Attack/Raid changes

danuboy wrote:Now you can see why farming is not profitable and why lowering the repair costs is necessary.

you're welcome to provide me with any evidence where i am currently against making farming more profitable.

also I've presented another suggestion which i'm considering.
Farming attacks on 0 defense targets will have no repair costs. As right now there's no reason for someone to have a few hundred weapons. Either they have 1 weapon and farm inactives or they have to build up a decent strike to punch through some actual defenses.

danuboy wrote:And yes 0 defence targets making no weapons damage is good and it would be better if this rule would be applied to raiding too . This way you wouldn't have to sell weapons to be able to raid if you have a big strike.

now this is something i'm not quite sure would want to have applied yet.

OK, question.

Is it possible to alter the standing attacks?

lets just go with kewal farming for now, not raiding. Decrease the cost, repair cost, and death rate on BOTH sides. But limit the attack so any 1 account can only use it either every 2 to 4 hrs, or only so many times a day against another account..

This gives you the ability to kewal farm profitably, but doesnt allow a defender to be massed in this fashion. Massing will incurr the regular cost.

possibly allow the same structure for raiding AFTER the defense is 0'ed?

dude, since when can you mass through farming?

since when can you not?

dunno, always had that impression )

nomad i think you misunderstood, if we talk about decreasing repair costs then it will automatically be done for both sides.

so just like it's now unreasonable to try and mass someoen with the farm attack, it will remain so even if we should end up, for whatever reasons, to decrease repair costs even by 50%.

Ok Admin, I understand that, what my point was based on, is


defensive weapons only last a set number of hits

so an alliance could use multiple "farming" attacks at a decreased cost to effectively remove a defense through weapon failure

if that made sense.

i get where you're coming from
no worries, worst case scenario, i decrease damage of defense weapons to 1 point per hit

Nomad wrote:Ok Admin, I understand that, what my point was based on, is


defensive weapons only last a set number of hits

so an alliance could use multiple "farming" attacks at a decreased cost to effectively remove a defense through weapon failure

if that made sense.

that's how inactives are born, bless their hearts! zero def inactives that is.

If i may be so bold as to suggest something -

If you want more wars and more massings instead if altering farming costs add a new function to alliances. So when an alliance declares war on another alliance all these reductions to repair costs and losses come into effect between the two alliances.

Let me explain my thinking- This reduced costs and losses will only apply for attack between opposing members. This will mean that it is cheaper to farm or mass the enemy alliance. Therefore this will lead to alliances declaring war on each other as it will be cheaper to steal each others resources

The reason i like this game so much is the ability to destroy someone completely, please dont take that away or make it too easy.

Implement my suggestion and i promise you The Commonwealth will make the game much more interesting

wanna maybe quantify the reductions?
cos so far we're only talking about making farming a bit cheaper, i think 10-15% decrease in repairs and maybe a bit lowering unit losses.
And personally I think it's ok with making such a change being affecting globally everyone

The declaring war thing might be good and probably even something along the lines of alliance A declares war and gains some boost, but if alliance B declares war back then both sides gain an even higher boost.
Now question is what boost? Simply make strike suffer less damage when attacking, making killing def's and everything else that much cheaper? or just drop at/st costs for all attacks between these two sides? or anything else?

But there needs to be some cost associated with it, otherwise alliances will use it even if they only want to mass just one person and neither alliance wishes for a full scale war.

I have always wished relations were used for more then making farming lists.

And you are correct on your point admin

I say lower farm and raid costs by 25% (25% less losses and repairs for both attacker and defender)

I say you should farm/raid cheaper if you declare war on someone.
(If you declare war on someone, and they don't declare war on you, farming and raiding costs 50% less until the other one declares war on you too)

If that person declares war on you, then farm and raid should cost as before. (which should be 25% cheaper, instead of 50%)

To sum up:

neutral attacks neutral 75% repair costs and losses
war attacks neutral 50% repair costs and losses
neutral attacks war 75% repair costs and losses
war attacks war 75% repair costs and losses

therefore it will be better for the attacker to declare war before farming/raiding.

costs for assaulting and other attack shall remain untouched.

PS: maybe if you attack someone, the game should automatically have you declare war on your opponent. afterall you went to war with him. You can always set your stance back after the attack.