PDA

View Full Version : AAs



lostmetallica
10th November 2009, 10:43 PM
Yes I know this topic has been beaten to death :frusty:

However, I would like to point out that many of your fellow KoCers have taken it upon themselves to join an alliance in protest of AAs, or at the very least what they have become:

Ban|AAs 108

http://www.kingsofchaos.com/alliances.php?id=2514

You will see many top ranked players in this alliance.

My reason for wanting to get rid of these silly boxes is simple: Its a war game and my marauding horde of dwarves does not wish to read the sticky note you posted on your castle wall in regards to gold. Its ruining the fun of the game for those of us who prefer slaying and frankly, with the dip in number over the ages, I don't think we can afford to lose any more players.

I have emailed Rocco on this issue on more than one occasion, but I figured I would get my e-petition out in a more widespread fashion. over 100 have already signed it, and that was just by word of mouth.

So lets get rid of them, or actually make them what they were supposed to be for: Alliance Affiliation, not Allowed Attacks or whatever they are now.

Lost out

fistsofthor
10th November 2009, 10:45 PM
Yes I know this topic has been beaten to death :frusty:

However, I would like to point out that many of your fellow KoCers have taken it upon themselves to join an alliance in protest of AAs, or at the very least what they have become:

Ban|AAs 108

http://www.kingsofchaos.com/alliances.php?id=2514

You will see many top ranked players in this alliance.

My reason for wanting to get rid of these silly boxes is simple: Its a war game and my marauding horde of dwarves does not wish to read the sticky note you posted on your castle wall in regards to gold. Its ruining the fun of the game for those of us who prefer slaying and frankly, with the dip in number over the ages, I don't think we can afford to lose any more players.

I have emailed Rocco on this issue on more than one occasion, but I figured I would get my e-petition out in a more widespread fashion. over 100 have already signed it, and that was just by word of mouth.

So lets get rid of them, or actually make them what they were supposed to be for: Alliance Affiliation, not Allowed Attacks or whatever they are now.

Lost out

One of the issues is that with the possibility of using an AA, if a player declines to put anything into their AA and a player hits them for crap gold, the alliance does not seem to accept that player getting sabbed simply because if that player had a limit, he should have put it in his AA.

Perhaps you should have made this thread a public poll if what you wanted was a poll?

dohh
10th November 2009, 10:47 PM
Perhaps you should have made this thread a public poll if what you wanted was a poll?

He doesn't want a poll or he would have made one retard

I support this!

lostmetallica
10th November 2009, 10:48 PM
One of the issues is that with the possibility of using an AA, if a player declines to put anything into their AA and a player hits them for crap gold, the alliance does not seem to accept that player getting sabbed simply because if that player had a limit, he should have put it in his AA.

Perhaps you should have made this thread a public poll if what you wanted was a poll?

No no, no poll necessary, I think the alliance count speaks for itself. "crap gold" is relative to the person attacking. The unwritten rules of the game (alliances and sabotage) should be enough to keep people from doing too much to get on your nerves, not some silly box. I don't have a min set in my AA, and yet people tend to hit me for what I would consider decent gold at my Defense. If your account it built right, you will hold a "fair" amount of gold before you get it. And if that doesn't happen every so often, tough, its a war game, these things happen.

fistsofthor
10th November 2009, 10:56 PM
No no, no poll necessary, I think the alliance count speaks for itself. "crap gold" is relative to the person attacking. The unwritten rules of the game (alliances and sabotage) should be enough to keep people from doing too much to get on your nerves, not some silly box. I don't have a min set in my AA, and yet people tend to hit me for what I would consider decent gold at my Defense. If your account it built right, you will hold a "fair" amount of gold before you get it. And if that doesn't happen every so often, tough, its a war game, these things happen.

also, have you considered the possibility that some players would start sabbing every hit again like the used to when there were no AAs?

lostmetallica
10th November 2009, 11:57 PM
also, have you considered the possibility that some players would start sabbing every hit again like the used to when there were no AAs?

