Staffy i was kidding xD That was joke.
I agree with Hitmo. Should be One Solo Era and 2 Special Eras only, and switch the maps around for them all whenever an era restarts.

I think I am going to frame this post and hang it on my wall.





Little idea, instead of trying to try to kill the idea of servers being dominated, see if we can incorporate it into the game and control it like this?

I once had the idea of creating an "Alliance page" that can be bought for red tokens, with statistics of an alliance, members, a tag for the members on the forums, a self-moderated forum category, a page reached when clicking a button on the alliance page in the game or the tag on the forums leading to these statistics, and achievements, of an alliance..

Have a leaderboard of team performance, both in total and per world, perhaps with bi-monthly rewards. The ability for an alliance to, once per round, choose a "representative" that then becomes part of their "family" and thus connected to that page.

The idea of this was to encourage forming long lasting alliances and give people something to aim for beyond single eras, plus to increase pride and care for teams. But what if we expand it a bit?

Make alliances gain score/achievements for dominating worlds - and on top of it - a massive bonus for successfully ending someones winstreak, reducing their performance score drastically while increasing their own. Make teams seek each other out for rewards beyond single eras - every single era a vet plays, eras matter less to that vet. Maybe this is a way to make them care and raise the stakes.


Just musing.




Another thing I still consider helpful is removing rewards for #2 and #3. it never got the chance it deserved. It actively reduced blues for the majority of the community and it STILL was voted for to remove/keep removed - thats huge, that means that even those getting #2 and #3 largely think that the rewards are not beneficial to the game.

We did not keep it in the game for a single era! Not one! How can we see the cultural effects of such decisions based upon less than that? Enough with the spastic attempts to not make BD get any worse - its getting worse and i'd rather see things being TRIED sufficiently, then not being tried out of fear. I don't care what statistics the admins had to support their decision - Statistics over such a short period do not show the long term effects.

Qiute possibly TLA had something to do with this. It was introduced to try prevent families like TLA dominating. I told ilona that it would not effect TLA because we don't care about tokens in 2nd or 3rd as we would support each other regardless of reward and the inly people it would effect would be other groups as they then would find it harder to form coalitions.

Low and behold TLA won that era same as the one before and 2nd and 3rd teams cared nothing about getting no rewards! Next era rewards where returned!

The problem with that is it benefits groups like TLA who are loyal and will play active for the group regardless of what they get for it.

I actually love that team thingy idea.
TBH Im still undecided on Blues for 2nd/3rd. Its unfair on teams who actually dont backstab and kill every other team on the map, as you cant have allies, else you get nothing in the end, no matter how hard you worked. But it would stop battlehugging.
As Ive suggested before, Id recommend lowering them for 2nd/3rd. and increasing the gap between 1st/2nd and 3rd, that way you get significantly less than 1st, which makes you want to fight and not battlehug, but still rewards teamwork? Idk tbh.
But I hope the admins see this, that Team page idea is good, but I do love the killstreak end to increase competition. Thats an awesome idea. Make that a suggestion and link us.