Posted by AdamSmith 1 year ago
Can you please confirm if it is true or not? And if it is true can you take back your negative comments on my round table opinions and apologise?
If this is true, then we can all see how couple people in the round table can affect the game..
Posted by Korn 1 year ago (Source)
Here is a breakdown of the current territory holdings per alliance taken a few days ago:
Based on the hypothetical 1% of silver AND fame on all alliance members, do you really think that the top 4 power blocks would still be holding the same amount of territories? Then, in terms of siphoned energy drain, the upkeep would be exponential and would very quickly become higher than what the territory actually produces each day.
If we decide - due to being concerned about the irreversible purge of more casual players and guilds that would likely to be triggered by a 300 character cap - to adjust the test based on the above, you can be 100% certain that it will be equally impactful on large scale fights and territory holdings.
Ultimately, the key question for us is: can we achieve the same results of limiting the power of large alliances without
harming casual players and guilds as a side effect. It's definitely worth thinking about. If for whatever reason that does not work out, we can always easily follow up with the cap idea. We are 100% determined to address this issue once and for all, that you can be sure of, but we absolutely must do everything we can to find the solution that's best for the game.