Not entirely sure what you mean. I have played since Age 2 and people who sabbed for any hits, the self proclaimed "in my logs = sab" players, were always dealt with by alliances. They were annoying AND few and far between because of the massive clan actions against them. This was also easier to maintain before sentry and spy were able to be sabbed. Now that nuns and LTs can be taken out, its much harder to be a "sab all" player. And if thats how they wish to play, then fine, because that at least makes sense within the context of a D&D type war game based on mythical races in a feudal type era. What doesn't make sense is the sticky note on the castle wall.

fistsofthor
11th November 2009, 12:18 AM
Not entirely sure what you mean. I have played since Age 2 and people who sabbed for any hits, the self proclaimed "in my logs = sab" players, were always dealt with by alliances. They were annoying AND few and far between because of the massive clan actions against them. This was also easier to maintain before sentry and spy were able to be sabbed. Now that nuns and LTs can be taken out, its much harder to be a "sab all" player. And if thats how they wish to play, then fine, because that at least makes sense within the context of a D&D type war game based on mythical races in a feudal type era. What doesn't make sense is the sticky note on the castle wall.

I think al2's chaos tried to mark those players and avoid them. So, those players werent always dealt with. There was at least one alliance that was perfectly content to let a lone member take a bunch of crap and not lift a finger to support that member.

LL
11th November 2009, 08:51 AM
I hate the ways AA's are used to make demands, Ive joined the alliance although i doubt it will prompt the admins to make any changes, but something must be done to stop the way AA's are used.

fistsofthor
11th November 2009, 09:02 AM
I hate the ways AA's are used to make demands, Ive joined the alliance although i doubt it will prompt the admins to make any changes, but something must be done to stop the way AA's are used.

You realize that such black mail is the spirit of KoC?

Also, you can still get demands in your inbox.

Pauly_D
11th November 2009, 09:19 AM
You realize that such black mail is the spirit of KoC?

Also, you can still get demands in your inbox.

Demands in your inbox is in the spirit of KoC, Demands in your AA is not
AA is Alliance Affiliation. Do you need a dictionary?
i havnt seen an alliance called "If you hit for less than 4 turns then send xxx morale", however you are perfectly free to set an alliance called that :icon_psyc

AA's should be used for what they were intended for, however it now says what alliances you are part of then AA's are pointless now.
If people are asking for requests in AA's they should lose the right to have an AA

AND BRING BACK THE CHAOS, if they think its a low hit they will sab for it, if they dont they wont back like everyone did in the early ages, certain players will get reputations for sabbing and others wont.

fistsofthor
11th November 2009, 09:21 AM
Demands in your inbox is in the spirit of KoC, Demands in your AA is not
AA is Alliance Affiliation. Do you need a dictionary?
i havnt seen an alliance called "If you hit for less than 4 turns then send xxx morale", however you are perfectly free to set an alliance called that :icon_psyc

AA's should be used for what they were intended for, however it now says what alliances you are part of then AA's are pointless now.
If people are asking for requests in AA's they should lose the right to have an AA

AND BRING BACK THE CHAOS, if they think its a low hit they will sab for it, if they dont they wont back like everyone did in the early ages, certain players will get reputations for sabbing and others wont.

What is wrong with the extortion being more open and obvious?

besides slayers being afraid of getting sabbed.

lostmetallica
11th November 2009, 09:23 AM
What is wrong with the extortion being more open and obvious?

besides slayers being afraid of getting sabbed.

Namely that it makes no sense of course. Within the context of the game, there should be no bulletin board of allowed gold attacks.

fistsofthor
11th November 2009, 09:28 AM
Namely that it makes no sense of course. Within the context of the game, there should be no bulletin board of allowed gold attacks.

Its a game, players get a little box to say whatever they want to say. Just like a castle that could post a banner above its walls so that everyone could read (or, on a wooden thing-a-ma-jig outside the gates).

I mean, you can put song lyrics in there if you want. Also, no one is forcing you to read the AA. But, you are expected to suffer the consequences if you do not.

BuGz
11th November 2009, 09:34 AM
on a wooden thing-a-ma-jig

I do believe they call those "signs".

Pauly_D
11th November 2009, 09:36 AM
What is wrong with the extortion being more open and obvious?

besides slayers being afraid of getting sabbed.

The problem ISNT slayers getting sabbed, the problem is Bankers that dont ever want to get hit, most AA's i see are so that they can go the night without getting hit. This has been said hundreds of times but this has become Kings Of Bankers not Chaos any longer and the bankers want to keep it that way because its easier that way for them, they can sleep a little longer because they know that if someone attacks them in the night then they can sab them and get their alliance to sab them

lostmetallica
11th November 2009, 09:06 PM
Its a game, players get a little box to say whatever they want to say. Just like a castle that could post a banner above its walls so that everyone could read (or, on a wooden thing-a-ma-jig outside the gates).

I mean, you can put song lyrics in there if you want. Also, no one is forcing you to read the AA. But, you are expected to suffer the consequences if you do not.

