made that makes it EASY to zero a defense. I raided as low as rank pages 150-200 and have had some decent hits.

fact of the matter is, new accounts have it way way easier than older accounts. why make it EVEN MORE easy? Quit penalising the people who put their time and effort into the game - they are the reason the game even exists.

by ghyogod Thu Apr 21, 2011 4:48 am

Mystake wrote:
ghyogod wrote:investing in techs is a good deed and it should not be punished. so max tech advantage should be out of the question.

limiting the area of atacks could work still.
player of rank K to be allowed hits in the interval (k-200; k+200) wich is not to be added the list of zero def players outside the interval
this limit should be put in practice after the new player reaches GAAS/10 so that he has the chance to farm freely all the inactives on the server and catch the taste of the game.

if k<200 then interval of possible targets should be (0,400).

so that is THUMBS UP for point a)
and a NO for max tech advantage. if a new player wishes to shorten the tech gap he is invited to buy his percents like anyother player. it is enough he gets cheaper percents at start. the cost gap is enough.

if we're gunna make zero def accs hittable, then a compromise needs to be made that makes it EASY to zero a defense. I raided as low as rank pages 150-200 and have had some decent hits.

fact of the matter is, new accounts have it way way easier than older accounts. why make it EVEN MORE easy? Quit penalising the people who put their time and effort into the game - they are the reason the game even exists.

i have the feeling u didnt understood my point " wich is NOT to be added the list of zero def players outside the interval "
players outside the interval are just outside and it should not matter if they are def 0 or not.
being able to hit a player ouztside the interval for the reason that it has def 0 should mean u can find out if they are def 0 by just being allowed to perform a farm mission against them. the proper manner of revealing one's def is a recon mission.

by Steveanaya Sat Apr 23, 2011 4:51 am

I'm completely against all of this.

It will make people leave the game if it's implemented, but won't make people leave the game if it is not.

So I suggest you don't do anything more to hinder larger players or make it easier for smaller playerS

by Kenzu Sat Apr 23, 2011 10:56 am

But you realise it's getting worse and worse for small players.

by buhcoreTheGreat Sun Apr 24, 2011 9:59 am

Kenzu wrote:But you realise it's getting worse and worse for small players.

Actually its not, small players can now gain 5mil uus in a month, remember how you needed a year for that? If you want us to leave just ask instead of implementing updates as this. I hope you get my point.

by Kenzu Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:34 am

buhcoreTheGreat wrote:
Kenzu wrote:But you realise it's getting worse and worse for small players.

Actually its not, small players can now gain 5mil uus in a month, remember how you needed a year for that? If you want us to leave just ask instead of implementing updates as this. I hope you get my point.

growing faster has nothing to do with being farmed.
What I meant by its getting worse and worse is that new players need much higher % of population trained in defense to not be farmed.

by buhcoreTheGreat Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:50 am

Kenzu wrote:
buhcoreTheGreat wrote:
Kenzu wrote:But you realise it's getting worse and worse for small players.

Actually its not, small players can now gain 5mil uus in a month, remember how you needed a year for that? If you want us to leave just ask instead of implementing updates as this. I hope you get my point.

growing faster has nothing to do with being farmed.
What I meant by its getting worse and worse is that new players need much higher % of population trained in defense to not be farmed.

And what im saying is that while u try to defend smaller players so badly, the bigger ones might leave eventually. Now decide which group of players means more to you because this update isnt solution to your problem.

by ghyogod Sun Apr 24, 2011 11:35 am

see this WR is an army of small accounts. Smile

) mabe kenzu wishes to make them a bit more fiercefull.

@Kenzu►give them a RAGE button for when they cant hit a big player's def so that u can make a study of their nerve capacities. Smile

)

(sorry but it's just ment to be funny, mate Smile

) )

by Admin Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:43 pm

ghyogod wrote:see this WR is an army of small accounts. ) mabe kenzu wishes to make them a bit more fiercefull.
@Kenzu►give them a RAGE button for when they cant hit a big player's def so that u can make a study of their nerve capacities. )

(sorry but it's just ment to be funny, mate ) )

fiercefull?

I'd understand if this update would NEGATE tech bonuses when fighting wars against smaller accounts, but since that's not the case I fail to see how it's even possible to make that joke Smile

A joke should stretch out an idea into the ridiculous, here you're just adding new features to this suggestion which no one has talked about.

by Nomad Sun Apr 24, 2011 1:06 pm

As buhcore has stated already, and others made good points as well.

There is No proven need for this update. Any active player can do the same thing all the rest of us had to do when we started. Control your income. Build a defense big enough to protect your resources, suppliment your income with farming of inactives. Seems the least most strike for is 500 million and up so 4 hits per day is an additional 2 bill in income and likely more then they make in a day already.

