|
25 person server, in which both teams can have a maximum of 20 players (first come, first serve) in order to leave space for 5 defenders or 5 raiders.
That way, flooding can still happen, and servers can be official without dismissing players. |
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
You guys want flooding to be a thing now?
How about a clan makes a base like Varcia (symmetrical, multiple pathways and flanking routes with the objective in the middle) except more simple design with no lag. Where it starts off even numbers, however the moment it becomes official the server limits for both teams are removed.
|
|
|
People whine & complain about raider limits, people whined & complained about flooding, people will whine and complain about something always. |
|
naritsJoin Date: 2013-01-13
Post Count: 13108 |
raiders *DO* have the overall advantage at SMO
i'm adam |
|
|
shut up wolfane, trying to kill clans by making unfair bases lmao |
|
|
My name is "Generic_C&G_01" and the intellectual scope of my knowledge of clans starts and ends with bashing VAK |
|
|
oh wait my bad im wrong...
raiders *DO* have the overall advantage at SMO |
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
What I just explained is literally the epiphany of fairness.
|
|
|
It's actually the epitome of fairness, as epiphany refers to a "sudden, mystical revelation" |
|
naritsJoin Date: 2013-01-13
Post Count: 13108 |
we're not talking about your concept
we're talking about SMO
i'm adam |
|
|
yes ####### lets just get rid of clans and make 1 where they scrimmage in a even number with only the best 10 fighters and exclude EVERYONE else we totally wont kill clans!!! well i guess you wouldnt understand through your ##### ##### you're in ### the clan that has to cheat and hide behind an even numbered bases where raiders *DO* have the overall advantage at ### xD |
|
|
Actually, YOU'RE talking about SMO. I'm trying to get an opinion on a concept you haven't commented on because you can't pass up bashing SMO when someone from VAK posts. |
|
|
i was responding to wolfanes 2nd post,
not you |
|
naritsJoin Date: 2013-01-13
Post Count: 13108 |
when i say "we're" i mean me and extern
i'm adam |
|
|
Bash Wolfane on your own time, I'm asking a legitimate question here |
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
*Me thinking about the ###### concept in this conversation was an epiphany towards my argument of fairness. Or do you want to be more of a ######## about anything. |
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
Right. Let's spend an entire war serverhopping and to get a flood in, because fighting only easy battles against 5 people with 19 teammates is the perfect idea of a fun war.
|
|
WolfaneJoin Date: 2011-03-08
Post Count: 7490 |
OR.
We could simply host a war that rids the concept of defense wins in order to encourage raiding.
While using the base I explained in this post previously, which when the server limits are removed you cannot safely swap out elites into different servers.
We could throw in the auto-win example from the recent VAK-TRA war. Where if a raiding server is not responded to within 40 minutes, you'd gain an automatic victory.
So it encourages that you raid as many servers as possible when you turn on the offensive during the war.
Also, as if having a base where it's 8v14 would solve the solution of using only elites? If you, at your 8v14 base, saw an enemy clan using their most elite raiding force in your server. I doubt you'd just send in your regular members, unless you knew your base gave you so many defensive advantages that a baby could use it. Acting as if that is the solution of elites being used over average people, makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
|
Or you could just have a single, jointly designed fort to eliminate all of these problems. |
|