Yes but i have never once read a book or heard an account of a sign saying "hey if you're going to attack my village and rape my women, you better take 15m gold pieces too!" Thats just goofy. If you want to intimidate me, tell me about your scary allies.


The problem ISNT slayers getting sabbed, the problem is Bankers that dont ever want to get hit, most AA's i see are so that they can go the night without getting hit. This has been said hundreds of times but this has become Kings Of Bankers not Chaos any longer and the bankers want to keep it that way because its easier that way for them, they can sleep a little longer because they know that if someone attacks them in the night then they can sab them and get their alliance to sab them

Add to that those silly people who don't understand a bad percent is GOOD FOR THEM, thats more gold they get to keep. But yes, its pretty easy to appx a TBG and find out these people don't want to bank for 8 hours at a time. Sheesh considering you can bank from a computer, a phone, or a PDA anymore... I think they should just hush.

ArxSerpens
11th November 2009, 09:17 PM
Name Ban|AAs
Members 109

While I use it for the function most people dislike, Thats strictly because of the fact that I /can/ lol. With most chains now taking to the 4 tbg BF policy idea, AA's really should be used for the original use. A spot for 12 or 15 characters would work fine.
Example: 'TFE Leader' , 10 chars, could add an - LGC at end if I wanted, or in the case of earlier this age, could have done 'GTA - TFE Admin'




(or, on a wooden thing-a-ma-jig outside the gates).

I do believe they call those "signs".

Lol

@fists: Everyone seems to like writing msg's to just you, and saying to stop. I think its a valid point, stop voicing an opinion of everything, really, stop man.

fistsofthor
11th November 2009, 09:29 PM
Yes but i have never once read a book or heard an account of a sign saying "hey if you're going to attack my village and rape my women, you better take 15m gold pieces too!" Thats just goofy. If you want to intimidate me, tell me about your scary allies.



Add to that those silly people who don't understand a bad percent is GOOD FOR THEM, thats more gold they get to keep. But yes, its pretty easy to appx a TBG and find out these people don't want to bank for 8 hours at a time. Sheesh considering you can bank from a computer, a phone, or a PDA anymore... I think they should just hush.

Could you point me to players whose AAs ask for more than a 10 turn steal?

As for the bankers: have you considered that they might be looking for an excuse to sab because banking is so boring?

paper_mario
11th November 2009, 10:27 PM
AA has been removed...only on the ajax battlefield now, and that should be removed soon

lostmetallica
11th November 2009, 10:39 PM
Could you point me to players whose AAs ask for more than a 10 turn steal?

As for the bankers: have you considered that they might be looking for an excuse to sab because banking is so boring?

Yes FoT, I could have pointed you to SEVERAL that asked for about 10 turns of gold in about 5 mins time.

But they're gone now so I can't anymore.

:)

fistsofthor
11th November 2009, 10:42 PM
Yes FoT, I could have pointed you to SEVERAL that asked for about 10 turns of gold in about 5 mins time.

But they're gone now so I can't anymore.

:)

Do you remember the folks?

Well, this should be interesting. All of those players who have stuff to say in their AA can no longer say it. That said, who thinks that someone will start an alliance by the name of "steal 6 turns or SAB" or some variant off of that?

Now, farming rules will go back to being whatever the alliance says they are (which is generally 4 or 5 or 6 per week and 1 per 24 hours)

JeNnAjAmEsoN
11th November 2009, 10:56 PM
I have a horrible memory, what was written in each of your AAs?. Nevermind, lets burn turns ;)

BillyCrack
11th November 2009, 10:57 PM
AA has been removed...only on the ajax battlefield now, and that should be removed soon

Slayersssssssssss time!!!

i need to use this:

Rank: 124
Attack Turns: 216 / 500

MFnBonsai
11th November 2009, 11:01 PM
The removal of the IDIOT BOX will not stop you being sabbed....

with that being said have fun....

DarthAndrew
11th November 2009, 11:04 PM
The removal of the IDIOT BOX will not stop you being sabbed....

with that being said have fun....

LOL, He's right, lol :violin:

BillyCrack
11th November 2009, 11:07 PM
Yee.. but no more fckn Morale Request :P

MFnBonsai
11th November 2009, 11:13 PM
Yee.. but no more fckn Morale Request :P

ummm

They will still demand morale lol

BillyCrack
11th November 2009, 11:22 PM
i'll say "buy some DA" xD

---------

Here we go!