If you still insist on this I do hope you consider some of the different views put forth. I can see giving some bonus to scattered rag tag forces(smaller guys) in strictly defensive matters due to them being hard to track, hard to find, and only finding small groups when you do. I just do not see making 1,000 men less effective against 10 then they are against 100. Tieing it to time played is a good idea, because tieing it to size is not. People sell off to stay small intentionally. They do not deserve these bonuses because they normally have the best tech's, up, and levels already. Why are you giving them even more? Anyone at GAAS should be able to handle themselves with no bonuses, so tieing it to that is also an idea but still abusable due to selling off. A system much like a reverse AE could work here giving the smallest a large advantage and as you near GAAS it goes away.

Guess the ultimate question is, does this abuse actually exist? This is only a question Admin can answer. Are these accounts being hit actively lagging in? banking? and controling their incomes? If it exists then move forward,,, but if those being "abused" are not logging in 2,3 or more times a day, are not banking at every oppurtunity, are not keeping adiquit defenses, and are not useing work conditions and realm alerts religiously then why are we making changes?

1/2 a bill is an average 0 def inactive farming hit (I think thats accurate, not stating it as fact). I remember when 30 mill was MASSIVE!

Seems to me the root of this issue being put forth is not protecting the weak, but putting a bandaide on a problem with tech levels themselves. Maybe they are to powerful or two plentiful. Maybe they should be cut by 1/2 or 1/5 or 1/10? then the gap between big and little shrinks. The power loss is equal for all, and no one is unfairly made weak against another. Maybe tech numbers should be capped based on something in the account? Be it time played, levels, UP, total pop, or some other factor.

just some food for thought.

**added edit below**

Spoiler:

by buhcoreTheGreat Sun Apr 24, 2011 2:05 pm

Thank you for a more detailed explanation nomad

by Admin Mon Apr 25, 2011 12:46 am

There's several good arguments for and against this issue.

As kenzu put it, this problem didn't exist when say people had 160% going vs 110%. But when you get now 290% going vs 110%, that might be a problem.

On the other hand:
1) Tech costs double every 100 levels.
At 300% the cost is at 160 Bil per level, getting to 200% only costs around 334 bil in total (ignoring race bonuses), getting to 300% costs 4.7 Tril
2) Each upgrade is less efficient than the one before.
Going from 100% to 200% means you doubled your power, but going from 200% to 300% is only 1.5 times improvement in efficiency (200 x 1.5 = 300). So a tech difference of say 30% is worlds apart when you have 100% vs 130% or when you have 250% vs 280%

In hindsight I realize I should have made them give only one 10th the benefit (so 100.1% instead of 101% after 1 upgrade). Since originally I wanted the techs to be an additional factor in power, not the main force behind it.
I (falsely) assumed giving it a cumulative gain in cost would be enough to slow down its growth.

Would I get stoned for resetting everyones techs and returning the kuwal and redoing the system?
Almost certainly, unless it's a gradual change over several months so that people can adapt to it, since many definitely made upgrades and expenses based on expecting the tech system to stay as it should.

But redoing the tech system to be sustainable long term would be a better idea than to start making weird limiters.
Techs should have been something like personal bonus. They can give you the edge. But not single handedly win a war.
(main point being that even if you're big, doesn't mean you can kill stuff more efficiently, it's already enough that you have bigger up and more income and more soldiers)

by kingkongfan1 Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:08 am

Admin wrote:There's several good arguments for and against this issue.

As kenzu put it, this problem didn't exist when say people had 160% going vs 110%. But when you get now 290% going vs 110%, that might be a problem.

On the other hand:
1) Tech costs double every 100 levels.
At 300% the cost is at 160 Bil per level, getting to 200% only costs around 334 bil in total (ignoring race bonuses), getting to 300% costs 4.7 Tril
2) Each upgrade is less efficient than the one before.
Going from 100% to 200% means you doubled your power, but going from 200% to 300% is only 1.5 times improvement in efficiency (200 x 1.5 = 300). So a tech difference of say 30% is worlds apart when you have 100% vs 130% or when you have 250% vs 280%

In hindsight I realize I should have made them give only one 10th the benefit (so 100.1% instead of 101% after 1 upgrade). Since originally I wanted the techs to be an additional factor in power, not the main force behind it.
I (falsely) assumed giving it a cumulative gain in cost would be enough to slow down its growth.

Would I get stoned for resetting everyones techs and returning the kuwal and redoing the system?
Almost certainly, unless it's a gradual change over several months so that people can adapt to it, since many definitely made upgrades and expenses based on expecting the tech system to stay as it should.

But redoing the tech system to be sustainable long term would be a better idea than to start making weird limiters.
Techs should have been something like personal bonus. They can give you the edge. But not single handedly win a war.
(main point being that even if you're big, doesn't mean you can kill stuff more efficiently, it's already enough that you have bigger up and more income and more soldiers)

I wont lie & say I understand why this discussion even exists, but if you are gonna do it, then do it & git 'er done as they say...

by ghyogod Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:11 am

the actual system gives players the opportunity to develop economical or technological. please do understand that changeing this would have accounts re-made and make wars not as appealing because the obvoius choice would be to go for income now Smile

going for a 0.1% system would make this game boring.
imagine paying 2 trilion kuwal for losing 5 soldiers less then the enemy?

by Sponsored content

Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers

Re: Maximum tech advantage, protecting small players against big farmers