im not talking max turns here
its about the number of turns u get per day
reducing it would mean less time is required to spend your turns.. an advantage to those with less time..

when u think about it, time available to u shouldnt be a factor if ud want a completely fair game (within reasonable limits ofcourse)

this is more a way to get 2 games into 1 without having them tough each other in to many fields

if your alliance doesnt want to play, thats up to them.. they wont lose anything cause of it if they dont
those that do gain protection (it seems) and another playingfield

no im not talking money, im talking time

xactly
i guess running 20 miles a day is no problem for u.. but i cant afford to

i agree that reducing turns will make attacking far more strategical, especially when the new alliance features r ready, but i dont think it will slow the game down if u also lower numbers in general.. (i thought u liked slow boring rounds btw)

evrybody will have less stuff and max will be unobtainable

about length of rounds, 2 months sounds fine to me.. 6 weeks sounds even better.. all this maxing stuff is pointless.. just go ftw

about donators, i agree, ive suggested another reward system somewhere else that should help that immensly

i took the liberty of shortening that a bit

Alliance structures generate income and assets to be used in other alliance tasks only.
Alliances will get more troops then commanders would to better protect their contributing members and facilities.
An alliance will be able to use it's fleets to defend against commanders but can not attack commanders.
After a war declaration and 24 hours of preparation on both sides, The Alliance can siege / attack alliance
structures (and fleets?) but not privately owned structures.

love it, 1 Q though: no surprise attacks?

The Alliance forces will be controlled by appointed members. The leader can issue ranks and give access to alliance
structures, bases, planets, fleets, etc.

awesome

do finish whatever was first on the list though

edit:
how about getting caps on stuff u can donate to the alliance so most alliances can max out their daily quota..
that would keep it a fair game.. the caps would have to increase over time ofcourse

maybe incorporate the territory idea i saw somewhere else into alliances rather then for single commanders

an alliance war will most likely trigger a pvp war as well btw
an increase in attacking to keep alliances from getting their quota is also possible

if evry1 is affected, then it doesnt matter does it.. ull all still have the same and that is the entire point of reducing turns.. if u have less, u cant do as many actions as before, saving (me) time..
it wont affect competitiveness 

quick attack has done nothing for encrypts, the main source of growth.. so i dont see the grind reduction that much..

uhm, there is?

which ever way u turn it, encrypts is tha shiz when it comes to turn / gain ratio
a solution would be to increase turn-cost or lower rewards but that would make the entire concept pointless..

so unless some1 comes up with a better way to reduce grind then to settle for less efficiency, id say reduce turns

this is what i mean..
this good long game of chess got boring

Hum as long as you don't do encrypts it takes less then a hour to use 1500 to 2k turns. I don't see that as a huge amount of time spent. I agree with you that there is no need for a power increase. But drastically decreasing max power would not be a good idea as right now it takes 3 months top to finish a round. Which is a ok time by me any less and I would not want to play as theres no pint if if just keeps reseting 6 or more times a year.
[/quote]

if u dont do encrypts it wont cost that much time.. if u only mine asteroids, itll take 5 mins to waste 3k turns,
but is it any use or will u end up doing well if u do that? imo u need to do encrypts to do well

if the game resets more often, there r more ppl a year that get a chance to win
because i havnt xperienced a full round i cant say this with certainty, but it seems possible to end it much quicker then waiting till evrybody maxes out..

why is there no point to play if the rounds get shorter?
is a good quick game of chess less fun then a good long 1?

imo creating new servers is not a good idea to increase playercount
players will most likely divide between servers and will effectively reduce playercount per server (unless 1 is better then the other)

i do like the idea of incorporating territories and bonuses related to them.. it would make the game even more interesting (if well balanced and tested).. however i think it would be better for playercount to integrate it into the main server

adding more digits to a number doesnt make the number more important if the relative difference remains the same..
what we have here is a typical case of ppl wanting ever bigger numbers to feel good (lets be realistic).. iow, addicted to big numbers and always wanting them bigger then the last time (or they feel restricted)

there is no problem if ur willing to go cold turkey and rebuild your addiction on a lower level that causes less problems but is still just as fun once ur used to it..

what i suggest is lowering a lot of numbers drasticly to achieve lower total and fleetpower.. this solves the maxing problem without creating all kinds of new problems

what would also help is reducing the amount of turns u get... that would give ppl with lives (outside of the inet that is) a bigger chance to do better.. as there r more ppl with lives then without, a bigger public would be served (good for playercount)

how about integrate it in the look at event button in the mouseover then.. saves another button

u still get the 3 second warning when using back to re-attack (which is great ima)
but i think we can lose the green button as the red 1 also displays fp..

in item interface, when activating 5 sets of marines, i accidently hit 5 runs instead of 3 and it said:

"you do not have this item to use"
5 x

and the items were gone