Name: K_W_ (http://www.kingsofchaos.com/stats.php?id=4117948)
Commander: W4rl0ck
Alliances:
WoT, SaBB-Alliance, N.W.O., NWO (Primary), PD, Newcomers, nams warriors, The Apocalyptic Soldiers™, no hits under 400 mil

That happended because i made one 1tbg hit xD

fistsofthor
11th November 2009, 11:43 PM
i'll say "buy some DA" xD


And then they will say "buy some sentry if you dont want to get sabbed for your 'low' hits"

And then they will sab you. No AAs does not mean you are free to do whatever you want. New TFE bf policy states that their bankers get to sab you if you steal less than 4 turns minus 1 or 2 %

BillyCrack
11th November 2009, 11:51 PM
And then they will say "buy some sentry if you dont want to get sabbed for your 'low' hits"

And then they will sab you. No AAs does not mean you are free to do whatever you want. New TFE bf policy states that their bankers get to sab you if you steal less than 4 turns minus 1 or 2 %

Yup.. but it will be more funny :icon_lol:

ToturiShoujiki
12th November 2009, 01:36 AM
~bows down and offers a humble thank you to The Creator for this blessed turn of events~

xshintenshix
12th November 2009, 01:59 AM
Its a game, players get a little box to say whatever they want to say. Just like a castle that could post a banner above its walls so that everyone could read (or, on a wooden thing-a-ma-jig outside the gates).

I mean, you can put song lyrics in there if you want. Also, no one is forcing you to read the AA. But, you are expected to suffer the consequences if you do not.

as thread maker stated, and you should see if you've been here since age 3, we had over 200k players and now its not even 10k. Multis aside, the continuous abuse of the idiot box has led player drop from 11k - less than 8k in one age. the current age.


Could you point me to players whose AAs ask for more than a 10 turn steal?

As for the bankers: have you considered that they might be looking for an excuse to sab because banking is so boring?

agreed with FOT, some bankers sab you for stealing 3k under their old fagbox rules. too bad there's no more fagboxes for the lousy ones.


And then they will say "buy some sentry if you dont want to get sabbed for your 'low' hits"

And then they will sab you. No AAs does not mean you are free to do whatever you want. New TFE bf policy states that their bankers get to sab you if you steal less than 4 turns minus 1 or 2 %

This policy is enforceable, as all are, however i doubt every KoC player will take their gold farm's TBG into account, they probably cant even calculate it.

unless they had a permanent calculator with them and could be bothered typing 725 983 x 80 + recon their spies and sentries x 20; soon BF policies are going to have to change as well imo, but the no more than 2 hits a day x hits a week will probably stand, if its culture enforceable.

3ddy
12th November 2009, 07:50 AM
also, have you considered the possibility that some players would start sabbing every hit again like the used to when there were no AAs?

you make it seem like its a bad thing
back in the old days people had fun
sabbing, attacking everything that makes a war game
so we had a bunch of lazy rankers too lazy to bank putting silly amounts in their AA's plus helping to start new policies of approving people who hit below 4 turns

vegito
12th November 2009, 07:54 AM
you make it seem like its a bad thing
back in the old days people had fun
sabbing, attacking everything that makes a war game
now we have a bunch of lazy rankers too lazy to bank putting silly amounts in their AA's plus helping to start new policies of approving people who hit below 4 turns

Indeed! +rep ;)

will RF officially accepts nonapproval of a sabback for if someone takes 3turn steal?

who the fuck one is in deciding 4 turn steal is a good steal? slayers decides if a steal is good for him or not, not the banker, banker decides to bank efficiently n raising defence to stop slayers..

3ddy
12th November 2009, 07:56 AM
well lets put it this way we have not approved any one who hits below 4 turns
we don't approve people for retaliating in certain situations
we have approved people who sab our members after they make a 4 turn steal
this at least keeps it fair for any slayers that we have
if you want to see our policy let me know

fistsofthor
12th November 2009, 07:58 AM
Indeed! +rep ;)

will RF officially accepts nonapproval of a sabback for if someone takes 3turn steal?

who the fuck one is in deciding 4 turn steal is a good steal? slayers decides if a steal is good for him or not, not the banker, banker decides to bank efficiently n raising defence to stop slayers..

Apparently, the banker and slayer leaders of LaCN, then RF, then TFE got together and decided (in that order) that below 4 turn steals were bad, and above 4 turn steals were fine.

Although, personally I feel like the 4 turn steal is an oversimplified answer. A player with 10 bil DA and 5 mil tbg should be able to hold more gold than that player with 2 bil DA and 25 mil tbg. But, apparently that does not matter.

