Search results

Truth is, very few people can do so. What's more, most of them are a loophole abusers. People who fight with Oceanic Age troops while they are in, say, Progressive Age. Inno seems to be trying to find some pretty way to limit it, instead of just setting a rule of, say, no more than 1 Age up in...

You are lucky to be in that guild. I hear all over how GBG coordinators are having a hard time, finding takers for 1-2 SC support tiles. Moreover, if guild is actively swapping at 67% (and what if it's 50%?) then in the late afternoon either of two things would happen: 1. Swappers would be...

Right, all those from the "top 1%".

The next time you try to impress us, make your numbers 10 times less. We would still be impressed, yet we might believe them. Unless, you spent something else? Did you mean 12,000 diamonds that you got from exactly that, farming?

I did play over years. Put some money too. How do you know that people would mind such a test for couple sessions? By telling me where to go, you show 1. Your arrogance, 2. Contradicting Dominator - X's statement about who's deciding Inno's moves.

One other note. 67% is not like a God-given number. Tune it up, for a desired result. Make 50, or even make it just 24. There is goal: limit top guilds from trading sectors back and forth between themselves -- yet having enough attrition to pin other guilds down to the beach.

And how did you figure that my thoughts are wrong? Put it to the real test, just take a world that is not too old (where intermediate guilds might have given up by now) and not too new. Our "U" world would be a good test. Just do it for couple weeks, when limited beta testing leads to results...

Yes, it would. I would bet my real money on that. Inno's issue historically was (and probably is) they rely on beta testers and active members of the forum. Should they be smarter a bit, they would have realized that they are drawing conclusions based on top 1%.

Says who? Top guilds trade sectors back and forth 24/7. Attrition would add up quickly. It would make top guilds 1. Pull away from sectors where the attrition is even lower (only 2 SC); 2. Give weaker guilds better chances beating tops. If beta testing "showed" a little difference with 67%...

The issue is, it is one huge "IF". If all people were nice to each other, if we all do what we say... etc. We can try to conquer laziness, sluggishness, disorganization, business in the real life, improve cities to match top guilds.... or, we can put a cap, to let all those underachievers to...

We are not on a business here. Well, at least a sizable part is. 67% cap would stop a couple of top guilds trading sectors back and forth, while keeping other guilds on the beach.

I did not watch it recently, but before your rogue's placement would also depend on its number. So, 3 would differ from 4, 4 from 5, etc.

Yes, awful.

Too bad if it was abandoned :(

One guy told that Inno is going to cap attrition reduction to 67% the most? So, say, you put 5 SC but you would still be getting 33% of attrition?

I would say, return people all their CF fp, and then limit recurring quests to 2 per day.

Developers, grouping units is a great idea by itself!!! However, in my opinion, one change is a must! As it is now, it made much harder to play GBG. Proposal: do not group units by how much wounded they are! Just group, and when clicked on, just dispense the least damaged unit!!!

Mellofax, is there estimate on when bugs are fixed? It's like half of our guild can't fight in GBG. (U world, if it matters). The whole GBG session is like one big disaster and disappointment.

Just completed another lousy GBG session. I don't know what changes are planned, but it they don't change support/attrition for "beach" and L4 sectors -- it is all going to be in vain. Outer layers need to be hard to conquer. Otherwise, it is all just too easy for powerhouses: they take central...

LOL, so simple! I indeed did not discover it back in the past (I am in OF now). Man, now I feel dumb, as I probably should! :)