Another balance thread.. CP/RB gain

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[salan]

I believe a lot of the descrepency in the war and the current system we are working with could be addressed by equalizing the cp and rb gains for attacking vrs defending.


I am not talking about actually winning vrs losing.  I agree that you should get more for winning a game, but because we no longer have the ability to actually choose to attack or defend, should not both sides have the same rewards for winning their battle?

You could move the attacking cp and rb gain to that of the defending side (2 cps instead of 3) or move the defending to the attacking side (3 cps instead of 2) I personally don't care which, but they should be evenly balanced with the system we are currently forced into using.

[Forefall]

I kind of agree, but I also like how people WANT to attack because there is a greater reward.  If this didn't exist, would people really care?

[Kolath]

But if attackers always get better rewards, it creates a slippery slope mechanic.  I think they should be equalized.

Maybe that will help Axis actually go on the offense sometime.  Or maybe there are additional systemic imbalances between the sides.

[salan]

I kind of agree, but I also like how people WANT to attack because there is a greater reward.  If this didn't exist, would people really care?

does it really matter if they want to or not though?  They don't get a choice unless they actively switch factions to be on the side that reflects the current attack/defend..

I dunno I enjoy defending more then attacking personally, but an attack now and then is definitely fun to do, but I Don't do it for the extra rewards either way personally.

[Unkn0wn]

I kind of agree, but I also like how people WANT to attack because there is a greater reward.  If this didn't exist, would people really care?

Attacking allows you to actually win the war and get medals, that's mainly why people want to attack in the first place. Neutralising the Attack - Defend CP reward discrepancy won't take this away.
Besides, people want to do both, attacking every game is boring, just like defending every game.

[[AB]RikiRude]

I've never understood how the attack defend system works anyways. I thought it just switched every couple days.

[jackmccrack]

I think the system is fine the way it is.

If the defending side wants more CPs and RBs, they should try to win more often! 

[DBSights]

also, attacking is fun

[|-|Cozmo|-|]

i think the main idea was missed: it is not about wanting to attack or about promoting defending, it is about making the rewards for winning on both sides fair.

Since you can no longer choose what you do (unless you switch teams - You on your own cannot swing the war so don't bring that up) why should the people who are forced to defend get less for winning? this also puts the team which starts the war on the defense at a disadvanatge.

 

[asmithally]

I've never understood how the attack defend system works anyways. I thought it just switched every couple days.

No. How it works is that every game you win while attacking gives your army points. When you lose while attacking, it makes your army lose some. Now, when the army's "attack" meter goes to zero, the other side's goes to "X" ammount and starts attacking, and it starts over.

And I agree that defending should wield the same amount of CPs and RBs, I think both modes are attractive without bonuses for attacking, especially now you can't decide what you do.

[Draygon]

I agree with Salan, the winner, no matter attacking or defending should get the same amount of CPs and RBs; it shouldnt be based on if you are attacking or defending.  As it is now the attacker will always gain more CPs in the long run than the defender, thus making their faction stronger than the defenders, making the defenders faction weaker and harder to make a comeback.