3ddy
12th November 2009, 08:01 AM
Apparently, the banker and slayer leaders of LaCN, then RF, then TFE got together and decided (in that order) that below 4 turn steals were bad, and above 4 turn steals were fine.

Although, personally I feel like the 4 turn steal is an oversimplified answer. A player with 10 bil DA and 5 mil tbg should be able to hold more gold than that player with 2 bil DA and 25 mil tbg. But, apparently that does not matter.

go read all the policies clever **** and then edit your post

vegito
12th November 2009, 08:01 AM
leaders of alliances are nobody to decide what is good in koc and wats not.. mods n admins are there to decide that.. leaders can decide what is good for their alliances n forums .. they are just an account just like any other newb player on koc.. slayer decides wats good gold n wats not.. :)

cowboy_from_hell
12th November 2009, 08:03 AM
So I had a look at lacn's bf policy and it could be me but the 4 turns part is the exact oposit of RF's.

LaCN approves slayers that hit for less than 4 turns.
RF approves bankers that sab slayers for a 4 turn steal.
How can you fools mix that up?

So fist, isn't it time to unplug that keyboard?

Vegito, sure they are not. But if they want to sab you for something, they will and noone is going to stop them.

vegito
12th November 2009, 08:05 AM
Vegito, sure they are not. But if they want to sab you for something, they will and noone is going to stop them.

n thats EXACTLY what is called as BULLYING, leaders are ruining this game due to this attitude..

cowboy_from_hell
12th November 2009, 08:07 AM
So every alliances that approves another player is a bully?

fistsofthor
12th November 2009, 08:08 AM
slayer decides wats good gold n wats not.. :)

and the banker gets to decide if he will sab. the banker doesnt prevent the slayer from making the hit-- thats your choice. they just get to choose to sab you.

And as for how LaCN and RF agree: they both agreed that 4 turns is the line between a low hit and a not low hit. They put the opposite sides of the same coin down. Then TFE went along and took both of those policies and added it into their policy.

cowboy_from_hell
12th November 2009, 08:10 AM
RF didn't decide 4 turns is a good hit. We just made sure that alliances bullying our slayers will face the same consequenses, but for their bankers.

fistsofthor
12th November 2009, 08:18 AM
RF didn't decide 4 turns is a good hit. We just made sure that alliances bullying our slayers will face the same consequenses, but for their bankers.

Would it be fair to say then that both LaCN and RF felt that 4 turns was a dividing line? And that that dividing line makes a difference in terms of whether sabbing is alright or not?

(in the case of the second one, who gets to sab is different, but its still about sabbing and where the line is)

Something like that?

vegito
12th November 2009, 08:26 AM
and the banker gets to decide if he will sab. the banker doesnt prevent the slayer from making the hit-- thats your choice. they just get to choose to sab you.


OMG fist -_-

and then slayer decides to sab-back the banker.. n thats where exactly bullying part comes in..

as far as i knw, LoP doesnt approve sabbacks..(as i was in lop, i knw it) is there any other alliance? which im unaware of? which i could think of being a part of?

fistsofthor
12th November 2009, 08:31 AM
OMG fist -_-

and then slayer decides to sab-back the banker.. n thats where exactly bullying part comes in..

as far as i knw, LoP doesnt approve sabbacks..(as i was in lop, i knw it) is there any other alliance? which im unaware of? which i could think of being a part of?

That is correct.

well, I believe the slayer has the right to sab back if they want to and they feel like the sab is unreasonable.

And yes, there are a few other alliances that do not approve sab backs. However, that sort of thing would go in a different section.

In any case, banker gets to choose to sab low hit. slayer's alliance gets to choose if they approve for that sab. bankers alliance gets to choose what to do in response to whatever the slayer and/or his alliance does.

But, in many cases, these choices are made in advance.

3ddy
12th November 2009, 11:28 AM
as far as i knw, LoP doesnt approve sabbacks..(as i was in lop, i knw it) is there any other alliance? which im unaware of? which i could think of being a part of?

RF does not put people on the sablist for sab backs providing you are not sabbing back after being put on our sablist

vegito
12th November 2009, 11:30 AM
RF does not put people on the sablist for sab backs providing you are not sabbing back after being put on our sablist

o i c

also, asking 4 turns steal, is kinda bullshit

since how can u expect new or not that developed players to calculate tbgs of every target n decide to get 4 turn steal? thats just pathetic, not everyone uses bs scripts..

