Poll : tactics reduction

[Spaceboy]

Good or bad idea the tactics reduction in the next update ?

 

[Nb4powerup]

I made an edit for you.

 

[Spaceboy]

haha..my text was funny..but you are the moderator...

 

[Motaz Tarek]

i would really like to see 5 stars a rare result, much harder than now, but really making it harder for normal players and easy for whoever buy troop cards (tactics) and dumbly dump them in battle field and leave his device go to WC and come back to see his 5 stars result... that's a real game killer

 

[Mountainking]

The reduction in tactics is a great move IF NEXON WOULD KILL BAGGING. And LIMIT stronghold to 1 or 2 tactics. This will mean 5* is no longer the norm AND good, creative and skilled players will shine.

 

[HawkEyeHK]

With the things like the sales of bazooka tower and stronghold tactics troop I don't see how the tactics nerf will help balancing the game.
It just encourage pay to win.
I am not against anyone who are willing to spend money but once the game becomes pay to win, players will start quitting again.

 

[Yetanotherusername]

AT least double the war loot. We will return with little to no troops. The cost of going to war is going to be way higher than the benefits.

 

[Quali]

I have to go with bad idea as it stands.

This is is a seismic shift in the game play landscape. If matchmaking remains the same, as it has for months, with continued posts that "we aren't going to do anything drastic" and no indication that it is changing in 5.5, then this is incredibly heavy handed.

Were this part of a raft of measures designed to change war results and matchups then I could be all for it. But you have not given us any information to suggest that is the case.

 

[Mountainking]

Fix bagging then this solution is PERFECT.

 

[SebQuattro]

The cost Is already going to be higher in Atomic, you have the cost of activating 3 high level generals twice even before considering food costs.

There's another problem though, you're going to lose all 3 generals. If you can't do your first attack in the first hour or two, you'll need to spend crowns on them. With players being in different timezones, that's going to be a problem.

 

[S_How]

Like many others, I could live with the change if sandbagging were eliminated. Putting this change in, combined with the new stalemate tiebreaker is the last straw for war. Still cannot believe what they are doing.

 

[snowleopard]

I think you should add an option " I am not sure at this moment, I will wait for the release and then judge"

 

[Isrem Ovani]

I am Global, and already have three generals. This has nothing to do with age but with library enhancements.

 

[cclaerbo]

I'm ready to get a full refund for all the money I've spent on this game because of this change. I like an offensive minded game and now the money I e spent to help get more tactics and be competitive at a lower level is all wasted. I feel that I've been bait and switched by Nexon. Bait me into spending money on crowns to catch up with higher ages that I'm forced to attack in wars then after I've spent the money and am finally pulling my weight and fending off the terribly unfair matches then take it away. Now I won't be able to have fun attacking. I don't just use all sabotage but no I won't be able to beat the high level bases anymore. I do believe that Nexon has done this intentionally to hurt players who spent lots of money on the game and it's not right. You shouldn't do this change. If so I will do my best to be refunded the money I e spent on this game.

 

[Horsepower]

Actually, when you think about it, many players bough crowns with real money to upgrade sabotage and protect. I'm sure many are now thinking bait and switch.

 

[Tsamu]

At least 50% more war loot with each age. I'm global, and it costs me 3200 oil (1200 for generals and 2000 for planes) per war attack. That's 6400 oil for both war attacks. IF we win the war, I get that back, but only just. Global base war loot should be 4000, Atomic 6000.

I am considering not warring because of this, or changing my approach. My current alliance is great, but we try to win until all hope is lost. We need to swallow our pride, size up the opposition realistically, and not even try if the chance of winning is less than 40%. Just go for the easiest base of the same age that I can get at least one star against without using any oil, and not too much food.

 

[British Coffee]

I still don't understand why this change needs to happen. Yeah sure offense is better than defense because base you are attacking has poor layout or under developed than you 90% time. It's not like you can 5 star a fully developed base above your age.

 

[Sir Pizzuoff]

I'm not in favor of the change, but I beg to differ with your second statement.

 

[Sir Pizzuoff]

Well third, technically

 

[SebQuattro]

I still don't understand why this change needs to happen.

The game is profit driven, any changes are because they believe it will generate more profit.

If they actually cared about balance, they wouldn't have the OP zooka tower. Then there's all the Atomic Age upgrades that are so OP compared to Global, even the walls gain 8,460 HP from a single upgrade and that's before University research.

What I find annoying is that it's being passed off as being for our benefit, so that we can hold on to resources easier when in imo it will make it harder to hold on to resources. In Global Age you have 6 tactics, so you could use a single sabotage in 6 battles. Now you'll only be able to use them in 3 battles and that means players are going to lose troops so much often. When players lose troops, they'll often switch to raiders which means no or short peace treaties for the players they attack.

If you take a break when you've run out of tactics and you're sitting on res, you'll get attacked. In each play session you need to gain more res than up lose when attacked. I can see the game being less fun not just in war, but also in multiplayer.