Can people make a list of the BIG differences between these two eras.

Before, many more people played BD, we want to know firstly what was different back then ( less interaction, less pop ups, help, could do OP farming, conquers not deleted ) even if ALL these things stated before seem better now, it is these changes that have made battle dawn less popular.

Sincerely, what we all care about ( or more like what the admins care about ) is the popularity of the game. So if the game was more popular before, maybe it is time to admit that the changes brought to the game, even if judged necessary, are to be thought over.

I remember, conquers were everything back then. They seem unimportant now.
Why conquer if it is to get deleted in 100 ticks ? oh to get 600 metal and 400 oil in that 100 tick period? no... It is to get that 1 power, which would bring you up on the rankings.
Why conquer when you know your power is artificial ( it will be lowered )?
50 conquers that give me 5 metal and 4oil a tick each is great, but for 50 ticks, in a 3000 tick world, there is no point.

Of course conquer power has been brought up many times, and this is not what this post is about, it is just an example of the many changes that got battle dawn half, or even a third of the players it had before.

We want a good game, but we want a popular game. We need a new fanbase. Lets bring back the things that made BD what is was in the good old times. And we can go from there!

none of this "they payed to win! you cant win without reds" never happened before

So do you think this is true? Or that it was harded to just pay and win back then as an alliance with many more members could be better organised, and much more affective even without paying?
Maby the fact that alliances are only 10 members now allow the BIG donaters to get together and rule quite easily?
This was not the case before with much bigger alliances.

i dont think its true, ive seen quite a lot of non-boosters get high ranks and even win with only 1-2 boosters in there alliance, coordination and teamwork is what really counts, not tokens that give you that extra boost

To be honest i think that was always the case and i would know i used to complain about it when i was a newbie, in fact it was harder to win back then as non-donator since you didn't get blues but resources. Right now, people got so used to getting lots of blues for no reason that they realized the significance of tokens in general, and so they can't live with the fact that the number is getting reduced. And if there's anything i learned over time playing it's that, activity and a good alliance in general make up most of game play, not excessively using red tokens.

Yes indeed but, lets say two equally active and well coordinated alliances, lets say in one alliance, only 15K has been boosted whilst in the other one each members has boosted 8-15K.
Bigger donations = bigger armies. Well coordinated bigger armies against well coordinated smaller armies will win.

not all booster alliances are well coordinated, ive seen some pretty terrible boosters who were just terrible, they boosted like mad but couldnt even get into top 10, when osme of the top 10 didnt boost but had conquers to help them get up there

you're implying boosting is the only way to get units, it's not. And you say equally coordinated team but there is no such thing. There is always some fault or some advantage another team has that is not boosting. Take experience for example, it changes the outcome of battles whether or not you boosted.

and your chassis vs the enemies chassis

Another great example.

Anyways, going to the original post, i feel like good BD is a very biased opinion of yours that doesn't truly reflect most of BD. And it definitely wasn't very succesfull, or at least not as much as it is now. If i remember correctly there were severe shortcomings on income n such.