Beddow
12th November 2009, 12:28 PM
o i c

also, asking 4 turns steal, is kinda bullshit

since how can u expect new or not that developed players to calculate tbgs of every target n decide to get 4 turn steal? thats just pathetic, not everyone uses bs scripts..

Ermm you don't need to be a rock scientist to use a calculator, all you need to do is multiply the targets TFF with their income bonus then multiply that number by 4 then hey presto you've got yourself a rough estimate of 4 tbg.

Now that I have given you the ability to calculate four turns of tbg can you not post on GUA anymore ?

fistsofthor
12th November 2009, 12:46 PM
Ermm you don't need to be a rock scientist to use a calculator, all you need to do is multiply the targets TFF with their income bonus then multiply that number by 4 then hey presto you've got yourself a rough estimate of 4 tbg.

Now that I have given you the ability to calculate four turns of tbg can you not post on GUA anymore ?

All players are welcome to post on gua provided that they obey the rules of gua. Vegito is welcome to continue posting to his hearts desire.

And yes, I agree with beddow that its easy enough to multiplying tff by 320 or 368 for races that have no bonus or a 15% income bonus, respectively.

Although, it might be nice to allow some leway for players who have more coverts than their tff or something, as those players would be tricky to deal with for some of the less quick KoCers.

Beddow
12th November 2009, 01:13 PM
That's why you recon

MFnBonsai
12th November 2009, 03:18 PM
mods n admins are there to decide that..

Our stance is you can hit someone 10x a day for whatever gold you deem appropriate.... If you make a profit go ahead and hit 10x a day....

With that being said.... If you get sabbed for hitting 10x a day for whatever gold that is ok as well....

xjghost
12th November 2009, 03:29 PM
Looks to me like they are gone! YAY!

3ddy
12th November 2009, 04:34 PM
glad to see them gone
lets wait and see what other interesting changes our admins have installed for us
great work bon

xeros
12th November 2009, 06:08 PM
Bring back 15turn attacks!!!

fistsofthor
12th November 2009, 06:17 PM
Bring back 15turn attacks!!!

I could also see them making it so that you get an attack turn once every half hour, and can attack with anywhere from 1 through 6 (6 being a full attack). Mostly just so that players get attack turns on their currently regular basis.

I suppose we would also need to increase the holding cap on attack turns from 500 to 3000. but that would be fine with me.

ThomasA
12th November 2009, 06:31 PM
we have had 24 attack turns a day b4 and it didnt work.

bravo
12th November 2009, 06:39 PM
we have had 24 attack turns a day b4 and it didnt work.

We had also unlimited attack turns, which work very well indeed! ;)

3ddy
14th November 2009, 06:10 AM
unlimited number of times to hit one given account was fun i think that was age 9
cant remember what the attack turn cap was back then

Pauly_D
14th November 2009, 07:32 AM
unlimited number of times to hit one given account was fun i think that was age 9

it was age 9 and no it was not fun, it sucked and ruined the age

LL
14th November 2009, 10:26 AM
I dont expect them to change this in the middle of the age but for nxt age a change in the bonuses would be nice...

3ddy
14th November 2009, 10:34 AM
it was age 9 and no it was not fun, it sucked and ruined the age
lol
you must have been one of the accounts that got ownd that age

Pauly_D
14th November 2009, 10:41 AM
lol
you must have been one of the accounts that got ownd that age

no i wasnt i had a small TFF army so getting massed didnt hurt me too much, but that age just sucked in general and the stupid amount of attacks was part of the reason why

cowboy_from_hell
14th November 2009, 10:45 AM
Age 9 you could store 250 turns and use em all on one account ;)

Bassicly the massing added something to the game for smaller accounts, but for big accounts with DA it's a disaster. As a top ranked account you had to make sure you could always come online asap to untrain your DA to stop the masses. If they dare to bring that back, I know I'm quiting.

ZAR
14th November 2009, 11:15 AM
250 turn massing was no fun for anyone, it was the hardest Age ever to play.

fistsofthor
14th November 2009, 11:45 AM
250 turn massing was no fun for anyone, it was the hardest Age ever to play.

It might be interesting to see if they moved it to 48 attacks on a player per day.

What that would do is allow someone who had the SA and the urge to turn farm your account to be able to do so for every turn (until they ran out of turns after 12 days). That would make those bpm mode slayers quite possibly very aggressive.

But yes, the more turns that one allows someone to mass with, the better an edge that little accounts have in terms of dealing damage to the big accounts.

Rb01
20th November 2009, 09:29 AM
no AA'
I lovin' it :D