03-15-2014, 09:47 AM
Ruining the game
In my opinion this was updates immense walked in the wrong direction.
New war declaring system
Find I badly because this fast for it one can provide an opponent one does not agree can defeat if them have only few members .
Of one of the most awful ideas you ever had. Galaxy life is a strategy play and if I me from strategical ones found in addition it decides scores of my planets slightly to hold to avoid, besides, the opponents so many got then one should not leave this. Only because not to pull many something so in consideration comes such an idea.
Then they themselves are to blame.
No acceptance of people during wars
Still a bad idea. I to mine share it finds well if one knows this one gets can still win, should good people come.
New rebuilding times
This shows that the team also has good ideas. Thereby become fights more fairly and more excitingly.
For the rest, the point system spins get with lv 4 bases in 1971 scores.
03-15-2014, 11:48 AM
We got 2 hours auto repair time because we have 12 members and they have 10. Since we can´t choose against how much members we fight anymore, it´s gamebreaking.
03-15-2014, 01:20 PM
I quite like the direction the game is taking regarding Alliance Wars, but there are some things that seem unbalanced. For what little it's worth, here are some of my suggestions.
1) Make the War Points available for a Star Base a flat number based on the level of the Star Base regardless of how developed that Star Base is - e.g. Level 1 is worth 100, Level 2 is worth 200, Level 3 is worth 300, etc. That way there's no point in downgrading a Star Base as it'll be worth what it's worth regardless of what has and hasn't been built. That way players have an incentive to develop a Star Base to the maximum to make the cost of attacking that Star Base as high as possible.
2) Adjust the value of War Points earned based on the difference between the attackers Star Base and the Defenders Star Base, so a Level 6 attacking a Level 1 will earn a lot less points than a Level 1 attacking a Level 6.
3) Ignore how many attacks it takes to fully destroy a Star Base. A lower level attacking a higher level will take longer and that is the price of victory, but they will get more points anyway as they're a lower level.
4) Work out the total worth of an Alliance by adding up the levels of ALL the Star Bases in the Alliance and then match opponents based on this total.
5) Don't allow players the join or leave an Alliance during a War.
6) Give back the minimum shield of 8 hours to a winning side - it's not fair if I get attacked in a War and win, only to be punished with a short shield time when I didn't declare the war.
7) Don't allow two Alliances to go to War against each other for a minimum of 30 days, or 60 or 90, whichever works best, so an Alliance will fight a wide range of opponents instead just one or two all the time.
8) The number of War Points being awarded has greatly disrupted the balance of the Rewards and Alliance levels system. Either lower the number of War Points being awarded, or adjust the points required for Rewards and increased Alliance levels upwards, a lot.
03-15-2014, 03:39 PM
"Now you can't invite or accept alliance members during an Alliance War."
Someone send a request to join our alliance during war, i kicked his request, now hes in our alliance lol
Edit: It became a disadvantage if your members aren´t at the same lvl / upgrade state.It will destroy many alliances.
Last edited by linn2008; 03-15-2014 at 06:51 PM.
03-15-2014, 08:37 PM
I'm level 468 and in a war and I have just got approx 2,000 points from destroying a member of the other team who's planet was a level 1 star base ..Ha Ha Ha ha ..come on Developers revisit your calculations.
03-15-2014, 08:47 PM
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha level 468 destroys planet with only a level 1 star base and gets 1816 war points Ha Ha ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ..you have to laugh at the developers maths
03-15-2014, 09:20 PM
Ha Ha Ha Ha haven't laughed so much in a long time I got 1,618 from 80% destroying a level 9 planet that had fully upgraded turrets. I'll stick to attacking level 1 planets which give me 1,816 points.
Hi Developers my 5 year old son is good at maths ..he can help you out if you want.
03-15-2014, 10:50 PM
Hi developers of ubisoft,
JR-Test made some good suggestions - let me commend them
Tnx again JR-Test.
Originally Posted by JR-Test
I suggest Ubisoft to take back the latest upgrades and think about more fair and less complicating solutions to deal with the so-called problems of the game. (Most so-called problems could have been solved by the players themselves if they only had the courage to think over their strategies and acted in a rational way. Sorry, but I am fed up with that changes that happened because some dinosaurs cried aloud for month instead of reviewing and revising their strategies.
Last edited by Totallyuseless; 03-15-2014 at 11:13 PM.
03-16-2014, 05:49 PM
War points suggestion, kicking inactives during a war
The war points are headed in the right direction, but the current system is still way too rich for lower level starbases. I took out a low level base using 5 s-trikes and got 1800 points. There should be a maximum number of points based on the starbase level, if the attacking starbase is the same level or lower you get the maximum points.
Level 9 starbase is always worth 2500 points. If you take it down with a level 9 attacker or lower (always) you get the maximum points, doesn't matter how many attacks it takes.
Level 8 starbase is worth a maximum of 2200 points. If you take it down with a level 8 or lower attacker you get the 2200 points. If you take it down with a level 9 attacker you get 90% or 1980 points.
Level 7 starbase is worth a maximum of 2000 points. If you take it down with a level 7 or lower you get the maximum. If you take it down with a level 8 you get 90% or 1800. If you take it down with a level 9 you get 80% or 1600.
Level 6 = 1800 maximum. take down with a 6 or lower = maximum. 7 = 90%, 8 = 80%, 9 = 70%. Etc.
Multiple levels used during an attack get the corresponding % - if you attack a level 6 base with a level 9 attacker and destroy 50% in the first wave it's 1800 * 70% * 50%. If you finish the level 6 base with a level 6 attacker it's 1800 * 100% * 50%.
I agree that you can't kick inactive players during a war, but with the shield times so short now you need to be able to mark them so they are kicked as soon as the war is over.
03-16-2014, 10:08 PM
Just finished my first full-length Alliance War under the new system. Not only was it my first war where I gained 50k War Points, it was also the first war where I earned 100k War Points. It was also the first war where I earned more than 150k, 200k and even 250k. This single war earned my Alliance 20% of our total war points - that's 25% of all the war points we'd earned before in nearly 100 wars.
The War Points system is well out of balance.
During this war, I was able to attack low level planets and gain about 2k War Points. There were even times when I was able to attack the same planet twice in 10 minutes and earn 2k war points each time. Yes, I have attacked and completely destroyed the same Star Base twice within 10 minutes. In fact the second attack was launched within 60 seconds of finishing the first attack. This has never happened to me before and seems a move in the wrong direction.
We won the war by, essentially, destroying low level Star Bases again, and again, and again, whilst leaving the high-level Star Bases untouched. There were so few war points difference between the two that it didn't seem worth the cost of attacking a high-level Star Base. Ultimately, although we won, I didn't have any great sense of achievement.
Then, once we'd won the war, which the other Alliance had declared, we found ourselves with a shield of only 2.5 hours, which isn't long enough to regenerate our defences and prepare for another war.
Why are the winners being punished with a short shield time? It feels like you want to force winners to start losing by using these short shield times.
The value of Star Bases needs to be tweaked, and quickly, and the shield times need to be raised.